News   Jul 25, 2024
Rental Resubmission in Corktown Bumps Height From 35 to 45 Storeys
 790     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
Work Progressing on Mattamy's Westbend Residences near High Park
 691     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
News Roundup for July 25, 2024
 518     0 

Ex-Ontario AG Bryant questioned in death of cyclist

AKS said:
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.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact it's too bad he didn't KO Sheppard instead.
 
Chuck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hense the charges are criminal negligence causing death and not second degree murder & manslaughter.

The crown ain't that stupid you know. They're all very successful lawyers.
 
Last edited:
AKS said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...


incorrect. You're entitled to defend yourself using apporporiate force.
 
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.
Click to expand...


Logic like that makes this country seem so silly to many.


Calling defending yourself or your family a wrong act just proves it... :mad:
 
lordmandeep said:
Logic like that makes this country seem so silly to many.


Calling defending yourself or your family a wrong act just proves it... :mad:
Click to expand...

I find it really silly too. But it seems to happen. Sometimes the victim ends up being accused.
 
AKS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that's the case and some parts of the story won't be up for heavy interpretation, which is exactly what will happen if both sides do their job.

Jonny5 said:
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



Too bad he didn't just KO Sheppard instead.
Click to expand...

This is really interesting, if Bryant trained boxing for 30 years I really think he wouldn't feel physically intimidated or threatened by the cyclist unless the cyclist was using a weapon such as a heavy bike lock, knife or something along those lines.

Here's another find:

http://www.thestar.com/article/689770

He said he had been approached to take on a weekly television gig as a political commentator. "I don't want to do that any more. I really want out of that." He talked about the freedom delivered by stepping out of government. "When you get out there's this liberation. You don't realize what it's going to feel like until you get out. You can say, `you guys have no idea what you're talking about.'" You can "give the bird to a neighbour who's cut you off," something he couldn't do before "because you might want to put a sign in their lawn."
Click to expand...

That's quite an out of context off-colour public comment, something that might be uttered from one who can be easily angered while driving.

I'm not necessarily saying that Bryant was incited by road rage to the point of escalating the situation till he killed the cyclist, but that's just as easily believable as the cyclist being in such a drunken rage that he wanted to attack Bryant so badly that he would hold onto the car and not let go at blazing speeds just to get a piece of him.
 
Last edited:
Well, one way to look at the situation is...

The cyclist is a wanted man (from Alberta). He just got kicked out of his GF's house and he just got detained by some police. His luck really seems to be at the bottom. He's drunk. He hits a car and thinks the car hit him, so threatens the driver. The guy is filthy rich driving a nice car while he is down in the dumps. Life isn't fair. Why should such rich guys get everything? And tries to start a fight.
 
AKS said:
Well, one way to look at the situation is...

The cyclist is a wanted man (from Alberta). He just got kicked out of his GF's house and he just got detained by some police. His luck really seems to be at the bottom. He's drunk. He hits a car and thinks the car hit him, so threatens the driver. The guy is filthy rich driving a nice car while he is down in the dumps. Life isn't fair. Why should such rich guys get everything? And tries to start a fight.
Click to expand...

Sure I guess. I don't know how you could tell he's rich (I don't think he's even that rich) by driving a $5000 car.
 
poppajojo said:
Sure I guess. I don't know how you could tell he's rich (I don't think he's even that rich) by driving a $5000 car.
Click to expand...

Well, if he's driving a convertible, he would appear rich. I think it costs more than $5,000. Maybe around $30,000.
 
poppajojo said:
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.
Click to expand...

1-2 years is a typical sentence for these types of charges so it wouldn't be special treatment.
 
lordmandeep said:
Yeah were better off arguing what is reasonable self defense or what is not reasonable self defense then arguing over what really happened that night.


All we know if Bryant was in the States he would have a much easier time in the courts.


This could become a land mark case about Self-defense in Canada.
Click to expand...

While self-defense may not be as entrenched in our laws as it is south of the border, if this were the United States, the dead man's family could probably file a million civil suits.

A lot of people moan about our laws in this area, but they get to deal with robbers getting maimed by victims and followup lawsuits for medical care and other crap (some successful!).
 
I think if you asked Bryant now he'd say, regardless of the legal issues, he'd rather have stepped out of the car and gotten his ass kicked than have it end up the way it did.

I'm thinking also that the situation looks like Bryant won't be convicted because it'll be pretty easy to make a case that a) he was being attacked and b) he couldn't control his vehicle. But the police and prosecuters at the time couldn't be seen to be biased against Sheppard so they charged him anyway, knowing that the charges wouldn't stick. It would've been a bigger outrage if Bryant hadn't been charged.
 
valkoholic said:
I think if you asked Bryant now he'd say, regardless of the legal issues, he'd rather have stepped out of the car and gotten his ass kicked than have it end up the way it did.

I'm thinking also that the situation looks like Bryant won't be convicted because it'll be pretty easy to make a case that a) he was being attacked and b) he couldn't control his vehicle. But the police and prosecuters at the time couldn't be seen to be biased against Sheppard so they charged him anyway, knowing that the charges wouldn't stick. It would've been a bigger outrage if Bryant hadn't been charged.
Click to expand...



If the charges were negligence causing bodily harm and dangerous driving casuing bodily harm, Bryant may have a very good chance of getting a conviction.

However, the crown will have a hard time trying to prove anything causing death.


One way of helping someone off a case is to lay charges against them that is difficult to prove.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top