Rush to Judgement: One Man's Opinion

Friday, September 08, 2006 03:46 AM

Why Attorney General Wally Oppal, are you wading into the Ian Bush shooting at Houston?

Comments such as "A rookie RCMP officer was choked nearly unconscious before drawing his pistol and shooting Bush in the back of the head," clearly only present one side of the story.

Do you now Mr. Attorney General, yield judgments without the benefit of a trial? That is exactly what is taking place in this instance.

What happened to lead to the death of the 22 year old man who was arrested put in handcuffs and was supposedly under police control?

What happened to change all of that? That is the question that you should be asking for an answer to Mr. Oppal.

Somehow, throughout this whole process, no one seems prepared to deal with that question. Everyone in the police office and the Attorney General's office seems to be ignoring the questions that may shed some light and put semblance of order to the issue.

How did there come to be a scuffle?

How did it get to a point where a police officer pulls his gun to shoot a person he is releasing from custody?

Why was there no video monitor working?

Those are more appropriate questions Mr. Attorney General.

You were a Supreme Court Judge and I might add a good one, how could you make a statement like Bush was “moderately intoxicated “. There is no charge for being, "moderately intoxicated." As a matter of fact, everyone who has a glass of wine at dinner is "moderately intoxicated."

It is fair and well to accuse the media of spinning the story Mr. Oppal but suggesting that someone is “moderately intoxicated" as a means of adding some weight to a claim of self defense is simply not founded.

The public should not have expected any other reason than the one given by the police and Crown (feared for his life) as the reason for Bush being shot to death. Sadly, we will never ever hear Bush’s side of the story.

There are however questions that remain unanswered like how did the whole incident degenerate to a point where the 22 year was shot and why wasn’t the proper monitoring process in place?

Spin is spin Mr. Attorney General.

I’m Meisner and that is one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 03:46 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on September 8 2006 10:05 AM

Ben...Your a good reporter...Lets get some info on Mr Bush..How long was his Rap sheet..Does he have Violence on it, Was he ever arrested for Drinking, Fighting, Bullying, Go to his home town talk to residents there, You might find a different side to Ian Bush then the family is putting forward.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on September 8 2006 10:09 AM

One more point Ben...Your right Spin Is Spin...No matter if it is been DONE BY FAMILY ...or by the Attorey General.

Posted by: unk harry on September 8 2006 11:01 AM

I am really getting tired and possibly paranoid of these cops. We had a similar instance of the cowboys closing ranks to the public. A local cop was in charge of drug awareness in the school, giving talks etc. He died of a heroin overdose. Why? No one will answer, no one will face the questions of the students including our own kids. What hypocrisy. Now we have some new recruit strutting about with a big gun, ala John Wayne, arresting a young rambunctious young man. Did they not teach non-lethal takedowns at the cop shop/school? This constable should never be able to own a firearm again. This is sounding like Mississippi in the fifties. Shame.

Posted by: ammonra on September 8 2006 11:38 AM

Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I have been told that the regulations about guns for the RCMP require that they not have a round in the chamber while in their holster, and the safety must be on.

If that is true, to fire his gun the officer must have had to undo the holster, remove the gun, take the safety off, chamber a round, aim and pull the trigger. Those several steps surely indicate deliberate actions.

Now, I suppose it is possible that Ian Bush undid the holster and took out the gun, but there would have been some seconds for the officer to react, surely.

As to Bush's criminal record or lack of it, so what? He was killed not punched in the face.

As to being drunk, somewhat or otherwise, would he not have sobered up while in custody so that he was somewhat sober when released? Perhaps we are expected to believe the RCMP release drunken prisoners onto the streets. I do not. If he was released he must have been sober, and the killing took place while he was being released.

