madmax Posted May 28, 2010 Report Posted May 28, 2010 The facts come from Bryants own statements. He hit the cyclist. The Cyclist did go over the hood of his car. THere is video of Bryant trying to leave the scene. That is when the Cyclists takes his life into his hands by trying to remove the keys from the ignition by jumping at the car. A struggle ensues which is soon followed by the death of the cyclist. None of that is in dispute. Its Bryant own statement that he stalled his car on two occasions and the 2nd restart resulting in the lurch that hits the cyclist. Bryant has committed what is called.. Stop Start failure to safety. A charge rarely laid as "Careless Driving" is normally laid instead. Most people might watch as a car tries to leave the scene, but others who are hit, especially if in shock, is not unusual to see an irrational or dangerous response. Fact is, if Bryant hit the Cyclist. Fact is, Bryant got off all charges. Fact is, the cyclists response is what put him in further danger including his death. Fact is, Bryant got off from being responsible for losing control of his car and hitting the cyclist. Fact is, Bryant got off attempting to leave the scene of an accident. Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 28, 2010 Report Posted May 28, 2010 Fact is, if Bryant hit the Cyclist. Fact is, Bryant got off all charges. He bumped the bike.... Fact is, Bryant got off attempting to leave the scene of an accident. Incorrect. Bryant drove while the drunked lout was attacking him. That was not in dispute. I oprefered your first post...the nonsense made it funnier.. Like the special treatment of bringing in a crown attorney who had no connections to Bryant..which you call special treatment... Like suggesting the defense giving their file to the crown was precedent setting Like mentioning the at Bryant and the Crown were boxers... Alcan award worthy... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Born Free Posted May 28, 2010 Report Posted May 28, 2010 The facts come from Bryants own statements. He hit the cyclist. The Cyclist did go over the hood of his car. THere is video of Bryant trying to leave the scene. That is when the Cyclists takes his life into his hands by trying to remove the keys from the ignition by jumping at the car. A struggle ensues which is soon followed by the death of the cyclist. None of that is in dispute. Its Bryant own statement that he stalled his car on two occasions and the 2nd restart resulting in the lurch that hits the cyclist. Bryant has committed what is called.. Stop Start failure to safety. A charge rarely laid as "Careless Driving" is normally laid instead. Most people might watch as a car tries to leave the scene, but others who are hit, especially if in shock, is not unusual to see an irrational or dangerous response. Fact is, if Bryant hit the Cyclist. Fact is, Bryant got off all charges. Fact is, the cyclists response is what put him in further danger including his death. Fact is, Bryant got off from being responsible for losing control of his car and hitting the cyclist. Fact is, Bryant got off attempting to leave the scene of an accident. Give it up Max. Its over and no matter how angry you are about what you percieve the facts to be, there was no case to be won. Quote
madmax Posted May 28, 2010 Report Posted May 28, 2010 He bumped the bike.... Exactly. That is the drivers responsibility for care and control of a motor vehicle. It is why I said the charge for that offense is "STop Start and failure to safety". I have seen that charge applied to those who "bump" another traffic vehicle. Incorrect. Bryant drove while the drunked lout was attacking him. The evidence shows Bryant attempting to drive away first, slowly and around the fallen bike. And that is one of two incidents that 99.99% of the public would be charged and convicted.That was not in dispute. Not by the friendly crown. I oprefered your first post...the nonsense made it funnier.. Like the special treatment of bringing in a crown attorney who had no connections to Bryant..which you call special treatment... The public doesn't get out of province attorneys. And why from BC were Bryants roots are and where there are also strong political and legal ties to the region. Like suggesting the defense giving their file to the crown was precedent setting His defence mentioned this and stated that they felt their case so strong that they gave it to the crown. Bryants defence said this was unusual, but felt safe in doing so. To paraphrase. Like mentioning the at Bryant and the Crown were boxers... Neat coincidence eh. Alcan award worthy... Bout time I made you laugh for a change. But he got special treatment and its important for the justice system, lawyers, defence, crown etc to say he didn't. The crown has a right to drop charges. Just like they did with Jaffer. If you hit someone from behind, you will not have the charges dropped. Luckily you don't drive cars much. And if you are hit from behind. Well, I await your passive reaction and lets hope the driver that hits you doesn't try to leave the scene. Quote
