Charges against Michael Bryant dropped, cyclists’ outrage not so much
Less than one year ago, former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. This morning, those charges were dropped.
The accusations were made after an August 30 confrontation between Bryant and cyclist Darcy Allen Sheppard.
Summarizes the Star:
Bryant and his wife, Susan Abramovitch, were driving along Bloor St. around 9:30 p.m. on a Monday when they were involved in a minor incident with Sheppard.
Witnesses said the cyclist then chased Bryant and grabbed hold of the driver’s side door of his convertible.
Police had alleged that Bryant took off, crossed into the oncoming lane and mounted the curb, dragging Sheppard between 50 and 100 metres.
The cyclist fell from the vehicle after striking a mailbox and a tree, witnesses said.
Unfortunately named Crown prosecutor Richard Peck, who was brought in from B.C. to mount the case against the former Ontario attorney general to avoid any appearance of impropriety, says that his decision was made after new evidence was brought to light.
The Post notes:
Several witnesses recounted past confrontations with Mr. Sheppard, the court heard.
Toxicology tests on Mr. Sheppard revealed he had a blood alcohol level that was more than twice the legal limit the night he died. The cyclist’s blood alcohol level, which was measured after he died, was 0.183.
The new evidence, which included interviews with Mr. Bryant and his wife, led Mr. Peck to conclude that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
The news was received with umbrage by cyclists gathered outside the courthouse (cycling activists are not known as a stoic lot). “I can’t predict how it will be perceived other than sending the message that it’s OK to kill someone with your car,” Yvonne Bambrick of the Toronto Cyclists Union told the Post. “It’s just as much a weapon as a gun is.”
• Charges against Michael Bryant dropped [Toronto Star]
• Criminal charges against former AG Michael Bryant withdrawn [National Post]
• Charges withdrawn former AG Bryant [CBC]
happy with the outcome. Mr. Bryant is a valuable member of the society.
“cycling activists are not known as a stoic lot”
FU.
This SOB got away with reckless endangerment resulting in death.
Events such as the withdrawal of charges against public officials such as Bryant, trigger responses from freaks in society, such as James Roscoe and Timothy McViegh….We are fortunate that they both were such ammateurs….
Watch this footage (which originally air on CityPulse but was never discussed), and explain to me how any rational person could conclude the Bryant wasn’t guilty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_PrhFo
Also of interest is that Richard Peck, the lawyer appointed to “defend” Darcy Sheppard, made donations to the Liberal party:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Special+prosecutors+donated+much/2993164/story.html
I drive for a living and CYCLISTS are always loking for
confrontations , they do not follow the rules of the road,
cut in front of vehicles at will, and are generally an accident waitng to happen.The idiots at CITY HALL are also at blame giving these people this sense of right of way on the roads.If they want equal rights , the first thing these idiots on 2 wheels should be doing is having RESPECT for other users of the road.The second thing is ,I PAY for the use of the road – licence, insurance,vehicle registration
-what do they pay for- and dont give me that “they pay taxes also bull “
A man is dead. Mr Bryant you may have learnt to suppress your conscience in law school but may your memory never let you forget exactly what happened that night…..
I strongly disagree with Mr. G here. You’re singling out cyclists as the problem on the road; one specific group. The fact of the matter is, the psychos are spread evenly throughout the population. And, seeing as there are, at any given time, more cars on the road than bikes, there are inevitably going to be more psychos driving CARS than bikes. Bikes have just as much right to be there as drivers. I’ll tell you something: I BIKE for a living. Yes, I’m a bike courier in Calgary, and I can say in all honesty that I see far more CARS breaking the law than I do bikes. Not to mention the a**hole suits in their BMW’s talking on their cell phone, barely paying any attention to the road, drifting into adjacent lanes, etc. You think that just because you drive a gas-guzzling motor vehicle that you own the road. And don’t give me that “I pay for the use of the road bull”, because your paying for your licence, insurance and vehicle registration have nothing to do with your “right” to the use of the road. They are insurance policies just in case you are a moron driver like Mr. Bryant. I don’t pay for anything because, by law, I don’t have to. You do. Bikes don’t put nearly as much wear and tear on the road and the environment as motor vehicles, and we DON’T cause as many accidents. Tough titty.
