And the point I'm trying to make is that you're assuming the distance involved would not have been sufficient for the rider to stop or evade, if he was travelling at the limit. This is a complete unknown; the assumption cannot be made.
|
|
|
Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
- Thread starter CafeRay
- Start date
- Status
And the point I'm trying to make is that you're assuming the distance involved would not have been sufficient for the rider to stop or evade, if he was travelling at the limit. This is a complete unknown; the assumption cannot be made.
And given the cop more time to notice an on coming vehicle before attempting the u turn.
Everything is an unknown then, none of us were there. Just cause they said speed was a factor does not mean it was. Cops have been known to lie to cover things up. I've seen first hand what cops can do when no one is watching.
Also cannot be assumed the cop even checked to see if the coast was clear. If he had he would have known it was a crappy spot to pull that manuver given the construction and pore visibility.
Brings us back to my point that he should have never pulled that manuver there in the first place. It was unsafe, therefore illegal when it comes to U-turns.
If no one is watching how did you see it?
I'm more surprised at the things I have witnessed police do while lots of people were watching.
If no one is watching how did you see it?
I'm more surprised at the things I have witnessed police do while lots of people were watching.
Today's example: Peel cop car turning left into a plaza ... via an entrance meant for turning right from the opposite direction only, and with a clearly visible "no left turn" sign. Totally illegal turn. No flashing lights or anything of the sort.
FYI this was on Royal Windsor Drive, just west of Southdown, cop was going west and used the eastbound entrance lane to go into the plaza on the south side, approx 9:15 AM today, and I was in the yellow car right behind the cop who pulled this stunt. Come to think of it ... it was right here:
https://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&l...eILQ4CJOvVB0753fCL9S_A&cbp=12,175.16,,0,-0.09
How plain is that "no left turn" sign?
Certain things can be presumed based on scientific analysis and evidence. We know the approximate speeds involved. We know the action taken by the officer. we don't know when these things occurred, nor the distances involved. As I've been saying for pages, there simply is insufficient evidence for the officer to be charged, based on the known actions of the rider.
Your right the other witnesses who provided statements about the bikes speed were also lying, The cops, (who had you read the entire thread you would know didn't provide his version of events), lied, the SIU investigators lied, My grand mother lied, EVERYONE lied.
Can you show us the method you used to determine the bike was traveling at 80 KM/H? I stated he was doing 80 as your assertion is the cops lied about him speeding, (therefore he must have been doing 80, or less, not even 81, as 81 is still speeding).
Can you show us the method you used to determine the bike was traveling at 80 KM/H? I stated he was doing 80 as your assertion is the cops lied about him speeding, (therefore he must have been doing 80, or less, not even 81, as 81 is still speeding).
That's not what she meant. Even I can figure that out.
Last edited:
Actually the family and other close friends are now trying to read the entire thread and will be posting when they are ready. For someone who is not involved in this thread or who did not know Clayton, I am sure it is a lot easier to just move on.
Great. Hopefully they have some more information to share with us.
You know what would sum up this entire investigation?
"The glove doesn't fit"
Same thing that cleared OJ, clears the cop. BS That's what.
Like I said before if the cop was riding the bike and the citizen was driving I would differ the "evidence" would be different.
It's a really sad world we live in when all this happens just so the cop can give a ticket.
"The glove doesn't fit"
Same thing that cleared OJ, clears the cop. BS That's what.
Like I said before if the cop was riding the bike and the citizen was driving I would differ the "evidence" would be different.
It's a really sad world we live in when all this happens just so the cop can give a ticket.
kiwi
Well-known member
That was the reason that annoyed me earlier in this thread.
Even if the rider was speeding(which he clearly was) that doesn't mean it has to be a "the" factor with boneheaded police moves as described above. I've seen that, everybody has. Once cops start huckin' their cars around like cabbies it's no wonder the occasional speeding biker gets clipped.
But is there not "levels" of speeding? If someone is doing 5 or 10 km over as opposed to 74 km/h over the limit does that not mitigate the factor to a higher level? By that I mean leave other road users, (and the rider in this case), significantly less reaction time? Does it not put all road users, including the rider at a greater level of danger, and risk?
ddusseld
Well-known member
Could you please elaborate on the evidence against the cop that was tainted by the investigation?
At what point does simple speeding become 'operation without due care and attention'? 'Dangerous operation of a vehicle'? Clearly at some point both are true. Does it require darkness and massive speed through a posted construction zone? We've got that too.
I think that goes back to the old 'brotherhood of cops' and 'collusion' crap.
Absolutely there are levels of speeding. The faster the bike the more excited, flustered, whatever the cop becomes. People don't always make the best judgements in excitable circumstances (Forcillo).
At what speed do you believe would make a rider soley responsible for the collision, in your opinion?
That's ironic because some people think intentional speeding would warrant more care and attention. That's how I roll anyway. Sure, you're left with hoping the guy ahead doesn't pull a sudden Uee. But I understand your point. All I've ever felt about the case is that it's "possible" the officer used poor judgement in deliberately intervening with the speeding m/c in some misguided fashion. That there is not enough "evidence" to charge him.....
- Status
|
|
|
|
|