Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Then look at the numbers that I posted several pages back.
Then look at the numbers that I posted several pages back.
|
|
|
Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
- Thread starter CafeRay
- Start date
- Status
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Now for a way back throw back(06-25-2014)
Now for a way back throw back(06-25-2014)
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Will do, I am sure I have but shoot me the post# I should be looking at. I'll check it out.
Will do, I am sure I have but shoot me the post# I should be looking at. I'll check it out.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Found the "Head on" presumption post you then stated as fact(based on your obvious beliefs that the media was correct at the time).06-25-2104post#57. I wasn't too far off on remembering it eh?
And yes sir, this is not Hollywood. A real life was taken here.
Found the "Head on" presumption post you then stated as fact(based on your obvious beliefs that the media was correct at the time).06-25-2104post#57. I wasn't too far off on remembering it eh?
And yes sir, this is not Hollywood. A real life was taken here.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Let me explain why your calculations and assumptions are incorrect. You are basing your calculations on how far Clayton would have been from the cruiser using the speeds of 150, 80, and 60 km/h. Problem is clayton was traveling at a high rate of speed for some distance. How do we know this, you ask?. Because an independent witness stated he passed her without notice indicating she felt he was going very fast. Now was it 120, 150, 200?? We will never know but it appears he was exceeding the limit for a period of time before the collision.
Now the laws of physics tells us that an object in this case a bike travels further, the greater the rate of speed. So it isn't merely a fact that if clayton left a minute or two earlier or later, but rather his excessive speed which placed him in that place at that time.
Of do you dispute that a bike going 154 km/h will travel farther and cover that distance in a shorter period of time than a bike going 80km/h???
That is why I keep saying if not for Clayton's excessive speed he would not have been there. Therefore, NO collision.
Btw leaving home a minute earlier or later us nit illegal riding at 154 certainly is and that is why I also said any civil damages will take this mitigating factor into account.
I trust that is now clear why I am saying Clayton would have never been involved in a collision if not for his speed. Oh and the laws of physics were not written by me or the SIU to use in this investigation and clear the officer.
Let me explain why your calculations and assumptions are incorrect. You are basing your calculations on how far Clayton would have been from the cruiser using the speeds of 150, 80, and 60 km/h. Problem is clayton was traveling at a high rate of speed for some distance. How do we know this, you ask?. Because an independent witness stated he passed her without notice indicating she felt he was going very fast. Now was it 120, 150, 200?? We will never know but it appears he was exceeding the limit for a period of time before the collision.
Now the laws of physics tells us that an object in this case a bike travels further, the greater the rate of speed. So it isn't merely a fact that if clayton left a minute or two earlier or later, but rather his excessive speed which placed him in that place at that time.
Of do you dispute that a bike going 154 km/h will travel farther and cover that distance in a shorter period of time than a bike going 80km/h???
That is why I keep saying if not for Clayton's excessive speed he would not have been there. Therefore, NO collision.
Btw leaving home a minute earlier or later us nit illegal riding at 154 certainly is and that is why I also said any civil damages will take this mitigating factor into account.
I trust that is now clear why I am saying Clayton would have never been involved in a collision if not for his speed. Oh and the laws of physics were not written by me or the SIU to use in this investigation and clear the officer.
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Clear? Nope. Are you posting with a sober mind?
Clear? Nope. Are you posting with a sober mind?
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
I heard that in Arabia any foreigner involved in a traffic accident is automatically judged at fault because they are not from there originally. So if they hadn't entered the country the accident couldn't have happened. Makes sense to me
Can somebody confirm this?
I heard that in Arabia any foreigner involved in a traffic accident is automatically judged at fault because they are not from there originally. So if they hadn't entered the country the accident couldn't have happened. Makes sense to me
Can somebody confirm this?Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
No idea, your asking me to comment on an incident that never happened, as I said I ASSUME they may pull in front of me I didn't say they did.
Secondly, what I think is not relevant, what is legal under the law is what is relevant. I "could" say I think the rider, (in this case), should be charged, but that too isn't relevant as the legal system doesn't charge people posthumously.
No idea, your asking me to comment on an incident that never happened, as I said I ASSUME they may pull in front of me I didn't say they did.
