Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
...
...
Last edited:
|
|
|
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.
This isn't about me, or other readers, determining a thing about you. I'm not talking about external judgment, which should be plainly, painfully obvious from my comment. I'm talking about introspection.
This isn't about me, or other readers, determining a thing about you. I'm not talking about external judgment, which should be plainly, painfully obvious from my comment. I'm talking about introspection.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
It would show if you have a personal bias, as you know someone involved, as a human nature being what it is a person is, more likely to "stand up" for a friend, than they would for a complete stranger.
I never attempted to mislead anyone my declaration was clear I am a former copper. as such my posts should be viewed as having some bias, (I leave it to the other members to determine how biased I am). BUT I gave them that opportunity. I declared I knew no one involved in this case. I write many of my posts to give the members some insight to police procedures and how coppers think, having been one I freely admit I still think like one. BUT i also have posted in the past when I felt an officers actions "didn't appear appropriate" in fact pre investigation when it was "suggested" that the officer placed his cruiser intentionally across the road I said that would have been wrong. So I don't take the "default position" that the police are always right, as I KNOW they aren't.
your 100% correct most posters have some form and level of bias when posting in the forums. But I would think many would agree when posting about something which has touched them personally and deeply then the bias would naturally be more profound.
BTW when I speak of bias I am speaking in general terms, as in a bias view of the events that may have occurred and not a personal bias for or against a individual. As an example a person who hears someone is shot by police may have a biased "opinion" of how or why it happened, even if they didn't know the person shot. But someone who knows the person shot is likely to have a stronger bias because of that relationship. It is not a personal character fault of that person it is how we are hard wired as humans. emotional connections can and often do obscure ones view of a situation.
It would show if you have a personal bias, as you know someone involved, as a human nature being what it is a person is, more likely to "stand up" for a friend, than they would for a complete stranger.
I never attempted to mislead anyone my declaration was clear I am a former copper. as such my posts should be viewed as having some bias, (I leave it to the other members to determine how biased I am). BUT I gave them that opportunity. I declared I knew no one involved in this case. I write many of my posts to give the members some insight to police procedures and how coppers think, having been one I freely admit I still think like one. BUT i also have posted in the past when I felt an officers actions "didn't appear appropriate" in fact pre investigation when it was "suggested" that the officer placed his cruiser intentionally across the road I said that would have been wrong. So I don't take the "default position" that the police are always right, as I KNOW they aren't.
your 100% correct most posters have some form and level of bias when posting in the forums. But I would think many would agree when posting about something which has touched them personally and deeply then the bias would naturally be more profound.
BTW when I speak of bias I am speaking in general terms, as in a bias view of the events that may have occurred and not a personal bias for or against a individual. As an example a person who hears someone is shot by police may have a biased "opinion" of how or why it happened, even if they didn't know the person shot. But someone who knows the person shot is likely to have a stronger bias because of that relationship. It is not a personal character fault of that person it is how we are hard wired as humans. emotional connections can and often do obscure ones view of a situation.
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
No, you're missing it.
The two northernmost lanes of the 4-lane east-west road were being used for westbound traffic in the northernmost lane and eastbound traffic in the second-from-northernmost lane. Then there was the construction barrier, then the two lanes on the south side of that barrier were closed for construction.
Eastbound cop car, in the second-from-northernmost lane, just past the east end of the construction barrier, first swung to the right (still going generally east) into the construction zone in the two southernmost lanes in preparation for what came next. Then, starting from an eastbound direction in one of the closed southernmost lanes, it started the ill-fated u-turn by turning left thus becoming aimed north, crossing the second-from-northernmost lane (used for eastbound traffic) and obstructing both of the two northermost lanes in the process (due to the length of the car being approximately equal to two lanes). That's the action that blocked the bike's path.
The general sequence of events isn't really in doubt, only (A) whether that was a legal action for the police car to take in the first place (and we don't really know the extent to which the construction barrier blocked line of sight while the police car was off to the right in the construction zone), and (B) if it was a legal place to make that maneuver, whether it was done with appropriate (note: I intentionally did not use the word "legal" here) consideration to other traffic, which we fully recognize was well above both a legal speed and an appropriate speed for conditions.
Personally, if pressed to turn around in a situation like that, I would be inclined to stop mid-U-turn while facing north and still within the construction-closed lanes, and have another good look down the road in both directions through the side windows (as opposed to the mirrors) before re-entering (crossing) the traffic lanes and completing the u-turn. If the police car attempted this maneuver without stopping, as appears to have been the case, that "stop and make sure" did not happen.
