Clear Full Forecast

Shooting Of Ian Bush ..Another Version

By Ben Meisner

Monday, December 03, 2007 03:44 AM

     Last week we received another finding, this one from the RCMP Public Complaints Commission , giving their take on the death of Ian Bush in Houston.

In his report, the Chair of the Commission raises a couple of issues that never ever did get addressed,

  1.  1.  why the senior NCO Staff Sergeant Rod Holland, failed to take notes on his arrival at the RCMP office where Constable Koester was, and
  2. 2.   how come Constable Darren Woroshelo, Koester’s trainer, spent 4 or 5 minutes with Koester behind closed doors when there were 4 other police officers, including senior members, also in the office.

Now one of the other findings by the Commissioner deals with that Beer bottle found alongside a small table in the office where Bush’s body was found. Missed it in the personal  search says the findings , well I’d buy that excepy  that Koester, during the time that he had  Bush handcuffed ,did a search of him which according to other testimony at the Coroner’s inquest  said the search was very thorough.  He did find Bush’s wallet, but not a full long neck bottle of beer . That’s a tough one to swallow given the fact that the fingerprints on the bottle were pointing downwards from the neck. 

So what did we get? Well another view of what the Commissioner thinks happened.

So  today it’s my turn to offer up what I think happened.

The difference between the RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner and me,  is that I attended the entire inquest.

It is my belief , and my belief only , that events up until the time that Ian Bush arrived at the police station went exactly as stated at the inquest.

Now there was some effort to say that Ian Bush liked to fight as the testimony went.  Keep in mind, give me a 20 year old , fit young guy,  and it is my belief that 90% of them like to fight, play fight or what have you. Very little was ever made of the fact that Koester liked the Martial Arts, that always has signified to me that he to liked top fight.  So that was a red herring.

I believe that everything went as suggested until Darren Woroshelo went in to talk to Bush. Now I think that he told Bush that he was facing a criminal charge for obstruction, and if found guilty wouldn’t be able to leave the country. I also raise the question, did he tell Bush that "we got you"? (Referring to the time when Bush was suspected of eluding an illegal possession charge at the 7-11 store by simply going out the back door and going home, avoiding Woroshelo.)   I can only base my opinion of Constable Woroshelo on hearing his testimony at the Corner’s inquest. He reminds me of a guy who has watched too many Die Hard movies. He had been an auxiliary for five years before becoming a full fledged RCMP member and riding around with the old officers; he no doubt got some very good schooling.

In his testimony Woroshelo says, the criminal charge of obstruction was perfectly appropriate. Given that comment what did he say to Bush?

Koester after all had asked Woroshelo to talk to Bush, "because he had dealt with him before ".  In what manner,  a speeding ticket?  But then there was that time where Bush "got away with that illegal possession", was that reason to slap him with an obstruction charge?

But now to the crunch.

Ian is being released. He is not a happy camper, he is being criminally charged and as he leaves the interview room, Koester  maybe gives him a push and says , see you in court. Bush pushes back, Koester kicks Bush in the testicles. Bush goes down and when he stands up he is mad, someone has just kicked him in the crotch. By the way little attention was paid to that bruise on Bush’s body.

And we all know that if you get a kick in the can, you’ll go down big time. So the fight is on.

Bush lands a few good ones and in the struggle he goes down on the sofa below, not on top as Constable Koester’s testimony goes.

Koester is mad as hell, he has been hit in the side of the face by this young punk and he is going to teach him a lesson. He grabs his gun, not his baton because it won’t work in the position he is in, not the pepper spray because he might get it on himself. No he grabs his gun and begins beating Ian Bush on the back of the head, three hits and then because he is angry, he is not paying attention,  he accidentally pulls the trigger and boom the gun goes off.

Did he mean to pull the trigger? 

I don’t think so and that is why he is an emotional wreck when he calls for help. He is worried about his job and he has just accidentally shot a guy to death. I say accidentally just shot a guy in the back of the head.

He doesn’t have any blood on him in spite of the fact that there is blood streaming from Bush’s head and Koester says he was under Bush during the shooting.  Want to re-enact the incident,?  It is nearly impossible to get your arm around to not only hit someone on the back of the head much less shoot him.

