Koester Refuses to Re-Enact Shooting

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 07:25 PM

The Coroner’s Inquest into the shooting death of 22 year old Ian Bush worked an extra long day today.

RCMP Constable Paul Koester was the only witness to take the stand. He told a Coroner’s jury this afternoon that he did not wish to try and re-enact the way in which he got his arm up and over the head of Ian Bush before shooting him in the back of the head October 29^th-2005.

Koester said" I’d rather not show you how the event took place." The lawyer for the Bush family, Howard Rubin, asked that a member of the media (about Ian Bush’s size) to come to the front of the court room and have Koester show him how he was able to get his arm around and to the back of the head of Bush to at first ,hit him with the barrel end of the gun and then, when he said he felt he was losing consciousness, fire his gun.

Under advice from his lawyer Koester said "I think my explanation of the incident is sufficient enough."

Earlier in the day Koester began to cry and broke down when he told the jury what had taken place.

Koester said Ian Bush had been picked up for having open beer and then giving the wrong name to Koester who put Bush in handcuffs and took him to the RCMP office three blocks away.

The fight between Bush and Koester took place as Bush was being released from the interview room, after Bush had been told that he was being charged with open liquor and a criminal offence for not identifying himself when asked by a police officer. When he talked to Bush in the interview room, Koester said Ian had his hands under his chin and looked like he was going to cry. Koester said the young man’s mood then chaged and he hit the officer on the side of the head, then punched him two more times before the pair ended up on a sofa in the room.

Koester says, at this point, Bush was on top of him. The police officer, fearing that he was losing his breath, tried to hit Bush with the barrel of the gun and just before he fainted, he fired. Crying on the stand he said,” I had taken a life in order to save my own”.

Koester said Bush had him in a choke hold from on top of him , but Koester later stated that it was not right on top of him but rather at a 45 degree angle after the issue had been raised.

Questioned about how the story changed, he said "I changed my story there in the past week."

Under cross examination Koester said he had a bruise about the size of a finger nail on his neck from the choke hold.

It was at this point that lawyer Howard Rubin called Vancover Sun reporter, Ian Mulgrew to the front of the court room to have Koester show how ,while he was under Bush on the seating area of a couch, he was able to get his gun around and fire, hitting Bush in the back of the head . Koester said after consulting with his lawyer that ,"I gave my explanation in my statement and that seems sufficient to me”.

Coroner Shane DeMeyer said that he could not compel Koester to re enact the manouever and he didnt feel it appropriate that a member of the media should be involved.

Howard Rubin then asked Koester what happened with the recommendation by the New Westminister Police who, on examining the matter, suggested that a re- enactment of the shooting should take place? Koester said he didn’t know who said it would not take place. He didn’t know whether it was the RCMP or not.

On the other side of the fight Howard Rubin asked of Koester if he was taught to use methods like kicking or puching someone in the testicles to bring them into submission. Koester said yes.

He was then asked if he had kicked or punched Bush ,who in the pictures produced in court had a large bruise desribed at about 3 to 6 inches near his testicles. Koester said he couldn’t remember if he had kicked Bush.

The matter of giving statements took up a good portion of the cross examination with Howard Rubin trying to piece together when and where the statements were given by Koester. The inquest was told that in fact the statement was changed about one week ago in Vancouver. The first statement made by Koester, a forty pager, was destroyed by Koester and it was re done on about November 17th, 2005. Bush died on October 29^th.

A second statement was also made up and eventually, a third.

Howard Rubin said he found it rather strange that a statement was given two and half weeks after the shooting took place. He said don’t you think it is strange that when the police investigate a matter they tell the person who pulled the trigger to get a lawyer? He also asked isn’t it strange that no statement was taken for weeks , is that normal practice? Koester replied that he had never investigated a serious shooting like this.

Koester concluded by saying that "Every day I have tried to forget about everything that happened that night" Howard Rubin then asked "Why, if you’re trying to forget did you take such a long time to prepare the statements?"

The inquest into the shooting death of Ian Bush resumes tomorrow in Houston.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 07:25 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: snappi on May 23 2007 9:05 PM

It all sounds suspicious to me.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on May 23 2007 10:42 PM

I have a suspicion snappi has never been in a fight. I wouldn't recommend anyone getting their coconut rung to find out what it's like.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 23 2007 10:49 PM

I wish I knew just how much of my mind i'm allowed to speak on here. I take the picture of diagram of Ian laying on couch and all what has been said so far at the inquest and close my eyes and its like a movie playing and can see it plain as day.
Koester refuses to re-enact the shooting well I refuse to believe he is telling the truth. I think he cried tears of guilt.

