tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post3464990637289053316..comments2023-11-14T11:44:10.396-05:00Comments on The Legion of Decency: Sometimes The Dragon Winsjimhenshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07815834271470133872noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-24432188927251202522010-06-12T19:44:04.259-04:002010-06-12T19:44:04.259-04:00Please sign and promote/forward this petition seek...Please sign and promote/forward this petition seeking justice for Darcy Sheppard:<br /><br />http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/justice-for-darcy-sheppard/signatures.html<br /><br />Thank you<br /><br />Hume BaughUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02493574507179562807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-67394166631664230402010-06-05T21:05:06.647-04:002010-06-05T21:05:06.647-04:00As a car driver, I have been told and made to know...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 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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-82277916606169858282010-06-04T21:17:44.093-04:002010-06-04T21:17:44.093-04:00Michael Bryant should have been charged with failu...Michael Bryant should have been charged with failure to remain. In fact, there were two incidents of failure to remain. The first was when he knocked down the cyclist Darcy Sheppard. The second was when he knocked off pedestrian Darcy Sheppard. Once Sheppard had been knocked off the vehicle, Michael Bryant should have stopped his vehicle as soon as he crossed back to the proper side of the street. But he didn't, instead, he chose to drive around the corner out of sight of the crime scene (I would call it that, even though the police would call it an accident scene). There, out of sight, he let off his passenger who may have been running off with any kind of evidence connected to Michael Bryant's state of mind that night. If it was any other citizen, they would have been charged with failure to remain, and it would have been up to the court to decide whether his life had been in jeopardy or not at that moment. <br />Michael Bryant was traveling at high speeds through a construction zone. Why he wasn't charged with speeding is also not clear.<br />Bryant was the former AG. He and his wife are lawyers. If they were both in the car, then they knew exactly what they were doing when they parked out of view and the wife ran off before the police arrived. It seems like from the very beginning, Michael Bryant was receiving special treatment, and he barely spent 8 hours behind bars. He didn't even have to wait for a bail hearing before they let him out, which is highly unusual. I remember they made excuses for him indicating that there was no judge available, which seems odd. Were they all on vacation, and thus the justice system ground to a halt? How many other people were allowed to go home that week because all of the bail hearing judges were unavailable?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-52102386165048861632010-06-04T21:01:13.799-04:002010-06-04T21:01:13.799-04:00Why Michael Bryant will never see the inside of a ...Why Michael Bryant will never see the inside of a court room is clear: He's a liar and he's a murderer. If he had to testify under oath, then he'd also have to explain why he had a passenger who did not resemble his wife, and why that passenger took off after he stopped at the Hyatt hotel, before the police could take a statement from either Bryant or that person. Michael Bryant received special treatment right from the beginning. The police never administered a breathalyzer or blood test, even though the law states that once arrested, the alleged DUI must submit to the test or else they could be charged with resisting arrest. So how did Bryant get away with it? The police accepted his word that he didn't drink. Then we have to read through this executive summary that Peck wrote about how Darcy Sheppard had a high blood alcohol content, and this somehow was responsible for his behavior that night. But nothing was ever mentioned of what could have affected Bryant's judgment.<br />What has happened here is that Richard Peck, the man assigned to protect the victim, has in fact sentenced Darcy Sheppard to death. He appeared to be working for the defense team, or at least copied everything they came up with, and rather than question the data or even poke a stick at Bryant's character, his energy was focused at destroying Sheppard's character.<br />When we find out later the Peck was from BC and shared a similar background to Michael Bryant, it makes me wonder how hard they really tried to find an impartial attorney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-72149407167535295392010-06-02T20:44:33.731-04:002010-06-02T20:44:33.731-04:00The lights on the Saab may appear to flicker or ch...The lights on the Saab may appear to flicker or change intensity due to some tree leaves and branches overhanging there at the corner.<br />Some interesting points in the brief "Part of that investigation examined information provided to the Crown by the defence.""Defence disclosure included...as well as permitting the Crown to interview both Mr. Bryant and his wife, Ms. Abramovitch." "...observed a cyclist, who she later believed to be Mr. Sheppard""a man, later identified as Mr. Sheppard,...." Four photographs (we only were shown three). "A cyclist, later identified as Mr. Sheppard, ....""The motorist saw pictures of Mr. Sheppard in the media the following day and identified him as the cyclist she had seen the day before, ALTHOUGH SHE WAS NOT ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-77622809368723481122010-06-02T11:24:21.559-04:002010-06-02T11:24:21.559-04:00What I don't get about 'driving a block aw...What I don't get about 'driving a block away to call 911' is:<br /><br />Where the hell was his Cell phone?<br /><br />So, both he and his wife are out and neither one of them had a cell phone?