Michael Bryant is home free - Macleans.ca

Michael Bryant is home free

Prosecution says there was no chance of convicting Ontario’s former AG


Prosecutors withdrew all charges against Michael Bryant Tuesday morning. The former Ontario attorney general had been set to go on trial for criminal negligence and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle for his role in a collision that killed Toronto bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard last August. But Crown prosecutors now say there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. After an altercation one evening on Bloor Street West, Sheppard—who was on his bicycle—leaned into Bryant’s car, gripping it near the steering wheel. As Bryant sped away in fear, Shepphard was thrown against a tree and mailbox, and later died as a result of his injuries. Sheppard’s blood alcohol concentration was more than twice the legal limit at the time of the accident and evidence suggests he had a history of violent outbursts on his bike. If Bryant had been convicted, he could have received a maximum sentence of life in jail.

CBC News

Filed under:

Michael Bryant is home free

  1. LIES! Sheppard was not "on his bicycle" and did not lean in to Bryant's car. He was deliberately struck from behind while in a stationary position and thrown of his bike by Bryant's car ramming into him. Bryant then tried to flee and Sheppard attempted to prevent him from fleeing by grabbing the side of Bryant's car. Repeat: Sheppard is in a defenceless and vulnerable position and is delibearetly struck from behind by Bryant. Bryant then attempts to flee, Sheppard attempts to prevent him, and the vehicle speeds away at such a dangerous velocity that Sheppard is soon dislogded and killed. WATCH THE VIDEO WATCH THE VIDEO WATCH THE VIDEO

    Believe your own eyes.

    • Even if that was true, you don't get to attack someone because they try to flee the scene of a crash. You call the cops.

      • Get yourself hit by a car whose driver then tries to flee and report back about how you felt.

  2. Talk about blaming the victim – the CBC story focuses on the history of Sheppard, while not discussing the video evidence. Of course it tells you something about whether the crown was researching ways to acquit Bryant, or trying to get to the bottom of the case. Bryant might have gotten off anyway, but I think the victim's family deserves a trial.

    • The Powers That Be are shameless and ruthless. The Cops, The Media, The AG's office. The Crown, Bryant's PR & corporate pals, even the god-damned Government– they would stop at nothing to keep the Ol' Boys Club safe. Believe it people. They are not even trying to hide it!

      • Let's try this one more time. I assume you're suggesting that the 76 year old is also a member of the "Ol' Boys Club"? From the report:

        'Several years prior, a 76 year old female motorist was confronted by Mr.
        Sheppard, who swore and yelled at her for, in his perception, cutting him off. He
        followed her as she turned off a main street to get away from him. He passed her
        on his bicycle, slammed his bicycle in front of her, and started advancing towards
        her, telling her to get out of the car. She felt compelled to "gun it" out of there.
        Indeed, she thought she went up on onto the sidewalk to get away. He followed
        her, though she was able to drive away. She described him as "like a mad man.""

        • Shock, horror! This guy was The Devil! He swore at an old lady! Give me a break, how irrelevant. Morbidly funny that Bryant's enablers would dig this deep for "dirt" and undeniable "proof" that this man was at fault for his own death. I'd like a trial by jury please, not this ridiculous twaddle.

          • Just for the record, he THREATENED an old lady.

            Perhaps I should have instead posted the portion of the report that describes how Sheppard was criminally convicted of threatening a cabbie and another woman with death while carrying an imitation firearm. But I'm not sure that you wouldn't have trivialized that too.

            So help me out here. Just exactly how violent and aggressive does a cyclist – any cyclist – need to get before you'll concede that maybe, just maybe, they negatively contributed to the situation themselves?

  3. My dog has stilled killed less people than Michael Bryant.

    • My dog has better English than you.

      • My dog has still killed less people than Michael Bryant.

  4. That's Great News!

    • How much you gettting paid to troll the internet and defend Bryant?
      Do you work for the PR firm Bryant hired after he killed the cyclist?

      • I'm neither being paid nor trolling.

        Since your trying to pick a fight, it makes you the troll.

        Why don't you try to be productive and go read the reasoning behind why the crown dropped the charges?

        • Why don't you be productive and share the reasoning that you apparently feel is adequate
          to justify killing someone and not having the action judged in a court of law,
          instead of posting the vacuous comment, "That's Great News".

          • People are killed every day and it's not always against the law to do so.

            Perhaps you are unaware by Byrant's actions where judged in a court of law this morning.

            It was in a court of law, that the crown after a full investigation dropped the charges, and a judge agreed to do so.

  5. First Naseem Jaffer (cocaine), now Michael Bryant (hit and run minimum). Crown prosecutors say there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. Wow, jails are packed with people convicted on less evidence. Jaffer and Bryant are just misunderstood. Thanks for clearing up these misunderstandings for us!