No, you're missing it.
The two northernmost lanes of the 4-lane east-west road were being used for westbound traffic in the northernmost lane and eastbound traffic in the second-from-northernmost lane. Then there was the construction barrier, then the two lanes on the south side of that barrier were closed for construction.
Eastbound cop car, in the second-from-northernmost lane, just past the east end of the construction barrier, first swung to the right (still going generally east) into the construction zone in the two southernmost lanes in preparation for what came next. Then, starting from an eastbound direction in one of the closed southernmost lanes, it started the ill-fated u-turn by turning left thus becoming aimed north, crossing the second-from-northernmost lane (used for eastbound traffic) and obstructing both of the two northermost lanes in the process (due to the length of the car being approximately equal to two lanes). That's the action that blocked the bike's path.
The general sequence of events isn't really in doubt, only (A) whether that was a legal action for the police car to take in the first place (and we don't really know the extent to which the construction barrier blocked line of sight while the police car was off to the right in the construction zone), and (B) if it was a legal place to make that maneuver, whether it was done with appropriate (note: I intentionally did not use the word "legal" here) consideration to other traffic, which we fully recognize was well above both a legal speed and an appropriate speed for conditions.
Personally, if pressed to turn around in a situation like that, I would be inclined to stop mid-U-turn while facing north and still within the construction-closed lanes, and have another good look down the road in both directions through the side windows (as opposed to the mirrors) before re-entering (crossing) the traffic lanes and completing the u-turn. If the police car attempted this maneuver without stopping, as appears to have been the case, that "stop and make sure" did not happen.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
You nailed it on the head again. I will add that neither would have had a sight line as it was a high barrier. So you could not see over. They took down all of the barrier within a couple days and replaced it with tall pylons, almost as if they wanted to hide the fact that there was a barrier there to begin with. I have searched and searched, and there is not any siu pictures that show the barrier. This is the best one I could find. The suv is parked right against the barrier and you can see the slight bend in the road that would have restricted the line of sight even further.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=siu+...motorcyclist-killed-in-york-region%2F;473;315.
You nailed it on the head again. I will add that neither would have had a sight line as it was a high barrier. So you could not see over. They took down all of the barrier within a couple days and replaced it with tall pylons, almost as if they wanted to hide the fact that there was a barrier there to begin with. I have searched and searched, and there is not any siu pictures that show the barrier. This is the best one I could find. The suv is parked right against the barrier and you can see the slight bend in the road that would have restricted the line of sight even further.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=siu+...motorcyclist-killed-in-york-region%2F;473;315.
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
The introspection aspect is what got my dander up. If I reveal my connection you're going to gauge my level or accuracy of introspection? What I put on the page is what matters, can it bear scrutiny? This is not a court of law. It's an internet forum. I can give you a
and still think yer a dick. I don't think yer a dick btw
The introspection aspect is what got my dander up. If I reveal my connection you're going to gauge my level or accuracy of introspection? What I put on the page is what matters, can it bear scrutiny? This is not a court of law. It's an internet forum. I can give you a
and still think yer a dick. I don't think yer a dick btw
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Monitor yourself on it. Ask yourself if you're not giving the other side a fair shake, based on your own experience. It's clear that some here have never asked themselves that very question, based on their responses. Some of those responses specifically state that personal experience is what led them to their conclusions, which demonstrates bias. Simple association isn't the measure.
The introspection aspect is what got my dander up. If I reveal my connection you're going to gauge my level or accuracy of introspection? What I put on the page is what matters, can it bear scrutiny? This is not a court of law. It's an internet forum. I can give you a
Monitor yourself on it. Ask yourself if you're not giving the other side a fair shake, based on your own experience. It's clear that some here have never asked themselves that very question, based on their responses. Some of those responses specifically state that personal experience is what led them to their conclusions, which demonstrates bias. Simple association isn't the measure.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Thanks Brian P for the explanation (which makes perfect sense), and DVSBullet for the link to the pics. I was somehow under the mistaken impression that the cop car had been hit on the passenger side. I guess I didn't realize that it had rotated 180 degrees after the collision.
Thanks Brian P for the explanation (which makes perfect sense), and DVSBullet for the link to the pics. I was somehow under the mistaken impression that the cop car had been hit on the passenger side. I guess I didn't realize that it had rotated 180 degrees after the collision.
