Mountie gets off for slaying drunk kid in custody.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:17 pm

Wilbur wrote:Having the questions police would like answered submitted to your lawyer, and then answered with assistance of counsel, is the norm for any half wit with enough intelligence to exercise their right to not say anything when first questioned.

This guy didn't have the right to remain silent - he wasn't arrested for anything. In fact he had the RESPONSIBILITY to make an immediate full and complete statement and if he was justified in his actions he certainly didn't need a lawyer.

Wilbur wrote:The fact that the answers came several weeks after the event is not that important.

Are you kidding me? Memories change, things are forgotten, stories can be made up. I have never heard about an investigation where the detective said "hey don't worry about interviewing that eye witness/suspect, we can talk to him in a few weeks..."

Wilbur wrote:What is important is that they were consistent with the physical evidence found and recorded at the scene

Really...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... -bush.html

Inquest testimony by an independent blood spatter expert will dispute the RCMP's version of the 2005 shooting of Ian Bush at the police detachment Houston, B.C., CBC News was told Wednesday.

Joe Slemko, who does work for the Edmonton Police Services and owns a private forensics consulting firm, will testify when the inquest resumes Tuesday, Bush family lawyer Howard Rubin said.

Slemko did a pattern analysis of the blood spatter in RCMP photographs to try to determine the position of the 22-year-old mill worker and the officer who shot him, Rubin said.

In his report, which was sent to the family, Slemko said he didn't find any bloodstain evidence to support the testimony of Const. Paul Koester, who told the inquest last month he was attacked by Bush and choked from behind and had to shoot Bush to save his own life.

Koester said he started to lose consciousness and couldn't remember exactly where he and Bush were positioned when he fired his gun or how he got out from under Bush's body. Bush had been shot in the back of the head.

The inquest also heard from RCMP blood spatter expert Sgt. Jim Hignell, who said the blood spatter at the scene was consistent with Koester's account of what happened and was "most likely what happened."

However, Rubin said Slemko's report suggests that when the gun was fired, the officer was either behind Bush or to the side of him — not underneath him.

Wilbur wrote:At the end of the day, he wasn't actually required to say anything to the investigators, but did so voluntarily.

Are you feckin' kidding? The guys a cop. He just killed an unarmed kid under highly suspicious circumstances. And you're saying he doesn't have a responsibility to account for his actions?

Wilbur wrote:what procedural errors were made in the conduct of the investigation?

The investigation wasn't real - it was an inquest done by an RCMP bureaucrat. It was a farce to appease the public need for answers. If I shot someone I guarantee I'd be arrested until all the circumstances were sorted out. They wouldn't send me home and come talk to me in a few weeks.

Usual procedures were not followed because an on duty cop was the murderer in this case.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:25 pm

We've all been there... Or at least I have.

Open liquor at the point in the summer or down at the beach while BBQ'n... having a few in the parking lot after the game... beers in the school field late at night when I was underage...

And more then a few times it involved RCMP encounters... I got a couple tickets in my youth and have had several poured out or taken away - even sat in the back of a cruiser or two... I know where this kid was coming from and I know he wasn't out to attack a cop.

It's a fucking shame.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:41 am

Read the complaint commissioners report. Most of you clearly have not, in favour of passing judgement on the basis if media news bites and your own imaginations.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:47 am

The report is based on biased evidence and cannot be believed. Kinda like you...

Wilbur wrote:usual cop haters immediately made up their minds

1 cousins, 1 uncle, 2 in-laws and 2 friends from school in the RCMP... 1 cousin and numerous friends in the VPD as well. I sure hate cops

But you know, I do not like some, probably most, people and some of them, many of them, could be cops. Although the fact that they are cops is irrelevant to my dislike of them.

I don't like people who kill other people and then don't account immediately for what they did, people who claim justification and then hide behind an institution and a lawyer. Cowards.

I don't like people who throw their support behind another simply because of an affiliation to an organization or profession. If you give a shit about the RCMP or Canada you should want truth and you shouldn't just be satisfied to let it go when it doesn't add up.

Contrary to your assertion - It isn't my imagination that brings me to think what I think - It is my experience as a human and my right as a Canadian to say that something isn't right here and it hasn't been handled properly.

nacho · Post by **nacho** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:14 pm

Altiplano,

On behalf of people like me that does not have the ability to put in writing their thoughts like you do, thank you Sir!
I am sure more than one Canadian shares your opinion like I do in this matter.
I wish could write a response to Wilbur, without the use of foul language... I can’t so I won’t. If he is a cop then I’m really scared to even be pulled over by one.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:14 pm

thanks nacho - glad I was articulate enough and somebody got where I was coming from.

I actually reread my post before I hit the submit button and deleted an insult with some foul language because it did nothing to further my argument.