<br /><br />Sounds weird to me... or that he wouldn't just stay at the scene and get the bystanders to call 911.<br /><br />More likely he panicked and didn't want his face seen in connection with the accident so he went to the hotel 'a block away' to call 911.<br /><br />Still seems like fleeing the scene of the crime to me.Brandon Larabyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012563539334788444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-20102127802213651622010-05-28T16:52:33.076-04:002010-05-28T16:52:33.076-04:00whole lot of conjecture here, you're no better...whole lot of conjecture here, you're no better than the special crown brought in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-963114988250185532010-05-28T16:45:54.399-04:002010-05-28T16:45:54.399-04:00"your argument as to "average" spee..."your argument as to "average" speed doesn't make much sense to me—for instance, if the car spent several seconds accelerating to 40km/h and then spent the rest of the time at that speed you could say that the average speed was around 35km/h over the 28 seconds or so"<br /><br />Except that it was more like 10.5 seconds that it took Bryant to cover the 100 meter distance. I believe we are left to assume the average speed of the vehicle was measured during this 10.5 second interval. If the car took several seconds to get up to the average speed, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the top speed was significantly higher than the "average speed" which was the figure provided. 68km/h? No, not likely that fast. But its certainly possible that he was traveling beyond the speed limit at the point of fatal impact.<br /><br />Does it much matter? No, since most of the defenders of Bryant's actions don't care if he was driving down the wrong side of the road in a construction zone with a man holding onto his car for dear life... because he was "in a state of fear and panic". So a few extra km/h isn't a deal breaker.<br /><br />What does come into question is why, in nearly every aspect, is the Crown's executive summary so incredibly skewed in the favour of the defense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-33797739529444411222010-05-28T14:50:54.760-04:002010-05-28T14:50:54.760-04:00FAILURE TO REMAIN
Jim - fair comment regarding my...FAILURE TO REMAIN<br /><br />Jim - fair comment regarding my assumption as to Bryant's thoughts. Only Bryant knows exactly what he was thinking before, during, and after the altercation. I shouldn't have presumed to know what was going through his head at the time in my reply.<br /><br />That said, I think that your comment about Sheppard being on the ground and "not a threat" ignores the general panic and confusion of a split-second "fight or flight" decision (flight from Sheppard, not from legal responsibility). Its unlikely that Bryant could have known the extent of Sheppard's injuries and determined that he was no longer a threat. All Bryant would have known for certain was that Sheppard was no longer holding on to his steering wheel. It was logical, and legal, for Bryant to put distance between himself and the perceived threat.<br /><br />He drove a safe distance (one block) away and then immediately called 911. Not ten minutes later, not ten hours later, immediately upon getting safely away from the situation. That is not indicative or typical behaviour of someone criminally fleeing an accident scene.<br /><br />It is notable that the police never charged Bryant with failure to remain. They didn't hesitate to charge him with two much more serious crimes, so this isn't an issue of preferential treatment (other aspects of the case may very well be) before the law. There is simply no factual evidence to support, and much to reject, this specific crime that you accuse him of.<br /><br />As I said in your previous post, there are some pretty compelling questions/issues raised in the rest of your article. The failure to remain accusation, though, simply isn't one of them.<br /><br />Anonymous (my name is actually Jim as well, strangely enough)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-44132753959441966052010-05-28T14:20:13.707-04:002010-05-28T14:20:13.707-04:00Great, great take.
I also think it's not as ...Great, great take. <br /><br />I also think it's not as one-sided and clear cut as Bryant being innocent. <br /><br />Sure there may be enough reasonable doubt to drop charges, given all the facts. <br /><br />But Bryant is not innocent of his part in this at all. <br /><br />I also can't get over the so-called "second stall". It's as absurd as Kennedy's "magic bullet" theory. Sorry, that's not a stall. That's an acceleration. <br /><br />Was it intentional? I think he was afraid, and trying to hit the brakes. <br /><br />But it's interesting to note he was an amateur boxer. Certainly not a characeristic that would make one flee a conflict. <br /><br />I agree the situation stinks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-87727775817828447502010-05-28T14:06:56.198-04:002010-05-28T14:06:56.198-04:00I've read so many sides of this from the persp...I've read so many sides of this from the perspective of people who want to support cyclists and from those who want to support drivers. As a cyclist I know now to mess around in traffic... it's dangerous. On the rare occasion when I'm driving I also know that I am in a giant potentially lethal weapon and need to take care around cyclists and pedestrians. <br /><br />The sad truth of this case is that both of them were at fault and took actions that endangered lives. The only live that was at the greatest risk was the one on the bike however.<br /><br />I believe both participants are guilty and Shepperd has already more then paid for his share of the blame, with his life. Now Bryant should be paying for his guilty actions.<br /><br />So many people try to paint one person as the innocent party in this tragedy but there isn't one.GreyZonenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-64009449759292880052010-05-28T13:51:33.800-04:002010-05-28T13:51:33.800-04:00Some responses...
