cyclist didn't deserve manslaughter

[Steve Harper]

The reality still remains, The cyclist is dead as a result of AG's criminal behaviour.

Could be true. Or it could also be that the cyclist is dead because he ran to the driver's door with his bicycle lock looking to beat the bejeezus out of Bryant (according to the papers) & Bryant did what any normal person would do - try to get the fuck out of there.

You don't know, and neither do I. We weren't there.

I understand the loss of one of your own, Mr. Thorbax. Anger is a reasonable result.

However, an objective look would be that:
1. did the cyclist cause or partially cause his own death by running to the driver's door & supposedly trying to attack Bryant with his lock?

2. if so, was Bryant justified in htting the gas pedal when the cyclist made his threatening gestures, approached the vehicle & hung on?

3. was Bryant trying to get rid of the 'attacker' by purposely running his car into obstructions or was he just being a prick about it?

4. did the cyclist commit his own act of 'criminal behaviour' by supposedly attacking or trying to attack Bryant? if so, does this justify Bryant's actions or not?

It something like a cop shooting someone if the cop thinks his life is in danger (eg. a suspect reaches in his pocket after being told to raise his hands. Cop thinks he's reaching for a gun & defends himself by firing bullets. The guy may have just been trying to get his ID.)

 

[Malibook]

None of us yet know enough about what happened to make informed comments.

Apparently, Fuji and Thor know it all.

 

[fuji]

1. did the cyclist cause or partially cause his own death by running to the driver's door & supposedly trying to attack Bryant with his lock?

Likely so.

2. if so, was Bryant justified in htting the gas pedal when the cyclist made his threatening gestures, approached the vehicle & hung on?

Absolutely. The criminal code specifically calls out for people to attempt to retreat from a situation and hitting the gas seems like a great way to do that.

3. was Bryant trying to get rid of the 'attacker' by purposely running his car into obstructions or was he just being a prick about it?

There is a video on the net that shows a cop being dragged by a car--he leaned in to speak to the driver, and the driver accelerated.

Once you are being dragged by a car I imagine the only think you think about is how not to go under the wheels, and so you hang on for dear life.

At this point it seems likely to me that the cyclist wasn't a threat to anybody, he was completely absorbed in his own prospects for survival.

Therefore a the time he was killed the cyclist was neither an attacker nor a threat, which makes Bryant a murderer.

4. did the cyclist commit his own act of 'criminal behaviour' by supposedly attacking or trying to attack Bryant?

It seems to me the cyclist did at least a few things that that are minor crimes, and possibly an assault as well.

if so, does this justify Bryant's actions or not?

No. Bryant was justified in trying to flee, but having reduced the attacker to someone who was clinging to a door for dear life, not justified in smashing him into objects at high speed.

 

[guelph]

but having reduced the attacker to someone who was clinging to a door for dear life, not justified in smashing him into objects at high speed.

No one has given any evidence or testimony to this. The only thing said was the cyclist was hanging on to the car -- no said why. The other explanation that the cyciist was hanging to attack the driver.

 

[Malibook]

Therefore a the time he was killed the cyclist was neither an attacker nor a threat, which makes Bryant a murderer.

Why didn't you tell us that you were there or are you psychic?

 

[fuji]

No one has given any evidence or testimony to this. The only thing said was the cyclist was hanging on to the car -- no said why. The other explanation that the cyciist was hanging to attack the driver.

There are two different points in time here:

T1, the cyclist reaches into the car, and Bryant puts his foot on the gas to escape; the cyclist winds up being dragged along either by accident, or because he intially decided to hang on.

T2, the car is now travelling at a high speed and the cyclist is dragging along the street helplessly, and Bryant is still trying to kill him.

No-one disputes Bryant's actions at T1, when the cyclist was an active threat, and making bad choices.

It is Bryant's actions a few second later, at T2, when the cyclist is now helpless, and Bryant is trying to kill him, that have resulted in the criminal charge.

It doesn't matter WHAT the cyclist was thinking at T1, by T2 it doesn't matter--the cyclist is no longer capable of threatening anyone.

The law requires you to stop using force against someone once you have neutralized the threat. The threat was neutralized at T1, there was no credible threat at T2.

Of course that's per the facts as reported so far. It is possible those reports will change or new information will come along, and if new information comes along, I will change my view accordingly.

 

[thewheelman]

I am having a hard time believing Bryant purposely crossed oncoming traffic, putting himself, his wife and his car in jeopardy, to ram this guy into something. It is far more likely the cyclist grabbed the wheel while trying to get Bryant to stop and keep himself from falling under the moving car, and that action pulled the car over.