  6. "The public relations firm that Bryant hired after his trouble began, Navigator Ltd"

    Read more:http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Brya

    Michael Bryant is an arrogant little man.
    He was inherently dangerous and a ticking time bomb.
    Too bad it took a death to reveal to all the depravity of his character.

  7. Today I lost all faith in the justice system.. No trial? A person is dead. Shame, Shame, Shame. I guess Michael Bryant can have his job back at Invest Toronto. . Running a guy into a mailbox with the intent to kill him.

    Will he be making a statement to thank his friends who got him off? How about I am sorry I ran over the guys head?

    • Do you have any evidence to prove that he had "the intent to kill him?" Do you have a lawyer to defend you against making accusations like this?

      • Clocking someone off metal street furniture while they hang from your speeding car? Death could be a factor. Bryant knew it, but he didn't care. He could have stopped so Sheppard could get off. Any reasonable person would have. Lawyers can spin this a hundred ways, but the truth is always simpler.

  8. Ordinary Canadians better hope that we get Crown Prosecutors like those involved in recent cases involving Canadian political figures. Either that or we'd better hope that we can afford their lawyers.


  9. Please, the "victim" was violent and disturbed young man who was drunk and who attacked Bryant and grabbed ahold of his car. Bryant did what anyone else would have done in his situation would have done and tried to get away. That's no crime, death or no. Sheppard's death may be tragic, but its his own fault.

    And it's tragic for Bryant that he had to have his life dragged through the mud (and run up hefty legal bills) over the past year on account of Mr. Sheppard – that could have happened to any motorist (of whom there were apparently many) who'd had the misfortune to run into Mr. Sheppard. That could just as easily have been you or I.

    • Thanks for the explanation, Herr Goebbels. Resume normal behaviour.

    • According to the Star: "The top and windows of the Saab were down… moments before Sheppard died, he cycled past Bryant's vehicle along the driver's side and then cut in front, stopping his bike directly in front of the convertible Saab and blocking its way."
      HE CYCLED PAST THE DRIVER"S SIDE AND THEN CUT IN FRONT. Sheppard had every oppertunity to attack Bryant as he approached his top-down covertable from behind on the driver's side, but instead he chose to go past Bryant and put HIMSELF in the VULNERABLE position. Hardly menacing. In fact, I'd say that's the appropriate action for a cyclist whose having a dispute with a driver. What the cyclist doesn't expect is for the driver to then take advantage of that MORTAL VULNERABILITY by using his car to ram the cyclist out of the way. No adequate explanation has been given for why Bryant's car hit Sheppard in the first place. That's when the confrontation is escalated into a dangerous situation and I don't see how Sheppard has any control over Bryant's vehicle or choices.

      • I hope you don't give bicycle safety lessons.

        • What an idiotic post, John D.

    • Are you the same 'Bob Smith' who, some time ago, wrote 'good riddance' upon hearing of Sheppard's death?

  10. Give me a break, people! Did you even read why they dropped the charges? No chance of a conviction because the bicyclist was drunk and attempted to assault Bryant. Bryant panicked – who wouldn't? – and the guy got himself killed in the process. You guys all determined that Bryant was guilty before even hearing any evidence. You don't care one bit about the evidence because you just want to see him guilty.

    If the bicyclist hadn't deliberately provoked a confrontation – as he had done 6 times in the past month – with a motorist, and then held on to a moving vehicle, he would still be alive today. He's dead because he was drunk and made some really bad choices. That's the reality, whether you want to see it or not.

    And narrative you guys are trying to spin about him being a "ticking time bomb" is absurd. He went out for what sounds like a lovely evening with his wife, celebrating their 12th anniversary no less, and decided to cap it off with killing a bicyclist? Give me a break!

    I really think this has more to do with the latent rage that so many bicyclists have in Toronto than it does with Bryant or the facts of this case. Every bicyclist sees themselves in this man, being wronged as they have by other drivers. That's simply not what happened.

    • I agree. It's far too easy for people who weren't involved to use 20/20 hindsight and analyse the videos (out of context I might add), but anyone who has been in a TRUELY deadly encounter (either interpersonal or vehicle accident/plane crash, etc…) can tell you that the perspective from the inside is very very different once fear and panic take over.

      I agree that Mr. Bryant should probably bear more responsibility here, but the charges as laid don't hold up given the circumstances.

      • What I'm very disappointed at is the opportunism shown by the "radical" cycling community who appear to be using this tragic incident to further the artificial 'war between drivers and cyclists' that seems to be waging here in Toronto. As someone who rode my bike to/from downtown TO from Yonge/York Mills for several years, I was just as afraid of the overly-aggressive cyclists as I was of the overly-aggressive drivers. The fact that Mr. Shepherd was intoxicated and was in an escalating pattern of aggression seems to be irrelevant to them – a fact that I find very curious.

