Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
So just because he is a cop he shouldn't be charged with a HTA offence? Or how about when a normal civilian kills someone by doing a careless maneuver in an automobile they shouldn't be charged either because it wouldn't give the family satisfaction or closure? Do you even read what you type? Not to mention it would help with the civil suit.
Ah the magic phrase has FINALLY appeared. Although incorrect. A HTA charge will not have any bearing on a civil suit. Just like the acquittal of OJ didn't affect the civil suits against him.
The one thing that will affect any judgement , if they prevail, will be Clayton's actions, (his speed will be considered a major contributing factor, and will significantly reduce any award as he will "likely" be assigned a considerable amount of fault for the collision). You can bet the insurance lawyers will bring up everything to attempt to further reduce of eliminate damage awards, (yes using Clayton's FB page and his hooliganism, will be brought up, as they will want to show, remember they don't need to prove it, in a civil trial, that he was predisposed to dangerous and reckless behaviour), weather he was or not isn't really relevant all they have to do is plant the seed.
BTW the SIU didn't say the officers actions were "completely justified", they ruled the officers actions didn't meet the legal threshold to warrant they laying of charges.
Also someone asked how the SIU could rule there "may have been visual obstructions from the constructions" and not known 100%. There is actually a pretty simple logical conclusion that can be drawn. There would have been no way to determine Clayton's seated position on the bike at the time, (IE was he in a more upright position as opposed to a more tucked position). That could affect his ability to see over any of the barriers present at the time, (because again they looked at ALL evidence), I bet none of the internet CSI's here even considered this as a potential factor.
As to the statement they made about the "officer's intent to make a U Turn" again someone questioned how they could know what his intent was without speaking to him. Again simple answer they looked at the cruiser's blackbox and GPS information. This would have given them PRECISE movements of the cruiser, before doing and post collision. So again if the cruiser, (I will use a different term so casacrow doesn't go off again), "swung to the right and then began a movement" indicating the cruiser was in the process of turning to proceed in the other direction, (likely as most do when making a uturn without stopping first), then they can again draw a logical conclusion, as to his intent. This is done every time there is a fatal. Investigators for a variety of reasons can't speak to all parties involved, the officer in this case chose as is his legal right, to exercise the same rights afforded EVERY citizen of Canada.
