Why will the inquest not resume until July 3rd??
Anybody?

Wow! I don't know Andy, I personally think that the Bush family has waited long enough already. I do wonder whats up with officer Donovan when he says that all he did was console Koester.
A police officer should be the first to ask what happened. A normal first reaction to the scene one would think. And also what about how the crime scene changed?? Sounds like maybe they need time to regroup, and at the Bush's expense once again.

I beleive that if I shot someone in the back of the head I'd need counselling too. I think the average person would call for someone to help them upon the realization that they had shot someone in the back of the head. A person needs all ther friends they can get in a situation like that.

The inquest cannot resume before July 3rd because of scheduling problems. That is the first opportunity that all parties will have their calendars "clear" to allow for a continuation of the proceedings.
Meisner

it appears certain that Koester made some mistakes in the handling of Bush and it also seems that some of his fellow officers did not react to the death of Bush the same way they would normally react to a shooting victim. Having said that, are we forgetting that this whole incident would not have occurred if Bush had not tried to be an idiot with the police to begin with. It was not the open alcohol that got him into trouble so much as giving incorrect names. Did he think perhaps baiting the police was a game? Should he have been shot? That is a question for the coroner to answer but in the mean time let us not forget the sacrifices that police officers make to protect us. Some do not deserve any respect but for the most part they deserve a great deal of respect and support!!

Thank you quaszxter, my thoughts exactly...and thank you once again Ben. I am sure that Koester needed counselling, that would be a very traumatic thing to shoot someone in the head, I don't argue that at all. Where I have a problem is when corp. Donovan states that he only consoled Koester and didn't bother to ask what happened. I'm sorry but that just isn't the way it works. especially not with a police officer. The normal reaction would be to ask what happened. And Skabowl1 how do you know that Ian Bush acted like an idiot to the police and not the other way around??? You don't. I heard on the radio yesterday exactly what I was told after Ian was shot...that the officer was singling him out, that panned out to be true. Look at the whole picture before you jump to conclusions. Again I say...how would you feel if it was your son?

This police officer was just in a fight for his life and was justified under the criminal code to use lethal force and you say that he should be read his rights and arrested? Before jumping to more conclusions you should maybe do a little research into policing in Canada and the criminal code. A tragic situation for everyone involved.

(IMO) Uh yeah we should do a little more research into policing in Canada and the criminal code......so we can clean it up. I wonder how much pressure a new detachment puts on a rookie cop to fit in. These are human lives we are talking about and just remember that when you shut your eyes at night.

We also can't jump to conclusions that the officer was in a fight for his life.

" If you tell the truth you don't have to have a good memory." Judge Judy

Another reader of opinion250 told me this quote this morning (My mom). :)

There are several problems with this whole deal.

The first officer on the scene is not a grief counsellor.

The first officer on the scene is to secure the scene, avoid contamination of evidence, take action to arrange treatment for anyone needing medical attention, and secure any persons needing to be interviewed (and any weapons involved).

Without even knowing what happened, the officer asks no questions, but immediately states "It's not your fault". This is the beginning of coaching someone what to say and what not to say.

Then, two police officers hover over the pathologist during the examination, and subtly suggest to him what to write in his report about how the gunshot happened and where the bruise came from. Why didn't they just put a gun to his head and dictate the report to him ?

Better yet, why didn't they just write the report for him, and force him to sign it ?

He was obviously under some duress, as he did a really inadequate job of the examination.

A seriously injured man lay on the couch, there is an immediate need to know: if he needs medical attention, what happened, and who else may have been involved (if any), there is a need to disarm the officer involved (pending investigation), and there is a need to secure the scene to provide continuity of evidence. There is also a need to immediately begin documentation of everything that transpires and anything related to the investigation.

It would have happened to me and you, if we had been involved.
---------------------------------------
So, instead we get immediate grief counselling whether the guy is to blame or not (at that point nobody knew one way or the other).

We check on the injured man at our convenience.

The officer involved is told it's not his fault before he has the chance to say something to the contrary.

The scene is contaminated beyond belief and the body lay there for three days unsecured.

Any continuity of evidence is lost, so even if anyone wanted to pursue charges, there is way too much that has been tampered with to be considered reliable evidence, which would never result in a conviction because there is now arguable reasonable doubt a mile wide, to the officer's benefit if he had been guilty of anything.

There is a multitude of statements, now none of them credible because they keep changing. (muddying the story even more)

The ambulance attendant won't speak to the lawyer for the family (or against the police, more accurately).

The officer involved, conveniently can't remember half the facts, despite re-writing several statements since the event took place.

Finally, my all-time favorite:

Two armed police officers scrutinize the medical examination and suggest to the pathologist what the causes of everything are, and discuss openly what the report should say...

What is this ? F*cking Mexico ?

Apparently the authorities in Houston are just gangsters with badges.

If Ian was singled out and was going to be charged, I'm sure Ian was concerned about this, as it could mean he is bared for life from traveling to the United States, or Europe, as well as many job opportunities in the future. That would aggravate a person IMO, not that I see Ian responsible in any way.

It is very frustrating when an officer can single you out to change your life and you have no legal recourse to save your good name.

I had an experience with an officer that had singled me out when I was younger. I tried to address it through the system and got nowhere. I had been assaulted by him in the bar where he claimed I pushed him, and yet I didn't even see him coming when he grabbed me from behind. Another time he gave me a 24-hour suspension from driving (on my way home from work) denying me a breathalyser to prove my innocence.

The unwarranted 24-hour was hard to swallow because I drive for a living and once that is on your record you are not able to work again for five years until it is off your record. Some people don't know this, but in BC you can not appeal a 24-hour suspension, or in anyway have it removed from your record. You can not even add an explanation to it to list the circumstances it was issued. The cop is a dictator in that situation with full control over the outcome of your life for the next five years and you have no rights that protect you.

A person would have to experience that themselves before they can begin IMO to understand why Ian Bush could have been aggravated with disdain for those officers. It in no way should be used by those officers as their defence of Ian's murder.

On the 24-hour issue I recommend anyone in that situation to ask to be charged with impared driving. It is the only way you have any rights to clear your name and the police know this, which is why they give out 24-hours and not impared driving charges.

Is it possible for some detachments to perform hazing acts to toughen up the weaker of the rookie officers to prepare them for the bigger cities?

Not in my experience.

Usually the common course of action is pulling practical jokes on the new recruits to welcome them into the group and become a cohesive unit. (most of these are in good taste, occasionally someone pulls a dandy)

Believe it or not, 90% of the police (RCMP and Municipal, Provincial) are good and decent people, and good, effective police officers.

My reason for being so harshly critical is to push for action in dealing with the 10% that are moderate to serious problems, which continue to be overlooked by inactive management.

They need to be more proactive in dealing with this, in order for the other 90% to enjoy a good name and good reputation, in return for their honest and hard work.

Nobody wants to be a part of an organization that is perceived as being dirty and corrupt.

If you ignore the problem, you're part of it.

"If you ignore the problem, you're part of it." but keep your job and decent house. Money won't keep you happy and the stress of knowing you've done something wrong even if you try not to think about it will eventually kill you.