St. Arnaud Shooting a Tale of Two Stories

Tuesday, January 23, 2007 07:09 PM

Two RCMP officers are telling very different stories about how Kevin St. Arnaud died.

Const. Ryan Sheremetta, who is now stationed in Kamloops with the RCMP, testified that on December 18^th, 2004 he was called to a reported break in taking place at a pharmacy in Vanderhoof.

When he arrived he was told that a man had dropped from the ceiling in the building and was near the pharmacy. Later on he testified that he saw a figure jump from the roof of the mall and run towards the court house, and then into a near by soccer field.

Const Sheremetta said he chased the man into the soccer field and kept yelling at him to, “Police, Stop”. He said, St. Arnaud finally did stop, turned around, put his hands in the air then dropped them and came towards him.

"I stepped backwards" he said "and fell to the ground, because the man had earlier had his hand in his pocket I feared for my life and he was standing right above me, I fired two shoots and then a further shot into the mass of his chest while lying on the ground ."

St. Arnaud died instantly.

The next witness to appear was Constable Colleen Erickson who told a different story. She agreed with the first part of the chase, noting that Sheremetta had chased the man into the soccer field."I saw the man come to a stop then turn and put his hands into the air, he then went towards Const Sheremetta, sort of shuffling his way towards him, Const Sheremetta." She said "Sheremetta assumed the firing position and then there was two shots fired, and then a third and he (St. Arnaud) dropped to the ground."

Cameron Ward the lawyer for the family asked, "Did St. Arnaud have a hand in his pocket as Const. Sheremetta had suggested? "No" she replied, "he was swinging his hands at his side."

Ward asked "Did he have any weapons on him when you looked at the body?"

" No" she replied.

When the pair of officers went back to their vehicle, Const Erickson testified, "Sheremetta said, did you see what happened?" She replied yes. He asked again, "Did you see what happened?" She replied "yes"… after the third time he raised the matter he said, “What do you think I should do?”

In earlier testimony, Erickson said when Sheremetta was being approached by St. Arnaud, the pair was about 10 to 15 feet apart and St. Arnaud was not standing over Sheremetta.

She also testified that she yelled as she pulled up to a gate where she could see what was going on to let the man who Const Sheremetta was pursuing know there was another police officer there. She also testified earlier she had called the Dog Man to come from Fraser Lake to their assistance.

Cameron Ward asked Sheremetta to explain to the court why the shell casings were consistent with a man standing with his arms extended before him (a standard handgun shooting position). He also raised the question of how come if St. Arnaud was coming towards him that he was shot (according to the pathologist) at angles of 30 to 45 degrees in a down ward motion?

A Coroner’s jury cannot attach blame in this death, and the Crown has already said that no charges will be laid in connection with St. Arnaud’s death.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 07:09 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: RUEZ on January 23 2007 7:40 PM

Something really smells here.

Posted by: Marty on January 23 2007 7:44 PM

The Crown will NOT lay charges???

Why the hell not is my question.
Sounds like a clear case of shooting an unarmed man to death for shits and giggles if you ask me.
I personally wish the cop would get the gas chamber!

Posted by: Harbinger on January 23 2007 10:20 PM

Seems to me that the R.C.M.P. are becoming a bunch of 007s without that licence James Bond is supposed to have. Yer right. It doeas stink!

Posted by: wrinkledawg on January 24 2007 5:41 AM

The cop is most likly a Lieberal.
Therefore above the law. :)

Posted by: Longnecks1 on January 24 2007 8:17 AM

Sounds to me the cop was scared sh--tless.. and didn't know what to do with the guy walking toward him...probably giving himself up. So the cop fired....
Police don't get the training in fighthing they used to....they just give them big pistols and let them go....Another government cutback for training...and to shorten the course....Keep your heads down folks...getting bloody dangerous out there

Posted by: owl on January 24 2007 10:58 AM

So why has the crown decided it is not laying charges? Have they stated their reasons?

I suppose the inquest will come up with recommendations which, if they find the shooter was not fit for the duty he had to perform, they will give to the RCMP. What watchdog group is there to make sure any such recommendations are acted on in case of RCMP wrong doing?

Posted by: whynotyou on January 25 2007 7:57 AM

Okay, not picking sides or defending what happened, but lets reiterate a bit...the dead guy was what? oh, yes, breaking and entering and then running away from the scene of the crime? Yes, I believe that is what he was doing. And just the other day a few of you were suggesting that anyone should be able to "shoot" an intruder point blank, no questions answered. So, let me get this straight...it's okay for we civilians to shoot and kill someone who is breaking the law, but the cops can't? Do I gots it right?

As I understand it, the cop thought his life was in danger so he fired his revolver to protect himself. Let's put the shoe on the other foot, let's say the perp did have a gun and when he turned towards the cop his intention was to shoot the cop, and lets say the cop did not fear for his life and seconds later is lying dead on the ground, having been shot by the perp. What would we all be saying then? Just shows to go ya, every story has two sides, two probable possible outcomes when you consider the "if only's".

Going by the report of what the cop was repeatedly saying to the second cop, asking "did you see what happened?", I believe that would indicate a mild form of shock, which IMO would point to his knowledge he had just made a very unfortunate mistake. Unfortunately, so had St. Arnaud.

Posted by: thereasonableman on January 26 2007 2:44 AM

St. Arnaud was "suspected" in a break and enter. An intruder in your house at night with obvious ill intent is not only much more serious, but also much more dangerous.

If the cop had shot St. Arnaud inside his residence, having been awakened, he wouldn't be answering questions right now.

What if ? Well, what if I had boobs ? Then, I'd be thereasonablewoman.

You can't put the shoe on the other foot, when it's really a glove.

Posted by: whynotyou on January 26 2007 8:57 AM

Even if you did have boobs you still couldn't be "thereasonablewoman", I've always heard there is no such thing....

What if the person who wakes you up in the middle of the night is an out of town guest of your neighbour and he just made a mistake on which house he was staying at? And you shoot him cause he's an intruder...

There is no arguement that something wrong happened here. St. Arnaud should not be dead over a break and enter. A sober man might have realized that he was in danger if he did not stop running, put his hands in the air and "freeze". A cop should not have panicked and fired his weapon 3 times unless he was sure his life was in danger and he had no choice. The cop jumped the gun, pardon the pun - fired it in this case.

Somewhere in the middle of all of this is "a reasonable understanding" of what happened, hopefully those in charge of finding out the truth are "reasonable, trustworthy, reliable and intelligent" people.

Posted by: thereasonableman on January 26 2007 10:45 AM

TRW ? - Hee hee !
-------------------
Also, I did say, "An intruder in your house at night with obvious ill intent..."

However, your scenario is not a fantasy, I know of a case stateside, where dad accidentally shot his own daughter when she entered her parents' bedroom at night, unable to sleep or feeling ill. He was devastated, and a little too trigger happy. That's why I stated OBVIOUS ILL INTENT. I later heard a rumor that he ended up taking his own life, but I don't know if that's true.

Posted by: thereasonableman on January 26 2007 10:48 AM

Also, the cop is supposed to be the one in control, the one keeping or restoring the peace, hence the term "peace officer".

Basically the cop is supposed to be the babysitter or the good parent, the smart one, when others are being f*k-ups. That's why we invented them in the first place.