        Perhaps if one of them had been more concerned for Mr. Shepherd's well-being than that of their 'cause' of cyclists right to do whatever they want on the road, Mr. Shepherd might have received the help that he so badly needed,

        I can't help thinking that the real tragedy is that, considering the hundreds of people at his memorial, if even one of them had cared enough to get him help beforehand – or even to stop him from cycling drunk – we wouldn't even be talking about this.

        • Indeed, Mr. Sheperd is entirely the wrong man to build a case for the cycling community in Toronto. He wasn't killed because he was a cyclyst who was run down by a vicious or negligent driver. He was killed because he was a violent young man who was intoxicated and made a tragic mistake by attacking a driver and was killed when the driver predictably tried to flee.

          The Shepard case is a good argument for not engaging in road rage and not trying to dish out your own version of street justice to drivers who piss you off (which is true generally, but is particularly true when you're not surrounded by a few thousand pounds of steel). Sometimes its the other driver who gets hurt or killed, sometimes its you.

          And JoeC, I agree the characterization of Bryant as a ticking time bomb is odd. The only time bomb here, by all accounts, was Sheppard. It was Bryant's misfortune that Sheppard went off on him, but it could just as easily have been anyone else.

    • … saw no evidence of a "drunken" Sheppard in existing video footage. Did however see Bryant aggress twice on a stationary bicycle at a red light, and then mow him over when the light turned green. Also saw Sheppard disappear on the driver's side, after being thrown off Bryant's hood to the ground. His bicycle was left behind in the street. Believe what makes you feel good; Michael Bryant bashed this poor man, who he had just purposely run over and dumped in the middle of Bloor Street, off every available street fixture before crushing him under his car. When last has this kind of madness happened in Toronto? I don't get, why you don't get, that this guy is a cold-blooded killer.

        • Hey, I'm only saying what I saw on video. Where's the video of the drunken, belligerent Mr. Sheppard? See it for yourself. (I'm not interested in the lame excuses that The Crown is coming with. It's a load of rubbish. Bryant should have been charged with a lot more.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_PrhFo&fe

          • I see — so if it ain't on a YouTube video, you're going to ignore it as though it doesn't exist or isn't worth paying attention to. The Crown and police interviewed a whole bunch of witnesses. But because what they said isn't on YouTube, I guess the Crown and Police shouldn't even have bothered.

            Got it.

          • Why not ignore what doesn't fit? The authorities & media ignored this unbiased video evidence and preferred to run with Bryant's version of events, and even helped him to rubbish this dead man's character. There were plenty of witnesses that saw Bryant acting like a maniac in the early news coverage. I guess they weren't asked for police interviews. I'm a media watchdog and read the news for a living, so my eyes are wide open. And no, The Crown and The Police, never did bother, really. The Cops laid a couple of trumped-down charges, and The Crown had no objections to the leniency of these charges. The Cops didn't even bother to breathalize Bryant, apparently because he is of irreproachable character, and when he says he hasn't been drinking/brutally mowing down cyclists, he is to be believed. I access the available video on Youtube because it's not been shown in the media, and it is a fairly neutral source to witness these events. I concede the segments are edited together, but the integrity/context of the footage is maintained. I'm not saying Youtube is God, just that all video evidence most of which is on Youtube, seems contrary to what Michael Bryant says happened. He appears to be the aggressor and attacker in every clip. Madness like this isn't even worth a trail? Come on…

          • There is no such thing as an "unbiased video." I watched that clip and don't come to any of the conclusions you do.

          • … it wasn't Driving Miss Daisey. Bryant ran that man down blatantly. The "I stalled twice, ran him over for a bit, and then got so scared story" doesn't fly with me. Sorry. My wild conclusions make more sense. In lieu of an actual transparent trial by jury, I'll go with that…

  11. This is a lesson for all aggressive cyclists. You can't just go around attacking motorists because you feel more righteous than them.

    • As far as I can tell from all available video on Youtube, this never happended. Michael Bryant is a savage. He purposely, cowardly, killed a man with his car.

      • "Michael Bryant is a savage. He purposely, cowardly, killed a man with his car."

        Can you say "libel"?

        Yes, it seems you can.

        • Yes Bryant is now suffering scratches on his car..oh the horror

    • Dood, I agree, how dare someone on a bike challenge a driver in a 4 ton car. if he is killed, hey he deserved it. I hope Bryant does not rise above dog catcher after this…

  12. At a bare minimum Bryant's own explanation as echoed by Mr. Peck show that he did not have care and control of his vehicle PRIOR to taking off with Sheppard 'latched on'. Bryant';s own word's show that at a minimum he should have been charged and prosecuted for careless driving as he came into contact, as reported by Mr. Peck BEFORE the rest of the incident occurred. If this was anyone but the well-heel and connected this would have occured. These special, sweat-heart deals are really giving our justice system a bad name. And the compliance of the media is appalling.

