Ex-Ontario AG Bryant questioned in death of cyclist

[nfitz]

The cyclist really is only out to harm themselves by choosing to ride drunk.

There is evidence in this case though, that a drunk cyclist may have attacked someone while they were trying operate a motor vehicle, potentially putting the cyclist, driver, passengers, and pedestrians in mortal danger, as well as creating a loss in income for the victim of the attack, and significant taxpayer expense to deal with the legal ramifications.

Clearly, if the province feels the need to legislate on issues such as whether bicycles have bells and helmets, they should be making restrictions on people operating potentially deadly vehicles (only last month a cyclist struck and killed a pedestrian in Toronto) while intoxicated. Now I don't know if the 0.3 or 0.5 is entirely necessary ... but there should be some limitations, othen than gravity.

 

[afransen]

Pedestrians have been killed by collisions with cyclists. Serious injuries are relatively common.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

If drivers of auto can't drink and drive. Neither should bicyclers.

is probably a good idea for anyone who is intoxicated not to be out amongst the general public. if you're drunk, you can easily walk out into the middle of the road and get hit by a car. the intoxicated person should have the equivalent of a trip sitter(s) who can overpower the intoxicated person and keep him/her physically safe and if that is not possible, the person should be detained until sober.

 

[AKS]

is probably a good idea for anyone who is intoxicated not to be out amongst the general public. if you're drunk, you can easily walk out into the middle of the road and get hit by a car. the intoxicated person should have the equivalent of a trip sitter(s) who can overpower the intoxicated person and keep him/her physically safe and if that is not possible, the person should be detained until sober.

Well, it would be impossible to keep all drunks off the street although this is the ideal world. However drunks should be kept off vehicles of any sort. It's true drunks can cause trouble, but I've heard that usually if you're drunk you're weaker and easier to overpower? Or so the test says. At York U they had a booth that asks what you think drunk's people condition were and I said they become stronger? *oops seem I got that answer wrong*

 

[Chuck]

If Sheppard had come after me - if indeed he 'went after' Bryant at all - I would have stopped my car and gotten out to deal with him - even if it meant my coming out on the loosing end, than use my car as an escape capsule on Bloor street, or a weapon as the case may be. I think what happened here was panic overriding rationality on both sides.

If an obviously angry and possibly drunk stranger reached into your car and started hitting you, you would instinctively get out of your car, leave you wife alone, and put yourself in even more danger? Please. Any rational man would have done exactly what Bryant did - get himself and his family out of harms way as quickly as possible by speeding away.

Had this same random incident happened to any of us, we would have acted in the exact same way. There are two tragedies that resulted from these events - one, a man died, and two, another man's life was ruined. At least there may still be time to prevent the second from occurring.

 

[waterloowarrior]

If an obviously angry and possibly drunk stranger reached into your car and started hitting you, you would instinctively get out of your car, leave you wife alone, and put yourself in even more danger? Please. Any rational man would have done exactly what Bryant did - get himself and his family out of harms way as quickly as possible by speeding away.

He didn't just 'speed away' he drove on the wrong side of the road, on the sidewalk and threw the guy into objects.

 

[Chuck]

He didn't just 'speed away' he drove on the wrong side of the road, on the sidewalk and threw the guy into objects.

Yes...throwing the guy into objects was necessary to get him off. Not a single innocent bystander or oncoming motorist was hit. This case has nothing to do with cars versus cyclists. It's a question of what actions are justified and reasonable when a violent stranger threatens you and your family's safety.

First and foremost, Bryant's actions got the guy off his car - that was likely Byrant's only intention. That the man also died is sad, however it is of secondary importance because there was no intent to kill. Just get the guy off the car as quickly as possible.

 

[Hank]

He didn't just 'speed away' he drove on the wrong side of the road, on the sidewalk and threw the guy into objects.

