No Charges, No Surprise

Tuesday, September 05, 2006 04:45 PM

"We expected to hear that the police officer who shot my son would be set free," says Dawson Bush. He is the father of Ian Bush, the 22 year old man who was shot to death last October while leaving the Houston RCMP Detachment.

The Crown Counsel’s officer says the information gathered supported the officer’s explanation of events, that he was acting in self defense.

Dawson Bush is not satsfied "There is no possible way this man should walk away with a smile on his face after he shot my son to death without one single thing happening”. The elder Bush said he was attending the same hockey game as was his son that fateful night. As a matter of fact he said, "My daughter and I drove by the police station and saw the ambulance parked outside following the hockey game, we wondered what was going on."

Ian was having a beer outside of the arena between periods, when two police officers showed up.

They started to pour the beer out and the one officer (who Bush knew well) was within talking distance. The police officer who arrested Bush said he wanted Bush’s name, Ian gave him the wrong name twice and then the other officer said, "That’s Ian Bush" and went about confiscating other beer bottles.

Ian’s father Dawson said "When you have ever heard that a person was shot in the back of the head for resisting release from custody? How come that tape wasn’t rolling? I do hope that the Coroners’ inquest will open more doors for us , we also have a civil lawsuit taking place because we want to get to the bottom of this. Just what happened? That’s what we need to know."

He is grateful for all the support given his family in the wake of the shooting "I want to thank the people who have tried to make sure this thing isn’t swept under the carpet and I do hope they will continue with their efforts the whole family appreciates it. "

Ian Bush was shot in the back of the head while being released from the Houston Police station, after he was arrested for having an open beer and obstructing justice for failing to identify himself to police.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 04:45 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Chadermando on September 5 2006 6:24 PM

KB, what a disgusting thing for you to say. You deserve a smack up side the head for that comment.

I think the liberal government must take action to strengthen the laws providing for independent investigations of the RCMP. They are above the law in BC and that is not acceptable.

I think the Bush family should sue the RCMP and the province of BC for neglegence and it should be a 7 figure settlement for punitive damages.

Posted by: Marty on September 5 2006 6:33 PM

KB,

You absolutely disgust me.
An innocent young man was shot, and you think its cool.
You are a sick bastard for sure.

Posted by: owl on September 5 2006 7:07 PM

So the criterium for the police to shoot someone is to be lippy in the eyes of kb. Seems he might be next in line in that case.

Posted by: editor on September 5 2006 8:01 PM

While I will remind you all to try and stay with the topic and not get into a mud slinging match between each other, consider KB "smacked up side the head" as Chadermando put it.
This is not the first time KB has had a comment removed, indeed it is not the first time privileges have been revoked. I tire of trying to protect KB's right to freedom of speech when KB reciprocates by slamming Opinion250 on his own website. I thank you all for trying to rein in those who cross the line, but this time, I have decided the time has come to let them go and when they come home,they will find the locks have been changed.
Elaine Macdonald

Posted by: Qtown on September 5 2006 8:49 PM

Elaine, would your mind sending me KB's website link? I'd be curious to see for myself if my suspicions of him being a bit of a nutcase are true.

I wish Don Mackenzie had a website. That'd be a blast. I haven't had a good local nutjob website to read since Pat Morton more or less stopped her Quesnelnews.com postings.

Posted by: ammonra on September 5 2006 10:07 PM

I missed KB's comments since I was busy this evening, but I must say that I agree with chadermando that there should be an independent means of investigating matters when the police are involved. However, it should not just be for the RCMP, but the Vancouver police as well, and any others in the province (are there any others?).

Even if the group that investigates fellow officers is completely objective about it, there will always be the sneaking suspicion that there may be a cover up. I think it is in everyone's interest to have a system that we can be confident about.

Posted by: ammonra on September 5 2006 10:14 PM

I do have one point. Since the only witness to what happened was the police officer who fired the gun, how can the RCMP say that "the evidence" points towards self defense. Saying that they couldn't make a determination because there were no independent witnesses I could understand, but an affirmative statement that the evidence clears the officer when he, himself, is the only evidence amazes me.

Posted by: owl on September 6 2006 2:23 AM

There would be physical evidence as well as the statement of the shooter and others who happend upon the scene at some time afterwards.

Everything must fit into place as described. In addition, the events as related must make sense.

So, with all that, one may still not have the truth.

There will be a coroner's inquest which should be a bit more impartial. In addition, there is a suit against the shooter.

The justice system is slow. This is just the first round. The next level will deal with issues such as whether the force applied was reasonable under the circumstances. We do not know, for instance, whether the victim's fingerprints may have been on the gun. That should make a considerable difference in attributing fault. We do not know what, if any, the shooter's relationship to the victim may have been.

Simply put, we must continue to wait.

Posted by: owl on September 6 2006 2:30 AM

the powers of the internet ....

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=-8059

Posted by: diplomat on September 6 2006 8:02 AM

Opinion250:"...and the video tape machine that could have provided some answers was not operating."

My opinion is that the police department in question has placed ITSELF in the unenviable position of mistrust (not having any physical proof of correct procedure) by committing the incredibly stupid error of not having the video tape machine functioning at all times.

One would think that they check that VCR routinely, for their own protection!!!!!

The department needs to be reprimanded, fined and all those in charge demoted or fired for being so extremely sloppy and careless.

