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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
even if sheppard was a scary aggresive a-hole, a dragging death is an overreaction, sorry. there should be at least a negligence or careless charge. for him to walk away completely unpunished is a crime.
i still say a regular joe wouldn't have gotten off so easily.




posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


I look at it as similar to those kids on skateboards who grab onto your bumper when you're driving along the street. Dangerous, stupid and if they get killed, people will blame the driver. Your first reaction is to slam on the brakes to shake them off, but you can't because then they will get seriously injured and you'll get blamed even more.

The video isn't good enough to tell if he grabbed onto the car or if he was hit and dragged (second time).



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
he scraped him off the car with a mailbox.
ewww.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Or Mr. Sheppard was holding onto the steering wheel and Mr. Bryant wasn't in full control of the vehicle at that point.

There's the rub. It's almost a 'he said, she said' kind of thing at that point except for they are both men and one of them is dead and unable to give his side of the story in court. Add 6 witness claiming Mr. Sheppard accosted them in a similar matter and video that isn't clear enough to tell whose hands were on the wheel and you've got reasonable doubt.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
enh. fair enough, lol!
love canada.
G20 rocks on!!



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
It is now the first few minutes of August 18, 2012. Almost three years since the incident, which is the subject of this thread, occurred.

The current issue of MacLeans's Magazine (the Time Magazine of Canada) has a cover story "exclusive" in which, we are told, "Michael Bryant tells his story for the first time." Michael Bryant is not the deceased victim of the incident discussed above. As Martin Short would say, in voice as Gary Cooper, "Forget him. He's dead."

No. Michael Bryant is the deador, not the deadee.

Legal terminology is so confusing.

Bryant is the one whose car caused the person who died that night, Darcy Allan Sheppard, to collide with something, we are told it was a fire hydrant, bringing the laws of physics into the process, as if the criminal code and traffic act weren't enough. The law of impenetrability being the chief offender here obviously, being the one that states that Mr. Sheppard's head and a fire hydrant were not permitted to share the same space at the same time.

I can't tell you how disgusted I am to see Mr. Bryant's picture on the cover of MacLean's. I haven't read his article yet. I spoke to someone who had read it and she was very sympathetic to Mr. Bryant. I have been pacing around the house at times, with that sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, knowing that I would, in deference to the seriousness of the incident in question, be forced to endure yet another Mainstream Media presentation of these sad events.

I am going to read Bryant's article, carefully. I am going to post on it in this thread. Here are the events in question:




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
He actually looks like he's on something...?
edit on 17-8-2012 by tracehd1 because: (no reason given)


I had to re-edit because a couple stated he was hanging onto the steering wheel..according to eye-W....he was clinging to the passenger side....thus Un-able to grab the steering wheel. And he was going 90??? Trying to run from a traffic violation? Wth?
edit on 17-8-2012 by tracehd1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tracehd1
 

Mr. Sheppard, the victim was on the driver's side. I haven't read Mr. Bryant's version of the events yet. I'm not sure if he has alleged that Sheppard was holding on to the wheel of the vehicle.

Eye witnesses said that Sheppard was shrieking as he was dragged along.

If Sheppard were hanging onto the steering wheel, he would have quite a mechanical advantage over the driver in controlling the wheel. In that case the car would be expected to travel in a straight line, or possibly to make a sharp left turn.

The driver, of course, would have quite an advantage in being able to knock Sheppard's hand off the wheel with his fist or an elbow.






edit on 17-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracehd1
He actually looks like he's on something...?


This is a very, very interesting point. Personally, I believe that this might be at the root of everything that happened that night. I want to read Mr. Bryant's account, before I say more on this subject. Earlier posts in the thread also deal with this.
edit on 18-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I have now read Michael Bryant's account of the night of his fatal encounter with Darcy Allan Sheppard that appears in the latest edition of MacLean's magazine. I have also read the front page story that appears in today's edition of the Toronto Star, which covers some of the same territory with further comments by Mr. Bryant.

I intend to look at his account in some detail, but a few preliminary words are in order.

Mr. Bryant's account of the important incidents that started things on the fatal night is told in the way that a defense attorney would tell them if he were representing a client. By that I mean to say that the recitation of "facts" is done in a way that puts the client in the most favorable light, and ignores or attempts to explain away everything that makes the client look culpable.

His interest is in his client. In this case, himself.

A prosecutor takes the opposite approach, attempting to make the defendant in the case look as guilty as possible.

Neither of these lawyers are particularly interested in historical exactitude. They are part of an adversarial system, pitted one against the other.

The judge in a trial is like a referee, whose job it is to make sure that the game moves along efficiently and that there are no infractions of the rules along the way. He makes sure that the lawyers follow procedures and decides upon points of law that might be referred to by the lawyers.

He also can decide the outcome of a trial in cases tried without jury.

The jury are there to decide as well as they can, the truth of matters, the true historical facts of the story. They are also the ones who decide if evidence introduced is enough to prove any particular point. They often have instructions from the judge to aid them in this. Perhaps most importantly, they are there to weigh certain intangibles of the case, particularly whether witnesses are telling the truth. One could call them a panel of human lie detectors.