Secondly, what I think is not relevant, what is legal under the law is what is relevant. I "could" say I think the rider, (in this case), should be charged, but that too isn't relevant as the legal system doesn't charge people posthumously.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Yes I am sober, I don't drink. It isn't clear to you that a vehicle traveling at 150 km/h is going to travel farther and faster then a vehicle traveling at 80 Km/h???
Yes I am sober, I don't drink. It isn't clear to you that a vehicle traveling at 150 km/h is going to travel farther and faster then a vehicle traveling at 80 Km/h???
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
And when you asked about that SAME thing about 15 pages ago I admitted that that statement was made based on media reports I didn't report as a fact. I stated what the media had published. I already addressed all this so not sure why your thinking you have an "AH HA" moment you already asked this, several pages back. I also in this thread gave an explanation as how "head on collisions" are classified, for the purposes of police stat reporting. Your welcome to go back to try to dig it up too. I also posted this:
All I am saying is let's hear what the reconstructionist's have to say about the collision and the various factors and events that lead to the tragedy.
That was post 77 on 25 Jun
While on the same date you posted:
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.
The legal system, (which I would prefer to reply upon rather than your "feelings" or desire for "retribution"), has stated your wrong in that assertion.
I made the "this is not hollywood" comment in reference to people suggesting officers shoot knives out of offenders hands, etc. I am well aware someone is dead.
And when you asked about that SAME thing about 15 pages ago I admitted that that statement was made based on media reports I didn't report as a fact. I stated what the media had published. I already addressed all this so not sure why your thinking you have an "AH HA" moment you already asked this, several pages back. I also in this thread gave an explanation as how "head on collisions" are classified, for the purposes of police stat reporting. Your welcome to go back to try to dig it up too. I also posted this:
All I am saying is let's hear what the reconstructionist's have to say about the collision and the various factors and events that lead to the tragedy.
That was post 77 on 25 Jun
While on the same date you posted:
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.
The legal system, (which I would prefer to reply upon rather than your "feelings" or desire for "retribution"), has stated your wrong in that assertion.
I made the "this is not hollywood" comment in reference to people suggesting officers shoot knives out of offenders hands, etc. I am well aware someone is dead.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Yep, but the investigation showed he didn't "place" his cruiser in any such position. He WAS in the process of making a U turn. That was verified by the INVESTIGATION. I guess I NEED to explain my comment, (to you), as I assumed most people with an ounce of common sense would be able to deduce the term "placed his cruiser" would have meant he STOPPED his cruiser across the road the EVIDENCE shows that never happened.
Again this was before ANY of the evidence and details were completed and released. so you can stop your childish games of "but you said this pre investigation, as at NO point did I unlike you erroneous blame either the rider nor the officer but I was level headed saying let's see what the investigation reveals and take things form there. Your approach was "let's break out the pitch forks".
\
Yep, but the investigation showed he didn't "place" his cruiser in any such position. He WAS in the process of making a U turn. That was verified by the INVESTIGATION. I guess I NEED to explain my comment, (to you), as I assumed most people with an ounce of common sense would be able to deduce the term "placed his cruiser" would have meant he STOPPED his cruiser across the road the EVIDENCE shows that never happened.
Again this was before ANY of the evidence and details were completed and released. so you can stop your childish games of "but you said this pre investigation, as at NO point did I unlike you erroneous blame either the rider nor the officer but I was level headed saying let's see what the investigation reveals and take things form there. Your approach was "let's break out the pitch forks".
\
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Level headed? Really?.....
Level headed? Really?.....
ddusseld
Well-known member
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here is a recent quote from your post: "My contention is that the officer never looked (properly) for approaching traffic prior to making that U-turn". You are making that assumption without any proof. We don't know if he looked or not. We probably never will. This pretty much makes all your math based on an erroneous foundation with regards to the timing of the crash.
Btw, I agree with you that Hedo's "he would not have been there without speeding" theory pretty much out to lunch as well.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Here is a recent quote from your post: "My contention is that the officer never looked (properly) for approaching traffic prior to making that U-turn". You are making that assumption without any proof. We don't know if he looked or not. We probably never will. This pretty much makes all your math based on an erroneous foundation with regards to the timing of the crash.
