← Forum

Login or Register to join the discussion!

• ← Group Forum | Forum Topic Directory

  Bryant-cyclist case put over to March 5 (17 posts)

• Joe T. said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  From the Toronto Star:
  http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/754572

  "A criminal court case involving former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant has been put over until March 5.

  The former political star did not appear in the Toronto court dealing with his case today but was represented by his lawyer.

  Bryant faces charges of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death in a collision involving a cyclist in August."

• SD-B59 said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  I saw the video online, as i suspect many of you will have as well and it was very clear to me that Michael Bryant was in the wrong and I don't believe his side of the story at all.
  I was rather disgusted by how quickly the PR group he hired set out to destroy the credibility of the young man that Bryant killed.
  As soon as it got out that he was a courier, the tides seemed to change and because he was a courier than it stood to reason that Bryant had come up against a dangerous criminal…….LOL….or so people thought!
  I wont hold my breath that he will be made to pay for the crime he committed!

• Joe T. said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  Any videos I've seen of the incident are extremely blurry, and I can't figure out what is going on.

  Do you know of clear video, Shelagh?

• SD-B59 said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  I saw a good one some time ago—yes it was a bit blurry but the person with this particular one had added lines and words to it so you could easily follow it——–it was some time ago but i will look for it again and get it posted here if so…..

• SD-B59 said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  try this one for starters

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_PrhFo

• SD-B59 said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_PrhFo&annotation_id=annotation_55150&feature=iv

  im sorry…. that one

• SD-B59 said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufM7zvX3-tM&feature=related

  another one

• Joe T. said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  Thanks for these links Shelagh.

• Joe T. said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  It may seem evident that Bryant is in the wrong, but it's good to remember that although he may be guilty in the court of public opinion, there is a legal process which must be gone through before he is "officially" guilty.

  I think we'd all want the letter of the law to be abided by if any of us were charged with a crime, and that's one of the things that makes our society a civilization and not a lawless anarchy.

• Todd Tyrtle said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  True, Joe. I'm having a hard time not giving my opinion on the case as fact and still my emotions on this one make it to the keyboard every now and again.

  That said, I'm curious. If the civilized thing to do is let the court of law sort it out, and not contribute to the court of public opinion, why does a former Attorney General, someone I assume is pretty well versed on the legal process, hire a public relations firm? And if, then, the only voice contributing to public opinion is the paid voice of the defendant, how sure can we be of a fair trial's being given?

  Consider the picture of the case we'd be given we *didn't* have videos like this and eyewitness accounts. If Navigator, Ltd's spin on it were the only voice in the court of public opinion, we'd likely be giving Bryant a medal for his gallant defense of his wife in the face of a homicidal drunken maniac.

  I do realize, though, that "They're doing it too!" is elementary school playground logic but what can you do when one half of the story died with the victim and the other half is being carefully spun with focus-group tested messages. Is that not the best justice money can buy?

• SD-B59 said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  I do hear what you are saying Joe but having worked as a legal assistant, I am not so confident about the legal process as you are and firmly do believe that it really has a great deal to do with money and who has enough money to hire the better lawyer.
  That said, the poster above me, Todd, I believe was very articulate and put it far better than I.

• Joe T. said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  Good points Todd.

  I'm not saying anyone shouldn't contribute to the court of public opinion… it takes part in everything nowadays (witness the case of the sleeping TTC ticket collector).

  Just trying to "nip things in the bud", so to speak… to discourage any slander or hate-speech that may take place here. I've read a lot of "eye for an eye" comments on other websites and I think most people know that it isn't a constructive attitide.

  The court case will be interesting, that is for sure. I am looking forward to seeing how well the impartiality of the courts holds up. I have the feeling we're in for a lot of appeals in this case.

• Todd Tyrtle said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  Impartiality is a hard thing, isn't it? Try to find a jury in this area who is impartial. And there are other issues when you talk about moving the trial to another location, too. I'm reminded of the Rodney King trial back in the early 90s. It made such huge news that the officers couldn't stand trial in LA as *everyone* had an opinion. So they moved it. Sounds like a great idea until you see that they moved it to Simi Valley – a mostly white affluent suburb. So when the verdict came down in favour of the officers, the impartiality was *still* questioned and most of us know what happened after that.

  Really, IMO, there should've been a gag order on the press forbidding discussion about both parties, and for gods sakes, get it to trial quickly before too many folks get an opinion. Because really, where could the trial be moved. Send it to somewhere suburban and we cyclists will call anti-bike bias. Send it out of the province (in the other extreme) to Vancouver and the call will be anti-car bias.

  I hope justice prevails, however it ends up looking. And in the meantime I'd like to see the focus continuing to be more on the fact that nobody's really happy that pedestrians and cyclists are dying on the streets and that there's lots that can be done from an engineering standpoint to make the streets safer in general and by reducing the number of potential "conflict zones". And I think the biggest message is that on-street confrontations never help things (seriously – ever shout at a driver only to hear "Sorry!" yelled back out the window?) and sometimes they can turn tragic very quickly.

• SD-B59 said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  Funnily enough, from what I am reading here I get the impression you think that the people are in favor of Darcy Sheppard and against M. Bryant but I seem to feel it is the other way completely?
  YES at first I saw the anger directed at Michael Bryant but the PR team were so effective in destroying Darcy Sheppard's ( I believe that was his name?) credibility in that he was now seen as drunken courier which in many peoples eyes made him no better than the Squeege kids of a decade ago. I got the impression that most people, drivers at least, were now siding with Bryant, whereas many cyclists of course, were siding with Darcy. But as there are many more drivers than cyclists I personally had little hope that Michael Bryant would be held accountable if what appears to be taking place is that Bryant is guilty.
  Secondly, I don't know the truth on this but I had read that Bryant and his wife were attending a party earlier in the day at the R.C.Y.C. all in the company of many high level politicians, Dalton M. being just one. Word was that they would all be called to testify and this had sent many scurrying into hiding.
  Time will tell of course if that is indeed true or not.

• Joe T. said 7 months, 1 week ago:

  I guess it depends on the source of information. I try to monitor a lot of cycling websites (obviously) but also surf a lot of mainstream media, so I guess that has shaped my own view of the situation… which is "I wasn't there, so I don't feel informed enough to pass judgement on either Bryant or Sheppard, but I have read articles and viewpoints from either side of the issue, and I can't say that any of them are completely right, or completely wrong".

  Obviously, the videos of the incident don't paint a very favourable picture of Bryant, and the whole case is a tragic situation to be sure.