People involved in court cases lie frequently. Dead men, of course don't lie in court.

Trials are very important. They serve the interests of the public. To see a case like this one, with such extravagant incidents associated with it, involving vehicular mayhem and death, decided in the prosecutor's office is astonishing in a modern industrial democracy.

Judge and jury were left out of this case.

Mr. Peck, the prosecutor from British Colombia, brought in to assure the appearance of impartiality in the case, acted as judge and jury and found for the defendant. He did not even see fit to lay a charge of leaving the scene of an accident, something that witnesses might argue was done twice that evening by Mr. Bryant.

One wonders if he acted as prosecutor at all in the case.

Did Mr. Peck view the CCTV footage of the incident that ultimately led to Mr. Sheppard's death? He must have. I can't cite a statement by him to that effect but I believe he must have. Did he hear testimony from various witnesses who saw the events unfold that night? I'm not sure about this. I'm assuming that he read statements taken down by the police who interviewed witnesses that night.

The judicial establishment in Ontario told the public that bringing Mr. Peck in from outside the province would ensure impartiality, but they told us that he would be prosecutor in the case, not prosecutor, judge and jury. Mr. Peck wasn't "sold" to the public on that basis.

Does the phrase "bait and switch" ring a bell? Were the judicial establishment in Ontario pulling the wool over the eyes of the people of Ontario when they decided to bring in a prosecutor from outside the province to ensure impartiality? Did they have quite another thing in mind when they did this?

If they had offered to bring Mr. Peck in as prosecutor, judge and jury, would our press have raised objections to that? Would that have been acceptable to the public? Have we been well served by our judiciary in this case or did they simply circle like musk oxen around one of their own and show us their horns and hooves?

I will post further on Mr. Bryant's account particularly.
edit on 18-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The most important and pertinent revelation to come from Mr. Bryant's account in MacLean's magazine is that he is an alcoholic.

This was not mentioned in press coverage of the event at the time it happened.

We heard all about Mr. Sheppard's numerous faults and infractions, but not a word about the character flaws of Mr. Bryant and not a word about his alcoholism. We are told that he had been sober three years at the time of the events we are discussing.

I believe that Mr. Bryant's alcoholism should have been brought out in press coverage of the event and should certainly have been brought out in a trial of this case. Mr. Sheppard's substance abuse problems are considered relevant by virtually everyone. Surely Mr. Bryant's substance abuse problems needed to be dealt with as well.


There is a wonderful "sound bite" from the highly recommended documentary film, The Century of the Self, in which a psychiatrist sums up thirty years or so of psychiatric practice by saying:

"People are nutty."

He's right. People are nutty. We are all nutty. In fact the more in control we are, the more nutty we are.

Until we go out of control.

Then we manifest who we are in addition to what we show when we are under control. The naked, selfish self finally gets its moment to be its own, usually hidden, nutty self.

Psychiatry deals with the labyrinth of the human mind with a view to relieving mental suffering and restoring the mind to behavior that is more or less in conformance to agreed upon norms often referred to as sanity.

But all of us are dealing with our minds all of the time anyway. Some of us are trying to conform to norms, some are trying to stretch the limits of conformity.

To some extent our minds are like tuning forks. They will resonate with the vibrations that they feel. Some people can create palpable tension when they enter a room. Others seem to radiate a warm bath of tranquility into which others relax, in their presence. Everyone has experienced the effect of resonating with the mental state of someone else.

In the front page article in the Saturday Star, August 18, 2012,

www.thestar.com...

we are given an account of Michael Bryant's first sighting of Darcy Allan Sheppard and Bryant's thought at the time, about Sheppard.


Bryant steered his black Saab convertible — his old Saab, he writes repeatedly — west on Bloor. Top down. Susan in the passenger seat. He first spots Darcy Allan Sheppard tossing garbage into the street, screaming at a white SUV, at the southeast corner of Bloor and Yonge Sts., under the influence of something. Inebriated.

And he thinks: “Hello, brother. You’re one of us, aren’t you?”


Did he really think that? Maybe. Bryant states, in effect, that he recognized Sheppard, not as an individual or person, but as someone like himself, a drunk.

I think Bryant, on a level that is usually the hunting ground of psychiatrists, recognized himself when he saw Sheppard. I think that on this level he identified with Sheppard. He identified Sheppard with a side of himself that he was trying to get rid of or at the very least control.

In what is called "projection" an individual imbues someone or something with a characteristic that the individual himself possesses and then acts upon the receiver of the projection in ways that satisfy the individual, that give the individual the sense that they have dealt with or mastered the characteristic that they are projecting.

Projection, if understood and exercised in a clinical context, can relieve tension and actually be a therapeutic way station to mental health. However projection is often reduced, outside of the context of therapy, to scapegoating. The characteristic which is so abhorrent to the one projecting in fact still lies within the confines of the individual's mind, festering.

Might projection have had anything to do with the way Michael Bryant handled the problem of Darcy Allan Sheppard that August night in 2009?

