this has made national news, but I am unsure if it's gone international.
we do not have all the details, but it's shitty and tragic.
for the record, I think biking in Toronto is pretty good. It could be better, and on the whole, the drivers are very cooperative. since the local rhetoric is getting heated: "Bikes are Not vehicles!", "War on Cars!" I think a lot of people need a time out.
QuoteFormer Ontario AG Bryant charged in cyclist's death
The man once touted as a future premier of Canada's largest province is now facing charges involving the death of a cyclist on one of Toronto's busiest streets.
"Michael James Bryant, 43 years of age, of Toronto, is now charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death," said Toronto police Sgt. Tim Burrows at an impromptu news conference outside the headquarters of the force's traffic division.
The cyclist has been identified as Darcy Allan Sheppard, 33, of Toronto.
A former attorney general of Ontario, Bryant was released under unspecified conditions on his own recognizance. Burrows said Bryant had "absolutely not" received any preferential treatment.
Bryant will make a court appearance on Oct. 19 in the case.
Criminal negligence causing death carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, while dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death has a maximum penalty of 14 years behind bars.
The Globe and Mail reported that the cyclist involved in the collision had been drinking, and had been investigated by police earlier in the evening when an ex-girlfriend called police. The Globe said the man was not charged in connection with the drinking.
Cyclist Darcy Allan Sheppard, 33, worked for a courier service and was the father of an infant son.
Bryant was an Ontario cabinet minister until May of this year when he stepped down to take the job as president and CEO of Invest Toronto, an arm's-length agency set up by the City of Toronto to promote investment.
Until then, the man who became the youngest attorney general in Ontario history had been frequently mentioned as a possible successor to Premier Dalton McGuinty as leader of the province's Liberals.
But Bryant's future is unclear following the death of a cyclist on Bloor Street West near Bay Street on Monday night.
According to police, Bryant was driving his black Saab convertible at about 9:45 p.m. when he and the cyclist became involved in an altercation.
Police said the incident quickly escalated.
Citing an unnamed police source, Canadian Press reported that on the evening of the incident, Bryant was out with his wife, Susan Abramovitch, for dinner to mark their 12th anniversary.
more here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/01/toronto-cyclist-collision-death481.html (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/01/toronto-cyclist-collision-death481.html)
footnote: Bay/Bloor is just a bad place for bikes. I take Davenport.
footnote2: Bryant's wife works at Malthus' firm.
A good rule of the road to follow is not to attempt to scrape bicyclists off your car using mailboxes and street signs in the other lane. It makes it very hard to say it was an accident. :lmfao:
Recent news, Sask, says that the cyclist was completely off his rocker. He had been aggressive and had been in police custody earlier that day. I don't know what happened, but it seems like the guy randomly attacked Bryant's car. But yeah, I agree with Strix...
This from CBC
A cyclist killed in a collision with a car driven by former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant had an encounter with Toronto police hours before he died.
Darcy Allan Sheppard, a 33-year-old bike courier, died Monday night after sustaining severe injuries following a confrontation with Bryant. It now appears Sheppard — known as "Al" to his friends — was involved in a dispute with his girlfriend earlier Monday and police intervention was required.
Officers had been called to the scene of a domestic dispute on George Street, near Jarvis and Gerrard streets, Monday afternoon, Toronto police said.
"I guess you could say it was concerns of a noise complaint or a domestic dispute. When police arrived on scene, they investigated. There was no indication a criminal offence took place," Staff Sgt. Kevin Guest told CBC News.
"At least one of the parties had been drinking, but was able to take care of himself and was released from the scene."
Police aren't confirming who lived at the address.
Alcohol possibly involved
One of Sheppard's friends, courier Ron Berard, said he'd been with Sheppard an hour before he died. Berard said he'd spent the day with Sheppard's girlfriend at their apartment.
Sheppard had been drinking, but wasn't drunk, Berard said.
"He might have had one. It didn't constitute any unruly behaviour," Berard said.
Notes of remembrance are posted near the scene of Darcy Allan Sheppard's death. (Patrick Morrell/CBC)
"It didn't ignite anything negative on his part."
Police would not comment on whether Sheppard was intoxicated because they're waiting for toxicology reports.
