Darcy Allan Sheppard's Tragic + Unnecessary Death on Bloor

Published by Toronto Mike on September 1, 2009 @ 19:41 in Biking in Toronto, Toronto News ~ Toronto Focus

BikeI used to bike every kilometre of this city. Toronto's streets were my bike paths and I'd tackle them daily until there was snow on the ground and then start up again after the first thaw. When I biked to get myself from A to Z, it was the bike couriers who were my comrades. They were so fast, so deft with a bike, so cool.

Darcy Allan Sheppard was a bike courier who had an unfortunate altercation with Ontario's former attorney-general Michael Bryant last night. On Bloor Street, just east of Avenue Road, something happened between the car-driving Bryant and bike-riding Sheppard that caused Sheppard to slam his backpack onto the car's hood. What happened next was completely unnecessary, totally excessive and so very tragic.

The car apparently swerved to the oncoming lane of traffic along Bloor, very close to the sidewalk that the cyclist hung over. “He started going [driving] onto the sidewalk,” said Manuel Machado, a construction worker standing on the street as it unfolded.

“I heard the tires screech,” said Ryan Brazeau, another worker. “He [the cyclist] was right literally at the front windshield, almost holding on to the driver.”

The driver was now going west in the eastbound curb lane, leaving the cyclist clinging to the curbside door of the car. The cyclist, clinging to the car as it sped away, then struck trees and a grey mailbox like a “human battering ram,” Mr. Brazeau said.

“You could hear hitting, something, bam, bam, bam,” a third worker said.

The cyclist fell off the car when he struck the mailbox, and collapsed in a heap of blood on the sidewalk in front of Sephora. The driver kept going, hanging a right at Avenue Road.

Darcy Allan Sheppard succumbed to his injuries. Michael Bryant, who left politics earlier this year to take control of Invest Toronto, meant to attract business investment to the Toronto area, has been charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death.

Sheppard never had a chance. When it's car vs. pedestrian, with a driver hell-bent on punishing the pedestrian like a "human battering ram", the result will typically manifest itself in "a heap of blood".

Darcy Allan Sheppard was only 33. RIP.


View Fatal hit and run in a larger map
Comments 68 comments

68 Responses to "Darcy Allan Sheppard's Tragic + Unnecessary Death on Bloor"

Pete McPhedran
September 1, 2009 / 20:10

You captured it here Mike:

"Sheppard never had a chance. When it's car vs. pedestrian, with a driver hell-bent on punishing the pedestrian like a "human battering ram", the result will typically manifest itself in "a heap of blood"."

As a driver, cyclist and pedestrian, this makes no sense to me at all. Regardless of what happened between them to start this whole thing off, the end result was avoidable.

RIP Darcy.

--Pete

james edgar
September 1, 2009 / 20:57

RIP Darcy. I too used to ride all over and I'm shocked by this. Wasn't Bryant the asshat who brought in the Street racing law?

Toronto Mike
September 1, 2009 / 21:04

@james edgar

That's the guy. From the NY Times.

Among his targets were street-racing motorists. In 2007 he gave the police the power to seize and destroy cars modified for racing even if no charges were lodged against their owners.

After describing such cars as being as dangerous as explosives, he said, “We will crush your car, we will crush the parts.”

Later that year the province passed a bill to deem any vehicle traveling more than 50 kilometers an hour, or 31 miles an hour, faster than the speed limit to be racing. The legislation, under which more than 10,000 charges have been brought, allows the police to immediately seize vehicles and suspend licenses.

Ryan
September 1, 2009 / 21:14

My God, we have people like this running our world.

We are doomed.

My heart goes out to the Sheppard Family.

This is just wrong.

Ryan
September 1, 2009 / 21:28

Is it just me or has 2009 been a really crappy, weird year in TO?

- This incident
- Strike
- No Summer
- Tornadoes
- Martin Streak's firing & Suicide

I'm going to hide under my covers until Jan 1st!

brad
September 1, 2009 / 21:31

.

darcy allan sheppard, r.i.p.

