http://www.thestar.com/article/689771 Your task is now to "comment" on the case, by answering the question: Why do you think the events that transpired from a social scientists point of view?
Once you've posted your comment, you must then find a story of your own, and create a "posting," which provides some information on the case, and what questions if you were on the scene as either an anthropologist, psychologist or sociologist (you choose), you'd like to ask.
Please wait for intructions before attempting to post.
I find it interesting that the media kind of twisted the story to say that Bryant intended to kill the man, but in his defense the biker was proven to be under the influence and was cursing to Bryant and his wife while holding on to the car. I think the media should show that it was not truthfully Bryant's fault and that he paniced.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I read on the story of Michael Bryant and the cyclist it appeared that Mr. Bryant was at fault but, in reality it was the cyclists fault. The cyclist was under the influence of alcohol when he grabbed on to Mr. Bryant's car and started threatening him. This man had many problems and was a loud and angry person many had said. In my opinion Michael Bryant is not guilty for the death of this maniac.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very troubling story to read about. The victim (Mr. Sheppard) was intoxicated, and was edging the driver on. For the safety of the driver and the passanger in the car, Mr. Bryant worked to remove Mr. Sheppard from the side of the car. It is unfortunate that the situation ended in an unessecary death, because Mr. Sheppard was just having a good time, and Mr. Bryant was just tryng to free his car. It is important to think about what any one of us would do if we were placed in the same situation as Mr. Bryant, because, for the most part, I believe many of us would act somewhat similarly to how he acted that night. I do not believe that Mr. Bryant should have lost all credibilty and some of his career, or that he should be sentenced so harshly.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I’ve read about this case, it seems that the media was trying to put Michael Bryant in the wrong but it is hard to decide whether you agree or disagree. When first finding out about the case it seems like it would have been his fault, however when you find out all the information you realize that it was the cyclists fault. He was biking under the influence and he was the one to start this altercation. I think the reason the media wanted to portray Michael Bryant as the one at fault is because he is an important uprising political figure in the Toronto area and this issue would create massive issues for him to face.
ReplyDeleteThe charges were eventually dropped in the case with Michael Bryant. Some reasons for the dropped charges is that the prosecution didn't believe that there was a reasonable possibility of conviction in the case. They discovered that there was a stalled engine that led the car to lurch forward. Also, Shepperd (cyclist) was found to have had approximately 6 other incidents with other motorists. Finally, they realised that Shepperd was the agressor in the altercation with Bryant. There was no provocation from Bryant or his wife.
ReplyDeleteI think that the final decision of the trial was a good one, considering they had some good facts to back it up. Bryant and his wife did not conjure up the dispute. Shepperd was a very aggresive man, and was clearly intoxicated during the time of the crime. The crime expanded so much because it dealt with Michael Bryant, a celebrity. If Bryant was not a well-known man, the case would have ended sooner, as many people were trying to demolish his political career.
Did Michael Bryant deliberately run over and kill bicycle courier Darcy Sheppard during an incident of road rage? In my opinion, any decent human being with a moral conscience would have stopped to see if Sheppard was alive after hitting a tree and a mailbox while still holding on to the door of their speeding vehicle. Why did Bryant back up over Darcy when he fell onto the street and why did he leave the scene of the crime? According to an article in thestar.com May 26, 2010 "Justice in the Michael Bryant Case" charges were dropped against former Attorney-General M. Bryant even though witnesses observed that Bryant did not even slow down and appeared to be brushing Sheppard off the side of his car at ~90 km/hr. The Crown concluded that the victim was the aggressor in this fatal encounter. Bryant said that Sheppard was accidentally thrown against a tree and mailbox when his car accelerated quickly. Many were outraged that Bryant was not convicted of manslaughter. It is obvious he was only concerned about himself and the impact that this tragedy would have on his career and family. Otherwise, he would not have been evasive and left the site of the accident. This case attracted the best legal talent because Bryant was a powerful politician in Toronto. Sheppard was living a street life due to a troubled past and had a known addiction to drugs and alcohol. His death however, was caused by the driver of the car that day. Bryant had a choice and decided not to stop. So, is there one law for the rich and powerful and a different one for the rest of us? I think that if this tragedy had happened the other way around and M. Bryant had been killed, Sheppard would be serving a life sentence for murder right now. He would not have had the resources or political connections to spin the media machine in his favour.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the article I got the impression that the media was against Michael Byrant from the start. When looking at all the facts, it is easy to see that the situation started and ended with the cyclist, who was the one who provoked Michael Byrant to proceed with his actions; the cyclist who was under the influence, caused him to panic and provoked mayhem which concluded with his own death. This ordeal had a negative effect on Byrant’s political status. In my opinion I don’t think the collision should have had a huge impact on his career as it was an unlucky accident.
