NOTE: What follows is just my opinion based on current news and eye witness reports. If new facts come to light that contradict or change what I’ve written here, I will update as necessary.
UPDATE: If you’ve already read my post below, you know I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the cyclist in question or cyclists in general. However, after seeing some remarkable video evidence provided by JH (see below), I have to say that I am no longer convinced that the cyclist was the original aggressor. In fact, it appears Bryant ran the guy up onto the hood of his car, then tried to drive around him when he fell off. It’s hard to make out, but it looks like the cyclist got up and jumped back onto the moving vehicle, probably thinking the driver was trying to take off. It appears Bryant was trying to flee, but it would be irresponsible to make such a judgement based on poor quality video evidence. Who knows what was going through his mind. Nonetheless, the video is pretty damning and very disappointing. I’m not sure what to think now. I said I’d post an update if facts change, and here it is. Thanks JH for bringing this to my attention.
When this story first broke two days ago I have to admit I thought the worst. It sounded like Michael Bryant, former Attorney General of Ontario, fled the scene after a fatal traffic accident with a cyclist. Honestly, it was simply unfathomable. Bryant’s always been a stand up sort of guy, someone abound with integrity and good judgement. No matter what your political leanings, he’s one of the last people one could imagine involved in something so dastardly. Something just didn’t sound right.
Here we are two days later with a whole new set of facts.
First and foremost, Darcy Sheppard, the cyclist in question, did not die in a traffic accident. He wasn’t even injured. After making contact with Bryant’s car in a minor fender bender – still unsure who was at fault – he threw down his bike and approached Bryant, who had come to a stop. Bryant was driving a convertible with his wife in the passenger seat, making him somewhat vulnerable. According to witnesses, Sheppard, who’d been drinking and was not an hour earlier in the back seat of a police cruiser due to a domestic dispute call, started attacking Bryant’s convertible with his bike lock. He then reached into the car, put Bryant into a headlock and grabbed the steering wheel. Bryant, no doubt fearing for his and his wife’s safety immediately sped off to escape the altercation, with Sheppard hanging onto the car. Some witnesses claim Sheppard was attempting to commandeer the vehicle. Sheppard died of his injuries when he fell from the moving vehicle. Bryant then turned the corner, parked and waited for police. At no point was he trying to flee the scene, only the attack.
Bryant was charged, but this is not unexpected, since not charging him might have looked like favouritism considering his past position as Ontario’s AG. If Bryant hadn’t taken evasive action to escape the much larger, angry cyclist, events might have been quite different today. Sheppard would no doubt be awaiting bail for assault, property damage and driving while intoxicated. Who knows what condition Bryant might be in. Keep in mind that Toronto is a very dangerous city. Not a day goes by that someone doesn’t get shot in the street. If someone runs up to your car and starts attacking you, there’s a very real chance it could end in gunfire. Given the choice between trying to fight off your attacker and trying to escape, making a run for it is a no brainer in downtown Toronto — unless you have a deathwish. Bryant’s reaction to the attack is entirely understandable.
For the past two days a bunch of nut-job cyclist protesters, headed by the misinformed militant bicycle group Critical Path — who apparently are oblivious to what this incident is actually about — have been blocking traffic downtown. They seem to be under the delusion that this is a cyclist death by traffic accident when in fact it’s a case of self defence in a road rage incident. Frankly, anyone who doesn’t have enough common sense to tell the difference between the two probably shouldn’t be permitted on our roads at all.
Now here’s the real irony in all this: Mr. Bryant has resigned as CEO of Invest Toronto, which is one of our Mayor’s pet projects designed to hopefully attract business to Toronto. Meanwhile our Mayor refuses to do a thing to get those protesters off our roads. These are the same roads vital to the success of small and large business alike. Where’s Mayor David Miller? Out of town, so his office claims. Nice job, Mr. Mayor.
FACTS:
Who was drinking prior to the altercation?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
Who was driving while under the influence?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
Who had been picked up by police over a domestic disturbance call not an hour earlier?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
Who got into an altercation with a homeless man just prior to this event?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
Who started the altercation between the two?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
Who was the attacker?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
What does this have to do with the bicycle vs. cars debate?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Don’t get me wrong, this is indeed a tragedy for both the Bryant and Sheppard families. It’s always a sad day when anyone dies on our roads. Did this have to happen? No. If Sheppard hadn’t been drinking maybe he would have had sense enough not to start a fight. If Bryant was driving a hard top, maybe rolling up the windows would have afforded enough protection until the police arrived. The one thing we know for sure is that Sheppard died of misadventure caused mostly by his own irresponsible actions. He did not die in a traffic accident.
