Daves_Not_Here

Yes, the police and Bryant made mistakes in their reactions, but they wouldn't even had the opportunity to make those mistakes if Darcy had not been running around picking fights and menacing strangers.

I'd say the one totally responsible for the chain of events is the one who aggressively, repeatedly provoked them. Darcy continued to tempt fate and dare the natural world to take him out of the gene pool -- he was finally obliged.

Dan The Man

The funny thing is that Bryant, claims to have been treated in an unfairly harsh manner, when all facts point to the opposite. All charges dropped. No breathalyser after killing someone during a night out. No charge for fleeing the scene.

I don't buy the stalling story one bit. They already had an altercation earlier down the street before the surveillance video. And then Bryant "accidentally" jumps his car into someone that he had reason to be angry with. If someone ran me down, I would be rightly pissed with them as well, especially if they tried to speed off right after.

Commodus

I don't see the relevance of prior events. I'm not trying to judge whether or not the cyclist was a "bad guy". I think that's pretty obvious - the guy was a total nut case. Though I see you're right that the first lurch did not result in contact, the second two clearly did.

Also, I can not agree that being 'threatened' is a justification for the sort of total panic that would result in the chain of events we can see in the video. As I stated earlier, I have been threatened several times by motorists over the years. At no point did I completely lose control of my vehicle and kill someone. It's just not a reasonable, understandable reaction.

Again, incompetence-induced panic is not a justification for killing someone, especially when there was no actual justification for that fear. As I said, at the time of the second lurch, it was completely, physically impossible for the cyclist to injure either person in the car. When the cyclist did finally grab the car, he was in the extraordinary situation of having been struck by a car that was now fleeing. Who knows what he was thinking. If you want to talk about panic justifying extreme actions, threre is a situation that is perhaps warranted.

The cyclist was a nut. There is no argument here. However it is the motorist's reactions that resulted in his death. Evidently the police agreed, since he was in fact charged with a litany of crimes. And yet, things never progressed to trial.

Daves_Not_Here

To paraphrase the late great Sam Kinison's comments about beating your wife -- when it comes to running over this jerk, I don't condone it. But I understand it.

So no, we'll not be selling any vehicles. And if you ever feel moved to threaten me or my family while standing in front of my car, you should probably be current on your life insurance.

Dan The Man

What about simply stopping in front of you and flipping you off? Would you run me down then if you knew you could get away with it?

Commodus

The problem with this sort of logic is that motorists get mad about all kinds of things. Some day someone behind you will feel that you are being an absolute, complete crazy jerk for riding on the street. I guess if he runs over you, well, you'll understand that too.

Daves_Not_Here

I might. And if I don't, someone else might. Therefore, I'd suggest that flipping off or otherwise provoking a stranger while standing in front of their running car is not a wise long-term strategy.

Daves_Not_Here

I totally agree. This is why I never intentionally provoke motorists while cycling.

Commodus

Except that cycling is enough to provoke motorists. Let's not pretend you have any control over this.

no motor?

That's Chicago style politics if I've ever seen it, I don't need to leave home if you don't have anything better to offer. Well, the beer is better but that's offset by all those extra us that are in some many of your words, eh?
If Bryant really was that innocent, he wouldn't have needed to go home, sober/clean up and then call the police. And be allowed to get away with it in court.

Daves_Not_Here

You may not have any control over this, but I do. People who identify as victims tend to think they don't have "any control" over their interactions and outcomes.

I won't bore you with a complete repeat of a previous post (confession) I wrote, but 15 years ago, I realized that all of the road-rage I experienced as a "victim" was actually provoked by subtle actions and inactions on my part. Things I did in a righteous or vindictive frame of mind. Since that time when I took ownership of my outcomes, I have not experienced a single instance of road-rage and I drive over 30,000 miles per year in a major metro area. Same thing with cycling -- I've ridden about 22,000 miles in the last 4 years, almost all of it in traffic -- not a single provoked motorist.

So yes, I have control over this. And so does everybody else.

Commodus

I can not accept the belief that motorists are somehow able to read another's "righteous or vindictive frame of mind". Sorry.

I'm glad this belief seems to have helped you though.

delcrossv

I don't think Dave was referring to another's frame of mind but rather his own. I similarly don't get flak from motorists- they do their thing, I do mine. No mind-reading involved.

RazrSkutr

You're right. He should have killed him for that .... oh wait.......

RazrSkutr

Seriously: like Bryant and Sheppard you sound like a man that needs help.

Daves_Not_Here

Yes, thank you, I miscommunicated. I was referring to my own frame of mind, back in my bad old days. I realized that I was provoking motorists through passive-aggressive (sometimes aggressive) behaviours I was engaging in while I was in a self-righteous or vindictive frame of mind. To the outside world, and to myself, it appeared that I was "in the right" and that the road-ragers were the jerks.

After I provoked an incident that turned into an accident (the other driver was found to be at fault and arrested at the scene), I had an awakening and decided to own my culpability. Ever since then, I changed my own attitude and behavior, and in 15 years, I haven't encountered a single jerk driver on the road.

spunkyj

If Darcy hadn't latched on to the car, perhaps Bryant would have driven a few blocks down to safety and called the Police on his own accord. In this case he likely would have been cited for careless or reckless driving, fined, and his insurance would have been made to repair/replace Darcy's bike. However, we will never know what Mr. Bryant would have done. By latching on to his car, Darcy deprived Bryant of the opportunity to handle the situation appropriately. No reasonable person can be expected to stick around while violence is being threatened, so at this point Bryant's actions became justified. This doesn't mean that Bryant had "justification for killing someone" and I think it's pretty clear that Bryant's intention was to escape from Darcy rather than to kill him.

