Families Still Waiting for Answers

Monday, March 06, 2006 04:01 AM

A Vanderhoof woman whose son was shot to death by Police in that community on December 19th, 2004 says she is still waiting for justice to be served.

Delores Young says a witness, who was driving by when her son was been chased by police, has told her that they drove by the block where the police were holding Kevin St. Arnaud, his hands in the air and when they turned around and came back, Kevin was lying on the ground.

Young says Kevin (shown in photo at left) had been in a few scrapes with the law, he knew how to deal with the police, and he also was a suspect in a possible break and entry. Meantime St. Arnaud's widow Rebecca Gingera says “Kevin can be made out in the worst possible way because he isn’t here to tell his side of the story.”

Arnaud was shot three times in the chest by an officer with two years experience. Police allege Kevin came towards the officer with intent to wound. Arnaud had been a welder and an artist in the community and, according to his mother, while he had been into drugs, had been clean for some time.

The Crown ruled there would be no charges against the officer involved.

St. Arnaud's widow, Rebecca Gingera, has serious concerns about the RCMP investigating itself “I believe it should be handled by an outside investigative team, not a division of the RCMP.” The Crown, she says, reviewed the file and asks why not an independent team of lawyers? “The RCMP deal with the Crown constantly and I believe that having the RCMP investigate themselves is a conflict of interest” says Gingera. She is looking for answers “Kevin left behind two children and a wife, I don’t care about myself I can look after me, but what about those kids?” She says that in her opinion, the RCMP’s goal is to hope people forget their errors and go away “They want to keep it very quiet, hush, hush, so that people forget. That’s wrong. We as people need to know that we are safe having RCMP in our communities.”

Meantime in Houston, residents haven’t forgotten Ian Bush. At the end of each month, a candlelight memorial reminds the residents of the town about the death of the 22 year old. The memorial starts off with a single, anonymous candle and grows from that point

This picture was taken at 6.15 p.m.; the photographer says the number of candles had grown considerably until about 11.00 p.m.

Ian was shot to death by a police officer after being taken into custody for giving a fake name to police.

It was later learned Bush had been shot in the back of the head as he was being released from Houston RCMP custody. At the time police issued the following press release.

"In Custody Death

On October 29 2005 at approx 10:00 pm a Houston RCMP officer was in the process of releasing a twenty-two year old male from custody. The officer and the male were in the Houston RCMP Detachment. The male became very violent and attacked the officer. A violent struggle ensued and the twenty-two year old male died at the scene.

North District Major Crime has taken over the investigation. An autopsy will be conducted and results of the investigation will be made available at later dates.

The family of the deceased, Ian Geoffrey BUSH, has been notified. The RCMP officer involved is recovering from his injuries.

Media enquiries on October 30th will be handled by E Div media relations. "

Immediately following Ian Bush’s death, the family obtained the help of its own Forensic pathologist, Dr. Jennifer Rice, who offered to look at the autopsy with a view to giving her observation about his death.

RCMP have been mum on the matter and while the community has released the name of the constable involved, the RCMP have not responded to calls asking if the young constable has been relieved of duties or what his position is while the investigation continues. Police have indicated they are not releasing further information at the request of the family. A fund was established at the CANFOR mill in Houston where Bush was employed, to help with any probe that may take place and many local people are asking for the matter to be dealt with more quickly. Among those people calling for resolution is the Mayor of Houston, Sharon Smith.

The Coroner’s office says an inquest will be held into the death of Bush as is the case with Arnaud, but dates for those inquests have not yet been set.

A number of people close to both deaths and connected with the legal profession say the only way to ensure these matters are dealt with in a proper manner is to introduce a system the same as there is in England, Australia and New Zealand known as the Public Prosecution Office.

In those countries, a separate office with separate investigators looks into cases such as we have with Arnaud and Bush. Both the RCMP and the public are then assured complete transparency. The Police, they say, should be very happy with this sort of separate tribunal because it takes away any suggestion they acted on their own. Those who support this kind of investigative approach say if police feel strongly about the cases there would be nothing to worry about.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 04:01 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: acrider54 on March 6 2006 6:20 AM

RCMP as most other police forces are above the law. They can speed, coast through stop signs, don't bother signaling lane changes or signal a turn in an intersection. They can slam on their brakes do a U turn right in front of you without paying attention to traffic coming from behind, or ahead for that matter. Make drivers pull over on blind corners. Drive in inclimate weather with there headlights out. (Don't want to be seen, real safe)That's just traffic think about the rest. Don't bother to call if you are being robbed you have to report that to the Community policing when they open in the morning.

