Bush Family Goes It Alone in Search for Answers

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 04:01 AM

The family of the young man who died while in police custody in Houston is in the process of conducting its own investigation into the death of 22 year old Ian Bush.

The family has a Pathologist (former Prince George resident Dr. Jennifer Rice) who has volunteered to examine the case and has hired a Vancouver lawyer. The family has also requested a copy of the officer’s statement taken at the time of Ian Bush’s death. To this date it has not been furnished

Ian’s family is also waiting for the RCMP to turn over the dispatch records. The request for the records was made last Thursday.

At least two television networks have approached members of the family. Both W-5 and the Fifth Estate have expressed interest in doing a story on the fatal shooting.

As for the RCMP officer involved in the shooting, he has been placed on administrative leave. According to an RCMP spokesman, the officer will be placed on Administrative duties when he returns to active duty.

Ian Bush died of a single gunshot wound to the back of the head while in custody October 29th of this year.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 04:01 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: ammonra on November 29 2005 7:03 AM

Dr Rice is absolutely reliable and extremely competent. She is intimidated by nobody, and whatever she says is certain to be supported by facts. Her involvement is a very positive step, provided she can get access to information.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on November 29 2005 9:20 AM

Rice is paid for by the BUSH FAMILY, she is not INDEPENDENT She has been PAID FOR, who do you thing her report will side with.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on November 29 2005 9:25 AM

Thing should read think

Posted by: ammonra on November 29 2005 9:37 AM

Dr Rice's report will side with the facts. As I said, she is completely reliable and who pays her will affect her not one bit. The RCMP have used this feature of her character in court cases in the past when she testified for the Crown about what she found. Your attempts to discredit her say a lot about your bias, I must say. Perhaps you should actually make some effort to get the facts about someone before you try to trash their hard earned reputation. For my part, from personal knowledge, I wouuld take her word about a forensic matter over that of the RCMP any day of the week.

Posted by: camoose on November 29 2005 10:08 AM

Question for Don---When the police force investigate themselves, do we always get an unbiased report?

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on November 29 2005 10:58 AM

NO.

Posted by: SpeakingOut on November 29 2005 1:16 PM

Another question for Don - how would someone, anyone, go about getting an "independent" person to review this case? We as concerned public members of society cannot arbitrarily call on our Provincial or Federal governments to relieve us of our fears by requesting they provide us with an "independent" report... Can we?

So the family "pays" an "independent", experienced and reputable person to get a second opinion, or in this case, deliver them a first opinion. How would the original autopsy report be considered "independent" if our Provincial or Federal government was paying the bill on behalf of the local crime squad? Whose side would THAT report lean to????

The family deserves answers and if they are not forthcoming from the proper sources, where one would expect them to come from, then they have every right to set about getting them on their own time and with their own money. Should the whole thing develop national status, I hope it is for the search of truth and not fame.

Posted by: admin on November 29 2005 5:20 PM

Dr.Jennifer Rice has voluntered to look at the facts in Ian Bush's death she is not being paid, regardless if you look at her history you will discover Oh ! so! quickly.. nobody could ever influence her thinking

Posted by: gypsy on November 29 2005 7:19 PM

I so hope this investigation discloses the absolute truth leading up to the needless death of this young man.
Obviously the R C M P expect the officer who killed this person to be absolved of all blame, as they do not hesitate to state he will be placed on Administrative duties upon his return to active duty.
Apparently shooting an unarmed person in the back is permitted by an R C M P officer.
I admire the family that can proceed with this action while dealing with their loss. Must be a truly heart rendering time in their lives.
And the truth must come out this time.
The action of the guilty R C M P officer is absolutely unforgiveable.

Posted by: owl on November 30 2005 1:13 AM

I must assume that an RCMP officer would not shoot someone in the back of the head (if that is where he was shot) unless the officer had a reasonable fear for his/her own life.

Even then, I would think that they would not be allowed to shoot to kill unless their life was in immediate danger.

I cannot see a weaponless person posing any threat to the life of an officer. Thus, the only rational assumption would be that the deceased had a weapon, or that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that he had a weapon which was ready to be used immediately to kill the officer. He could have had a previously undetected concealed weapon or he could have taken a weapon from an officer.

