Bush Pistol Whipped Says Expert
By 250 News
Blood spatter expert Joe Slemko, says he is 100% confident, that 22 year old Ian Bush was on the bottom and Constable Paul Koester was on the top when Bush was shot in the back of the head.
Reconstructing the blood spatter evidence, Slemko told the Coroner’s inquest into the shooting death of Ian Bush, that it would be impossible for Bush to have been on top of Koester at the time of the shooting. He says there were blood spatters at the bottom of the couch, not at the top, where they should have been if Bush was the one on top. Furthermore, he says there is no evidence of Koester crawling out from underneath after Bush had been shot.
“There was lots of blood, there should have been a smear, there was none. It is my belief that in the pictures produced showing where Bush’s body was lying on the couch, that is exactly where he was shot, not as Koester alleges.”
He also said, it is his opinion from the analysis of blood spatters on the back of Ian’s head, that Bush had been pistol whipped with the slide action of the handgun.
He further concluded that it would be impossible for the bullet to enter Bush’s head in the manner it did if, as Constable Koester testified, Bush’s head was off to one side. Slemko says the bullet entered at a 90 degree angle, which is not consistent with Constable Koester’s testimony.
Constable Paul Koester had testified Bush was on top of him and had him in choke hold from behind . He testified he pulled his gun and hit Bush on the head three times before fatally shooting the young man.
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: Truth on July 5 2007 2:43 PM
However, injurious COP-RAGE is real. See Judge James Kolts report into excessive force in the Los Angeles Sherrif's Dept. Read the following:
"What set of attitudes and assumptions led the deputies into Ramona Gardens and caused them to prowl around looking for the car they had lost? What impelled one of them to get out of the car to confront the group against the wall? Who taught them. or failed to teach them. about tactics. strategy, good sense and keeping things in proportion? In hindsight, the conduct was reckless and senseless.
Why did the deputies have to pursue the car outside of their own territory? Both deputies conceded that they had no reason to believe the Monte Carlo was stolen or otherwise connected to criminal conduct. Why didn't they call the LAPD to pick up the pursuit? What did they think was afoot that justified continuing the bunt? Why after they lost the car did they stay in Ramona Gardens? Why did one deputy get out of the car? Was he powerless to stop himself from taking the fatal step of confronting the group, which was not connected to the lost car, or even clearly connected to the bottle that was thrown? What was the deputy trying to prove?
The answer, we speculate, is that this incident is the result of the deputy's compulsion to prove that be could not be "fronted off" or caused to lose face, or to permit any test of his ability to impose control. When he left the car to approach the group. there was insufficient reason to risk a confrontation. At worst. two deputies had lost a car they wanted to stop and a bottle had been thrown at their patrol car. We speculate that the frustration of losing the car, combined
with the taunt from the bottle (which was probably witnessed or even possibly thrown by the group against the wall), was so intolerable that the deputy felt compelled to humiliate someone to dispel the personal affront that the deputy read into the events.
This is not a story of a bungled arrest. It is a story of deficient training and flawed judgment, and a deputy who was not suited for a GET assignment. This is not an atlitude limited to Lynwood or GET. It is the same altitude that caused another deputy to fly into a rage and crush the testicle of a man who had the temerity to call the deputy "fat" and suggest lhat he "get a real job," an incident that we discuss in the Litigation chapter of the Report. It is the same attitude that caused a sergeant to order deputies to spray Mace on an inmate who had the audacity not to face the sergeant when spoken to. As a highly placed LASD officer said. "Anger, not fear. is the number ane cause of excessive force. It is rage at defiance of authority."
This is the worst aspect of police culture. where the worst crime of all is "contempt of cop": the deputy cannot let pass the slightest challenge or failure to immediately comply. It is here that excessive force starts and needs to be stopped."
-------------
BC policing is a organized crime family. Protective service is worse than useless. We get jeopardy for our bucks.