Clayton Rivet death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

[hedo2002]

Forum Sponsor

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Neil: Maybe I can add some clarity for you. Police officers while on duty ARE required to "present themselves and their notes" to the SIU. BUT this ONLY applies to those officers designated BY the SIU as "witness officers". These are officers who may have had no direct interaction with the person injured or killed. IE officers who would have arrived at this collision AFTER the collision, and secured the site and offered aid etc. Or in the event say a person falls from a balcony of an apt building the officers who were outside "securing a perimeter" Would all be designated "witness officers"

The officers who have had direct contact, and therefore "may" have done or omitted to do something which "may or may not" have lead to the injury or death" are designated "subject officers". In police lingo a "subject" is a person who is exactly as the term describes, someone who "may" be the subject of the investigation.

It was NOT the SIU or the Police who said these officers are NOT required to speak to investigators or turn over any notes, it was our court system. The reasoning behind this ruling was just the same as you and I if we do ANYTHING that "may" result in a charge, (any charge HTA, Criminal, fisheries, etc etc etc), then we are NOT required to speak to the investigators and if we made any notes about our actions we are also NOT required to surrender those. This protection is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can NOT simply choose to "cherry pick" who this protection is afforded to, it is applied equally to all.

That is a layman's description i hope it helps.

Yup, there will be those who make that accusation. But I would imagine the numbers would be a fraction of those who are currently vocalizing their discontent with the officers silence.

We are told time and time again that these public servants are, for various reasons, not subject to particular rules and regulations the average citizen must adhere to. Exceptions are written in for the police services.

I'm of the understanding that on duty, police don't have to wear a seat belts, Furthermore, many are constantly on the computer while travelling at 60-70kph in a 50kph zone (speed's not really relevant) This is done despite all the 'Studies' on distracted driving and seat belt safety and the obvious increased risk of injury and collisions. I could go on, but it is not my intent to argue these points. Rather, I understand that these exceptions are made to allow them to effectively do the job, which is very different then the average career. But...

If all these special exceptions can be made when they are on duty in the interest of furthering their ability to catch bad guys, why is it so unreasonable to expect a statement to be made when an officer is involved in a fatal collision while on duty?

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Actually no DVS Bullet identified he/she was a friend of Clayton's.

This is akin to me being one of the SIU investigators but failing to disclose that in the thread.

Relax Hedo. I believe somewhere early in this thread he disclosed that he was a friend of Clayton. They likely interviewed him to get an insight as to Clayton's character.

 

[casacrow]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Actually no DVS Bullet identified he/she was a friend of Clayton's.

This is akin to me being one of the SIU investigators but failing to disclose that in the thread.

I never once stated that I was Clayton's friend. Many members have made assumptions and called me such, I never bothered to correct them as I took it as a compliment.

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

LOL, like it matters who's who and who knows who. Hi my name is Mr. Big "Lolz" Sting. Not to be confused with Sting from the Police.

 

[85K100]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Actually no DVS Bullet identified he/she was a friend of Clayton's.

This is akin to me being one of the SIU investigators but failing to disclose that in the thread.

I apologize. I didn't want to go back and read it all again. I knew someone here was his buddy. And yes, everyone in the discussion should disclose their affiliations. So, casacrow, why did they interview you?

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

And yes, everyone in the discussion should disclose their affiliations.

I need this explained please.

 

[85K100]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

If you have a connection you may have a bias.

 

[Neil_V]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Neil: Maybe I can add some clarity for you. Police officers while on duty ARE required to "present themselves and their notes" to the SIU. BUT this ONLY applies to those officers designated BY the SIU as "witness officers". These are officers who may have had no direct interaction with the person injured or killed. IE officers who would have arrived at this collision AFTER the collision, and secured the site and offered aid etc. Or in the event say a person falls from a balcony of an apt building the officers who were outside "securing a perimeter" Would all be designated "witness officers"

The officers who have had direct contact, and therefore "may" have done or omitted to do something which "may or may not" have lead to the injury or death" are designated "subject officers". In police lingo a "subject" is a person who is exactly as the term describes, someone who "may" be the subject of the investigation.

It was NOT the SIU or the Police who said these officers are NOT required to speak to investigators or turn over any notes, it was our court system. The reasoning behind this ruling was just the same as you and I if we do ANYTHING that "may" result in a charge, (any charge HTA, Criminal, fisheries, etc etc etc), then we are NOT required to speak to the investigators and if we made any notes about our actions we are also NOT required to surrender those. This protection is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can NOT simply choose to "cherry pick" who this protection is afforded to, it is applied equally to all.