While Darcy "was in the extraordinary situation of having been struck by a car that was now fleeing", Bryant is not responsible for Darcy's violent and dangerous response. Darcy should have gotten a look at the plate number, in which case Bryant could have been charged with a clear cut hit and run if he truly did just drive off.

RazrSkutr

Due to the bizarre absence of a jury trial (and the absence of police breathalyzer tests etc etc), the above is all speculation and hearsay. The only facts that remain are that:

1. A bicyclist was killed by a car

2. A trial never took place

3. Bryant now admits that he was "struggling with alcoholism".

The rest is all people that want to believe one thing or the other for reasons of psychological justification.

spunkyj

That's the point. It's all speculation. Due to Darcy's actions we will never know how Bryant would have acted. An outside prosecutor was brought in to be impartial and after hearing all the evidence (eye-witness and video) decided there was no prospect of a conviction for Darcy's death. I still think punishment for his ramming into Darcy in the first place should have been pursued, however.

These are not the only facts remaining. That assertion is silly and ignores a mountain of concordant eye-witness and video testimony (just because it hasn't been heard by a jury doesn't mean its hearsay).

Furthermore, your 3rd point is misleading and irrelevant. While Bryant admits that he once struggled with alcoholism, he had ben sober for 2 years before the incident with Darcy.

RazrSkutr

Due to Bryant's actions we will never know what Darcy has to say about the night that he was rammed from behind and then dragged to his death.


Well, that's OK then. Because we all know that impartial outside prosecutors are a good substitute for juries. In fact the jury system could be replaced by having outside prosecutors decide whether or not attorneys-general should ever go to trial. I'm convinced.


The outside prosecutor apparently disagreed with you. Back to the voting booth with you, pleb.


I'm not a lawyer. What's the definition of hearsay then?
Yes. That's why the police decided not to breathalyze him.

Daves_Not_Here

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm a psycho, I need help. But not as much help as you'll need if you menace me and step in front of my car.

I thought I'd just go ahead and highlight the offensive language to save you the trouble.

RazrSkutr

In the interest of helping you: when you go from a discussion of the rights and wrongs of third parties' interactions into personal threats towards anonymous people you've no chance of meeting you've crossed over the border of sanity and the citizens of Sadlandia are welcoming you as a long lost brother. I don't find you "offensive". I feel towards you the same way that I do towards the homeless guy with 3-day old sick caking the cuffs of his shirt. Sorry. But I also want you taken away somewhere. No offence.

asmac

Huh? Not perfect but not quite Chicago style...

Bryant immediately stopped and called the police. He was arrested at the scene, taken to jail and charged. An independent non-political prosecutor (they are all non-political) was brought in from another province who decided there was no prospect of a conviction. That's a decision that prosecutors always have to make and it's fair to say that an honest effort was made to treat this case properly.

Nonetheless, failing to breathalyze seems to have been a mistake (though there's no evidence he was intoxicated, Bryant claims to have been sober for two years and was an AA member) and I wish the case had gone to court if only to get all the facts presented. Based on what I know (or think I know) I likely would have voted not guilty had I been on the jury.

Anyhow, my Chicago cycling brother, please feel free to visit. And if your emigration plans heat up again you shouldn't delay. You'll want to beat the flood of American refugees that I expect to show up any year now.

Daves_Not_Here

Oh man, you let me down. I need to concoct a suitable riposte that continues to develop the theme of running over thugs, but you gave me nothing to go on. I mean really, how do I relate homelessness to vehicular homicide? I guess I could try "when they come to take me away somewhere, do not harrass the driver lest ye be run over on the way to the asylum?" See? Not pithy.

OLDYELLR

This whole story was discussed over and over again on this board three years ago. You may remember that the charges were eventually dropped behind closed doors after Bryant's defence team unveiled $300,000 worth of contradicting evidence to the prosecution. That video of Darcy confronting another yuppie in a SUV was something they dug up.

Negotiating a dismissal instead of winning in court must have irked Bryant, but an actual trial would surely have made him look worse no matter what the outcome, and he didn't want his kids to see that.

We knew a book was in the works quite some time ago. It looks like the book is one final kick at the can to exonerate himself. According to all the reports and interviews I've seen, nowhere does he take any responsibility for the death or apologize for it. All he admits is that he was there. He even tries to associate himself with Darcy as a kindred spirit by admitting he's been a recovering alcoholic for some time. As for the actual time the death took place, he claims he felt like he was driving through a tunnel and there was no other traffic around. I guess trying to shake a guy clinging to your car by any means available must be so traumatic that the mind just blanks it out.

Anyway, here is an hour interview with him. Amanda Lang is a friend he has known for a long time, so it's obvious she would not have asked any questions he couldn't comfortably answer. Nevertheless, what he does say is clearly self-serving and an attempt to weasel out of taking any responsibility for what happened. Once a politician, always a politician.