Horonymous
September 1, 2009 / 22:53

Agreed cyclist versus car is not a good out come for the dude on the bike. Some reports claim Al jumped on Bryants car. hopefully the truth will come out. As I drive I try my best to share the road, but it is sometimes hard with cyclists coming in from different directions often not following any rules of the road. Lots of bad drivers out there too.

John
September 1, 2009 / 23:29

Although no one deserves to die for their actions and despite the sadness of this situation, I think that this case should be considered a suicide instead of an involuntary homicide.

Let's face it, the cyclist committed an act of suicide by hanging on a moving car. I am sure he could have let go a long time before this tragedy happened.

I have done the same thing myself when some pedestrian tried to hang on my car several years ago. I think it is a NORMAL human reaction to drive to try and get him off the car. Who knows what the pedestrian wants? Maybe he wants to steal the car, maybe he has a gun, maybe he wants you dead?

Unfortunately for Mr. Bryant, the man died. If he wouldn't have died, it would have been end of story.

However, I'm sure that God punishes people for what they have done, so perhaps Mr. Bryant will be punished for throwing some innocent people in Jail while he was attorney general, and Mr. Sheppard... well I don't think God would punish anyone that way... Maybe the Devil does tho...

R.I.P. Darcy Allan Sheppard, wherever you are.

Luke
September 2, 2009 / 08:15

Rule #1 - never bring a backpack to a gun fight!

Argie
September 2, 2009 / 09:18

To go against the grain, once again, it appears the cyclist was in the wrong. None of us were there but by most accounts, the enraged cyclist, (drunk, angry after an altercation with his ex-girlfriend and a homeless person) dropped his bike and perused Mr Bryant. He tried to grab hold of Bryant and/or the steering wheel while trying to enter the vehicle.

If someone tried that with me, I can't say I would have acted differently than Bryant... can you?

Its a tragedy that could have been avoided if the cyclist (who had a history with the police) didn't go after Bryant.

Trish
September 2, 2009 / 10:38

Speaking as neither a driver nor a biker, I can tell you that bikes terrify me far more than any other vehicle on the road. Few bikers in my neighbourhood wear helmuts. If they don't care about their own safety they sure as hell don't care about yours. They tear through intersections on red lights at incredibly high speed, oblivious to the pedestrians crossing on the green, and they plough through everybody on the sidewalk whenever they damn well please - again at high speed.

I'm sorry that Mr. Sheppard died, but I don't agree that he "never had a chance". He did. Both men had the option of just letting the altercation pass, but alcohol and egos were involved.

Toronto Mike
September 2, 2009 / 10:58

It was still a guy in a car vs. an unarmed pedestrian, right?

It's ridiculous to suggest he somehow got what he deserved.

I think some of you are clouded by your hatred for bikers.

Michael Bryant had several options, and he chose to slam Darcy Allan Sheppard into a mailbox with his car.

Argie
September 2, 2009 / 10:59

Wow I'm agreeing with Trish - I can't believe it.

We can all acknowledge that there are bad drivers on the road. But the arrogance and stupidity of cyclists, especially the couriers, and many pedestrians is astonishing.

If these two groups acted like this in any other country, there would be a lot more dead cyclists and pedestrians. I was in Europe last year and believe me, if you play chicken with a driver over there, you're a dead man.

Bill
September 2, 2009 / 11:27

Cyclists suck ...Couriers are even worse .. Always a tragedy when someone is killed regardless. Nothing will change , more to come. More bike lanes? Yeh great idea ....Piss off more motorists to accomidate less than 10% of us that use Bikes /lanes and less then that who actually pay taxes ...unlike motorists.Couriers downtown are totally ignorant, agressive and ruthless . Look for the ones with two water bottles ..one will usally have urine to throw at motorists when they feel they have been wronged ..Bigger is always better ...See you on the roads .!!