Cyclist left his bike
Bryant is said to be have been dining at a restaurant with his wife, entertainment lawyer Susan Abramovitch, around the same time. The altercation occurred around 9:45 p.m., while the couple were on their way home from the restaurant in a black Saab convertible.
Police said they believe the incident was most likely sparked by a minor collision in which it appears Sheppard's bike was damaged.
Witnesses reported that Sheppard left his bike after the collision and somehow hung on to Bryant's car. Bryant allegedly yelled at Sheppard to get off the car as it moved along Bloor Street.
Police said Sheppard sustained severe injuries after striking a mailbox and a tree while still hanging on to the car. The courier, who grew up in Edmonton, died later that night in hospital.
Bryant, 43, has been charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
Police Sgt. Tim Burrows said Bryant had not been drinking. After spending a night in jail, Bryant was released under unspecified conditions on his own recognizance pending a court appearance Oct. 19.
The Bicyclist had an earlier altercation with police and was apparently drunk which skews the blame in this case a bit.
Christine Blatchford at Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/bryants-story-shocking-sobering-far-too-common/article1272593/)
Quote
Christie Blatchford
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Wednesday, Sep. 02, 2009 10:53AM EDT
The cyclist killed in an altercation with former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant had been drinking and was involved in a confrontation with police earlier in the evening.
Darcy Allan Sheppard was investigated but released without charges Monday night after a former girlfriend called Toronto police, The Globe and Mail has confirmed. The incident, described as minor, took place in downtown Toronto, not far from where Mr. Sheppard and Mr. Bryant collided at 9:45 p.m. in an explosion of violence that left one man dead, the other with his public service career in tatters.
Details of the earlier encounter add to the developing story of how an event that apparently began as a shouted confrontation between cyclist and motorist – an ordinary enough clash in an increasingly congested city – ended with the bike courier holding on for dear life to Mr. Bryant's black convertible Saab as he drove the wrong way down Bloor Street near the posh Yorkville district – seemingly trying, deliberately according to some eyewitnesses, to loosen the man's grip and succeeding with tragic results when the man fell bleeding to the ground after being slammed into a mailbox.
He was rushed to hospital but died about an hour later.
With Mr. Bryant now facing charges of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, Mr. Sheppard's drinking also raises the possibility that the former Liberal MPP could successfully claim he felt so threatened that he acted out of self-defence.
Earlier eyewitness accounts describe an angry clash between Mr. Bryant and Mr. Sheppard – a toot of the horn and a shout to get moving from Mr. Bryant; a refusal and perhaps an answering shout from Mr. Sheppard; Mr. Bryant edging his convertible closer, and by one account, actually hitting Mr. Sheppard's bike, whereupon Mr. Sheppard allegedly left his bike and marched over and reached into the offending open car.
While the story is shocking and sobering, it is not unfamiliar to those who crowd, and match wits and daring on Toronto's increasingly busy streets.
And while the new details suggest that Mr. Bryant may well have a solid legal defence, it is trickier to see how he will be able to muster a moral one.
I can't imagine there's a driver in downtown Toronto who didn't get the shakes after hearing about the incident which took one life and which will also mark the end of Mr. Bryant's, however it unfolds, as he knew it.
The look on his face as he sat in the back of a police cruiser shortly after the incident suggests he realized it too. He looked, as a friend said, "exactly as all of us would look" – pale, sweaty and frightened.
And we all know that look, even if we haven't worn it: The reaction was a bit of there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I mixed with sheer terror.
For as the cyclist will always physically lose in any contest with a car, so the driver of a car always will yield the high ground to the cyclist. In any modern version of the Biblical parable of David and Goliath, including this one, Goliath doesn't get to say, "Well, he used his slingshot first" or "David started it."
As city planners ensure that roads get narrower for cars (half-assed bike lanes, which give a measure of comfort but no protection, dedicated streetcar lines, one-way roads, various traffic 'calming' methods, which may calm traffic but hardly drivers), getting around the city takes longer and longer, and cyclists and motorists, and sometimes cyclists and pedestrians, are increasingly at odds over the same shrinking space.
Even if it turns out that the man attempted to choke Mr. Bryant, as some witness accounts suggest, and that Mr. Bryant called 911 – and this is the most benign scenario the former politician can hope for – it isn't good enough.
The mismatch between car and bicycle is sufficiently enormous that the cyclist is inherently always right.