Btw, I agree with you that Hedo's "he would not have been there without speeding" theory pretty much out to lunch as well.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
-you can see and hear a bike coming towards you, even at night at any speed
-you would ,based even only on sound , know the direction of the bike
-you would have NO REASON to do a "u turn" when the bike is coming in the opposite direction
the only obvious reason is to block the rider and stop the pursuit
However they want to "investigate"
They can determine what ever they want. The actions of both the rider for his speed, and the cops decision to do a "u turn" both caused him to lose his life.
-you can see and hear a bike coming towards you, even at night at any speed
-you would ,based even only on sound , know the direction of the bike
-you would have NO REASON to do a "u turn" when the bike is coming in the opposite direction
the only obvious reason is to block the rider and stop the pursuit
However they want to "investigate"
They can determine what ever they want. The actions of both the rider for his speed, and the cops decision to do a "u turn" both caused him to lose his life.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Here's what I think, FWIW: The eastbound cop may have looked in his mirror and seen a speck of light (Clayton's headlight) very far behind him. Or maybe he didn't see it.
The latter is quite possible as there's a substantial depression in the topography, just west of the new overpass. Its deep enough and long enough to hide a vehicle for a few seconds.
The former is also possible, but a single light half a mile away could be perceived as a pair of lights (car) much farther away. And no one could be expected to presume that a vehicle in the far distance might be travelling at over twice the speed limit.
I know that on several occasions over decades of driving professionally, I have had my eyes play tricks on my brain when trying to discern a light at a distance. One normally expects to be looking at a car with 2 headlights. Sometimes when the approaching vehicle doesn't fit that pre-supposed description one can get momentarily confused. A car with a headlight out, or a motorcycle, can sometimes be perceived as a car much farther away under the right set of conditions. Usually this happens at night, or when there is fog or rain or snow.
There's also the issue of the road diversion. That was a real dumb place to turn around, even if he was certain there was no one behind him.
Had he drove another couple hundred feet he would have had 4 lanes and 2 shoulders all to himself to do a continuous non-stopping turn.
I'd like to know if he activated his roof lights prior to initiating his turn.
Its too bad the cop didn't have to testify as to what he was doing and thinking. One might think that he chose not contribute to the investigation because doing so would not reflect upon him favourably.
carboncat: There's no possible way a cop in a cruiser with the windows up and his attention focused on, among other things, an ongoing radio conversation about a developing situation, is going to be able to hear a speeding motorcycle far behind him on the other side of an overpass.
Here's what I think, FWIW: The eastbound cop may have looked in his mirror and seen a speck of light (Clayton's headlight) very far behind him. Or maybe he didn't see it.
The latter is quite possible as there's a substantial depression in the topography, just west of the new overpass. Its deep enough and long enough to hide a vehicle for a few seconds.
The former is also possible, but a single light half a mile away could be perceived as a pair of lights (car) much farther away. And no one could be expected to presume that a vehicle in the far distance might be travelling at over twice the speed limit.
I know that on several occasions over decades of driving professionally, I have had my eyes play tricks on my brain when trying to discern a light at a distance. One normally expects to be looking at a car with 2 headlights. Sometimes when the approaching vehicle doesn't fit that pre-supposed description one can get momentarily confused. A car with a headlight out, or a motorcycle, can sometimes be perceived as a car much farther away under the right set of conditions. Usually this happens at night, or when there is fog or rain or snow.
There's also the issue of the road diversion. That was a real dumb place to turn around, even if he was certain there was no one behind him.
Had he drove another couple hundred feet he would have had 4 lanes and 2 shoulders all to himself to do a continuous non-stopping turn.
I'd like to know if he activated his roof lights prior to initiating his turn.
Its too bad the cop didn't have to testify as to what he was doing and thinking. One might think that he chose not contribute to the investigation because doing so would not reflect upon him favourably.
carboncat: There's no possible way a cop in a cruiser with the windows up and his attention focused on, among other things, an ongoing radio conversation about a developing situation, is going to be able to hear a speeding motorcycle far behind him on the other side of an overpass.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Ok apparently I am not communicating it clearly enough for others to comprehend. So I will try via an example.
