Constable Feared for His Life When He Shot Kevin St. Arnaud

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 09:05 AM

Prince George, B.C.- The RCMP officer who shot Kevin St. Arnaud in a snowy soccer field in Vanderhoof in December of 2004, “acted in self defence after reasonably perceiving that Kevin St. Arnaud posed a threat of grievous bodily harm or death.” That is the finding of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

St. Arnaud took three shots to the chest and died at the scene. He had been persued by two Vanderhoof RCMP officers after he had broken into a local drug store and stolen some pills. Moments after running from the Rexall drug store in Vanderhoof, he was shot to death in a soccer field when he turned toward the officer and started to move towards Constable Ryan Sherametta.

The report then focuses on the investigation of the shooting, an investigation the Chair of the Commission says “fell below an acceptable standard “.

Chair Paul Kennedy says there were several problems with the way things were handled following the shooting of St. Arnaud among the problems:

· neither of the two officers on the scene, Constable Sheremetta (who fired the fatal shots ) nor Constable Colleen Erickson provided any form of first aid to Mr. St Arnaud before emergency personnel arrived at the scene.

· Constable Erickson failed to properly secure the scene which allowed the scene to be contaminated when others arrived on site

· Investigating officers failed to remove Erickson from the scene as they should have because she was a key witness.

Additionally, some elements of the RCMP investigation lacked impartiality and the investigation team failed to follow the RCMP's own Major Case Management Model. These inadequacies caused the CPC to reject some evidence surrounding the shooting incident and accept only highly credible information, testimony and eye witness accounts.

The case had a lot of differing evidece from eye witnesses. Constable Sheremetta later recounted that as he was stepping away from Mr. St. Arnaud, he slipped and fell on his back. From this position, he shot Mr. St. Arnaud. This testimony differs from that of RCMP Constable Colleen Erickson, who had just arrived on the scene at the time of the incident. Constable Erickson observed Mr. St. Arnaud charging at Constable Sheremetta and the latter subsequently shooting Mr. St. Arnaud twice while standing approximately two feet away.

An autopsy confirmed that Mr. St. Arnaud had been shot three times in the chest.

Mr. Kennedy concluded through his investigation of all available credible evidence that Mr. St. Arnaud did in fact pose a threat of grievous bodily harm or death to Constable Sheremetta. Therefore, Constable Sheremetta reasonably perceived that he was shooting Mr. St. Arnaud in self-defence.

In this case, like the vast majority of cases, it is evident that eye witness accounts are not always entirely reliable. Constable Sheremetta's perception of the incident was likely affected by his heightened state of anxiety. Constable Erickson's recollection of the precise details was not perfect either. However, the key circumstances of the shooting were sufficiently corroborated by a biomechanics expert who determined, through analysis of footprints, that Mr. St. Arnaud was moving towards Constable Sheremetta with an increasing stride length.

With regards to the identified deficiencies of the RCMP investigation, the RCMP Commissioner has accepted the major findings and recommendations outlined in Mr. Kennedy's report.

The aim of the CPC's review of complaints is to improve the performance of the RCMP and its members by emphasizing best policing practices. In the context of a death in custody or other serious matters in which the police investigate themselves, failing to abide by best practices will inevitably fuel perception that police treat force members more favourably than members of the public.

"A frank acknowledgement of deficiencies or errors, where they exist, serves to establish that the RCMP is not only accountable for its actions but that it is a principled organization worthy of the public trust," said Mr. Kennedy.

The RCMP will be holding a news conference at 10:00 this morning to address some of the issues noted in this report.

The full report can be accessed here.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 09:05 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: RugratsMom on May 27 2009 10:00 AM

Although I know that the RCMP have made mistakes in the past and will continue to I'm forever greatful that they put themselves in harms way to protect us. We could be living in a country like South Africa (it could be worse right). I do think that their stay in Regina for training is much to short though. It's very easy to sit on the sidelines and judge how the RCMP react to certain situations but they only have split seconds to react. We have days and weeks. To all of the RCMP that keep us safe, I thank you.

Posted by: corruption on May 27 2009 11:49 AM

Lonny Landrud might have an opinion about this

Posted by: lmorge on May 27 2009 12:12 PM

Think about it. The RCMP have been policing and doing investigations in Canada for the past 125 years. Why does it seem like they make so many mistakes during investigations. Lack of traing? I think not. They have been doing this for 125 years. Time to clean house and get rid of the high brass running the RCMP

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 27 2009 12:59 PM

lmorge is right. How much more blatant can it get ?