Why didn’t Koester get blood on him, well what if he was on top through the whole shooting? Now surprise, surprise, Joe Slemko, the blood spatter expert and the one guy who had no axe to grind says that Koester was on top during the fight not the bottom as the testimony goes.

As for Robo Cop Woroshelo talking to Koester instead of other senior officers first, you’ll have to ask him what he said, and oh yah that bottle of beer with only Ian Bush’s prints on it, just coincidence...

Remember this is only my interpretation of how the events unfolded, and the Police in their investigation say my thoughts are completely wrong.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Possible, and certianly makes more sense than the version we are getting from the RCMP,Koester, and the inquest itself!
This is NOT over.
Still too many questions unanswered to ever say justice has been served.
There are just too many questions left unanswered in this case.

Ian Bush was no angel thats for sure, and it appears that the Houston detatchment certainly had a proverbial hard on for Bush.

Was Bush in an agitated state like that poor fellow at YVR?

Did constable Koester take on more than his training allowed him to?

Ben, I know I don't always agree with you, but you do provide all the facts and I appreciate that.
Ben you're much too kind when you describe Koester's motives, and you say too little about the beer bottle. I thought there was only one of Ian's thumb print on the beer bottle. Now you say there are prints. Which is it?
In my opinion, and not withstanding the story above... I believe that in this situation it was actually Bush who was in "apprehension of his life"... hence the struggle and dastardly outcome.

Nana always said... "All things done by man come full circle and life has a way of balancing things out... there is a special place in hell for those who trifle with the truth."

So it will be in this case as well.

ahhhh yes the dear sweet Woroshelo...... He was all calm and collected when the RCMP lawyer was questioning him on the stand and once the Bush family lawyer Howard Rubin got up to do his part...well lets just say he was having a hard time keeping the monster from attacking. Red faced and angry he was getting. Very defensive little man afraid that if he was bothered long enough he might slip up.
I believe 150% Koester wanted to teach Ian a lesson for trying to joke around with him in front of others and stepped over the line of being RCMP rookie to accidental executioner and this is what he got "we got your back bro."
That's as good an explanation as any. The question as to why Bush had a fight just as he was being released is a pivotal one to me. What caused it? I would have expected Bush to just leave and be glad to do so at that point, so what stopped him from doing so and get involved in a fight instead? There must have been a trigger of some kind.

I still would like to see a full judicial inquiry in this case, to include the other cases as well. Until that happens we will not get anywhere near an explanation we can have any confidence in believing.
A free one fer the Mounties.
"The officer said he was knocked face down on a couch in the room and was choked by Mr. Bush who was on top of his right side.

According to Const. Koester, he managed to pull out his gun with his right hand, hit Mr. Bush on his head and then shoot the young man after he said "take your last breaths."

Another area that needs to be examined is if Ian was on top of Koester to his right, be brings gun out with his right hand then how was he able to raise his arm high enough to get it head level to Ian? The right side of Koester would of had limited movement as his shoulder would've been pinned by Ian's body. In order to raise your arm that high your shoulder would need to be free of any force holding it down and rubber. Try it at home with a buddy and see how flexible your arm is.

Ben I agree with your view of how this could have went down.

On another note has anyone seen the latest policing 'tool' marketed by the company that makes the tazer? Its a wall of electodes that can launch multiple electrodes into a crowd up to 30 metres distance for use as a crowd control device.

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/Technology/article/281670

A police state device if I ever saw one.
Now, that scenario could play out in the 2 minutes and 8 seconds between the time that Koester spoke to dispatch - revealing an urgency to leave the station - and when he made a first, ambiguous request for help.
It is certain that Koester struck first, given that Ian Bush had a record of compliance with procedural law. Koester testified that he had consulted said record. And he knew that Woroshelo had prior dealings with Bush, thus knew his identity.