More to come.

edit on 19-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I looked on MacLean's Magazine's website for the Bryant book excerpt but I couldn't find it. You will have to buy the magazine to read it yourself. It takes up five pages of the issue dated September 3, 2012, including photographs of Bryant (2 large), of Sheppard (1 small) and Sheppard running amok on an earlier occasion (3 small). There is also a photo of the "ghost bike" memorial to Sheppard which contains a headshot of Bryant with the caption "Caution Goof".

The excerpt is roughly 66 paragraphs long, not counting a few lines of dialogue. The first 8 paragraphs relate incidents which occurred at Sheppard's girlfriend's house that Bryant did not witness, but which involved disorderly conduct by Sheppard and the presence of the police. Sheppard was drunk and disorderly in this account. This all appeared in the press in 2009 and was not contradicted by anyone close to Sheppard, to my knowledge.

Bryant first describes seeing Sheppard in paragraph 9.


As Susan and I approached Yonge Street, it was Darcy Sheppard who had snarled traffic by throwing pylons and garbage across the intersection. Then, in something of an athletic marvel - despite an alcohol level more than twice the legal limit - he did figure eights curb to curb, along Bloor Street, as drivers like myself hung back,refusing to take his dare to pass him. Until he finally forced a vehicle over to the side of the road, and I drove on by.


Bryant, the former Attorney General of the province, at this point in his story, leaves out an account of his alarm at Sheppard's behavior.

He leaves out the urgent attempts to phone the police to alert them to this menace on Bloor Street, using his wife's cell phone. He registers no concern at all. He says that "I drove on by."

I assume from reading Bryant's initial reaction to Sheppard's behavior, that he was not alarmed by him at all, but simply regarded him as a garish nuisance.

The former Attorney General's book is called 28 Seconds: A True Story of Addiction, Tragedy and Hope

28 seconds.

From a Crown Prosecutor's point of view, the relevant seconds of the book and of the incident number far fewer than 28.

The CCTV footage embedded above in this thread indicates that approximately 5 seconds passed between the time Darcy Sheppard cut in front of Michael Bryant, stopping 2 or 3 feet in front of him, appearing to face forward, causing Bryant to stall his vehicle, and the moment when Bryant's car lurched forward as he tried to restart it, covering those 2 or 3 feet, stopping just short of where the rear wheel of Sheppard's bicycle would be if he were facing forward, as he appears to in the admittedly less than optimal CCTV images.

What does Mr. Bryant have to say about those 5 seconds?


I sensed him swipe his hand at me. I ducked instinctively to my right, hitting the brakes and turning the wheels to the right.


So far, so good. I can see that in the CCTV footage. A careful Crown Prosecutor would take note of that. Mr. Bryant is telling the truth. He goes on.


It was then I stalled the car, presumably taking my foot off the gas and the clutch while putting on the brakes. When I looked up, he was straddling the bike, facing us, taunting me. "Now what're ya gonna do?"


It is difficult to see this clearly in the CCTV footage, but I believe Mr. Bryant is telling the truth. Given the quality of the images from the CCTV camera, an able Crown might be willing to give Mr. Bryant the benefit of the doubt. In a real trial of course, absent witness corroberation, a real Crown would dismiss this as an unsubstantiated assertion by Mr. Bryant. Many jurors might well discount Mr. Bryant's statements about this, the direction and stance Mr. Sheppard took up during those 5 seconds.

In a court case, someone like Darrow or Greenspan, defending Bryant, would probably show easily that given Mr. Sheppard's numerous other antics, such a posture and such behavior was typical of the deceased.

Advantage Mr. Bryant.

However, what Mr. Bryant says next, would put a crocodile smile on the face of any Crown Prosecutor, even one from out of town. What did Mr. Bryant say?


The 28 seconds began
His front wheel was within a couple of feet of the Saab's front bumper. I knew he was too close for me to drive around him. In a millisecond, my eyes darted up to my rear-view mirror, then back to this man. I saw there were cars behind me, so I couldn't back up. I couldn't move forward. Trapped.


The CCTV images do not support Mr. Bryant's statement that he had no room to back up. In fact, throughout the portion of the incident from the time Mr. Bryant first stalled his vehicle when cut off by Mr. Sheppard, until the point when his vehicle pushes Mr. Sheppard and his bicycle offscreen, there is no point at which there was less than half a car length of space behind Mr. Bryant's Saab.



That is plenty of room to back up.

In a real trial with a Crown Prosecutor free to do his duty to the public, testimony by Mr. Bryant that he had no space in which to back up his car, if contradicted by witnesses or CCTV tape, might lead to an additonal charge of perjury against him.

Mr. Bryant, I don't believe, would ever try to mislead a jury in a court case by lying in court.

He would have to own up to the fact that he did indeed have space to back his car away from Mr. Sheppard.

The Crown, in preparing the case might actually, have gone on, absent a breathalyzer test by the police, to be prepared to suggest the possibility that Mr. Bryant might well have been inebriated. He seemed to be having trouble controlling his car and didn't think to put the car in reverse and back away from Mr. Sheppard even though he had plenty of space.

Without a breathalyzer test, there is no way to be sure that Mr. Bryant was not inebriated. Without a trial, there is no way to know what a jury might say about the matter.

