It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bizarre Dragging Death in Toronto

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Apparently a PR guerrilla war has started via the internet attempting to offset the mainstream media's pre-emptive strikes against Darcy Sheppard, the cyclist killed in a traffic mishap involving former Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant.

Surveillance video of the so called "minor incident" which initiated the sequence leading to Sheppard's death has been posted on YouTube. Just looking at it, the question arises in my mind, should the police have conducted a breathalyzer test on Bryant?

The video presenter's comments on City TV's handling of the clip in their broadcast are notable.



This is a cut from security camera footage showing the car driven by former Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant ramming cyclist Darcy Allan Sheppard, immediately prior to Sheppard's death from being dragged down the street, colliding with obstacles and being run over.

This footage appears to be the initial "minor accident" reported in the media. I estimate that Sheppard was pushed along the ground for over a car length.

This footage is from a single report on City News; however it was not presented in such a concise and condemning manner. I am concerned that this footage has been available from very early on, but has been obfuscated thru editing decisions. This has contributed to confusion and possibly unwarranted slander towards Mr. Sheppard, and unfairly protects Bryant from being depicted in a negative manner.




Here's a better version of it. This looks very damning for Bryant.



Eyewitness audio describes Sheppard "holding on for dear life" as Bryant accelerated his vehicle.



Here are two filmed eyewitness interviews:




[edit on 19-9-2009 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 19-9-2009 by ipsedixit]




posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Here's a hypothetical situation for the legal experts out there. Suppose one were to commit an offense like careless operation of a vehicle in which one pushed a cyclist for about ten feet or so and then knocked his bycycle over and ran over it's wheel and one then tried to flee the scene of this infraction and in the process of trying to flee, used one's vehicle to kill someone trying to stop one.

Doesn't the above consist of a number of separate offenses?

1. Careless operation of a vehicle.

2. Failure to remain at the scene of an accident.

3. Criminal negligence in the operation of a vehicle (speeding and going down the wrong side of the street and onto the sidewalk while dragging a pedestrian).

4. Assault and battery with the vehicle during the period of driving on the sidewalk.

5. Either criminal negligence causing death or manslaughter.

6. Failure to remain at the scene of an accident.

I'm troubled by the notion that if you kill someone in the process of commiting an offense, (fleeing the scene of an accident) that this could be seen as "criminal negligence causing death". Surely there is an element of premeditation here, not to commit murder but certainly to assault Mr. Sheppard in an effort to get away.

Another thing that bothers me about this is that recently in Toronto a guy driving an odd looking truck retrofitted to burn alcohol as fuel was arrested by police who thought his fuel delivery system was a bomb. He was kept overnight in a cell and sent for psychiatric assessment.

Meanwhile Bryant walks out of jail after having changed into a power suit after a few hours of questioning (or was it after a few hours of sobering up?) with no breathalyzer test and no psychiatric assessment.

Do we have a two tiered legal system in Ontario?



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
this is beyond sickening.
bryant clearly assaulted the cyclist. the bike was in front of him, and i guess, was refusing to move, so bryant RAN HIM OVER ON PURPOSE! and, then , he backed up, and tried to get away. that is HIT AND RUN, ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON (and willful destruction of property).
all the character assassination going on in the papers and radio talk shows COMPLETELY IGNORES this blatant criminal act, focusing on the fact that a wild-eyed drunken cyclist was aggressively hanging onto the side of the car.
and, then, they let bryant walk away. he should be in jail, and he should be up on more charges than the ones they have charged him with. i say first degree murder.
unfortunately, there is no law that applies to the lawmakers.


[edit on 19-9-2009 by billybob]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Charges against the former Attorney General of Ontario (a little known province of Canada) were dropped yesterday, surpassing the ominous expectations of even the most hardened observers of the Canadian governing class.

Here is a precis of the prosecutor's reasons for acting as he did.

www.thestar.com...


If the prosecution determines there is no reasonable prospect of conviction then the charge must be withdrawn, Peck told the judge Tuesday morning in a courtroom packed with reporters.

“This case falls short of that standard and I’ll explain why,” he said.