    • Really?

      What sweet-heart deals prevented Mr. Sheppard from being arrested for blocking traffic and assault on the half dozen prior incidents?

      The front page of the Toronto Star today has an interesting video still taken a few days prior to this incident showing the deceased half into somebody elses's car on the same stretch of road.

  13. Another travesty of justice.They seem to be common if you happen to be involved in the higher echelons and are charged with a crime, one law for the rich and another for the poor. A life was lost in a moment of pomposity and rage. I understand leaving the scene was an unlawful act. How can prosecutors say no chance of a conviction? Does freemasonry have anything to do with it by any chance? There are lots of people in cells doing time for a lot less!!

    • Yes. It' was us. Now go and have your fillings checked, will you? We're getting a lot of static from your back molars.

      – The Freemasons

  14. Farmer Fred,

    Sorry what part of Bryant's explanation do you characterize as "careless driving". According to the executive summary of the Crown's decision (here, if you care to read it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/bryant-decision.pdf) , Mr. Bryant's car only came into contact with Mr. Sheppard after the latter deliberarely stopped short in front of it, causing the car to stall, and Mr. Bryant's car accidentally bumped into him when it restarted. That's called an accident. They happen. They're not crimes. That certainly isn't careless driving, nor is it at all obvious that Mr. Bryant, rather than Mr. Sheppard, was at fault (the whole incident, you will note, appears to have started because Mr. Sheppard appears to have stopped short in front of Mr. Bryant and started acting in an abusive manner).

    • Indeed, Farmer Fred, the Crown considere the argument you made, and considered whether it could prosecute Mr. Bryant for dangerous driving based on his having hit Mr. Sheppard while restarting the car. From the executive summary I referred you to above:

      "The Crown considered whether the available evidence could justify a separate
      charge of dangerous driving based on this aspect of Mr. Bryant's driving alone
      and concluded that it could not, having regard to the totality of circumstances,
      including his explanation for that momentary driving, and his level of panic and
      disorientation surrounding the stalling and re-starting of his vehicle. He said that
      the last thing he wanted in the circumstances was to exacerbate the situation by
      angering Mr. Sheppard. The available evidence does not support rejection of that
      explanation. It finds support in independent evidence. The Crown not only
      considered this aspect of Mr. Bryant's driving as a stand-alone piece, but
      cumulatively with his other driving in determining whether charges were
      warranted ."

      The crown's decision was clearly the right result in light of all the circumstances.

    • …"accidentally bumped into him"? Bryant floored it, and carried Sheppard on his hood and his bicycle dragging beneath, several metres down Bloor street. Interesting theory…

  15. I totally agree with The Dispatcher. I saw the Youtube footage long after the Media dragged poor, dead Darcy Sheppard's name through the dirt, and was appalled at what looks undeniably like extreme road-rage and cold-blooded murder by the former AG! Sheppard was mowed down from behind while he was stationary because he came too close when he passed Bryant's fancy car which had stopped at a red light, and then didn't move fast enough for Little Napoleon's liking when the light turned green. The police didn't come with any real charges, like say, aggravated assault and first degree murder which is what it looked like to me, because they wanted him to get off. Criminal negligence causing death? Ridiculous. Bryant's actions were absolutely deliberate, methodical and with extreme malice! He battered this man to death, before running him over like a dog. The Cops, The Crown, and the current AG's office all did their best to get their privileged pal off without so much as a traffic violation or a day in court. I ride my bike every day past where this man was viciously dragged to his death. Am I next? Michael Bryant, Rahim Jaffer, Brian Mulroney? What the eff am I, a lowly average Canadian supposed to think when it comes to justice, and punishing the rich & influential? Anyone of us would have had a dozen charges thrown at us for the same. And they would have stuck. He's a murderer and he's walking right back to his life of luxury. It's a travesty.

    • Oh, for heaven's sake. I don't want to slam the memory of Mr. Sheppard, but he was clearly a troubled man in need of help he didn't receive. If you want to rant, I'd suggest ranting about that. You aren't doing society any good by trying to whitewash, or subvert the truth of a tragic situation. I would strongly suggest you read the report before commenting further:

      "Mr. Sheppard had at least six altercations with other motorists prior to and even
      on the afternoon of August 31 , 2009 before the interaction with Mr. Bryant.
      These altercations involved Mr. Sheppard aggressively confronting drivers and
      often involved threats or violence. In some cases, it involved Mr. Sheppard
      accosting drivers in their cars, reaching into the car, and damaging vehicles.