When this story first broke two days ago I have to admit I thought the worst. It sounded like Michael Bryant, former Attorney General of Ontario, fled the scene after a fatal traffic accident with a cyclist. Honestly, it was simply unfathomable. Bryant’s always been a stand up sort of guy, someone abound with integrity. Something just didn’t sound right.
Here we are two days later with a whole new set of facts.
First and foremost, Darcy Sheppard, the cyclist in question, did not die in a traffic accident. He wasn’t even injured. After making contact with Bryant’s car – still unsure who was at fault – he threw down his bike and approached Bryant, who had come to a stop. Bryant was driving a convertible with his wife in the passenger seat, making him somewhat vulnerable. According to witnesses, Sheppard, who’d been drinking and was not an hour earlier in the back seat of a police cruiser due to a domestic dispute call, started attacking Bryant’s convertible with his lock and reached into the car. Bryant, no doubt fearing for his and his wife’s safety immediately sped off to avoid the conflict. Sheppard grabbed the steering wheel, put Bryant into a headlock and hung onto the car as Bryant tried to get away. Some witnesses claim Sheppard was attempting to commandeer the vehicle. Sheppard died of his injuries when he fell from the moving vehicle. Bryant then turned the corner, parked and waited for police.
Bryant was charged, but this is not unexpected, since not charging him might have looked like favoritism considering his past position as Ontario’s AG. If Bryant hadn’t taken evasive action to escape the much larger, angry cyclist, events might have been quite different today. Sheppard would no doubt be awaiting bail for assault and driving while intoxicated. Who knows what condition Bryant might be in.
For the past two days a bunch of nutjob cyclist protesters who obviously have no clue what this incident is about have been blocking traffic downtown. They seem to be under the delusion that this is a cyclist death by traffic accident when in fact it’s a case of self defense in a road rage incident. Frankly, anyone who doesn’t have enough common sense to tell the difference between the two probably shouldn’t be permitted on our roads at all.
Now here’s the real irony in all this: Mr. Bryant has resigned as CEO of Invest Toronto, which is one of our Mayor’s pet projects designed to hopefully attract business to Toronto. Meanwhile our Mayor refuses to do a thing to get those protesters off our roads. These are the same roads vital to the success of small and large business alike. Where’s Mayor David Miller? Out of town, so his office claims. Nice job, Mr. Mayor.
FACTS:
Who was drinking prior to the altercation?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
Who had been picked up by police over a domestic disturbance call not an hour earlier?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
Who got into an altercation with a homeless man just prior to this event?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
Who started the altercation between the two?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
Who was the attacker?
Bryant: NO
Sheppard: YES
What does this have to do with the bicycle vs. cars debate?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Don’t get me wrong, this is indeed a tragedy for both the Bryant and Sheppard families. It’s always a sad day when anyone dies on our roads. Did this have to happen? No. If Sheppard hadn’t been drinking maybe he would have had a little more sense. If Bryant was driving a hard top, maybe rolling up the windows would have afforded enough protection until the police arrived.
Thanks for popping by to view my photographs. Hope you enjoy some of my favourite pics of whatever. And if you have a moment, feel free to drop me a line. 
the lazy photographer 
Sounds like a horrible series of events.
Oh my gosh, it was and still is. There really are no winners here. Bryant’s career is ruined and Sheppard lost his life. It’s very sad. But because Sheppard just happened to be on a bicycle, this whole thing has turned into a circus. All the papers talk like this was a bicycle fatality when it just wasn’t, I’m sorry. If the traffic accident had killed him, then there would not have been an altercation. All it did was piss him off enough to attack Bryant. For some reason our media just can’t or won’t put those simple pieces together. I think it’s because the story is far more sensational if you pretend that this is a traffic fatality between a bike and a car. I don’t know.
This is most certainly an issue of bikes vs. cars. If Bryant is exonerated, it will set a legal precedent that makes the streets unsafe for bikers. Here’s the security video from the initial “altercation” between them:
Thanks for the very short and limited video. Interesting. They must have one of dem dar advanced security cameras that can tell how aggressive someone is from like 100 feet away. Too bad the camera can’t tell how drunk the bike rider is.
Coincidentally, last night on the 6:00 PM news they interviewed Sheppard’s neighbour who stated he was too drunk to ride his bike. He fell off out front and then accosted a homeless guy who saw him fall. This happened less than an hour before the accident.
