R.I.P. young one

[Partmanpartfish]

We tend to place a lot of trust in police, firefighters, doctors and so on, so when something like this happens and it involves an officer rather than a plumber, it is even bigger news.

This is a discussion board and the whole point of it is to discuss events. A child died unnecessarily and I'm certain it would be discussed regardless of the occupation of the driver.

[Piecemaker]

For any on here who think that they can never be in that driver's (or parent's) position because they are careful and always mindful at crosswalks, in school zones, when there's a full moon and on dark and stormy nights...oh pulllease! It can happen in the proverbial blink of an eye and your whole world is then forever changed.

[Giants Head]

In 1984 I was driving a company pickup truck down Eckhardt just east of the high school. I wasn't speeding and I was paying attention to the road. I saw this little guy come out between two parked cars at a dead run and I stood on the brakes. I hit him just under the drivers headlight, the bumper caught him in the shoulder then he went under the truck. I heard him screaming under the truck when I got out. His mother and some other women who were sitting on the lawn came running out and I got on the radio called the office and told them to get an ambulance over there as fast as possible. The police showed up then the ambulance, the little guy was screaming his lungs out as they put him on the stretcher. Then he just went silent, I heard the one ambulance attendant yell to the driver to get to the hospital as fast as he could. I thought I had killed him, I went into some sort of shock. The police talked to everybody who was there and another driver who was coming the other way and had stopped his car on the road right where I had hit the kid. He told the police that if I hadn't hit him he probably would of because the kid was running flat out to get across the road. Several women told the police that they had seen the little guy running around and wondered who,was,looking after him. I was sick with the thought of what I had just done, I'll never forget that feeling. The police never charged me with anything and the next day I got a phone call from the hospital to tell me the kid was black and blue with bruises but other wise alright and would be released in a couple of days. I can only imagine what the driver of this truck must feel after causing this little boy's death. I won't be passing judgement on him until after the investigation is over.

[maryjane48]

Ralph Krenz of the Independent Investigations Office said the officer was making a right-hand turn when he struck the boy, who apparently was using the crosswalk correctly.

the part in red does give a little indication that the boy did not just run out into traffic


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/16 ... h+Columbia

[Treblehook]

In 1984 I was driving a company pickup truck down Eckhardt just east of the high school. I wasn't speeding and I was paying attention to the road. I saw this little guy come out between two parked cars at a dead run and I stood on the brakes. I hit him just under the drivers headlight, the bumper caught him in the shoulder then he went under the truck. I heard him screaming under the truck when I got out. His mother and some other women who were sitting on the lawn came running out and I got on the radio called the office and told them to get an ambulance over there as fast as possible. The police showed up then the ambulance, the little guy was screaming his lungs out as they put him on the stretcher. Then he just went silent, I heard the one ambulance attendant yell to the driver to get to the hospital as fast as he could. I thought I had killed him, I went into some sort of shock. The police talked to everybody who was there and another driver who was coming the other way and had stopped his car on the road right where I had hit the kid. He told the police that if I hadn't hit him he probably would of because the kid was running flat out to get across the road. Several women told the police that they had seen the little guy running around and wondered who,was,looking after him. I was sick with the thought of what I had just done, I'll never forget that feeling. The police never charged me with anything and the next day I got a phone call from the hospital to tell me the kid was black and blue with bruises but other wise alright and would be released in a couple of days. I can only imagine what the driver of this truck must feel after causing this little boy's death. I won't be passing judgement on him until after the investigation is over.

This from a person with experience in the situation....It reeks of credibility and the final comment that this individual won't be passing judgement on the driver until the investigation is over speaks volumes. An accident like this, with such tragic results, will [and should] invoke questions by the public... "how did this happen" and "what was the driver doing" that he didn't see the little boy? The fact that the driver of the vehicle that struck the child was a police officer has nothing to do with the incident, as he was off duty at the time. What it does mean is the IIO will be involved to ensure [public confidence] that there is an independent view of the evidence. In my humble opinion, what shouldn't be occurring is these unwarranted and scurrilous accusations that the cops will give the driver a break because he is one of their own. There is no basis for this kind of general condemnation of the police; in fact, there is more evidence that the police will conduct thorough investigations when one of their own is involved. This very tragic death of a child should not be exploited by anyone in order to advance their personal vendetta against the RCMP or any other police force. Such behavior sets a horrible example for children in our communities and contributes to the disrespect that is eroding our society. Let the investigation be conducted and the results announced and any subsequent court proceeding be completed. If we are not satisfied at that point, it is then that our judgements should be made and expressed.

[Partmanpartfish]

Of course it's relevant that the driver is a cop, otherwise the RCMP would not have released the information that the accident involved a cop.

Going by your logic, it's not relevant that a child abuser is a priest as long as he does the abusing while he's not saying mass. Jesus Christ.