Posted by: Chadermando on May 23 2007 11:08 PM

I've been in the situation where someone had me in a choke hold before after speaking before thinking. There is no way you could reach a gun to the back of someone�s head while in a choke hold. I got out of it with a few good upper cuts to behind my head and the side of the other guys.

Unless Ian had his back turned to Koester and was managing to choke him like that, then I can't see how he could be shot to the back of the head.

IMO Koester went on a power trip and kicked Ian Bush in the nuts a few times, then pistal whipped him and told Ian he was going to take his last breath before shooting him. Investigating himself allowed him time to create the story we hear today.

Posted by: RUEZ on May 23 2007 11:13 PM

Good to see the armchair CSI's in here that know exactly how it went down. When will you be testifying?

Posted by: owl on May 23 2007 11:26 PM

Seems to be as good as the story told by Koester.

Normally, if the shoe were on the other foot, the typical words out of people's mouths would be something like: "If Koester is telling the truth, why would he be afraid of physically re-enacting what happened? If he is not willing to do that, he must be hiding something."

Posted by: owl on May 23 2007 11:30 PM

What do I think the possible answers are to that kind of question?

At worst, he is trying to hide the truth.

At best, he has actually forgotten exactly what happened since the whole incident was traumatic for him and he may even be suffering from PTSD. I do not know under what circumstances he was crying during his testimony, but if it is real, it is an indicator of PTSD.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 23 2007 11:32 PM

If Ian was over Koester when shot wouldn't Koester be covered in Ian's blood? I attended the first day of the inquest and saw the diagram of Ian laying on couch. They said Ian was laying face down on couch with blood pooled out on his shoulder and trickled down the broken sofa onto the floor. If Koester was supposedly under Ian when shot he would have Ian's blood on him plus he would have to get up sooner or later and in order to get up he would have to push Ian off of him causing him to fall back on floor and the blood patterns would be smeared and so on. Like the blood pattern specialist said on the stand about taking a paint brush full of paint on a wall and walk with the brush along wall and see your pattern.

Posted by: thereasonableman on May 23 2007 11:32 PM

I wonder if he came up with that story on his own or if it was dictated to him.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 24 2007 12:16 AM

He was too new on the job to not of had the story dictated and same goes for Sheremetta. I bet if these two guys could go back a few years to rethink the line of work they would want to enter they would.

Posted by: valerie on May 24 2007 5:02 AM

I have been following this story in the Globe and mail.
How typical of the RCMP to allow a fellow member who is under suspicion, to keep working in the community.
I suppose it furthur proves their point that they know what happened. I also have to ask what the seniour officers were doing that night when they left the rookie with something he decided to solve with a gun.
Murder for a bottle of beer in your hand is not acceptable in this society. The scuffle, like many on the street, was not fair. One had a pistol.
I feel so bad for Ian Bush's family. The boy did not deserve to have his life ended by such an incident. There is a wide desparity between what was going on and the result.
Admit it, RCMP that there must have been something wrong with the eway the incident happened , if only, so another life will not be taken. Perhaps one of the RCMP's children. They drink and scuffle too, you know.
Lately, the RCMP by association do not exactly show a good reflection of peaceful, honest living.
I also have to ask what Koester did with the interview tape he turned on? Is it common to not have a tape in the recorder. They had 3 days to get rid of it. If you were going to lie, you would get the tape first. Especially if you turned it on just before.
Hard to swallow all that!
And, I bet Ian was taught as a child to do what a policeman told him.
koester is blatently lying and I can't even see him on the stand. Just reading the reports. Some new Rookies come out of there feeling like superman and going to save the world.
One example is a new rookie going through a residential basement rec room , just missing the occupant who had gone to bed. This was chasing someone who went through a red light.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 24 2007 7:18 AM

IMO Ian may have still been trying to talk his way out of the charges in the interview room afterall he was holding the bottle of beer for a friend. (which could explain the position of the thumb print) For a 22 yr. old with a good job and a community who loved him...who would want a record over something so silly. Could be why he jokingly gave a friends name not knowing that was an offense. Maybe he was pacing the floor and said something sarcastic who knows and that could've been enough to get a kick from behind from an officer who gets triggered easily...cop isnt covered in Ian's blood, Ian's laying face down into couch. My opinion of the events...wasn't there that night but from what the RCMP state....it just doesnt make sense.

