Family of Kevin St. Arnaud Re-Groups

Monday, January 29, 2007 06:00 AM

Closure is not something the family of Kevin St. Arnaud has yet attained...

The 29-year-old Vanderhoof resident was shot three times by an RCMP officer in December of 2004.

Police said at the time that he was a suspect in a robbery.

On Friday (click here for previous story), a seven-day Coroner’s Inquest examining the circumstances surrounding St. Arnaud’s death wrapped up, with the five-person jury issuing seven recommendations.

The inquest is over, but his family must go on...

"I’m not sure how we’re doing, we’re still sort of reeling with all of it and it just keeps running around in our heads. Well, my head, anyway," says St. Arnaud’s mother, Delores Young.

Young says, "It just seems like that particular process has no teeth."

She doesn’t feel the jury’s recommendations offer anything of substance, but says, to be fair, the jury members may have been faced with constraints on what they could recommend. Young, herself, was not allowed to offer suggestions on possible recommendations to the jury.

Her recommendations:

"One is about the length of time that it takes for an inquest. When it all first started, he told us -- Shane DeMeyer [the coroner] told us -- that he liked to have them done within a year. Now this has been over two years and it sort of hangs over you the whole time."

"The second, which Cameron Ward [the family’s lawyer] seemed to make grievously obvious, was that the RCMP should not investigate themselves in cases where someone is killed or grievously harmed."

A third point, for Young, is the fact that taxpayers foot the bill for lawyers for the coroner and RCMP, but not for the person involved. She says, "And sitting there through the inquest, it is obvious that you need a lawyer, that you need someone to speak for you and bring up points that are pertinent."

"We have, coming up, the Ian Bush case and his family is responsible to pay for any justice that they want to see there." Bush was the 22-year-old Houston resident who was shot and killed in that community’s RCMP detachment in October of 2005. A date for a Coroner’s Inquest has not yet been set in his case. Both his mother and sister, Renee, attended St. Arnaud’s inquest.

As for Delores Young, she says the inquest into her son’s death, rather than giving closure, "opened up a whole new can of worms." But she admits it’s emotionally draining and is not sure if the family will approach the B.C. Civil Liberties Association or the Police Complaints Commission.

"I think right now we need to re-group and sort of get over this one before we embark strenuously on another one, but, yeah, I know those are two avenues we can seek."

When asked if the family intended to approach the B.C. Civil Liberties Union or the Police Complaints Commission

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 06:00 AM in News by Michelle Cyr-Whiting

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: snappi on January 29 2007 8:25 AM

Talk about adding insult to injury! This family has been grieving the loss of their loved one for nearly 2 years and then all they end up with is bitter disappointment. Now they continue to grieve a family member as well as the outcome of this inquest, try to re-group mentally as well as financially so they can continue to at least try to find some fairness in our justice system.
How unfair that these officers have all the support they could ask for when they still have their lives and their families?
Oh and lets not forget the finacial support. I send my condolences to Mrs. Young and her family and wish them all the best of luck with their efforts. Also to Mrs. Bush and her family.

Posted by: lookingatthestars on January 29 2007 8:43 AM

My thought every time some poor young person is killed by the police is "why do they shoot to kill?" If they really feel they have to defend themselves, why not aim for a leg. Why are they not trained to do this?

Posted by: trusted on January 29 2007 8:53 AM

And the powers that be will proclaim
"Justice has been served."
It is all an absolute hypocrisy.
What did all this idiotic performance accomplish?
Absolutely nothing for the family of the deceased.
The cost should be exposed so the public is well aware of the manner in which their tax dollars are spent to protect a person who committed a "homicide." A man who gets paid to "protect the public," and is paid handsomely from the public purse.
The family of the man "killed" can just bear all the expense on their own backs, while the man who "killed" is under the wraps of a protectionist system.
It will end here, as the family is more than likely not in a position to pay a high priced legal beagle to proceed with an action.
Besides, what lawyer would want the case? Just might put a blemish on his future career as a lawyer. After all, the birds of a feather must stick together.
The system has a disgusting stink attached to it.

Posted by: thereasonableman on January 29 2007 9:29 AM

The inquest jury is limited in the scope of their recommendations, and nobody is bound by them anyway. It is merely a fact-finding exercise to find anything that could be done better or safer. They are most useful in regards to industrial accidents, and one of the reasons we now have lockouts on mill equipment, etc.

They are not very useful for police matters, except in the case where the cop was killed by way of following poor safety practices, etc.

However, what it did do is provide a forum for good and decent officials to clear their chest of the heavy burden they have been carrying, in what is now obviously an attempt at misleading the public and the crown counsel's office, and speak the truth about their findings and what they saw with their own eyes.

It is now incumbent on Crown Counsel to insist on a proper and complete investigation and report, in light of the furiously contradictory testimony, and once again review the file. If Crown Counsel decides not to take action, I believe that they should make the file available to the family for review, and explain their decision to them.

If none of these are done, then you will at least have first hand experience with how corrupt the legal system really is, and how it's various representatives really are complicit in abusing the process and it's mechanisms in favor of their own best interests, thereby making them no better (or worse) than the very people they seek to condemn for their actions.

Now you know the real reasons why the death penalty was abolished, there was the opportunity for too much abuse of the process. It's better to jail an innocent man than to put him to death.

