Michael Bryant Accident Video

[Mia.Colpa]

Terb is not an academic journal, so let's not act as though it is.

It's not? Isn't this the Mensa conference??? Sorry, I'm in the wrong place. lol

Here's another point I'm not clear on, maybe some of you have an opinion:

When Sheppard went towards Bryant after he was hit, whether he went towards him to grab his neck, or the steering wheel, or the keys, etc... doesn't matter, what I'd like to know is when Bryant started driving away with Sheppard holding on, why didn't Sheppard let go, why was he still hanging on??? Didn't he realize he could be seriously injured if he kept hanging on as the car was moving, or was he so drunk he didn't appreciate the consequences of what he was doint, or did he think he could stop the car by hanging on???? What makes sense, or doesn't?

 

[james t kirk]

Ted Kennedy would've been proud.

A liberal policitian kills someone with his car in a very irresponsible way.

Like Teddy, Bryant will probably beat the rap. There's probably enough reasonable doubt. It will be hard for the crown to prove intent.

Huge difference.

Kennedy killed that woman in an accident.

Bryant - it was deliberate.

 

[james t kirk]

I can see next to nothing on either of these videos, and I have a pretty large monitor.

Quite seriously, I've nearly hit dozens of psycho cyclists who illegally violate the rules of the road by weaving past stopped cars at relatively high speeds instead of acting like any other road vehicle.

I've also had my gf nearly killed by cyclists running red lights at high speed and then acting as though pedestrians are to blame.

I have absolutely no idea what happened that night - wasn't there. It will come out in court no doubt.

If Bryant hit the guy simply because he cut in front of him, then he massively over-reacted and should suffer accordingly.

If, on the other hand, his wife and/or he was physically threatened by a loaded up asshole on a bike, he still should not have killed the guy, but he was within his own rights to move from where the threat occurred. If the cyclist then jumps onto the car when given an opportunity to back off ... draw your own conclusions.

There is absolutely nothing on either video that shows conclusively what was SAID, when it was said, and what the hell else was happening in context when all this went down.

All this "bikers are saints" garbage is what set me off - if ANY driver pulled what bikes get away with in this town, it would make the news every night.

Give Bryant his day in court, and let justice be served. Just quit pretending it is all so 'cut and dried", when so far, its clear as mud.

I disagree.

You are clearly biased against cyclists as evidenced by your statement "psycho cyclists" and how you've nearly hit dozens.

The video clearly shows the car accelerating into the cyclist. There is no excuse for that. The cyclist didn't have a gun, or a knife, or any weapon of any kind.

The driver had a 4,000 pound blunt instrument with 200 plus horsepower behind it.

 

[james t kirk]

The woman in the video is not his 'wife' as the woman left prior to the arrest (about 2 hrs after the incident)

I also don't believe his wife was with him - the person was described as a blonde woman and his wife is not that - http://www.gowlings.com/professionals/professional.asp?profid=1235

but this will come out in court so not sure why that would be lied about immediately (although at the time Bryant didn't know the guy would die).

That's an old photo.

His wife is 40 something. She could have changed her hair colour.

 

[needinit]

Interesting... according to CBC and other news sources Ms. Abramovitch IS his wife... or have they gotten their "facts" wrong?!

Yes, I know that. The initial reports that I saw stated Police were also speaking with a blonde woman who was with him. The next day they said his wife was in the car with him and his wife is not blonde. That was my point.

The blonde woman in the car also left prior to his arrest occuring (and the media show taking place) and is not shown on any video (taken by the media)- I am suspicious, that is all!

 

[james t kirk]

That is the problem, really - the video doesn't show what happened right before that, what happened at the previous corner. It doesn't capture what the cyclist may have said or done out of frame before we got here. It's a "Rodney King" video moment, where not everything relevant is on tape.

Further, there is the question of the cyclist's behavior after the initial impact. The initial impact was not fatal (obviously). Had the cyclists stepped back and called 911, he would be alive today. Coming in and attacking a driver in a moving car is a highly risky idea, and the results were fatal.

The most the driver is guilty of at this point is assault, and without knowing what happened before the video starts, there is no way to know the aggravating circumstances of the situation.

I disagree.

It doesn't matter WHAT the cyclist did or said. The cyclist could have called Bryant's wife a cocksucking whore who licks ass on Shuter street for $10.00 and it doens't give Bryant the right to run the cyclist over. If it did, there'd be hundreds of guys killed every day.