I just think this case is such a shame. I have no connection at all to the incident - the closest I have been to Houston is over the VOR... but ever since I first heard the story and looked into the events I have been deeply saddened by it... I just don't get how some people can just accept it with so many holes staring right at them.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:19 pm

As I said somewhere, I'm not a cop and never have been.

Have you read the complaint commissioner's report? I have, and that's why Cst Koester has my support. I have no affiliation to the RCMP, nor do I blindly support everything they do. I've appeared in court as a witness against an RCMP constable who I witnessed abusing his authority. I do "give a shit" about Canada, and as part of that I very much believe in our Charter of Rights. I do not pass judgement against others, or try to infer they have done something wrong, simply because they exercisie their rights. I've posted more than few times in other threads offering the opinion that everyone should exercise their right to remain silent.

Does the RCMP conducting their own investigations cause a perception of bias, and should that process change? Absolutely! Does that mean there is real bias in this investigation? No it doesn't. Is it fair to label Cst Koester guilty of murder or manslaughter because of a perception of bias, the fact he exercised his right to remain silent, or even if some real bias on the part of other RCMP officers was present? No it is not.

nacho · Post by **nacho** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:40 pm

One man died while in his custody, shot in the back of the head. Even if the prisoner attacked him with his bare hands, shooting him in the back of the head is abuse of his authority. Too many of these cases lately, something needs to be done or we are on the way of a vigilante regime that will start throwing people out of airplanes in the open ocean. ( Yes, it has happened before, not here not yet. But the cops can leave a prisoner freeze to death in SK, same shit)
What ever happened to the rights of Bush? If he deserved to go to jail, ok take him in. Disrespect an Officer of the RCMP? Let him stay there for longer.
Put a bullet in his head? Don't come tell me that the cops have that right in this Country

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:41 am

[quote="cpl_atc]THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IS MEANINGLESS, BECAUSE IT IS ENTIRELY BASED ON INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE VERY PEOPLE HE WAS INVESTIGATING.
[/quote]

Maybe you should use bold script too.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:06 am

The evidence tells the story, not the person/agency collecting it unless they disregarded, fabricated, or corrupted evidence. Would Cst Koester's story be different if his statement was collected by a different agency? Would the state of the room be different? Would the photo's of the scene morph into something else? Would the injuries to Bush and Cst Koester change? What pieces of this puzzle seem to be missing that another investigating agency might have collected? What evidence does the Bush family and their lawyer claim is missing?

ragbagflyer · Post by **ragbagflyer** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:58 am

I don't know all the facts and I'm only speculating, but imagine somebody directly behind you with their arm around your neck. Pull your imaginary gun and put your arm up and behind your head pointing it at the head of the person behind you, now the guy behind you turns his head away from the gun exposing the back of his head. Possible? Could happen. I'm not saying that's how it went down, but who knows. There should definitely be an independent investigation though. Cameras in police custody seems like a no brainer as well.

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:39 am

First off, I think BC and AB should get their own cops. If you have >1m people RCMP should not be policing your streets. RCMP is overextended at present as the lone mountie shootings up north and the deployment north of undertrained officers have shown.

Eventually I would like to see a proper separation between national policing (like the FBI in the US) and provincial/local policing, with RCMP perhaps retaining the historical role in the North, the ceremonial and personal protection roles and a new force created to deal with interprovincial criminal organisations.

While the historical record shows the RCMP to have been far from a benign influence on the history of Canada, the fact is that it's one of the things for which Canada is known internationally and thus it should be urgently fixed and not abolished.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:47 am

There are two very different questions in play here. Separate them.

1. Is it possible the RCMP could conduct a biased investigation when investigating one of their own members. YES, as I have agreed all along! That is called PERCEPTION! And I have agreed all along that in independent agency to conduct these types of investigations would be an improvement over the current system if for no other reason than reducing the perception of bias.

2. Did, in this Bush case, the RCMP ACTUALLY conduct a corrupt and biased investigation? The New West Police did not identify any issues. The Coroner Service did not identify issues. Crown Counsel did not identify issues. And the Complaint Commissioner did not identify any issues of real consequence.

Following your logic trail, people should be found guilty of crimes because it is possible the investigation could have been biased, mishandled, or otherwise corrupted. You are labelling an individual person, Cst Koester a six month rookie, as a murderer for no reason other than that you don't like the system of investigation that he had no control over. That is wrong.

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:07 pm

Here's a question that occurs to me and I've never seen any mention of it anywhere. If the shooting took place as the mountie claims he would have to have had powder burns and flash burns on the back of his neck/head. They would have been painful and would almost definitely have required treatment. Is there any evidence he was treated for burns at any time?