Only a black-is-white thinker could believe that a mortal choke hold can be inflicted by using one's head to wedge a target between same and an inner elbow. Bush punched Koester 3 times in the face, with force;

Motive: Woroshelo and Koester were furious at the personal affront to their perceived authority that arose with the violations fo liquor laws, and W lashed out at the security guard at the arena and at Bush; Koester took licence to inflict punishment personally. Bush exercised right of self defence against an assault by a Charter bound state official. Koester's frustration at taking defensive blows to the face - after the kick in the groin - led him to pistol whip the smaller man and then shot him in the back of the head, in an enforcement of CONTEMPT-OF-COP, made perverse imperative with the fact that Koester would have to explain the contusions to his face. (The photographer allowed Koester to lean forward so as to create shadows that magnified the bruising). On these pages I used the terms - coverup, whitewash, smear, and plant (ersatz exculpatory evidence) - to describe inherent police reaction, when the LOYALTY-CODE engages. The Kennedy atrocity is full of all of these.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/photogalleries/IanBush0706.html?g=0

I didn't attend the coroner' inquiry; but I did attend Toronto sessions of the inquiry into the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. And I have read the external audit of the internal investigation system at Toronto Police Services, that noted only 12 substantiations out of 814 complaints (TPS withheld ALL information as to said complaints). Police will not investigate offense accusations against their fellow officers because to them, the LOYALTY-CODE is above the rule of law. Policing, as it is, is an insurrection as yet unapprehended.

Why isn't this penetrating?: Obstruction of Justice has NEVER fallen on a suspect, where there was no clear intent to defeat justice, nor a present ability to do so.

When Rich Coleman (ex-RCMP) polluted the Solicitor General's office, he encouraged more false arrests by prescribing release guidelines, that would encourage cops to make arrests as an end in themselves. Further he ordered police to put arrest information - again, even where no charge was registered - on the Corrections (CORNET) database, for use by 100% of government agencies.

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/police_services/publications/releases/police_release_February2005.pdf

Coleman did more than that: he gave control of the Vancouver city jail back to the city cops, after losing it in the Michael Jacobsen crippling affair. In that case, Jacobsen was beaten up in said jail and cops covered it up. The case reached the Supreme Court of Canada, and eventually led to the last incarceration of a convicted cop in BC.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1987/1987canlii45/1987canlii45.html http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1991/1991canlii905/1991canlii905.html

Jacobsen's offence: he gave a false name to an investigating cop. However, he DID have a clear motive of defeating justice.

A whole lot of speculation with nothing of substance to back it up. The entire scenario above hinges on the assumption that "Koester maybe gives him a push and says , see you in court."
Considering that Bush had been drinking, was described as being "a small town bully", and was, according to his drinking buddies, giving the new cop a hard time, the scenario would seem more realistic to me if Bush had struck that first blow.
Again Tim, speculation. We need to get this matter properly in the court room and get it figured out once and for all and let the Bush family start to try and heal. Well i'm sure Koester's family would just like this over and done with as well. Truth shall set you free.
How many inquiries have there been already, Heidi? Every one has cleared Koester. Would one more trip to the court room matter? If so, which court? If Koester were cleared by your proposed next trip to court, would it change anyone's opinion? Would you all of a sudden believe Koester's account, or would it just be, in your mind, another cover-up?
Every one has cleared Koester because they are all working hand in hand or even closer who knows. That's why the inquest is so silly in cases like these. We need to not be afraid of finding fault. When someone dies it is someones fault now it's just to figure out truthfully who's. It's only fair don't you think Tim? To the respect of the deceased and their family.
Just to let you know also Tim that when a police officer dies my heart breaks also. I want to know why and how and I want the guy/girl who did it to be dealt with accordingly. You may have heard of a little word called Justice? I don't know why but since I was young I had a huge respect for the deceased. Could never talk bad about anyone who has passed away even if they were a murderer. I would just say in that type of case it was meant to be. Ian's death was not meant to be. Something happened and we need Koester to start acting like a man and spill the beans. Give him a lie detector test, hypnotize him I don't care we just want the truth. Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes, the family of the deceased do deserve to know the truth, regardless of how ugly it is. Based on the inquests that have already been held, Koester shot Bush in self-defence. How many inquests have found have supported this? Do we hold inquest after inquiry after trial after tribunal, and dismiss all the findings until we find one that agrees with the way that we think? At what point do we just say, "yes, this was an incredible tragedy, and should never have happened, but Koester could not be blamed for acting the way he did."
Or can he?
Based on the info that's been released, no he can't... unless you know something that any of the investigating agencies don't.
Koester will go to Hell alright. His own private hell with PTSD the rest of his life. We all know he is lying and getting away with it.
His buddies are doing him no favors. They are just protecting the company name!
Is common sense and human dignity a good enough answer to that one Tim? Or maybe truth and a thirst for fact finding? What would be great though is if you and lmorg could come to my house and show me how it's possible to shoot the way Koester claimed to have shot. You can bring sidekick diggler too. I'll hook up my webcam it's just getting dusty sitting on the shelf anyway. Or I could invite Ted from Global tv with his camerman Serge....believe me ladies Serge should be in front of the camera not behind! lol.. Are you guys afraid to show us how its possible to bend that way. Surely you must've learned that in training???
Truth how come cops do not seem to follow the law of the land?
Writing from behind the safe confines of your computer room, Ben. Of course you are.