It's relevant for us to include the driver is a cop, because cops receive driver training and cops hand out tickets for distracted driving, bad driving, failure to yield to pedestrians, and impaired driving.

Just because we are including the fact that the driver is a cop in the discussion doesn't mean we're attacking cops. It's just a truthy truthism.

[Treblehook]

Debating the fact that the driver's occupation is of no consequence at this stage is a waste of time. His knowledge of the law, his driver training and experience will all come into context during the course of the investigation and if appropriate, will have some bearing on any penalty he faces should he be found to have committed an offense resulting in the death of that child. The significant point in my post was that the premature judgements being voiced and the general condemnation [in respect to the police going easy on or covering for their colleague] was unjustified and just plain wrong. I do believe that it sets a bad example and has a negative impact on youth. Can't figure out how someone could miss the main thrust of my post and isolate the small bit about the significance of the driver being an off duty cop.

[goatboy]

Of course it's relevant that the driver is a cop, otherwise the RCMP would not have released the information that the accident involved a cop.

Going by your logic, it's not relevant that a child abuser is a priest as long as he does the abusing while he's not saying mass. Jesus Christ.

No, that's your own convoluted logic. A priest is a priest 24/7, a cop isn't. It's an attention getting headline the same way "doctor kills patient" would be used to describe the same circumstance if the driver was a doctor and the kid was his patient. Technically true but not necessary.


And we wonder why there's an anti police sentiment around. It's very, very sad. Keep this up and good luck trying to attract good people to the profession.

[Mom of One]

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.

[Partmanpartfish]

You guys might be onto something here. Next time the police do a Cops for Kids ride, let's not identify them as cops, because what's that got to do with it? We can call it, Anonymous Blokes for Kids.

And next time an elderly person drives through a store window, let's not identify them as elderly, because it doesn't matter at this point. Let's wait until we get all the facts in.

One person above actually stated basically in one of the most ridiculous posts ever that it wasn't the cop's fault because his truck is so big, he couldn't see over the hood!

Some of you are trying so hard elicit approval from the police, that you are throwing common sense out the window. Simply identifying the driver as a off duty cop is not derogatory, it's simply a statement of fact and relevant to the story.

Naming him went too far, though. That's sleazy US-style media terrorism.

[twobits]

identifying the driver as a off duty cop is not derogatory, it's simply a statement of fact and relevant to the story.

Naming him went too far, though. That's sleazy US-style media terrorism.

I would agree with you and would reinforce the naming of him went too far because he has not yet been formally charged. Once there are formal charges laid and it is then a matter of public record, should his name become public. Listing his profession is still anonymous and moot to the whole point.
This is a major problem in our new world of social media. Lack of respect for due process gets trumped by the public's insatiable need for gossip. We do not know any of the facts in this case. It would seem that we are even unsure if the driver was making a left or right hand turn. Despite this, a conclusion has been arrived at by social media and a person has been drawn and quartered.

Formal charges may very well be laid against this person but if by some chance they are not because the evidence does not support that conclusion, I hope that those of you so willing to dispense with due process remember that anyone could accuse you of anything from being a thief to a pedofile. And then when face book posts listed your name and labeled you as a thief or pedophile, how do you think you will ever undo the damage. A slander or libel victory in court, if you could even ever identify them, will never make it to face book.
Some of you seem to have forgotten that is why we have due process and the assumption of innocence until proven other wise.

[goatboy]

One person above actually stated basically in one of the most ridiculous posts ever that it wasn't the cop's fault because his truck is so big, he couldn't see over the hood!

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.

[twobits]

One person above actually stated basically in one of the most ridiculous posts ever that it wasn't the cop's fault because his truck is so big, he couldn't see over the hood!

[goatboy]

And next time an elderly person drives through a store window, let's not identify them as elderly, because it doesn't matter at this point. Let's wait until we get all the facts in.

I actually agree with the premis of this as this is the same type of sensationalism. They only report them as elderly to make you read the article. I know when I read the headline " Child dies, struck by cop", I expected a story of a police car hitting a child. At least the Vancouver Sun headline "5-year-old pedestrian killed in collision with off-duty Mountie" is at least a lot less sensational. But then I guess that's the difference between professional and amateur reporting.

[twobits]

One person above actually stated basically in one of the most ridiculous posts ever that it wasn't the cop's fault because his truck is so big, he couldn't see over the hood!

I re read that post part man and I do not think it was the posters intent to excuse fault at all because of a big truck. I think what he was saying was he could understand perhaps why it happened without absolving the responsibility of the driver of such a vehicle. I think the clear message is that whatever piece of iron we choose to drive on the road, we are responsible for it's movement and must be fully cognizant of it's limitations be it braking ability or sight lines.