If Bryant's book and the CCTV footage were both evidence in a court case, his assertions that he had no space to back up in might be taken by the jury to be a lie.

In court cases, an able Crown is always delighted to hear a defendant tell a lie, no matter how small, because one lie will cause a jury to question and carefully scrutinize other statements by the defendant, disputed statements. They might well think that such a defendant is lying about them too.

I can't believe that Mr. Bryant told Mr. Peck, in the office of the Crown Attorney, that he had no room to back his car up.

Knowing that Mr. Bryant had room to back up his car and given the CCTV footage showing clearly the car lurching forward, a couple of feet, stalling and then lurching forward on restart pushing Mr. Sheppard and his bicycle at least twenty feet before being stopped by the former Attorney General, it is difficult to understand why Mr. Peck could have been satisfied by Mr. Bryant's assertion that he had not been drinking.

A cagey Crown would, of course, expect Bryant's wife to back him up, and even the waiters at the restaurant where they dined might back him up, but what about before they dined?

Trials tend to clarify such matters. We didn't get a trial in this case though. A visiting Crown from out of town didn't think it was necessary, in his judgement.

More to come.

edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Holy crap! I can't believe you are talking about this.

I detest when people who are/were in important positions of power are put above the law, it does happen frequently, we saw it recently in the US with US Commerce Secretary John Bryson.

However, this is obviously not one of those cases.

You are discussing this like everyone involved in this situation had infinite time to rationally analyze events and calmly come to logical conclusions.

You do know about adrenaline and it's effects on an otherwise rational human being?

Bottom line, if someone is threatening you with physical violence, you try to escape that situation - normal human behaviour - which is adrenaline induced. That is all Bryant did. Sheppard could have had a knife, a gun, pepper - spray, an aids infected needle - who knows. His behaviour alone warranted what Bryant did - attempt to escape. Yet Sheppard continued to hang on, nothing out of the ordinary for him given his past behaviour.

If you want to blame anyone, blame Sheppard's parents who didn't raise him properly, teachers who didn't role model good behaviours, friends who enabled drug abuse and/or encouraged bad behaviour, doctors/counseller's who couldn't help him or who didn't prescribe medication for him......................or possible put the responsibility on himself? Wouldn't this world be a better place if we all took responsibility for our actions?

Darcy Sheppard had a history of drug abuse and violence - this behaviour was not out of line with past behaviour. He was clearly headed in the direction of jail or death - and it could have been anyone driving that car and the outcome would have been the same.

I hope Mr. Bryant has a clear conscious, for I am certain the outcome and the justice would have been the same no matter who was driving the car.

Put this to bed and maybe devote your time to conspiracies that could actually help multitudes of people if brought to light.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Bottom line, if someone is threatening you with physical violence, you try to escape that situation - normal human behaviour - which is adrenaline induced. That is all Bryant did.


Bryant could have called the police from Yonge and Bloor, where he first saw Sheppard. Why didn't he?


Sheppard could have had a knife, a gun, pepper - spray, an aids infected needle - who knows. His behaviour alone warranted what Bryant did - attempt to escape.


Keep in mind that at no point in the day was Sheppard charged with anything. Bryant on the other hand was charged with a couple of offenses under the statutes and with causing a death.


Yet Sheppard continued to hang on, nothing out of the ordinary for him given his past behaviour.
.

We don't know for sure that he wasn't stuck somehow on the vehicle. Did he reach for the keys? Sometimes police officers are dragged when they reach for the keys of people trying to escape them.

Surely, for reasons you cite, having narrowly escaped being run over by by Mr. Bryant, anyone, even stone sober, might try to prevent the escape of a hit and run driver.


If you want to blame anyone, blame Sheppard's parents who didn't raise him properly, teachers who didn't role model good behaviours, friends who enabled drug abuse and/or encouraged bad behaviour, doctors/counseller's who couldn't help him or who didn't prescribe medication for him......................or possible put the responsibility on himself?


Or perhaps blame Bryant's alcoholism, or his marital problems, or perhaps have a proper trial and put all these questions to the test before a jury.


Wouldn't this world be a better place if we all took responsibility for our actions?


Does Bryant take any responsibility for anything in his life? Undoubtedly he does, just not in this instance. I think a jury should have been involved in deciding whether he should take responsibility or not, in this case. It amazes me that there was no trial.


Darcy Sheppard had a history of drug abuse and violence - this behaviour was not out of line with past behaviour. He was clearly headed in the direction of jail or death - and it could have been anyone driving that car and the outcome would have been the same.


We'll have to agree to disagree on that.


I hope Mr. Bryant has a clear conscious, for I am certain the outcome and the justice would have been the same no matter who was driving the car.


I don't think so.


Put this to bed and maybe devote your time to conspiracies that could actually help multitudes of people if brought to light.


The people of Toronto and the administration of justice in this province would have benefitted from a trial in this case. The atmosphere in Toronto vis a vis the police, etc., is not good.
edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Bottom line, if someone is threatening you with physical violence, you try to escape that situation - normal human behaviour - which is adrenaline induced. That is all Bryant did.


Bryant could have called the police from Yonge and Bloor, where he first saw Sheppard. Why didn't he?


