Final Arbiter
![[Article Image]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/the_mark/wide_photos/537/original.jpg?1254920869)
Comment boards are full of opinions on the Michael Bryant case, but it’s the courts that will have the last word.
Photo by essygie available under a Creative Commons License
Email to a friendThe blogs have been rife with strong opinions regarding the conduct of Michael Bryant and the death of cyclist Darcy Sheppard. Comments either condemned Mr. Bryant for culpable homicide, or exonerated him for acting in self-defence. The Globe and Mail long ago disabled comments on the matter, “for legal reasons."
What’s striking about this case is both how much and how little we already know about it, and how traditional black and white judgments of right and wrong are quickly fading to grey. We know that Mr. Sheppard had been interviewed by the police earlier that evening, that he had been drinking, that Mr. Bryant and Mr. Sheppard were involved in a cyclist-driver altercation, and that Mr. Bryant’s Saab convertible was driving in the wrong direction on Toronto’s busy Bloor Street, with Mr. Sheppard holding on. We also know that Mr. Bryant has been charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death.
But what we don’t know is whether Mr. Bryant is guilty of the crimes with which he is charged. Was he frightened and threatened to the point that he was trying to escape serious injury? Or was he callous in his disregard for Mr. Sheppard, perhaps even trying to teach him a lesson?
We will have to await the verdict of the courts for those answers. And my guess is that most Canadians are content to let this drama unfold in that venue. Why is it, then, that we have so little confidence in our judiciary in so many other cases? Is it because we are typically given so few facts compared to the details that have already arisen here due to the reputation of the accused? Or is it because Canadians simply don’t spend time in courtrooms, trying to understand the difficult balance that judges seek to achieve?
Whatever the reason, perhaps this unusual case will wake Canadians up to the reality that justice is not best dispensed in the media with its need for sensational headlines, in uninformed tirades, or in the rhetoric of vigilante justice. It is only in our courts, with arbiters appointed to determine such matters, that all relevant information can be tested and weighed – a venue in which our capacity for a just society can be properly put to the test.
Re:Marks
“ Bryant is a former MPP with deep connections to the current government. Cycling activists and advocates are currently looking to the province to help cyclists with better education programs for all road users, better laws to protect cyclists, and provide funding for bike infrastructure. Forming a posse and going after Bryant could look too much like going after the politicos themselves, and we could lose some of the support we've worked so hard to gain. Bryant is guilty of crimes much worse than what he's been charged with. He is as guilty as the day is long and the night is dark. The courts shouldn’t look at his potential claim of “self defence” too favorably when they consider that Bryant, by ramming Sheppard with his car, essentially threw the first punch in this battle. When you go around throwing random punches at people, some of the targets may be already agitated and on short fuses. And if you're picking fights, you must expect people to fight back. Bryant should have known the risks his actions would cause long before he decided to ram Sheppard; he is lawyer after all.
“ The video link does deserve to accompany this story. Youtube surveillance footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_PrhFo I have watched this story with interest. Also, Canadian Business Magazine covered the PR war in its October issue. I agree with your comment re: appropriate conduct by the media --- excerpt --- They took 16 crucial seconds of a surveillance tape and cut it up out of sequence to fit a misleading statement of events issued by the police the morning after. It is notable that the uniformed officer issuing the inaccurate statement stood behind Mr. Bryant (the accused). When have you EVER seen a police officer make a photo-op like that, in support of a man accused in a death? That inaccurate account was published widely without investigation in both fact and opinion articles. The issue is not with the judiciary, but with the prosecution. For many, the charges seem very weak given Bryant's actions on video. Weak enough that given this man's past position "the rule of law" is brought into disrepute. That is a judgement made by the people in the absence of appropriate authority. --- end excerpt --- The court date approaches I wonder if there will be any answers forthcoming at that point?
“ Interesting that the writer would suggest that Canadians were given "the facts" in the Sheppard-Bryant case. By whom? The press? The media? The best summation of "the facts" came from a lawyer on a Toronto cycling blog. And those facts were unearthed and complied (from CCTV cameras) by another blogger and posted on YouTube. The press/media seemed to go out of their way to avoid the facts in this case. That is worrying. But here the writer furthers the obfuscation of the facts by asking questions that immediately contradict the facts. Hm. Are most Canadians content to see this resolved in the courts? I don't know. I would hope. The writer suggest this is so but then contradicts himself in the very next sentence by asking why it is that Canadians have such little confidence in the court system, our judiciary? Huh? Which is it? Where is the crisis in confidence? What are these other cases? I, for one, will take the courts over the media any day. I agree with the conclusion the writer draws, but the logic he uses to get there would have his case tossed by any rational human, judge or not.
brian moffatt