I was reminded of this imbalance recently when I participated on a charity ride, and found myself teetering on a bike for the first time in two decades, and on the side of a busy highway on Vancouver Island no less, a sort of 401 with trees.
For anyone who remembers biking through childish eyes, it is a very different bit of business on busy roads, with trucks, vans, SUVs (and on the Island, lumbering lumber trucks) just inches away. The tires get very small, the slight protection offered by the best helmet very feeble, in a hurry.
I fell, almost into traffic, three times due to my unfamiliarity with clip-on shoes, and scraped raw elbows and knees on my left side, but even so, the most alarming, and lasting, injury was to my hands – I was so afraid, and braking so hard, my fingers barely worked for days after.
It reminded me of why I quit biking to work years and years ago – and then, I was good at it. But when I fell into the path of an oncoming streetcar, I realized I no longer had the nerve.
Rage too is familiar to many of us who drive in the city. I once got into a ridiculous up-yours shouting match with another motorist, behaved like an idiot by out-manoeuvring him up a one-way road – and then slowing down deliberately to make him crazy.
It worked: At the next light, he got out of his car and put a boot through my door. I was so shaken, and simultaneously mortified by my own conduct, that I reported him neither to police nor insurance company, and just paid for the damage myself – and that was in a clash with a peer, a fellow motorist driving a vehicle as big and powerful as my own. We were for the most part in our moving bubbles, seat-belted and air-bagged and roll-barred unto safety.
But a cyclist is never in a bubble like that.
Thus, it is the motorist who has the greater responsibility – not just because he is the only party licensed by society to drive, by which I mean granted the privilege of driving – but because on some level, all of us understand the rules, one of which is that behind the wheel, we are driving a potential weapon. The burden of sucking up the insult, the raised finger, even the punch, and acting like a grown up is always and forever with us.
Quote from: Josephus on September 02, 2009, 11:22:30 AM
Recent news, Sask, says that the cyclist was completely off his rocker. He had been aggressive and had been in police custody earlier that day. I don't know what happened, but it seems like the guy randomly attacked Bryant's car. But yeah, I agree with Strix...
yeah, I knew he was drinking. I don't know if he "attacked" Bryant or the real details. I know that there was one biker who stabbed a driver with a screwdriver a while ago, so I am not going to exonerate anyone. Road rage affects most anyone.
courier was a Metis from Alberta:
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/689761
Quote from: saskganesh on September 02, 2009, 12:12:22 PM
courier was a Metis from Alberta:
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/689761
So using trademarked "Languish Logic" I'm gonna just go ahead and call Bryant a Raciss. :p
not that I'm making light of a horrible situation... oh wait.
edit: interesting spin that the picture in that story puts on the guy. He looks like he's about to cry.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 02, 2009, 11:15:05 AM
footnote2: Bryant's wife works at Malthus' firm.
With this and the previous Malthus picture, Malthus has been: identified.
Quote from: ulmont on September 02, 2009, 12:26:21 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 02, 2009, 11:15:05 AM
footnote2: Bryant's wife works at Malthus' firm.
With this and the previous Malthus picture, Malthus has been: identified.
That and a good group of us have met him in real life :p
As for a lawyery question, if you kill someone in an attempt to flee an assualt, is it murder?
Quote from: HVC on September 02, 2009, 01:13:16 PM
That and a good group of us have met him in real life :p
Yes, yes.
Quote from: HVC on September 02, 2009, 01:13:16 PM
As for a lawyery question, if you kill someone in an attempt to flee an assualt, is it murder?
If you were in reasonable fear for your life or the life of another, I would say it would not be murder (as you would have been within your rights to simply use deadly force).
These facts look more than a little unclear as to what the hell happened, though.
And it just cost him his job.
You can spend a whole life time building up a career and reputation and you can ruin it all with one stupid act.
QuoteMichael Bryant has resigned from his job as chief executive of Invest Toronto but says he's innocent of allegations of dangerous driving and criminal negligence causing death.
In a letter today to Mayor David Miller, Ontario's former attorney general announced his immediate and voluntary resignation from the economic development corporation, but stressed he is not guilty of the serious criminal charges laid against him Tuesday in connection with the death of a 33-year-old cyclist.
