[UD2]

In all seriousness, he panicked in the worst way possible. Part of being a good driver is being able to handle unexpected situations - whether it's a sudden stop, a burst tire or the angry cyclist you just sideswiped trying to get you to stop your car - without endangering other people's lives. At this early juncture, it looks like (allegedly) Bryant callously failed to do that.

If I ever commit a crime, I'm totally going to use UD2 as my lawyer.

If I’m your lawyer you'll most likely lose. Please don't take what I’m saying here seriously I'm only using what little knowledge i have to speculate on what could possibly happen.

And for what you've mentioned above and as I said in my first post. I think there are ample rooms here for charges on dangerous driving and even dangerous driving causing bodily harm. All I’m trying to say is that the crown will have a rather difficult time arguing for anything directly attributing to death.


And Blovertis is absolutely right in this case. If the cyclist was in anyway also responsible for this unfortunate situation, Bryant would have a very good chance of getting a reduced charge.

 

[doady]

Two hotheaded idiots that are off our streets. I don't have any sympathy for either of them.

 

[Whoaccio]

Criminally speaking, Bryant wouldn't have to be a "good driver" in order to avoid being convicted. He would have to prove he behaved in a way that is consistent with reasonable behavior under the circumstances. A lot of that would depend on what happened prior to the fatality. If, and this isn't factual, evidence was presented that the cyclist began attacking the car or issuing threatening language, it is reasonable that Bryant would try to extricate himself from the situation. By contrast, if evidence was presented that prior to the fatality the cyclist behaved in an nonthreatening way this would be less credible.

EDIT: Separately, wouldn't the undisputed crime of the cyclist be a pretty clear mitigating factor? Let's be clear that whatever the murkiness surrounding Bryant's actions, the cyclist's actions were unquestionably reckless endangerment eventually causing death (of himself, but death none the less). With respect to Bryan't responsibility, shouldn't it be easy for him to argue that the cyclist's actions were foremost the cause of death in this situation not withstanding Bryan't potentially poor driving.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

what if the guy on the bike grabbed onto the car in order to keep from falling on the ground? (at the initial collision)

is it known why he was holding on to the car?

 

[Hank]

Being very scared could, if argued properly, be grounds for irrational act that may at times be reckless.

Unless you were so scared that you essentially lost the ability to discern right from wrong (and the standards for such a determination are VERY high), being scared won't make much of a difference.

All they need to do is to argue that he did not cause the death of the cyclist and then all that's left would be little more than driving on the wrong side of the road.

No...all they need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that he did not cause the death of the cyclist. Given the situation, I think that that would be very difficult (even if the cyclist is partly at fault too, that doesn't get Bryant off the hook).

May be in fearing for his life, he lost the ability to properly judge the degree of danger that the cyclist would be placed in if he drove on the wrong side of the road. After all, normal drivers aren’t trained to operate their cars with a bicycle holding onto it.

Again, that's not the test. It doesn't matter how dangerous you think something is as long as you caused someone's death while committing an unlawful act. If I shove you and you happen to fall, hit your head, and die, I can still be charged with manslaughter even if I never thought that you would die from me doing that.

Also, piggy backing onto cars I believe is an illegal act to begin with. I believe there is a clause somewhere that would protect any negligent acts toward the cyclist after he had committed the first offence by grabbing onto the car in the first place. That's ontop of the fact where the cyclist CHOSE to grab onto the car. Bryant didn't force him.

There is no such clause. As long as Bryant was at least a significant contributing clause of the cyclist's death, and he caused the death during the commission of an unlawful act, he can be charged with manslaughter.

That being said, it all really depends on what the cyclist was trying to do by holding on to Bryant's car. If a reasoanble person would have believed that the cyclist was trying to cause Bryant serious bodily harm, then Bryant may have been totally justified in what he did.

 

[AKS]

Well, this wouldn't be the first auto-bicycle incident. I really wonder what's with all the hot headed drivers of any sort of vehicle.

http://www.citynoise.org/article/2770

 

[GraphicMatt]

what if the guy on the bike grabbed onto the car in order to keep from falling on the ground? (at the initial collision)

is it known why he was holding on to the car?

The cyclist will never get to testify, but I guess the thing about hanging on to a speeding car is that, once it gets going, you'd be really dumb to let go.

 

[Asterix]

The cyclist will never get to testify, but I guess the thing about hanging on to a speeding car is that, once it gets going, you'd be really dumb to let go.

For that matter, is there also still the possibility that the cyclist was caught on the car? Maybe after a collision some piece of clothing or bag could have been hung up on some part of the car that was open due to the roof being down.

Maybe the cyclist wanted off but couldn't get free, especially when being dragged at 90km/h. That would certainly result in verbal and physical threats against the driver.

 

[Jonny5]

Per The Star, he has been formally charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.

 

[androiduk]

Media and onlookers gather at the site of the accident

 

[SimonP]

The cyclist will never get to testify, but I guess the thing about hanging on to a speeding car is that, once it gets going, you'd be really dumb to let go.

When he did finally let go he fell under the rear wheels of the car. So yes, he might have had a reason for holding on.

 

[UD2]

Unless you were so scared that you essentially lost the ability to discern right from wrong (and the standards for such a determination are VERY high), being scared won't make much of a difference.

This makes sense. But preservation of your own life will reach that standard. And reasonable doublt can be raised by that.

No...all they need to do is raise a reasonable doubt that he did not cause the death of the cyclist. Given the situation, I think that that would be very difficult (even if the cyclist is partly at fault too, that doesn't get Bryant off the hook).

again, this make sense. But again, it all depends on how it's argued.

Again, that's not the test. It doesn't matter how dangerous you think something is as long as you caused someone's death while committing an unlawful act. If I shove you and you happen to fall, hit your head, and die, I can still be charged with manslaughter even if I never thought that you would die from me doing that.

If you even thought about me not dieing it'll signifiy rational thought and thus intent, and therefore, guilt. You intended to shove me, that's manslaugter.

What i'm trying to say is that it could be argued that the reaction that Bryant had to the cyclist grabbing onto his car may have let to the loss of rational thought and caused the reflexes for human self preservation to take over. If reasonable doublt can be raised on this point, there would be a chance for a reduced charge.

There is no such clause. As long as Bryant was at least a significant contributing clause of the cyclist's death, and he caused the death during the commission of an unlawful act, he can be charged with manslaughter.

That being said, it all really depends on what the cyclist was trying to do by holding on to Bryant's car. If a reasoanble person would have believed that the cyclist was trying to cause Bryant serious bodily harm, then Bryant may have been totally justified in what he did.

I agree with this.

 

[APTA-2048]

So now to add more to this unfortunate case, friends of Darcy Allan Sheppard are now blocking Bloor & University. News reports indicate they plan for another one tomorrow at Bay & Bloor.

Edit: Police have just arrived on the scene and the cyclists refuse to move

 

[CDL.TO]

So now to add more to this unfortunate case, friends of Darcy Allan Sheppard are now blocking Bloor & University. News reports indicate they plan for another one tomorrow at Bay & Bloor.

Edit: Police have just arrived on the scene and the cyclists refuse to move

Be sure to grab some photos if you can!

 

[APTA-2048]

Be sure to grab some photos if you can!

Unfortunately, I was only following it on CityTV. However I probably would have been the area, had I not changed plans this morning.

City's reported it's clear now, but says the cyclists still have plans to protest along Bloor from Bay to Avenue tomorrow evening.

I know I wouldn't want to be remembered in such a manner if I died.