As for Joe Slemko, keep in mind his less than credible career as a so called expert. Why would a so called expert get dumped back to general duty street work? Crown Counsel refused to use him as a witness. Keep in mind what was written about him at the inquest by the Public Complaints Commission finding into the death of Ian Bush. "Mr. Slemko's expertise is in the area of bloodstain pattern analysis. Mr. Slemko has no obvious expertise in the areas of pathology, biomechanics, kinesiology or use of force that would allow him to comment on the likely positions of Mr. Bush and Constable Koester, let alone conclude that there is only one position that they could have been in. Mr. Slemko's reluctance to accept the overwhelming and obvious evidence of a violent struggle and his adherence to a factual framework that supports his opinion to the exclusion of other reasonable explanations undermines any weight to be given to his opinion."

Ben, it's not the critic that counts in life. Allow me to quote Theodore Roosevelt. "...the man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic-the man who actually does the work, even if roughly and imperfectly, not the man who only talks or writes about how it ought to be done."

If only Ian Bush had the common sense to behave like a civlized human being and tell the truth about his identity, he'd be looking forward to another Christmas with his family, but CST. Koester is and I applaud him for that.
Sean
I have never hidden behind anything or anyone. My full name is out there, is yours?
Ben Meisner
"Mr. Slemko also arranged to do a reconstruction of the shooting using two students from a course that he teaches. The reconstruction was not put before the jury at the Inquest into Mr. Bush's death; Mr. Slemko's report was amended for the purposes of the Inquest. The Commission reviewed both the original report and the amended report prepared by Mr. Slemko. His reconstruction adopted the same assumptions that he relied upon in coming to his conclusion that Constable Koester could not have shot Mr. Bush as he described.

As discussed in the main report, Mr. Slemko's opinion is based on an assumption about the positioning of Constable Koester and Mr. Bush. This subject matter is beyond Mr. Slemko's area of expertise. For the same reasons that I attached little weight to Mr. Slemko's opinion evidence that Constable Koester could not have shot Mr. Bush as he described, I also attach little weight to Mr. Slemko's reconstruction. Even aside from the resulting effect on the weight that can be placed on Mr. Slemko's reconstruction due to his assumption about positioning, there are other concerns with his reconstruction, which also substantially affect any weight that it could be afforded.

There is a marked difference in size between the participants in Mr. Slemko's reconstruction and Constable Koester and Mr. Bush. In addition, in Mr. Slemko's reconstruction, the student representing Constable Koester swung his right arm and hand up (to strike and shoot the student representing Mr. Bush) on the right side of the student representing Mr. Bush who was behind the student representing Constable Koester whereas Constable Koester described that he swung his arm up in between him and the left side of Mr. Bush's body as Mr. Bush was behind and to the right of him. Accordingly, the reconstruction is not based on the established facts.

Corporal Murray explained that the investigative team considered performing a re-enactment but chose not to because it was "not clear as to the positioning of Constable Koester and [Mr. Bush] except that [Mr. Bush] was positioned in some fashion on top of Constable Koester." Corporal Murray noted that "[t]his creates a number of different scenarios. By conducting all the scenarios investigators would be injecting what they believed may have happened and not what actually happened."

http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/DefaultSite/Reppub/index_e.aspx?articleid=1583
Oh, by the way, people will always have an opinion, but they have no knowledge.

To RRabbit. You speak of the truth and Ian Bush had the chance to speak the truth about his correct identity, yet he chose not to, so Nana is correct.

Do any of you know it alls know anything about the violent reality of every day police work? In addition, do you make the same sort of noise when a police officer is killed in the line of duty? Thought not!