Mike from Lowville
September 2, 2009 / 11:29

Holy shit! I'm agreeing with Trish and Argie. Sorry Mike, if someone tried to grab me, in my car, with NO top, after smacking a backpack on my car, in TORONTO, that someone would be dead before IT hit the f'in ground!! I say it because only an animal would do such a thing. I'm not a hater of cyclists. I'm a hater of anybody who wants me to share the road but thinks the rules(law)do NOT apply to them! Be it pedestrians, cyclist's, biker's or car, truck and bus driver's! Too bad the guy's dead but, stupid people die every day because of stupidity!

Trish
September 2, 2009 / 11:48

I am not suggesting he deserved what he got. I am saying he was reckless and stupid - both men were.

EXACTLY, Mike from Lowville. One violent act begets another. We don't yet know what Bryant's state of mind was, but we do know that Sheppard had already been in an argument and had been drinking. And oh brother, If he had had a grip on Bryant's neck...

Anonymous
September 2, 2009 / 12:11

Toronto Mike, I am disagreeing with you but will give you the benefit of the doubt as you posted prior to new details.

Bryant was stupid and should be ruined, spend a couple of years in jail for this, and a lifetime of community service and yes, have his car crushed..

John, you are right - this was suicide - death by misadventure.

Sheppard was drunk and violent. He slammed his pack on the car. Then clung on to the driver door like a maniac, like some stupid action movie. Could it be that Bryant feared for his wife's safety that lead to his reckless, fatal action?

To those of you who are buying the "turning his life around" b.s., just remember his family will likely say anything to mitigate their losses and cash out with a wrongful death lawsuit... Mark my words..

Pam
September 2, 2009 / 12:15

Toronto Mike, I am disagreeing with you but will give you the benefit of the doubt as you posted prior to new details.

Bryant was stupid, spend a couple of years in jail for this, then a lifetime of community service and yes, have his car crushed..

John, you are right - this was suicide - death by misadventure.

Sheppard was drunk and violent taking out his rage on Bryant. He slammed his pack on the car, then clung on to the driver door like a maniac, like some stupid action movie. Could it be that Bryant feared for his wife's safety that lead to his reckless, fatal action?

To those of you who are buying the "turning his life around" b.s., just remember the Shepperd family and friends will likely say anything to mitigate their losses and cash out with a wrongful death lawsuit... Mark my words..

Wayner
September 2, 2009 / 12:36

Are we sure that Bryant was not drinking as well? Even a few drinks (not legally drunk) can cloud your thinking and judgement. Fear can explain some of his actions but he put other lives in jeopardy by driving on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic...

Bob Smith
September 2, 2009 / 12:46

One less bike courier is one less menace on the road. good riddance.

Ajax Mike
September 2, 2009 / 12:47

Points not mentioned yet in the comment or original post:

* Bryant was driving a convertible. It's not like he was able to just roll up his window and wait for the cops to arrive if Sheppard was upset and violent.

* "The driver kept going, hanging a right at Avenue Road." Where he pulled into a hotel's driveway and called 911. The quote sounds like he was fleeing the scene, which we'll all note he was not charged with.

* Sheppard had already been almost arrested that night for getting into a fight with a homeless guy (who apparently laughed at Sheppard for falling off his bike).

* Sheppard had been drunk earlier that evening as well. Whether or not he was drunk at the time of his death is something for the coroner to determine.

I don't think Bryant is anywhere near the monster made out in the original post. From everything I've read it sounds to me like he was just a guy who made a mistake by bumping a guy on a bike. There's been no suggestion that Sheppard was injured by this. He was the one that escalated this, by slamming his bag onto Bryant's car. He approached the driver's side, and while we don't know what was said, his earlier actions speak to his state of mind. I would have tried to drive away too. Sheppard is the one who decided to try and grab onto a moving car. There are reports of Sheppard trying to grab the wheel. There are reports of Bryant screaming.

In Bryant's shoes, I don't know what I would have done differently. It's a tragedy that Sheppard is dead, of course it is. Until more details come to light though, as far as I'm concerned he brought it on himself.

