Leaving aside the rest of the post for a minute, I find this quote highly unusual. It has been posted before. The wording and its' inclusion strongly suggests bias due to piling on irrelevant perspective. 30 seconds is a long time and we know he was speeding.
|
|
|
Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
- Thread starter CafeRay
- Start date
- Status
Leaving aside the rest of the post for a minute, I find this quote highly unusual. It has been posted before. The wording and its' inclusion strongly suggests bias due to piling on irrelevant perspective. 30 seconds is a long time and we know he was speeding.
I'm confused why they would include this myself. Maybe they wanted us to believe that Clay was speeding before the collision as well?
I've seen Judge Judy shout down this kind of nonsense enough to know when somebody's trying to pad their agenda. There may be something before this quote to justify it but it sure raises red flags as it stands. Anyway, moving on......
Is it possible that her exact speed was revealed to the SIU for there investigation, but not to the police for her prosecution? Then based upon her estimation of how fast he went by, and disappeared they could have a rough estimate of his velocity at that time.
i found that I couldn't match the hand drawn map, up to goggle maps. Did it happen in a different location than the media stated?
Just wow comes to mind. I had never seen a SIU news release before. Are these guys in grade 10? 4 investigators, 2 forensic investigators gives us "I rather suspect the m/c would not have been visible to the officer" 4 investigators, 2 forensic investigators!! Just wow. 4 investigators, 2 forensic investigators gives us "possible visual obstruction". Wow.
What a game. And to think there are people cheering this stuff on. Why?
Easy now, I was trying to draw that map from memory. If you go back a page, I posted a couple recently acquired pictures.
I would of thought that you had seen it. Read it a few more times and you may actually begin to laugh. It's a bunch of fluff and filler, with the only real facts being the date/time/motorcycle's speed. You would think we might be able to expect a little more of a return from our 8+million dollar a year investment in the SIU.
I wouldn't say people are cheering it on, it's more that they are more comfortable being fed their information and not interested in any efforts to form their own opinins.
It was where I drew my "Reasonable Person" questioning from awhile back. I don't believe a resonable person would attempt such a turning movement in front of a speeding motorcycle, at night, on a hill, in a construction zone, and from behind a concrete barrier.
Last edited:
Actually I try to read everything important a few times, if I don't it shows in my responses. All the fluff jumps out, I only commented on a bit of it. As far as cheering, I was referring to a couple people on this thread.
Unfortunately this type of nonsense is the way of the world. If you're past your teen years this should be no newsflash. Years ago I was involved with a complaint to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. When the ruling came in it was like the above. Every sentence you read you go WHAT?? Like I said that was many years ago and you learn it almost has to be that way. Hits hard when it's close to home tho.
The photos support my own opinion that regardless of Clayton's speed, this was an unsafe location to make a U-turn due to the bend, the crest in the road, and the central barrier.
The SIU's "investigation" stopped when they established the motorcycle's speed.
The SIU's "investigation" stopped when they established the motorcycle's speed.
Any time you make a u turn you're you're cutting across the path of travel. It could be a perfectly straight, well lit section of road or an obstructed view. Great care must be taken in all cases or not attempted at all in some cases. In the event of t bone the u turner is a huge contributing factor in either scenario. Pretty simple stuff, like stepping off a curb.
kiwi
Well-known member
Ah ha..I knew there is ******* more to this. When this incident occurred I head some chatter regarding the incident. .. Just speculation obviously.. But common thought from people was a road block.. But that's been discussed for over 800 posts here. But again..the officer was doing a U turn right.... Just bad luck.. Right.
I can't believe they left this out of the media release. It is in the report though, and shared with the family.
The officer was required to head West to respond to the suspicious vehicle, but the call didn't come in right before impact. It came in several minutes before.
Last edited:
And BMW headlights are damn near impossible to see at night when he's the only other vehicle on the road...right
And if I was a cop and got radio from another officer up the street about a speeding bike, I'm totally going to turn around and go towards him cause that's going to stop him for sure.
And if I was a cop and got radio from another officer up the street about a speeding bike, I'm totally going to turn around and go towards him cause that's going to stop him for sure.
Slim Jim
Well-known member
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
The cop that shot Sami Yahtim is innocent until proven guilty. Why should the rules be different for police then everyone else, if you are charged you don't lose your job until proven guilty. As for the guy shot 7 times, there could be all kinds of reasons why it took so many. I have a friend that's a cop, some crack head grabbed his gun, they fought for it, and it took six shots before the guy dropped
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Director Loparco concluded: "The forensic reconstruction blah blah......blah I rather suspect the motorcycle would not have been visible blah blah...."
