Trusted, your response is quite vehement. To call it murder is harsh. It takes a lot of courage and character to be the kind of person who would willingly put themselves in harms way for "the good of everyone else", ie: a soldier. Soldiers willingly put their lives on the line for the benefit and protection of others. Are they suicidal and crazed Rambo maniacs? I think not, they are men of character, honor, strength, courage, pride, full of integrity.

Those we put in power to "protect" us on our own city streets should be of no less character as they put their lives on the line every single day for us. Therein lies our problem. Not enough people with the required character to go around?

The matter is not going to be ignored, files can be reviewed if it is determined they should be. Those people who have the power to make that decision, let's just hope they have some character....

It was troubleing to read the huge difference in testimony between sheremetta and his more experienced colleague who was also present at the scene when the shooting occurred. He is definately skateing on thin ice!! Crown should reopen the matter themselves.

If a cop asks you to stop then stop. They deal with too much BS as it is. What happened to people being responsible? Victim mentality is getting out of hand.
I would say if an RCMP member shoots you then it is a good chance you and not the cop are at fault.

Free Enterprise you must not have read the story. According to an expert witness he was stopped. Things aren't always black and white.

Oleh is a good man, I'm sure he'll do the right thing.

For clarification, Crown can only make a charge approval decision based on the information presented to them by the police as a result of an investigation (or lack of one). If information is withheld or suppressed by the police (Oh god, say it isn't so) then that information would not be available to Crown when they make their decision. Now that new information has come to light, I'm sure that Crown will insist on a more thorough investigation and report.

Though it seems like a cold blooded killing, it doesn't qualify for murder.
The officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties up until he pulled the trigger. That's excessive use of force if the case gets made out, and that means manslaughter at best.

However, now that the very contradictory evidence has put his integrity into question (and not just slightly), he should be relieved of duty until Crown has reviewed the new evidence and made a decision on the case, as it calls into question his ability to be fair, honest, and (most importantly) believable when testifying in a case before a court of law.

At this point in time, I do not believe that a judge or magistrate could give much creedence to his testimony in other cases, where it is not directly supported by the evidence (his word only), and where the divergence in testimony at the inquest is raised by defence counsel.

That's the law boys and girls.

P.S. Don M, I read your post on the other article and I have to ask, "What the hell is the matter with your head, anyway ?"
Get some help, man.

I regret I have had to pull some comments. Two from RUEZ (only because they were duplicates), and a few others because of the accusations against the constable. While there is conflicting testimony, we must be careful about labelling people as murderers. I don't want us all to lose our ability to comment because of legal action for libel. The officer has not been charged, and even if he had been charged, he would be considered innocent until proven guilty. The same applies to the deceased, it is unfair to label him a theif when he was never charged or convicted of that crime.
I ask that we all exercise extra caution when posting comments on this issue. I thank you all for being patient on a matter that is so very emotional. I also ask that we please try not to launch personal attacks against other contributors.

-Elaine Macdonald

Elaine, It must have been somebody else, it's not like us to get out of control.

;-)