Coroner's Jury Rules Death Homicide

Friday, July 06, 2007 02:58 PM

The Coroner’s jury in Houston that has been examining the death of 22 year old Ian Bush has reached a verdict and delivered some recommendations.

After three and a half hours of deliberations, the Coroner’s jury has ruled that Bush ‘s death was homicide, the result of a single gunshot wound to the back of the head.

They made these recommendations,

A recording device be mandatory at all times in the Houston police detachment,
A second police officer be present when people are being interviewed,
A public relations campaign be conducted to point out laws to the people in the area, for example:Illegal possession, thefts, and obstruction of justice.
The RCMP conduct a business design review to look at current procedures and find potential areas where processes can be revised with the goal of continuous improvement. RCMP members should annually conduct a self-assessment and have a continuing education plan aimed at maintaining competency.

The jury’s verdict follows 7 days of testimony, four in May, and three this week.

Ian Bush had been taken to the Houston police detachment on October 29^th 2005, for illegal possession ( he had an open beer in public) and obstruction of justice ( he gave the Constable a fake name twice). He and Constable Paul Koester were alone in the detachment. Something went wrong, there was an altercation, and Bush was shot in the back of the head.

In the Kevin St Arnaud inquest, that jury also ruled the death homicide, the result of three gunshot wounds to the chest, but added , "the consequence of being shot by an RCMP officer in the line of duty." St. Arnaud was a break and enter suspect and was shot to death in a soccer field in Vanderhoof in December of 2004.

In the Bush case, Constable Koester had testified he shot Ian Bush in self defense because the young man had him in a choke hold that had Koester on the verge of blacking out.

The Coroner’s jury cannot lay blame.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 02:58 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: REALIST on July 6 2007 4:34 PM

Now, who wants to be that the R.C.M.P. do not lay charges at this point. They have the power to investigate themselves and also have the power to lay charges. Talk about a monopoly on control.

Posted by: REALIST on July 6 2007 4:40 PM

Also interesting, the account of the decision in the Vancouver Sun never states that the inquiry called this a homicide. At no point in the article is the term homicide ever used. The fingers and the power of the R.C.M.P. extend even into the corporate media. Not that this is a surprise given the corporate media's focus of promoting the opinions of their capitalist owners. The truth does not make the owners, and it's friends, the money it thrives upon.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 6 2007 4:48 PM

No suprises here.
This is pretty much as expected and about all the jury could actually decide.
That was the problem with this inquest in the first place.
Having followed this inquest from start to finish like many,I can't help but feel it was all a forgone conclusion.
I wish it was different, but it's not, and I believe it will end here as just another a file on a back shelf somewhere.
I don't think it's right,but I think it is all we get.
My sincere condoleneces to the Bush family.
May they somehow find peace.
And to the RCMP,the respect I once had for the force in general is no more.
Not perhaps for the individual members as such,but for the image and the legend.
Truly a sad day for all canadians.

Posted by: REALIST on July 6 2007 4:58 PM

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 6 2007 5:11 PM

I agree with REALIST and Andyfreeze but I really still have hope and faith that this isn't the end of the road. No surprises here also with inquest but again i'll say the inquest is excellent for something....media coverage. They all did such an excellent job (especially you Ben and be careful on that motorcycle of yours btw...saw you in your leather coat sitting on your bike in parking lot and thought to myself "Oh mannnnnn beeeeee carefulllllll!!!!!") Awareness to all canadians is the key :)And finding people like Joe Slemko and Rubin in this case and Cameron Ward in Kevins case was an honor! And of course when I googled Kevins name back in January and by doing that stumbled upon Opinion250...very grateful for that as well. The inquest is a long and stressful event but I feel is a step towards better things if lucky enough to get the proper support from media and experts in certain fields. I believe the RCMP are nervously listening and I do feel change will come. I was quite glad to hear Joe Slemko will remain teaching after retirement and really think he should be doing seminars now to young police officers new on the force within their first month about how he feels an officer of the law should be and explain the consequences.

Posted by: owl on July 6 2007 5:30 PM

Here is the other important link to this and other similar recent questionable activities within the RCMP �..

[url]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070706.wrcmp0706/BNStory/National/home[url]

�New RCMP commissioner William Elliott acknowledged Friday morning that he will face challenges in winning over the rank and file because he has never been a police officer.