Peck said on the night of the incident, Bryant and his wife, Susan Abramovitch, were driving west along Bloor St. in a 1995 Saab convertible around 9:30 p.m. Their evening began with dinner at a Lebanese restaurant on College St., a walk in the Beach and dessert on the Danforth before they headed home to see their two young children. They were celebrating their 12th wedding anniversary and drank no alcohol.

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.

While continuing westbound on Bloor St., Bryant came to a red light at a pedestrian crossing between Bay and Avenue Rd.

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.

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.

“At this point, Mr. Bryant describes himself as being in a state of panic. He says that Mr. Sheppard was becoming enraged.”

When Bryant got the car restarted, it accelerated into Sheppard causing him to land on the hood. Bryant hit the brakes and the cyclist fell, but stood up and did not appear at that point to be seriously injured.

Bryant reversed and then tried to drive forward around the bicycle.

“Mr. Sheppard threw his backpack, which struck either the hood or windshield and bounced onto Bloor St.,” Peck said. “Mr. Sheppard then jumped onto the vehicle as it drove away.”


Readers of this statement will be puzzed with the prosecutor's recitation of the events that led up to the death of the cyclist killed by Mr. Bryant. They seem to be different from events recorded on videotape of the incident.

People who have read this thread and seen the embedded video will realize what I am talking about.



There is a link to a .pdf file of the prosecutor's decision to drop charges on the following page.

www.thestar.com...

Signs of a decision like this were present from the beginning of the case when charges of leaving the scene of an accident were not even laid by the authorities.

Does Ontario have a two tiered justice system? You decide.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Does Ontario have a two tiered justice system? You decide.


I read Rosie DeManno's piece in the Star today,(www.thestar.com...) and she is more of a sort to challenge the system than to massage it. She presents a pretty good case for wrong people, wrong place, wrong time. Even the dead guy's father seems to feel justice has been done, though a trial would appear more transparent.

The thought is, would Joe Average get the same break? I like to think so. Should Bryant be put through a wringer strictly to make a dog and pony show of equality before the law? Would that in itself create a second tier of treatment?

Two thoughts...if it happened in Miami, Darcy Sheppard would have had his head blown off, and nobody would have blinked.
Second, adding apparent mental illness and addiction issues to the mix simply contributes to an already sad story.

I'm pretty skeptical of a lot...but I find I can't yet write this off as 'Rich puke gets away with it'.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Second, adding apparent mental illness and addiction issues to the mix simply contributes to an already sad story.


Correct. It contributes by biasing a jury.

You'll note that questions about Bryant's character are completely absent from the decision, and that questions about him potentially having rage issues or control issues that may have similarly swayed a jury have also been absent from the media coverage.

I guess that's what happens when the Crown is represented by someone famous for representing lawyers.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
At the moment I am going through the crown attorney's statement with a fine tooth comb, syllable by syllable and I will be posting a detailed examination of it.

But for the moment, I want to say that people interested in this case should take a careful look at the second embedded video, the one entitled Raw Footage - No Commentary and note that Mr. Sheppard appears to have been standing in a bicycle lane in front of Mr. Bryant's car, which was parked/standing(?) at the curb just prior to the incident. There appears to be a bicycle lane marking visible at 00:54 of the video.

Take careful note of the movements of Mr. Bryant's car and ask yourself if he should have been given a breathalyzer test. The Crown Attorney, in his statement assures us that Mr. and Mrs. Bryant were out celebrating their 12th anniversary and had consumed no alcohol.

I'm sure the Crown Attorney is a man of stirling character and that Mr. Bryant's assurances that he had not been drinking would be more than enough to satisfy Mr. Bryant's children, but all the same, I think a breathalyzer test should have been done.

The ensuing mayhem perpetrated by the accused is an awful lot to ascribe to simple fear of the belligerant Mr. Sheppard and panic by the former Attorney General.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The Crown Attorney's statement outlining why he dropped the charges against former Attorney General of Ontario, Michael Bryant, is front loaded with a recitation of Bryant's victim's criminal record, his psychiatric record and several luridly detailed examples of incidents, one where he was photographed and others where he is alleged to have done a variety of moronic, even despicable things during road rage incidents on his bicycle.

