Bryant Charged In Cyclist's Death

"It is concievable that this was a homicide. If so, he shcould be charged with 2nd degree murder. I assume he used his car as a weapon."

There, fixed that for you. Unless of course you're a police investigator with access to as-yet unreleased information about the incident.

I'm basing this on the eyewitness reports of Bryant yelling at the cyclists and driving on the wrong side of the road, dislodging the cyclist. If you don't know the facts then don't correct my posts.

I don't know how you couldn't read Greg's later comment as reflecting anything other than a very good understanding of the allegations. The fact that Bryant was yelling at Sheppard and that he may have tried to dislodge him by driving into oncoming traffic (as well as his near immediate stop and call to police) may be consistent with a crime, but it doesn't, on its face, show the requisite intent for murder. In short, to find that Bryant murdered Sheppard, you would have to find that he drove off, into oncoming traffic, and through a construction site *not* with the intention of dislodging him, but solely with the intention of killing him.

This seems to me, as horrified as I am at what Bryant did, as being highly implausible.

One clear flaw in your reasoning: in this scenario a gun would have had a single clear purpose with potential consequences that would be clear to any reasonable person, whereas a convertible car has multiple uses, each of which could have uncertain consequences.

For example, a car can be used to effect an expeditious escape from the grasp of an irate person who is physically threatening you* in the aftermath of a collision. This potential use might be attractive when, having the top down on a summer night, you realize that you cannot protect yourself by locking the doors and remaining stationary and make an adrenaline-charged split-second decision.

It is conceivable that a driver in the same circumstances as Bryant might have driven away without intending or foreseeing that the person would cling to the car or that a subsequent struggle with that person (perhaps with him reaching inside to grab the wheel in panic*) would cause other person's death.

The concept of negligence encompasses having taken an action that you should have known could cause harm, and driving away would seem to have been negligent. To say that in doing so Bryant used the car as a weapon is to allege intention, which I am not willing to assume in the absence of evidence. The media accounts I have read indicate that the scene of the incident was extensively investigated, and that Bryant was questioned. For now, I'm comfortable reserving judgment on the assumption that charges were laid based on the available evidence.

*I do not know these things to be true, but suggest them here both because they are illustrative of my point and because they strike me as a fairly plausible explanation -- not an excuse -- for the chaos that ensued. Personally I don't think there's much use in speculating, and I am doing so here not because I think I know what happened but rather to point out to others that they, too, do not know what happened.

___

tl;dr version - there's a difference between negligence (call it culpable stupidity) and homicide (call it intentional evil). For everyone's sake, I'm glad it's not your job or mine to discern the difference.

Following McKingford above, I should have said "murder", not "homicide".

whoops! my comment was @Craig C

yes Andrew! We need TMZ up in here! lol

No. This story is getting some of the worst online coverage I'e ever seen to be honest.

Complete lack of info in the early reports. Police wouldn't even confirm he was involved.

In all seriousness, I am sort of shocked as to how all of this was reported. The initial info released was partial at best.

I think this is a very sad day for everyone involved but also due to the fact that there seemed to be quite a bit of tampering or last minute editing to many of the stories that appeared online.

If you love your city as much as I think you do, I think we owe it to ourselves to keep our local media accountable for giving us the facts.

I think Torontonians are much too complacent with their local media.

Even look here at the Torontoist. When ithis blog was was about to close, everyone was up in arms, yet here is a huge local story, with a million ramifications and there are less that 30 comments.

I'm sorry to use such a tragedy to soap box, but I'm appalled by the way this story was cover online today. The globe didn't even allow comments on their stories.

My condolences to all involved are first and foremost though. Thanks for you patience and understanding but I do hope you think about what I have said.

She IS mentioned in the online Globe & Mail article

this is the story that ran most of the day.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/my-deepest-condolences/article1271489/

Can't see her mentioned here, but might have skipped over.

Ya, it's there... near the end. However, they have been altering the article as the day goes on because it now mentions her by her full name and gives her occupation. Last time I read it it referred to her as his female companion.

Interesting.

So his wife is an entertainment lawyer. Her name isn't mentioned until late tonight and the comments were closed all day for "legal reasons". I know there are concerns and respect for the privacy of his family, but she was (and will be) a key witness and unfortunately be drawn into the story line at some point.

This is the internet. It's one of the most powerful tools we have in the world to convey and distribute information to each other.

Online journalism also is intertwined with online discussion, some of it hearsay, some of it meaningful, some of it simply rants, but that is online discussions.