Where does the buck stop? If I drive too fast, don't wear my seatbelt or can't produce my driver's licence I get written up and fined by one of these ladies/gentlemen representing the RCMP.

They too should run their departmental affairs with proper due care and diligence, no slip ups allowed.

I hope the family keeps on the pressure to get down to the bottom of this sad episode that led to the loss of such a young life.

Posted by: owl on September 6 2006 10:43 AM

I think we have no idea what reprimands may have been given and what procedural changes may have been made. We only know no charges will be laid at this time.

Posted by: diplomat on September 6 2006 12:50 PM

We have no idea, so there may not have been any repercussions to those who were not doing their job properly.

My opinion is still that there should be severe consequences for lack of due diligence in respect to lacking video recordings in any RCMP detachment under any circumstances.

This case is a prime example. They may be stewing in their own juice needlessly, I might add.

Posted by: owl on September 6 2006 10:43 PM

http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumelll/chapter9.html

some wise words on the linked site:

"Our examination of the Winnipeg Police Department�s investigation into the shooting of J.J. Harper has led us to two conclusions. First, police departments are inherently in a conflict of interest�both perceived and real�when called upon to investigate the shooting of a citizen by one of their members. The perceived conflict of interest arises because a member of the public reasonably might conclude that institutional interest might be placed ahead of the public interest in the course of the investigation.

"This is so even if a decision is made to prosecute an officer. It could be concluded that a decision to prosecute arises from the department�s wish to maintain a certain image. The same allegation could be made if the decision is made not to prosecute. The department cannot win. Even if a prosecution results in a conviction, the department could be accused of having pursued the prosecution because it had no choice. On the other hand, if the investigation is conducted by someone free from those influences, then no conflict, real or perceived, exists."

Posted by: owl on September 6 2006 10:46 PM

The real question becomes why the Canadian Government does not do the obvious and make independant investigation a requirement in the case of questionable shootings of citizens by the police force.

Posted by: Chadermando on September 7 2006 12:23 AM

I'm with you on this one Diplomat. I don't see any accountability and that is a problem.

I hear now that the BC Liberals are passing off the whole issue to the federal government. I guess they don't have faith in BC's own justice system to be part of the solution. It seems they think that since its a federal police force it should be accountable to the federal government. I think that line of reasoning is flawed, and that ammonra brings up a good point when it comes to other police forces in the province.

I would feel more comfortable with a provincial body that investigates the federal police force.

Posted by: thereasonableman on September 7 2006 1:31 AM

Welcome to Mexico:

The tape conveniently wasn't rolling, there are no independent audio or visual witnesses, no other parties present, in complete seclusion the guy gets shot in the back of the head execution style, while he's leaving.
Gendarmerie Royale Du Federali.

Here's the bad dream I had about this, and how I suspect it went :

Ian Bush doesn't like cops and doesn't show them much respect, and takes every opportunity to show it. They, in turn, dislike him for his shows of disrespect and take every opportunity to rain on him. It sounds even like it may have been specifically a "personal" problem with one of the members involved.

However it played out, the end result is that the members involved took a simple case of drinking beer in public and escalated it into a senseless and tragic loss of life. They went looking for a fight, and they turned a peaceful situation into the most tragic and serious event in town all year. They turned keeping the peace into disturbing it. Cops don't get to decide who lives or dies based on how nice they are to police, and this is a simple case of bullying with deadly force. Please prove me wrong, I'd feel better about it then.

Posted by: trusted on September 7 2006 11:33 AM

the reasonableman--hard to even attempt to prove you wrong when I firmly believe you are right?
Maybe there was a tape-but we know how easy they are to remove! I said Maybe!
The killer cop was immediately removed to serve the public in Kamloops.
Works well, just move the cop around-and this is standard procedure.Of course he could not remain in Houston-he was already well known, and the killing of Bush would have made him extremely unpopular.
He should be removed from dealing with the public in any manner.
Any person with his back to you could hardly be considered a "threat."
I really wish Bush had managed to choke that cop unconscious, if he had actually gotten a choke hold on him. It could well be a lie! At least he would be alive today in all probability.
And these internal investigations have to end.
We have to answer for our transgressions-and so should that officer answer for his.
Shooting another human in the back of the head can hardly be considered an heroic action-I prefer to call it what it is--- murder.

Posted by: yeldarb on September 7 2006 2:52 PM

Does everyone think this is the only time this has ever happened? The cops have always been above the law unless it is some cop that they all don't like. Just like politics. The back of the head thing is so blatant yet they just shove it under the carpet and do you know what? There is nothing you or I can do about it! We have all lost our rights and it is getting worse every day. They do not work for us or have to answer to us because we have let it go too far just as we have let our politicians run wild. To the parents, I am so sorry for your loss. I can imagine what you are going through as I have lost a daughter at the age of 15 although not due to violence but by an idiot behind the wheel. Please do not give up your fight and use the internet as a tool to get people on board. There are alot of us who have had enough and something has to be done.

Posted by: rockey on September 7 2006 4:25 PM

I think if interested parties were to read the article done by the Globe and Mail at the following location http://news.resist.ca/node/5303
you will get a very good accounting of the turn of events and of Ian Bush, in order to set the record straight. His accounting of what took place is very accurate.

I believe the truth will be revealed and that appropriate action will be taken.