RCMP officer killed

[KL3-Something]

I don't think so.

Again, fatal collision investigations take time. A lot of time. No one wants to throw some charges at a suspect then have to rush to complete a report for Crown Counsel's consideration to keep up with the court dates that begin to flow once an information is sworn.

There is no need to rush charging someone. The only time police do that is when they want someone held in custody for the sake of public interest and/or safety.

[Donald G]

Unread postby Dizzy1 » 16 minutes ago

Curious. So lets say, the driver was being pursued by the cops at the time prior to the crash. Would that not have any bearing on the suspect being or not being released before any potential charges being made?

Providing his identity was known, there was no reason to believe he would not show up in court, and the evidence had been secured the simple answer to your question is 'NO' it would not have a bearing on him being released. Welcome to Canada where theory rules the court system.

[Dizzy1]

Thanks KL and Donald - was just curious. I appreciate your answers.

[maryjane48]

http://www.cknw.com/2016/04/15/update-i ... e-beckett/

[Dizzy1]

http://www.cknw.com/2016/04/15/update-iio-and-eye-witness-say-police-tried-to-stop-suspect-before-crash-which-killed-constable-beckett/

Interesting how none of that was mentioned in the initial reports of the witnesses account.

[oneh2obabe]

Let's not jump to conclusions. From the article ...

Eye-witness Jordan Coons says it was his impression that the suspect vehicle was being chased by police prior to the fatal collision that claimed the life of Constable Beckett.

“What caught my attention was the sound of his truck and the rate of speed he was coming at. It was my initial impression when that happened that he was basically either being chased or they were trying to do some sort of cut off maneuver.”

When asked what gave him that impression,

“Like as soon as everything happened and we started kind of realizing what was happening, immediately there was just a lot of officers on scene, very very fast.”

[Dizzy1]

Let's not jump to conclusions.

Who's jumping to conclusions? Thats a pretty substantial bit of a witness accounts of the accident that we haven't heard of until now.

[Donald G]

oneh2obabe wrote:
Let's not jump to conclusions.

Postby Dizzy1 » Yesterday, 11:07 pm
Who's jumping to conclusions? Thats a pretty substantial bit of a witness accounts of the accident that we haven't heard of until now.

What "appears to be" and what later proves to be true are often miles apart and I do not mean in road distance.

What will be will be based on the various simultaneous investigations currently running.

As the Scottish people say "hold your water" until all of the evidence is determined and made known

[ogopogodude]

It would be wonderful if all drivers would have a dash cam system. I got mine at blackboxmycar.com and this would make investigations much easier as well as the Canadian roadways a much safer place.

[FreeRights]

Interesting how none of that was mentioned in the initial reports of the witnesses account.

Probably because the investigation isn't done yet.

[Tradesman]

castanet headline says "Police tried to stop Truck"

story says "trying to stop a suspect vehicle"

How does Castanet know it was a truck they were trying to stop? Is it possible the officer was in pursuit of a suspect vehicle other than the truck ?

[Dizzy1]

What "appears to be" and what later proves to be true are often miles apart and I do not mean in road distance.

What will be will be based on the various simultaneous investigations currently running.

As the Scottish people say "hold your water" until all of the evidence is determined and made known

I haven't said otherwise and I agree with you.

Probably because the investigation isn't done yet.

Which is a very plausible possibility. Which begs the question ...

A) Did the witness mention this information when he was first interviewed by the media and the footage had to go through the RCMP and was cut before it was broadcasted. Which leads to the question, "Why?"

B) Or did the witness simply not mention it before and decided bring it to light 10 days after the accident. As I've said before in this thread, witnesses tend to see a lot of things - not that I'm trying to discredit him.

[FreeRights]

You're correct about witnesses, but fortunately the police - not castanet - are the ones actually going the investigation, and I'm sure that their investigators have far more first hand experience with witnesses than you or I.

[Dizzy1]

You're correct about witnesses, but fortunately the police - not castanet - are the ones actually going the investigation, and I'm sure that their investigators have far more first hand experience with witnesses than you or I.

Did anyone even remotely suggest that Castanet or any other news source was doing the investigation? The media talked to the witness and reported his account, although that account seems to have some information added to it for which ever reason - nothing more was suggested.

[Smurf]

I believe you hit on one of the reasons that we can't jump to conclusions based on media reports. In fact we can seldom if ever base a conclusion on media reports because they are probably never complete. Media reports are often set up to dramatize situations and accidentally or deliberately leave out portions of the information available. The public in general and even the media never gets to see all of, sometimes much of the evidence, at least until it is provided in court. The media and public are therefore generally left making guesses to provide an actually uninformed opinion. Even the best of reporters probably seldom get all the information and for sure not in the beginning as even the police do not have it then. Judging something on a media report is probably a very bad decision but we all tend to do it.