M.Dancer Posted May 28, 2010 Report Posted May 28, 2010 Exactly. That is the drivers responsibility for care and control of a motor vehicle. It is why I said the charge for that offense is "STop Start and failure to safety". I have seen that charge applied to those who "bump" another traffic vehicle. The evidence shows Bryant attempting to drive away first, slowly and around the fallen bike. And that is one of two incidents that 99.99% of the public would be charged and convicted. Not by the friendly crown. I oprefered your first post...the nonsense made it funnier.. The public doesn't get out of province attorneys. And why from BC were Bryants roots are and where there are also strong political and legal ties to the region. His defence mentioned this and stated that they felt their case so strong that they gave it to the crown. Bryants defence said this was unusual, but felt safe in doing so. To paraphrase. Neat coincidence eh. Bout time I made you laugh for a change. But he got special treatment and its important for the justice system, lawyers, defence, crown etc to say he didn't. The crown has a right to drop charges. Just like they did with Jaffer. If you hit someone from behind, you will not have the charges dropped. Luckily you don't drive cars much. And if you are hit from behind. Well, I await your passive reaction and lets hope the driver that hits you doesn't try to leave the scene. I won't be bothered to cut and paste....he bumped the bike when the car lurched after stalling...anyone who has ever driven a stick has done this. There was no injury or damage...ergo no need to exchange insurance...and since the drunked lout was blocking trafic being aggressive and threatening...just drive around him slowly... Yes a special prsecuter was brought in from BC...who had zero connections with Bryant....had an ontario prosecuter arrived at the same conclusion..you would be sreaming even more incoherently... The defence giving their file to the prosecuter doesn't set a precendent, precedents are set be legal rulings...if anything the defence screams at any suggestion thay they should show their cards....but they did it because the evidence in Bryants favour was so strong, they had nothing to fear or hide. You claimed that we will never know if he was drinking, which quite frankly is just slimely inuendo..when we know for a fact he was not drinking. I would not be surprised if the PI had the Bill form the restaurant... ...but please feel free to froth and flail Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
madmax Posted May 28, 2010 Report Posted May 28, 2010 Give it up Max. Its over and no matter how angry you are about what you percieve the facts to be, there was no case to be won. I am neither angry nor surprised. The facts exist. Quote
madmax Posted May 28, 2010 Report Posted May 28, 2010 (edited) I won't be bothered to cut and paste....he bumped the bike when the car lurched after stalling...anyone who has ever driven a stick has done this. And if you hit a vehicle from behind while driving a stick, you get charged. Anyone who has driven a stick and tapped a vehicle from behind will tell you this. Especially if the person they hit makes an issue over it. There was no injury or damage...ergo no need to exchange insurance...and since the drunked lout was blocking trafic being aggressive and threatening...just drive around him slowly... Unfortuneately it takes two people to determine if there was injury. One of those people is dead. A concussion can provide the same irrational behaviour and anyone familiar with head injuries knows this. Regardless, you cannot just "drive away" because you think there is no damage or injury. Only if both parties agree. On top of that, you still have to report "ANY" incident to your insurance company even if it is less then criteria required to initiate a police report. Bryant, an attorney would know you cannot drive away. And this video shows he wasted no time in leaving the scene of an accident. 1) Bryan Bumps Cyclist 1a) No reaction from cyclist brushes off 2) Bryant Hits Cyclist a 2nd time HARDER 2a) Bryant is advancing against a red light. 3) Bryant wastes no time in trying to leave the scene. All before the altercation ramps up. Yes a special prsecuter was brought in from BC...who had zero connections with Bryant....had an ontario prosecuter arrived at the same conclusion..you would be sreaming even more incoherently... Nah, I see no difference. Others may scream. You would not receive a prosecutor from out of province. The defence giving their file to the prosecuter doesn't set a precendent, precedents are set be legal rulings...if anything the defence screams at any suggestion thay they should show their cards....but they did it because the evidence in Bryants favour was so strong, they had nothing to fear or hide. Well of course it doesn't set a "Legal" prescedent, but it is not the practice of defence attorneys to hand over their defence to the crown. IT would not happen if you were facing the same circumstances with the exact same case and situation faced by Bryant. You claimed that we will never know if he was drinking, which quite frankly is just slimely inuendo..when we know for a fact he was not drinking. I would not be surprised if the PI had the Bill form the restaurant... No Breathalyzer for the person who is celebrating their aniversary and has lost control of their vehicle. An alcohol test for the Dead Cyclist. Its just an unusual set of circumstances. Of course I will never know. There is no trial and no evidence collected. 28 seconds. And yes, special treatment for a crown attorney. Sometimes, you can drive your vehicle into the wrong person. Some people will say, hey, no worries and let it go. Others will say.. compensation compensation and others may react irrationally. Some people engage in road rage prior to any physical contact. While you may think that I am up in arms over this.. its hardly the case. Its amusing that people believe they would be treated the same within the justice system. Nobody seriously believed that Bryant was going to receive any conviction of anykind did they? Edited May 28, 2010 by madmax Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.