Sheppard could have had a knife, a gun, pepper - spray, an aids infected needle - who knows. His behaviour alone warranted what Bryant did - attempt to escape.


Keep in mind that at no point in the day was Sheppard charged with anything. Bryant on the other hand was charged with a couple of offenses under the statutes and with causing a death.


Yet Sheppard continued to hang on, nothing out of the ordinary for him given his past behaviour.
.

We don't know for sure that he wasn't stuck somehow on the vehicle. Did he reach for the keys? Sometimes police officers are dragged when they reach for the keys of people trying to escape them.

Surely, for reasons you cite, having narrowly escaped being run over by by Mr. Bryant, anyone, even stone sober, might try to prevent the escape of a hit and run driver.


If you want to blame anyone, blame Sheppard's parents who didn't raise him properly, teachers who didn't role model good behaviours, friends who enabled drug abuse and/or encouraged bad behaviour, doctors/counseller's who couldn't help him or who didn't prescribe medication for him......................or possible put the responsibility on himself?


Or perhaps blame Bryant's alcoholism, or his marital problems, or perhaps have a proper trial and put all these questions to the test before a jury.


Wouldn't this world be a better place if we all took responsibility for our actions?


Does Bryant take any responsibility for anything in his life? Undoubtedly he does, just not in this instance. I think a jury should have been involved in deciding whether he should take responsibility or not, in this case. It amazes me that there was no trial.


Darcy Sheppard had a history of drug abuse and violence - this behaviour was not out of line with past behaviour. He was clearly headed in the direction of jail or death - and it could have been anyone driving that car and the outcome would have been the same.


We'll have to agree to disagree on that.


I hope Mr. Bryant has a clear conscious, for I am certain the outcome and the justice would have been the same no matter who was driving the car.


I don't think so.


Put this to bed and maybe devote your time to conspiracies that could actually help multitudes of people if brought to light.


The people of Toronto and the administration of justice in this province would have benefitted from a trial in this case. The atmosphere in Toronto vis a vis the police, etc., is not good.
edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)


1. Do you always call the police when you see someone acting strangely? I would probably only do so once it has escalated to violence. Bryant is not a pysychic nor was he under any obliation to notify police of misdemeanors, maybe he wanted to give the guy a break by not calling the police and hoped the guy would calm down. Bryand not calling the police means..............squat.

2. Bryant was charged on that day and Sheppard wasn't? So? What is your point? In the Trayvon Martin case vs Zimmerman - same thing happened. It doesn't mean anything, all it means is that for once the person instigating violence left this world before the victim could press charges. The norm is that victims are defenceless, surprised, killed, incapacitated whatever and rarely have a chance to fight back against their attackers.

3. I honestly don't care if he was dragged or was hanging on, he had taken things much too far at that point. There are consequences to actions, some of them unforseen. Was Bryant trying to kill him or just get away? If how could Sheppard wind up in his window if he was trying to get away? That is illogical.

This is not about Bryant. This story is about Darcy Sheppard, it doesn't matter who was driving the car things could have turned out the same way. Bad luck, but certainly not the drivers fault.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Sounds like sucide to me. Attaching car bombs with magnets was probably going through the guys mind about then. Oh well sometimes you eat the griz sometimes the griz eats you



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

1. Do you always call the police when you see someone acting strangely?


Throwing garbage and construction pylons into a busy intersection is more than acting strangely.


Bryand not calling the police means..............squat.


Bryant not calling the police at the first instance means that he wound up killing a man and facing charges connected with that killing.


2. Bryant was charged on that day and Sheppard wasn't? So? What is your point?


My point is that this story is about the actions of Mr. Bryant. That's what the charges related to. Sheppard wasn't charged posthumously with being a scary lout.


3. I honestly don't care if he was dragged or was hanging on, he had taken things much too far at that point.


At the point where Bryant ran into him pushing him and his bicycle more than twenty feet? I don't think so.


This is not about Bryant. This story is about Darcy Sheppard, it doesn't matter who was driving the car things could have turned out the same way. Bad luck, but certainly not the drivers fault.


This is about Sheppard, for sure, but it is also about Bryant. The criminal case was against Bryant.
edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Darcy Allan Sheppard seems to have been a sort of ill tempered Don Quixote among cyclists, forever tilting at automobiles.

There is a comical side to his activities, alluded to earlier in the thread where I wrote a "top ten list" of ways to dislodge a bicycle courier from the side of one's vehicle. It's as if Mr. Sheppard were out to avenge every instance of a cyclist being cut off by an automobile, and raise hell doing so.

His encounter with Michael Bryant began with him cutting Bryant off just as a traffic light changed, causing Bryant to slam on his breaks and stall his vehicle. That was aspiring comedian Darcy Sheppard's style.

One of the characteristics of Michael Bryant's account of the events of August 31, 2009 is that it is full of detail about the character flaws and misadventures of Darcy Sheppard, but vague and almost dreamy where it concerns his own actions and even to some extent the actions of Mr. Sheppard. Mr. Bryant senses that Mr. Sheppard swiped at him, before cutting him off. At another point it seems to Mr. Bryant that Mr. Sheppard is howling.

