[Huntster]

Huntster, it seems that your "morality" is just a cartoon book of slogans and historical contexts that you can't really put together into anything meaningful or useful in living a good, moral life.

I don't think I've called myself "moral", have I?

You would have killed Jesus yourself and called him a loudmouth loser faggot.

1) No, I would not have

2) Jesus was not homosexual

And yet you spout out rehashed Middle English and archaic prose to sound like you have something to believe in that is more sophisticated than "might makes right." But in practice, you have no real developed moral guide. Your morality has been put on ice.

I'm a sinner. I always was, and I always will be. I cannot save myself. I will not become "moral". Even if I thought I was, there would always be "people" like you saying that I wasn't.

And my clear, focused judgement of what I read in the article has nothing to do with my religion, Christ Himself, or morality. The bicycle rider fucked up. If I wept for him and knashed my teeth it would change nothing, and it would not make me any more "moral".

It's not just you, most supposedly "religious" or "rational" people are really money-worshiping power accumulators because they're afraid anything else will doom them to suffering.

"Religious" and "rational" people needing or desiring money and/or power isn't a problem, is it?

Would you prefer "irreligious" and "irrational" people always getting the money and power?

Just what will please you? No money and power whatsoever? Is that reality?

So it's better to let cyclists get squished under the wheels of power.

Nobody "let" the cyclist get squished under the wheels of power.

The idiot grabbed the car in an attempt to assault the driver, and the driver killed the fool with the car.

It takes less effort than defending the less aggressive which - in this case - means the less wealthy of the two.

Wealth = aggressiveness > physical attack = aggressiveness?

That former-attorney-general has enough money and connections to buy the police and the media.

He doesn't need to. The idiot already had a police report filed on his dumb ass that evening before he attacked the AG's car. It was documented that he had been drinking. His girlfriend called the authorities on his dumb ass.

You think (pray) that a former AG for the province will get hung for "defending himself"?

But you're only to happy to go along and bash someone who is not dead.

I'm only opining on what I read and what you write, which don't mesh.

[Godstud]

This article isn't about powerful motorists killing cyclists because they are homicidal maniacs. The article is about a drunken cyclist who grabbed onto a car and the driver that drove him into objects until he got killed. The cyclist is fit for a Darwin Award. You don't grab onto a moving vehicle unless you have a death wish. The driver, could have feared for his life and might have indeed over-reacted or acted in rage. Either way, the driver of the car is going to get a trial and serve the penalty that suits his crime. This has nothing to do with cyclists and pedestrians being attacked by power mad motorists. That sort of talk belongs in the Conspiracy Theories section.

[QatzelOk]

This has nothing to do with cyclists and pedestrians being attacked by power mad motorists.

My point here is that motoring is a form of power madness.

This poor bike courrier was probably almost-killed by the coke-head yuppie, and then wanted to yell at him for almost killing him. Perfectly normal.

But coke-head yuppie motorist didn't even roll down his window to let the cyclist tell him what horrible driving manoever almost killed him. He gave him the finger and pretended not to see him.

Or something like that.

The "had a few drinks" has nothing to do with this story. Drinking is legal, slamming someone against a telephone poll with your car isn't. And who knows what dangerous shit the motorist had pulled to piss off the courrier. Cyclists don't get mad with no reason - they're on the front lines of reducing consumption. They are the pioneers for your future lifestyle, so try to appreciate their sacrifice.

[Godstud]

A motorist giving the finger to some drunken courier cyclist who is weaving all over the road because he's drunk is perfectly normal too. Drinking and driving isn't any smarter when you're driving a bike, in fact it's probably worse for your personal safety.

Grabbing onto a moving car isn't illegal but it's about the dumbest fucking thing a person can do. The world can do without "pioneers of your future lifestyle" who are that fucking stupid. What sacrifice? It was a cyclist with no regard for anyone, not even himself, and so he went out in the streets in a state of drunkenness caused by mass consumption of alcoholic beverages, endangering not only himself, but other people. This could just as easily been a mother taking her kids home from the grocery store.

That the cyclist "had a few drinks" and enough to have an altercation with the police, has everything to do with the story. It's another demonstration of why it's unsafe to drink and drive, even if you're driving a bike. That he was couriering while drunk shows he had a real alcohol problem, which is not the fault of the motorist.