It's quite possible (and certainly at least reaching the level of a reasonable doubt) that he was being forced on to the left side of the road by Sheppard holding on to the wheel. The CTV video shows that there was a construction truck in the middle of the street; a car going westbound would have to go right to go around it. If Sheppard was holding on to the wheel Bryant may not have been able to turn the wheel right, so he would have had to go left, on to the wrong side of the street.

Basically, if Sheppard was holding on to the wheel, we can't really say that Bryant did anything (driving on the wrong side of the road, hitting Sheppard into objects) intentionally. We certainly can't say that we're sure of it beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[gristle]

But the 33-year-old former bike messenger had the legal right to do so, even if he was as drunk as he appeared.

This is rather poorly stated by the reporter. A cyclist does not have a "right" to bike when drunk. There is simply no law presently barring one from doing so - which is a huge legal hole. The police can't make up laws to stop people from doing things that are not illegal. But there is no inherent "right" resulting from this situation.

As cyclists drive in traffic (or all too often on sidewalks), it is quite clear that there should be an offense against driving a bike while drunk.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Not that charging drunk drivers will stop them from driving. See this link from the Star about a repeat drunk driver.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Well, it would be impossible to keep all drunks off the street although this is the ideal world. However drunks should be kept off vehicles of any sort. It's true drunks can cause trouble, but I've heard that usually if you're drunk you're weaker and easier to overpower? Or so the test says. At York U they had a booth that asks what you think drunk's people condition were and I said they become stronger? *oops seem I got that answer wrong*

i don't buy that. a sober skinny man will not overpower a drunk body builder. there are all kinds of factors, pro & con for each individual to be taken into consideration. and remember, not everybody gets drunk the same way. example: some people get extremely disoriented & happy but some people get slightly disoriented & extremely violent.

 

[poppajojo]

There are a lot of unconfirmed assumptions being made or implied in favour of Bryant of how the scenario actually played out, which could be false.

I've been hearing that Bryant would be facing a max of 1-2 years if he does face any jail time, which seems low for the seriousness of the situation.

If it was an average joe in the same situation I wonder if they might potentially be facing a much higher penalty. If it was a low to mid income black man in the exact same situation, the accused might be in a whole lot more trouble.

Given the media portrayal of the cyclist and Bryant and public opinion highly in favour of Bryant (drivers vs. cyclists and on this forum Toronto boosters), the outcome is looking good for Bryant. Even without those positives, with the assets available to Bryant, he might be one of the single most qualified people in Ontario to get out of this conviction innocent. At worse, maybe some type of probation. Plus, possibly the only person other than Bryant and his wife, who had a accurate understanding of what actually happened is dead.

 

[Jonny5]

Here's another interesting fact to toss in for fun: Bryant has been doing amateur boxing for the past 30 years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article967360.ece

For years, he trained at Atlas Boxing Club, an authentically smelly gym in the basement of the Hungarian cultural centre in Toronto. It's in his St. Paul's riding, so while he took pointers from a former Olympic coach, Bryant also rubbed shoulders with constituents;

Too bad he didn't just KO Sheppard instead.

 

[AKS]

There's no use arguing who is wrong or right. I'm sure the forensic scientists and investigators will figure out what exactly happened. There's bound to be traces of finger prints, bike and tire tracks, cameras, witness accounts, etc.

Too bad he didn't just KO Sheppard instead.

That would be assault. He would get into trouble for that too. If a person hits you, you're not suppose to hit them back. You're suppose to call the police or just walk away. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Hank]

I've been hearing that Bryant would be facing a max of 1-2 years if he does face any jail time, which seems low for the seriousness of the situation.

Criminal negligence causing death can carry with it up to a life sentance. That being said, I'd be very surprised if he received any jail time (unless some new evidence comes out that we haven't heard yet, which is entirely possible).

That would be assault. He would get into trouble for that too. If a person hits you, you're not suppose to hit them back. You're suppose to call the police or just walk away. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Although if you can't just walk away (if the guy keeps coming after you, for example) you're certainly allowed to use force to defend yourself, as long as it's commensurate with the amount of force required in the situation.