I always thought of our papers as this:
Toronto Star: TorontoTorontoTorontoTorontoToronto!
Toronto Sun: Yay Cops!
Globe and Mail: We’re like the New York Times!
National Post: Yay Conrad Black!
If I’m understanding the video correctly, it also looked entirely deliberate. Am I correct that Bryant was essentially stopped, with Sheppard on the bike directly in front of him, and then Bryant accelerated forward to knock Sheppard across the hood?
Looks like it to me. Brutal bastard.
With all this publicity, where are they going to find a jury? And can you imagine the selection process?
‘Crown Attorney’ - “Have you ever driven a car?”
Juror #1 - “Yes.”
‘Crown Attorney’ - “Rejected!”
Defense Attorney - “Have you ever ridden a bicycle?”
Juror #2 - “Yes.”
Defense Attorney - “Rejected!”
Judge - (Under his breath) “This has ‘long day’ written all over it…”
I looked at that video too, but if you’d told me someone had annotated a bowl of vegetable soup, I’d have believed you. How can you tell who or what anything is, let alone what they’re doing? Let alone anyone’s intent.
Add to that the fact that the defendant is a lawyer who is also a politician and he will be testifying on his own behalf, and the other principal witness is also a lawyer who will be testifying on behalf of her husband - who’s going to believe anything they say? (The preceding has been an attempted joke; please do not pit me.)
My impression as well - though I’m sure that by the time of the trial, we’ll hear plenty from experts analyzing it frame-by-frame!
I think this version is a bit improved:
Luuuucy, you’ve go some ‘splainin’ to do!
That sure looked like a car driving a cyclist up onto its hood.
They were both stopped at a light waiting for it to change. Without being able to see where the driver is looking, I don’t see anything that makes it undeniably deliberate. For example, if he was looking at a cellphone in his hand, he may have started moving without looking at what was right in front of him.
Is that a valid excuse in Ontario? That you hit someone because you were driving looking at your cellphone, rather than at what’s in front of your car?
And when you hit a cyclist, is it the law in Ontario that you can immediately drive off while the cyclist that you just hit is clinging on to your car trying to get you to stop?
(Of course, if it is the law, then Mr Bryant can tell the court, through his lawyer, exactly which traffic regulation he was following).
It would change the nature of the crime of which Bryant could be convicted, though. Hitting someone because you’re not paying attention is dramatically different in law from hitting someone because you’re pissed off at him.
Having said that the video does make it appear that the allegation Sheppard jumped on the hood is BS.
WTF? Of course not! What the hell is wrong with you?
Post above were saying: “It looks like a deliberate ramming” and I’m just pointing out there is not enough information in the video to tell. The car and bike were waiting for a light, then the car hits the bike from behind, it could have been deliberate or just a driver screw up.
ETA: Actually in the second more contrasty video, it looks much more unlikely that the driver didn’t see the bike. In the murky one, I couldn’t say one way or the other.
Yes, but a “driver screw up” is an odd term to use for negligent homicide. On what I’ve seen and read, it is conceivable that Mr Bryant deliberately killed, and hence is guilty of murder, but I suspect that a prosecutor would have difficulty proving that. However, it does seem that Mr Bryant negligently struck the cyclist, then drove off after that first incident, and because the cyclist was still on his car, drove dangerously with the intention of knocking the cyclist off, and as a result caused his death. He then drove off after the second incident (which does sort of flow on from the first).
Again, I was referring to “deliberate ramming”. I was not referring to anything else but the speculation that the driver deliberately rammed the cyclist. In the first murky video, there was not enough visual information to tell if the initial contact was deliberate or not.
Seriously, what the hell?
I would expect that if investigators are looking at clearer version of the video, charges could be upgraded (or at the very least additional charges added).
It will take better eyes than mine to make much out of that clip.
On watching the second video, I can’t really tell whether Sheppard jumped at the car or not.
I hope I will be forgiven digging up an old thread, but in a further development, all charges against Michael Bryant have been dropped.
Interesting, and certain to spark outrage.
I expected to be outraged at the acquittal, much as I was over the Rahim Jaffer incident.
In this case though, it appears acquittal was justified.
I truly do not know, and now, I will never know if I feel the acquittal is justified or not. Was Bryant’s response appropriate to the circumstances? The thing is, if I had got to read about the evidence, I’d have an easier tie accepting his innocence. Now, I have a bunch of unanswered questions.
And in the midst of a Mayoralty race where bike lanes are already an issue and tempers are flaring, this is going to be fuel on the fire.
And I’m not saying I would behave any better in those circumstances, either. I don’t know what I’d do, and I hope I never have to find out.