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
The original impetus for this unfortunate sidebar is that somebody figured they had a huge "ah ha" moment because so and so didn't reveal a connection. I maintain it doesn't matter. Brian P. is putting up substantive posts and I'm not concerned about his biases, whatever they may be, one bit. Will his work bear scrutiny? I'll let a big brain decide. Will the SIU report bear scrutiny? Are we even allowed to scrutinize it?
The original impetus for this unfortunate sidebar is that somebody figured they had a huge "ah ha" moment because so and so didn't reveal a connection. I maintain it doesn't matter. Brian P. is putting up substantive posts and I'm not concerned about his biases, whatever they may be, one bit. Will his work bear scrutiny? I'll let a big brain decide. Will the SIU report bear scrutiny? Are we even allowed to scrutinize it?
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Conflict in FIPPA. If you could obtain a copy, it would be heavily redacted.
Conflict in FIPPA. If you could obtain a copy, it would be heavily redacted.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Oops, sorry. Meant DVSBullet. Corrected.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Holy ----, what the ---- is that? Did I just ask a ------- question I knew the ------- answer to? That's ------- hilarious!
re: are we allowed to scrutinize the SIU report? Of course not.
Holy ----, what the ---- is that? Did I just ask a ------- question I knew the ------- answer to? That's ------- hilarious!
re: are we allowed to scrutinize the SIU report? Of course not.
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
You completely danced around the core of what I had said again... You also could not be bothered to address the question I clearly directed at you in the last paragraph (If you even bothered to read that far)
Speaks to your character..... It seems your soapbox is a bridge to far for a mere layman like me. So forget it....
You completely danced around the core of what I had said again... You also could not be bothered to address the question I clearly directed at you in the last paragraph (If you even bothered to read that far)
Speaks to your character..... It seems your soapbox is a bridge to far for a mere layman like me. So forget it....
Last edited:
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Many times there seems to be a real disconnect between questions and answers. Always confused if by design or just the nature of communication. I noticed it first when politicians, lawyers and other official types and wannabes were interviewed on the telly. Now I'm noticing that among regular folk. Not surprising as we're just a bunch of parrots taking cues from the media in all it's forms. This I first noted when everybody that was anybody started talking like the Fonz. Not coincidently when Happy Days became popular. These aren't happy days tho, ayyyyy!?
Many times there seems to be a real disconnect between questions and answers. Always confused if by design or just the nature of communication. I noticed it first when politicians, lawyers and other official types and wannabes were interviewed on the telly. Now I'm noticing that among regular folk. Not surprising as we're just a bunch of parrots taking cues from the media in all it's forms. This I first noted when everybody that was anybody started talking like the Fonz. Not coincidently when Happy Days became popular. These aren't happy days tho, ayyyyy!?
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
I read your entire post sorry I didn't "meet your expectations" by forgetting to answer your question. If I was in an interview with someone and they choose not to answer my questions, I didn't draw a conclusion, from that. First, it depended on why they were there, (how serious the violation was). Rarely would I be interviewing someone for a simple HTA infraction as you normally witnessed the offense or it was a result of a collision, (which meant there were witnesses to say what happened).
I also understood it wasn't personal and it was their right not to speak, (once the charter was enacted). I would rely on the evidence. If it supported a charge I didn't need them to talk. If it didn't and they didn't speak then I didn't lay the charge.
I know some officers got ****** and saw this as "they must be guilty". But that never made sense, to me. I seen officers rely solely upon a statement to lay a charge and that statement was reneged, or the lawyer get it tossed and the officer looked like a fool.
I was speaking in "layman's terms" not for your benefit, but for the benefit of all members.
I "get" what you want you want the officer to talk, even if it violates his rights. I venture you would view it very differently if it was you, that was in the same position. There is no such thing as "off the record" so it is his right and he should avail himself of that right just I would expect you to.
I have posted before about being stopped for a seat belt violation. I was wearing my seat belt but vehicle was modified by a previous owner. I said nothing to the officer, about this during the stop, (investigation), because I knew I could win in court by producing contradictory evidence and create a doubt. I won my case. Had I said something at the road side the officer could have laid a charge of improper equipment for which I would have no defence.
The officer asked if I was wearing my belt. I exercisized my right, not because I was guilty but because I wasn't guilty of the "alleged offence".
So not everyone who doesn't speak is automatically guilty.