Mikey
September 2, 2009 / 14:23

So much conjecture. Clearly we have to let the facts lay themselves out once the knee-jerk reactions have settled. Likely a series of events occurred that quickly caused this to escalate to this terrible ending. I have seen cyclists react in very harsh ways to drivers where they have perceived a wrong action from a driver. I have seen drivers ignorant of the existence of cyclists on the road. Clearly the road is not a place of harmony between the two. We might never know what precipitated the reaction of the cyclist and how this action was perceived as a possible threat by the driver. This probably all happened in just a few seconds and primal emotions and actions are taking place in lieu of common sense. What a terrible loss for all involved.

Greg Popik
September 2, 2009 / 15:42

Mr Bryant served as the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario.

It is disingenuous to suggest that he was unaware of the imminent and grievous risk of harm that a motor vehicle would pose to a pedestrian. He was instrumental in creating laws in this exact regard.

And while it is speculative to suggest what Mr Bryant's state of mind was at the time, Canadians should understand that Mr Bryant is actually quite an accomplished boxer.

The particulars of his excellence in this sport are well known from his interviews regarding his hundreds of hours of participation in competitive boxing for over 30 years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article967360.ece

I have heard, repeatedly, of the tragedy that this has created for Mr Bryant. From him. The stench of this claim has indeed spread across the Canadian blogosphere.

This 'tragedy' has been remarked on by his high powered friends and associates.

Unfortunately, I've yet to hear the term 'tragedy' applied to Mr Sheppard or his family. Perhaps they are too busy performing spin control to ensure that a memorial trust is being set up for Sheppard's family.

Some people in this country seem to have developed a very different sense of the term tragedy than what I grew up understanding.

Greg Popik
September 2, 2009 / 15:50

@ Trish...

You commented:

"We don't yet know what Bryant's state of mind was, but we do know that Sheppard had already been in an argument and had been drinking. And oh brother, If he had had a grip on Bryant's necK?"

Read my comments and the interview at The Globe and Mail regarding Mr Bryant's boxing history.

I think that you will find that your supposition is entirely misplaced.

I also suggest that a (debatably) intoxicated Mr Sheppard would likely have presented no match to Mr Bryant with or without the vehicle.

Considering that Mr Bryant fatally employed his motor vehicle as a crushing weapon against Mr Sheppard, I guess we will have to leave that open to speculation.

But lets not further murder credibility here by suggesting that Mr Bryant is the victim in this tale.

Pam
September 2, 2009 / 15:51

Read today's star - you'll fine plenty of "spin" on the victim's tragedy.

Greg Popik
September 2, 2009 / 16:07

Mr Sheppard is dead.

As in not coming back. How do you suggest that someone is spinning that particular angle?

This isn't about losing you weekend access to your Porshe over a plead down traffic offense. Its about a father who is dead twho did not need to be.

Go ahead. Validate Bryant's actions now.

But you will inadvertently setting a precedent validating the actions of every douche bag that uses conflict as an excuse to escalate the outcome to murder.

No thanks.

I think credit should go where credit is due.

Argie
September 2, 2009 / 16:17

Greg writes: "But you will inadvertently setting a precedent validating the actions of every douche bag that uses conflict as an excuse to escalate the outcome to murder."
----------------------------
There you go Greg, you're suggesting Bryant is just another douchbag without any backup or facts. He may well be but it seems your mind is made up - cyclist buddy was the poor victim who did nothing wrong and Bryant is a murderer.

I'm no fan of Bryant or his former party, I'm only going by the published witness accounts.

Greg Popik
September 2, 2009 / 16:32

There I go.

What would you call it? Noble combat?

I spent many of my younger years working in urban nightclubs.

I have seen more than my share of reactions to a minor physical incident; where the 'victim' relentless pursues satisfaction from the initial incident, and inevitably escalates it to a serious assault; in extreme cases culminating in murder.

Care to discuss? We can pursue that end news article for news article if you like.

But bring a sandwich and a blanket, because our country has been spinning out of control with such 'aggravated'
assaults.

But here's a fact. There can be no debate that Mr. Bryant is alive and physically unharmed, while Mr Sheppard is as dead as if he had been stabbed or shot.

Mr Bryant employed a motor vehicle as a weapon against an unarmed pedestrian.