The Crown is stating that he believes that Bryant's defense attorneys would succeed in having this record read into evidence and possibly have witness testimony to aggressive and belligerant behavior on the part of Mr. Sheppard. The effect of this "evidence" would be to support statements which Mr. Bryant would make portraying Mr. Sheppard as an aggressive, frightening individual, who caused him to panic, and try to flee, a course of action which lead to Mr. Sheppard's death.

People are more familiar with the case of a rape victim who is villified by the accused's defense attorney and turned into the villain of the piece because she is a prostitute or a sexually promiscuous person who is also a known liar. It's the old contention that it's impossible to rape a lying whore.

The Crown Attorney has decided that defense attorneys working for Mr. Bryant would succeed in making any jury believe that Mr. Sheppard was a very scary person, who, when riled, would make any Attorney General, not just Mr. Bryant, run for his life. What followed, Mr. Sheppard's death, was simply a function of his amply attested scariness.

The key point being that Mr. Bryant panicked and fled because Mr. Sheppard was a scary guy.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I'm still looking at the Crown Attorney's statement, but I wanted to amend something I was speculating on in an earlier post.

Looking at the video footage of the incident I said that it seemed as if some of the action may have happened in a bicycle lane in the road at that location, but now I think that Bryant was in the most central westbound lane on Bloor St. at that point and that Sheppard had come westbound along the street in the central eastbound lane, against the flow of traffic, before he cut in front of Bryant, whose car was stopped at that point.

Apologies to all and sundry, but it must be remembered that the Crown Attorney's office chose trial by internet.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
The shade of of one's of the world's most famous defense attorney's appears out of the void.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the nonexistent jury. I know you are surprised to see a person like myself appearing out of the pages of history. You are saying to yourselves, "Clarence Darrow! My goodness. Why would a big time defense attorney make an appearance at a trial like this in a little one horse town like Toronto and even more surprising why would he appear for the prosecution!"

"Well, the answer to that is simple. First of all, imperfect as it is, I love the law. When I see it's time honoured processes being subverted, I do the best I can to intervene. The victim of the hit and run which is the subject of this trial, has, in my opinion, been put on trial himself, and has been convicted of behavior, which I contend, he did not commit."

"What's more, any prosecuting attorney worth his salt, would know that to be the case, simply by observing the videotape of the initial incident, which only took a matter of seconds, during which, my client, the victim in this encounter, was most likely either bumped or tailgated to within an inch or so of being bumped by a vehicle driven by the former Attorney General of the province. During those few seconds, and they were very few, it is quite likely that my client, the deceased Mr. Sheppard, turned to remonstrate to Mr. Bryant. He likely shouted at him that he had been bumped or that Mr. Bryant was tailgating him too closely and to back off."

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that portion of the incident was over quicker than it took you to listen to me speaking those words. I am not saying that Mr. Sheppard was not vulgar and rude. But I know that he didn't bang on Mr. Bryant's vehicle with his fist, and sitting on his bicycle turning to look back at Mr. Bryant in his car, I submit that it would be very awkward to spit effectively from that position. He also didn't chase after Mr. Bryant on his bicycle. He didn't destroy Mr. Bryant's side view mirror or knock out a headlight or really do anything, other than turn around in the saddle of his bicycle and yes, very likely swear and curse."

"Now he may have wanted to do all those things. He may have been looking forward to the next few minutes in which he would have done all those things. But he didn't actually do any of them. There was no time to do them anyway, because after fumbling in an attempt to drive away, Mr. Bryant stalled his vehicle, re-started it, according to the Crown Prosecutor, and then ran Mr. Sheppard over, or would have if Mr. Sheppard had not been on his bicycle and been pushed along ahead of Mr. Bryant's car for thirty feet."

"Now unless Mr. Bryant's defense attorneys and the Crown Prosecutor, acting in tandem, are saying that Mr. Bryant had access to Mr. Sheppard's history, at that moment, and was using it to aid him in deciding to flee from Mr. Sheppard, which is not the case, then it is your duty to disregard completely, the notion that Mr. Sheppard's past conduct, something that Mr. Bryant knew nothing about, could have been a factor in Mr. Bryant's decision to flee from Mr. Sheppard."

"Mr. Sheppard's past is simply not relevant. It could not have influenced Mr. Bryant's decision that evening, because he did not know about it."

None of that sort of behavior had occurred.