Reading Mr. Bryant's account there is a very pronounced sense of drifting from vivid descriptions of the horror of Darcy Sheppard and Mr. Bryant's reasonable responses, to sections of the narrative where a lot is known to be happening without much in the way of description.

Fortunately we have the CCTV videotape and we have accounts of eyewitnesses.

The first important sequence of events, from a prosecutor's point of view, took place just at the eastern edge (right side in the illustration) of the intersection of Bloor St. W. and St. Thomas St.

www.thestar.com/article/689762



The red number 1 in the illustration should be in the middle of the intersection of Bloor and St. Thomas.

Numbers 2 and 3 in the illustration are approximations but roughly accurate. If number 1 is adjusted westward to the middle of the intersection, then the diagram is serviceable as a diagram of the movements of Michael Bryant's car after he ran into Darcy Sheppard and his bicycle.

The former Attorney General of Ontario was stopped at the above intersection waiting for the light to change. He was stopped well short of the stop line at the intersection, leaving space for Darcy Sheppard to pass in front of him and come to a stop ahead of Bryant and still not cross the stop line. Sheppard did this just as the light had changed to green.

In doing so, he cut sharply in front of Mr. Bryant, causing him to break suddenly and turn his wheels to the right, stalling his vehicle.

In Mr. Bryant's account, supplemented by CCTV videotape, Mr. Sheppard, within 5 seconds had turned his bicycle around to face Mr. Bryant and frightened him so much that his only thought was to escape.

Mr. Bryant was so frightened that he had trouble starting his stalled vehicle and when he finally started it, 5 seconds after he had first stalled it, the vehicle lurched forward roughly 2 feet, stopping, we are told by Mr. Bryant, just short of Darcy Sheppard, where it stalled again.

Did Darcy Sheppard really turn his bicycle around and begin to taunt Mr. Bryant, after having just cut him off? I don't see that sort of movement going on in the CCTV videotape. Witnesses at a trial could clarify this detail. Did Mr. Peck interview witnesses on this point?

Did Mr. Bryant really not hit Mr. Sheppard's bicycle when he lurched forward two feet or so trying to start his car after the first stall? From the CCTV videotape, I believe he might have hit the bicycle. At a trial, eyewitnesses on the sidewalk could clarify that point.

There was such a witness.



Was he interviewed by the Crown Prosecutor? Or did the Crown Prosecutor simply review witness statements given to police officers? There is a huge difference.

After pushing Mr. Sheppard and his bicycle for well over a car length, perhaps as much as 15 feet and coming to a complete stop with Mr. Sheppard and his bicycle on the pavement in front of him, a manouver that took just over 2 seconds, it then took Mr. Bryant only 4.3 seconds to reverse gears, back up a couple of feet, turn the wheel to the right and start to drive away from the scene . . . of an accident.

Mr. Bryant, at this stage of the incident, but not earlier, had the presence of mind to reverse gears, back up and turn to avoid running into Mr. Sheppard and his bicycle, for a second time.

Let's take a look at the former Attorney General's account of those 6.3 seconds.

Jennifer Wells' article in the Toronto Star quotes Bryant's book and comments made to her in person. Here is what appeared in her article on the subject of the altercation between Bryant and Sheppard.

www.thestar.com...


In 28 Seconds, Bryant writes that the Saab lurched three times. The first moved the car to the right, away from Sheppard. The second caused no contact with Sheppard or his bike. The third resulted in Sheppard landing on the hood.

Bryant makes a slapping sound with his hands. “He was on the hood. And his bike was under my bumper. And he went from simmering to, ah, ah, raging.”


Prior to being knocked onto the hood of Mr. Bryant's car, Mr. Sheppard had done three things. He had cut Mr. Sheppard off. He had, according to Mr. Bryant, turned his bicycle around to face Mr. Bryant's car head on. He had taunted Mr. Bryant saying "Now, what're ya gonna do?"

Mr. Bryant also says that he was raging and seemed to be howling.

The MacLean's Magazine excerpt omits the simmering stage. In it Mr. Sheppard is already raging, even before he has been upended and pushed, along with his bike, for at least 15feet.


He was big, drunk and raging.



This growling man saw this, the car lurching (as Mr. Bryant tried to restart it) and he seemed to get more and more agitated. He seemed to be howling at me.


"Seemed to be howling . . ." That is quite vivid. Evidently Mr. Bryant has a vivid imagination.

In a trial, of course, witnesses could provide independant accounts of what had actually transpired and what sort of emotional state Mr. Sheppard was in. Was he in fact howling at this point? Trials can often separate realities from lurid fantasies.

It took around 20 seconds from the time Mr. Bryant had been cut off and stalled his car to the point where he started to speed away, having already run into Mr. Sheppard and pushed him and his bicycle well over a car length.

Basically, one would like to know if Mr. Bryant's fright was enough to explain away his careless and dangerous driving. Mr. Peck thought so. Is there sufficient reason to test this conclusion in a trial. I think so. I suspect that Mr. Sheppard was not as scary as he is made out to be, that he was more of a lout and roughneck buffoon. However, I acknowledge that fear is fear and everyone is different in how much mayhem they can handle.