Lastly, Jack Cram (a Vancouver lawyer) was not crazy (as they'd have you believe), he was just the only one who was right, and the only one who dared say so. He got slammed for saying what everyone else was thinking.

Posted by: trusted on January 29 2007 10:08 AM

Help me on this one, thereasonableman.
If the family had the money to pay a decent lawyer (I use the word "decent" rather loosely), what are the possible outcomes?
Could the family and children be compensated for the loss of a father, husband, son?
To what degree? The children, I assume, are very young and have lost not only a father, but one capable of supporting them for many years.
The mothers must bear the double duty of parenting for both Mom and the deceased Dad. What compensation could be expected on their behalf? Raising children is quite an expense, as many of us are aware.
I cannot understand why no one in Vanderhoof initiated a fund being set up by donations for the purpose of such an action being brought forward.
I, for one, would gladly donate if the outcome would be beneficial to the families, and make the cop pay his own legal costs for a defense, and not have that expense paid by the public purse.
The truth would be told during court action, and no "cover up", but total exposure of the uncalled for killing of Kevin St.Arnaud.
Ben's 97 second posting would prompt every opinion 250 participant to donate.
It certainly must have dominated the site by telling it like it was. \
Where can they go from here?

Posted by: metalman on January 29 2007 10:21 AM

"Aim for the leg" yeah right!
tell that to the cop who is panicking.
Yes I am being sarcastic, anyone who has read my previous posts knows my thoughts on the matter. The fact is, these people are trained to 'shoot back' in self defense. The largest target man to man is the trunk or torso of the human body which is threatening you,ergo the easiest target. Got most of the vitals in there too. To aim for the leg or arm is so hollywood, I assume. I think just discharging the 9mm into the sky would put the fear of some great deity into most of these would be attackers, probably slow them a little. Hey cop, take a chance, don't shoot him/her until they are right up close to you, and then shoot the thigh, or better, the knee. Surely you can't miss at close range, unless you are panicking.
metalman.

Posted by: lmorg on January 29 2007 10:42 AM

The cops are trained to shoot to stop which means they are trained to shoot at "center mass" because that's where the vital organs are. I've heard of people being shot once and reacting like nothing has happpened while they keep coming forward to attack. So, the cops shoot twice, one to stop, one to knock down. the shoot for the leg stuff? Ha! Your'e right metalman, that's all hollywood especially if the targets moving!!

Posted by: thereasonableman on January 29 2007 11:29 AM

In a civil action, you would have to prove (on the balance of probability) negligence or some other lack of due care. In my opinion, it is not actionable civilly.
(the O.J. Simpson case is a good example of American vs. Canadian law, so don't get the two confused)

That being said, there is a bigger issue of not only the officer involved appearing to make false or misleading statements, but also the lead investigator and other superiors. It also gives every appearance of Crown Counsel suddenly lacking any knowledge of what a proper and thorough investigation looks like. If there is not enough evidence to support a charge in relation to the amount of force used, there should be at the very least, a few people facing investigation for misleading.

As for the shoot for the leg deal, yes it's very much hollywood. Handguns are very inaccurate in most people's hands, except at very close range. They are taught to shoot at the largest available part of the target and rightly so. It's just that most people don't do it unless their life is justifiably in danger.

Lastly, if you are not familiar with the Jack Cram case, have a read. I don't agree with his every word or thought (he can be a little eccentric at times), but I do agree that the system was abused to shut him up and I do believe his contention that people in power in the legal system are abusing that power far more than anybody wants to know.

Now that I've said that, they should be pulling up to my door with the van any time now, armed with an order under s.24 of the Mental Health Act. However, it's the drug injections that I'm looking forward to. It'll take my mind off of how little we can do to affect change, and how we are all totally and utterly at their mercy.

8-)

Posted by: Marty on January 29 2007 8:48 PM

I learned a lot from this experience....If I am walking across a soccer field and a cop asks me to stop, I am going to run in a zigzag pattern as fast as I can hoping that my eratic moves make him miss with his bullets.
Because apparently walking on a soccer field can get you gunned down.

Posted by: snappi on January 30 2007 10:01 AM

Its nice to know that there are people out there like you Heidi. The Bush family is lucky to have you. My daughter's boyfriend is from Houston and they both knew Ian. From what I hear he was a good kid. How sad that the Bush family is next to fight the system. I wish them all the luck in the world. Be strong!

Posted by: heidi1555 on January 31 2007 4:33 PM

Hi Snappi, you're so sweet :) I try to find the positive when necessary and there are times I know I should just shut up but find myself babbling away. Now I feel my job is to keep his memory alive for all three kids. I can't speak for Jen (the mother of kevins two other kids) but for Leah and myself I would love to see a fund set up just for Dolores and Brian so they can get back what they have paid for in legal costs or so they can continue with the next step if they wish to do so. Don't know what else to say about that as ask my sister how stubborn i am....I never ask for help and it drives her crazy lol..oh well. Financially we are fine trusted :) All take care.

Posted by: billou3 on January 31 2007 5:01 PM

This is such crap!!!

Sheremetta felt threatened????????

Well I feel threatened every time I go to George and 3rd Avenue======but just think what would happen to me if I killed an unarmed person. And BTW if I killed an invader in my own home, I would be held and charged with homicide or 2nd degree murder.

Our legal system sucks big time.