Bottom line: Bryant killed a man with his car. That’s called vehicular manslaughter. He got off because of his title and influence, not his innocence. He was not innocent, and if you watch any of the plethora of videos of the incident, you would be either stupid or blind to disagree. This just sends across the message that if you’re high up on the totem pole, you’re untouchable by the law. It’s crap, and he should be in prison for a long time to come. I’m glad, Mr. B, that I’m smart enough to stay out of the way of IDIOTS like you and Michael Bryant on the road, or I would surely be dead by now.
“(cycling activists are not known as a stoic lot)”
Uh… try commuting by bike, 365 days a year and see how well YOU suffer the “might makes right” *rules* of the road!
This new evidence was comprised entirely of hearsay and the biased accounts of the accused and his wife who was with him when he fled the scene.
Why was video and eyewitness testimony disregarded in light of this “new evidence”?
I saw a lot of outrage, there should be. The man was killed brutally by the actions of an enraged driver. The video shows Bryant escalating by striking him with the car then fleeing almost striking the dismounted victim. The construction workers interviewed directly after the incident (with no idea of who the person in the car was) made it clear when interviewed that the driver was angry, irate, aggressive not scared sounding, and that he drove the victim directly into obstructions.
But because Navigator and Bryant claim the man was drunk and aggressive, that’s a license to kill. Despite all the people around? Despite his training as an aggressive law-enforcement related leader? Despite his 30 years of hands on hand to hand combat training? Despite his being able to actually arrest the man instead?
Seems way more likely that Bryant was trying to avoid answering for the hit and run caught on video. He did not act afraid at all. True to his well known reputation for a violent temper, he over reacted with violence and killed.
That is against the rules of our society. That was dangerous driving causing death. His response was unreasonable and his methods unlawful.
Get these Liberals OUT OF POWER!!!!!! The sense of entitlement they have is too much for Ontario to bear.
It is true that the cycling activists are a nutbar group though.
Half of them keep gabbing about bike lanes when asked about the Bryant/Shepperd tragedy.
Just the attidude I’m referring to as evidenced by Jeff..whether they be in Calgary or Toronto..no regard for the rules of the road…and it’s never the bicycles fault,but today we see it was,and even his father agreed with the evidence presented in court.
“there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.”
This is not the same as “Michael Bryant is innocent.”
“Police had alleged that Bryant took off, crossed into the oncoming lane and mounted the curb, dragging Sheppard between 50 and 100 metres.”
Is there no charge for this?
As much as we could have expected this, it is still outrageous.
If anyone believes that justice is blind after this, they are out of their minds.
“the first thing these idiots on 2 wheels should be doing is having RESPECT for other users of the road”
Mr. G: Respect is a two-way street.
Try respecting the “idiots on 2 wheels,” and maybe you will get respect back.
I wish you a very pleasant day driving for a living tomorrow.
Whose foot was on the gas pedal?
The idiots are always right from Marc C point of view,running red lights,cutting in front of vehicles,which try to save your sorry asses…
Forget the road the assholes ride on the sidewalks as though it belongs to them…
“The idiots are always right from Marc C point of view”
I never said such a thing. Stop distorting what other people say.
“the assholes ride on the sidewalks as though it belongs to them…”
Thank you both for proving my point.
You cannot expect respect from people you insult.
If I called you a name, would you respect me?
That poor young man only trying to earn a living as most do and dying for it. I think Bryant should get some kind of sentence despite whatever claims of this young man’s behaviour true or false. Bryant should have called the police and waited for them and not driven off at all. I am sure they would have been there if Bryant said who he was etc.. This young man had family and friends who have now lost him because of this man’s arrogance. There was nothing Bryant had pressing that needed taking of a life. Question is will Bryant be allowed to drive again I say a vehement NO!
Sure in different provinces we all have errant drivers and cyclists but I think in these economic and ecologic times we should work together not against each other.
Couriers do not make that much money which is unfair considering and at times I am sure it forces them to be competitive which places them in peril. Perhaps government should also take a look at the courier industry whether it be bike, foot or car like they do the trucking industry and promote safety awareness and wage fairness. Perhaps then this sort of thing wouldn’t happen if both parties understood and were treated fairly. I also think that drivers should have to go through a course to teach them the rules of the road and anger management as well as being pedestrian friendly. Many times I have gotten off TTC vehicles and nearly getting hit by cars and cabs not obeying the rules. I once observed a man on a bike and was quite proud of this young man stopping a car from turning right on King and Yonge Street as they should not have been and round came the cruiser and gave the car driver a ticket for an illegal turn. People are in such a hurry these days for whatever reason and forget the world around you.