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:51 pm

Plus he would STILL be deaf as a post after a discharge right by his ear.

Whitewash.

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:25 am

shitdisturber wrote:Here's a question that occurs to me and I've never seen any mention of it anywhere. If the shooting took place as the mountie claims he would have to have had powder burns and flash burns on the back of his neck/head. They would have been painful and would almost definitely have required treatment. Is there any evidence he was treated for burns at any time?

maybe all of his blood running down his head washed it off.

spartacus · Post by **spartacus** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:58 am

Spokes wrote:
maybe all of his blood running down his head washed it off.

You can wash off burns? wow, you should really tell the medical community about that.

nacho · Post by **nacho** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:25 am

spartacus wrote:
Spokes wrote:
maybe all of his blood running down his head washed it off.
You can wash off burns? wow, you should really tell the medical community about that.

I think it was meant with a bit of sarcasm

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:06 pm

Why would he have burns if the muzzle of the gun is up against or close to Bush's head, or Bush's head, arms or torso was shielding Cst Koester from the muzzle flash? Does a muzzle flash leave any burns on anyone other than who the gun is pointed at? Would a muzzle flash be able to leave burns on skin damp with sweat or blood? How much muzzle flash is generated by the type of gun and ammo used? Does anyone have any data/science to back-up an opinion that it was even possible for Cst Koester to be burned? Probably not, but that wouldn't be a reason for not declaring, "he would have had to have had burns..."

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:23 pm

Was Koester required to surrender his clothing to the investigators? Was he examined by experts or members from the serious crimes section in PG immediately or ASAP following the incident? Does Wilbur actually have any evidence to contradict reasonable questions being asked by people here? How many "not"s can Wilbur fit into a single sentence? Is that a triple negative there, Wilbur? "It's not probable that something would not be a reason, not?"

I'm not offering up any idea of evidence or special information... But it doesn't add up. The police didn't do their jobs and there is an enormous conflict of interest in this case. It stinks. It stinks all over. And when you smell shit it usually means...

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

Einstein.

Keep on believing and settling to live with the lies Wilbur, it suits you!

swede · Post by **swede** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:45 pm

altiplano wrote:Was Koester required to surrender his clothing to the investigators? Was he examined by experts or members from the serious crimes section in PG immediately or ASAP following the incident? Does Wilbur actually have any evidence to contradict reasonable questions being asked by people here? How many "not"s can Wilbur fit into a single sentence? Is that a triple negative there, Wilbur? "It's not probable that something would not be a reason, not?"

I'm not offering up any idea of evidence or special information... But it doesn't add up. The police didn't do their jobs and there is an enormous conflict of interest in this case. It stinks. It stinks all over. And when you smell shit it usually means...

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

Einstein.

Keep on believing and settling to live with the lies Wilbur, it suits you!

Lets face it - the pigs (flying or otherwise) are collectively scared spitless. Since the Mayerthorpe? faisco - where 4 gringo cops walked into a known fruitcakes lair and got gunned down - they crap their pants and over react every time they go on a call out. Real police work is a thing of the past. Heads should have rolled from the top down over the Alberta shootings, and to a man, their seems to be a very few of them rank and file or otherwise, who are not cowards. Imho, that is why there have been so many killings of late. Shoot first, ask questions later. How Koester can honestly have us believe that he pulled his gun (while being strangled from behind while face down on a bench or couch), then proceed to shoot Ian Bush in the back of the head, is a stretch even the likes of Dick Cheney would have a hard time getting someone to accept. Let me guess - HMMMM?? - Koester has swivel joints for elbows and 3 foot long forearms - right. And by another strange coincidence, the video evidence went missing, WELL LADIDA, how very convenient

.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:56 pm

The sad part of this is the RCMP used to be known the world over for being a superb organization.

Nark · Post by **Nark** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:42 pm

Some of you have been watching way too much TV and think your a CSIer expert.

A Smith & Wessen 9mm isn't that loud, like in the movies.

Powder burns? It's not a flame thrower, so if he aimed slightly away from himself, say at this person who was trying to choke him, there is a great chance he wouldn't get licked by any heat discharged.

Canada has it incredibly good when it comes to police protection. Come over here for a day and complain.

People who don't break the law don't seem to have a problem with the police, why do you?

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:47 am

I'm not contradicting the question of muzzle flash burns. I'm just pointing out that the ASSUMPTION that he would have to have burns/marks is based on pure conjecture. The question itself is a fair one that I can't answer because I don't know anything about the science involved.

Maybe start by asking the question, "could/should he have recieved muzzle flash burns?" Answer that question by looking into the science of such things. If it's within the realm of possibility, then ask if it was covered in the investigation.

BoostedNihilist · Post by **BoostedNihilist** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:57 am