That is a layman's description i hope it helps.

I completely understand the difference between "witness" and "subject" officers. Also, I feel I should amend my previous use of the term "statement" and offer "answer any questions posed during the investigation" instead.

Your point in regards to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also completely understood. I regularly butt heads with ambitious 20 something officers at ride programs who think I have to tell them where I've been, and where I'm headed. I know the Charter.

My point is this; If we can cherry pick which legislation an on duty cop is required to adhere to, and we can cherry pick who is afforded their Charter Rights when, for example; someone is suspected of terrorist activity. Why can we not cherry pick when a public servant is involved in the death of a member of the public, which they are sworn to protect and serve?

For the record I have no problem with the SIU findings, nor the fact that others believe there is more to the story. To bad the party that lived didn't feel the need to clear the air is all I'm saying. To me, that's not fair to the public whom employ him.

One last thought and question. Let's role play.... I was suspected of committing a crime, and you were tasked with interviewing me. You enter the room, I refuse to talk. What are you thinking as you leave the room? No b/s, no spin. Please.

 

[Neil_V]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

p.s. Thanks for the layman's description, I'm not sure I would have understood otherwise

 

[casacrow]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

I apologize. I didn't want to go back and read it all again. I knew someone here was his buddy. And yes, everyone in the discussion should disclose their affiliations. So, casacrow, why did they interview you?

It seems Hedo believes he had some big "Ah Ha" moment and went on a typing rampage. There is no big secret here. Lol. All one has to do is read way back, I'm sure I referenced talking to SIU at some point, if it was glanced over, that's not my fault.

I would think that anyone that knows me(and many that don't),knew Clayton left my house and started his ride that night, before his life was taken.

If I didn't bring it up, or if anyone else that knew didn't bring it up, it was because it was not relevant to anything we have been discussing here.

I approached the SIU and offerred to help with any questions they may have. My intent was to assist and speed up their investigation so that they wouldnt have to waste resources.

We discussed where Clay was coming from, where he was going, his state of mind, any phone calls he had made, condition of his motorcycle, timeline etc.

Despite Hedo's expertise, his most recent posts are rediculous.

 

[ddusseld]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

When Rob and I were talking about this we were discussing a few points. One was how far away could the rider have seen the car based on the bikes headlights. This could possibly help either sides arguments. If we can determine the rider could have seen the cop car from a long distance away it begs the question why would the rider not have been able to slow down more? It *might* give some credence to the cop pulling out with no chance for the rider. But the opposite is also true. It *might* show that the rider was riding so far past his headlights that he had no chance to slow down before hitting the cop car. Again, this is all supposition and guess work.

So none of our other math/measurements are considered/valued in this discussion, but you're interested in the results of a quick and dirty headlight test?

 

[Brian P]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

To me, the only thing that makes sense is that the car was off to the right (to the right of the end of the construction barrier - in the area that was still coned off for construction) for sufficiently long that the rider didn't think it was a problem. What we don't know is the height of that construction barrier, and if it was sufficiently high combined with the profile of the road that it blocked line-of-sight between the rider and the car's taillights and reflective markings.

If the car did that U-turn in one move at 25 km/h, the complete action of pulling into that area off to the side and swinging back out onto the road again probably took somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 seconds, and that would have had the rider somewhere near 160 metres back at the time that move started (with the cop car starting out in the same lane as the rider was approaching in).

 

[85K100]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

A scenario involving a U turn to the right is impossible, as doing so would result in the car facing north midway through the turn. The car when hit was facing south, with the front bumper against a concrete barrier.
If it were a 3 point turn where he pulled to the right then backed up, then yes.
As I posited before, could it be that the term U turn is being used by the SIU to describe a non-continuous 180 degree change in course? If so, that's some pretty bad report writing, bordering on deception.

In a scenario you described, Clayton would have descended into the low lying area to the west as the cop disappeared over the crest of the hill. They might have lost visual contact.

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

My posts may "appear" to be ridiculous to you. But if you read back I was asked by you a few times if I had ANY connections to this case.

IE did I have personal experience with patrol units in that particular area, did I know the officers name, did I have access to any info from the investigation that others didn't.

I asked you specifically if you "had skin in the game" and what your motives were. You stated your motive was "to learn the true events".

I was VERY clear that I knew NONE of the officers, none of the investigators. I did thus because YOU asked, and STATED I had a bias.