If I leave my home in Oshawa, (whatever time I leave is not relevant), and I ride along the 401 at the posted limit of 100 Km/h, (with little to no traffic to impede my progress), and it takes me 18 minutes to arrive at the off ramp to say Markham road. Then we now know it would take me 18 minutes arrive at that spot.
Now the next day I leave my home, (again the time of departure is not relevant), only this time again with little to no traffic), I ride at 154 km/h. This time I arrive at the same spot, (Markham road off ramp), in 16 minutes. This demonstrates that Had Clayton been doing the posted 80 or even 100, he simply would NOT HAVE BEEN in that space at that time therefore NO collision. This isn't me distorting the laws of physics.
i encourage anyone to demonstrate to me how two vehicles taking the same route, at the same time, while one is traveling at 100 km/h and the other is traveling at 154 km/h can arrive at the EXACT SAME Spot at the EXACT same time. It is impossible.
If one were to plan a long road trip with a limited amount of time to arrive there, are they more likely to choose secondary roads with limits of 80 or the slab at 100 limit, (Basing it solely upon the difference in the limits and the limited time frame). Of course they would choose the slab as that will get them there BEFORE a route limited to 80.
Perhaps that makes my point more clearly. Again I didn't write the laws of Physics I am merely applying them.
Ok apparently I am not communicating it clearly enough for others to comprehend. So I will try via an example.
If I leave my home in Oshawa, (whatever time I leave is not relevant), and I ride along the 401 at the posted limit of 100 Km/h, (with little to no traffic to impede my progress), and it takes me 18 minutes to arrive at the off ramp to say Markham road. Then we now know it would take me 18 minutes arrive at that spot.
Now the next day I leave my home, (again the time of departure is not relevant), only this time again with little to no traffic), I ride at 154 km/h. This time I arrive at the same spot, (Markham road off ramp), in 16 minutes. This demonstrates that Had Clayton been doing the posted 80 or even 100, he simply would NOT HAVE BEEN in that space at that time therefore NO collision. This isn't me distorting the laws of physics.
i encourage anyone to demonstrate to me how two vehicles taking the same route, at the same time, while one is traveling at 100 km/h and the other is traveling at 154 km/h can arrive at the EXACT SAME Spot at the EXACT same time. It is impossible.
If one were to plan a long road trip with a limited amount of time to arrive there, are they more likely to choose secondary roads with limits of 80 or the slab at 100 limit, (Basing it solely upon the difference in the limits and the limited time frame). Of course they would choose the slab as that will get them there BEFORE a route limited to 80.
Perhaps that makes my point more clearly. Again I didn't write the laws of Physics I am merely applying them.
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
EXACTLY what I have been trying to point out. I have said this wasn't the "best option" for the officer to make the u Turn, (the only issue I have with your working theory is you imply it wasn't a single motion turn, but the GPS data showed it was a u turn as opposed to being a three point or other type of turn), But it doesn't meet the level of laying a charge of an illegal u turn. Hindsight is 20/20.
The officer didn't activate his emergency lights, (If he had this would have been included in the report), also as I stated probably 20 pages ago when asked it wouldn't be SOP for him to do so as he was responding to a call which wasn't by it's very nature an "emergency call". Protocol and procedure would not have dictated turning on his roof lights any more than a civilian is required to activate their emergency four ways when doing a u turn. This comes from my personal experience as former copper.
Just because the officer exercised his rights not to speak with investigators, can not and should not be construed as him having done anything illegal. As I have stated the FIRST and default setting for so many GATM members when someone posts that "the police wants to speak with them about an incident" Is "DON'T talk to the cops nothing good can come from it", that is also my advice to those members. As a copper I love it when a suspect used to talk to me as that gave me an opportunity to "trip them up, and get a statement" It is a civilians RIGHT not to speak to an investigator EVEN after they are charged and this officer, (no doubt on advice from his lawyer), exercised that SAME right. The SIU tried to "force" officers to speak with them, but it was challenged and the Supreme Court ruled the officer has the same rights of a citizen. Now I should clarify that applies to "subject officers" not witness officers they ARE required to submit to an interview.