The average speed: I just did a...Some responses...<br /><br />The average speed: I just did a simple math calculation using what three numbers would give you 34 as an "average" over the incredibly short 28 second time span.<br /><br />Bike bells and whistles: <br /><br />Thanks for the update. I'm only going on personal experience. If there are rules about bikes having lights and bells in Toronto, it sure isn't enforced. Same with all the stop sign and illegal pass regulations.<br /><br />Failure to remain:<br /><br />You obviously know the ins and outs of the law "Anonymous", but you also seem confident in what Michael Bryant was thinking at the time.<br /><br />At the point where he "failed to remain" he had run down a cyclist, the "victim" was on the ground and not a threat. Yet he took off.<br /><br />Are you certain he wasn't fleeing "criminal or civil liability" at that point? <br /><br />Yes, he stopped and called in the accident after Mr. Sheppard had been killed. An attempt to do the right thing or a realization that the street was full of witnesses and a guy being dragged by a car is something people tend to notice?<br /><br />Had there been a trial we might have learned the truth of his motives. Since there won't be one I'm just saying that there's a remaining doubt.<br /><br />Inconsistent witnesses:<br /><br />I've attended trials where witnesses offered three or four versions of events. The job of the court and the jury is to decide whom they believe when weighing their testimony against the physical evidence. Often judges will caution a jury that a witness is contradicting other evidence.<br /><br />But the special prosecutor chose to believe all of those who said they had run-ins with Darcy Sheppard and none who were at the scene of the crime.<br /><br />Doesn't that strike you as "inconsistent" on his part? <br /><br />According to newspaper reports this morning one of Darcy Sheppard's accusors has now said he's "not sure" if it was the same guy.<br /><br />Maybe all the evidence should have been weighed in court. Conviction or no, justice would have been seen to be done. And sometimes that perception means more than the final verdict.jimhenshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07815834271470133872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-39498863150138364142010-05-28T13:00:44.438-04:002010-05-28T13:00:44.438-04:00In one of the other camera views the headlights do...In one of the other camera views the headlights do indeed dim.<br /><br />Also, with regard to your comment about no one overhearing the confrontation in the photograph, there is an article in the Star that quotes witnesses (including one of Sheppard's friends) who were within earshot of the BMW confrontation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-28094445639204882412010-05-28T12:08:22.393-04:002010-05-28T12:08:22.393-04:00First, the "30 year old case" is hardly ...First, the "30 year old case" is hardly obscure. The topic is covered in a basic class in evidence law. Second, it's also not clear to me that the prosecutor shared any info with the defence. All that's been said is that the defence shared its info with the Crown. Third, your argument as to "average" speed doesn't make much sense to me—for instance, if the car spent several seconds accelerating to 40km/h and then spent the rest of the time at that speed you could say that the average speed was around 35km/h over the 28 seconds or so. Last, I'm not sure what page of the Executive Summary you're on re the "inconsistent" witnesses but it does sound to me like the witnesses were at least inconsistent with the forensic evidence on some points, which is a little more important than inconsistency between stories. As to that, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That their inconsistency shouldn't be a bar to I trial? I agree, but I don't think that Peck dismissed their stories out of hand—rather, he probably considered the resulting probative value of the statements, and their predicted effect on a Court, and decided it was a losing hand. Which is something that someone who has worked both in defence and as a prosecutor would be positioned to know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-21272248425674097732010-05-28T11:06:37.740-04:002010-05-28T11:06:37.740-04:00A fairly solid analysis until you (as many others ...A fairly solid analysis until you (as many others have) accuse Bryant of the criminal act of not remaining at the scene of an accident.<br /><br />It is possible that Bryant violated the equivalent Highway Traffic Act section, however it only becomes a criminal matter if the individual flees the scene to avoid criminal or civil liability in the matter. As Bryant only drove one block away and immediately called 911, there was clearly no attempt to evade and thus no criminal act.<br /><br />This is why Bryant was never charged with failure to remain (the two charges were criminal negligence causing death, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death).