Here’s what we know for sure:
1. Sheppard was drunk.
2. He accosted Bryant in his convertible.
3. Multiple witnesses saw him attacking Bryant and hanging onto the steering wheel of the car.
4. He was not killed in a traffic accident, but in a road rage incident for which he is solely responsible.
5. Had he not been drinking, or had he not accosted Bryant, he would surely be alive today.
6. In the mean streets of Toronto you have a better than 50% of being shot to death if you stick around after someone starts attacking you, if even you’d just hit him on his bicycle. Bryant took prudent action by trying to escape the attack. Let’s face it, Bryant’s like 5′-5″ tall (if that) and Sheppard appears to be at least 6-ft. No doubt Sheppard scared the shit out of Bryant.
I’ll give you this, it will indeed set a precedent. One that’s much needed. If cyclists want to use our roads, they should have to be licensed and their license should be tied into their car licence. Bicycles are little more than recreational toys and not modes of transportation, at least not in a city that’s buried under snow half the year. They belong on the bike trails in our parks and along the beach front, not on busy roads. I actually don’t have anything against bike lanes, but they must be well thought out. Mayor Miller is sticking them in very inappropriate and redundant places. Do we need bike lanes on every street? Of course not. Should Jarvis Street have bike lanes, absolutely not.
You can clearly see from the video that Bryant knocked Al off his bike and onto the ground. There is no legal defense for that, even if they had exchanged words previously. Witnesses saw Bryant run into Al after Al gave Bryant the finger. The spin job won’t hold up in court. You’ve hitched your horse to the wrong wagon, Dave!
Hey, I haven’t hitched my horse to any wagon. I’m going only by the eye witness reports. Although, admittedly, one reports Sheppard attacking from the passenger side while another reports he was on the driver’s side. Oh brother.
If Bryant hadn’t taken off, Sheppard would be alive, but in jail awaiting bail for assault, property damage and being drunk in public. They would not have been able to charge him with drinking and driving because apparently we don’t even have a law against that for cyclists, believe it or not.
If I knocked someone off a bike and he started hammering my car with his bike lock, I’d tear off immediately, especially if I were in a convertible with my wife in the passenger seat.
As for Sheppard giving Bryant the finger, why do you suppose that happened? Just because? No, it likely happened because of something that occurred earlier, right?
I think all the controversy here is because we have a bunch of armchair critics with 20/20 vision and a few seconds of really bad security camera footage pointing fingers. If someone starts a fight with you, you have two choices, fight back or run. Bryant’s a short little man who probably hasn’t been in a fight since a lunchroom altercation at his grade school. Of course he’s going to run.
You know what really pisses me off, is all the cyclist protesters. Where were they a month back when that 59-yr-old female pedestrian was killed in Scarborough by a cyclists riding on the sidewalk? I guess her life isn’t worth putting down their bong for.
For right or wrong, the way I see it it’s just another drunken road-rager off our roads. Of course, your mileage may vary.
Thanks for standing up for what you believe. I mean no offence to you, personally. Good on ya for presenting the other side of this.
When I say “hitched your horse to the wrong wagon”, I was referring to your very negative attitude towards cyclists. It’s clearly coloring your perception of the incident.
Breathe both of you – please.
LOL… It’s okay. JH and I just have different opinions. JH made a good point about my biases, one that I’m ready to admit. It’s all good…
🙂
Ahhh…that changes things, doesn’t it. Yeah, you’re right. I definitely have a negative attitude about cyclists and I’d be lying if I didn’t admit it skews my perspective. What’s funny is that I used to be somewhat indifferent about them. They were like wasps, annoying yet tolerable if left alone. Then Mayor Miller launched his anti-car campaign, spearheaded by traffic-congesting bike lanes everywhere. Now, it seems bikers and motorists alike are very polarized. Nice job, Mr Mayor.
What’s funny is that in less than 10 years from now we’re going to see a resurgence of the car, once they’re operating on something other than gasoline. They will be smaller, cheaper, more efficient and environmentally friendly. By then our roads will be so screwed, thanks to the misguided socialists at city hall, that it will take years and billions to fix them.
What we need is a smart multifaceted transit plan that takes into account that not only are cars not going away, their predominant presence on our roads is only going to grow with the population. But that doesn’t mean cyclists don’t deserve their space too, same with public transit, but all in balance. Our Mayor seems to be under the impression that if he can over tax us enough we won’t be able to afford to drive cars.
But I digress.
Well, at least you admit to your anti-bicycle bias. There should be room enough on the roads for both motorists *and* cyclists, in my opinion. Your characterization of bicycles as “toys” is completely at odds with the reality that many people use them as their primary mode of transportation.