You can allude to what I am saying all you want dude, but I sure wouldn't call his actions noble combat.

Trish
September 2, 2009 / 17:04

It matters little that Mr. Sheppard was the clear agressor, enraged and drunk. Mr. Bryant is a white politician with a porsche, which automatically makes him a villain in some people's eyes. Grow up.

Toronto Mike
September 2, 2009 / 17:06

Trish, I'm honestly not influenced here by Mr. Bryant's skin colour, occupation or make of automobile.

Greg Popik
September 2, 2009 / 17:27

Wow.

Where to even begin responding to a comment that off the wall.

I'm white. (there goes your racist angle)

I don't have a white guilt bone in my body. (there goes your white apologist angle)

I'm a VOCAL activist for self defense and concealed carry rights in Canada. (there goes your lack of right to defense of property and self angle)

Glad we whittled that nonsense down.


99 out of 100 people who do not personally know me would erroneously assume that because of my political inclinations that I would be a shoe in for siding against the drunk Metis male with a troubled past.

You should understand something though.

I'm a poster boy for wanting a clear case for the right to defend my own life.

But you know what? This ain't it.

You don't respond disproportionately to force. You don't kill a fleeing man. You don't kill someone who cannot cause you immediate, grievous bodily harm harm, and you don't kill someone you don't need to.

It's already in the CC of Canada. You might want to look it up. I can point you where if you want some help with that.

Mr Bryant sure knows what the Criminal code and common law says about self defense. Oh yes.

And I suspect we will be seeing a large number of plays from every angle.

In the meantime, can you and will you knock off the amateur racial profiling?

Trish
September 2, 2009 / 17:35

I was referring to a previous poster, Mike.

Greg Popik
September 2, 2009 / 17:40

Thank you for explaining Trish.


Clearly I missed that.

You know. This reminds me in some ways of my family's vacation trip to Vancouver this summer, and the ongoing tension between cyclists and motorists there.

Howsoever this particular case ends, I suspect that it will not be the last visible
conflicts between the two groups.

Generally speaking, its always worth agreeing to disagree and walk away without deliberately inflicting harm.

Cheers.

Freddie P.
September 2, 2009 / 18:31

This isn't even debatable. Why did the guy slam his bad onto Bryant's car and then hang on?

If I had been in the same situation as Bryant, with my wife in the car, I would have sped off as well.

I think if Bryant wasn't a politician there'd be a lot more understanding on this site.

And now the courier world is treating this guy like a hero.

Please.

And lets get something else straight, cyclists in Toronto, especially couriers are out of control.

They can't have it both ways. If you want to use the roads obey the laws.

Greg Popik
September 2, 2009 / 19:36

Not debatable?

As long as this country remains non-communist sir, I can guarantee you that it remains debatable. ;)

For what I understand, contributory negligence is not a plausible defense to a criminal charge, only a civil claim in negligence.

So, if the family of the cyclist sued for negligence, then Mr. Bryant could argue that the cyclist contributed to the negligent act by his intoxication.

But it won't work as a defense against a criminal charge.

As to your comments about the victim somehow deserving to be crushed by a vehicle, your comments are strangely familiar of the debate in the 80s revolving around dress and deportment as contributing and mitigating factors in rape case.

This kind of crap involving disproportionate response of force will not sell as to the public nor the court.

Greg Popik
September 2, 2009 / 20:23

Defense of Person

Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]

Greg Popik
September 2, 2009 / 20:24

Defense of Person

Self-Defence Against Unprovoked Assault
... / Extent of justification.

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]

Self-Defence In Case Of Aggression.

35. Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if

(a) he uses the force

(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;

(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose. [R.S. c.C-34, s.35.]

Provocation.

36. Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures. [R.S. c.C-34, s.36.]

Preventing Assault
... / Extent of justification.

37. (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent. [R.S. c.C-34, s.37.]

Eric
September 2, 2009 / 21:11

Law is nice to study after the fact, but if, hypothetically speaking (since we don't have the facts yet), you have a drunk angry guy trying to get into your car, driving away sounds reasonable to me.