Angry words were spoken, yes, undoubtedly. Sadly, that is a fact of driving on the congested roads of our cities. Some of you may have shouted at other motorists. Some more may have been shouted at. Some of you may have fled the scene, frightened. How many of you pushed a cyclist thirty feet in your car, knocking his bicycle over, then steered around him and continued your flight? Because of a few angry words spoken by a man you knew nothing about?"

"That's fear, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. That is indeed, fear, but fear of what? There wasn't enough cause from the incident itself, to be afraid of Mr. Sheppard. So what was Mr. Bryant afraid of? I wonder. Maybe the Crown prosecutor will come to that in his statement. I'll have to look further into it."

Darrow's shade vanishes.


[edit on 27-5-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Darrow's shade materializes in the corridor outside the courtroom, looking a little bewildered. A group of reporters spots him and rushes up to him.

Darrow: "Would any of you be able to direct me to a restaurant where I might get a ham sandwich and a beer? I don't often get a chance nowadays to . . ."

Reporter: "Mr. Darrow I'm with the Toronto Star and I wonder if I could get your comments on a story we are running . . ."

Darrow: "Ah, the Toronto Star. Ernest Hemingway wrote for the Star at one time, did he not?"

Reporter: "That's right."

Darrow: "Not only was he an eminent writer but also an eminent journalist."

Reporter: "Yes. I guess you could say that we are the heirs of Hemingway, at the Star."

Darrow: "Those are big shoes to fill."

Reporter: "Yes. Mr. Darrow, the Star is running a story today that states that legal experts have said that the Crown was justified in dropping charges against Mr. Bryant."

Darrow: "Are they, indeed?"

Reporter: "Yes and I was wondering if you would care to comment on their opinions."

Darrow: "Legal experts, oh dear. Colleagues. Hmm, I suppose I could say something. I'm not likely to run into any of them."

Reporter: "Well they have given three reasons why the Crown was justified in dropping the charges."

Darrow: "Interesting. What were the reasons?"

Reporter: "The first reason was the decision to hire an independant prosecutor. The second was that prosecutor's decision to give a very detailed public analysis of what lead to the charges being withdrawn. And the third was the defence's decision to share it's strategy and evidence with the prosecution in advance of a trial, including allowing the defendant and his wife to be interviewed by the Crown."

Darrow: "Those were the reasons, the reasons given by the legal experts?"

Reporter: "Yes."

Darrow: "Ha, ha. That's amusing."

Reporter: "Sir?"

Darrow: "Are you sure these "experts" were legal experts, or were they public relations experts?"

Reporter: "Legal sir."

Darrow: "And the Star printed this story?"

Reporter: "Yes sir."

Darrow: "Oh dear. I will have to speak to Hemingway about this."

Darrow's shade vanishes again.

Quotations from the following story were used in putting this post together.

www.thestar.com...


[edit on 27-5-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Darrow's shade appears in a local bar, startling the Star reporter, who is trying to grab a light liquid lunch while tapping away on his laptop. He wants to use the restaurant's WiFi internet capability to send in a story about his encounter with Darrow at the courthouse.

Darrow: "Err . . ."

Star Reporter: "Yikes!!! Mr. Darrow!" He almost spills his drink. "You scared me."

Darrow: "Err . . . yes, I see that. Please accept my apology. I didn't mean to startle you. I realize . . . "

Star Reporter: "I'm not used to this sort of thing."

Darrow: "Neither am I to be perfectly frank. Err . . . what is that thing." He points to the laptop.

Star Reporter: "My laptop."

Darrow: "Laptop. What is that exactly."

Star Reporter: "It's like a typewriter that doesn't use paper. Instead the words appear in this little window, see?" He points to the computer screen.

Darrow proceeds to ask numerous questions about computers and finally understands the wireless capabilities of the computer and the fact that the internet is like a post office, library, newspaper and theatre all rolled into one. The reporter even shows him some funny cat videos on YouTube. Darrow is delighted.

Darrow: "May I try?"

Star Reporter: "Of course." He pushes the laptop in front of Darrow, who taps a couple of words into the search box on the YouTube page . . . drunk drivers.

He spent the next half hour or so watching videos of drunk drivers on YouTube.