"Let me be clear: I am innocent of the very serious accusations made against me. It would, however, be unfair to you, the Board and above all to the residents of Toronto to allow this event to distract from the vital efforts of Invest Toronto," Mr. Bryant said in the letter to Mr. Miller.
"I am deeply grateful for your confidence and the Invest Toronto Board of Directors' belief in my ability to take on such an important role. It is one that I loved and leave with considerable regret. I do not believe, however, that I can continue in this position on account of the circumstances of the past two days."
Mr. Bryant is charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death. He is scheduled to make a first court appearance Oct. 19.
The mayor launched Invest Toronto, which has a 15-member board chaired by Mr. Miller, earlier this year along with a corporation called Build Toronto. Both moves were meant to fulfill recommendations of a blue-ribbon panel of business and labour figures on the city's finances.
Mr. Bryant's appointment as CEO, confirmed on May 25, was seen as a major coup for the mayor and was met with optimism in Toronto's business community. The outspoken and flashy former cabinet minister began work in June and was recruiting staff.
The resignation of Mr. Bryant, who was seen to bring connections, profile and energy to the job, will be a setback for the fledgling agency, which is tasked with marketing the city to global investors.
"I want to thank Mr. Bryant for his part in getting the work of establishing Invest Toronto off the ground," Mr. Miller said in a statement. "His vision for this organization was clear and his commitment obvious. He is a dedicated public servant with a unique gift that will be missed at Invest Toronto."
Mr. Miller said the events Monday night in which courier Darcy Allan Sheppard was killed were "tragic and sad on many levels."
Mr. Sheppard, 33, a father of four and aspiring comedian, died in hospital after what started as a minor run-in between him and a Saab convertible along Bloor Street West in Yorkville.
He was fatally injured after he fell from a car allegedly driven by Mr. Bryant, 43.
"My condolences remain with the family and friends of Darcy Allan Sheppard," Mr. Miller said. "My thoughts are also with Mr. Bryant and his family at this difficult time."
Some councillors had raised the prospect of an interim CEO while Mr. Bryant's criminal case worked its way through the courts.
Sandra Bussin, who sits on the economic development committee, said there are several strong players on the board who could step up and fill the role with support from city staff. "The board is bigger than one person," she said.
The arms-length corporations have assumed most of the functions of the former Toronto Economic Development Corporation. Invest Toronto's mission is to engage the private sector in promoting Toronto as a place for investment with marketing, trade missions and co-ordination with other governments and business.
Nice to see him do the right thing with no fuss related to his position.
As for the actual incident the details are too murky for me to have much of an opinion beyond that it's tragic.
I'd give him a medal.
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2009, 01:39:06 PM
Nice to see him do the right thing with no fuss related to his position.
My bet is that he didnt have much choice in the matter.
Put up the BB signal, we need a conviction! :P
Dude was a father of four and aspiring comedian, working as a bicycle courier.
I mean, sucks that he is dead and all...
Quote from: Berkut on September 02, 2009, 03:12:56 PM
Dude was a father of four and aspiring comedian, working as a bicycle courier.
I mean, sucks that he is dead and all...
...but we didn't lose a cancer cure here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nptr3pgEIPA
Quote from: Strix on September 02, 2009, 11:20:29 AM
A good rule of the road to follow is not to attempt to scrape bicyclists off your car using mailboxes and street signs in the other lane. It makes it very hard to say it was an accident. :lmfao:
What exactly is the proper protocol when a violent and deranged drunk grabs onto your moving car, reaches into the open window, and attempts to strangle you?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2009, 03:50:04 PM
Quote from: Strix on September 02, 2009, 11:20:29 AM
A good rule of the road to follow is not to attempt to scrape bicyclists off your car using mailboxes and street signs in the other lane. It makes it very hard to say it was an accident. :lmfao:
What exactly is the proper protocol when a violent and deranged drunk grabs onto your moving car, reaches into the open window, and attempts to strangle you?
Shoot him.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment link=topic=2112.msg100149#msg100149What exactly is the proper protocol when a violent and deranged drunk grabs onto your moving car, reaches into the open window, and attempts to strangle you?
Defend yourself and then immediately call police.
He may have done that. Its not clear from the facts. Initial reports were that this was a hit and run and then he called it in anonamously. If he in fact did not identify himself and say exactly what occured then that was a lapse in judgment. It may well be a lapsed that is excused given the circumstances but it does put him in a bad light. I assume Ontario has the same strict requirement as BC to stay at the scene of something like this.