I am not satisfied with the explanations given, and for the Attorney General to publicly comment prior to legal action by the family is a disgrace, and he should resign.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on September 8 2006 11:49 AM

Ammonra..There is always a round in the chamber.The Pistol the RCMP carry is a Double Action.Round in chamber, Hammer down,all you have to do to fire the pistol when pulled from holster IS TO PULL THE TRIGGER,12 lbs of pressure needed to pull the trigger. Also people are released still drunk.

Posted by: ammonra on September 8 2006 11:57 AM

Then all the officer had to do was unbutton the holster, take the gun out, flick the safety off, aim and fire. Is that correct?

Posted by: ammonra on September 8 2006 11:59 AM

The point about released drunk was about the effects of time in custody. Even if tipsy when arrested, I presume the RCMP didn't give him more beer, so his body would have eliminated ethanol and he would have sobered up. is that not true?

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on September 8 2006 12:03 PM

THERE IS NO SAFETY ON THEIR PISTOLS FOR FIRST SHOT... TAKE OUT PISTOL, POINT AND PULL THE TRIGGER...YOU DO NOT AIM WHEN FIGHTING THAT CLOSE.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on September 8 2006 12:06 PM

He was in jail 20 min...Ever seen a person sober up in 20 min...NO ...Me neither

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on September 8 2006 12:19 PM

Ammonra..One more point..I have seen a person draw a pistol from a holster, fire it Twice and hit the target, at 7 yards, in less then 50/1000 of a second.

Posted by: Marty on September 8 2006 12:21 PM

Don,

welcome back....I always get a good chuckle from your blabbering ideas....thanks for never putting any thought into your messages.
It makes them much more funny, than if you filled them with facts, and common sense.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on September 8 2006 12:23 PM

Thanks Marty.

Posted by: ammonra on September 8 2006 2:34 PM

I stand corrected. However, if it was 20 minutes in jail, it was 20 minutes inside plus time to get there plus time to be processed for release. Maybe an hour in all. Yes, that is long enough for someone just a little tipsy to sober up.

No safety on! Isn't that a little dangerous for the cop's offsping to (not) be? ;-)

Anyway, welcome back and thankyou for the polite response.

Posted by: ammonra on September 8 2006 2:38 PM

just a question, the person who undid a holster, pulled a gun out and fired twice in 50 milliseconds, hitting the target at 21 feet. Was he having a fight at the time or was he poised in readiness for a "GO"? In other words, is it relevent to the events here?

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on September 8 2006 2:59 PM

NO Fight. A quick draw contest....I was just trying to show you how fast a pistol could be brought into action.That is why I thought it was relevent.

Posted by: fedup on September 8 2006 3:05 PM

Bush was haveing a beer outside the hockey rink and ended up dead pretty harsh punishment. The R.C.M.P would like the public to show them more respect or else I guess.To serve and protect doesn't mean the same thing it used to now its about collecting cash for I.C.B.C and picking on the average working man.i guess this is easyer than real police work.For the officers out thier who actually are on the job to serve law abiding folks and protect us every day thanks to the rest of you ''''.

Posted by: ammonra on September 8 2006 3:26 PM

As Ben says, there are two sides (at least) to every story. So far the majority of us have been leaning towards Bush and away from the RCMP if the posts are any indication. I have been thinking of how it could be that the officer was justified. The problem for me is the back of the head shot, except that I understand it was actually behind the left ear rather than the rear. Is this so?

Arguing the side of the officer then, consider this scenario, but do remember it is complete speculation and I am not satisfied with the police publicity. Also, I still think Mr. Oppal has behaved improperly since a court case is likely and a coroner's inquest has not yet taken place.

Act out the following:
Get a friend to put both hands around your neck and press them while pushing up against you so you can't move (against a wall or desk or something). Opposite sex is best here (for me at least). Put your right hand where a gun would be holstered and take it out. Now point it at the closest accessible part of the person strangling you. I suspect you pointed behind their left ear.