�� Prime Minister Stephen Harper evidently chose Mr. Elliot to send a signal that a new broom will sweep away the old management structure of the RCMP, but neither Mr. Day nor Mr. Elliott offered details at Friday's press conference. Mr. Day has said he will set up a task force to examined changes to the force.
�Mr. Elliott did say that he expects to see a civilian oversight body supervising the force. There is broad consensus that such a panel is needed, he said.�

Posted by: owl on July 6 2007 5:30 PM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070706.wrcmp0706/BNStory/National/home

Posted by: lmorg on July 6 2007 5:37 PM

#1 is moot because a device has already been installed.
#2 will most likely not happen because during a suspect interview usually only the accused and the investigator are present. RCMP directives would have to be changed. How about that there should always be a jail guard on duty at the detachment even if there are no prisoners?
#3 Everyone knows that stuff already. Ever hear of crimestoppers? The jury is just trying to come up with something to justify themselves.

And, a homicide is the term used to describe the death of a person caused by another. MURDER is the killing of one person caused by another with intent. I doubt Koester intended to kill Bush, no matter whatever really happened and with two conflicting theories on what transpiried, it will never be clear.

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 6 2007 6:14 PM

I love that jailguard idea. Yes, i've heard extreme ideas too about why Koester ended up pulling the trigger and who knows they could be true. We just have to keep that in mind for when the broom does come sweeping through it can start to throw all the extremes into the dustpan....then the garbage.

Posted by: Truth on July 6 2007 6:43 PM

For the absolute last time: BC (and Quebec and New Brunswick) cops cannot register criminal charges. They have only the same arrest power as the rest of us, and they - as we - can submit "informations" to the Attorney General or court officers, for their use. If you are arrested by a cop, it does not mean that you are charged with a crime. You have the right to arrest any cop that you see committing a crime. You can fight them if it is necessary:
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/
doc/2002/2002bcpc585/2002bcpc585.html

Don't think that the Ian Bush inquiry is over; the coroner's infantile report is subject to judicial review, and appeals. We have just begun to fight the Hitler Youth redux animals who have never met a cop whose jackboots they wouldn't lick.

Keep your eye on the Vancouver media.

Posted by: ammonra on July 6 2007 10:13 PM

In order for this matter to be moved forward and for an official inquiry of some kind to be held will require political action. I would suggest that at every opportunity every candidate for political office, federal and provincial, be asked if they will agree to endorse a public inquiry and to have independent investigation of in-custody deaths.

Undoubtedly there will be lots of waffling and double speak from most of them, but if questioners hammer away at the question at every meeting the point will eventually sink in.

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 6 2007 10:45 PM

I wasn't expecting Koester would be charged even if he had told the truth.

As I said earlier, I feel it was an accidental shooting as a result of rage and anger. I don't believe he actually meant to squeeze off the shot.

However, that's the only point I'd defend him on. His conduct was deplorable. He could have diffused the situation, instead he escalated it.

I just wish he would do the family justice and tell the truth so that they can move on. It's really not fair to them, to have to live with a lie. It's bad enough that they lost their son.

Posted by: Chadermando on July 6 2007 11:27 PM

Why not test any officer accused of misconduct for steroid use? And punish accordingly.

Look at Chris Benoit when he took too much. Koester himself, in his 9 minute statement, said that he lost 10 pounds (over 5% of his body weight) in the weeks following the incident. That�s what happens when you stop taking those drugs for testosterone, and I bet nobody thought to test him for that either.

At least it would be an explanation that everyone could accept as closer to the truth and move on in a positive way so that those kinds of situations could be avoided in the future.

IMO Koester is not only guilty of murder, but through things that were in his control he's proving to be a world class coward as well.

Posted by: Truth on July 7 2007 2:57 AM

A Manslaughter conviction does not require an intent to kill. The Supreme Court of Canada spelled out mens rea and actus reus elements in R v Gosset. In that case, a cop shot a fleeing suspect (cops may only use their service revolver to preserve life). Gosset claimed that his gun went off accidently; the high court said, that lame excuse is junk.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1993/1993canlii62/1993canlii62.html

Posted by: owl on July 7 2007 9:13 AM

"MURDER is the killing of one person caused by another with intent."

Murder cannot be found by the coroner's jury. It could have been accidental. But that was not what the shooter stated. He stated he shot him intentionally.

He should now be arrested if the crown finds that self-defense is questionable in this case.

In this case a criminal court could rule that:

1. it was murder with intent
2. it was manslaughter
3. it was self defense.

I suspect, based on the information I have read, that the question of manslaughter is wide open. Murder would have to show some sort of relationship with Bush which would cause an extreme reaction like that.

I do not believe the self-defense theory. I believe this is a case of manslaughter. Excessive force and inappropriate force make it that, especially if Bush was provoked through kicking him and other situations.

Posted by: owl on July 7 2007 9:20 AM

"As I said earlier, I feel it was an accidental shooting"

You may feel that. The jury ruled otherwise. They could not possbily have said it was accidental since the shooter said he intended to shoot to protect himself.

