Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Casacrow. I do applaud your attempts to find fault with the officer. As I have said were his actions that night the "best possible options" not likely, even the SIU says a s much in their report, and I have NEVER said they weren't. BUT they simply don't rise to the level required for a court of law, that is my point. Your "investigation" is flawed as you have admitted that you don't have access to all the evidence.
Now I did say that media reports initially listed it as a head on collision. I said it wasn't a "direct head on" but that various types of collisions can still be "classified" as head on without impact to the front of both vehicles. In traffic investigation we were taught if the vehicles were initially traveling towards each other then, despite where the actual damage to the vehicles occured it was still "technically" a head on, (for reporting and statistical purposes).
just to clarify I am not trying to "discredit you" I don't know what your qualifications were until you stated in one of your last posts that you have been witness to some horrific investigations and also been involved as a "suspect", (for lack of a better term), in one. I am merely pointing out that, (along with the fact that you don't have access to likely 90% of the evidence the investigators have access to), this doesn't give you the required "expertise" to rule on the competency of the investigation and declare the officer needs to be charged, (especially when those who have done hundreds of investigations have reported that there is no prospect of conviction).
Yes you have wavered in your hypothesis, First you were adamant that the officer had completed an illegal U turn, when it was pointed out that the U turn complied with the LEGAL requirements as they are presented in the HTA, in your last several posts you are leaning towards the officer pulling out from behind the barrier and purposely blocking Clayton's route. You based your assumptions without benefit of actual evidence.
For those who are now subscribing to the notion that the officer "could have been sitting behind the concrete barrier with his lights out and doing radar. This is simply NOT possible. The SIU have CLEARLY stated the officer was in the process of completing a U turn. Now you say but how do they know that, the officer and his notes were never available to the SIU. Simple answer, the cruiser like ALL vehicles today are equipped with a black box and the cruiser also has a GPS locator. These devices would have CLEARLY shown had the cruiser been stationary for ANY period of time. Also had the cruiser "been blocking the roadway for 12 seconds" as some have suggested this too would have been easily identified via the black box. For those without experience in investigations, ALL this information from the black box and GPS units would have been downloaded and examined, (at least initially), NOT by the investigators but by technicians and engineers. The investigators would have then been provided with all the information, (much like they don't do the autopsy but they are given reports with the detailed results and resulting conclusions).
Now in one of his last posts DVS bullet provided even more substance to this possibility as the speed, (which would have been verified by the black box of the cruiser), just prior to impact was 25 km/h, (this would be consistent with a vehicle in the process of completing a U turn), not with a vehicle starting from a standing stop with only a few meters to move forward. Point of knowledge as most here have never operated a radar device. the ones we used back in my days we were trained to park as close to the side of the road as was safe to do so. The "belief", (as taught at the time) was that the farther away from the road the greater the angle of the radar beam and this variance normally "benefited" the vehicle being tracked, (in that the reading would be slightly lower than the actual speed of the vehicle).
Now lastly, you asked for my "best guess" as to what happened.
I believe the officer received a dispatch, (I can't recall if the SIU report stated if it was a radio or terminal dispatch). If it was a terminal dispatch he would have read his screen. If it was radio dispatch, based on my experience patrol units in that area would have been giving their locations to coordinate their movements, So he would have been "monitoring" radio traffic and perhaps even been on his radio. Either way there would have been "some level" of distraction.
He was traveling in the same direction as Clayton initially. He may not have seen Clayton in his rear view mirror, as like the witness he may not have checked it as often as one should due to these distractions. He also may not have seen the single headlight of a vehicle which would have been a considerable distance behind him. I can assume Clayton was a distance behind him, because of Claytons speed he would have closed the gap VERY quickly even if he had been only a "couple of hundred" meters behind the cruiser. Even if Clayton saw the cruiser he likely wouldn't have from that distance identified it as a police cruiser, as his head lights wouldn't have been illuminating the reflective cruiser markers.