Posted by: snappi on May 24 2007 8:46 AM

Hey heidi, as long as you say "I think" you are safe as to what can be said. And no Yama I have never been in a physical fight, nor do I want to be in one. I don't think that Koester is innocent at all. Just after Ian was killed I was told by someone in Houston that this officer was on a power trip and was looking for trouble. Whether thats true or not, I believe its quite likely as I have seen how power hungry people can act as I'm sure most of you have. I also don't believe that this officer could forget even one second of what happened that night, and hopefully he never will as long as he lives. Especially when you think of what Ian's family and friends have gone through. Not to mention what they have to go through now just to try to get some kind of closure. They have to listen to all the evidence in great detail of what happened to Ian. That is the greatest crime of all, and someone needs to be held accountable for that. Yet all I keep hearing is "what can we do to prevent incidents like this from happening?" Of coarse it needs to stop but what about justice for Ian's family? I am a mother and my heart just breaks when I think about how I would feel if it was one of my kids. My heart goes out to Mrs. Bush and her family.

Posted by: ICEMAN on May 24 2007 8:55 AM

All I can say is " DIRTY COP " so there wont be any justice, just too many weird happenings in that room. Lets leave the body there for 3 days until the corner gets there, but we all know if the kid had killed the cop, the corner, and air ambulance would have been there right away. Also if the cop was in a chokehold and reached around to shoot him in the head, when the bullet exits, it would have entered the officer. OH WELL protect the police who are ssupposed to protect the general public

Posted by: Harbinger on May 24 2007 8:56 AM

I remember the name Fred Quilt from Williams Lake many years ago, when I muse about this ongoing inquiry. It was a long time ago. Any one out there care to refresh my memory about good ol' Fred? I don't recollect that incident publicly being resolved enough to stay in my mind. Do you?

Posted by: Andyfreeze on May 24 2007 9:15 AM

Interesting.
Fred quilt died from a beating while in custody by the RCMP.
I think it would have been in '71 or '72.
Not sure when it went to trial/inquest,but the RCMP were exonerated even though the death was ruled unnatural.
I recall there was a lot of unanswered questions when it was over and a lot of anger by natives AND whites.

Posted by: dazed_but_not_confused on May 24 2007 9:38 AM

Personally, I think the true story lies somewhere between. After all, it's human nature to minimalize your involvement when something bad happens. I suspect that perhaps the officer was goading, perhaps even giving a bit of an "attitude adjustment" when Mr Bush responded with violence. Then again, no one can say for sure. I do not, however, believe in any way that the officer would have pulled out his gun and shot unless he was threatened or in serious trouble. As far as being shot in the back of the head, positioning could be explained just by how their heads were turned while they were fighting. It's far from impossible to have shot someone in the back of the head on top of you if their head was twisted and/or you were reaching around to point the gun back at him. I don't think we'll ever know the true story, but because we don't, we can't really say how much each person was in the wrong, how much each person reacted to the other, etc, etc. I do believe the RCMP have tried, and are trying to clean it up somewhat however.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 24 2007 9:45 AM

Also, my sisters mother inlaw's best friend is the mother of Robert Bagnell who was the one who called for medical assistance in vancouver and was stun gunned by officers and died of heart failure. His inquest started the same day as Ian's I believe. I need to google his name to see whats happening in his case. To Renee Bush I know you're going to look beautiful tomorrow night at your graduation. Congrats and stay strong :)
Thanks Snappi. I really think Koester mentally lost it and got caught up in the whole power struggle thing and maybe really does forget certain things. We don't want that working on the streets. I would love to read everyones bio.

Posted by: Jimmi on May 24 2007 11:19 AM

All I know is that if you shoot someone in the back of the head while you are facing them you are an idiot and quite flexable.

If you shoot someone in the back of the head while you are behind them , you are an executioner

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on May 24 2007 11:28 AM

Some of the posts here are incredible. "A friend of a friend told me" or "I read about it so it must be true". This obviously is a real tragedy. This officer does not deserve to be hung in public by the media or you folks. He was in a fight for his life and tragically he had to ultimately use lethal force to save himself. Maybe people will learn that if you attack a police officer and attempt to choke him/her out obviously nothing good will come of it. Also if you are in an extremely violent altercation you will never remember it to the minutest detail.This is an inquest not a trial, hopefully some good will result in the end.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 24 2007 11:52 AM

We didn't put this officer in the publics eye to hang him he and his superiors did that. We want to know if he really was in fact in a fight for his life and from what they are saying 2+2=5. We want the truth 2+2=4.

Posted by: trollunderthebridge on May 24 2007 12:18 PM

"Tears of guilt, executioner,dirty cop,telling bush to take his last breath before shooting him". Sounds like you folks have already judged the officer by the above terms mentioned in your posts.As I said before nobody can recall a violent altercation down to the finest detail, so not everything heard will make sense to the layperson. This is mob mentality, the only difference is it is done from the behind a computer screen.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 24 2007 5:46 PM

wish i lived in the dark under a bridge.