Pissing someone off is not gounds to run them over with your car.

The video shows one alive and well cyclist stopped and Bryant hammering the gas and hitting the cyclist with the cyclist ending up on the hood of Bryant's car.

Clearly Bryant not only escalated the situation, but set in motion the chain of events that led to the cyclist's death. Bryant does not have the right to tap, or nudge, or smash into the cyclist. The cycist was not armed and could not have been any threat in any way to Bryant.

If any case could be made for self defence it is that of the cyclist. He had just been deliberately struck by a madman driving a 4,000 pound car at high speeds and he was trying to save his own life.

Sorry, until I saw this video, I was leaning towards "the cyclist started it", now I firmly believe that Bryant escalated it, caused it, was wilful, and committed manslaughter.

 

[james t kirk]

It's not? Isn't this the Mensa conference??? Sorry, I'm in the wrong place. lol

Here's another point I'm not clear on, maybe some of you have an opinion:

When Sheppard went towards Bryant after he was hit, whether he went towards him to grab his neck, or the steering wheel, or the keys, etc... doesn't matter, what I'd like to know is when Bryant started driving away with Sheppard holding on, why didn't Sheppard let go, why was he still hanging on??? Didn't he realize he could be seriously injured if he kept hanging on as the car was moving, or was he so drunk he didn't appreciate the consequences of what he was doint, or did he think he could stop the car by hanging on???? What makes sense, or doesn't?

We don't know how drunk the cyclist was at the time.

The media reported the next day that the cyclist had been drinking. Reports range from "had a couple" to "to in no shape to ride a bike". The media is obviously being fed this information by a source close to the case. My guess is Bryant himself through his PR Agency - Navigator. (The cops would never do this at such an early stage.) My question is - Was Bryant given a Blood Alcohol Test and if so - what were the results, and if not, why not.

No toxicology reports have been released on the blood alcohol of the cyclist so you don't know that he was in fact "that drunk".

The cyclist hanging on is quite simple to explain - he went instinct. At that ponit in time, the conflict had escalated to such a point that all rational thought has gone right out the window. Instinct took over both of them. It was man vs. man in a primative sense. There was no rationalization, no time for thinking, it was just fight or flight, kill or be killed.

The result was fight and the result was that Bryant killed Sheppard.

 

[BoringBob]

I disagree.

It doesn't matter WHAT the cyclist did or said.

What if he said "I have a gun and as soon as I stop I am taking it out of my bag to shoot you!" or if he threw something into the car (dangerous) or perhaps wielded a knife?

You are missing the point entirely - what the driver did is wrong, but it is ignorant to assume that the bike rider was snow white on this one. The bike rider's actions contributed greatly to his own demise, and that is only what we see on video. There may be more to this story than we can see just looking at the video.

I am saying "don't draw a conclusion", and what you are doing is completely assigning blame and heading home. There is more here than meets the (camera's) eye.

 

[james t kirk]

What if he said "I have a gun and as soon as I stop I am taking it out of my bag to shoot you!" or if he threw something into the car (dangerous) or perhaps wielded a knife?

You are missing the point entirely - what the driver did is wrong, but it is ignorant to assume that the bike rider was snow white on this one. The bike rider's actions contributed greatly to his own demise, and that is only what we see on video. There may be more to this story than we can see just looking at the video.

I am saying "don't draw a conclusion", and what you are doing is completely assigning blame and heading home. There is more here than meets the (camera's) eye.

Bob, please, that's absurd and demonstrates that you are now grasping at straws for some reason to defend Bryant.

And even if he did say he had a gun (and why would he) saying it and actually having it are two different things.

I'm sure there's more to the story - exchanging words, threats, etc. But taking it to the level of driving into someone escalates it to physical violence with intent to injure. That's a long way from "you fucking asshole, I'm gonna kill you"

 

[james t kirk]

One thing's for sure.....

This would make a GREAT episode of Law and Order.

Ben Stone loses it and runs over bike courier.

 

[oldjones]

I agree that we are all acting like armchair judges; however, isn't that what the terb lounge is for - you know, "shooting the shit."

Terb is not an academic journal, so let's not act as though it is.

If a shitstorm's your idea of fun, go for it—and clearly many have. But I like to hope that our back and forth rises above that.

