Clear Full Forecast

Coroner Says No to Video

By 250 News

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 07:32 PM

  
Coroner Shane De Meyer today refused two requests from the lawyer representing the Kevin St. Arnaud family to allow a video taped interview of Constable Ryan Sheremetta.
Sergeant Jim MacLellan was a Corporal at the time, and had conducted that interview within an hour of the shooting death of Kevin St. Arnaud in the early hours of December 19th 2004.
Lawyer Cameron Ward argued the taped statement to MacLellan painted an accurate picture of what the demeanor was following the shooting.  He also suggested to MacLellan that he had been leading Sheremetta in what to say in the statement. Coroner Shane De Meyer said both of these RCMP officers had appeared before the Coroner’s inquest and he felt there had been sufficient time to question them about their actions on the night of Dec 18th-19th 2004. He added “I don’t see any value in playing the DVD, it is more important to have the testimony of the witness today then what took place 2 years ago.”  De Meyer reminded all in attendance that the inquest is not about assessing blame. 
Ward said a more accurate picture could be made by watching the video which was taken at the time of the shooting. Ward told the inquest that in the taped video, Sheremetta uses F…..k seven times and also used other colorful language. He also said he wanted to ask about the comment on the tape that Sheremetta says, “I slipped on my ass and fell down” while in another section Sheremetta says that St. Arnaud said “you’ll have to shoot me mother  ...F…….er”.   That, said Ward, flies completely in the face of what Constable Colleen Erickson had testified in which she said Sheremetta was standing with his arms outstretched with his gun in his hand, while St. Arnaud walked toward him. She said in her testimony that Sheremetta fired at least two rounds from a standing position. She also testified that St. Arnaud was walking towards Sheremetta when he was shot and the two men were about 10 to 12 feet apart.
MacLellan told the inquest he thought during the interview that Sheremetta seemed completely composed.   MacLellan said he had been Sheremetta’s supervisor when he worked in Vanderhoof and had gone on some calls with him. When asked about the differing testimony between Const Sheremetta and Const Erickson, MacLellan said inconsistency between people occurs every day in their testimony and he didn’t find it unusual that Erickson’s testimony differed from that of Sheremetta. He described Constable Erickson as a police officer with impeccable credentials. MacLellan told the inquest that after taking Sheremetta’s statement, he made a call to Sherametta’s Lawyer, “I made arrangements with Constable Sheremetta to make contact with his Counsel, and called that Lawyer at 4:05 a.m.”  That call was made before interviewing Constable Erickson
Sergeant MacLellan added that if the evidence is not there then the Crown will not approve the charges.
Earlier in the day the two Paramedics who attended the scene of the shooting testified. Drew Hunsaker said he took St. Arnaud's pulse about 1:30 Am., Dec 19th and determined that he was dead. He testified further that he bandaged a small cut on Sheremetta's hand and during that conversation Sheremetta told him that he might have received the cut “when I was wrestling around in the snow” with St.Arnaud. When Hunsaker asked him how the man lying there in the soccer field had died, Sheremetta replied that he had shot him.  Another Paramedic Jim Vanderploeg said when he arrived, “There was a body lying there and about 15 to 20 feet away  Sheremetta  was standing” He said “When we drove up we saw a young male standing there with a hood over his head watching what was going on. I mentioned to police on the scene and I don’t know what they did with it.” 
The inquest continues Thursday.
  
Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Two cops, one UNARMED drunken man.
metalman.
What exactly is the purpose of the inquest?
If no blame is to be determined-why bother going through the agony for the family?
And no charges can be laid?
It is determined the police officer killed the man with 3 shots-each one capable of taking his life-so obvious he meant to kill. He did not shoot to maim!
The officer is simply transferred to another detachment to carry on his so called duties-and seemingly has no remorse-and he did not have to face the families of the man he killed-so where is he entitled to this consideration?
The Sergeant appears to be a master at initiating a cover-up. The truth means nothing to these members of the force.
I commend Erickson, as evidence by this officer was clearly forthright and truthful. I do not believe many officers of this calibre are on the force.
So many people have lost respect for the R C M P. Is it any wonder? There is no respect for the judicial system, and now I question going to the expense and hurt of an inquest-when it seems so pointless. The cops win-predetermined conclusion. Shows they can get away with murder. Who needs capital punishment when the cops are loose cannons?

Uh Metalman,

It was one constable, one drunken unarmed man involved in the immediate incident. Constable Erickson did not take part in the exchange between St. Arnaud. and Shermetta.

Constable Erickson has been a member for 27 years and I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that if she had arrived on the scene first, St. Arnaud would still be alive today.
I give them a wide berth at Timmies. Ya never know. If ya spill coffee on one of 'em accidentally, they'll shoot ya dead.Claiming hot coffee could have been a weapon. Reminds me of the death squads they have in South America. You would at least think if they (the cops) were gonna shoot someone, why not shoot the organized crime baddies who never will contribute to society? It is always the good guys who lose. Nice guys finish last. So they say
Paramedic: “When we drove up we saw a young male standing there with a hood over his head watching what was going on"

So who jumped from the roof? Arnaud, or this fellow watching? Did the police have continuous eye contact with the "jumper"?

Inquests do not assign blame. They try to determine what happened. If there is new evidence which comes out, then someone may decide to follow up. I too find it strange that it is pre-determined that there will be no follow-up. I assume that could change depending on the outcome of the inquest.

There should be recommendations coming from this inquest.

- don't get drunk
- don't jump from roofs
- shoot first, ask questions later is okay as long as you don't miss the leg and get the chest instead.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/01/25/bc-police.html?ref=rss
I came across this article today and it makes me so angry. They got in more trouble than the guy that murdered my daughters father that calls himself an officer of the law did. I guess the word of a fellow officer has no meaning...maybe they should all be forced to carry some sort of camera as part of their uniform....but then again that would give them more to cover up.
I have one thing to say:

The statute of limitations does not expire on indictable offences.