Here is the first one he watched:



When Darrow had seen the video, he turned to the reporter and asked him, "Why didn't he stop?"

Star Reporter: "I don't know."

Darrow: "I do."

Star Reporter: "Why?"

Darrow: "Look at this one."



Darrow: "Why didn't he stop?"

Star reporter: "I don't know."

Darrow: "Look at this one, ask yourself why she didn't stop, except after ten or so attempts to park and when someone came to her aid. Take careful note of her movements after she gets out of the car."



Star Reporter: "She's drunk."

Darrow: "Yes. She's drunk. Look at this one."



Darrow: "Why didn't she stop?"

Star Reporter: "She was drunk."

Darrow: "Drunks don't stop. They never stop until they get where they want to go or until they are stopped."

Star Reporter: "You think Bryant was drunk."

Darrow: "Look at the video of him, his inability to control his car, the distance he pushed my client before he hit the brake. What do you think?"

Star Reporter: "The Crown said that he wasn't drunk."

Darrow: "No. The Crown said that he and his wife had been out celebrating their 12th anniversary and had consumed no alcohol."

Star Reporter: "You don't believe that."

Darrow: "We know the blood alcohol content of the victim in this case. He was too drunk to drive. But we don't know the blood alcohol content of Mr. Bryant because, although he was taken to the police station and questioned for six hours, there was no breathalyzer test done on him, at least no results were announced for him, to my knowledge."

Star Reporter: "Jesus Christ . . ."

Darrow: "If you were plastered drunk how long would it take you to sober up?"

Star Reporter: Staring at him. "I don't know, maybe a few hours. I'd just sleep it off overnight."

Darrow: "Suppose you were not that drunk. Maybe just a little tipsy. Just drunk enough to have trouble with the controls of your car?"

Star Reporter: "Maybe two or three hours. I could probably pass a breathalyzer test after two or three hours."

Darrow: "Maybe. But six hours would sober you up, right? Six hours in a police station."

Star Reporter: "No question about it, if I wasn't that drunk."

Darrow: "And if you had gone into the police station too drunk to pass a breathalyzer test, after four or five hours of questioning it might be time for the test to be done. At that time you probably would be able to pass the test and walk out proudly and confidently and be able to look people in the eye and say that you had passed the test. Right?"

Star Reporter: "Riiight."

Darrow: "If you actually ran into someone, a real person, in your car, if you were drunk, would you stop?"

Star Reporter: "If I knew that the person wasn't hurt and I had reason, career maybe, or unsure if I could pass a breathalyzer test, not to want to be involved in answering questions from the police, maybe I would run for it."

Darrow: "That's very calculating. But there are security cameras everywhere in downtown Toronto. Wouldn't that deter you."

Star Reporter: "Maybe."

Darrow: "If you were drunk?"

Star Reporter: "Drunks never stop."

Darrow: "That's right. Drunks never stop."

Darrow's shade vanishes again.

The Star reporter stared down at his laptop. He was shaking his head. Darrow was a legend. A real criminal defense attorney, acting for the prosecution. Thank goodness the opposite never happened.

He started typing like a madman.


[edit on 28-5-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
If the driver had a handgun he could have shot the bicycle freak in the head. That would have been cleaner.

I side with the driver. He was obviously attacked by a bicycle freak and thought his life was in danger. He had to defend himself and attempt to remove the bicycle freak from his vehicle.

Why would a bicycle freak be hanging on the side of a car anyway? They are morons. The freak got what he deserved. End of case.

I'd be an awesome King. My kingdom would rule!



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire
 

You might be right. My point is not that Bryant is guilty of anything, so much as that the incident should be the subject of a trial in court, not a committee meeting in the Attorney General's office.

I think a prosecution case can be made in this affair. What's happening seems to be an abandonment of the adversarial system in this instance. I don't think that's a good thing.

It could even be a step toward a kingdom like the one you describe.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
The shade of Clarence Darrow appears again in the courtroom, looking shamefaced. His friend, the reporter from the Toronto Star, rushes up to him.

Star Reporter: "Mr. Darrow! You're back. Are you ready for your summation?"

Darrow: He looks down and away before answering. He finally turns to look at the young reporter. His face laden with an immense grief.