Early reports I heard suggested he was only identified because of a security camera in the area....
QuoteCyclist Darcy Allan Sheppard, 33, worked for a courier service
One of the most dangerous professions out there. Four wheels good, two wheels bad.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 04:00:54 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment link=topic=2112.msg100149#msg100149What exactly is the proper protocol when a violent and deranged drunk grabs onto your moving car, reaches into the open window, and attempts to strangle you?
Defend yourself and then immediately call police.
He may have done that. Its not clear from the facts. Initial reports were that this was a hit and run and then he called it in anonamously. If he in fact did not identify himself and say exactly what occured then that was a lapse in judgment. It may well be a lapsed that is excused given the circumstances but it does put him in a bad light. I assume Ontario has the same strict requirement as BC to stay at the scene of something like this.
Early reports I heard suggested he was only identified because of a security camera in the area....
Perhaps a lapse of judgment but if a person in another vehicle is attack you in yours I can understand driving away as fast as hell just to get away.
Lance Armstrong should kill some random city council member so I can make a "Top Bicyclist kills politician" thread.
Anyone make a Vinraith joke yet?
Bicyclists. <_<
Quote
Thus, it is the motorist who has the greater responsibility – not just because he is the only party licensed by society to drive, by which I mean granted the privilege of driving – but because on some level, all of us understand the rules, one of which is that behind the wheel, we are driving a potential weapon. The burden of sucking up the insult, the raised finger, even the punch, and acting like a grown up is always and forever with us.
As if. It isn't like it is a motorist's fault that some people choose to put themselves at an immediate disadvantage.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 01:42:10 PMMy bet is that he didnt have much choice in the matter.
Probably not, but these days it's not uncommon to see people go "my duty to the people demands I stay on" for a few days or making other such ridiculous statements. It's nice to avoid that.
That's shitty. He gets attacked by a dangerous antisocial lunatic, and loses his job because of it.
Society is fucked up sometimes.
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
That's shitty. He gets attacked by a dangerous antisocial lunatic, and loses his job because of it.
Society is fucked up sometimes.
Yeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 07:46:57 PMYeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.
I didn't realize you'd joined the retard brigade. When did that happen?
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
That's shitty. He gets attacked by a dangerous antisocial lunatic, and loses his job because of it.
Society is fucked up sometimes.
Yeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.
Jacob's a bit of an ass, but he's the sort that just goes with the flow. He's easily seduced by the idea of some evil corporate exec mowing down the poor, visible minority bike rider.
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2009, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 07:46:57 PMYeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.
I didn't realize you'd joined the retard brigade. When did that happen?
It seems to me that this guy has a very plausible defense--he was attacked by the cyclist after an accident, and was in fear for his life, and tried to get away. Now, I don't know that that's how it went down, but from what's been posted in this thread, it certainly seems possible. IF that is what happened, and he's found innocent at trial, I don't see why he should lose his job.
If you think that's a retarded position, well, you're entitled to your opinion. Of course, I almost certainly didn't make it clear where I was coming from with my previous comment.
Quote from: Alcibiades on September 02, 2009, 02:28:13 PM
Put up the BB signal, we need a conviction! :P
Trust me - the judges don't convict just because I'm on the case. :(
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2009, 10:36:26 PM
Trust me - the judges don't convict just because I'm on the case. :(
You are too modest.
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2009, 10:36:26 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on September 02, 2009, 02:28:13 PM
Put up the BB signal, we need a conviction! :P
Trust me - the judges don't convict just because I'm on the case. :(
What is your record now? 0-962? :D
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 09:09:24 PMIt seems to me that this guy has a very plausible defense--he was attacked by the cyclist after an accident, and was in fear for his life, and tried to get away. Now, I don't know that that's how it went down, but from what's been posted in this thread, it certainly seems possible. IF that is what happened, and he's found innocent at trial, I don't see why he should lose his job.
I agree, that if he is cleared of any wrong he should be reinstated. I just subscribe to the idea that highly placed public officials should resign if under any sort of shadow, which this qualifies as.
QuoteIf you think that's a retarded position, well, you're entitled to your opinion. Of course, I almost certainly didn't make it clear where I was coming from with my previous comment.