I just posted an article on the topic at techlifepost.com entitled, "What would you do?"

Pam
September 2, 2009 / 21:56

I'm not going to address any poster here. Why bother giving him credence?

Describing this unfortunate drunken cyclist as "a father", (read the newspaper accounts of his life) reminds us of the soon to be launched civil suit against Bryant and his family.

Whether he or not he was actually a "father" is up for debate. I guess it doesn't occur to some people that Bryant is also a father. That kind of one sided thinking is what you would expect from an NDP supporter.

I don't need to recite the fact here: they are in the newspaper. But as I have pointed out before - all sorts of "family" will be launching family law act claims..

Pete McPhedran
September 2, 2009 / 22:32

Wow,

I am amazed at the range of opinions posted here. From "good riddance" to "I would have sped off as well".

Seriously the ones posting here that think under the circumstances brought to light thus far and obviously subject to scrutiny in the courts, a choice was made by well educated person that lead to the death of a cyclist. Regardless of the previous interactions between these two, crossing a busy street and we're not talking about some side street here, this is Bloor and Bay and intentionally hitting stationary objects like trees, bike posts and mailboxes is avoidable.

It doesn't matter what colour any of these participants are, it doesn't matter if any of them were fathers or if they were good fathers. What matters is someone escalated a road rage incident with heated tempers and took such extreme actions to cause the loss of life.

Was it murder? I really don't think so, was it negligence? Regardless of who did it, I think so, the fact that the person that did it was the former Attorney General for Ontario, makes it even more clear as he should have known the consequences of his actions. Was the victim in any way responsible, seems like it to me. Again, in that situation, he participated in it's escalation which ultimatly lead to his demise.

I really like the comments about how all cyclists are bad, "cyclist in Toronto... are out of control", etc... Spoken like true morons. Please do us all a favour and blog each time you jump in your 2K lb loaded weapons and take to the road as I for one would like to get out of your way, on my bike, in my car or on foot.

I am a cyclist, pedestrian and car driver. I ride responsibly, I have been cut off by cyclists and drivers alike in my car and on my bike. Yesterday alone I walked from Queen West to my office 6 blocks away and was stuck by 2 cyclist riding their bikes on the sidewalk. Are cyclists in T.O. bad? Yes, most of them. Are car drivers in T.O. bad? Yes, most of them. Same goes for pedestrians, walking in front of cars without looking, crossing against lights, etc...

What can we do? Everyone should just slow down and take a deep breath. Literally.

I agree that a very high majority of couriers in T.O. are bad cyclists, I don't actually consider them cyclist, they are the most guilty of riding on sidewalks, very dangerous, riding the wrong way down one way streets, etc... but none of them deserve to be killed by anyone. Not Darcy Sheppard, not his friends or colleagues. They do have the right to ride on the streets of Toronto and the Toronto Police should pay more attention to cycling infractions. They have bike cops, they must know what's going on.

--Pete

Ajax Mike
September 2, 2009 / 23:01

Let's take a step back here folks. What's more likely:

A) A cyclist with a history (i.e. that very day) of violence and drunkeness threatened a driver who accidentally knocked him over, causing said driver to attempt to flee in fear of his own safety (with tragic, unintentional consequences), or

B) A driver, well educated and versed in both the legal system and self defense, and by all accounts unintoxicated, intentionally or accidentally knocked over the cyclist and when confronted by that cyclist intentionally used his vehicle as a weapon.

I will happily withhold judgement until all the facts are in, and just as happily admit I'm wrong. My money's on A, or MAYBE a little bit inbetween. Occam's Razor.

James
September 2, 2009 / 23:21

You hit the nail on the head in your last sentence Ajax Mike - it's probably somewhere between A and B because situations like this are rarely ever black and white.

When people have an adrenaline rush, and they are angry, they tend to act in the heat of the moment and sometimes their logic is clouded by said anger and/or fear.

Anonymous
September 3, 2009 / 09:20

sheppard started it all, he was looking for trouble & found it generally was a low life

mike
September 3, 2009 / 09:30

The facts are that the guy was an angry drunk, probably still steaming and looking for ANOTHER fight.

