[nfitz]

Apparently he stepped on the gas and sped into the Park Hyatt (a little more than simply "turning the corner"), where he later called 911, leaving a dying man in the middle of Bloor Street alone.

After having been physically attacked in his vehicle by a drunk, he was likely looking for a place where he was safe from further attack. But as the that hotel is on the northwest corner of Avenue Road and Bloor; and the cyclist fell off the car near the southeast corner of Avenue Road and Bloor, then how is this anything more than turning the corner?

Would it have been so hard to turn off the engine, step out of the vehicle and call the police from his cell phone?

I'm not sure what difference it makes if he stops on the side of the street, or a few feet away in a driveway. How in any possible way can this be described as "fleeing the scene"?

 

[lordmandeep]

Look there is no way to pin the blame all one side and there is no need to.

This was caused by stupidity on both sides. It appears it was started by the cyclist which lead to a great overreaction by Bryant.


I have no idea why would the cyclist grab the car? That was stupid by him.

This will be an interesting trial and considering Bryant likely knows some good lawyers he will likely get away with max 1-2 years in jail and I say about a 50% chance on that.

 

[nfitz]

Look there is no way to pin the blame all one side and there is no need to.

I wasn't trying to do that ... we were just discussing the "fleeing from the scene", for which there isn't any evidence whatsoever. Bryant doesn't appear to have made the wisest of decisions.

This will be an interesting trial and considering Bryant likely knows some good lawyers he will likely get away with max 1-2 years in jail.

Hang on ... why should he be charged at all for anything other than a moving violation? There are eye-witness reports that he was physically attacked in his car by the cyclist. There are reports that the cyclist threw a bicycle at Bryant. If these reports are true, then I don't see how self-defence wouldn't clear Bryant of any serious charges.

Though obviously we don't know the whole story ... the police must have some basis to be making serious charges ... though it doesn't seem to add up with the eye-witness accounts.

 

[Asterix]

If someone throws a bike at you I think you are allowed to hit something back at him too.

Do you have an actual cite for that law or is it just wishful thinking on your part?

I don't know if the police take into account what you think you are allowed to do when they decide whether to charge you with laws they know exist.

 

[lordmandeep]

We must remember Bryant had a convertible so if the person was grabbing the car he could have been attacking Bryant. If you are under attack while driving, he could somewhat justify such an action.

I don't know if the police take into account what you think you are allowed to do when they decide whether to charge you with laws they know exist.

That is when a Good lawyer comes in Handy. The police see it best to charge and then have the courts figure it out. There you argue he threw a bike at me and I responded in self defense.

I know a case of a close family friend who was attacked by two of his employees and then defended himself with a stick and was charged with assault but easily proved to the court that he was just defending himself.

Bryant knows the battle will be in court.

 

[simply Dan]

It appears it was started by the cyclist which lead to a great overreaction by Bryant.

According to Christine Blatchford at the Globe: "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... Mr. Bryant enging his vehicle closer, and by one account, actually hitting Mr. Sheppard's bike..."

 

[lordmandeep]

I just read in The Toronto Star this morning and the Bike hit Bryant's car.


It appears we will not know until the trial finishes.

The interesting issue here to consider is self defense.

-Some think if your attacked you can beat the guy senseless.

-Others say one can attack you but you can't do anything but call the police.


We may have thought from watching to many American shows that your allowed to defend yourself if you are under threat, but it appears there are very strict limits here in Canada. This case should be a wake up call to many and it appears if someone attacks you you should respond with great caution.

Anyone who can give a proper explanation about Canadian law and Self defense would be doing a great service.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/selfdefense/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf

Interesting read but focuses on guns.

 

[Asterix]

We must remember Bryant had a convertible so if the person was grabbing the car he could have been attacking Bryant. If you are under attack while driving, he could somewhat justify such an action.

Your original statement, which I quoted, was that if someone throws a bike at you, you think you are allowed to hit back. However, once they've thrown their bike at you, they presumably don't have another in their back pocket to throw at you so the threat they pose to you is now reduced. Can it be called defending yourself when the attacker is no longer armed? Or are you arguing that each side gets the opportunity to get in an equivalent number of 'shots'?

 

[nfitz]

According to Christine Blatchford at the Globe: "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... Mr. Bryant enging his vehicle closer, and by one account, actually hitting Mr. Sheppard's bike..."

Only one account that Bryant hit Sheppard's bike first? Though other reports say that it was the bike that collided with the car. And 680News reports that "Witnesses said Sheppard threw his bike at a car before confronting the driver and reaching into the car.".