"Yes. I am ready. I have it written. I think it makes the case that Mr. Bryant was inebriated on the fatal night. I have new material that we haven't discussed. I believe it is decisive."

Star Reporter: "I don't know what to say. If this is true, it is going to shake things up considerably."

Darrow: "I'm not going to give the summation."

Star Reporter: "What!!!"

Darrow: "I've been summoned. I'm to appear before a legal ethics committee chaired by Hammurabi and I must return immediately. I am charged with legal malpractice."

Star Reporter: "What! You can't be serious."

Darrow: "I am serious and so is Hammurabi. Solon is on the committee, so I might have some sort of chance of escaping censure. Hammurabi alone would have me on the rack for 10,000 years."

Star Reporter: "This has to be some kind of joke."

Darrow: "It's not. The mills of the gods grind slowly where I come from, but they grind exceedingly fine."

Star Reporter: "I don't believe this. Uh . . . what have they accused you of? You're the best defense attorney that ever lived."

Darrow: "That is not true. There are many unheralded attorneys who simply didn't get the big cases."

Star Reporter: Shakes his head. "What are you charged with?"

Darrow: "Practicing without the approval of the Ontario Bar Association."

Star Reporter: "What! How could you be expected to be listed with the Ontario Bar Association?"

Darrow: "I know. I think it's simply a means of keeping deceased lawyers from practicing."

Star Reporter: "Mr. Darrow, come on! What about this case, your client, Mr. Sheppard?"

Darrow: "I'm sorry about that. I have to leave immediately! But listen to me carefully.

I'll give you what you need to make the case against the former Attorney General. I'm forbidden from putting the full power of my oratory behind what I am going to say, but you will know what I was going to say if you think carefully, methodically and deeply about it.

It involves the number two.

Bryant does something twice in the following video, within the first 20 seconds of the video that proves by logical deduction, that he was inebriated.

In my summation I lay it out and also lay out the reasons why all other explanations for what he does twice are not valid.

Star Reporter: "Please Mr. Darrow! Make the summation! Please! I'm a reporter for the Star. I can't think for myself!"

Darrow: Looking skyward. "Hammurabi is right. This is not our place."

The shade of a great man of Law vanished.

The Star Reporter went to YouTube to try and figure out what Darrow meant by twice . . . 2 times . . . something done twice and why the doing of it twice in the first 20 seconds of the following video was so important and revealing of the blood alcohol content of Mr. Bryant.







[edit on 30-5-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
awesome work, ipsidixet!
you're a great writer, and an observant person. i totally think bryant was drunk, too.
his car stalling story is hearsay. a rich guy with a late model luxury car, and it keeps stalling? BS. he intentionally hit sheppard, it's clear, and then tried to flee the scene of the crime.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
awesome work, ipsidixet!
you're a great writer, and an observant person. i totally think bryant was drunk, too.
his car stalling story is hearsay. a rich guy with a late model luxury car, and it keeps stalling? BS. he intentionally hit sheppard, it's clear, and then tried to flee the scene of the crime.


Just to say...I can see stalling a standard if I'm freaked. However, this decision still needs to be scrutinised. The litmus, though, may well be that the father acknowledged, however sadly, that he was satisfied with the process.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
why would he be freaked if the bike was in front of him?
i don't buy it. i watch those videos, and listen to the eyewitnesses, and i see a man purposely running over a cyclist. it seems like once you're in the old boys club, you can literally get away with murdering someone in public, and walk away scott free.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The driver sounds a little mentally unstable to have reacted this maniacally.

There is no mention of a weapon.

I think this is manslaughter.
I think this driver is missing some marbles.

This driver is a endangerment to every other driver, pedestrian, & cyclist out there.
He is wacko.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Bryant got off because Sheppard had a history of hanging off/climbing into people's car and going bonkers on them.

Darcy Allan Sheppard taunted other drivers before Michael Bryant: photos

Those photos (taken less than a month before his death) are referenced in the decision to drop the charges and there were six witnesses who had encounters smiliar to that described by Bryant with him.

That doesn't make his death less sad, but I don't think Bryant got off because of the 'old boys club'. He got off because his defense of being terrified and Sheppard trying to climb in his car and grab the wheel became plausible once the other people came forward.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join