It hasn't been proven that the driver initiated the incident that got the biker enraged.

What is known is that the guy could have acted like a civilized member of society, and not engaged in a physical altercation. No one forced him to grab on to the vehicle, and his stupidity cost him his life.

The cycling community owes Bryant an apology for his inconvenience.

Hal
September 3, 2009 / 14:04

All of you so-called intellects defending Bryants actions can kiss my saddle-sore ass!!!

Bryant was the one who used his car as a dangerous weapong to not only himself, passenger but to those in the area.

Bryant was the one whose poor judgement resulted in death.

If Sheppard was attached to his car, why did Bryant run, why not get out of the car & call police, or better yet call police immediately.

It seems that this so-called PITBULL on crime was afraid of his own shadow & that when a guy like Sheppard comes up, PITBULL runs like the dog that he is. Reminded me of people who had those "NO FEAR" stickers on their bumpers.

& to that imbecile Trish & Bill Smith, it is the media, specifically Toronto Star that is portraying it as a black/white knight case.

& yeah Bill Smith we'll see ya on the road!!!

Argie
September 3, 2009 / 14:21

The bike/car debate is much like the issue of cars vs. trucks on the road. What these radical cyclists have to realize - for their own good I might add - is that on the road 'size does matter'.

If I'm driving a little Honda Fit or a smart car, I am not going to challenge a 18 wheeler.Its just common sense. Even if I'm convinced I have the right of way, I would prefer to remain alive than dead on the road. People can say "well the small car was correct and had the right of way" but yeah, I'll still be dead.

And another thing for sure - I'm not going to hang off the side of a car/truck to scare a driver. That's just plain stupid.

Mike from Lowville
September 3, 2009 / 15:26

Right on Argie! Pete McSaidran really needs to go fing a big old Maple and give it a real big hug!!

Mike from Lowville
September 3, 2009 / 15:26

that's FIND.

Patrick
September 3, 2009 / 18:19

Interesting how quickly the whole thing got co-opted for Bike Lanes on Bloor and other campaigns. There were very few people/messages at Sheppard's street memorial exclusively commemorating him. And the Budweiser six-pack at the foot of the mailbox I found to be especially ironic: http://www.torontocitylife.com/2009/09/02/courier-vs-car/

Patrick
September 3, 2009 / 18:22

Interesting how quickly the whole thing got co-opted for Bike Lanes on Bloor and other campaigns. There were very few people/messages at Sheppard's street memorial exclusively commemorating him. And the Budweiser six-pack at the foot of the mailbox I found to be especially ironic: http://www.torontocitylife.com/2009/09/02/courier-vs-car/

Tania
September 3, 2009 / 19:29

Ok - if Sheppard was holding the wheel - couldn't Bryant have been having trouble steering? Perhaps Bryant wasn't intentionally hitting the objects. Innocent until proven guilty? Personally, I would have been terrified.

Ajax Mike
September 3, 2009 / 22:53

Thank you Tania. If Sheppard was hanging on the driver's side andgrabbed the wheel, he'd pull it toward him which would send the car into the oncoming lanes. Sounds a lot like what's been reported.

jack
September 3, 2009 / 23:01

would any of u sit idle in a car while a drunken madman trys to grab your throat-shephard just had an incident before this-he is a drunk convict wanted in alberta-he fathered kids with different mothers-4 of them-enough of support for this low class pigeon-he tryed to hurt the driver-I would have done the same and so would all of u-the cylcists are making this into a rich vs poor thing-

glazer
September 4, 2009 / 16:59

I don't care how good a fighter you are, if you're belted in a seated position, you're very much at a disadvantage. Also, those of us who aren't perennial teenagers would definitely choose driving off over throwing down and having a street fight with a drunken courier.