      • 'Several years prior, a 76 year old female motorist was confronted by Mr.
        Sheppard, who swore and yelled at her for, in his perception, cutting him off. He
        followed her as she turned off a main street to get away from him. He passed her
        on his bicycle, slammed his bicycle in front of her, and started advancing towards
        her, telling her to get out of the car. She felt compelled to "gun it" out of there.
        Indeed, she thought she went up on onto the sidewalk to get away. He followed
        her, though she was able to drive away. She described him as "like a mad man.""

        • That is irrelevant to the Sheppard-Bryant case, sorry.

          • Blue youa re so right. But…did Sheppard have connections…Nooo

      • So Mr Sheppard chose to accost/attack Mr. Bryant by throwing his body on the hood of his car, backwards? Interesting theory…

  16. Mr. Smith -Direct from Navigator's home office.
    You do not have care and control of your vehicle if you manage to hit someone while trying to restart it – even if you believe the story that in traffic someone stopping short or cutting across a lane caused the car to stall while putting on the brakes. If that is the case I wouldn't want to be around Bryant during normal traffic flow either as he clearly is a very, very poor driver. For you to then lurch ahead while re-starting it is not an accident, as accidents are something that can't be prevented. Such lurching forward, if it was truly a stall restart would only occur if the vehicle was in gear, something that seems unlikely with an upmodel Saab's saftey features. Bryant's story does not hold water. Yet he was given the benefit of the doubt because he is well connected, something Mr. Shepard was not.
    It is a plain and simple act of careless driving, unless you are wealthy and well connected I guess. It is Peck and Bryant's own words that shows as a bare minimum Bryant did not have proper care and control of his vehicle and that a complete travesty of justice has occured.

    • He could well be charged with something like that. However, the charges brought against him were negligent driving causing death, and those charges were dropped because they didn't hold water.

      The crown is more than able to charge him with something less, though the fact that all of this was initiated by negligent and aggressive driving by the biker might make it difficult to make it stick. I don't know the laws regarding this so I can't say.

      If someone steals a chocolate bar and is charged with murder, the crown dropping the murder charges isn't a surprise or a miscarriage of justice. They simply charged the person with the wrong crime. This has nothing to do with connections and everything to do with the police, etc. charging him with something that he really can't be reasonably sentenced for.

      • You might want to have a wee lookie loo at the video linked above. Bryant is also driving aggressively and recklessly. Never mind what happens after he hits (and he hits Sheppard not bumps him) and who's fault that might be. Bryant clearly hits another vehicle (which is what a bike is). He then backs up and begins to swerve away (at speed) trying to leave the scene of an accident it appears, before Sheppard even gets off the ground. Chances are Sheppard made a dumb move, that his friends and family will regret forever by grabbing at the car, but that does not negate what Bryant did- which is cause the death of another through careless driving -except of course he is well connected and gets the benefit of the doubt on a story that doesn't hold up under even the slightest scrutiny. Funny how it is only other criminals that lie about their actions but not the well connected in the eyes of the media and the elite.

        • The reputation of people in a court case counts, and for a good reason. For instance, we should surely weigh the stories of an upstanding citizen over those of a known liar and crook.

          A bump from a car is still pretty serious. I'm not trying to minimize what happened, but trying to put it in context. There's a pretty big difference between being hit and bumped by a car. You may disagree with "bump", but relative to how hard people are hit by cars, it was pretty mild.

          I've seen the video, and it's really hard to tell what's going on. You have your interpretation, but I'd suggest that it's highly influenced by what you want/expect to see, not what's really there. I think the video is blurry, distant and from bad angles. Honestly, I don't think that anyone can tell much of anything from those videos.

          Your interpretation is contradicted by the forensic evidence. Sheppard's father agrees. I don't know why, in the face of all of the evidence and the acceptance of Sheppard's own father, you guys are just unwilling to let it go. That vast conspiracy theories are required to do so should tell you something about your position…

      • JoeC.

        If you read the Crown's executive report, you'll see that they considered charging him with dangerous driving for hitting Sheppard when he restarted his car, but ultimately concluded that they couldn't convict on that basis because the wouldn't be able to establish that Bryant's conduct departed markedly from what a reasonable peson in his position (ii.e., having some violent, drunken lunatic yelling at you) would do. Basically, he was scared and nervous and desperately trying to restart his car, and when he did he hit Mr. Sheppard. Hard to argue with that.

        • I did read it. I'm just saying that there is really clearly no murderous intent here, and that those actions that caused the cyclist's death were pretty much what most people would do in those circumstances. The bumping of the cyclist isn't as cut and dry, but if he was under the duress as we've heard, I can imagine panicking a bit and screwing up what would normally be a routine thing (starting the car). I doubt they could successfully prosecute, but at least it would make more sense.

          I think that the people going nuts about this can't have ever really been in a sudden, bad situation like this. I have, and I know how easy it is to slip up when your adrenaline is pumping and you have no way of knowing what someone's going to do. If you've experienced this before, then you should have some compassion for how easy it is to make a small mechanical error (i.e. not having your foot on the break when starting your car) is.

