R.I.P. young one

jamapple
Übergod
Posts: 1552
Joined: Oct 1st, 2008, 10:00 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by jamapple »

Mom of One wrote:I may be naive and that's okay with me but I personally believe the reason that it is mentioned that he is an off duty officer is so that it can be said IIO is investigating and no other reason, it is not to cop bash. If any other person with a different occupation were to be in this situation the police would be handling it and there would be no reason to bring in independent investigators and therefore no reason to mention his occupation. But I think you all are missing a huge point, today a mother and father had to bury their baby....the one they dreamed about going to his graduation, his wedding and watching him become a parent himself. This entire thread should be of how WE as a community can come together and help this family not about how the media released this story. With social media you hear of all of the great things communities and individuals have done after tragedy... that's what I would hope to have seen this thread about.



I see you're new here. Firstly, welcome! Next up, these forums have very differing opinions on them. Buckle up, it's a bit of a bumpy ride.
Mom of One
Newbie
Posts: 30
Joined: Nov 22nd, 2006, 8:21 am

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by Mom of One »

REMOVED. we do not allow solicitations for funds on the board.
Last edited by Triple 6 on Sep 21st, 2015, 11:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: off topic comment removed.
User avatar
Partmanpartfish
Übergod
Posts: 1775
Joined: Apr 5th, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by Partmanpartfish »

goatboy wrote:If you don't think there was the possibility of a little child being hidden by the height and size of the truck, then you're kidding yourself. I also didn't say it wasn't his fault but rather the fact that he may not have seen the child because of the size and height of the truck. I know you have a hard time grasping reality, but that is a distinct possibility.


The truck didn't drop from the sky and land a foot behind the boy before proceeding, it approached the intersection like every other vehicle does and the driver should have seen three people and a dog using the crosswalk.

Unless the driver was doing something he shouldn't have been doing.

I don't think I'm the one who has trouble grasping the reality of this incident.
Fair
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Sep 21st, 2015, 6:35 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by Fair »

I have watched and read numerous posts on this topic and find a large amount of opinions and a small amount of facts.
The topic all of you have not talked about, is why a parent proceeds through a crosswalk and leaves a five year old behind.
In order for a truck that size to turn it needs at least the full driving lane, which means, the parent was at least 20 feet ahead of his son, at rush hour,crossing a highway at one of the busiest intersections in Penticton. Am I the only one who thinks that this is very wrong! Everyone wants to blame one person but there were two adults involved that day.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by twobits »

Fair wrote:I have watched and read numerous posts on this topic and find a large amount of opinions and a small amount of facts.
The topic all of you have not talked about, is why a parent proceeds through a crosswalk and leaves a five year old behind.
In order for a truck that size to turn it needs at least the full driving lane, which means, the parent was at least 20 feet ahead of his son, at rush hour,crossing a highway at one of the busiest intersections in Penticton. Am I the only one who thinks that this is very wrong! Everyone wants to blame one person but there were two adults involved that day.


Are you serious? Are you suggesting that the parent made a bad decision for being at the front of his flock on a legal crosswalk? And if he chose to be the last in the flock on the crosswalk and the child out front got hit instead it would also be his fault?
We still do not know all the facts in this tragedy but your attempt at rationalization here is pathetic.
In your wisdom please tell us in what order a father, two children and a dog, should have pushed their bikes across a crosswalk in order for one of them to not have been hit.
You are correct in pointing out that there were two adults involved here. Unfortunately for your position, only one of the adults appears to have been paying attention to their responsibilities on a road.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
Fair
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Sep 21st, 2015, 6:35 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by Fair »

Being a parent having crossed a busy street with a dog and bike it is your duty your obligation to keep your eyes on the most valuable thing!, your children. If you are in the lead your child should and must be in arms and eye contact at all times, it is obvious to anyone who has driven or walked in these circumstances that this is not what happened, so as to logic, you should try some. It might hurt at first but you will slowly get it. The parent was far enough ahead to leave his child in danger. This is a tragedy and a small child lost his life, for that we are all saddened.
twobits
Guru
Posts: 7964
Joined: Nov 25th, 2010, 8:44 am

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by twobits »

Fair wrote:Being a parent having crossed a busy street with a dog and bike it is your duty your obligation to keep your eyes on the most valuable thing!, your children. If you are in the lead your child should and must be in arms and eye contact at all times, it is obvious to anyone who has driven or walked in these circumstances that this is not what happened, so as to logic, you should try some. It might hurt at first but you will slowly get it. The parent was far enough ahead to leave his child in danger. This is a tragedy and a small child lost his life, for that we are all saddened.


Give it up already! You are sounding like an ICBC adjuster trying to assign blame to mitigate costs and that is pathetic.

You have now made two posts on this forum. It is quite clear what motivated you to sign up. And for what it is worth, I can only imagine what your friend is going through right now. I am sure it is in every way way as painful as what the family of this child is going through. Perhaps even worse. I do not see any malice here on his part. I just see a very tragic accident that could have been anyone of us.....driver or family.
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
Fair
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Sep 21st, 2015, 6:35 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by Fair »

Thanks for the insult. ICBC not likely. The reason for joining this forum was not to protect a friend, only to state the obvious, which seems to elude some on this forum. The IIO will soon release a statement and this forum will go quiet. The fact a child lost his life and two adults where responsible will not change.
JBX
Fledgling
Posts: 331
Joined: Jul 8th, 2014, 11:06 am

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by JBX »

Fair wrote:Thanks for the insult. ICBC not likely. The reason for joining this forum was not to protect a friend, only to state the obvious, which seems to elude some on this forum. The IIO will soon release a statement and this forum will go quiet. The fact a child lost his life and two adults where responsible will not change.