Even if Bryant had collided with Sheppard's bicycle, throwing your bicycle at at someone as your first move, hardly seems appropriate. If you honked at a bike, and their reaction was to first throw their bicycle at you, and then to try and enter your vehicle ... at which point you would have realised that they were intoxicated ... what are you supposed to do? Stand there and call 9-1-1 ... or try and leave the scene for safety as quickly as possible. I would be afraid for my life ... and based on the initial and violent attack from Sheppard ... there is no indication that Bryant wouldn't have suffered severe injury if he hadn't tried to escape his attacker!

Had Bryant attacked the cyclist I could see how he might be charged ... but it would appear that all he tried to do was get away from someone who had violently attacked him.

 

[doady]

I am cyclist myself and being the 905 I have to deal with the stupidest motorists of all. But I don't see how people are defending this cyclist, who I think was the aggressor from the beginning. We shouldn't defend him just because he was a cyclist. Just the simple fact that he jumped on the car and was holding on (which was apparent from the beginning) shows that he was at fault here, because it left Bryant with few options. There is no way to defend this action, and it is only one that matters. As I said, we should stop blaming the victim.

 

[Roy G Biv]

Again, self-defence does not constitute dangering the lives of pedestrians and other drivers.

I think they should disqualify any "witness accounts" that weren't taken at the scene. It's asking for corruption.

 

[nfitz]

Again, self-defence does not constitute dangering the lives of pedestrians and other drivers.

Agreed ... but I haven't seen a report that any other vehicle was even scratched in this, yet alone any injuries. Nor have I heard reports of pedestrians diving for cover. But I might have missed ... so if there are any links, I'd love to see them.

 

[Whoaccio]

If someone throws their bike at you, that is definitely assault. The victim would have a reasonable basis to respond proportionately in self defense. That the assailant may have had only one "projectile" (a bike) isn't relevant as, for all the victim knows, he may continue the assault with any number of other weapons.

Anyways, with respect to the original altercation, the only fair way to put it is that we don't really know enough of what happened. I've read articles to the effect that the bicyclist dismounted and began assaulting Bryant as well as statements that Bryant rammed the cyclist, both of which would seem to some degree contradictory.

EDIT: The one thing that does seem quite clear at this point was that Bryant did not "flee the scene" or carry out some kind of "hit and run." People who keep on suggesting this are simply ignoring the facts.

 

[Hank]

-Some think if your attacked you can beat the guy senseless.

-Others say one can attack you but you can't do anything but call the police

I'm not sure who these people are that you're talking to, but they're clearly not lawyers. You aren't necessarily allowed to beat someone senseless not are you restricted to just calling the police.

Self-defence is a somewhat murky area, but the general idea is that you're allowed to use the amount of force that is necessary in the situation. You can use deadly force, but only if the situation warrants it. Did this situation warrant Bryant's use of deadly force (and I think most people would recognize that smashing someone into a mailbox at high speeds can potentially be deadly)? I don't know...we'll have to wait until the facts come out.

 

[lordmandeep]

Can it be called defending yourself when the attacker is no longer armed?

You make a valid point but the human arms and legs used well can easily hurt or kill another.

So if he throw a bike at you and then appears to attack you, he is a threat to you right?? He may not kill you if he is not armed but could easily injure.

I was reading that paper I posted and it appears he argues
...

In Canada, for example, the prevailing attitude appears to be that there is no need for self defense (Friedland 1984). Not only do the police actively discourage self defense in general, but armed self defense is widely considered to be illegal. Exceptionally few Canadian organizations argue that citizens have the right to defend themselves with weapons.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/selfdefense/CSD-JCJ-JFP-8-3-99.pdf


This appears to be what the law says.

Despite disavowals by police officials, the Canadian criminal code does include the right of citizens to
use deadly force to protect themselves (sections 34, 35, and 37). The key provision in the Canadian
criminal code (§34) is that, no one may use “more force than is necessary” and then only when “he
believes on reasonable grounds that he can not otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous
bodily harm.” In section 35, the code goes on to require that one must show that “he declined further
conflict and quitted or retreated from it (the assault) as far as it was feasible to do so before the
necessity of preserving himself ... arose.” Moreover, the right to use physical force to defend nonfamily
members is more limited than it is in many states, as are the Canadians’ rights to repulse
trespassers on their own property, or to use force to stop the commission of serious or violent crimes
(Viz. sections 24, 40, and 41).

Wow I never knew that Self defense is not a right