Matters of prosecutorial interest can be neatly divided into two parts. What happened up to the moment when Mr. Bryant started to drive away from the intersection of Bloor St. and St. Thomas and what happened after that moment.

I'll deal with that in a short follow up to this post, perhaps tomorrow.


edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
From the MacLean's Magazine exerpt from Bryant's book:


But now he was furious. His bike was caught under the front bumper. He screamed at people on the sidewalk, "Youre a witness! You're a witness!"

By now, Susan was also yelling something. I don't know what. And by now, I no longer cared what was behind me. I didn't care if I had to ram the car behind me and push it back to Bay St. I needed to get us out of there.


Mr. Bryant's wife (at the time) is a lawyer. I wonder what she was yelling. Bryant says he doesn't know. Is that likely to be a true statement?

There was never a trial in this case. To my knowledge, Susan Abramovitch has never said anything in public about it. Would she have had the presence of mind to yell some legal advice at him?

"Don't leave the scene of an accident!"

There is no doubt in my mind that if Mr. Bryant had stayed at the scene of the "accident", cowered in the car, clutching onto his wife and pleading for mercy, burying his tearful eyes in his wife's shoulder, sobbing apologies, sobbed and quivered, that Susan Abramovitch would then have been able to smooth things out, apologize in a dignified manner to Mr. Sheppard and soothe and comfort her dying of fright soon to be ex-husband and settle down, rocking him in her arms until the police came.

I think even Darcy Sheppard "destroyer of worlds" would have thrown up his hands at an apology, at an explanation perhaps, that there was something wrong with the car, at an offer to buy him a new bicycle, at the site of a lovely woman tending to her big baby.

But that is a security guard's point of view. We don't have cars. We don't have guns. We just have our wits and diplomacy and an understanding that simple courtesy will usually carry the day.

Bryant, in his book, gives us the view from Planet Rosedale of two stangers in a strange land, confronted by a screaming alien demon that they must not interract with, at any cost, even if they have just knocked him for a loop with their car.

Earlier, after having stalled his vehicle for the first time, when Bryant was relating information contradicted by the CCTV videotape, about having no room to back up, he said,


I feared for Susan and myself. I wondered if he had a weapon on him.

The thought of confronting him was never an option - it was our anniversary, for God's sake. Susan was with me. Neither did staying put make any sense. Susan was with me. Either to fight or sit tight might put her at risk.


I think a Crown Prosecutor might draw a jury's attention here, to Mr. Bryant's lack of social skills. Not knowing how to mollify an angry individual is not a crime. Not knowing how to say "Hello, are you alright?" to someone who is upset about something, might seem like a small fault, but it might have changed the course of everything that night.

www.thestar.com...


Bryant says he remained silent throughout the 28 seconds. “I didn’t want to provoke him in any way,” he says. “I didn’t say anything to him at all.”


What would a jury think about that? Would it cause them to form an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Bryant's character?

Would this be grist for the mill of an astute Crown Prosecutor?

Darcy Sheppard's father talked to the Star about his son:


Mr. Sheppard is thoughtful and exceptionally well-spoken. His recollections are painful and poignant. At one juncture he lived alone with Darcy in what he described as a suite attached to a little farm house. “Things were just falling apart,” he said softly. “He wouldn’t go to school so I would leave him at home while I went to work . . . And I’d come back and the place would be trashed to the point there were holes in the drywall.”

During Darcy’s first extended period of time in a psychiatric facility, at just 11 years old, Sheppard would visit every Sunday. “There was a sunroom in the building and we would have our visits there. And at the end of the visit he would always say, ‘Be sure to wave to me.’ And I’d look back, and there he’d be, waving.”

That the “system,” such as it is, failed his son is self-evident. It saddened him to see his son singularly cast as a “berserker,” a character sketch from which all of Darcy’s charm and his not infrequent generosity were erased.

Mr. Sheppard said he wished no ill on Michael Bryant. But he had questions about that August night. He was particularly puzzled that Bryant in the moment was both panicked and passive. “He said nothing to Darcy? Really?”


Not even a few words, Mr. Bryant says.

A Crown Prosecutor in a trial might well draw the jury's attention to this curious silence on Mr. Bryant's part. Surely there were things to be said to the man that Bryant had just run into with his car.

Apparently not. Why? Were there two berserkers in this story?


The car suddenly swerved sharply to the left, almost 45 degrees. I have no recollection how that happened. He must have grabbed the wheel. In wrestling for control of the car, we crossed to the south side of the street, heading westbound into the eastbound lane.


I think a Crown Prosecutor, not Mr. Peck of course, but a local Crown would find the part about not knowing how the car got turned to the left, impossible to believe. I don't think a jury would believe it either.

The trajectory of the car on Bloor St. is depicted in the following diagram:

www.thestar.com/article/689762



Basically the trajectory consists of a left turn, followed by a right turn and then a further right turn before the right turn at the corner of Avenue Road. Left turn, right turn, right turn.

Darcy Sheppard was with Michael Bryant for the first two turns.

