Cop said sun was in his eyes, as he kills tourist

[PunaMauka2]

bottom line is that operators of motor vehicles are basically legally responsible to avoid running down pedestrians and bicyclists on roadways are they not? ....and it's not the place of a battalion chief to be publicly offering mitigating circumstances which are not at all highly unusual on behalf of his subordinate before a thorough investigation ...or is it?

[MattKarma]

http://m.almanac.com/sun/rise/zipcode/96740/2015-03-03

Surise in Kona was 6:41am ... not much of a defense, at that. Psychiatric evaluation probably in order here.

[damien007]

"Capt. Whitman was blaming the victim and making excuses for the person who struck and killed a bicyclist. If the victim was my family member I would be furious that anyone, without a formal investigation even started yet, would be publicly blaming my family member and making excuses for why an on duty officer ran them over and killed them.

Capt. Whitman was speaking in an official capacity, not as a private citizen, and either the officer lied to him and said the sun was in his eyes, or he was making up excuses that don't hold water to protect the officer. Either way he should be reprimanded for publicly making an excuse that is a physical impossibility and blaming the victim before there is an investigation." - Shockwave Rider

First let's give "Battalion Chief" Whitman his due rank - agreed?

Then let's realize he his not an investigator into the cause of the accident, but the commander of the on-scene First Responders and Medics and simply expressing an "opinion" to a journalist by stating "likely"! Read it again Shockwave Rider and don't be so quick to cause shock waves by attempting to sensationalize this tragic accident!

Always gotta blame someone!

[TomK]

I have no idea what actually happened apart from there was a real tragedy. I have yet to see anything that says the sun was in the officer's eyes, but please correct me if I'm wrong. What I do know is the half hour before sunrise and after sunset is a particularly dangerous time for road users due to the lighting conditions.

What intrigues me more is that this event was originally called a hit-and-run. Maybe that was said in error, but I do think that part needs a proper explanation.

[TomK]

I'll correct myself. From the second link in Alaskyn66's post, there is this:

"Whitman said the rising sun would likely have been in both the rider's and the driver's eyes as they ascended the incline."

but 1) that can't be true if the times in the article are to be believed, and 2) it is not necessarily what the cop said.

[shockwave rider]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK

I have no idea what actually happened apart from there was a real tragedy. I have yet to see anything that says the sun was in the officer's eyes, but please correct me if I'm wrong. What I do know is the half hour before sunrise and after sunset is a particularly dangerous time for road users due to the lighting conditions.

What intrigues me more is that this event was originally called a hit-and-run. Maybe that was said in error, but I do think that part needs a proper explanation.

---

"The collision occurred on a notoriously dangerous stretch of the road, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported. A steep incline where the crash occurred follows a bend in the road.

"There's no curb," acting West Hawaii Fire Battalion Chief John Whitman said. "It's very unsafe if you're riding a bicycle."

The rising sun would likely have been in both men's eyes at the time, Whitman said."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/hawai...d-29333079

This refers to the original story published in the Star Advertiser linked by the OP. At the time of the accident the sun would not have risen yet, and was certainly not in anyone's eyes. Acting Battalion Chief Whitman shouldn't be making statements with no basis in fact to the media, no matter what his role was at the scene. He was making excuses for the person who struck and killed a bicyclist rather than sticking to the facts, which at that point would have been limited to "An investigation is ongoing into a fatal collision between a bicycle and a car driven by an on duty police officer." If he had done that and stopped there no one would have thought twice about the possibility that the public safety community might be circling the wagons to protect one of their own. Now it looks like there has been a rush to judgement that the accident was the cyclist's fault. Appearances matter when you are dealing with public trust.

[TomK]

Shock - thanks. I did correct myself when I realised there had been a comment about the sun, but as I said, the hit-and-run thing really needs to be explained, exactly for the reason you state: public trust.

[alaskyn66]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK
and 2) it is not necessarily what the cop said.

---

Nobody knows what the 'cop' said it was just implied from the original news story.. the bigger issue is the fact that the story was first a hit and run and then a 'cop' was arrested, then released.

even if it was dawn/predawn I assume this fellow that died was on a bicycle (possibly a rental) that had reflectors etc..

even with the road terrain as it is in that area, unless the cop was driving way to fast or looking at his cell phone, he should have seen the man.

[damien007]

"Acting Battalion Chief Whitman shouldn't be making statements with no basis in fact to the media, no matter what his role was at the scene. He was making excuses for the person who struck and killed a bicyclist rather than sticking to the facts, which at that point would have been limited to "An investigation is ongoing into a fatal collision between a bicycle and a car driven by an on duty police officer." If he had done that and stopped there no one would have thought twice about the possibility that the public safety community might be circling the wagons to protect one of their own. Now it looks like there has been a rush to judgement that the accident was the cyclist's fault. Appearances matter when you are dealing with public trust." - Shockwave Rider

Well at least we got his rank correct now, but the rest of is off base, Thats right off base. First, he was there and "we" were not. At the time of his arrival, the sun may have been an issue - hence "likely". Second, it most certainly does matter what his role is (not investigator as to the cause), Third - your assumption that he or anyone else for that matter, that the driver of the vehicle was determined at fault!

I presume you like to raise up your almighty demeanor of placing anyone at fault at this juncture, why because this is what bored persons do when they seek attention to themselves and are not patient to wait until facts unfold, not a newspaper article or an alleged statement. Too quick to judge more times than not gets ones self embarrassed!

[TomK]

Alaskyn66 - I don't know about that last sentence of yours, I wasn't there so don't know if they were the only two possibilities. Other than that, we are saying the same thing. The hit-and-run comment needs an explanation.