      • Yah, The Crown should grow a pair, and charge him with actual murder. The premeditated kind. The kind they charge everyone else with when they knowingly, maliciously drag someone to their deaths. And the 'chocolate-bar thief charged with murder' analogy is the poorest, most tasteless I've read in a while. Michael Bryant didn't steal Darcy Sheppard's bicycle light. He actually did kill him. And brutally, so.

  17. Amazing that liberals questioned the Jaffer thing, but not a single liberal is saying anything about this.

    • It always come down to politics with you guys doesn't it? It's never that the right thing happened. I'm a pretty staunch Tory and I have questions about the Jaffer "thing", because the optics were terrible. I don't think he got any sweetheard deals (Jaffer has no pull with the Ontario government, and , he probably couldn't get the Federal Tories to spit on him if he was on fire), but I think he got away with a remarkably light sentence (my theory is that he agreed to testify against the other guy, but who knows).
      I don't have a problem with the Bryant case. In light of all the evidence, there was no way the crown could have gotten a conviction, and given that they were right not to proceed to trial.
      And no, I'm not an employee of Navigator. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Bryant. I'm not even a Grit. I just don't think we should chalk every thing up to goofy conspiracy theories when there are rational and plausible explanations for everything (and I particularly don't like blow-hards teeing off on the credibility of the justice system with cause).

    • … apparently a lot of people think this man deserved to die beneath the wheels of some enraged motorist. Didn't you hear The Crown, it's Darcy Sheppard's fault, Darcy Sheppard is dead. How can this be? It's clear as day that Bryant started the whole thing by incredulously mowing this cyclist down like he was a piece of garbage littering the street. And people wonder why he had a bad attitude towards motorists? You're not all saints, case in point. (Since Sheppard's death is okay by all, do I now have to get a bumper sticker for my bike that reads, "I am not expendable courier slime, please don't kill me?")

  18. I might agree with your suggestion that starting the car in gear was negligent (though perhaps even then it might not rise to the level of dangerous driving) if he'd done it at a stop sign in the middle of the day with nothing else going on. But, it's a little different when you're trying to start your stalled car when some violent drunken lunatic is yelling at you. You think he might be a little bit nervous, a little bit stressed? I would have been. And if you're honest with yourself, you would be too.

    In any event, even if his actions were careless, that doesn't make you guilty of dangerous driving. Not every accident is a crime. As the crown pointed out, in order to establish the offense of dangerous driving, the crown has to prove that Mr. Bryant's conduct was a marked departure from what a reasonable driver would do in those circumstances. The Crown, rightly, concluded that it couldn't get there.

    • i guess you drank the coolaid bryant addmitted to drinking with his wife no breathalizer given this is a disgrace since some crown went to same school with bryant cant believe people are so blind to the truth come on someone is dead police released him so if he was that drunk like they are saying then the police are just as guilty an a judge should have that say not bryant wallet and not his school chump

      • Unless you're Jorge Luis Borges, you need to use punctuation. Your tinfoil-hat ramblings would be more readable with a period, a comma or even some capitalization.

      • You know it, sister! A man is dead, eyewitnesses describe the chaos of a car driving the wrong way down Bloor, slamming a man on its side off postboxes and lamp posts, and The Cops see no need to breathilze the driver? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the driver is former AG, former MPP, Golden Boy Michael Bryant! Did you see him stewing in the back of the police cruiser after the horrific bludgeoning? He looked totally wired, to boot! Yet he told his pals, oops I meant The Cops, that he hadn't been drinking, and somewhat magically/unethically, his word alone was good enough for them. But I ask myself this. I'm a well-trained lawyer. Heck, I'm an ex-Attorney General, I know the law. If I'd been drinking when this "accident" occurred, that wouldn't look good. A man is dead after all. Well, I haven't been drinking and I want an official record that I haven't. I have no problem volunteering for a breathalyzer test, as it will strengthen my defense of "I was so scared" in court. Don't you think? He was drinking no doubt, question is how much did he swallow? Or maybe he prefers something stronger? Well, we'll never know. Just like Darcy Sheppard will never get justice. People even think it's justice that he is dead. Can you believe it? Because The Spin-doctors have people thinking he was nothing more than a dirty, drunken, foul-mouthed courier with a death wish. He had family and friends. He had children… Yet everyone is rushing to hold Michael Bryant's hand. That lying, arrogent, cowardly murderer…

    • … this killer knew he had the guy he had just run-down on his car, and proceeded to drive the wrong way into the opposite lane in order to clock Mr. Sheppard against any available street furniture, before dumping him in the street for the second time and running him over, for the second time. I don't call it dangerous driving either. I call it murder.
      (And FYI, I'm a girl on a bicycle and have been in the odd road-rage/bike-rage altercation without 'fearing for my life'. I''ve even been trailed and taunted by a motorist. Please. Be honest with yourself. If all Torontonians were nervous, spineless, murderous wrecks like Michael Bryant, the streets of this city would be littered with bodies daily.)