Posted by: valerie on May 25 2007 8:17 AM

This whole thing sounds like it took place in a third world country.
There is no doubt in my mind that the other policemen were as crazy as koester.
Was it a long weekend or something and the decision makers were away? why would you leave a dead body rotting on a floor for that long.
I noticed they got help quickly enough for "their own". I always said they were a "brotherhood" which should not be in any workplace of responsibility to the public.
You automatically cover for your own. Like a dysfunctional family enables. You see yourself in that position .
It is hard to be objectove no matter how well you are trained if you have a brotherhood.
I have nothing against police in general and would be happy to see one if needed but in the past few months as I see the top of the RCMP pile answer to difficult questions in the RCMP, I can's help but think of the law of energy that says "poop runs down from the top."

Posted by: freebc on May 27 2007 8:52 AM

Okay.
I knew personally the guy that was shot in Vanderhoof.
Lily white that boy ain't. He was stealing drugs from the drug store when he was running from the cop.
I personally had taken him in my taxi to the very Prince George hood that is being targeted for all of the crack houses and drug selling houses.
This boy was more than a bit wierd all the time.
I don't believe he was shot wrongly. Sorry.

As for this fellow Bush? Why did he have to be a jerk over the beer. Who here doesn't know that drinking in a public place is illegal?
Why did Bush give the cop a false name?
Knowing what I know of many young punks who think that they are exempt from the law in the first place because "it was all in fun", the cop here is telling the truth too. I will err to the side of these cops both times.

I don't think either of these two dead boys were as some would tell you, shining examples to the community.

People complain because the cops do too much. They complain because they do to little. And they seem to think that cops go out of their way to abuse their percieved "power". Power they don't have.

You poeople who are decrying Koester for not re-enacting something like this obviously have not had to fight quickly to defend yourselves. And even do it on video then try to tell what moves you made. To expect that is totally unrealistic.

Posted by: heidi1555 on May 27 2007 9:16 AM

Oh my freebc...shaking my head right now.....keep in mind these cops committed the greater crime. These guys deserved at the most either a ticket or a short jail time. Just because Kevin didnt care what people thought of him doesnt make him weird. Unless you saw him purchase drugs in P.G. then you better watch what you say. I know people who live in that area who have never even thought of smoking a joint. We all have a past but doesnt mean that should be painted on us for our whole lives. The reason over the beer could be cuz it wasnt even Ians beer. I'd be upset too.
We complain over the cops that do a crime act. If they all acted like officers of the law they all swore to be then we'd have nothing to complain about.

Posted by: pisspulper on May 29 2007 8:54 AM

Certainly, a tragedy has taken place. What really would have prevented this? Having a beer in a public place, Illegal? Yes. Worth an arrest? No, and neither should the giving of a false name in this situation. Boys will be boys, I'm sure nobody thought a beer would lead to all this. Koester should have dumped the beer and called it at that. This law is archaic and needs to be abolished. An open beer in a vehicle, moving or stopped definitely deserves some more drastic penalty. Holding a beer for a friend? I usually put my beer on the ground if my hands need to be somewhere else for fear the holder might empty it for me. I wonder if the beer was someone elses, i doubt it. If it was, coward, u should have fessed up. What happens at the detachment will probably never be accurate or truthful as the only other witness isn't available. Police procedure and policies is an issue here. What if he were arrested on the charge of being drunk in a public place? Again , big deal. It is hardly embarrassing to be arrested for these offences, small town or not. It doesn't make u a criminal, in anyones eyes. What happened in the interview room will only be known by Koester, either way he'll live with that the rest of his life. Biggest problem here is a gun in the room where the accused is not cuffed. Lets also remember how drunken young males and a handful of testostorone can be a very lethal combination, especially when aggravated. And the shot to the head i don't understand. I would think that the officer would have attemped a non-lethal shot if possible. Training dictates shoot to kill. I hate to say it but there may have been no other choice for the officer. There is a position for a choke hold that may have required a lethal head shot. If u can't figure that position out, stop posting. Many of u, like me are upset, no outcome from an inquiry will reverse this event. Please don't lable people as saints or sinners, we are all both, as we are human and prone to err. Alcohol here is the mitigating factor, one bad decision led to many others. Doesn't this happen all the time? Alcohol abuse is tolerated and accepted by the government and our society, even thought many become violent with its abuse. Most weekend hospital admissions are alcohol related. Nonetheless public enemy no. 1 still is tobacco. And yes i get drunk and smoke. I feel for the Bush family, but people damn it, drink responsibly.