But really, this is a case of misplaced sense of entitlement on Bryant’s part. If a cyclist gives a driver the finger, it doesn’t give the driver the right to run him over.
Now whose biases are showing. Do you really think the ex-Attorney General of Ontario consciously decided to “run over” someone for giving him the finger? It’s just not logical. Plus, he didn’t “run over” Sheppard. Sheppard was in the mist of accosting Bryant when Bryant drove off. Had Sheppard simply let go, he’d be alive today to face multiple criminal charges.
Aren’t cyclists the epitome of “misplaced sense of entitlement?” I mean, while the rest of us obey the rules of the road (mostly), you see cyclists running stop signs and red light and riding on sidewalks at every turn. I bet you couldn’t follow a cyclists for three blocks without seeing him/her break a law or two. They seem to think they are above the law, except when their negligence causes an accident, then they’re all about justice.
I characterize bicycles as toys because most riders use them like they are a toy, rather than a vehicle bound to the rules of the road. Once cyclists start using their toys responsibly, maybe I’ll have a change of opinion.
I do agree, however, that our roads need to accommodate cyclists and that well-placed bike lanes aren’t a bad idea. We just don’t have a government capable of handling the task, or most tasks, for that matter.
Yes, some cyclist disobey the rules of the road, just as some drivers do. Bike couriers and cab drivers are the extreme examples on either side of the fence.
But look at the video again. Bryant was not being accosted when he rammed into Sheppard. Sheppard was sitting *in front of Bryant’s car* on his bike. You claim Sheppard instigated the incident by attacking Bryant, but I challenge you to provide a single witness account that supports your claim. All you’ll find are vague suggestions and speculation (“leaked” to the media by Bryant’s PR firm?). The witnesses who dared to show their faces on camera all pointed the finger at Bryant.
Good example on both sides, but cyclists are far more cavalier of the rules than cabbies. Cabbies risk losing their license. Cyclists don’t have a license to lose.
As for that video, I honestly can’t even see what’s happening, other than a car lurching forward. I’m sure if I used my imagination I could see (wish) Bryant gritting his teeth and saying “I’m gonna run me over a cyclist for giving me da finger.” 😉
As for the witnesses, most of the eye witness reports I’m going by were issued while Bryant was still in custody, before he hired a PR firm. Their claims are based on what they saw, without prejudice. Guy was hitting car with bike lock. Guy grabbed Bryant’s steering wheel. Looked like guy was trying to commandeer the vehicle. Guy had Bryant in headlock. But these witnesses could very well be mistaken, no question.
The pro-cyclist witnesses are making claims like, “Yeah the driver was definitely trying to scrape the cyclists off his car.” Now that some fancy eye witnessing, if I do say so myself. They not only saw what was happening, but also witnessed Bryant’s thought process. The real question is, if Sheppard wasn’t assaulting Bryant, what was he doing in his car, getting an autograph?
Even in your video the poster threw in his/her own speculative comments, based on absolutely nothing more than his/her own biased opinion.
Can we agree that Sheppard was drunk (his girlfriend readily admits he was)? Can we agree that he’d been in a police car not an hour earlier over a domestic dispute (the cops say he was)? Can we agree he accosted a homeless guy when he fell off his bike drunk (his neighbour saw the whole thing)? Now, far be it from me to extrapolate Sheppard’s prior condition and state of mind to the assault that occurred less than an hour later, but it does make you wonder.
As for Bryant, he’ll get his day in court and no matter what evidence is presented, if he’s not found guilty of out and out murder of the premeditated kind, all the cyclist protesters will moan and drip that Sheppard didn’t get justice. Hell, Bryant’s already been convicted on youtube by wishful thinking. In this day and age, shouldn’t that be enough?
Sheppard was drunk. Sheppard got into a fight with a motorist. The motorist took off and Sheppard died when he fell from the car. That’s what happened. As for state of mind and thought process and mood and such, no one will ever know, except maybe Bryant’s wife and those savvy youtube posters.
By the way, I’m glad you dropped by today, JH, thanks.
The supposed witnesses you’re citing haven’t been quoted, nor appeared on camera. This could just as easily be Bryant’s wife’s testimony the police are investigating.
I visited your blog because I saw it linked in an online newspaper article, as an example of a pro-Bryant perspective. I’d been giving Bryant the benefit of a doubt myself until I started seeing the surveillance footage. I just think this is too high-profile a case for Bryant to get off, because the precedent will endanger pedestrians and cyclists alike.
Are drivers allowed to hit us for yelling at them? What about just giving them dirty looks? Where is the line drawn?