If this is how it happened, there will be damage to Bush' right side skull, powder burns and embedded nitrates around the left ear, perhaps blood spatters on the officers face and bruises around his neck. Owl is correct, I was wrong when I said the only evidence was the officer's word. There is the forensic evidence which has not yet been released. I presume it will be at the inquest.

Posted by: diplomat on September 8 2006 6:30 PM

All the guessing about what happened in front of the non-active video camera/VCR unit is after the fact.

Due diligence would have resulted in the evidence being recorded on a tape!

If the equipment in the detachment was out of order (is there any written record of that in the daily activity log book ???) then perhaps the young man should have been taken to another detachment in Smithers, Telkwa or whatever instead and his interrogation should have been properly taped there.

It is incredible that the RCMP would place itself into such a jam, that a struggle for a weapon and resultant deadly gun fire were NOT RECORDED.

Now there is no proof about what actually happened - any version is as believable or unbelievable as any other.

The department head at least should be severely punished for not following proper procedure.

How many other arrests and interrogations where conducted in the past in that room without any video recordings being made?

I think the public (Joe taxpayer) has a right to know when exactly that equipment happened to go out of order and how often this has occurred in that particular location.

Also, the VCR tape records 24 hours on an 8 hour tape - what if anything was on the tape?

Do they have to keep 24 hour tapes when full on a shelf for archival purposes and for how many days, weeks, months or years must they be kept on file?

Tapes are cheap, one can buy a sixpack for less than 8 bucks.

I hope that the lawyers ask all the right questions, because the whole thing surely needs to be exposed as to possible wrongdoing or possible incompetence or worse.

I am not a lawyer but I certainly would get down to the very bottom of this.

Posted by: Palopu on September 8 2006 8:31 PM

The AG should not be making comments about this case as there is a civil action pending and also the inquest. Recently the Minister of Mines, Forests, and Water Resources made some comments in regard to Alcan Kitimat, even though the City of Kitimat is taking the BC Government to court.

Under any other circumstances these politicians would say that they cannot comment on a case because it is before the courts. Why is it different in these two cases. Is it because the Goverment wants to sway public opinion?? I had hoped that the Liberal Government would have more brains that it has shown to date. It appears that they are hell bent to sow the seeds of their demise.

Posted by: brett1 on September 9 2006 12:45 PM

Wow not much support for the young officer! Lets try to use some common sense in looking at this.
1)Bush was not arrested b/c he was drunk, he was arrested for Obstructing a Police Officer (yes giving a false name is a criminal code offence).
2)I have read that it was upon Bush's release that he became violent. It would be at this time that Bush would have been issued a Promise to Appear (PTA). The reality of what Bush had done would become clear to him at this time.
3) Interview rooms (unlike a cell area) do not have tapes running 24/7.
4) Just b/c the interview room is where the officer shot Bush does not mean that is where the fight started.
5) As for ammonra's post about the shot to the rear left ear area... that is good thinking... but I'll take it a little further.
Have a friend choke you from behind, not with their hands. But by slipping their arm under your chin, you are in a reverse head lock. Ok now draw your gun (with your right hand) and strike your friend in the face with the gun. They will move their head to the side as so they are looking over their left shoulder. They will also try to move their head as far forward as they can while still looking to the left. This will be done to protect themselves from another strike. Now have your friend tell you to "take your last breath". And now shoot them, the round will enter in the rear area of the head. Case Closed...
But I do hope that the Officer takes civil action against Bush's estate and the media who have accused this young man of anything but doing the right thing.
Brett.

Posted by: Palopu on September 9 2006 9:49 PM

There has been a lot of speculation in regards to this shooting. I might also add that there have been a lot of people shot by the police in Canada in the last 10 years. If this case goes before the civil courts, we will be able to get some information as to what happened. We would not get the same kind of information from an inquest, or from the Police investigation.

If this same siutation happened in your home and you shot an individual in the head and killed him, even if he was breaking into your home and threating your family, you would as a minimum be charged with manslaughter. I beleive that the law only allows you to use equal force to protect yourself. Police officers are not above the law. They do not have the right to arbritarily shoot someone if some other ((Equal force)) would have solved the problem.