Mr. Bryant says that he does not know how the first turn happened, the one that sent the car 45 degrees to the left. And he's such a highly educated man!?

He doesn't remember struggling with Sheppard, the demon he was now in contact with, for control of the car?

No. He seems to have deduced it. He used logical deduction to come to the belief that Darcy Sheppard must have grabbed the steering wheel, because it was heading at a 45 degree angle for the wrong side of the street.

Would a jury believe this recitation of events? Would a real local Crown believe it? Did Mr. Peck even believe it?

Without a trial we'll never know.

But for the sake of argument let's say that Darcy Sheppard grabbed the steering wheel of the car and forced it to the wrong side of the road.

Did Sheppard then correct the steering, so that the car started travelling along the edge of the sidewalk toward objects that would strike and kill him?

Perhaps the wheel was held at a point of equal tension, where Sheppard was pulling to the left and Bryant was turning to the right, so that the wheel held a position keeping the car in a straight line down the sidewalk.

Bryant says that he stopped the car to struggle with Sheppard, but I haven't seen any reports from witnesses who say that the car stopped again after it left the intersection of Bloor St. and St. Thomas.

A trial would clarify this extraordinary discrepancy in accounts of the incident.


Next I tried to push Sheppard off the car door. It felt like trying to push over a telephone pole. He pushed back. I pushed again. He pushed back. Then he started climbing in the car. Susan grew louder and more frantic."No! No! No! No! Stop! Stop! Stop! Stop!"


Reading this a Crown Prosecutor might well ask, "Was the car in fact still moving at this time, despite Mr. Bryant's assertion that it was stopped?"


This was the only physical contact between us. The car remained stopped while this shoving was going on.


I don't know what a Crown or a jury would say about this, but if the car had stopped, and if Sheppard had been trying to get into the car, what would prevent him from simply bounding into the stopped car? It was a convertible, after all.


I had stopped the car and couldn't get him off. It seemed that when the car was stopped, he got closer to being on top of us; when the car was moving, he wasn't.

I started moving forward again.


Having settled this, and concluded the struggling portion of events, it was now time for Mr. Bryant to resume his iron grip on the wheel and for Mr. Sheppard to resume his iron counterbalancing grip on the wheel, so that the car could drive down the edge of the sidewalk and kill Mr. Sheppard.

The mechanics of all this steering and struggling baffles me. I'm having trouble making Mr. Bryant's version of events work in the real world as opposed to the literary world.

Now Mr. Bryant enters the Twilight Zone.


It felt to me like The Twilight Zone, where familiar streets are oddly abandoned. I registered no cars, no people. We just seemed to be heading into a tunnel. And it was getting smaller and smaller.


Mr. Bryant's impressions of what was going on, border on the hallucinatory.


At one point, it seemed like Sheppard was skiing beside the car, making the kinds of whooping noises you'd make if you were intentionally road-skiing for sport. A witness would later say his bicycle shoes were setting off sparks on the pavement. I remember thinking: he's done this before.



I remember thinking: he's done this before


That's a rather cool and detached observation, considering everything that is going on. Was Bryant, in fact, cool and detached during this phase of the incident?

I think he was.


I couldn't take my two hands off the wheel even if I had wanted to. I was struggling with Sheppard for control of the vehicle.


I don't believe this for a minute. I think Mr. Bryant, he of the very, very, very high academic qualifications, from schools where skunks might be admitted but no dummies, not even anyone of above average intelligence gets into those places, was very much in control of the situation.

I think Mr. Sheppard was hanging on for dear life, did not have his hands on the steering wheel, did not control the car as it went along the sidewalk and that a jury should have had an opportunity to decide on this matter.

A number of factors were at play in the bizarre series of actions taken by Mr. Bryant, not the least of which was the personal situation of the Bryant marriage, Mr. Bryant's alcoholism, Mr. Bryant's high intelligence and possibly that he was under the influence of some drug or alcohol.

Mr. Sheppard was acting out in obnoxious ways, but did nothing really serious until after he had been run over by Mr. Bryant for the first time.

Personally, I think that more serious charges should have been laid agianst Mr. Bryant than were laid, but at the very, very least there should have been a trial.

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



Two filmed eyewitness interviews:




edit on 21-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The following story has nothing to do with Michael Bryant. It has to do with suffering. People who are suffering because of guilt related to their own actions, small or great might profit from the story.

In Buddhism, there is the story of Angulimala who murdered 999 people because he had been told by an evil teacher that he would attain Enlightenment if he murdered 1000 people. He encountered the Buddha in the forest and tried to kill him, but was prevented by the Buddha's skilful use of extraordinary abilities.

The Buddha won Angulimala over and persuaded him to change his ways, to follow the Noble Eightfold Path and to become the Buddha's disciple. Eventually, through following the Noble Eightfold Path of right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, Angulimala attained Enlightenment and became one of the original eighteen Arhats.

At first it was hard for Angulimala, because he was reviled everywhere he went, spat upon, stoned, etc. He asked the Buddha what he should do in the face of such overwhelming disapproval.

The Buddha answered him: "Suffer, venerable one. Suffer."


edit on 21-8-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join