I read your entire post sorry I didn't "meet your expectations" by forgetting to answer your question. If I was in an interview with someone and they choose not to answer my questions, I didn't draw a conclusion, from that. First, it depended on why they were there, (how serious the violation was). Rarely would I be interviewing someone for a simple HTA infraction as you normally witnessed the offense or it was a result of a collision, (which meant there were witnesses to say what happened).
I also understood it wasn't personal and it was their right not to speak, (once the charter was enacted). I would rely on the evidence. If it supported a charge I didn't need them to talk. If it didn't and they didn't speak then I didn't lay the charge.
I know some officers got ****** and saw this as "they must be guilty". But that never made sense, to me. I seen officers rely solely upon a statement to lay a charge and that statement was reneged, or the lawyer get it tossed and the officer looked like a fool.
I was speaking in "layman's terms" not for your benefit, but for the benefit of all members.
I "get" what you want you want the officer to talk, even if it violates his rights. I venture you would view it very differently if it was you, that was in the same position. There is no such thing as "off the record" so it is his right and he should avail himself of that right just I would expect you to.
I have posted before about being stopped for a seat belt violation. I was wearing my seat belt but vehicle was modified by a previous owner. I said nothing to the officer, about this during the stop, (investigation), because I knew I could win in court by producing contradictory evidence and create a doubt. I won my case. Had I said something at the road side the officer could have laid a charge of improper equipment for which I would have no defence.
The officer asked if I was wearing my belt. I exercisized my right, not because I was guilty but because I wasn't guilty of the "alleged offence".
So not everyone who doesn't speak is automatically guilty.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
It was a hypothetical scenario which didnt necessarily have to be HTA related, but that said I will infer that HTA enforcement is your area of expertise, so good enough. However you still didn't address the "core" of what I had to say... The paragraph right in the middle.. with the words "My point is this"
I'll just put it here for you...
So, any thoughts?
I want to believe you.. I really do. But you started that particular post by addressing me directly
It was a hypothetical scenario which didnt necessarily have to be HTA related, but that said I will infer that HTA enforcement is your area of expertise, so good enough. However you still didn't address the "core" of what I had to say... The paragraph right in the middle.. with the words "My point is this"
I'll just put it here for you...
So, any thoughts?
I want to believe you.. I really do. But you started that particular post by addressing me directly
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Upon re-reading your post (just to be sure I was not overlooking anything, and thus responding inappropriately) it occurred to me your last little story in fact reinforces the point others have been trying to address. You know the HTA inside and out, at least that's my assumption, and knowing that the seat belt had been modified, you intentionally withheld said information for personal gain. Again, being an apparent expert in matters pertaining to the HTA, you knew the seat belt modification was not legal, and knowing such you remained silent as not to incriminate yourself, not because you had done nothing wrong.
Upon re-reading your post (just to be sure I was not overlooking anything, and thus responding inappropriately) it occurred to me your last little story in fact reinforces the point others have been trying to address. You know the HTA inside and out, at least that's my assumption, and knowing that the seat belt had been modified, you intentionally withheld said information for personal gain. Again, being an apparent expert in matters pertaining to the HTA, you knew the seat belt modification was not legal, and knowing such you remained silent as not to incriminate yourself, not because you had done nothing wrong.
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
Sorry I thought you were referring to your question about what I would conclude if a subject refused to speak. I will address the other question. I don't see any "cherry picking" the legislation, which states officers for example are exempted from wearing seat belts is exactly that legislation written by bureaucrats, then passed by the government of the day. This type of legislation isn't specific to just police, there is legislation which permits "some people" to use marijuana, there is legislation to permit others, (with doctor support), not to wear seat belts etc. Volunteer fire fighters are "permitted" by law to exceed the posted limit, (to a MAX of 10 km/h), while their green light is activated and they are responding to a call for service. Society has "accepted" these exemptions based upon the legislation written, An officer can't cherry pick which laws he will or won't abide by there is a pretty limited scope of exemptions.
As for the "terrorist" comparison, again those are undertaken under specific terms with legislation to permit these activities, (suspension of charter rights). So it again really isn't "cherry picked" a set of rules are in place.
There is no legislation which currently removes the officers Charter Rights while he is on duty. There was "some" attempt to do this by the SIU and it was challenged in court and ruled upon. Therefore unlike the other two examples there are "no rules" to permit this activity and compel the officer to speak.
I dealt with HTA, CCofC as well as many other forms of legislation so I wouldn't say I have HTA expertise.