Witness testimony can be unreliable at the best of times, but that works on both sides. And you’re right, the witness statements I saw were not on camera (that I can remember), only in print.
My blog was listed in an online newspaper for this?!!! What online newspaper? That explains the increased traffic.
I disagree that the precedent set by Bryant getting off will be detrimental to cyclists and pedestrians. A more dangerous precedent will be set if Bryant is found guilty not because he actually is, but because of political correctness. That’s not to say he’s not guilty, only that the verdict must be based on the evidence and nothing more; the potential precedent should have no bearing on the outcome of the case, get me? I’m sure we can agree on that, no?
As for the cause and fault of the traffic accident that preceded the road rage incident, I can’t say. Anything I’ve heard does not speak to this, other than opinionated people (like me! =|:o) who weren’t there and are going on information provided by other opinionated people who weren’t there. These are the people who “want” Bryant to be guilty rather than those who would like to see real justice. But as I write that last sentence I realize the fallacy of my thought, as justice is not based on right and wrong, but on win or lose. One need look no further than the OJ murder trial. OJ clearly was guilty, but he could afford to “win” the case against him. Many of his fans still think he was innocent and even if OJ admitted his guilt, there are probably some who’d argue that his confession must have been coerced.
No matter how this case plays out in court, there are many who will never accept that Sheppard was anything but an innocent victim. And when they argue this incontrovertible “fact” they will ignore the actual facts of the case, such as Sheppard being drunk and Sheppard accosting a homeless guy less than an hour earlier. They won’t care because those facts do not help them with their belief. I’d say it’s sad, but it’s not, really — it’s just human nature.
Hi JH,
I played that video again and followed the link to more “enhanced” footage and I do see what you mean now. It certainly does look bad for Bryant, once you really strain to see what’s going on. I have to admit, it’s almost unbelievable, but video evidence doesn’t lie. It looks as if Bryant ran Sheppard up onto his hood and moved forward. If this is indeed what happened, then that certainly changes things. It even changes my notion this isn’t about cyclists vs cars. The video would suggest Bryant is the aggressor, but the question is why? He was out celebrating with his wife. What could have happened to make him that mad, I wonder. Clearly there’s more to it than we’re seeing. I’m sure the video will represent a large piece of evidence of his trial.
Thanks for posting it. At least it will give other visitors another perspective.
My message below was cross-posted with your last reply. I don’t know why Bryant reacted the way he did – I had trouble believing it myself. I’ve heard reports that Bryant was on PAXIL for depression, which can produce side-effects of aggression and irritability. But that’s just a rumor, we really don’t know.
I think it was a Chronicle Herald article that linked to your blog, but I can’t find it now.
One of the construction workers who witnessed the incident stated that Bryant in fact did run into Sheppard’s bicycle. The other worker stated that Bryant was clearly enraged. Those are people who *were* there, and combined with the surveillance footage, it paints a pretty damning picture.
I remain open to being convinced by equally compelling evidence in support of Bryant’s claims. However, thus far the claims that Bryant was attacked first have only been vague, speculative rumors.
Thanks. Yeah, I saw the eyewitness footage too but gave it little weight, as people often misinterpret what they see. But couple that to the security camera footage and it starts to look pretty damning. As for the Paxil rumour, I saw that too and just laughed. The poster said he overheard a doctor talking about it. Yeah, whatever.
I’m going to add an update to the original article at the top of this page.
This person’s blog post is worth a read.
http://philipsullivan.blogspot.com/2009/09/michael-bryant-vs-cyclist-darcy.html
I wasn’t aware that Bryant and Sheppard had been harassing each other for blocks prior to the incident in the video. The video is not the start of the incident.
I’m not sure whether the reported “minor collision” was the same one we’ve seen recently on surveillance video, or something else. Keep in mind that blog post was written a week ago before these videos were aired.
Hard to say. One thing’s pretty clear, the cyclist was looking for trouble. Maybe he antagonized Bryant to the breaking point. Little guys can be hotheads when provoked. No matter what Sheppard did or how drunk he was, he didn’t deserve to die like that. But if he was provoking Bryant for blocks, I can see how it would have gotten his blood boiling. No doubt Bryant never intended for things to end the way they did. Like I said, it’s a tragedy for all involved.
If Bryant is claiming the cyclist had been provoking him for several blocks, they’ll have to trace the security camera trail all the way down Yonge St. This could end up being a feature-length movie…
LOL… You can bet they already have. Thanks again for bringing the other side to this story. You really helped to broaden my perspective.
Hi Dave,
I see you read my blog post about this incident. I was visiting your blog through a whole different thread but stumbled upon this post!
