yeah I can see that, and yes, now the whole video comes out I say Bryant should be charged. That "bump" was a LOT more than just a little nudge......
Michael Bryant Accident Video
- Thread starter WhaWhaWha
- Start date
That initial video was the one I saw on CTV......but it didn't show everything......
Wait a minute, I'm still not sure about everything:
1. Sheppard comes from the left side of the car and then cuts in front of the car to the right, illegal move.
2. Bryant then hits Sheppard's bike from the rear and he lands on the hood, not sure if the jolt did it or if Bryant was mad as hell for being nudged, hit, whatever. Regardless it doesn't matter for what I'm trying to figure out. Bryant is guilty for hitting the biker from the rear, but for what charge? Not manslaughter yet, Sheppard is still alive.
3 Now, what happens next?????? Is the biker dead when Bryant hit him from the rear? No! I thought he was still alive, but I assume he's mad as hell so he went after Bryant in the car, did he not?
4. When Sheppard went over to Bryant in the car, he grapped the wheel or Bryant, who knows, and then Bryant took off with Sheppard holding on, either because he was scared as hell that Sheppard would clock him good, or he wanted to hurt Sheppard, this is the crux of the incident which will be up to a jury to figure out.
5. Next, Bryant keeps driving and Sheppard, while holding on, had his shoes hitting the ground, sparks flying, and Sheppard hits a few things, with the last thing being a postal box. Is this not where he dies?
This will be an interesting challenge for Bryant's lawyer.
1. Sheppard comes from the left side of the car and then cuts in front of the car to the right, illegal move.
2. Bryant then hits Sheppard's bike from the rear and he lands on the hood, not sure if the jolt did it or if Bryant was mad as hell for being nudged, hit, whatever. Regardless it doesn't matter for what I'm trying to figure out. Bryant is guilty for hitting the biker from the rear, but for what charge? Not manslaughter yet, Sheppard is still alive.
3 Now, what happens next?????? Is the biker dead when Bryant hit him from the rear? No! I thought he was still alive, but I assume he's mad as hell so he went after Bryant in the car, did he not?
4. When Sheppard went over to Bryant in the car, he grapped the wheel or Bryant, who knows, and then Bryant took off with Sheppard holding on, either because he was scared as hell that Sheppard would clock him good, or he wanted to hurt Sheppard, this is the crux of the incident which will be up to a jury to figure out.
5. Next, Bryant keeps driving and Sheppard, while holding on, had his shoes hitting the ground, sparks flying, and Sheppard hits a few things, with the last thing being a postal box. Is this not where he dies?
This will be an interesting challenge for Bryant's lawyer.
There is too much missing here. What happened before this point? Did the cyclist do something BEFORE this was on screen? Did he throw something at the driver? Did he hit him, threaten him, etc?
Did the cyclist's own actions lead to his death? It appears that he was getting up and the car was going around him, and then suddenly he is getting dragged along? Did he try to grab the driver and instead get stuck on the seat belt or something?
The driver's actions were dangerous and reckless, but apparently NOT fatal - the cyclist's actions however may lead to his own death.
Did the cyclist's own actions lead to his death? It appears that he was getting up and the car was going around him, and then suddenly he is getting dragged along? Did he try to grab the driver and instead get stuck on the seat belt or something?
The driver's actions were dangerous and reckless, but apparently NOT fatal - the cyclist's actions however may lead to his own death.
Can you punch someone in the nose, and then when they fight back, kill them and claim self defense?
No.
What the witnesses who were there say will be key here. If Bryant was yelling at the cyclist BEFORE he "nudged" him then that "nudge" was an intentional assault and battery and I think Bryant's self-defence claim goes out the window.
On the other hand if Bryant was absent-mindedly looking over his shoulder behind him and hit the cyclist completely by accident then perhaps they're both guilty of various traffic violations but the cyclist went into an unjustified rage and there is a viable claim of self defense.
The video sure does make it look like Bryant is guilty though.
Even after the car is moving I have problems here--the cyclist did not appear to be in any position to threaten Bryant once the car was in motion, yet witnesses say Bryant drove over and smacked him against objects at the side of the road. The guy was already down and out at that point, that doesn't seem to me to be self defense.
No.
What the witnesses who were there say will be key here. If Bryant was yelling at the cyclist BEFORE he "nudged" him then that "nudge" was an intentional assault and battery and I think Bryant's self-defence claim goes out the window.
On the other hand if Bryant was absent-mindedly looking over his shoulder behind him and hit the cyclist completely by accident then perhaps they're both guilty of various traffic violations but the cyclist went into an unjustified rage and there is a viable claim of self defense.
The video sure does make it look like Bryant is guilty though.
Even after the car is moving I have problems here--the cyclist did not appear to be in any position to threaten Bryant once the car was in motion, yet witnesses say Bryant drove over and smacked him against objects at the side of the road. The guy was already down and out at that point, that doesn't seem to me to be self defense.