Posted by: Gofaster on March 6 2006 6:43 AM

Acrider54, since when do you report Break and Enters and robberies to the Community Policing Center? They can help you with engravers to make locating your goods easier, and I said easier not that they will be recovered. They have maps if you are buying that tell you where the B&E's for the last year were and will send someone out to do a security check on your home and make reccomendations on how to discourage thiefs. So I am not sure where your get your information but you report to the RCMP B&E's and thiefts etc.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on March 6 2006 7:24 AM

These young guys are dying as a result of a culture today wherein there is usualy no consquence of irresponsible actions.
Then they finally get in a situation where there they have to behave and have some respect, and they come up against the brick wall.
It isn't the fault of the police. Sure I do illegal things, but when it comes to the wall, I know when to stop. The police are not your mommy or daddy.

Posted by: giterdun on March 6 2006 7:55 AM

BEFORE WE JUDGE THE RCMP LETS HEAR SOME HISTORY ON THE VICTIMS.

Posted by: owl on March 6 2006 10:08 AM

It seems to me we have some history, albeit via the media, on both these individuals. They were not perfect. But they were not killers.

We have minimal history of the RCMP officers involved. They are protected by virtue of the privacy of their personnl records, until they may come out in an inquest or trial through discoveries.

Killing an individual is not a reasonable and measured response by the RCMP unless the individual has a clear ability and obvious intent to act on that to kill the officer, such as having a lethal weapon like a gun.

I see nothing in the reports of either case that such was the case. It does not mean that such may not have been the case, but the RCMP does not appear to claim that situation.

Thus, it was not a measured response, no matter what you might think of the victim. No one in this country should be shot to death on the spot for being an unsavoury character or under the influence of a drug or alcohol.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on March 6 2006 11:57 AM

It doesn't appear that Owl has had the opportunity to hold someone against their will. I suppose if things got rough, Owl, and myself included, might be inclined to walk away. Let someone else do it.
Would that answer save lives? Cerainly, mine and Owl's for sure.
But would that be the standard you would expect when you are in trouble and the cops show up.
Lets see. The cop says to the suspect, "Hands over your head, lay face down in the mud, don't move." The suspect says "No".
The cop says "OK" and puts the gun away in a locked box in the truck of the car that has an auto lock radio controlled by the Save the People Society, gets in his car, writes up a report that things were getting touchy, has a sip of coffee, and waves to OWL, who is now in a bad way as he drives away.
Will Owl be on the news? Likely. He could say the thugs were not perfect. But they were not killers. Owl is still alive, a hospital stay will have him right in no time.
From his hospital bed Owl could say we have minimal history of the RCMP officers involved. They are protected by virtue of the privacy of their personnl records, until they may come out in an inquest or trial through discoveries.

Nah, that isn't going to work for the rest of us. I'd say shooting someone once in a while will save more lives.

At what exact split second does it become apparent the individual has a clear ability and obvious intent to act on that to kill the officer. Is it when the suspect has the officer's gun and the pin has not hit the bullet yet? Or is it when the officer is unconscious? Perhaps this requires experience. That's thrill I'll forgo.

"No one in this country should be shot to death on the spot for being an unsavoury character or under the influence of a drug or alcohol."

Really Owl, you have to expand your circle of acquaintances.

Posted by: johnnyrunner on March 6 2006 4:06 PM

Look I'm as conservative as anyone here, but no country not even the US of A has the police investigating themselves. To the skidoo groupie: everytime you post you come across as a poster child for what is wrong with out educational system. The way you go on and on with your little skit, all nice with quotation marks. But the reality is you are simply making a fool of yourself in a very long winded manner. Not to mention you will have zero credibility on any future posts now. So maybe you should change your name to something more mature, and approach the discussions with a little forethought. Remember "If you are afriad of looking like the village-idiot...don't post something that confirms it"
That's all I have to say...