Anyhow, the point of my post was to say that people should wait for the facts and the story from Bryant (and his wife) before passing judgement. We simply don’t know about “state of mind” until some light is shed on that.
But this is not a bike vs car debate. Sheppard was not killed because of the altercation at the stop light. He was not killed as a cyclist. He was killed because the car travelled down the wrong side of the street and Sheppard, now a pedestrian, was clinging to the side of the car, struck an object and fell under the rear wheels of the car. What does that have to do with his bike? The questions are these:
– Why did Bryant not stop the car once Sheppard was on it?
– Why did the car proceed down the eastbound lanes?
– What caused the car to strike roadside objects?
The answers to these questions will determine whether or not Bryant is guilty of Sheppard’s death. The incident at the stoplight has little bearing (Sheppard wasn’t killed at the light) other than to explain why the two became involved at all. From what we can see of the video, Bryant is guilty of assaulting Sheppard with his vehicle, yes (and he should be charged for it), but the fatality occurred afterwards.
One thing we DO see from the video that IS relevant to the car/bike debate is that Sheppard clearly commits a moving violation. Bryant’s car is stopped in the left lane at a stoplight (the lane doubles as a turning lane, one supposes). Sheppard passes the car ON THE LEFT, drifting into the eastbound lanes, and then pulls up to a stop in front of Bryant’s car, essentially “budding in front” of Bryant’s car at the light. It’s entirely possible that this is the beginning of their argument. Sheppard does not move as the light turns green (we see eastbound traffic pass by). Was he waiting to turn (making his budding move all the more douchebaggy) or was he just trying to give an F-U to the motorist? Who knows? This is where the situation escalates. Bryant appears to lurch at the bike, then ram it (inexcusable). I don’t see a middle finger or a bag or a bike lock, but those are facts that will come out and goes to show that we can’t tell for certain what is happening in the video. It is also possible that Bryant and Sheppard had crossed paths earlier – the video doesn’t show that.
In the end, the cicrumstances surrounding Sheppard – the pedestrian’s – death will come to light through the courts. As far as who instigated the confrontation between cyclist and motorist, it appears based on the video that Sheppard – the cyclist – was the one who committed the first offence.
Thanks for dropping by, Phil. I think your comment sums it up nicely until we see what comes out in court. I have to admit, when cyclists cut in front of me illegally, I get steamed. Not enough to ram them up onto the hood of my car, of course, but I admittedly have to fight that urge. Any way you look at it, if Bryant did indeed run the cyclist up onto the car hood, for whatever reason, then he’s in deep poop.
Phil: the incident at the stoplight cannot be separated from the fatal crash. If it’s determined by the court that Bryant deliberately ran his car into Sheppard at the lights, then his claims about the ensuing death-drag will be severely tainted. You don’t get to run a cyclist over on the defense that he cut in front of you at a stoplight.
JH – Huh? Of course not. Did anyone suggest that? But when you say “run a cyclist over” do you mean at the stopligt or afterwards? Bryant appears to ram the cyclist, which, of course, was unjustified – regardless of the fact that Sheppard committed the initial moving violation and instigated the confrontation (by budding in front). If you mean afterwards, then I don’t see your point. Like I said, they are two different incidents. (Besides, I find it a little annoying when I read Bryant “ran over a cyclist”. You might as well say he ran over a vegetarian. The fact Sheppard is a cyclist does not factor into his death – he wasn’t on his bike when he clung to the car and subsequently fell off.)
Look at it this way. I steal your wallet. I take off. You chase me. In your pursuit, you come across a gorge. You decide to try to jump it in an effort to catch up to me. You don’t make it and die. Did I murder you? Of course not. Did my actions cause you to put yourself in that situation? Sure, but YOU decided to jump that gorge. My stealing your wallet (guilty) is not the same as killing you.
Bryant appears to have run his car into Sheppard at the light for whatever reason. Totally crosses a line and makes him guilty of some sort of assault. Sheppard did not die as a result of this impact. Bryant drives off – that makes it a hit and run. Guilty times two. A case for the cops. Assuming Sheppard then pursued/jumped on Bryant’s car, then that’s when he put himself in harm’s way and crossed a line of his own. This is where we run into the questions I mentioned earlier. It’s the events that occur at this moment that determine Bryant’s guilt or innocence in terms of Sheppard’s death. While the incident at the light may paint Bryant in an unfavourable light, they do not play into Sheppard’s death which came as a result of him falling off the car he willingly clung to. If the events played out as the video suggests then Bryant is a total douchebag (and guilty of assault) for ramming Sheppard regardless of whether or not Sheppard gave him the finger or whacked his car with his bag/lock. But that does not make Bryant guilty of the charge he caused Sheppard’s death. What happened before Sheppard jumped on and what happened after he jumped on are two different situations and incidents. If Sheppard clung to the steering wheel and accidentally brought about his own demise, does that make Bryant any less guilty of ramming him? No. Conversely, the fact Bryant is guilty of ramming Sheppard at the light does not make him guilty of causing Sheppard’s death afterwards.
