POSTED RESPONSES TO A COLUMN BY CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD IN TORONTO'S GLOBE AND MAIL
For the ethical idiots claiming that this was a just decision, I suggest the following experiment.
The next time an aggressive (but unarmed) homeless person gives you some trouble on a downtown street, such as attempting a headlock while demanding money, just kill him. Right there, on the spot, slam his head into a metal pole, several times to be sure he's dead.
Now, unless, you are Michael Bryant, I'm fairly confident you would be facing prison, and rightly so.
This entire matter has been disgracefully handled. Michael Bryant committed a form of manslaughter and was guilty of totally reckless driving.
_________________________
This case has almost nothing to do with cars versus bicycles.
It is a case of a prominent, wealthy man behaving with absolutely no judgment and with recklessness when confronted by a difficult man.
Absolutely, this disposal of the case was preferential treatment of the worst kind.
The biker was a very difficult man, but Michael Bryant had no excuse for his extreme behavior which killed the man.
Michael Bryant committed a crime, just as surely as if he had murdered an unarmed burglar in his house.
Only one person had control of the brakes and accelerator of that car, and that person was Michael Bryant.
_________________________
I just cannot believe the ethical level of some postings here.
Blaming the victim, no matter how troubled he was.
Mindless praise for the cowardly Michael Bryant.
Yes, as one observant poster noted, The New York Times said Bryant hit Sheppard twice before things came to the boil.
Twice. Clearly Bryant has a sense of blimp-sized entitlement and a tendency towards psychopathy, thinking he can hit a bike twice and then act as a maniac when the poor man responds.
And while Bryant's flunkies have made sure we know Sheppard's unstable background, it is clear no one has examined Bryant in the same way - he may well have displayed his ugly reactions before and managed to cover them up.
It is common practice among Toronto couriers when meeting up with an aggressive, obtuse driver like Bryant to try grabbing the car keys. Then they throw them away.
It seems likely this is what Sheppard was doing. Not nice, but hardly a capital crime.
Again, for the ethical idiots claiming that this was a just decision, I suggest the following experiment.
The next time an aggressive (but unarmed) homeless person gives you some trouble on a downtown street, such as attempting a headlock while demanding money, just kill him.
Right there, on the spot, slam his head into a metal pole, several times to be sure he's dead.
Now, unless, you are Michael Bryant, I'm fairly confident you would be facing prison, and rightly so.
This entire matter has been disgracefully handled. Michael Bryant committed a form of manslaughter and was guilty of totally reckless driving.
Mr. Premier, here is a case screaming to be re-opened. Bryant should face trial by his peers, not decisions by a special prosecutor behaving as though he were on the defence payroll.
_____________________
tkip19,
That last post of yours reads like a press release from Bryant's PR firm.
Pathetic.
Is that why you don't use your name?
You can have no idea what behaviors are hidden in Mr. Bryant's background.
Rich people can do very nasty things and have them covered up. Witness the background of George Bush.
The behaviors - several of them - exhibited in this case by Mr. Bryant point to serious character flaws.
One could almost bet a thorough vetting would give us something to talk about in his case too, but serious vetting takes money and only Bryant has that.
It is grossly unfair to harp on Mr. Sheppard's background.
He is not here to speak for himself.
And this is crucial, he committed no serious crime warranting death, yet Mr. Bryant clearly killed him.
____________________________
"According to the police, the prosecutor, and the defence Mr. Shepperd assaulted Mr. Bryant. When Mr. Bryant tried to flee the assault Mr. Shepperd tried to hold on to the vehicle, failed, and was fatally injured when he fell.
"This is NOT the same thing as saying that Mr. Bryant killed Mr. Shepperd. This is closer to saying that Mr. Shepperd did something criminal and stupid and was killed when it didn't work out the way he thought it would."
"According to police..."
Well, my friend, that is what courts and juries exist to determine.
May I remind you that "according to police," a poor desperate man in Vancouver's airport who picked up a stapler when faced with four armed men was threat enough to warrant the most disgraceful police behavior?
Again, solid news sources said Bryant hit Sheppard’s bike twice. Twice.
Maybe Bryant was drunk, but we'll never know, will we? Again, "according to police."