The officer determined he needed to go in the opposite direction. He waited until the end of the construction barriers, (as those who were there right after the collision have said the lanes were narrowed and this would have made a u turn impossible. He likely "swung" the cruiser to the right to provide more of a turning radius. He may or may not have checked his mirror(s), (but I also assert that even if he had given that the bike has only a single headlight, and was traveling at a much higher than what is to be expected speed he may have completely missed the bike). It would NOT be unreasonable to think the officer checked his rear view mirror(s), just before he came to the end of the concrete barriers, (while he was slowing down), and saw nothing approaching. Personally, I know I have been at a intersection and looked both left and right before starting my turn and then at the last second stopped quickly because in my initial scan I missed another car. The officer then, (without stopping initiated his u turn).
Now given the time it would take for the cruiser to slow, and swing to the right at the speed which Clayton was riding, It is possible he hadn't yet crested the hill, (using casacrows measurements somewhere between 450 - 600 meters, I am givi8ng a range as his odometer may be slightly out), then the bike could easily travel that distance in the period of time.
As the cruiser emerged from behind the barrier, the officer saw the headlight of the bike and either applied the brakes in a panic or sped up in a panic to get out of the way. Clayton seeing the danger, may have swerved to the left (or was simply riding there as he had seen the vehicle go behind the barrier and thought that moving left would have given him "more reaction time if the vehicle presented a danger to him). ALL of the cruisers movements would have been available via the black box. The portions I have speculated on Claytons actions are admittedly speculation as there exists NO evidence, as to what he did or what he saw.
But I am confident in my conclusions regarding the actions of the cruiser. The reason I am confident is that had the information from the black box indicated the officer was "in hiding" or simply purposely pulled out in front of Clayton, the officer would have been charged as either of these scenarios are not what would "be expected" of a reasonable person. I used that terminology as the SIU stated in their report the officers actions were those expected of a reasonable person. (we can argue what a "reasonable person" is, but the SIU determined that these actions left no hope for a conviction in LEGAL terms in a court of law.
Investigators everyday make decisions on charging someone based upon their experience in court and what has been successfully prosecuted and what hasn't. I have bene to court thousands of times and I would draw on that experience to decide if I thought it would end in a conviction. Also for those unaware, it would not have been solely the discretion of the SIU investigators to determine what if any charges could be laid, because this resulted in a fatal, investigators always meet, (or at least I had to), with a crown to discuss the case and all evidence to seek their advice and direction, (would they be willing to take it to court).
Now as to the point are the SIU investigators also internet CSI's as they released their report/findings on the internet? Not at all their report was also published and sent to many sources, Media outlets, (as our society rightly demands open and transparency), the YRP, They also would have met with the family involved as well as forwarded their report to the officer's legal, (Union rep/lawyer). You will note they didn't released conclusions without the benefit of a full and comprehensive investigation considering ALL the evidence. Something NONE of us will ever have access to.
As civilians, we should question the methods used to investigate such incidents, BUT we can't simply based on our "feelings and beliefs" declare the investigators, engineers, techs, corrupt, and that their investigations, (with access to all the evidence) simply, doesn't match "our findings" and therefore MUST be wrong.
As for your assertion that you didn't go into your "investigation" with a predetermined outcome and bias" I can only refer to your post in this thread made on the 25th of June.
Out of respect for Clay, this thread should not be locked. Conversation should continue.
Speeding or not, Clay was killed by someone on our payroll. We owe it to Clay to ensure that the officer is properly disciplined.
For those in doubt, I welcome you to join me at the impact site. I've run through every imaginable scenario. I even placed my car on the road where the officers car was. Aside from mechanical failure or Aliens dropping his car from the sky, the officer's decisions and actions took Clay's life.
That last sentence indicates you had already concluded, (without even knowing how or why the cruiser was in that spot at that time), that it MUST result in the officer being disciplined.
)