  19. I can't believe the power of Navigator to so distort the truth. Look at the video. Bryant hits Sheppard before any confrontation. BEFORE. Everything after that is because Bryant hits someone, after revving up to them twice, not stalling. He then backs up and swerves around and is taking off at speed while Sheppard is still on the ground. ON THE GROUND. Bryant is at the centre of what happened with willful actions. What a crock to suggest Sheppard is the aggressor. It is Bryant who created the situation. And yet he has evaded all accountability and responsibility for his options. You would think this was some tinpot dicator nation.

    • In a "tinpot dicator(sic)" nation, there would not have been charges laid, nor video released, nor a trial. And you would have been shot for spelling "dictator" so poorly.

  20. Who are these witnesses that said Sheppard did the same thing to them too? Did they report what happened to them when it happened to them or did they report it later after seeing it happen to Bryant. How do we know if they are telling the truth or not?
    Also, wasn't the Crown lawyer Richard Peck who had the charges dropped from British Columbia where Michael Bryant was born and grew up?

    • if you look up they went to same schools this is so wrong i guess justice is blind now we should be there should be law against this but money talks truth does not count in court no wonder

  21. A seven foot Jamaican jumped out of a toilet stall in a public washroom half nake and crazed on some stimulant and threatened me with a banana. I shot him dead and reported to the authorities what had happened. They said this guy has been doing this for years and he knew he would pay the price some day. I was never charged as his reputation

  22. Just a reminder to everyone, the average working guy who might end up in a similar situation WILL NOT receive:
    1. a special prosecutor flown in from another province.
    2. afford a PR firm
    3. be allowed to hold press conferences.

    Think about it.. =)

    • 1) So you would have preferred that the former Attorney General of the province be prosecuted by people who used to work for him? The average working guy would never have been in that situation.

      2) If Bryant, as a public figure, wants to take steps to protect his public image by using his own money to hire a private PR firm, what business is this of yours? The average working guy doesn't have as much to lose as the public figure, whose career is based largely on his image.

      3) We're all allowed to hold press conferences. The average working man can invite any media that he wants to any location of his choosing. Whether people show up or not is the only difference. If he did not hold a pres conference, he would have been accused of trying to avoid the public.

    • How true…

  23. Liberals should be removed from office. PERIOD. Even the NDP would be better, ANYWHERE.

    • That's an interesting statement. What does it have to do with this story?

  24. What I find incredulous about the crown's story is its focus on Bryant's fear of attack, and the short shrift given to fear in Sheppard's case. Sheppard had just been hit from behind and knocked onto the hood of a car. Sheppard does not appear to have been injured, so the crown concludes that Bryant's negligent driving did not cause injury. However, as I see it, Bryant's driving caused Sheppard to act in such a way that he was likely to be injured.

    When Bryant's Saab started to speed away Sheppard's probably felt seriously threatened. He may have grabbed onto the car more to prevent himself from being hit by the car than to attack Bryant. If he grew more aggressive (though the one witness I heard described him as holding on for dear life), it probably had to do with the fact that Bryant did not stop the car, but instead sped up and swerved (at least according to some pedestrians).

    This case should have gone to trial, even if Bryant was ultimately acquitted.

    • So if I am in the middle of a confrontation with some guy in a car, the first thing I would do is TOTALLY try and grab the car to prevent it from hitting me while is is moving.

      I would NEVER step away from the moving car, that would just be stupid.

      If I had been stupid enough to hold onto a moving car, I would have "holding on for dear life" as well.

  25. Mr Sheppard tangled with the wrong hombre.

    • Yes indeed, a man with connections will win out every time in Ontario

  26. From seeing the videos it is clear that BRYANT is the instigator of the whole situation. Just because someone cuts you off, does NOT give you the right to run them down as Bryant did to Sheppard. Yes, it was stupid of Sheppard to grab the car, but if someone ran you down from behind on your bike and as you were getting back up off the road was attempting to get away you might react similarly in such an adrenaline rushed and paniced state as Sheppard must have been in. Bryant should have been charged with leaving the scene of an accident and involuntary manslaughter. But, then I guess class has its privledges for the elite, doesn't it. If it were you or I driving that car, we would be in prison right now.

    • I don't see how Bryant doing something wrong (or even illegal) before the latching-on incident gives Sheppard cause to do what he did.

      • Maybe not, but it sure demonstrates that Bryant should have been charged with something. Sheppard paid for his actions with his life. Bryant nothing.