It is also just as likely that, while the cyclist was responsible for pulling the car into the eastbound side, Bryant then took the opportunity to "knock him off". sorry about the pun...

Sadly, with only Bryant left alive to testify, we may never know the truth.

 

[fuji]

In my view the case is much like this:

You are walking along the street and out of nowhere a mugger jumps out and assaults you, brandishing a weapon. You somehow manager to fight back, and punch the attacker so hard that he falls to the ground, now only semi-concious, lying on the sidewalk in front of you.

Are you entitled to jump on his head and kill him?

 

[fuji]

I am having a hard time believing Bryant purposely crossed oncoming traffic, putting himself, his wife and his car in jeopardy, to ram this guy into something.

Apparently there was no oncoming traffic, Bryant crossed over into an empty "oncoming" lane with no cars in it. The Star quoted some witnesses who said the car appeared to be under full control and attempting to wilfully brush the cyclist off.

If those witnesses are wrong and it's as you say that's different; I'm going on what's been reported.

 

[atherton_wing]

Yes, they have...

No one has given any evidence or testimony to this. The only thing said was the cyclist was hanging on to the car -- no said why. The other explanation that the cyciist was hanging to attack the driver.

Watch this Globe and Mail video of two eye witness accounts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/witnesses-describe-what-they-saw/article1271559/

 

[Malibook]

In my view the case is much like this:

You are walking along the street and out of nowhere a mugger jumps out and assaults you, brandishing a weapon. You somehow manager to fight back, and punch the attacker so hard that he falls to the ground, now only semi-concious, lying on the sidewalk in front of you.

Are you entitled to jump on his head and kill him?

Are you saying that Bryant knocked the guy off and while the guy was dazed Bryant backed up or turned around and ran him over?

 

[dirkstoned]

Truth,

Micheal bryant was an MP, attorney general. A man who if, chose to call police, would have assistance in less than 30 seconds. Especially if he announced who he was.

The news reports claim there was damage to the bicycle. How was the bicycle damaged ? Why did not the the former attorney general offer to repair this mans bike, offer assistance ?? Mr Bryant certainly has the money for such a good deed.

Micheal Bryant made laws against road rage, banning pit bulls. Is this a fatal car accident ?? or is this fatal circumstances ?? The very same person who made the law against "road rage", is now involved in the worst road rage altercation I think possible. Could the "laws" of "road rage" be challenged themselves in view of this new evidence??

What makes a man drive in to on coming traffic with a guy hanging on to his car ?? What makes a man control his vehicle to not notice a man hitting a mailbox, then a tree ?? Is this a flagrant disregard for human life ??
Then to leave the scene of an "accident" knowing a man has been injured ??

We must be careful in civilization how we choose to deal with a man who has made laws for civilization, yet has broken the very same laws he has created. Is this the kind of integrity we want our civilization to represent ??

The media has reported that Darci Allen Sheppard had 61 warrants in Alberta, was drinking the night he was killed.
How does the media justify attacking a man who has been a victim of vehicular manslaughter ? Is this suppose to justify Darci`s death ?? make it all right somehow ??

The truth is, a man was slaughtered by a public official, killed, murdered. Police released this man suggesting he is safe in our community. There has been no psychological examination for this determination based on the circumstances. Why has this man who has clearly demonstrated a lack of integrity, judgment, killing a member of society not a flight risk ??

Is Sgt Tim Burrows qualified to make this decision ?? Isn`t this a decision for the court to decide ?
Why is this public official getting special treatment for manslaughter ??

No matter how you view this, a public official has sacrificed integrity resulting in criminal behaviour each and every one of would be sitting in jail for, denied bail because you are a risk to the society, having to find every last dollar you have to defend yourself for intentionally slamming another man in to a mailbox, a tree, death.
This man should not be treated any differently.

This public official has identified to each of us that pit bulls, a dog of nature, is illegal. This man believes this dog is the threat, and not the person who trains the animal. This is not a display of a nature loving person, was Darci Allen Sheppard a nature loving person ??

What I can determine about Darci, he is a cyclists. I believe Darci left a much smaller carbon blue print on the environment then the public official who wasted our time making laws to break. I can determine from this that Darci appreciated nature and our environment more than this public official who didn`t have the decency to apologize, even if it wasn`t his fault, intentionally killing Darci, it`s called murder in the law books.

