Police have no power to cherry pick only inculpatory evidence. They are fact-finders. That is all. I attended sessions of Ontario's Kaufmann Commission into the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. Ten years later, the Goudge Commission is studying yet another case of tunnel vision by cops, that conduced false testimony by a medical examiner. And the latest case revealed that ME Smith testified in a US capital case, where his victim was almost put to death.

When will we learn: concealment is NEVER right. Disclosure is of the essence. Exculpatory evidence must be sought out.

Sounds good? Concealment should be anathema at the Frank Paul Inquiry. So why the hell is AG Oppal invoking concealment of Crown practices viz charge standards in in-custody death cases? That idiot PERSONALLY wrote irrevocable public interest provisions into the Order in Council that established the Inquiry. And Oppal is an ex-judge. He needs the quick boot.

http://www.cameronward.com/docket/

Well with guys like this the public will take them under their wings and do the best to protect them. We may not be able to do that for our deceased loved ones but it won't stop us from speaking out for those officers who speak the truth like Const. Slemko and Const. Erickson.

AG Wally Oppal obviously was hand picked for the job and he has been a complete disaster.
In fact,he is downright embarrassing!
But then again,we should remember just who hand picked him and who he really works for?
Oh wait...I keep forgeting...we just don't UNDERSTAND!

The main objective for a great majority of these politicians, lawyers, judges and cops is... cover thy azz.

SO WHO IS DOING THE WORK? (for Andyfreeze).


The population of Canada is 32.5 million .


14.5 million are retired or on welfare.


That leaves 18 million to do the work.


There are 12.5 million in school.


Which leaves 5.5 million to do the work.


Of this there are 1.5 million employed by the federal government.


Leaving 4 million to do the work.


0.1 million are in the Armed Forces preoccupied with Afghanistan & finding Osama Bin-Laden.


Which leaves 3.9 million to do the work.


Take from that total the 3.6 million people who work for provincial and municipal governments.


And that leaves 0.3 million to do the work.


At any given time there are 228,000 people in hospitals and care homes.


Leaving 72,000 to do the work.


Now, there are 71,998 people in prisons.


That leaves just two people to do the work.


You and me.


And there you are,

sitting on your ass,

at your computer,

reading jokes.



Nice. Real nice !

Actually diplomat,I am at the stockmarket which is what I do from Monday to Friday most days!
Sure a good thing you and I are doing something eh?
And there just ain't no good jokes left out there,I've heard 'em all!
:-)

I am glad to hear he got recognized for his good work.
Not just doing what the cops wanted him to do, and that was to side with them, despite his findings.
So great news, for a great guy !

I just finally read the blog with Joe Slemko and "Mac" that was shared in the previous Joe article.
One thing that keeps playing over in my mind about the Ian Bush case is something that wasn't talked about in this blog as Joe Slemko wasn't there watching Woreshelo on the stand, I was.

Woroshelo, Koester's senior officer, was very calm and collected when being interviewed by the RCMP lawyer on the stand but when questioned by Howard Rubin, the Bush family lawyer, his body behaviour became quite opposite so me being me I googled "bahaviours of lying" and this came up:


"The following techniques to telling if someone is lying are often used by police, and security experts.

Interactions and Reactions
• A guilty person gets defensive. An innocent person will often go on the offensive.

• A liar is uncomfortable facing his questioner/accuser and may turn his head or body away."

There was more to this article but I found these points interesting as when I was watching Woroshelo speak I thought to myself "Wow this man is very uncomfortable all of a sudden, red faced and angry."

The day Joe was on the stand I was there as well....him and Woroshelo were like night and day but then again Joe had nothing to hide.

My question now would be How ridiculous of an idea would it be to have a behavioral analyst (or whatever they are called) present in the court room and to have their thoughts put out there?

heidi1555 wrote,

"The following techniques to telling if someone is lying are often used by police, and security experts.

Interactions and Reactions
• A guilty person gets defensive. An innocent person will often go on the offensive.

This reminds me of AG Oppal and Minister Coleman in question period.

Ah yes, Joe Slemko. The same man who admitted to making a huge mistake in his analysis of the Ian Bush case. Spare us the hero worship, Ben. You may think the sun shines out of his arse, but a lot of people, including Crown Counsel in Alberta, don't.