We need better training for these young police officers so that they can handle situations without always going for their guns. I suspect that most of these shootings, and taser killings are as much about fear and bravado than anything else.

Posted by: Chadermando on September 10 2006 1:36 AM

Maybe the Canadian military's NIS (National Investigative Service) could be expanded to include investigations of this nature involving domestic police forces.

The police should not be above the law. All citizen rights should be equal before the law.

Posted by: brett1 on September 10 2006 6:02 AM

Hey Paiopu,
If the same situation happened in my home I would not be charged. You are right about one thing the fear part... This is b/c the contable knew his life was in danger, so acted to protect his own life. I believe the legal wording in the Criminal Code, is a fear of death or grievous bodily harm.
If someone was choking me to death and had told me to "take my last breath" I would be in fear of losing my life as well.
The bad guy here is Bush, he was going to murder a Police Officer. The Police Officer saved his own life, and I say good for him!

Posted by: owl on September 10 2006 7:32 PM

Try having someone choke you from behind, draw the gun, and shot him in the foot or leg......

How long do you think he will keep choking you wih a bullet in his foot?

This guy shot to kill!!!!!! ... We assume Bush was not armed and able to retaliate if you did not kill him ... he did not have a bomb strapped to him ....

When a suspect is running away, one is not supposed to take him down with a shot to kill

Just think of how many hardened criminals there are incarcerated who may be transported from one place to another, or whatever, and who have may have an opportunity to get themselves into such situations and are not killed by their captors.

This appears at first glance to be undue force being applied. An explanation is required why this was not undue force. So far, nothing has been said by anyone in authority in the case to change any reasonable person's perception of who is at fault for such a drastic consequence for something so trivial.

As far as giving false information, it might be criminal but these people know each other and identification was not germaine to the matter at hand. He was not a criminal who was trying to hide his indentity. Whether he initially gave his name as John, Dick or Harry would not have mattered. That is not something to kill someone for, criminal offence or not. He would still have been taken in and at the time of booking his ID would have had to be produced and verified.

In this case, the only action for which I would say the shooting was justified is if Bush got partial control of the gun and in the ensuing fight over the gun the RCMP kid pulled the trigger. But no one appears to be saying anything like that at all.

Posted by: brett1 on September 10 2006 8:50 PM

Owl,
Why don't you put a gun belt on and let me choke you to the point where you think you are going to die, and then I'll tell you that you are going to take your last breath (ie murder you)!!!
What do you think you would do? Oh that's right you would do nothing to protect yourself b/c I din't have control of your gun! I guess you would just get murdered then. But, by your logic that is ok! I am glad the Police Officer had more common sense than you do.

Posted by: fsilber on September 11 2006 3:53 AM

Given that the officer was being choked, shooting his attacker in the foot might not have gotten a quick enough reaction if alcohol had sufficiently anesthesized him. When an attacker uses potentially deadly force, a deadly defense is warranted -- even if lesser force _might_ have done the job. (Unless lesser force is guaranteed to work, the officer is not obligated to limit his response.)

Would you have been charged with manslaughter under similar circumstances? Perhaps so, but you elected your betters. And yes, the police are indeed above the law -- or at least a different law applies to them. For example, they can carry firearms -- you cannot. That was your choice. Keep that in mind before you consider criticizing the police. They're your only source of protection -- if your criticism demotivates them from doing their job you'll be helpless.

Posted by: trusted on September 11 2006 8:28 AM

Oops! Is it possible we have some police officers on site that are on the defensive?
A young man died needlessly due to an over reaction of a police officer, presumably trained to handle difficult situations.
The officer now blithely moves around Kamloops, serving and protecting the public and collecting a pretty good pay cheque.
He has killed another human-and unless he is very thick skinned he may need counselling to deal with that fact.
He placed himself in that situation, and dealt with it with deadly force-a bullet in the brain of a young man just starting life.
I am sure he wishes he had handled Ian Bush in a different manner.
I sure wish he had.