Rest in Peace Mr. Sheppard knowing that not all of us agree with what happened to you and hope some kind of good might come out of this other than the leniency of justice in Ontario that looks it’s nose down on those less fortunate.
Next election I will remember you count on it!
@>–
You’re all kidding yourselves if you think the Liberals won’t be back again. Shit floats to the top.
Seriously, Mr G, how much evidence do you need that it was Bryant that was at fault? There are eye witness accounts, video footage, the scene of the crime itself, one dead man, and one walking free(?)!!! This isn’t about who pisses you off at work, it’s about one isolated incident with a very faulty outcome. It stinks. I, and I’m sure most people, don’t want to read your complaints about how you get mad at people on the road while working, especially as persistently as you are. We all get annoyed at work, even couriers. However, most of us don’t get KILLED (or even nearly so) on the job… The point is, Bryant should be going to jail for a long time because he brutally killed a man with his car. Fact. Conflict or not, he escalated it far too quickly and violently, for which he should face serious punishment. Do you honestly disagree with that? If you do, I can’t see you being a very fun guy to hang around.
I for one prefer to ride, responsibly, on the sidewalk, bc I don’t want to die (on the road). Thankfully, my wheels are under 24 inches in diameter. Bikes over that are not allowed to ride the sidewalk.
As a car driver, I have been told and made to know that if I hit a car or anything else in fromt of me causing any accident that I am at fault by the law. Thus, if I rear end someone or something then I am automatically at fault because it is my responsibility as a driver to keep back some distance and not tailgate in order to be able to stop safely. It appears that a bike was rear ended here and that someone was hit by being rear ended and knocked on the hood of a car and off on to the road by a driver that did not properly control a car safely (accidentally or intentionally) and even tried to drive around a bike to get away from a collision. This caused everything else to happen. Rear ending anyone or anything makes the person doing it guilty no matter what even if one’s car has car trouble stopping or even if it was bad weather. Many people have been charged for doing much less such as hitting a tree or post by losing control of one’s car accidentally. Am I mistaken in assuming that I am responsible for controlling and maintaining my vehicle as best as possible so that I don’t rear end anyone whether accidentally or intentionally?
I would like a bit more information. Does anyone have the transcript of Mr. Peck’s court address? The papers – specifically a (certainly not a reliable source, but the best I have so far) say Mr. Peck, in his address to the court on the withdrawl of the two charges, stated:
The top and windows of the Saab were down. As they neared the intersection of Bloor and Yonge Sts., Bryant saw someone throwing objects onto the roadway attempting to impede traffic, Peck said. He was later identified as Sheppard.
Which leads to my first question; Was this the first altercation I have read so much about previously? Am I to assume the two (Mr. Bryant and the victim) had no direct initial altercation, but rather it was the victim throwing objects at cars as they passed by?
Mr. Peck continues:
Peck said in the moments before Sheppard died, he cycled past Bryant’s vehicle along the driver’s side and then cut in front, stopping his bike directly in front of the convertible Saab and blocking its way.
I’m ok with this an the videos I have seen seem to confirm it. However, I can’t see the vehicle moving at all once the bike stopped in front of the car. In fact, I see the car stationary for some time before the bike arrived and with the bike in front of the car.So, I am somewhat confused with the next statement from Mr. Peck:
When Bryant hit his brakes, the vehicle stalled. Peck said Bryant was trying to get away and attempted to get his car started when it stalled again, causing it to lurch forward. That was when “Mr. Bryant’s vehicle came close to or in contact with the rear wheel of Mr. Sheppard’s bike,” Peck said.