Car drivers don't get "mad for no reason" either. You make assumptions about the circumstances without any knowledge about it whatsoever. Cyclists are all innocent because they ride are being green. Give me a fucking break! As many bad motorists as there are on the roads, this number is equaled by the number of bad cyclists on the road. The difference is that the cyclist should be operating with a huge amount of self-control, given that he isn't in a 1 ton car with devices designed to protect him from accidents. If you're a cyclist, or motorcyclist, you have to drive defensively all the time if you're going to share the roads with motorists.

[Huntster]

My point here is that motoring is a form of power madness.

And your "point" is not being accepted by people who have basic understanding of human nature because they're...........................human.

This poor bike courrier was probably almost-killed by the coke-head yuppie, and then wanted to yell at him for almost killing him. Perfectly normal.

But coke-head yuppie motorist didn't even roll down his window to let the cyclist tell him what horrible driving manoever almost killed him. He gave him the finger and pretended not to see him.

Or something like that.

1) People flipping other people off is not restricted to motorists flipping off other motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists

2) Sign language is an understandable means of communication when speech is not likely to be heard due to distance, barriers, etc

3) Probably the best thing for the cyclist to do in return is flip off the driver, not engage in the deadly act of attacking the automobile

4) What information makes you think that the former AG is a "coke-head"?

The "had a few drinks" has nothing to do with this story. Drinking is legal, slamming someone against a telephone poll with your car isn't.

1) The cyclist had been reported to the police by his own girlfriend. The police reported that he had been drinking.

2) This establishes the likelihood that the cyclist was possibly impaired and angry

3) Driving is legal, and I believe flipping people off is legal.

4) Trying to sweep the attacker off the car by running against obstacles seems like an effective way to end the attack, even if it is seen by many as "over-reacting", just like shooting the man might be seen

5) I might have done the same thing that the former AG did, except that might do more damage to my car than I'd like, so simply shooting the aggressive cyclist would be preferable

6) Godstud is correct; if the former AG overreacted to the attack, he will face a jury regarding his actions

7) What do you want to bet that the former AG has a pretty good defense lawyer?

[ThereBeDragons]

Is the death penalty the appropriate punishment for vandalism? What if the vandal is drunk and angry; is the death penalty appropriate then? How much did our cyclist damage the car at all? Trying to get rid of someone holding onto your car door by killing the offender through blunt trauma instead of trying to defuse the situation by non-murderous means seems like it would have been a better response.

[Huntster]

Is the death penalty the appropriate punishment for vandalism?

No, but a victim at the time of the crime isn't administering a "penalty". A penalty is an act of justice administered by a proper authority.

An act of self-defense, whether it is attempting to mitigate damage to one's property or one's life or safety, is not a "penalty".

[ThereBeDragons]

So if I see somebody in the act of vandalizing my property, can I shoot him in self-defense?

I'm reading the story like this -

Somebody is sitting at a bar when an angry drunk guy approaches and starts yelling at him.
Said somebody starts to beat the formerly angry drunk guy with a baseball bat until he is dead.

[Huntster]

So if I see somebody in the act of vandalizing my property, can I shoot him in self-defense?

No. But I believe you are within your rights to attempt to physically stop the vandal.

I'm reading the story like this -

Somebody is sitting at a bar when an angry drunk guy approaches and starts yelling at him.
Said somebody starts to beat the formerly angry drunk guy with a baseball bat until he is dead.

The cyclist story? Like that?

I disagree. It appears to me that the drunken cyclist did something stupid in the road, and the motorist flipped him off. The cyclist then grabbed the car in an attempt to open the door or otherwise climb aboard in order to batter the motorist. The motorist took off, which then put the cyclist in an obviously precarious position. The motorist then used stationary objects to attempt to sweep the silly cyclist from the car.

I don't know how the former AG's trial would go, but from the article, and if I was on the jury, I wouldn't convict him of anything.

I think the world needs to be rid of violent drunkards.

Now, in your "story", the guy "in the bar" is in a bar, not the private realm of his own car. Secondly, the beating with the bat was not in self-defense. What the guy should do is leave the bar or talk shit back. When the "angry drunk guy" then starts physical violence, the guy "in the bar" gets a free opportunity to kick the shit out of him. If he has access to a baseball bat, that should take just a couple of good swings.

[QatzelOk]

UPDATES

Bryant getting back in stride
Former attorney general is cagey about his future


A day after his criminal charges were dismissed in the death of a cyclist, Michael Bryant was back in the running ... along Toronto’s beaches.