Posted by: Don Mackenzie on September 11 2006 10:23 AM

Trusted..A young man died needlessly..Because he attacked a police officer hit him many times in the face tried to kill the officer by choking him, and died...Ian Bush is responsible for his own death.

Posted by: brett1 on September 11 2006 5:25 PM

Trusted,
Mr. Mackenzie beat me to it, but I do agree with one of your points. That being that this Officer is "trained to handle difficult situations". It is b/c of that training that he lived through Ian Bush's attempt murder of him.
Bush caused his own death, don't forget what he did. Soceity should not continue to make excuses for people who act this way. Bush commited a number of offences that night, Provincial and Criminal Code offenes.
Bush tried to kill someone... it makes me wonder if the person Bush had tried to murder was not a police officer, would there be all these people up in arms about it?

Posted by: Marty on September 11 2006 7:57 PM

brett,

and others.....there is no proof that Ian ever even touched the cop.

The cop made sure that no evidence to convict him would be around when he made sure to not tape the incident, or conduct it in the presence of others.

He was shot in the BACK of the head....while unarmed.
To me that is unnecesary force 100%.
If i shot an off duty unarmed cop in the back of the head.
I bet I would not get the kid glove treatment by the justice dept. that this cop is getting.
Because its a blatant double standard....do as i say, not as i do !

Posted by: Harbinger on September 11 2006 8:26 PM

I remember Barney Fife in Mayberry was allowed to carry one bullet in his shirt pocket. Otis the drunk didn't have to worry about being shot. I haven't seen many cops lately in Timmies. Do you suppose they're keepin'a low profile? I think they are.

Posted by: brett1 on September 11 2006 8:33 PM

Marty,
The Officer was hospitalized with facial injuries from the punches thrown by Bush.
hello!!! Bush was trying to kill him!!! Evidence you say... Perhaps you need to watch a few more episodes of CSI or are you already a forensic expert? Blow back and blood splatter will have showed what occurred.
By the way, if some guy was choking you to death...and he told you to take your last breath, and you shot him to save your life... you would never be charged.
Good God people get over where the bullet struck, and thinking that it shows something amiss. Get a friend to help you play out a scenario of being choked from behind, drwaing a weapon and shooting.

Posted by: Palopu on September 11 2006 9:44 PM

As usual we have a bunch of Sidewalk Superintendents who already have all the facts, and can tell you that Bush's intent was murder, when it might have been bodily harm, or maybe it was nothing but a knock down drag em out fight that got out of hand. Were Bush and the Police Officer aquainted??

In any event some information will come out in the inquest as to how Bush died, and this will get rid of some of the speculation, and there will be more information that will come out in the Civil case because they will be able to ask more questions of those concerned.

One thing that we always state in Canada is that a person is innocent until proven guilty, however my experience over the years is that he is guilty as soon as the story hits the papers, and is innocent only after he has proven his own innocence.

A great man once said **The greatest injustice of all is justice**

Lets let this one go until we hear from the inquest, and the Civil Case.

Posted by: trusted on September 13 2006 9:39 PM

Yeah-and shut that Atorney General big mouth up!
He overstepped his job description with his remarks pertaining to the case-and the actual kill.
Bet lots of guys in prison wish they had a spokesperson like the Attorney General going to bet for them.
Should have just locked Bush up if he was such an offensive un-law-abiding citizen-let him spend the night-and released him in the morning.
There is a lot more to this incident than we are being informed of. Not just a personality clash either.
Young cop-young Bush-previous conflict possible?
I sincerely hope other citizens in that community can throw some light on this deadly
act.
The truth will out-maybe!

Posted by: trusted on September 13 2006 9:41 PM

Attorney General going to BAT for them-not bet!