No, it's not a retarded position though it is one I don't agree with. When I referred to the retard-brigade I meant the group of posters who miss no opportunity to parade their glib one-dimensional (two-dimensional at best) misanthropic faux-superior wit at any news.
Any sort of shadow? So should all officials be in danger at the slightest rumor?
Wisconsin State Lawmaker hitting Cyclist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hPB9t1qCas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hPB9t1qCas)
Bicyclists are the scum of earth. The more get hit by cars the better.
Quote from: Jacob on September 03, 2009, 01:25:07 AM
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 09:09:24 PMIt seems to me that this guy has a very plausible defense--he was attacked by the cyclist after an accident, and was in fear for his life, and tried to get away. Now, I don't know that that's how it went down, but from what's been posted in this thread, it certainly seems possible. IF that is what happened, and he's found innocent at trial, I don't see why he should lose his job.
I agree, that if he is cleared of any wrong he should be reinstated. I just subscribe to the idea that highly placed public officials should resign if under any sort of shadow, which this qualifies as.
QuoteIf you think that's a retarded position, well, you're entitled to your opinion. Of course, I almost certainly didn't make it clear where I was coming from with my previous comment.
No, it's not a retarded position though it is one I don't agree with. When I referred to the retard-brigade I meant the group of posters who miss no opportunity to parade their glib one-dimensional (two-dimensional at best) misanthropic faux-superior wit at any news.
The problem with this attitude is that we'd be running out of people to run things pretty quickly.
Especially if the described version of events is correct, I think the biggest tragedy here is if Toronto is out a competent exec simply because a rabid bike messenger decided to take out his bad day on a motorist.
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
That's shitty. He gets attacked by a dangerous antisocial lunatic, and loses his job because of it.
Society is fucked up sometimes.
Yeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.
of course, his job was with the City of Toronto, which has a pro bike agenda.
it's politics. the optics would be terrible.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 03, 2009, 06:54:01 AM
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
That's shitty. He gets attacked by a dangerous antisocial lunatic, and loses his job because of it.
Society is fucked up sometimes.
Yeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.
of course, his job was with the City of Toronto, which has a pro bike agenda.
it's politics. the optics would be terrible.
How can Toronto have a pro-bike agenda when it's impassable to bikes for half the year?
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2009, 07:17:49 AM
How can Toronto have a pro-bike agenda when it's impassable to bikes for half the year?
Try telling that to bike couriers.
Quote from: citizen k on September 03, 2009, 01:58:25 AM
Wisconsin State Lawmaker hitting Cyclist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hPB9t1qCas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hPB9t1qCas)
I had to do it:
http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/?id=4hPB9t1qCas
:blush:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2009, 08:28:28 AM
Quote from: citizen k on September 03, 2009, 01:58:25 AM
Wisconsin State Lawmaker hitting Cyclist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hPB9t1qCas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hPB9t1qCas)
I had to do it:
http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/?id=4hPB9t1qCas (http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/?id=4hPB9t1qCas)
:blush:
Sublime.
You're going to hell for that alone. :lol:
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2009, 07:17:49 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 03, 2009, 06:54:01 AM
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 02, 2009, 06:49:55 PM
That's shitty. He gets attacked by a dangerous antisocial lunatic, and loses his job because of it.
Society is fucked up sometimes.
Yeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.
of course, his job was with the City of Toronto, which has a pro bike agenda.
it's politics. the optics would be terrible.
How can Toronto have a pro-bike agenda when it's impassable to bikes for half the year?
:D I'll find out this winter. the hardcores say its only impassible for 3 months.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2009, 08:28:28 AM
I had to do it:
http://james.nerdiphythesoul.com/bennyhillifier/?id=4hPB9t1qCas
:blush:
I am OUTRAGED by this callous disregard for human suffering :ultra:
You, sir, are worse than...well you know.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 03, 2009, 10:23:04 AM
:D I'll find out this winter. the hardcores say its only impassible for 3 months.
Never trust the hardcores. They're the ones who get killed.
more detials
QuotePolice say Sheppard grabbed on to Bryant's car following an altercation. Witnesses say Bryant drove away with Sheppard hanging on to the side of the vehicle. The cyclist, who was on foot when he took hold of the car, then fell and suffered fatal injuries. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/09/02/bryant-resigns-invest-toronto.html
so basically, Bryant can argue he was attacked. I wonder if this squares with the hidden camera footage.