So, not only can I not see the car brake and then stall (after the bike appears in front of the car)-that is, I see the car stationary before the bike arrives which makes me wonder how braking was involved- but I also cannot understand how Mr. Bryant stalled his car a second time. Further, I am at a complete loss as to how this, even in consideration of fear and panic, can justify leaving the scene of an accident. Though I can appreciate the complex issues that arise out of our Highway Traffic Act (§199) which states:
“Every person in charge of a motor vehicle or street car who is directly or indirectly involved in an accident shall, if the accident results in personal injuries or in damage to property apparently exceeding an amount prescribed by regulation, report the accident forthwith to the nearest police officer and furnish him or her with the information concerning the accident….”
So, if you are keeping score that means, somehow, we the drivers must-> 1)assess an injury to determine if, for one, it is compensable. Then assuming that we can come up with a ballpark in our tramatized state, be under obligation to be aware of the “amount prescribed by regulation”? [I think it is currently $1000]…
So, ok, I’ll give Mr. Bryant a pass on that particular charge under the Highway Traffic Act (though, not completey and not without significant seaches of quicklaw to find out what has been acceptable behaviour when people, for whatever reason, and especially in these circumstances, hit someone with their car. However, under the Canadian Criminal Code of Canada, “hit-and-run” is not only prohibited but comes with a prison term of up to five years.
The statute defines the offense, s. 252 of the Criminal Code, entitled “Failure to stop at scene of accident”:
“Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with another person, a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person, and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.”
Well, I can’t for the life of me give Mr. Bryant a pass here. I suppose case law might shed some light on the answer. Perhaps when your life is reasonably endangered you have a right to not stop? I am not sure and I am not going to bother with the case law researches, but I sure wonder a)if there are circumstances where s.252 may be excused and b)whether those circumstances were present ehre.
Can anyone shed light on this? I would like my government to be clear on this case. I would like to know why there was no leaving the scene charge (and a clear, more than provided, explanation as to why the original two charges were withdrawn)?
Regards
Notes:
1)
The punishment for s.252 breaches could be life if:
“The person knows that another person involved in the accident is dead; or the person knows that bodily harm has been caused to another person involved in the accident and is reckless as to whether the death of the other person results from that bodily harm, and the death of that other person so results.”
2)
Though the previous acts of the victim may be used in consideration of the circumstances and outcomes I do wonder about a number of comments from the papers and Mr. Peck. One in particular made me laugh:
Although certain eyewitnesses described the vehicle as swerving and driving onto the sidewalk in an attempt to dislodge Mr. Sheppard, forensic examination has demonstrated that the Saab did not rub against the curb or mount the curb at any time,” Peck said.
[Perhaps this is true, but what does the Saab not rubbing on the curb nor mounting it show other than it didn’t? Shouldn’t the question be whether the car was completely on the wrong side of the road and for what duration? It doesn’t need to rub or mount a sidewalk in order to be a deliberate act that would carry with it a number of potential charges]
3)
Here is my favorite:
“Sheppard’s blood alcohol level was measured after his death at 0.183 — more than twice the legal limit for driving”
[As I understand the alw, this limit is for motor vehicles and has on numerous occassions been defeated as a means to regulating a person on a bicycle. I suppose show the blood alcohol level may be a consideration, but referencin it to the legal limit of a person in care or control of a motor vehicle? Definately a laugh out loud moment when it comes from a lawyer, and in this case, a special prosecutor. Even more halarious is when papers use it and get it, if possible, even more incorrect, as the Post article referred to above does:
Toxicology tests on Mr. Sheppard revealed he had a blood alcohol level that was more than twice the legal limit the night he died. The cyclist’s blood alcohol level, which was measured after he died, was 0.183.
Yikes, now it isn’t the legal limit of a motor vehicle-driving-now it is just some ubiquious “legal limit”…]
sorry for all the typos and spelling mistakes…one off while riding in a taxi in traffic on vacation…
Greg Hudson, you are seriously out of touch with how cyclists feel about this.
Bryant killed a man with his car. The man on the side of his car scared the hell out of him. But instead of pulling over and putting the death trap to a stop and handling the situation responsibly, he drove recklessly and used his car as a weapon. Maybe in defense, maybe not, but self-defense demands REASONABLE FORCE. Because this case didn’t go to court, we’ll never know if the Ontario justice system thinks killing a man with you car counts as reasonable force.
Michael Bryant prides himself in his boxing training. He should know as well as anyone the rules for a fair fight.
Not everyone has the privilege to get a clean start. But can Bryant pay a PR company to clean up his conscience?