But what are Bryant’s “claims about the ensuing death-drag”? I haven’t heard any statement as to his side of the story, only that he professes his innocence…
Let’s imagine this is Bryant’s story: “I lost my cool when the cyclist cut in front of me and wouldn’t move. We yelled at each other. I lurched forward but he still didn’t move. He slammed his bag on my hood and I lost it. I knocked him down with my car. I realized right away what I had done was wrong and that I was in trouble. I lost my nerve and tried to drive off. As I passed Sheppard, he ran alongside the car and grab on to my arm and the steering wheel. I yelled at him to let go. He was really mad and I was scared. I thought he was going to kill me. I couldn’t control the car but I didn’t want to stop. The car veered left and struck some objects. That’s when Sheppard lost his grip and fell.”
Just IMAGINING that this is his story, does that make him guilty of Sheppard’s death? I dunno. If Bryant could not control the car then Sheppard accidentally brought about his own demise. Will something like this be his story? Who knows – but how about we wait for the facts and arguments to come out in court before we decide his guilt or innocence?
This might all come down to the definition of vehicular manslaughter. I honestly don’t know what it is. Even if Bryant can show that his intentions were simply to escape his attacker, he should have known that the speed he was travelling put his unwanted passenger at grave risk of injury or death. The argument, “Hey, it was his choice to hang on,” likely won’t fly. On the other hand, if he can show that he no longer had complete control of the vehicle or view of the road, then Sheppard might be found responsible for his own undoing. It’ll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Phil: If Bryant ran into the cyclist on purpose, then he’s demonstrated reckless, life-threatening driving mere seconds before dragging the same cyclist to his death. Claiming that he lost his cool but quickly gathered his wits again won’t cut it in the court of law. Running into Sheppard with his car immediately hurts Bryant’s credibility for the entire incident.
I wonder what happens it Bryant can prove that Sheppard pushed him to the breaking point, but only momentarily, from which he immediately recovered only to find a very angry, drunk Sheppard trying to commandeer the vehicle, at which time, out of fear, he tried to flee.
A person’s mental state is difficult to prove, especially if they’re claiming a drastic shift in temperament from blind rage to abject terror within a span of 30 seconds. I think Bryant’s only viable defense is to claim that he ran into Sheppard as a preemptive measure because Sheppard was threatening him.
JH: a) I hope you never serve on a jury of mine! 😛 b) I find it completely plausible that a politician/public official/Bryant would lose his cool, do something completely reckless and stupid, realize IMMEDIATELY that he was in deep doo-doo, panic, try to take off, then fear for his own safety with Sheppard on his car. Do you find it more plausible that, being still in a blind rage, he tried to flee the scene of the stoplight contact? That screams panic to me.
I find Dave’s suggestion far more believable. I, too, wonder what the scope of “criminial negligence causing death” and “dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death” is. I guess we’ll find out.
(the problem, of course, is that we’ll never get Sheppard’s side)
Phil: human emotion rarely swings from rage immediately to fear. That’s why the vikings worked themselves into berserker rages before battle. People often swing from rage to remorse, but that wouldn’t explain Bryant’s behavior. The only justifiable basis for a rage-to-fear defense would be a pharmaceutical one.
Sheppard’s state of mind will be far easier to figure out than Bryant’s, I suspect. The last hour of his life involved booze (and possibly drugs), a domestic dispute, assaulting a homeless guy, and then came along Bryant. In that same hour Bryant has having a pleasant, albeit boozeless evening with his wife celebrating their anniversary. Between the two, I wonder which was out looking for trouble?
The only significant question re: Sheppard’s state-of-mind will be whether they can find evidence that he provoked or threatened Bryant before the collision. The confrontation with the homeless man could just have easily been the homeless man’s fault, and the police have already stated that Sheppard only had a couple of drinks but wasn’t intoxicated. “Prior state-of-mind” is a very tenuous basis for a legal argument in comparison to video evidence. I doubt Bryant’s lawyer will rely on state-of-mind as the crux of her defense plea.