What exactly is a "forensic reconstruction" if they can't determine if the motorcycle is visible or not? This is laughable. If somebody could explain that I'd take my lumps if I'm wrong. I'm really mad about the blatant disregard for the publics' intelligence. Brian P is right about them stopping investigation once rider was known to be speeding. I really hate this.
Director Loparco concluded: "The forensic reconstruction blah blah......blah I rather suspect the motorcycle would not have been visible blah blah...."
What exactly is a "forensic reconstruction" if they can't determine if the motorcycle is visible or not? This is laughable. If somebody could explain that I'd take my lumps if I'm wrong. I'm really mad about the blatant disregard for the publics' intelligence. Brian P is right about them stopping investigation once rider was known to be speeding. I really hate this.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
What the SIU calls a "forensic investigation" would be laughed out of the room if it were an airplane crash with the NTSB investigating it. Few collisions have only one cause.
Yes, we get that Clayton was speeding. Maybe he had seen the first cop and was concerned that it would be a "stunt driving" situation if he were stopped, and was attempting to get the heck out of Dodge. (It has happened before and this situation has been discussed at length on this very forum.) If it had been "several minutes" between the suspicious vehicle call on the radio and the collision, it sure begs the question of why the officer had to U-turn around there, instead of simply turn in the intended direction at the intersection that he had passed only seconds before. Was there the required 150 metres of visibility between that bend and the U-turn location - was there the required 150 metres between that crest and the U-turn location ... photo suggests that it could be iffy and this ought to have been investigated to put numbers to it. And if we accept that U-turn ... our prognostications and estimates in this thread suggest that even at Clayton's speed, at the time when the officer ought to have made that last-chance look sideways out the windows before completing the U-turn (likely about a second-and-a-half before impact - but the information was available to put the actual number to this), Clayton would have been only 60 metres away ... hardly out of view even given the bend and crest in the road; anyone who only looks 60 metres down the road before completing a maneuver like that shouldn't be driving. A proper "forensic investigation" should consider all of that plus more.
The outcome of a real "forensic investigation" might have had some recommendations that didn't look too good.
What the SIU calls a "forensic investigation" would be laughed out of the room if it were an airplane crash with the NTSB investigating it. Few collisions have only one cause.
Yes, we get that Clayton was speeding. Maybe he had seen the first cop and was concerned that it would be a "stunt driving" situation if he were stopped, and was attempting to get the heck out of Dodge. (It has happened before and this situation has been discussed at length on this very forum.) If it had been "several minutes" between the suspicious vehicle call on the radio and the collision, it sure begs the question of why the officer had to U-turn around there, instead of simply turn in the intended direction at the intersection that he had passed only seconds before. Was there the required 150 metres of visibility between that bend and the U-turn location - was there the required 150 metres between that crest and the U-turn location ... photo suggests that it could be iffy and this ought to have been investigated to put numbers to it. And if we accept that U-turn ... our prognostications and estimates in this thread suggest that even at Clayton's speed, at the time when the officer ought to have made that last-chance look sideways out the windows before completing the U-turn (likely about a second-and-a-half before impact - but the information was available to put the actual number to this), Clayton would have been only 60 metres away ... hardly out of view even given the bend and crest in the road; anyone who only looks 60 metres down the road before completing a maneuver like that shouldn't be driving. A proper "forensic investigation" should consider all of that plus more.
The outcome of a real "forensic investigation" might have had some recommendations that didn't look too good.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
A real forensic investigation might not have gone well for the officer, the investigators and those hoping and wishing "that there is not enough evidence to ensure a conviction". I would have no hard feelings toward the officer if it were an honest mistake in the heat of doing a difficult job. I guess it doesn't do anyone on their side of the fence any good to really dig for the truth. For anybody to suggest, as has been, a role reversal would have had the same outcome is blinders on. That is all.
A real forensic investigation might not have gone well for the officer, the investigators and those hoping and wishing "that there is not enough evidence to ensure a conviction". I would have no hard feelings toward the officer if it were an honest mistake in the heat of doing a difficult job. I guess it doesn't do anyone on their side of the fence any good to really dig for the truth. For anybody to suggest, as has been, a role reversal would have had the same outcome is blinders on. That is all.
- Status
|
|
|
|
|