Yup, the IIO is so dependable.
This is the exact reason the rcmp need to be disbanded and the police regulated at an enforceable level.
"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." -George Orwell
User avatar
Rosemary1
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 984
Joined: Jan 24th, 2013, 2:47 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by Rosemary1 »

What is wrong with so many of you. A precious little boy lost his life in a terrible tragedy. Grieve for that little boy and his family. Stop with the speculation, blame game etc.

The circumstances will come to light in time and perhaps something will be learned to prevent a similar tragedy in the future. And that officer, no matter what the circumstances will no doubt be haunted by his part the rest of his life.
If we ask the right questions we can change the world with the right answers
User avatar
Partmanpartfish
Übergod
Posts: 1775
Joined: Apr 5th, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by Partmanpartfish »

Fair wrote:Being a parent having crossed a busy street with a dog and bike it is your duty your obligation to keep your eyes on the most valuable thing!, your children. If you are in the lead your child should and must be in arms and eye contact at all times, it is obvious to anyone who has driven or walked in these circumstances that this is not what happened, so as to logic, you should try some. It might hurt at first but you will slowly get it. The parent was far enough ahead to leave his child in danger. This is a tragedy and a small child lost his life, for that we are all saddened.


Actually, I don't think we know for sure the positions of those using the crosswalk. The IIO has said the boy was apparently using the crosswalk correctly. We do know a trained off duty RCMP officer drove his tires over the boy, and then tried to drive over him a second time. Mowing down people in a crosswalk is really the height of bad driving.

Opening an account in order to bash a father who lost a child is beyond the pale.
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17124
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by maryjane48 »

Opening an account in order to bash a father who lost a child is beyond the pale.
just usual cop protecting cop even if cop in the wrong tune again
User avatar
Hassel99
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3815
Joined: Aug 23rd, 2012, 9:31 am

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by Hassel99 »

Fair wrote:I have watched and read numerous posts on this topic and find a large amount of opinions and a small amount of facts.
The topic all of you have not talked about, is why a parent proceeds through a crosswalk and leaves a five year old behind.
In order for a truck that size to turn it needs at least the full driving lane, which means, the parent was at least 20 feet ahead of his son, at rush hour,crossing a highway at one of the busiest intersections in Penticton. Am I the only one who thinks that this is very wrong! Everyone wants to blame one person but there were two adults involved that day.


Ironic post of the year.

Mad about opinions and no facts. In response to this, the poster adds more opinions and no facts...
KL3-Something
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3335
Joined: Feb 20th, 2011, 7:37 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by KL3-Something »

Actually, what I learned from one of the initial investigators on the file who took statements from witnesses prior to the IIO being called, Fair isn't making things up. According to independent witness accounts, the dad with dog on a leash was about half way across the highway with the older child when the truck made the turn. The younger boy struck the side of the truck and then fell under the rear wheel and was run over.

I am NOT making excuses for the driver because I don't know why the driver didn't see the boy in time (maybe he was riding his bike quickly to catch up?). But I can't understand why the dad didn't make sure everyone was herded together before crossing that highway. It's something I've been going over again and again in my mind as a parent since learning that detail. Something I'm sure the dad will be going over again and again in his mind forever.
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Just to be clear: The opinions expressed above are mine and do not represent those of any other person, class of persons or organization.
User avatar
onestop67
Guru
Posts: 9531
Joined: Sep 10th, 2006, 11:12 pm

Re: R.I.P. young one

Post by onestop67 »

KL3-Something wrote:Actually, what I learned from one of the initial investigators on the file who took statements from witnesses prior to the IIO being called, Fair isn't making things up. According to independent witness accounts, the dad with dog on a leash was about half way across the highway with the older child when the truck made the turn. The younger boy struck the side of the truck and then fell under the rear wheel and was run over.

I am NOT making excuses for the driver because I don't know why the driver didn't see the boy in time (maybe he was riding his bike quickly to catch up?). But I can't understand why the dad didn't make sure everyone was herded together before crossing that highway. It's something I've been going over again and again in my mind as a parent since learning that detail. Something I'm sure the dad will be going over again and again in his mind forever.


Okay KL3. You admit you were not there, and I will admit that I wasn't there.

But allow me to rebut a few of your hearsay claims.

I am not sure when you say that according to witnesses, that the dad was only half way across with the the older child, when the truck made the turn. If they were only half way across the intersection, this accident would not have occurred on the corner/yield section, where it actually happened.

You then go straight to how the younger boy struck the side of the truck and fell and was run over. You never make any mention of where the younger boy was, in relation to his dad, his older brother, or where he was in the crosswalk.

From what I have heard (also hearsay) is that the dad and both kids were together, walking their bikes across the lane, with a green light.

After seeing pictures of the truck that hit them, I am way more likely to believe that the driver simply did not see them. Jacked up trucks tend to make visibility bad.

But again, hearsay, and I'm not on any kind of jury.

I don't think this is criminal, but definitely an accident that could have been prevented.

Return to “North Okanagan”