The incident with the homeless guy was witnessed by Sheppard’s neighbour first hand. I heard her say on the news, “He was too drunk to even ride the bike. He fell off, then accosted a homeless guy who was watching, smashing him up against a chainlink fence.” I did hear another report claim that the homeless guy had laughed when Sheppard fell off his bike drunk, which would explain Sheppard’s reaction, and his state of mind.
Another consideration that hasn’t been mentioned is Bryant’s wife. I mean, would she not be screaming her head off during all this? She must have been terrified. This would have only added to Bryant’s state of fear. If Bryant had been thinking cooly, he no doubt would have slammed on the brakes, sending Sheppard flying. That’s what I would have done. The fact Bryant kept going, and on the wrong side of the road, might actually help his defence, in my opinion. His reaction was entirely irrational, for someone in a normal state of mind, but for someone in complete terror, it’s not.
JH:
You assume Bryant was in a fit of rage, which will be very difficult to prove. I suspect he might have been very agitated, but once the cyclist was up on the hood, it would have immediately sobered him up. I can imagine going from “F*cking asshole” to “Holy crap” the moment I realized what I’d just done. The next moment I’ve got the guy jumping me in my car. By then all the fight would be gone out of me. I’d be very afraid.
To justify deliberately hitting someone with his car, I think Bryant will need to plead either rage or self-defense. Claiming he was “a little bit angry” won’t cut it, especially with on-site witnesses claiming he was enraged. It would be a slippery slope of legal precedent if drivers could get away with hitting people because they were “angry” at them.
You can forget about any witnesses testimony regarding his state of mind. First question I’d ask the witness if I was defending Bryant is, And what are your professional qualification in regards to the psychology of anger and rage? Zero, huh. No further questions, your Honour.
I hadn’t heard the account of the homeless fight before, but the police did state that Sheppard wasn’t intoxicated (they pretty much had to say that, to cover their own butts after releasing him previously).
I don’t dispute the viability of the fear defense. It’s the rage-to-fear defense that will be hard to pull off IMO.
And if you asked the police how do you know he wasn’t intoxicated, they’d undoubtedly reply, We asked him. We’ll know once the toxicology report comes in, assuming they’re doing one. You can bet they are.
I believe the police statement re: Sheppard’s blood-alcohol came 3 days after the event. I don’t know how long those tests take to process, though.
Something else to consider is that Bryant’s courtroom defense will have to be compatible with the statement he gave that same night. If Bryant claimed to police that the cyclist was threatening him and that he acted out of fear, then the rage-to-fear argument won’t hold water. If Bryant neglected to mention the fact that he hit the cyclist first, then his lawyer will somehow have to justify the initial collision on the grounds of Bryant being afraid for his safety.
That could be big trouble for him. It’s anyone’s guess if he’d be thinking straight enough to realize that he must have been caught on security cams. If his statement to the police entirely contradict the camera footage, it will undermine everything else he says in the courtroom. The one thing going for him is he was probably given about as best of treatment as one could expect from the cops in this sort of situation. They might not have pressed him or pushed him around the way they would anyone else.
If Bryant claims that he was merely angry at the cyclist when he drove him up onto his hood, it will raise serious questions about Bryant’s sense of judgment and mental condition. That’s why I think rage or self-defense are better angles to take. Given sufficient provocation, it’s human to become enraged once in awhile. Assaulting someone with a vehicle when you’re merely angry is sociopathic behavior. Of course, the rage defense makes any fear defense less plausible (as discussed above), so that’s why I’d stick with fear/self-defense for the entire encounter if I were Bryant’s lawyer.
Re: witnesses & psychology degrees
Perhaps you’re right that Bryant’s own testimony of his emotional state will carry more weight in court than the witnesses’ will. I think a great deal depends on how honest his testimony was on the other details.
It’s ironic that Bryant lobbied against guns so hard, believing self-defense as not being sufficient a reason to own guns, and then to find himself in a life-threatening position in which a gun, used to defend both his and his wife’s life from attack, could have ended the incident with less fatal consequences than actually occurred. Instead, he used his car as a weapon, to lethal effect.
Classic.
Interesting thought. I’m sure that’s just how the NRA would spin this if it happened in the U.S. The fact is, there’s really no valid reason or argument for citizens to own guns. But in fairness, and in consideration and respect of the U.S. Constitution, I guess there’s still that clear and present danger of dem dastardly Brits landing on American shores, in which case it would indeed be handy to be able to saddle up your trusty horse with musket in hand to join your local militia to fight them off.
Also, your argument is based on the unproven idea that Bryant “used” his car for something more than simply to escape his attacker.