Not at all... Sammy (He's such a BULL!) already figured out a way around this:
At any rate... it isn't as "cut and dry" as we were initially lead to believe.Sammy the Bull said:
Cases like this never are, you're fooling yourself if anyone thinks this is a slam dunk for Sheppard or Bryant, watch the lawyers spin this to heights we never thought of.
Sure...
The defense can simply say that it is not the accused... It is some guy that looks like the accused and drives the same car as the accused and staged another accident with another cyclist that looks like the deceased...Sammy the Bull said:
I'm joking of course... but these are the types of things that can sometimes end up getting criminals acquitted...
I think Mr. Bryant is in some serious hot water....
Since Mr. Bryant began the aggressive action by hitting the cyclist and then seemingly attempted to leave the scene of an accident, it is extremely unlikely that a self-defense argument will work. No jury is that stupid.
Lastly, if the video on youtube is accurate, then I predict that the charges will be upgraded to manslaughter.
Why can't he pass and move in front of Bryant's car? There seemed to be no oncoming traffic; the car was stopped; and, there was a large distance to position his bike in front of Bryant.
What do you mean by went after Bryant. It is very likely that he was trying to stop Bryant from fleeing the scene of an accident that Mr. Bryant had just caused.
If Sheppard reached into the vehicle, perhaps he was reaching for the ignition keys - in order to stop Mr. Bryant from engaging in a hit and run. It is also unclear whether Sheppard lost his balance and had to hold onto the car or if he thought that grabbing the car would make Mr. Bryant stop his vehicle from fleeing.
In order for Bryant to claim self-defense, he has to prove that he had no other choice than to rev the engine and dislodge the cyclist at all costs.
Since Mr. Bryant began the aggressive action by hitting the cyclist and then seemingly attempted to leave the scene of an accident, it is extremely unlikely that a self-defense argument will work. No jury is that stupid.
Lastly, if the video on youtube is accurate, then I predict that the charges will be upgraded to manslaughter.
Yeah, that's called getting off on a technicality, and it does happen. If the police were sloppy in collecting the video evidence then the defense could challenge it, claiming it was doctored, or from the wrong camera, or whatever.Sure...
The defense can simply say that it is not the accused... It is some guy that looks like the accused and drives the same car as the accused and staged another accident with another cyclist that looks like the deceased...
I'm joking of course... but these are the types of things that can sometimes end up getting criminals acquitted...
Given that Bryant is a former AG, though, I expect that the police will have meticulously followed the rules for the collection of evidence--every tape will have been picked up with multiple officers present, carefully tagged, locked up, kept watch over, etc. and each officer will have filled out in triplicate chain of custody forms indicating when and where they got the tape, how carefully they stored it, who was present, who they handed it over to, etc., so that there will be no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity in court.
If Bryant gets off on a technicality in this case then multiple people in the police department should be fired.
Actually...
If Bryant DOES get off on a technicality like that, then I would smell a rat. Given his status there is no doubt the police will follow the rules with the utmost care.
It seems to me then that if it does transpire that there is a gap in the chain of custody, missing documentation, etc., then some friend of Bryant's arranged for the error to happen. After all, he was practically their boss for several years--no doubt he has some friends on the inside.
They don't even have to tamper with the evidence--all they have to do is lose the documentation that proves the evidence wasn't tampered with.
If Bryant DOES get off on a technicality like that, then I would smell a rat. Given his status there is no doubt the police will follow the rules with the utmost care.
It seems to me then that if it does transpire that there is a gap in the chain of custody, missing documentation, etc., then some friend of Bryant's arranged for the error to happen. After all, he was practically their boss for several years--no doubt he has some friends on the inside.
They don't even have to tamper with the evidence--all they have to do is lose the documentation that proves the evidence wasn't tampered with.
Apparently some of you see these as wonderfully clear videos. For me they are only sightly clearer than mud both literally and figuratively. At this point I honestly can say I have no idea where the truth lies.
No one does... except for Michael Bryant (and possibly his wife who also happens to be a lawyer) and Allan Sheppard... oh wait, he's dead...
Its clear to me Bryant did more than just bump his bicycle.
There was serious contact made
Ditto that.
The cyclist was in front of Bryant's car and of no threat to Bryant.
Bryant hit the gas, nailed the cyclist, cyclist landed on hood of car.
You can clearly see that in the video.
Don't worry, the cops have the equipment to clean up that video image I'm sure. There are probably others, plus witnesses.
What bugs me is how the NEXT DAY, the media was running with:
1. Cyclist had had a fight with his GF (turns out he had not)
2. Cyclist had just had a run in with the cops. (So what.)
3. Cyclist had been drinking.
4. Cyclist was completely impaired.
5. Cyclist had 61 outstanding warrants for his arrest in Alberta.
6. Cyclist had 4 kids by different women
Yadda yadda yadda. I wonder who gave the media all this nice information?
Navigator PR perhaps?
Ummm... the media (for the most part) tends to be leaning towards the "left" of centre in its reporting bias... Bryant was an AG and MPP for the Liberal Party... Coincidence? Perhaps...