Robb99
September 4, 2009 / 19:49

I have read all these comments and all i can say. Unless you have been a bike messenger you don't what its like, and you should not be commenting on Mr Sheppard. Being a bike messenger is a tough job mentally and physically. Your adrelaine runs at full capacity 90% of the time sometimes in a moment you do a foolish thing, like try to grab a driver who has cut you off and damaged your meens of survival. Understandable but if Mr Bryant had stopped and taken his punch to the head which is all that proably would of happened. Mr Sheppard would be alive today and he would have been charged with assault. I am no saint if that was me i would proably reacted the same way as Mr Sheppard. Mr Bryant went beyond the point of no return once he decide to drive away. He should have called 911 or his wife beside him. Two high profile indivdual should have had a cell phone between them. Does Mr Bryant SAAB not come equipped with brakes? There was no need to drive for blocks with a cyclist hanging off your car. This can't be good for his politcal carrer. Mr Bryant is a murder through and through. Unfortunately this upscale, well connected, piece oof shit will get very little time for MURDER!!!!! It was MURDER and no one can tell me different because i have been where Mr Sheppard was just like all messengers past and present. So unless you have been a messenger i don't think you all know what your talking about or have the right to comment on the MURDER of Mr Sheppard. Hope you rot in for this Mr Bryant!!!

mike
September 6, 2009 / 09:41

Rob99, you sound as stupid as your hero was.

To insinuate that Bryant should have stopped to get punched in the head, and because he didn't', he's a murderer... well, you're an imbecile like the rest of the idiot bike couriers.

Paparrazzo
September 7, 2009 / 11:26

The world is a better place without Darcy Sheppard. Mike Bryant is an innocent victim. He had the misfortune of crossing paths with this filthy, evil man.

Margaret
September 9, 2009 / 10:32

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Margaret

Curt
September 11, 2009 / 06:29

Finally a story that tells the truth on the Michael Bryant Incident without spin:

http://tochat.tv/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=351

Looks like there is some media that can't be bought!

Ajax Mike
September 14, 2009 / 01:10

Re: Curt

I really hope you were being sarcastic when you said that article was without spin... :)

James Graves
September 26, 2009 / 19:39

I'm sure that when a gangster kills someone in a drive by shooting, the killer has some way to justify that action to himself or others. What it really comes down to is a basic lack of value for human life. Bryant clearly shares that quality. I however doubt he would be treated the same as a murdering gangster by the justice system.

Xman
May 26, 2010 / 16:50

What a crock Sheppard caused and provoked the incident. He charged after Bryant, attacked him when he jumped on Bryant's convertible and grabbed the wheel. Sheppard chased after Bryant's car, and swerved in front of Bryant's car. Bryant was scared of this maniac and desperately tried to get away when he accidently struck Sheppard.

Sheppard was a drug addict and a convicted felon with two assault convictions. He had attacked other drivers in the past, as these pics show. http://www.thestar.com/fpLarge/photo/814210

not-the-true-news
May 27, 2010 / 13:42

All Bryant had to do was stop the car. He is an amateur boxer. But he was too scared too scared to fight. In a brawl, neither man would have died. But Bryant may have hurt his knuckles. Boo-hoo. Bryant is an incompetent blowhard with political aspirations. I have a message for him. Don't hold your breath.

Regular Joe
August 3, 2010 / 01:13

Give me a break! Sheppard was a freaking drunk loser! He was pissed at his pathetic life and went on to ride his bike enibriated. That's called DUI!!! Instead of crying foul for another cyclist road-kill, why don't you say things how they REALLY are? This is another case of DRUNK driving/riding. I'm sure he didnt deserve what he got, but Sheppard died as a consequence of his own poor judgement. Stop making him a martyr. I for one will not miss him, and I think the streets are a tad safer without an element like him riding around. And THAT, my friends, is the TRUTH!

Regular JOE supporter
October 18, 2010 / 19:26

NUFF SAID

Regular JOE supporter
October 18, 2010 / 19:51

http://www.thestar.com/fpLarge/photo/814210

Here is the reason why (see above link - Mr. Sheppard in action, as usual)


Leave a Comment


Only 68 comments? C'mon, we can do better... Leave a comment above and let's keep this conversation going!


« When Gmail Goes Down The Icicle Works - Birds Fly (Whisper To A Scream) »