  27. I am a cyclist and honestly I think car drivers are in the wrong in 99% of collisions like this, but this isn't one of them. If an angry drunk cyclist latched on to my convertible and my wife was in the passenger seat I can't say I'd do anything differently. It's easy for us to say that he should have stopped the car, but in that situation I would act to protect my family and try to get out of there.

    • That does not explain everything BEFORE Bryant starting backing up his car, throwing it in drive and swerving around Sheppard and then trying to get away from the area. That is what happened. Did Sheppard do something stupid, maybe, but that does not mean that Bryant should not have been taken to trial on charges related to his behaviour.

  28. I don't pay taxes to see this kind of justice. Bryant clearly started and stopped his car twice before hitting the bicyclist. So his car is a stick and he doesn't know what the clutch is for?
    Is the Crown saying that's expected from all drivers? So this is the normal scenario: bicycle cuts you off. You hit him. He yells at you. You hit him harder, run him on the hood. He's yelling even harder. You run from the place of the accident. He hangs on to your car. You speed up and try to hit him into a pole. He falls off. You run him over.
    Cool. Watch out, bicyclists!!! Since there is precedent, I won't even be charged with impaired or dangerous driving for this.
    Not even a parking ticket.

    • Also, since you can't be convicted of killing him, you won't even be charged with assault, when you clearly hit him before he even touched your car which is the reason you killed him. Twice. Hit him twice before he touched the car. Not assault with a big car against a human on a bicycle.
      Does anyone know the name of his lawyers? Or is it just the corruption in the system?

  29. … I read the news for a living. And it's depressing what's wrong with this society. Some people are glad Darcy Sheppard is dead. Well, I'm not interested in the spin, the smear, nor the lame excuses of The Crown, who should have brought more severe charges. I think for myself by reading between the lines. On video Sheppard rode right past Bryant's car, parked in front and had his back to him. So the two may have exchanged harsh words. So it's alright to run this cyclist down from behind and drive off with him hanging from the car? Who is the aggressor? Who assaulted who? Who ultimately should have feared for his life? In all of the brief footage, I have yet to see Sheppard act drunken, or aggress physically towards Bryant. It didn't look like he even had the time. If Bryant was scared, it was because he just ran over a guy who was rightfully upset and well enough to kick his ass. A typical cowardly rich boy, afraid of confrontation with someone who doesn't know or care who he is. He should have just stopped.

  30. Bryant gets attacked by a psycopath while out celebrating his anneversary and the headline is that he is home free?
    What a dumb headline. The crazed biker had even previously threated a women in her 70,s!! While his death is unfortunate it is clearly the fault of this very sick individual who has huge personal problems.

    Why did no one get this guy the help he obviously needed before this event unfolded? I read the entire statement .Do you guys think that Bryant went out to celebrate his wedding anivesary and to top it off he thought instead of desert he would kill this man?

  31. A Liberal appointed prosecutor dismisses very serious charges against a Liberal politician who is well connected and who has spent immense amounts of money on PR… that is the story.

    Bryant rammed a bicyclist with his car and in the ensuing altercation killed him… The story about his car stalling stinks: anyone who knows anything about saabs knows that they don't magically jump forward 30 feet from a stall! Also after bryant rammed Darcy with his car he suddenly became a master with clutch and was able to execute two flawless gear shifts, first into reverse and then into first gear.

    Bryant has received VIP treatment from the media and the justice system: we all know darcy was a drunk but Bryant was not even made to take a breathalyzer test when he was arrested… ?

    We don't know all the facts about this case – and now we never will. All we have been shown is a carefully crafted story designed by Navigator, Bryants PR company…

  32. What a farce, but typical. iw as hit by a car in Ottawa 2 years ago and as I lay in shock the driver who ahd run off turned himself in saying "I was scared bya big guy, I may have hit him. This case smacks of this . I am confused as to how a car can stall then lurch forward when started. if I were hit and flung on the hood i might be a bit angry. It is seems some people in Ontario have connections and may use them. But that is just an opinion . Cyclists are not taken seriously here , this has to change.

  33. As a car driver, I have been told and made to know that if I hit a car or anything else in fromt of me causing any accident that I am at fault by the law. Thus, if I rear end someone or something then I am automatically at fault because it is my responsibility as a driver to be able to stop safely. It appears that a bike was rear ended here and that someone was hit by being rear ended and knocked on the hood of a car and off on to the road by a driver that did not properly control a car safely (accidentally or intentionally) and even tried to drive around a bike to get away from a collision. This caused everything else to happen. Rear ending anyone or anything makes the person doing it guilty no matter what even if one's car has car trouble stopping or even if it was bad weather. Many people have been charged for doing much less such as hitting a tree or post by losing control of one's car accidentally. Am I mistaken in assuming that I am responsible for controlling and maintaining my vehicle as best as possible so that I don't rear end anyone whether accidentally or intentionally?