Chair of Complaints Commission Revises St. Arnaud Probe

Monday, April 30, 2007 09:57 AM

The Chair of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Paul E. Kennedy, has added another element to his investigation related to the shooting death of Kevin St. Arnaud in Vanderhoof in December of 2004. He now wants to look at the way police investigated the shooting

Kennedy issued this ammendment this morning:

"On March 15, 2006, I initiated a public complaint into the shooting death of Mr. Kevin St. Arnaud. Mr. St. Arnaud was shot by a member of the Vanderhoof RCMP on December 19, 2004 in Vanderhoof, British Columbia. The original complaint alleged that:

Members of the RCMP improperly entered into a situation with Mr. St. Arnaud that resulted in his death.
A member of the RCMP improperly discharged his firearm in the incident.

The inquest into Mr. St. Arnaud's death occurred in the latter half of January 2007. It became clear from the evidence heard during the inquest that there are also issues relating to the adequacy of the original criminal investigation that need to be addressed as part of the Commission's public complaint.

As such, I am amending my public complaint, initiated pursuant to subsection 45.37(1) of the RCMP Act, to add the following allegation:

Members of the RCMP failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the death of Mr. St. Arnaud."

Normally, a public complaint takes , on average, about 120 days to complete. It was thought the complaint process would start its investigation once the inquest was completed at the end of January this year. Under that time frame, it would have been reasonable to expect a report and recommendations within the next month. It is not clear how this additional allegation will impact the time frame of the investigation.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 09:57 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: heidi1555 on April 30 2007 11:27 AM

Soon everyone will see what we see Mr. Meisner :) RCMP just do what you know is right. Let the faith and trust start to build all over again from those of us you slapped in the face.

Posted by: thereasonableman on April 30 2007 6:54 PM

Maintiens Le Droit.

Posted by: whynotyou on May 1 2007 7:39 AM

All that matters is that a thorough, complete and proper investigation is done, no matter how long it takes. I would like to believe that if a person were innocent of something, that a lengthy and careful investigation would reveal their innocence as well as confirm the guilt of those who are guilty.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 1 2007 9:41 AM

Well said.

Posted by: lmorg on May 1 2007 9:56 AM

Unfortunately, the constable will never undergo any kind of internal discipline should the commission find fault. They can only recommend to the commissioner of the rcmp. The new commissioner of the rcmp was the commanding officer of BC at the time of this incident so she would have had full knowledge of it when it occurred and we all know that once the one year time limit passes without starting the process, everybody walks. This includes the people who investigated the incident. If fault is found with them, they walk too. The only way now is through the courts and with the current stance by crown on this it will be difficult.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 1 2007 11:08 AM

You know it whynotyou :) That's the way it should be for sure.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 2 2007 11:46 AM

"Unfortunately, the constable will never undergo...".

You have no idea. I personally smell a sh!t storm blowing in.

You don't think that this is just playing out right before your very eyes, do you ?
Come on, people in these high ranking positions don't do anything of their own volition. They do exactly as they are told to do, that's why they are in those positions.

These people are acting out a script, so to speak. They have already been instructed on how this is to progress. They are not "winging" it.

Lastly, if you think they can't reach out and touch these guys (if that's what they really want to do), you are so wrong.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 2 2007 12:04 PM

Oh, one other thing to mention...

One thing that sometimes happens with new recruits, in drawing and using firearms, is that they forget (in the heat of the moment) to keep their finger off of the trigger when drawing their weapons (until such time as you want to actually fire) to avoid accidental shootings.

They are taught to keep their trigger finger extended and resting on the side of the trigger guard for safety.

It is easy to unknowingly squeeze the trigger enough to fire a shot, if you hold the gun tightly while your finger is on the trigger.

A sudden loss of balance can cause you to squeeze the gun suddenly, and once again if your finger is on the trigger at the time, you will fire a shot unintentionally.

This is a common danger with anyone who is new to handling guns.

The natural tendency of any person (especially when in an excited state) is to wrap their hand tightly around the gun and hold on tight, thereby squeezing the trigger if they have their finger on it, which is the most natural place for it to be, by design.

Just some food for thought, from experience.

I personally have fired two shots that I never meant to. Lucky for me, they were downrange towards a target.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 2 2007 10:17 PM

I can see that once but 3 times?? :( To me that sounds like an order from the brain.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 3 2007 3:55 AM

Yes, the first pull on the trigger is double-action (meaning that one pull cocks the hammer for firing and then releases it), and every one after that is single-action, due to it's semi-automatic action.

The slide automatically recocks the hammer for the next shot after every pull of the trigger.

What does this mean and why is this important to know ?

The first pull on the trigger (double-action) is the one with the most resistance to firing, but can easily be misfired, especially if you lose your balance or accidentally squeeze the trigger too hard.

Every other pull on the trigger (single-action) is very much less resistance to firing than double-action, and can actually be tapped for rapid fire.

If you accidentally fire a double-action shot, it is easy to fire subsequent shots just by trying to hold onto the gun, especially if you were startled by the first one. These guns have more recoil than a revolver.

Note: The old revolver-type weapon was double-action on every trigger pull, unless you pulled the hammer back with your thumb before pulling the trigger, like in old Western Movies.