As for you Meisner, are you not libelling CST. Koester?
Ben, what do you know about the violent reality of every day police work?

When are you faced with making split second life for death decisions?

Heidi

Polygraphs are unreliable to the point of not being admissible in any court.

Let me put things to you critics this way. Your misinformed opinions are based on speculation. The danger with speculation is that your thoughts go off in a million different directions and you, therefore, lose your objectivity and leading the pack is Ben Meisner himself.

Sorry for calling you Ed a few post up, Ben, but please answer what you know about the violent reality of ever day police work. In addition, you say you've never hidden behind anyone or anything. Well then, in that case, you can handle the next 911 call..........alone.
This is another example of why the so called expert; rather, hired gun on behalf of the Bush family was reassigned back to routine patrol.

Mr. Slemko stated in his report that "no blood stain or DNA evidence originating from Constable Koester was found on the front and sleeve areas of the shirt worn by Mr. Bush (even though it is alleged that Constable Koester had sustained bleeding facial injuries prior to the firearm being discharged)." DNA reports confirmed that there was some of Constable Koester's blood found on Mr. Bush's left hand and right sleeve which, as implicitly acknowledged by Mr. Slemko, supports Constable Koester's version of the events. Mr. Slemko testified that he had reviewed the DNA reports but acknowledged during cross-examination that he had missed this evidence in his review.
Are you part of the corrupted 20% Sean? Maybe we should youtube Ian's story to the world and see how many followers you have Sean? Next we'll do Kevin's story...hmmm the list in B.C. is endless wow youtube will get lots of business from you guys. Tourists in B.C.??? What is that? Smarten up you guys before it's too late for another family. Could be a relative of one of you guys and yes I will help you scream and make a fuss if enough questions are raised about it and/or witnesses tell it how it really was.
This opinion is the same as the hogwash offered by that other nitwit who writes for the Globe and Mail. Unreal.
Hey Sean don't beat your chest too hard, police work doesn't even make it into the top ten most dangerous occupations. Convenience store clerk does for one. Try night shift at 7-eleven. So whats your spin on the Vanderhoof murder?
seamutt

Q - Truth how come cops do not seem to follow the law of the land?

A - Police occupational-culture is hostile to the rule of law; cops derive authority from cultic imperatives. Field studies conducted by Jerome Skolnick and Richard Ericson reveal that police do very little law enforcement and crime prevention. Rather, they act to produce their own conception of order, which involves manipulating public perceptions of the reality of police response to crime. Ericson found that cops use criminal codes as a "residual resource." They act as if they are the law, personified. In fact, police service is less than worthless; for every positive action they perform, service omissions yield negative effects.

Although I do not normally respond to comments made on a public forum such as this; I feel that it is necessary to respond to some of the misinformed and incorrect statements that have been on this site:

- My last testimony as an expert for the Crown was on Dec. 5, 2006 (one year ago) when I testified in front of Madame Justice VEIT at the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. I would be happy to provide anyone with my detailed resume which forms my qualifications as an expert.
- I returned to general street duties solely because of a limited tenure policy that exists with the Edmonton PS. The EPS has a policy of only allowing members to stay a maximum of 7 years in specialized units. I have however been invited back on secondments to fill in due to staff shortages since I left the unit. The EPS currently has two very qualified bloodstain analysts to fulfill any investigative requirements.
- I have not left general duties or sought promotion because of my outside interests which include; my consulting work and my college teaching position. As a general duty constable I have the greatest freedom to pursue those interests without the restriction and responsibility that may exist with a promoted position. That has been my personal decision and has nothing to do with my abilities. Those who know me and have worked with me within the EPS will attest to that.
- I have been criticized for making assumptions and speculating during my analysis of the Bush/Koester incident. My “assumptions” were based solely upon Koester’s OWN statement and version of the event. During my analysis I rigorously attempted to prove Koester’s stated version using subjects of the same stature as Bush and Koester. The techniques and processes that I used during my attempted reconstruction are not unusual and are typical of any bloodstain pattern analysis reconstruction.
- During my attempted reconstruction I also tried versions that were not part of Koester’s OWN version in hopes of finding ANY possible variation that might be possible in the context of the observed bloodstain evidence. Believe me, this is the worst thing I have had to deal with in my career and I truly wanted to find a way to make his version possible.
- Regretfully, I did miss the reference to the Koester’s blood on Bush’s left hand and sleeve in the DNA report and I admitted my oversight during my testimony. In the context of the entire chain of events involving Bush and Koester, that evidence could have been deposited at any time, including after Bush’s death. I have never been shown or have had access to a close-up photograph of the evidence or have I found it referenced in any other report. Also, I have never disputed that there was a physical altercation between Bush in Koester leading up to Bush’s death.
- “Sean” – if you, or anyone else has any other personal comments concerning me, my reputation, or my abilities, please feel free to contact me directly.