So the lack of an online component with real information and details to the way this story unfolded today is unfortunate. I guess our community is happy to wait until all of the lawyers and power brokers are happy and taken care of before we really find out what had transpired.

The very fact that one of our national media newspaper's website simply closed comments rather than moderating them is a shame. And it also speaks to the lack of importance I think Torontonians attach to the net as to how it can work on a local level (one of the most important roles it can play).

Condolences to all involved. It's a tragic day. Maybe someday TO will think of the internet as a way to tell its story to each other and not simply sit back and digest what is hand fed to it.

Not looking for you to take on an position other than your own David :) Torontoist is doing a fine job of allowing a discussion to happen online here. Kuddos

What the Globe and Star are not understanding however is that this story isn't simply a crime story. It is a cultural one as well.

If these papers want to engage in online journalism, as we all know, living in the digital space is messy. Online thought and discussions sometime don't unfold the way in which we want them to. But they do serve a purpose in allowing people to look at themselves and also share information as it is breaking for various sources (the Iran Elections come to mind).

We would be well served as a culture if our local and national media engaged in presenting their online content component with all of its ranges of expression intact.

I'm not advocating un-moderated comments, quite the opposite, I'm advocating they put resources and time into moderating the comments coming in. That's what online editorial oversight is all about. My point might be to simply speak to these outlets lack of dedication in putting the resources in place and taking "unpopular" stands (with their legal departments at least) in order to have the web be a vital part of our national story telling.

Thanks for checking in. :)

I think a lot of people would disagree with you about Bryant being cold-blooded murderer.

"I think that Michael Bryant is going to cause the deaths of many, many animals that are absolutely wonderful, and I hope he goes down to the shelter and sticks the needle in the six-month old pit bull puppy that has done nothing to anybody but that is going to die because of his legislation."

So he's guilty because you don't like his politics?

What does his character have to do with his guilt or his politics? You made a claim. I'm disputing it. You seem a bit slow...

Why would he spend any time in jail? There is an active investigation going on, he is not likely to leave the country. Seems the court was pretty efficient.

See, that's the problem. He never went to court, he was released from the police station without even having had a bail hearing.

I am not suggesting that Bryant should not have received bail, but a court should have at least considered whether he deserves bail, and what conditions were appropriate to ensure the public safety while he was at large. For instance, while it is certainly unlikely that Bryant would flee the jurisdiction, shouldn't there be a bail set to at least address the public's confidence in his attendance at court? Furthermore, speaking as a criminal lawyer, I can tell you with reasonable certainty that virtually anybody released on bail facing allegations of a vehicular homicide would be subject to a driving prohibition (eg. if he had registered a *caution* on a roadside breath screening device, he would be subject to an automatic driving suspension); as it is now, released on a police undertaking, he cannot be subject to a driving prohibition for the duration of his bail.

Lets face it, these are extremely serious allegations: Bryant killed someone. No matter what other extenuating circumstances that might exist, *anyone* else in his shoes would have been held for a bail hearing, and been subjected to rather onerous bail conditions (if released).

As for the fact that the "investigation is ongoing", here's what would happen to any other Joe who wasn't the former AG. They'd be brought before a JP, the Crown would say "the investigation is ongoing" and request (and get as a matter of course) a 3 day remand in custody while the investigation continued and further charges were considered. In short, the fact that the investigation wasn't over would be seen as a basis to *hold* the accused, not release them.

In fairness, Kenk's situation is not as straightforward as this. He was released on a sizable bail after his initial arrest. It is then alleged that he committed further offences while on bail, which the courts tend to look disfavourably upon when considering whether to re-release someone.

Technically, life (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/section-220.html)

More practically, a lot less.

CBC is reporting this morning that the cyclist was the one with road rage and that as Bryant cut the escalating argument short by leaving, the cyclist slammed his bag on the hood of the car and then proceeded to grab at the drivers side of the vehicle as it was driving off. And it appears the cyclist was drunk.

I'm thinking most soccer moms would have reacted the same way. And tried to flee from the intoxicated, agitated and violent cyclist. If the facts are as they are being reported.

The more I hear about this, the more I agree, Bryant will probably walk.

I think it's ridiculous that we judge the character of those involved before we make a decision. An alcoholic bike courier's life is worth less than a former public servant.

I'm not saying that Bryant was entirely in the wrong, both men made poor decisions but only one paid with his life.

It's going to be a mistake to prejudge either party in this tragic accident -- the only thing clear is that it looks like it was a lot more complicated than it was first reported.