<br /><br />Much of this case is murky, however Bryant's actions after Sheppard fell seem to be fairly clear and supportable. You do not have to remain at an accident scene if you have legitimate fear for your personal safety. Bryant, likely not knowing the extent of Sheppard's injuries, drove a safe distance and then reported the incident. There was nothing wrong, morally or legally, with that specific action.<br /><br />You raise some interesting questions (particularly regarding the lights on the Saab), however you undermine your overall analysis by making statements / accusations that are completely unsupportable in law.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-84214094091583349362010-05-28T11:06:37.739-04:002010-05-28T11:06:37.739-04:00Wow. This article really should run (in a perfect ...Wow. This article really should run (in a perfect world) in the mainstream press. <br /><br />Similarly, <br /><br />my GF and I were watching a doc on the London Punk scene the other day, and lamenting that a whole new genre of music was created (and isn't all new music?) out of protest to the exploitation of the poor by the rich. <br /><br />Lamenting because we were hard-pressed to think of an equivalent form of protest today. <br /><br />"They must be slaves (poor) so we can be free (rich)..."<br /><br />Is a terrible philosophy for the human race.<br /><br />You're the Charles Bronson (Paul Kersey) of today Jim, Don't Ever Give Up!<br /><br />Tadpoles like me need someone to look up to ;)Rusty Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16143817211151177797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-75645131350013571212010-05-28T11:01:16.393-04:002010-05-28T11:01:16.393-04:00This condition that you describe is called plutocr...This condition that you describe is called plutocracy, oligarchy and plutarchy. This is what some have been seeing as happening these days.<br />Divide and conquer has been used on most people where there is no unity between people to do anything because they have been broken into submission and helplessness against the system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-84123636991698248692010-05-28T10:47:27.572-04:002010-05-28T10:47:27.572-04:00Good analysis.
However, you do mention that bike ...Good analysis.<br /><br />However, you do mention that bike lights and bells are not required in Toronto. Not true; there's many different fines that relate to bikes in Toronto, including those to do with lights and bells.<br /><br />http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/pdf/hta.pdfmochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02214299043496250659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-20935994693470302482010-05-28T10:00:56.164-04:002010-05-28T10:00:56.164-04:00You're right, it is their world now. Maybe it ...You're right, it is their world now. Maybe it always was, maybe some of us got to visit if we played nice, I don't know.<br /><br />But I find it interesting that the low chance of getting a conviction was the same excuse used to drop the charges against Rahim Jaffer as well.<br /><br />We have a lot of cop shows on TV, but these days if someone did a show about crown attornies they might be very surprised how big a factor the chance of conviction and the cost of a conviction plays. <br /><br />It's changed over the past twenty years, quietly, behind the scenes without many of us noticing.<br /><br />As a "connected guy's" lawyer said to a cop I know, "You guys have to understand, you don't have the resources to go after this kind of criminal anymore."John McFetridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09442198820998606682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-28489626759872124832010-05-28T09:46:28.175-04:002010-05-28T09:46:28.175-04:00Thanks for writing this. It articulates the frustr...Thanks for writing this. It articulates the frustration at this situation very well. If the man i innocent, so be it, but we'll never know until a jury and judge say so.<br /><br />I thought the Rule of Law was what made our justice system work. As a lifetime cyclist whose been hit by automobiles twice, both times in which the drivers were in clear violation of traffic laws, I want to know what my rights are on the road. Very few, apparently.jack oatmonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03682474615802974355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34798599.post-7512784457276937012010-05-28T09:37:53.299-04:002010-05-28T09:37:53.299-04:00First of all, great perspective. I'm a long t...First of all, great perspective. I'm a long time driver of manual transmission vehicles, and I am deeply skeptical of Bryant's explanation of events. Interesting to hear, although not surprise, that you didn't have difficulties with your Saab. Of course I would assume that a mandatory recall would have to be in order if Bryant's accusations were even remotely accurate. <br /><br />I too noticed that the use of <b>average</b> speed was conveniently misleading in an effort at identifying a top speed. I wanted to know how exactly you calculated the 68km/h? This would in fact corroborate the multiple eyewitness reports that Bryant was speeding (reports which were all but discounted by the Crown).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com