Joe Slemko
Way to go Joe!!!!!
oooh....the silence is deafening
Joe

There is no point speculating on "that evidence could have been deposited at any time" unless you have something to back it up. "Could have" is of no use to anyone, including your reputation.

As for Ben Meisner's version of events, I'd like to congratulate him on his imagination. Not even Steven Spielberg could dream that garbage up.
I wish I had more things to do during the day than to post comments all day long but I really don't :)
Just wanted to say Joe luv ya and you totally have my respect. Good man! I'm so glad to know that you teach. I sure hope the ones that you teach later on in life turn around and do the good deed of teaching Joe Slemko style. :)
By the way, Joe, could haves is what the OJ Simpson defence team said about the glove.

As for your credentials, Joe, whilst you have obviously met required standards, even the far left wing CBC went on record in a July 5, 2007 article that Joe Slemko "hasn't provided evidence in a criminal case for the Crown in Canada in nearly a decade"

On the one hand, you say "that evidence could have been deposited......." and, on the other, you admitted that your oversight was "Yes, it was a stupid mistake"

Cheers!
"... I rigorously attempted to prove Koester’s stated version using subjects of the same stature as Bush and Koester."
- Joe Slemko
"There is a marked difference in size between the participants in Mr. Slemko's reconstruction and Constable Koester and Mr. Bush."
- RCMP Public Complaints Commission

"My “assumptions” were based solely upon Koester’s OWN statement and version of the event.". "During my attempted reconstruction I also tried versions that were not part of Koester’s OWN version in hopes of finding ANY possible variation that might be possible..."
- Joe Slemko
"...in Mr. Slemko's reconstruction, the student representing Constable Koester swung his right arm and hand up (to strike and shoot the student representing Mr. Bush) on the right side of the student representing Mr. Bush who was behind the student representing Constable Koester whereas Constable Koester described that he swung his arm up in between him and the left side of Mr. Bush's body as Mr. Bush was behind and to the right of him. Accordingly, the reconstruction is not based on the established facts."
- RCMP Public Complaints Commission


This may just be my suspicious nature, but it seems that someone is attempting to protect their credibility for the sake of their consulting business.
Agreed, Raparee.

On the one hand, he claims he, "rigorously attempted to prove Koester's stated version......" and, on the other, he claims Koester's version was a "self serving pack of lies" Which is it, Joe?

Also, Joe, did you or did you not tell a cop in Texas recently that your testimony was, "all part of the game" If so, is this a game to you, Joe? All of it seems very self serving.

It appears that two other anti police topics are closed, so I will comment here.

Dziekanski always had a propensity for violence, which is proven by his five year prison term for robbery with violence. He stood at 6'9" and weighed over 315 lbs. He had an excited delirium episode. He moved to Canada to supposedly start an new life; just like the many dodgy immigrants who claimed the same. The RCMP are not allowed to release facts before the courts; in this case, the Coroner's Service. Even Robert Pickton has been afforded more due process than the RCMP. Speaking of which, would anyone care if Pickton was Dziekanski? Of course not. Stay tuned for the facts and not a distorted account of them by the media.

You critics view the world from your Ivory Towers and it's hilarious.

As for the Chilliwack incident, who cares if he was only 150 lbs. Even witnesses backed up the police on this. His own family apologized to the business and to the RCMP. Here's an example of the horrors of police work: An armed robber wasted on PCP (angel dust) was shot by a police officer with a sawed off shotgun and still got up and ran an entire city block before succumbing to his wounds.

You have the luxury of being a critic from the safe confines of your homes. You really are sheltered individuals.