However, I would also have to assume if such a scenario, or similar scenario were true, that details would have been released reasonably quickly, most certainly by now.

Since it hasn't, I can only assume that a grave error in judgement took place with respect to the amount of force which was brought to bear or the gun, pointed at the victim as a result of an altercation, went off by accident under stress.

Posted by: acrider54 on November 30 2005 6:13 AM

Hey Don, it says Rice has volunteered not being paid. Volunteers do not get paid as far as I know.

Posted by: ammonra on November 30 2005 8:48 AM

Gypsy and Owl could both be correct, or they could be wrong. The whole point is that there has been no information released so far as to what happened. Whatever we say under that circumstance is all speculation, and an issue as important as this should be evaluated based on fact rather than speculation. I do not understand the delay, and I hope its not a case of deferring the inevitable, but all we can do is wait, impatiently, for some facts.

Posted by: gypsy on November 30 2005 10:38 AM

Ammonra-the young man was shot IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD.
Would that not imply the officer with the gun was BEHIND him?
Obviously not standing in front of him being threatened.
Nor would he be hugging him to reach around and shoot him in the back of his head.
There are enough facts that the conclusion many have drawn is not off base.
A person threatening you does not have his back to you-does he???
Get it together.

Posted by: ammonra on November 30 2005 10:46 AM

Yes, Gypsy, I do get the point about him being shot in the back of the head, and yes, I have the same questions about that as you do. In soite of that, I don't know how or why it happened.

I am not trying to minimise it, nor to whitewash anyone, but I do not believe that speculation as to the course of events is helpful. It is a serious enough matter without imagination. I do not know the course of events, and I do understand they could be better or worse than what we could imagine. We need facts. We need to be told what happened.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on November 30 2005 10:50 AM

Gypsy...Have you ever been in a fight..Where your LIFE HUNG IN THE BALANCE OF THE OUTCOME. IF NOT!!!! SHUT UP.

Posted by: gypsy on November 30 2005 12:37 PM

Nope-not me, but I don't think I would have been overly concerned as long as I had the loaded gun and the threatening party had their back to me.
Guess hooting him was the alternative to having him turn around and verbally abuse me, as after all, the other guy is unarmed, and I still have that LOADED GUN.
I suggest you go for hel-or perhaps take an "anger" management course.
You could be dangerous.

Posted by: gypsy on November 30 2005 12:39 PM

Oops, I do believe I have been subjected to a computer error. Should read "shooting" not hooting, and "help" in place of hel.
Certain readers will have no difficulty identifying errors.

Posted by: SpeakingOut on November 30 2005 1:52 PM

I read you loud and clear Gypsy...no worries!

Posted by: Nigel on December 4 2005 11:43 PM

Check out this picture:

http://www.grapplearts.com/Images/Grappling-Techniques/Submission-vs-jujutsu/classical-choke-5.jpg

Now imagine Ian was the guy in white and the cop was the guy with no shirt. The cop has just been unsuccessful in a physical altercation and is now quickly losing conciousness after being placed in a choke-hold by Ian. He makes a vain attempt to get free but cannot. He knows if he blacks out he is completely at the mercy of someone who wishes him physical harm and will likely be disarmed and further attack. Nothing is working so he pulls his gun and shoots at the only place he can twist his arm towards, Ian's head. Ian, as can be seen from this pictures, has to have his head turned to properly apply a choke-hold. Therefore, the bullet enters behind Ian's ear. This is what happens when right-handed person tries to choke-hold a right-handed cop... they get shot in the back of the head.

Posted by: Nigel on December 4 2005 11:49 PM

Further to my last comments:

Cops have a saying, "every call is a gun call." This is because cops bring weapons and firearms to every call they go to. Look at the list of cops killed every year in Canada and the US and you will see several who were killed by their own weapons turned against them. They are trained to use deadly force to prevent being disarmed.

Now, in the interest of balance, I will say I have no idea what happened and this is just a theory. Perhaps the cop panicked, or even executed Ian. Powder burns and residue, however, should be able to tell the story of how their bodies were placed in relation to each other at time of death.