It is hopeless effecting any change in this organization with the prehistoric deadweight that continues to follow antiquated policing practices and methods of dealing with internal affairs.
--------------------------------------

Sheremetta and Erickson BOTH now have ZERO credibility in any courtroom because of the forces admission in this report, that NEITHER of them can get their facts straight regarding an incident.

Basically, the force burns both of them in order to save itself having to deal with the situation at all.

I.E. - (We don't know what happened, there are two conflicting stories, that leaves us in never-never land.)
--------------------------------

That's great for anybody that ever gets arrested and charged by Sheremetta, and I'll tell you why......

The first thing I do as defence counsel, in any case involving Sheremetta, is to utterly shred his credibility on the stand by raising the fact that he is suspected of perjury during an inquest, was under a code of conduct investigation, etc.

It also remains to this day that Sheremetta said completely the opposite of what Erickson said (although the CPC is now trying desperately to reconcile the statements to more closely resemble that they came from the same planet, let alone the same scene) with Erickson being the more believable of the two because an independant civilian witness corroborated her testimony and she had no motivation to mislead.

Sheremetta was the only one that saw the scene the way he said it went down, and nothing corroborates his testimony that he was on the ground, and has everything to gain from misleading everybody including his own superiors.

This leads straight to the door of reasonable doubt and cracks it open a little bit, because you can't give the same weight to Sheremetta's testimony, as you would to an officer with proven integrity. Sheremetta has little more credibility than the average street punk now.

Next thing:

A trial judge that fails to consider Sheremetta's much publicized story-telling, leaves themselves wide open to grounds for appeal of their decision.
(judges and magistrates everywhere get to know who the liar-faces are, police and counsel alike, they are not stupid and they deal with the same people day in and day out, Shermetta has likely already made a name for himself in the courts)

Lastly:

Now that Sheremetta has ZERO credibility, it makes him totally ineffective at enforcing laws because he does not have the credibility in court to gain a conviction by his testimony.

So, now he's back on payroll, getting paid to do a job he can't do because he doesn't have any integrity.
The force says that is acceptable. Isn't that a problem with the force administration ?

What do we do now ?

We give Sheremetta a lime green vest, a stack of pylons and a flashlight, and send him out to direct traffic when the power goes out, because that's all he's good for now.

I just don't know how some of these white shirts walk without a backbone ???

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 27 2009 1:02 PM

Furthermore:

Sheremetta strikes me as one of these guys that has shot his own shadow on more than one occasion because he thought somebody was sneaking up on him.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on May 27 2009 1:43 PM

Bang on Imorge!
You too thereasonable man!

Posted by: Andyfreeze on May 27 2009 1:53 PM

And I also see where the RCMP just whacked a nut job in a home for the mentally unbalanced in Calgary!
These guys good aren't they?
Quite a track record.
Do they get any training in how to disarm without blowing people out of their socks???
Besides using a gun I mean?
Was the tazer broken?

Posted by: PaysHisOwnWay on May 27 2009 2:31 PM

As long as these bullets entered the chest and not the back then it sounds like a "good" shooting to me.

Crook + Agression towards anyone who is armed = Aim for centre mass.

Posted by: Harbinger on May 27 2009 8:12 PM

If Sheremetta gave some one a speeding ticket, could the motorist use the constables character to fight the honesty of said ticket?

Posted by: supertech on May 27 2009 8:51 PM

Make sure there isn't a stapler on your car seat when they pull you over.

Posted by: Eagleone on May 28 2009 6:38 AM

This is but one example of the break down in law enforcement as a result of top brass that put imperial policing policies ahead of the integrity of their law enforcement organization.

I wonder what Stockwell Day has to say about the break down in integrity of the top brass decision makers in the RCMP?

Posted by: corruption on May 28 2009 8:19 AM

YUP staplers are lethal and never turn your back on a cop or you might get shot in the back of the head also

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 28 2009 11:42 AM

"If Sheremetta gave some one a speeding ticket, could the motorist use the constables character to fight the honesty of said ticket?"

Just pay the ticket and get over it. Even I have paid tickets I could have disputed and beaten.

Traffic would be a good job for Sheremetta and I would venture a guess that it is probably exactly what he is assigned to.