I was not at the inquest, so I do not know whether he was ever asked whether he shot with the intent to kill, andwhy he did not shoot simply to relase a choke hold. It was not as if Bush had a weapon with which to fire back if he had merely been wounded.

Posted by: owl on July 7 2007 9:21 AM

"Why not test any officer accused of misconduct for steroid use?"

Why not test using a lie detector?????

Posted by: owl on July 7 2007 9:50 AM

"I doubt Koester intended to kill Bush, no matter whatever really happened and with two conflicting theories on what transpiried, it will never be clear."

It seems that he never said he had not intended to shoot him in the head. I also thought I read somewhere he was hit three or so times by the pistol as a "hammer" like weapon - "pistol whipping".

If the shooter was really below, it may have been difficult to determine wheter he was shooting in the head or the shoulder. But none of those kind of words seem to have been uttered or written. That would have gone to mistake or accident. That was never a defense, not that the shooter was defending his actions at the inquest. He did not have to.

I am sure the crown has gone to court on cases with less information than this.

The information presented has more importance in a court of law than in an inquest. It can also be pursued by both sides in a more appropriate fashion.

I wonder if the jury was restricted in its ability to make recommendations with respect to follow up by the crown and conduct of future self-investigation.

Posted by: heidi1555 on July 7 2007 11:09 AM

I also brought the point up about a lie detector test during Kevins inquest. The jury members are pretty restricted arent they? Would be nice if they had the freedom to speak freely. Yes, let's see this brought to the next step. The picture of Ian's shaved head showed three marks made by Koesters pistol. Slemko also said he blew up pictures from scene and his findings from what he felt happened and placed on top of eachother....matched.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on July 7 2007 12:50 PM

This case is so out of whack and unfinished that the only justice will be found in a full judicial inquirey.
There are simply too many unanswered questions to let it die where it is.
This is the kind of unfinished business that keeps people awake at night.
I can't for the life of me understand why any politician would not support that next step in the name of fair play and justice.
I for one will be mentioning it to them at every opportunity.
I still have a real problem with the fact that most coroners are NOT a judges well versed in the rule of law and actual crime scene investigation.Try as I might,I cannot accept this lack of expertise.
For all intents and purposes,this inquest solved or explained very little.
We learned nothing that we didn't already know before it began.It did however leave even more unanswered questions.
That in itself should be enough to warrant a full judicial inquirey.
The best we can hope for right now is to see Koester asked to resign from the force.
How could he possibly be trusted to work on his own,with gun,ever again?
The tape said it all and the jury should have recognized it.
He panicked and he will do it again in the wrong situation.
Surely to god the RCMP cannot afford to take that chance?

Posted by: thereasonableman on July 7 2007 1:11 PM

I just don't see how he can have any credibility in court when testifying in criminal matters.

Owl, I didn't say he drew his gun accidentally, I didn't say he pointed it at the back of Ian's head accidentally, I didn't say he used excessive force accidentally, I just feel he didn't mean to take the step of pulling the trigger.

Maybe accidental is the wrong word to use since you're confusing it with cause of death findings. Let's say he was probably surprised to fire the shot.

It's not hard to do when you are in an agitated state. Cops have shot other cops in such situations. Cops have almost shot other cops on gun training firing ranges for god's sake. All of them not meaning to.

Either way it's a homicide. You can't use excessive force and then turn around and say, "I just meant to cause serious bodily harm, not kill him."

I expect Koester was instructed to claim self-defence because it was the only viable way out, and the story just gets convoluted as crap from there.

I hope the new RCMP (non-police) Commissioner makes the broad, sweeping changes that he claims. I know the force membership doesn't like him, but they should be looking to him as their messiah, as he is their only chance for survival.

The RCMP is quickly losing public support, and it had been dwindling for years anyway.

Without the people GIVING you your authority, you have NO authority.

Posted by: ammonra on July 7 2007 2:20 PM

If a pistol whipping did take place would that not be a criminal assault and battery? I am not aware that police officers may pistol whip anyone for any reason whatsoever. In other words, there is NEVER justification for it.

If the gun discharged without intent during an assault and battery, it means a killing took place during the commission of a felony, doesn't it? Isn't that automatically considered murder or do I have the law wrong?

However, all of these speculations depend on incomplete information and the fact is that we do not have enough information.

We must have a judicial inquiry.

Posted by: ammonra on July 7 2007 2:35 PM

You may send an e-mail to an MLA from this site:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-4.asp

You may get MLA e-mail addresses from here:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-7.htm

MP phone and fax numbers are available here:
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsAddressList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Remember that you can send a letter to any MP free postage if addressed to them in Parliament.