Enjoy your ivory tower filled lives.
I enjoy it more now that you're in it too Sean. The four members didn't know Robert Dziekanski at the time of his take down. So that info should not matter when it comes down to figuring out how he died. Be fair. As for the Chilliwack incident if ALL the witnesses backed up the police then that's the way that case must be I guess. Open minds are needed with deaths not just backing up somebody because you feel the duty to unless of course you honestly feel they are telling the truth.
Heidi

Spot on with what you said, "The four members didn't know Robert Dziekanski at the time of his take down" Officers deal with the unknown every day and they have a right to officer safety. Do you not see the irony in your comment? Trust me, when the facts come out at the inquest, you'll see what they were doing and RD's state of mind.

As for the videotaper, he received a tidy sum from various media outlets. In addition, he said, at first, the police did the right thing and changed his story. He can also be heard on the video saying, "why is he still resisting" He then went on to base his opinion on sentiment, as opposed to reality, just like you and many others here.

By the way, tasers don't kill. How many lives have they saved? Thousands. By the way, if CST. Koester had a taser on the night of Bush's death, would that have been a reasonable option? Yes or no, and be realistic.
By the way, Heidi. I'm glad I can make this site more interesting for you.

Cheers!
As for your reference to the truth, let me put it to you this way.

If these police matters are a cover up, that would involve a wide ranging conspiracy and every conspiracy has a weak link and, eventually, things would fall apart, correct?

Perhaps critics of the police find their genuine sincerity threatening because of their cynical attitudes towards them and of life in general.

You ask if I am part of the 20% corrupt. You don't know me and you base your speculation of me on a cynical attitude. An honest man's pillow is his own peace of mind and I can assure you that I have plenty of it.

Peace!
I'm not too fancy about the whole taser idea but I honestly believe he couldn't breathe on his stomach with a lot of weight from officers pushing down on his neck and back.
I think another area that needs looking at is the topic of "critics of the police."

Tsk tsk. I don't judge groups as a whole and I wish people wouldn't do that. I put aside the ones that leave more questions than logical answers. You know how I could tell Joe Slemko was telling the truth? I looked him in the eye while he spoke at the Bush inquest.
Yes, peace and be careful!
That's the thing...eventually things would fall apart. They know this so they try to end it as soon as possible with little questions answered. If it were to go to the next step things very well could fall apart for some members. I don't think Koester meant to kill I think he just didn't know when enough is enough was.
Heidi, with all due respect, that is where you are wrong.

They don't try to end it as soon as possible with little questions answered and I'm sure Joe Slemko would say that, too.

They are not allowed to say things during ongoing investigations and this is where the public becomes confused and, ultimately, misinformed. Do you really believe the RCMP wants to be portrayed the way the are via the media? Certainly not, Heidi and the media is grossly unfair on them. All of this speculation isn't even fair to the mother of Ian Bush or Robert Dziekanski, nor is it fair on CST. Koester.

Trust me, when I say you'll be surprised what will come out at the inquest of Dziekanski. Officer are trained well, but not all of their training can equip them for the "what ifs" when they arise. Consider the amount of drug smugglers that ingest their contraband when flying from country to country and the condom filled contraband bursts. The officers may well have thought that's what they could possibly have been dealing with. I've travelled to non English speaking countries, Heidi, but their is a universal language called common sense.....for a rational mind and Dziekanski clearly wasn't that. My first impression of the video was not perceived police misconduct. Rather, it was that Dziekanski was arrestable under the Mental Health Act and that a psychiatric evaluation was in order.

Heidi, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that right. However, please make your final decision when all of the facts are in and not based on a distorted view of them via the media. I'm sure Joe Slemko would agree with that, too.

Ben Meisner is simply fanning the flames of already inflamatory, ridiculous and irresponsible journalism. I would even go so far as to say his stories are gutter journalism and something you'd find in the National Enquirer.
Wow, you guys that come on here sure are nasty jabbers. I went to the inquest to show support and also to hear with my own ears what people on the stand had to say. I didn't go every day but went often enough driving back and forth as often as I could get away. I make up my own mind with whats been said and done and you know what? The days I didn't get to go I depended on Ben's voice on this site because I know Ben has the balls to tell it how it is. Sorry for the mouth I grew up with a pulpmill supervisor for a dad :)
I am probably one of the few posters here that is telling it like it is.

