Below is a conversation I recently had with a friend of mine in Google Buzz (which I am increasingly a fan of, especially with Tweetdeck integration). The conversation stems from a Twitter post I made (@SSSasky).
I'm pretty angry about the charges being dropped, although I do understand the problem the prosecutor faced. Given the blemishes against the victims character that have come out over the past few months, it would be easy enough to convince a jury that Bryant could not be found guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. You just need one juror to refuse to back down, and the whole thing falls apart.
I'm pretty angry about the charges being dropped, although I do understand the problem the prosecutor faced. Given the blemishes against the victims character that have come out over the past few months, it would be easy enough to convince a jury that Bryant could not be found guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. You just need one juror to refuse to back down, and the whole thing falls apart.
SSSasky: All charges dropped against #MichaelBryant. The ruling elite wins again. Shame on you, Ontario prosecutors! http://bit.ly/9qJV4W
Friend - yeah, I'm pretty sure that the cyclist was a douche, but no charges at all? None? Further, if the Toronto Sun loves it (check their cover today), I can't even like it ...
SSSasky - No doubt Darcy (the cyclist) was a troubled person. I met him several times, and he was always drunk, even at relatively early hours in the morning.
However, the video of the accident is pretty clear. Bryant knocked Sheppard down from behind, intentionally, at an intersection, and pushed him for approximately a car length, before reversing, and then trying to drive around him. At that point Darcy grabbed onto the car, which is what the media treats as the beginning of the event.
Completely black and white: Bryant hit first, and he intentionally hit a cyclist with a car. it was captured on video, and he still got off. Was Darcy drunk? Probably. Was he biking irresponsibly/dangerously? Highly likely. Does that mean a driver should be able to maliciously knock him off his bike and then kill him for retaliating? No fucking way.
Sorry. Rant not directed at you. I'm just frustrated by the amount of people coming out saying 'well, he had problems, you know'. Or 'he hated cars'. The video is all over youtube. Bryant struck first.
Friend - No, rant away - haven't seen the video yet, & probably won't watch it (but I'll take your word for it & I'm not surprised). Perhaps Bryant striking first will still get in the media - there's definitely a story there. You written any letters to any editors? Is that video on Facebook?
I was starting to think that with cycling being a newsworthy issue so many times this year that the perception of cyclists as part of a dangerous hippie cult was starting to change ... perhaps not.
SSSasky - The video is well known, and came out literally days after the accident. It's widely known online. this is the most well known version, but there are many others kicking around, including multiple witness interviews. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_Prh Fo
The mainstream media knows as well, but they choose not to report on it. Which, I believe, can only be credited to Bryant's connections and the power of highly paid media spin companies. Of course, the fact that the Star gobbles Liberal dick everyday doesn't exactly worsen his odds in the media. (haha ... being crude is funny)
The mainstream media, within hours of the accident, explicitly shifted tone from blaming Bryant for the accident to portraying Bryant as the victim of a raging cyclist. The fact that he made the first attack is completely ignored. The Star, for instance, has an article about other scuffles with drivers that Darcy got into. The article clearly portrays Darcy as the aggressor, and Bryant (and the other drivers) as the victim. Regardless of the previous incidents, its clear in this case that Bryant struck first.
I think cycling in Toronto is at a crux moment. The massive amounts of coverage, and rise in ridership has upped the legitimacy of cycling for many people. However, it has also galvanised a vocal opposition towards urban cycling, whose prominent fear-mongering and hate speech threatens to undo whatever good was being done.