Sun photographer Stan Behal, out shooting photos of Torontonians dealing with the record-setting heat, snapped a bare-chested Bryant, 44, jogging along the boardwalk in the Beach before noon on Tuesday.

It was the antithesis of the media circus that surrounded the former attorney general a day earlier at Old City Hall where charges of criminal negligence causing the death of Darcy Allan Sheppard and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death were withdrawn by the outside prosecutor brought in to handle the case.
...

So, he got off scott-free of charges of manslaughter for intentionally ramming a bike courier into telephone poles with his Saab. That's probably bad news to the Toronto bike community - knowing that they are legitimate and legal road-kill for anyone in an expensive enough car.
...

Darcy Sheppard's life wasn't only tragic
By Rick Salutin, May 28, 2010

Last fall, after the catastrophic Toronto encounter between Michael Bryant and bicycle courier Darcy Allan Sheppard, I wrote a column lamenting the swift intervention by the PR firm Navigator on Mr. Bryant's behalf. I also said we'd started to learn about Mr. Sheppard, and that he was the product of a "failed adoption," plus much foster care.
...
Defence lawyer Marie Henein said, "Darcy Sheppard lived a tragic life that was years in the making." But this is wrong if it implies the life was only tragic. It also included his brother, his kids, his cycling comrades (or my godchild, Molly, who took a bad fall on her bike last summer but was rescued by a guy whose photo she later recognized) and his dad. If there are redemptive elements in this, they exist far outside that courtroom.
...

And the PR firm he hired did a good job of proving his innocence. Marie Heneim argues - if I can paraphrase her legalspeak - "Darcy was a loser, and something like this was bound to happen. What a shame he had to drag poor Michael Bryant's name down with him."

Obviously not her own words: she gets paid good money to use higher quality vocabulary than I just did.
.

[Ter]

So, all's well that ends well, as the saying goes.


Ter

[ThereBeDragons]

In the delayed reply of the century,

Now, in your "story", the guy "in the bar" is in a bar, not the private realm of his own car. Secondly, the beating with the bat was not in self-defense. What the guy should do is leave the bar or talk shit back. When the "angry drunk guy" then starts physical violence, the guy "in the bar" gets a free opportunity to kick the shit out of him. If he has access to a baseball bat, that should take just a couple of good swings.

Okay, let me change the story.

You come out to your car after telling some guy to fuck off.
He's sitting on the hood of your car and won't get off.
You beat him with a baseball bat until he is dead.
You go free because society is fucking incompetent.

I hope somebody murders him the next time he steps on a lawn that's not his.

[QatzelOk]

Navigator's website

Navigator's contact information:

Navigator Ltd.
British Colonial Building
8 Wellington Street East
Third Floor
Toronto ON
M5E 1C5

"Hi. I'm rich and famous, and I just killed some loser bike courier with my Saab. Can you help me?"

.

[QatzelOk]

Here are some quotes from the courier-killer himself, care of The Globe, obviously written by Navigator's copy writers:

Nobody is above the law, to be sure. But no one's below the law, either
When he says that no one is below the law, he is suggesting that the victim was scum, and that even scum gets its day in court.

It is not a morality play about bikes versus cars, couriers versus drivers, or one about class, privilege or politics
Here, Michael Bryant is trying to tell a gullible public which metaphors it can/cannot use to understand this tragedy. As if he is in a position to legislate ways of understanding things. This attempt at censorship of other people's ways of thinking accomplishes that rare blending of arrogance and total lack of curiosity that is so attractive in public figures.

a tale about addiction, mental health, an independent justice system, a tragic death and a couple out on their wedding anniversary, driving home with the top down
See, it's not about how dangerous cars are, or how fragile the lives of the poor are, or about how incompatible cars are with pedestrians and bikes. No sir. This is all about upper class people having a good time consuming the products we all know and love from commercial media. And then some fool wrecks their fun by getting in their way on their road.

It's just about how in 28 seconds, everything can change
This is Michael Bryant's way of saying that this story is "all about him." The dead person on the other end of the story is just some sick punchline in Michael Bryant's life, and nothing else.

Likewise, there are to be NO LESSONS learned from this story except that Michael Bryant had a bad time one night, and that is that only real bad here. The rest is about losers, nuttiness, and how "impartial" a justice system can be with this kind of income inequality and status dissimilarity.

HE was the Attorney-General, and his wife is a lawyer. Saying "Impartial justice system" was an ironic way of underlining the injustice of this ruling.