Ben Meisner's opinion on what he thinks transpired is scandalous. Does he have any type of evidence, be it forensic or otherwise to back it up? No, and he should feel fortunate that he lives in a society that allows him to write such tripe.

No doubt he has some degree of post secondary education. Does that mean well educated people always have common sense?
Don't worry about the mouth comment, as I'm married to a Newfie.
Methinks that Mr Slemko is attempting to position himself for a lucrative post policing career as an expert witness for the defence. It is all about the money, the rest is just part of the sideshow.
Chilako-pete.

It is my understanding that Mr. Slemko no longer provides blood-stain analysis for the Edmonton police. He now works as a private expert for hire, whilst collecting his 25 year, or very close to, pension from the Edmonton Police Service.


Ben:

Could you respond to Mr Slemko's comments, and post same? I take issue with certain falsifications that appear in Paul Kennedy's report. Anyone with access to Westlaw, can see for themselves exactly how Kennedy performed when he was a prosecutor. He knows exactly what is taught at the Canadian Police College; he knows that Slemko was hardly less qualified than the Koester cartoonist who spewed the SPIN vomit. My federal MP will be taking up the issue of the lack of public purpose at the PCC.

Testimonial perjury and evidence planting are rampant in policing. I attended Toronto sessions of the Kaufman Commission into the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. The 2 lead officers were convicted of Obstruction and Breach of Trust, for conduct during both the investigation and trial. They planted evidence at the crime scene after typical cop tunnel vision focused on an innocent man.

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/morin/

At the hearings, lead prosecutor - Susan McLean - defended the conviction, even in face of DNA refutation. Under intense public pressure, she made a tearful, self serving apology the next week. Rather than suffering disbarment and incarceration for her zealous and malicious prosecution, McLean was appointed to the Bench, to preside over criminal cases.

Mr Slemko - and I have accessed his website - would be aware of a cop battery/attempted coverup that resulted in a conviction of an Calgary cop. The SILENCE-CODE was lifted in that case, because the idiot cop put co-cultists in the position of defending implausible denial. Otherwise cops grant their own exculpatory circuses whenever they commit crimes. Leahey's conduct is typical; it would have been whitewashed if he hadn't put fellow cultists in a compromising position.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2000/2000abpc196/2000abpc196.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2000/2000abpc198/2000abpc198.html

Does the Justice Institute of BC take measures to ensure that cops play by the rules? During the BC Police Complaints Commission on reinstatement of 2 fired Vancouver cops (viz "Stanley Park 6" kidnapping/battery, one of the convicted animals (later kicked upstairs to sergeant) testified that the JIBC tells cops to operate under a "ways and means act" in order to convict targets. Innocence is beside the point. Cop perjury is not only accepted by the judicial-policial-prosecutorial tandem; it is sacramental. Within their public-jeopardy cult, a good cop is: a good liar. Since the Nixon conviction that arose from the crippling of Michael Jacobsen, in the Vancouver jail, no BC cop has spent 1 second in jail.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2004/2004bcpc1/2004bcpc1.html

Sean:

It is impossible to choke someone with an inner elbow. Only a moron would keep up an inner elbow hold - aided by pressing one's head against the head of a second party - while being pistol whipped. Would cops spew "exited delerium" snakeoil, to make that fit?

Again, none of the spineless, cop doormats will dare advise how Koester's SPIN could fit in 2 minutes and 8 seconds. I favour Ben's version.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/photogalleries/IanBush0706.html?g=0

Koester's last words before the shooting were, "stand by" as he was anxious to answer a call. Then, 2 and 8 later, he phoned dispatch, giving them no details of the shooting. When he gathered his deceitful thoughts, he called for help, and received it from Cst Woroshelo, in the way of a 5 minute (SPIN version: consolation) private meeting, which was followed by the whitewash. Woroshelo was implicated in the shooting, because that Lead Officer had given his support officer - Koester - directions as to the treatment of Bush. He knows that Obstruction arrest was crap, because there was no clear intent or present ability to defeat justice. The arrest was punitive; an arena security guard also suffered venting of Koester/Woroshelo anger: COP-RAGE. Heidi saw W display his aggressive nature on the witness stand. K/W had no intention of putting the issue before a judge; they used police powers as a means for venting anger.

See Ben's version for an account of what happened during the 2 minutes and 8 seconds.