Pronouncing on rumours and misinformation as definitively as a judge in court, and slagging all who venture the slightest demurrer doesn't even reach the standard of armchair chat, let alone academic journals.

You pegged most of it accurately as 'shit'. And it does scare me that people vote and bring up kids with those minds.

 

[tboy]

Bob, please, that's absurd and demonstrates that you are now grasping at straws for some reason to defend Bryant.

And even if he did say he had a gun (and why would he) saying it and actually having it are two different things.

I'm sure there's more to the story - exchanging words, threats, etc. But taking it to the level of driving into someone escalates it to physical violence with intent to injure. That's a long way from "you fucking asshole, I'm gonna kill you"

Not really.....uttering a threat is a VERY serious offence and I have known a couple of people who have been put in handcuffs and carted off (witnessed one first hand) for simply saying to a miserable ex wife: you deserve a smack in the head for acting this way......

Someone saying "I have a gun and am going to blow your head off" is grounds to react.

According to those videos it isn't as cut and dried as it was, and I am starting to think Bryant over-reacted. BUT as stated, we don't know what happened before the incident and I tell you: I'd be pissed off if a cyclist pulled in front of me and blocked me from moving.....would I run into him? Probably not but I certainly would light em up as I swerved around him.....

 

[james t kirk]

According to those videos it isn't as cut and dried as it was, and I am starting to think Bryant over-reacted. BUT as stated, we don't know what happened before the incident and I tell you: I'd be pissed off if a cyclist pulled in front of me and blocked me from moving.....would I run into him? Probably not but I certainly would light em up as I swerved around him.....

And there in lies the difference.

I don't know Bryant, I really don't remember that much about him as AG. I'd be curious to know if he's the kind of guy who likes to exert his authority over people.

Is he the kind of guy who thinks that when he says "jump" that everyone shyould say, "how high".

If he is - it fits with what he did.

 

[Mia.Colpa]

The cyclist hanging on is quite simple to explain - he went instinct. At that ponit in time, the conflict had escalated to such a point that all rational thought has gone right out the window. Instinct took over both of them. It was man vs. man in a primative sense. There was no rationalization, no time for thinking, it was just fight or flight, kill or be killed.

Uh hu, this will be the basis for Bryant's defense. Irrational exuberance.

Plead temporaty insanity and he'll be let go.

 

[flubadub]

Irrational exuberance might be an excuse for taking flight, but lets see how far it goes in explaining repeated attempts at knocking Sheppard off the car by running into things.

Its going to be interesting to hear what possible excuse Bryant can give for essentially sucker punching Sheppard with his car and then immediately taking off.

 

[steve bettman]

I disagree.

It doesn't matter WHAT the cyclist did or said. The cyclist could have called Bryant's wife a cocksucking whore who licks ass on Shuter street for $10.00 and it doens't give Bryant the right to run the cyclist over. If it did, there'd be hundreds of guys killed every day.

Pissing someone off is not gounds to run them over with your car.

The video shows one alive and well cyclist stopped and Bryant hammering the gas and hitting the cyclist with the cyclist ending up on the hood of Bryant's car.

Clearly Bryant not only escalated the situation, but set in motion the chain of events that led to the cyclist's death. Bryant does not have the right to tap, or nudge, or smash into the cyclist. The cycist was not armed and could not have been any threat in any way to Bryant.

If any case could be made for self defence it is that of the cyclist. He had just been deliberately struck by a madman driving a 4,000 pound car at high speeds and he was trying to save his own life.

Sorry, until I saw this video, I was leaning towards "the cyclist started it", now I firmly believe that Bryant escalated it, caused it, was wilful, and committed manslaughter.

My sentiments exactly, I think Bryant is looking at some time in the slammer.

 

[WhaWhaWha]

He deserves it but it will never happen.

 

[james t kirk]

He deserves it but it will never happen.

Afraid I agree.

Bryant is the aristocracy. He's part of the system and the system protects its own. You get as much justice as you can afford.

 

[spankingman]

Wonder who ihs mouthpiece will be, Clayton Ruby or one of the Greenspan boys?

I think he is toast now.

 

[james t kirk]

Michael Bryant is not the aristocracy. There are maybe five or six families in Canada that can claim a link to British aristocracy, so let's get real.

I meant that figuratively speaking.

He's part of the Canadian Establishment.

If you or I did what he did, we'd be seriously fucked. In Bryants case - it will be a slap on the wrist.