Heh I come back from vacation in the wilderness and this is the top story.
It will certainly make for an interesting trial. So far, what it has made for in the news is a sort of class warfare. :lol:
Oh, and I don't actually know Susan that well - not sure I'd recognize her by sight. Big firm and all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 04:00:54 PM
He may have done that. Its not clear from the facts. Initial reports were that this was a hit and run and then he called it in anonamously. If he in fact did not identify himself and say exactly what occured then that was a lapse in judgment. It may well be a lapsed that is excused given the circumstances but it does put him in a bad light. I assume Ontario has the same strict requirement as BC to stay at the scene of something like this.
s. 252 of the
Criminal Code. So yeah, the same requirements in Ontario.
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2009, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 07:46:57 PMYeah, and then you get people like Jacob who think it's a good thing that he loses his job.
I didn't realize you'd joined the retard brigade. When did that happen?
How come you immediately launch into the
ad hom attack? :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2009, 03:48:14 PMHow come you immediately launch into the ad hom attack? :huh:
If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see your question addressed.
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 11:22:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2009, 10:36:26 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on September 02, 2009, 02:28:13 PM
Put up the BB signal, we need a conviction! :P
Trust me - the judges don't convict just because I'm on the case. :(
What is your record now? 0-962? :D
Oh come on - I'm batting a solid .500.
If I were in the major leagues I'd be an All-Star. :D
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2009, 03:49:58 PM
Oh come on - I'm batting a solid .500.
If I were in the major leagues I'd be an All-Star. :D
You're Ted Williams of the Yukon. :Canuck:
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2009, 03:44:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 04:00:54 PM
He may have done that. Its not clear from the facts. Initial reports were that this was a hit and run and then he called it in anonamously. If he in fact did not identify himself and say exactly what occured then that was a lapse in judgment. It may well be a lapsed that is excused given the circumstances but it does put him in a bad light. I assume Ontario has the same strict requirement as BC to stay at the scene of something like this.
s. 252 of the Criminal Code. So yeah, the same requirements in Ontario.
[Looks it up]
Woah, s. 252 is pretty draconian. If you don't stop, you are presumed to be attempting to escape liability, absent evidence to the contrary. Under 252(1.3) he'd face a possible life sentence if he knew S. was injured and was reckless as to whether he was dead.
Question: could he argue that he wasn't fleeing from liability, but rather from S.? Making an anonymous call does rather preclude that possibility ...
Quote from: Malthus on September 04, 2009, 03:53:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2009, 03:44:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 04:00:54 PM
He may have done that. Its not clear from the facts. Initial reports were that this was a hit and run and then he called it in anonamously. If he in fact did not identify himself and say exactly what occured then that was a lapse in judgment. It may well be a lapsed that is excused given the circumstances but it does put him in a bad light. I assume Ontario has the same strict requirement as BC to stay at the scene of something like this.
s. 252 of the Criminal Code. So yeah, the same requirements in Ontario.
[Looks it up]
Woah, s. 252 is pretty draconian. If you don't stop, you are presumed to be attempting to escape liability, absent evidence to the contrary. Under 252(1.3) he'd face a possible life sentence if he knew S. was injured and was reckless as to whether he was dead.
Question: could he argue that he wasn't fleeing from liability, but rather from S.? Making an anonymous call does rather preclude that possibility ...
Of course he could argue it. And as the specific intent is an element of the offence, the Crown must prove it BRD. But you're right about the anonymous call...
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2009, 03:49:58 PM
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2009, 11:22:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2009, 10:36:26 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on September 02, 2009, 02:28:13 PM
Put up the BB signal, we need a conviction! :P
Trust me - the judges don't convict just because I'm on the case. :(
What is your record now? 0-962? :D
Oh come on - I'm batting a solid .500.
If I were in the major leagues I'd be an All-Star. :D
Or, possibly, a coin toss. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on September 04, 2009, 03:56:37 PM
Of course he could argue it. And as the specific intent is an element of the offence, the Crown must prove it BRD. But you're right about the anonymous call...
The Crown must prove it, but subsection (2) adds the presumption:
Quote(2) In proceedings under subsection (1), evidence that an accused failed to stop his vehicle, vessel or, where possible, his aircraft, as the case may be, offer assistance where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance and give his name and address is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of an intent to escape civil or criminal liability.