ReplyDeleteI found this article quite an interesting read, mostly because of the fact that Sheppard, the cyclist, has had a history of alcoholism, and still the media is against Michael Bryant. However, it also had me confused because, although Sheppard was intoxicated and had hit the car purposely, any human with respect for others would at least check to see if he was hurt after hitting a small tree and a mailbox. It's a very contradictory case, but if i had to choose one side, I would say that Sheppard is to blame because he was intoxicated and he has had a history of alcoholism.
ReplyDeleteI found this article quite an interesting read, mostly because of the fact that Sheppard, the cyclist, has had a history of alcoholism, and still the media is against Michael Bryant. However, it also had me confused because, although Sheppard was intoxicated and had hit the car purposely, any human with respect for others would at least check to see if he was hurt after hitting a small tree and a mailbox. It's a very contradictory case, but if i had to choose one side, I would say that Sheppard is to blame because he was intoxicated and he has had a history of alcoholism.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, i felt the result of this case was not very fair. I do not think that Michael Bryant should have been charged with manslaughter, from what we know Allan Sheppard had been sober eight days he had a relapse, so he was obviously not in the right frame of mind. Just looking at that fact i think that he was probably the instigator of the accident and that it may have no been Michael Bryant's fault. Also remembering that Michael Bryant was a known for being a former MPP, Allan Sheppard may not have agreed with what Bryant was supporting.
ReplyDeleteFinally i do agree that Bryant should be punished, but i do not agree that it should have been with manslaughter. Sheppard was holding onto his car, and so he was the one who put him self in danger. In conclusion, i believe that yes, Bryant could have left earlier and never gotten in a fight with Sheppard, but i still don't believe that Bryant should have been blamed for everything.
I personally believe that it wasn't Michael bryant's fault and that, the intoxication of Mr. Shepard was the reason for the event, and what lead to the unfortunate result.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the accident was a terrible tragedy I don't think Michael Bryant is completely to blamee. The victim, Alan Sheperd was under the influence at the time and was also the one to cling to the car. It is true that Michael Bryant should have stopped the car, it can be argued that he feared for his life and the life of his wife.
ReplyDeleteI think that Micheal Byrant was innocent and was taken into custody for no reason. Also I think the press and media made Byrant look like a bad guy for no reason. In my opinon it was all Shepard's fault. He was the one intoxciated and while he was drunk he rode his bike. Meanwhile on the other hand Byrant was completely sober and it was an "accident" that he crashed into Shepard.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've gathered, it appears that Michael Bryant acted in self defence. Because of the presence of his wife, I understand Michael Bryant's decision to flee. In Bryant’s defence, the cyclist at the time was under the influence which may have caused his rage and defiantly impaired his judgement. I also found that the media sensationalized the case, laying what I think is an excessive amount of blame on Michael Bryant simply because of his status as a public figure.
ReplyDeleteAfter i read the case it seemed somewhat of a misunderstanding. Although Byrant should have stopped when the man clung onto his car he was under the influence which must of impaired his judgement. Byrant was in shock after the man latched onto his car and must of acted out with rage. It was mistake that he will regret.
ReplyDelete