We can lobby to have this changed BUT be careful what you wish for, under the charter the only way to remove the officer's right not to submit to an interview would be to also remove this right from ALL citizen's. is this a right we are willing to give up?
I know casacrow has stated many times he wants the notes to be seen and released. Does he really think the officer would have put in his notes, (despite the GPS evidence to the contrary). "I was hiding behind a barrier waiting for this bike, then at the last second I pulled out to purposely block both lanes and cause him to stop or crash" I suspect the notes would have a VERY similiar version to what the SIU investigation showed happened.
EXACTLY what I have been trying to point out. I have said this wasn't the "best option" for the officer to make the u Turn, (the only issue I have with your working theory is you imply it wasn't a single motion turn, but the GPS data showed it was a u turn as opposed to being a three point or other type of turn), But it doesn't meet the level of laying a charge of an illegal u turn. Hindsight is 20/20.
The officer didn't activate his emergency lights, (If he had this would have been included in the report), also as I stated probably 20 pages ago when asked it wouldn't be SOP for him to do so as he was responding to a call which wasn't by it's very nature an "emergency call". Protocol and procedure would not have dictated turning on his roof lights any more than a civilian is required to activate their emergency four ways when doing a u turn. This comes from my personal experience as former copper.
Just because the officer exercised his rights not to speak with investigators, can not and should not be construed as him having done anything illegal. As I have stated the FIRST and default setting for so many GATM members when someone posts that "the police wants to speak with them about an incident" Is "DON'T talk to the cops nothing good can come from it", that is also my advice to those members. As a copper I love it when a suspect used to talk to me as that gave me an opportunity to "trip them up, and get a statement" It is a civilians RIGHT not to speak to an investigator EVEN after they are charged and this officer, (no doubt on advice from his lawyer), exercised that SAME right. The SIU tried to "force" officers to speak with them, but it was challenged and the Supreme Court ruled the officer has the same rights of a citizen. Now I should clarify that applies to "subject officers" not witness officers they ARE required to submit to an interview.
We can lobby to have this changed BUT be careful what you wish for, under the charter the only way to remove the officer's right not to submit to an interview would be to also remove this right from ALL citizen's. is this a right we are willing to give up?
I know casacrow has stated many times he wants the notes to be seen and released. Does he really think the officer would have put in his notes, (despite the GPS evidence to the contrary). "I was hiding behind a barrier waiting for this bike, then at the last second I pulled out to purposely block both lanes and cause him to stop or crash" I suspect the notes would have a VERY similiar version to what the SIU investigation showed happened.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
So you've never been driving a car on a highway, day or night, and had a bike 'suddenly appear' beside you? I'd wager that most people here have. I'd wager that many have had it happen when they're on a bike, too. The sound of a motorcycle is directed mostly rearward and the faster it's going the less it can be used to determine the presence of the bike, for that reason. We've also discussed here previously, on many occasions, how the sound from a motorcycle is not useful in determining the physical location of a motorcycle. I'm afraid that your reasoning is based on a false premise.
So you've never been driving a car on a highway, day or night, and had a bike 'suddenly appear' beside you? I'd wager that most people here have. I'd wager that many have had it happen when they're on a bike, too. The sound of a motorcycle is directed mostly rearward and the faster it's going the less it can be used to determine the presence of the bike, for that reason. We've also discussed here previously, on many occasions, how the sound from a motorcycle is not useful in determining the physical location of a motorcycle. I'm afraid that your reasoning is based on a false premise.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
I have. Lots of times. "Holy S@#T! Where the hell did that come from?" Yes. The sound is behind him.
I have. Lots of times. "Holy S@#T! Where the hell did that come from?" Yes. The sound is behind him.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Sorry Buddy. That argument makes no sense. By the same token: What if he had stopped for a pee; not stopped for a pee; left a minute later or a minute earlier; not hit the snooze button that morning; not had a coffee refill after lunch; etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Sorry Buddy. That argument makes no sense. By the same token: What if he had stopped for a pee; not stopped for a pee; left a minute later or a minute earlier; not hit the snooze button that morning; not had a coffee refill after lunch; etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
- Status
|
|
|
|
|