So I AM required to disclose my motives and any involvement I Amy have had. But you don't have the same "duty to disclose". You sir are now trying to split hairs. DVSBullet,was VERY clear that he was a friend of Clayton's and know Clayton's family.

You have until now mislead this forum and it's members.

Of course you ARE biased. You stated in this forum BEFORE the SIU even began the investigation that the "officer needs to be disciplined".

I will pass my condolences to you as a friend of clayton on your loss.

Then to post "those who know me and many don't" Clayton left your house as he set out that fateful night. Is absolutely ridiculous. PLEASE explain to me how those of us, (I submit it is the VAST majority of members) are supposed to know ANY of that unless you disclose it.

I now will state you should have NO credibility remaining in this thread, if you mislead the members on this, (and to suggest it was overlooked, you had the duty to make it clear as you had me do), then the members are justified in asking what else has he mislead me on.

I suppose it is "possible" that in your statement to the SIU you also failed to disclose everything. I can't be assured otherwise, based upon your actions here.

I guess if I had "hinted" I might know the officer personally, (and had been asked directly about it), and we had just finished a coffee before he went on duty, (but failed to disclose that), that would, I am sure be viewed by you as ok.

Lastly, a correction you are not a "witness" a witness is someone who actually viewed the incident. You provided a "background statement". In police lingo this used to be described as part of the "physiological autopsy", as it may help in the investigation.

Having dealt with many people who have loss someone close in the manner you have,(they were basically the last person to see them alive), I would STRONGLY urge you to seek professional counseling to deal with the issues which surround this.

It seems Hedo believes he had some big "Ah Ha" moment and went on a typing rampage. There is no big secret here. Lol. All one has to do is read way back, I'm sure I referenced talking to SIU at some point, if it was glanced over, that's not my fault.

I would think that anyone that knows me(and many that don't),knew Clayton left my house and started his ride that night, before his life was taken.

If I didn't bring it up, or if anyone else that knew didn't bring it up, it was because it was not relevant to anything we have been discussing here.

I approached the SIU and offerred to help with any questions they may have. My intent was to assist and speed up their investigation so that they wouldnt have to waste resources.

We discussed where Clay was coming from, where he was going, his state of mind, any phone calls he had made, condition of his motorcycle, timeline etc.

Despite Hedo's expertise, his most recent posts are rediculous.

 

[hedo2002]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Problem is "answering questions posed during an investigation" is a "statement" a statement need not be a written statement, but also includes verbal statements. These statements can then be used against the accused. That is why the court ruled that subjects not by compelled to speak to investigators.

I completely understand the difference between "witness" and "subject" officers. Also, I feel I should amend my previous use of the term "statement" and offer "answer any questions posed during the investigation" instead.

Your point in regards to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also completely understood. I regularly butt heads with ambitious 20 something officers at ride programs who think I have to tell them where I've been, and where I'm headed. I know the Charter.

My point is this; If we can cherry pick which legislation an on duty cop is required to adhere to, and we can cherry pick who is afforded their Charter Rights when, for example; someone is suspected of terrorist activity. Why can we not cherry pick when a public servant is involved in the death of a member of the public, which they are sworn to protect and serve?

For the record I have no problem with the SIU findings, nor the fact that others believe there is more to the story. To bad the party that lived didn't feel the need to clear the air is all I'm saying. To me, that's not fair to the public whom employ him.

One last thought and question. Let's role play.... I was suspected of committing a crime, and you were tasked with interviewing me. You enter the room, I refuse to talk. What are you thinking as you leave the room? No b/s, no spin. Please.

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

I need this explained please.

If you have a connection you may have a bias.

Oh, do people normally not have a bias in these threads?I thought that was a given. I thought maybe not identifying connections was some kind of breach of protocol not unlike a spoiler alert.

What is the connection that creates the bias of our two main pro "incomplete investigation and you'll like it" disciples?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Oh, do people normally not have a bias in these threads?I thought that was a given. I thought maybe not identifying connections was some kind of breach of protocol not unlike a spoiler alert.

What is the connection that creates the bias of our two main pro "incomplete investigation and you'll like it" disciples?

Some have bias and just go with it. Others have bias, recognize it, and go to some lengths to make sure it doesn't mess with their interpretations.

 

[85K100]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Well said, Rob.

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Some have bias and just go with it. Others have bias, recognize it, and go to some lengths to make sure it doesn't mess with their interpretations.

So if I declare I know a member of the SIU, you will determine what? Will you now be biased for or against me? What about another reader?

 

[inreb]

Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.

Well said, Rob.

Use of "Rob" shows bias. I don't care.

Forum Sponsor