... which I would think would make it much easier to prove.
that is sort of unclear. Assume there is evidence to the contrary. Does the presumption vanish or does it persist? If it persists, how strong is it and what is needed to overcome it? The quoted part of the statute doesn't answer those questions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2009, 04:02:22 PM
that is sort of unclear. Assume there is evidence to the contrary. Does the presumption vanish or does it persist? If it persists, how strong is it and what is needed to overcome it? The quoted part of the statute doesn't answer those questions.
It pretty much vanishes.
There are a lot of presumptions in criminal law when it comes to motor vehicle. The practical effect of them is to force the accused to take the stand since otherwise the Crown can rely on the presumption. Once the accused does take the stand, unless their evidence is simply disbelieved and rejected it will rebut the presumption unless the Crown has other evidence to rely upon.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 04, 2009, 04:02:22 PM
that is sort of unclear. Assume there is evidence to the contrary. Does the presumption vanish or does it persist? If it persists, how strong is it and what is needed to overcome it? The quoted part of the statute doesn't answer those questions.
Here's the full section, which doesn't answer them either:
Quote252. (1) Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with
(a) another person,
(b) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or
(c) in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person,
and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.
Punishment
(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) in a case not referred to in subsection (1.2) or (1.3) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Offence involving bodily harm
(1.2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) knowing that bodily harm has been caused to another person involved in the accident is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Offence involving bodily harm or death
(1.3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life if
(a) the person knows that another person involved in the accident is dead; or
(b) the person knows that bodily harm has been caused to another person involved in the accident and is reckless as to whether the death of the other person results from that bodily harm, and the death of that other person so results.
Evidence
(2) In proceedings under subsection (1), evidence that an accused failed to stop his vehicle, vessel or, where possible, his aircraft, as the case may be, offer assistance where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance and give his name and address is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of an intent to escape civil or criminal liability.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 252; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36; 1994, c. 44, s. 12; 1999, c. 32, s. 1(Preamble).
Operation while impaired
253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,
(a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or
(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.
For greater certainty
(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.
The answers are going to be in the case law: BB would of course know better than I.
Baker seems to be the leading case in Ontario:
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=252%282%29+criminal+code&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onca/doc/2006/2006canlii19332/2006canlii19332.html
Quote(3) Rebutting The Presumption of s. 252(2) With Evidence to the Contrary
[34] Section 252(2) of the Criminal Code provides that the evidence that Mr. Baker failed to stop his vessel and offer assistance to the Peats is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of intent to escape civil or criminal liability. In his instructions to the jury, the trial judge said, "evidence to the contrary" means "evidence that you do not reject that leads you to believe or have a reasonable doubt that Mr. Baker intended to escape civil or criminal liability for the accident".
[35] Counsel for Mr. Baker submits that the trial judge erred by defining "evidence to the contrary" in that way. He says that "evidence to the contrary" is merely evidence that has not been rejected and that tends away from the presumed intent, and that, where there is such evidence on the record, the jury is required to determine guilt or innocence in the absence of the presumption.
[36] In my view, the trial judge put the matter properly. There is no lower standard of proof, below reasonable doubt, that can be relied upon to rebut a presumption. In R. v. Boucher, 2005 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 499, at para. 21, the Supreme Court said of a different but similar presumption:
Evidence to the contrary that is adduced to rebut the presumption of accuracy in s. 258(1)(g) Cr. C. must tend to show that the certificate does not in fact correctly reflect the blood alcohol level at the time of the breathalyzer test. This evidence must raise a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the breathalyzer result.
[37] In a much older case, R. v. Proudlock (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 321 (S.C.C.), the court had said, in explaining the expression "evidence to the contrary" in s. 306(2)(a) of the Criminal Code:
... all the presumption does is to establish a prima facie case. The burden of proof does not shift. The accused does not have to "establish" a defence or an excuse, all he has to do is to raise a reasonable doubt. If there is nothing in the evidence adduced by the Crown from which a reasonable doubt can arise, then the accused will necessarily have the burden of adducing evidence if he is to escape conviction. However, he will not have the burden of proving his innocence, it will be sufficient if, at the conclusion of the case on both sides, the trier of fact has a reasonable doubt.
[38] I would not give effect to this ground of appeal