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on March 6 2006 11:53 PM

Jonnyrunner, hmm so mature sounding.

Posted by: owl on March 7 2006 12:23 AM

My circle of friends includes RCMP officers, a guard at the RCMP station downtown who is a civilian, several lawyers, social workers at least one of whom works with the youth in the Youth Containment Centre, at least one idividual who worked with the youth at Camp Trapping ... etc.

I have also volunteered as an actor in the week long RCMP training simulation which will again be conducted at College Heights Elementary school during spring break for those students interested in the RCMP as a career.

All that is really unimportant. What is important is that officers use appropriate force in a measured response to the situation.

As mentioned before, there has not been any report that I have seen that a deadly weapn was in the hands of at least the Houston situation, if not also the one in Vanderhoof.

If it is found that the shooting victims had control of their own or the RCMP's deadly weapons, as in a struggle, then that is fine.

I am, however having a difficult time with piecing together a scenario whereby an individual in custody was shot in the back of the head. My first reaction is that there is something wrong with that scenario, although there may, once the details come out, be a perfectly acceptable explanation. Until then, I have to go with my gut feeling, that excessive force was used for the condition.

from the US department of Justice ....

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/lawenforcement/policeintegrity/chapter1.htm

From that page:
"When the use of force is reasonable and necessary, officers should, to the extent possible, use an escalating scale of options and not employ more forceful means unless it is determined that a lower level of force would not be, or has not been, adequate. The levels of force that generally should be included in the agency's continuum of force include: verbal commands, use of hands, chemical agents, baton or other impact weapon, canine, less-than-lethal projectiles, and deadly force.
Each situation is unique. Good judgment and the circumstances of each situation will dictate the level on the continuum of force at which an officer will start. Depending on the circumstances, officers may find it necessary to escalate or de-escalate the use of force by progressing up or down the force continuum. It is not the intent of this policy to require officers to try each of the options before moving to the next, as long as the level of force used is reasonable under the circumstances."

Finally, once more, whether a person "deserves" the outcome or not is not the issue.

If that is the reason for the shooting, I am sorry, but the police officer simply needs to be charged with murder, manslaughter at the least.

Posted by: Percy on March 7 2006 7:18 PM

It's so easy to criticize the actions of others, isn't it? Those without sin may through the first stone.

Well, I for one am not without my shortcomings, my failures, my errors in judgement, my inappropriate responses and my disappointments to others.

I would ask each of you to put yourself in the position of each of these officers and tell me honestly, what would you have done? You really can't say, can you? Because it wasn't you.

The reality is, these officers are just people. People who chose to protect society within the best of their abilities. They didn't become police officers so they could take a life in an irresponsible fashion.

You can't know the right thing to do in every situation. And, you haven't done the right thing in every situation. So, what gives you the right to condemn, criticize or condone the actions of anyone else? It's not your place.

Are we happy with what happened? Of course not. Do we like the way things are being handled? Probably not. Do we have all of the solutions and answers? No we don't.

We must all recognize the fact that these officers put their strides on one leg at a time, just like you and me. They are human, they have emotions, they have days where they fear for their own lives. When the chips are down and it's you or them. Who would you choose to live? Percy

Posted by: owl on March 8 2006 12:09 AM

"Are we happy with what happened? Of course not."

Accoridng to some, they seem quite happy or comfrotable with it. They feel those who died deserved it.

For my part, that is what I am objecting to. To me, that is an unacceptable attitude.

As far as what the officers did. The families as well as the public need to find out what happened. I do not know what happened so I am not judging yet, only commenting that it is taking a long time, there is considerable direspect for life displayed by some posters on here, and based on the information presented to date, it appears like a potential cover-up and it appears that there is poor public relations on the part of the RCMP.

Remember, the RCMP are just ordinary folks like you and I. There is a range of ability with individuals just as with any other vocation. They are not all cut from the same cookie cutter. They can make mistakes too and if they do, they should be dealt with as those of other vocations who make mistakes.

Posted by: snappi on March 8 2006 8:21 PM

Wow! I really cannot believe how the thought process works with some people. Very well said Owl, you are always so wise. And you too Johnnyrunner, you are both awesome and I'm definately of the same opinion. You said it all. Keep it up.