For each of you who loves paying taxes, loves the perfection of our government, loves that these people who operate this wonderful country, defend your public official.
For those of you who believe in real justice, do every thing you can to ensure that what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Those who break the laws they create, as far as I`m concerned, in this case, should do double the jail sentence. Isn`t it about making an example for all public officials and deterring those who choose to break the laws they enforce. Stop letting our public officials abuse our laws, our courts, send a message and help deter corrupt sociopath murderous behaviour.

This sounds like a rant by someone pissed off at the police and the government.

Waiiiitttt a minuuuute


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1061429#post1061429

 

[guelph]

Watch this Globe and Mail video of two eye witness accounts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/video/witnesses-describe-what-they-saw/article1271559/

.
Did you listen to whole video -- one witness clearly said the cyclist was trying to get the driver

 

[dirkstoned]

He absolutely did didn't he smart guy ! I'm glad the you feel the threat is over.
I hope you heal my friend, and I'm sorry for what happened to you.

thorby. dude. buddy. stop preaching to me. you were wronged. shit happens, sue or move on. if it wasnt your fault, did you sue? if not why? Those are things I would rather read about then what if your mom was your uncle? and what if my tits were on my ballsack?
and that begs the question...in 15 years of your ordeal, could you not find a good lawyer?

 

[Armagettin]

In my view the case is much like this:

You are walking along the street and out of nowhere a mugger jumps out and assaults you, brandishing a weapon. You somehow manager to fight back, and punch the attacker so hard that he falls to the ground, now only semi-concious, lying on the sidewalk in front of you.
Are you entitled to jump on his head and kill him?

Not if he is incapacitated as you say. That is not the case with the cyclist. The threat is still attached to your car. Your point that there is no threat as long as the car is moving is moot.

If a guy is chasing you with a knife. He can't possibly harm you as long as you keep running therefore you have no grounds to try to neutralize him. Bullshit. He is still a threat.

 

[lovelatinas]

I think the police let him drive home drunk so that they could kill him. The AG was hired to run him over and do the deed.

Conspiracy theory! Bryant will get off easy. High profile people always get off easy. If OJ was innocent Bryant should be too.

My opinion is that Al's (The Cylclist) temper is his own demise.

 

[carpaltunnel]

Thorbax,
There is no reporting anywhere that Bryant had been drinking. It would have been the first thing tested and all reports are concluding he was sober.
So, obviously you have some skin in the game and want to smear Bryant by making up facts that haven't as yet been reported, yet alone proven. In fact, everyone here is guilty of that to some degree because newspaper reports are notoriously unreliable.
The only reports on sobriety are against the deceased who appears to have been intoxicated and acting erratically that evening.
RIP for poor guy, but please stop re the booze allegations against Bryant - those tests would have been done already.

 

[atherton_wing]

Yes, I can hear...

.
Did you listen to whole video -- one witness clearly said the cyclist was trying to get the driver

Yes, I heard the witness state that. What that particularly means the witness did not clearly state. Perhaps the interviewer could have asked him.

Regardless, the driver used extremely aggressive force by deliberately trying to dislodge the man from the vehicle. According to the witness, the cyclist was holding on for dear life while Mr. Bryant drove up on the curb and sidewalk in order to hit both several trees and a mailbox.

As Fuji has clearly pointed out, if the guy was holding onto the car for dear life, then he was no longer a threat, thus the force used was excessive and he should be punished for that.

 

[thorbax]

This sounds like a rant by someone pissed off at the police and the government.

Waiiiitttt a minuuuute


https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1061429#post1061429

Thanks again for helping me to re-live 15 years of mistaken identity. in and out of jail, beaten by the police, witnessing murders. I hope this is making you feel better at my expense. What I have trouble understanding, is your need to belittle me further knowing I`ve been through 15 years of abuse ? I wish I could help you heal my friend. I wish for you to have a much better shot at life than I my friend. I hope that the changes I wish to make in the system will help benefit you. I hope what has happened to me, never happens to anyone else my friend.
The troubling part of all this, is I met people with your attitude in jail, I don`t see many like that on the outside. Reminds me how I miss the people inside. What was once comforting, is now disturbing. heal my friend.

 

[dirkstoned]

As Fuji has clearly pointed out, if the guy was holding onto the car for dear life, then he was no longer a threat, thus the force used was excessive and he should be punished for that.

Any lawyer will tell you that it will be pretty hard to make that distinction in the very short time this allhappened. And so they will look at the factors that the cops were called by the girlfriend. he was drunk. bryant wasnt. he made an aggresive move to words bryant and grabbed his car and possibly tried to grab him. he gunned it because he was scared....the rest...good luck there with your crusade...you and fuji and the wrongly jailed dude too