Yes I was replying to your post, but I try to post so anyone reading it can understand the terms and premise, of the concept.
Sorry I thought you were referring to your question about what I would conclude if a subject refused to speak. I will address the other question. I don't see any "cherry picking" the legislation, which states officers for example are exempted from wearing seat belts is exactly that legislation written by bureaucrats, then passed by the government of the day. This type of legislation isn't specific to just police, there is legislation which permits "some people" to use marijuana, there is legislation to permit others, (with doctor support), not to wear seat belts etc. Volunteer fire fighters are "permitted" by law to exceed the posted limit, (to a MAX of 10 km/h), while their green light is activated and they are responding to a call for service. Society has "accepted" these exemptions based upon the legislation written, An officer can't cherry pick which laws he will or won't abide by there is a pretty limited scope of exemptions.
As for the "terrorist" comparison, again those are undertaken under specific terms with legislation to permit these activities, (suspension of charter rights). So it again really isn't "cherry picked" a set of rules are in place.
There is no legislation which currently removes the officers Charter Rights while he is on duty. There was "some" attempt to do this by the SIU and it was challenged in court and ruled upon. Therefore unlike the other two examples there are "no rules" to permit this activity and compel the officer to speak.
I dealt with HTA, CCofC as well as many other forms of legislation so I wouldn't say I have HTA expertise.
Yes I was replying to your post, but I try to post so anyone reading it can understand the terms and premise, of the concept.
It was a hypothetical scenario which didnt necessarily have to be HTA related, but that said I will infer that HTA enforcement is your area of expertise, so good enough. However you still didn't address the "core" of what I had to say... The paragraph right in the middle.. with the words "My point is this"
I'll just put it here for you...
So, any thoughts?
I want to believe you.. I really do. But you started that particular post by addressing me directly
Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
All of what you said is absolutely correct. I am fully aware all of the examples I presented have been allowed through legislative action, which is precisely why I presented them. I suspect I misunderstood or misrepresented your use of the term "cherry pick" ... comprehension issue i guess...
Tit for tat however, as clearly you are having a comprehension issue of your own. So here it goes again, and I will try to be more clear...
I argue that any officer under SIU investigation in regards to the death of a civilian, to which they are sworn to protect, which may or may not have been a direct result of said officer's actions, lawful or not, should not be afforded the right to absolute silence.
Now here is where I believe the confusion lay. You think I'm arguing the officer in this case should have been forced to speak, though no legislative grounds are in place. This is not the case. My use of the so coined "cherry pick" phrase, was to the argument of "this legislation should exist". The fact that we as a nation could write legislation to "cherry pick" when average citizens are afforded Charter Rights, to me implies that there should be no reason why we can't write "cherry pick" legislation to prevent officer's from stonewalling an SIU investigation.
That all said, I know my logic to be somewhat flawed, but if I must accept the reality of all the aforementioned states of exception, I feel compelled to question... why not?
Edit: To clarify further, my use of the term "cherry pick" was in reference to the Parliamentary ability to decided through legislation, who is afforded Charter Rights and/or subject to any other particular law/legislation
All of what you said is absolutely correct. I am fully aware all of the examples I presented have been allowed through legislative action, which is precisely why I presented them. I suspect I misunderstood or misrepresented your use of the term "cherry pick" ... comprehension issue i guess...
Tit for tat however, as clearly you are having a comprehension issue of your own. So here it goes again, and I will try to be more clear...
I argue that any officer under SIU investigation in regards to the death of a civilian, to which they are sworn to protect, which may or may not have been a direct result of said officer's actions, lawful or not, should not be afforded the right to absolute silence.
Now here is where I believe the confusion lay. You think I'm arguing the officer in this case should have been forced to speak, though no legislative grounds are in place. This is not the case. My use of the so coined "cherry pick" phrase, was to the argument of "this legislation should exist". The fact that we as a nation could write legislation to "cherry pick" when average citizens are afforded Charter Rights, to me implies that there should be no reason why we can't write "cherry pick" legislation to prevent officer's from stonewalling an SIU investigation.
That all said, I know my logic to be somewhat flawed, but if I must accept the reality of all the aforementioned states of exception, I feel compelled to question... why not?
Edit: To clarify further, my use of the term "cherry pick" was in reference to the Parliamentary ability to decided through legislation, who is afforded Charter Rights and/or subject to any other particular law/legislation
Last edited:
- Status
|
|
|
|
|