I was very skeptical after seeing some of the video footage, but a stalling vehicle does actually jibe with the footage. However, I’m still a little :dubious: about it all.
:eek: How so?
Right at this point,
there has been a vehicular accident. The right thing to do is shut the vehicle off, get out, and verify whether the guy is hurt. Instead, Bryant tries to leave the scene,
To my understanding, that’s a crime right there. Everything that happened after just makes it worse–driving with the guy hanging on to the car is lunatic.
An acquittal means that there’s not enough evidence to support conviction, and I don’t see there being enough evidence. Sorry. Bryant was confronted by a drunk lunatic and he feared for his, and his wife’s safety. I’m not saying he did the right thing by driving off, all I’m saying is that there were extraneous circumstances involved and that a conviction would not have been warranted.
Exactly. They are not saying “We think this guy is innocent” they are saying: “We know we can’t prove this beyond a reasonable doubt and it’s really unlikely we’ll get a conviction.”
Yes – Bryant, with all his connections to the legal profession, would be able to hire the best criminal defense lawyer in Canada, who would almost certainly be able to get an acquittal, probably on the basis of self defense.
It would be different if there was a possible tort action against Bryant, but I don’t think dead people can sue.
The executive summary of the independent Crown prosecutor’s report is available here (pdf).
In Ontario, family members of the deceased can sue (Family Law Act, Part V) for things such as loss of guidance, care and companionship, however, given what has come to light in the prosecutor’s report (thanks for the link, Northern Piper), I expect that the claim would summarily fail, with costs. Bryant could sue the dead guy’s estate, but I can’t imagine a nutzo bike courier leaving anything, and I can’t see Bryant wanting to risk his and his family’s emotional healing or his political capital with such an action.
Yes, the report posted by Northern Piper paints a much worse picture of Sheppard’s than my first impressions. Given how provocative and threatening Sheppard was, I don’t think he’d succeed in a tort action.
However, apart from Sheppard’s estate being probably zilch, I don’t see how Bryant would have a serious tort action. Technically, he did suffer some loss, e.g., some damage to his car, but I doubt if it would be worth a suit, especally since it would be met by a counter suit.
Why am I getting a malware warning when I try to go to nytimes.com?
Knee jerk reaction before reading the article…
So? Accidents happen, that is why they are not called on purposes … and anybody can have an accident.
I am sure the Canadian police will sort things out appropriately.
Wow, Canadian exective summaries are 11 PAGES??? An American exeeutive summary would be, like, “Let him go”, or “Fry his ass”.
They have to explain this one thoroughly to avoid a riot. Without a detailed summary, there was a risk of serious backlash.
I for one, having viewed some of the footage, thought it really looked like Bryant had deliberately bumped the guy with his car just to be an asshole. But given the bigger picture and better analysis of the video I’ve seen, it changes my opinion.
Plus, given that there are photographs of the cyclist attacking someone else and pulling the same stunt (hanging off the passenger side of a car while trying to get at them), my perception of the events has totally changed.
Uh… you really need to read the article.
Do you know how unlikely it is for your average rioter to read 11 pages???!! They will be in full riot by the end of page 3. 
I, however, did read the whole thing, and I have to admit they did an absolutely solid job laying out the evidence and their reasoning for not brining charges.
Loss of an extremely high paying job, loss of reputation, very high legal fees, and possibly nervous shock depending on what physical symptoms he might have exhibited.
From what the summary says, the defense also must have hired experts to examine all the available evidence. At the very least, specialists in video analysis, as they claimed (and the Crown’s experts agreed) that the car averaged about 20 miles per hour during the time Sheppard was hanging on it. That was apparently much slower than what some of the eyewitness claimed. Probably they hired a pathologist too to examine the autopsy data.
I though it was very interesting that the whole incident lasted only about 30 seconds, from the initial confrontation to the time Sheppard fell off the car and was killed. From some of the initial accounts it seemed like… whole minutes, and long struggles and dragging through half of town. Though I’m sure a good chunk of that is just my own fuzzy memory.
Well, that’s another fine pickle…
All those are as a result of Sheppard’s death. Are you aware of any cases in common-law jurisdictions – not just Canada, but in the U.K., U.S., or elsewhere – where the plaintiff recovered damages from losses caused by the defendant’s death? In other words, if A gets into an altercation with B, as a result of which B dies, and A suffers various losses during the investigation of the death, did B owe a duty to A not to die?
Which sort of suggests that it was.
If you’re doubtful, you’re supposed to acquit, after all. The standard for the only other option is certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The damages arose out of the intentional assault committed by the cyclist. That he managed to get killed in the process does not get him off the hook. That the damages were exacerbated by his dying does not get him off the hook. It comes down to the “but for” test applied to an intentional tort – but for the assault, would Bryant have suffered the damages? Duty of care does not come into it, so the question of whether or not there was a duty to not die does not come into it.
Two things:
-
The eleven pages provide a summary of the evidence, expert analyses, and witness statements.
-
They are not saying he’s innocent. They are saying essentially they can’t possibly get a conviction given the overwhelming evidence to support the claim that his actions were justified and a lack of evidence to show willful intent.
Imagine that RickJay has a history of attacking crayon eaters. Shortly after an altercation with police, RickJay attacks a crayon eater who successfully runs away. A half hour later, he and I cross paths. He screams that he’s going to kill me, charges at me, and I start to run. He grabs my jacket. I have a lead pipe in one hand and a squirrel in the other. I throw the squirrel at him. The squirrel is rabid. It hulks out and rips his head off. RickJay dies.
<Lost Recap Voice> “Sad.” </LRV>.
That RickJay died as a result of my actions is not in dispute. However, it is really unlikely that you would be able to successfully convict me given the circumstances. RickJay died as I was trying to escape an assault.