Family Holds Little Hope in St Arnaud Investigation

Monday, April 30, 2007 12:19 PM

The family of Kevin St. Arnaud, the young man shot to death by an RCMP officer in Vanderhoof in December of 2004, has mixed feelings on the news the Public Complaints Commissioner is expanding his investigation. (See Chair of Complaints Commission Revises St. Arnaud Probe)

(at left, Kevin’s mother, Delores Young, and step father, Brian Young, stand beside soccer field where Kevin died. photo was taken in January 2007 by opinion250 during the Coroner’s Inquest into Kevin’s death)

Kevin’s step father, Brian Young says, "The Commission alleging the RCMP failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the death of Kevin is good news, but I got to tell you I don’t hold out much hope that anything of good will come out of it."

Young is still looking for answers as to why Constable Ryan Sheremetta fired his gun "I think we had a power tripping cop who chased Kevin into that field with his gun drawn , then he says he put it back in the holster and then drew it again shooting Kevin."

Young also has questions about the investigation "You had a guy who was in charge of the investigation who didn’t do much of a job at it with the result that we are where we are."

Lawyer Cameron Ward, who represented members of the family at the Vanderhoof inquest says he is encouraged with the new developments in a case that so far has not had many encouraging moments. “Kevin’s family seeks justice and this may be one small step in achieving that,” says Cameron Ward.

He continues to work on the case, “ I have not heard from the Crown Attorney's office on my request that they reconsider charges in the matter, they still haven’t got back to me on that front."

While it is understood the RCMP have instructed Constable Colleen Erickson that she is not to speak with the media about the shooting, her testimony at the Coroner’s inquest differed to that of Ryan Sheremetta. The Public Complaints Commissioner could compel her to testify.

On May 22^nd the inquest into the death of Ian Bush, who also was shot to death by an RCMP officer, will begin in Houston before Coroner, Shane deMeyer.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 12:19 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: heidi1555 on April 30 2007 1:21 PM

I still have hope :) Really must remain positive in situations like these.

Posted by: whynotyou on April 30 2007 1:34 PM

my thoughts are with all of those whose wounds will again freshly feel the pain of this tragedy. May the fight for justice never cease.

Posted by: thereasonableman on April 30 2007 6:44 PM

I have hope. They wouldn't even be talking about it if the plan was still to bury it.

I'd venture to say that they already have a plan, and already know what they are going to do. This is the prelude to the plan, I think.

Posted by: heidi1555 on April 30 2007 7:47 PM

Just hearing that someone else has hope makes me feel like i'm just not a dreamer anymore.....I could cry :)

Posted by: lmorg on May 1 2007 9:54 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 11:03 AM

So how do us little people go about changing the one year time limit? I guess myself and the mother of his other two children need to sue and all his friends and family members also. Why do they protect their own? Would they be losing them left, right and center if they didn't? This world is so crazy. Do these kind of people sleep at night? If so I wonder if they still would after waking up every morning and looking Kevin's children in the eyes. Believe it or not i'm still hopeful....a little anger left, a lot of hurt(obviously) and an extra amount of strength.

Posted by: lmorg on May 1 2007 1:27 PM

Yes you would have to sue in civil court for wrongfull death. As for the one year time limit in the rcmp, this is written in federal statute, and the only government body who can change that is parliament.

Posted by: freebc on May 1 2007 1:32 PM

Sorry folks.

While I don't know what really happened that night, it is clear that Kevin was a crack head and not beyond anything. I have no reason to believe that the cop may have actually felt threatened.

I have dealt with many crackheads and they are dangerously unstable.

He was in the phamacy which made him a thief to start with and as I said, I knew him personally as a dope addict.

I feel for the family. But he wasn't the good boy they are wishing he was.

He may have been in the past, but he certainly wasn't toward his end.

It would be good for the whole truth to come out just the same.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 1 2007 2:47 PM

whatever your opinion freebc he didnt deserve the death penalty.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 1 2007 4:58 PM

I think "freebc" is trying to say, that the officer may have been defending himself against "unclear" danger. Sheremetta perceived that he may be in danger and fired his weapon.

(i.e.)Thinking that Kevin may be extremely unstable or unpredictable due to drug usage, Sheremetta perceived danger, and fired.
I think that was the opinion being opined.
If so, then that is a fair statement by itself, and a fair opinion. That could be the way it went down ? Who knows ?

[B]However, I think we don't need to draw into the equation, what Kevin's rating on the "good boy" scale may or may not be to one person or another. I'm sure everyone had an opinion of him. People always do, one way or the other and they are probably as diverse as the ocean. Point made ? [/B]

What they are dealing with right now is the question of whether the shooting was justified, and did the RCMP investigate it properly ? Some questions also remain unanswered, regarding reported facts in the case.

That's all, folks.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 1 2007 5:10 PM

BTW:

Don't worry about time limits...there are still available mechanisms. Internal discipline is still real and possible in certain cases.

Crown Counsel will review the case if new information is submitted by the police, for review.

All Crown Counsel does is approve charges, or not - based on substantial likelihood of conviction, or not.

A good case is made by the investigator (the police), not the Crown. That puts a certain amount of control in the hands of the police, in regards to what type of case is put together for Crown to review.

Crown Counsel does not investigate, they refer the investigation back to the police for follow-up, if need be (to chase down leads, get missing information, get statements, interview people, etc.).

For the layperson:

If the police hand Crown Counsel a file that is absolute crap, and has no legs at all, the Crown cannot do anything more with it but stuff it in the wall (if there is no further information forthcoming from the investigator) or refer it back to the police for further investigation, follow-up, etc.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 1 2007 6:15 PM

There is a time and place where we must look at ourselves and decide if more respect in our words is needed for the deceased and the family of the deceased. The knife has already been jabbed into the hearts of the loved ones....it doesnt need to be slashed back and forth...especially still two years later. What we should for sure be focussing on is what thereasonableman has said about whether or not the shooting was justified. Don't forget witnesses including the officers partner saw Kevin with hands in the air. Just something to think about :) My heart went out to you when I read about TB. Maybe i'm being too sensitive but I don't think so.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 2 2007 12:09 AM

We should remember also that a person with an addiction is not substandard. We are all addicted or obsessed with one thing or another, whatever your overindulgence may be. Legality is a side issue, not a justification for one versus the other.

Also remember that nobody made plans for their life to be that way. Sometimes you don't realize you were going there until you got there.

Remember also that some people have gone from penthouse to parking lot and back again during the course of their life. It is so easy to happen to anyone of us. Just add the right circumstances.

Posted by: whynotyou on May 2 2007 8:23 AM

Circumstances. Puts it all together but never really fully explains why.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 2 2007 9:39 AM

Not everything is as it seems to some. I will speak from what I know personally during our time together: he didnt have or use anything. His fix was coca cola and burger king lol. He had a beautiful strong mind and heart. Was an excellent father. Was always there if you needed him...ALWAYS.(if he had to walk to get to you he would.)If something wasn't going quite right in any area didnt matter what it was he always remained positive and knew how to find a way to make things better. He'd show up with groceries and cook dinner, shovelled the driveway and salted the path without me even knowing he was at my house. Went with the flow. Was always calm and happy and wanted to get out to the movies or take kids to museum/park. Was a really good guy and an excellent father. He loved those kids more than anything. Is sadly missed. Have a good day all :)

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 2 2007 9:40 AM

Oh p.s. I still have hope :)

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 2 2007 11:36 AM

Whether comments made by "freebc" are true are not, it was still an ignorant thing to do. It could have been said more intelligently and respectfully, if it needed to be said.