Ian Bush was a bully and he picked fights with a lot of people when he drank, including police officers before the night he died. Even his best friends said that. They even said they weren't surprised his life ended the way it did.

Ben

I take it you needed to write about something other than the ice jam. Are things that slow in PG?

"More often than not, liars look down when telling a story. It’s as if they are thinking of what to say next. It is a well known and well studied reflexive psycho-social reaction that people who are truthfully recounting a real event look up when trying to recall the details. They are looking up and mentally picturing the events that they are talking about almost as if they are looking at their brain for answers. Liars look down because they are not remembering but creating a story and they need to look at a blank canvas, like the ground, in order to spin their story and make it convincing. It’s a way of concentrating on what is being said and making it work with what has already been said, in other words convincingly lying.

Liars mix up fine details. When a liar spins a lie they make a point of registering the core of what is being said for future use but they often forget the minor credibility building details they’ve incorporated in to their lie. A truthful person is more likely to be consistent in recalling smaller details of an event than a liar because the truth-sayer has the mental picture to pull up and think of when asked a question. A liar lacks this mental picture and therefore has no failsafe way to recall smaller details.

People who lie tend to get defensive or they take a defensive posture with others when confronted about the lie, even if they are not actually being accused of lying. When you second-guess a liar they are quick to react in anger in order to put YOU on the defensive and deflect attention from the lie at hand. Even if you ask an innocent question like, “where did it happen again?” or, “can you tell that story over again to Bob?” a liar may get defensive, angry or irritated. In very rare cases, a liar may act like they don’t even know what you are talking about.

Inconsistency and a defensive posture combined almost always signal a liar.
So next time you fear you’re being lied to take a closer look at the body language of the liar. Non-verbal cues aren't burning pants but they are a pretty good indication of what is going on in a person's subconscious. Unless an individual suffers from a serious social disorder lying will, on some level, make them uneasy and this discomfort will come out in their body language.
The reality is most people are uncomfortable with being untruthful and body language, unlike the spoken word, can not tell a lie."

Heidi

Remember to quote your source(s). As you have so catastrophically failed to do so, I will. teenadvice.about.com/od/peerpressure/a/blliarliar.htm

You are talking in generalities. These types of reactions are why polygraphs are inadmissible in court. Also, psychopaths show no emotion.

You say liars mix up fine details. Slemko did as well by admitting he made a huge mistake. Journalists mix up fine details; they create stories and don't report them.

Why Sean how did you know what site I got that from? Interesting. Is it possible you are in my computer or do you have some sort of copy/paste program that leads you?

I had it in quotation marks I thought that was good enough.

Heidi, cut and paste your article to the Google task bar and you will have your source. I’m quite certain that Sean has not infiltrated your computer.

I see that Sean is again using the old system that if you can’t argue with the message , go after the messenger.
I attended the Inquest into the shooting death of Ian Bush; I have a very clear understanding of not only the testimony of Joe Slemko, but others.
After five decades gathering and commenting on news I am not afraid to lead with my chin.
My experience has taught me on the other hand that those who are the most vocal are the most reluctant to be identified, because if they do , it exposes them to the whole audience and that audience then can take those comments for what they really are, just dribble.
Meisner

Heidi. To find out whether there is a source on the net for a longer written piece, just cut and past about 10 or so words, put them into quotation marks, and it will lead you to the site or sites. You do not need to put more than that in as Troll suggests to do. In fact, if you do, you may not find it if some of the words have been altered.

So, applying that to diplomat’s post about who works in Canada.

http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=14129

http://asiafind.com/blog/16427/post_130148.html?dcb=asiafind

Jokes are particularly common to copy from other sources.
;-)

Neat thanks Troll and Owl! I had no idea you could do that! I didn't think Sean would be that weird and wonder what i'm doing on my computer but had to ask...lol..

I thought I would have to go through the hassle of posting every link in my favorites folder just for Sean to read in one comment. He'd have a blast especially with the one about about the river. Soooooo lonnnnnng and coverage goes back to the late 1800's. That still boggles my mind.

:)

Sean:

Have you ever considered using "facts" to base your opinion on? If you haven't, you may want to considering the blog comments at: http://ualbertalaw.typepad.com/faculty/2008/02/joe-slemko-repo.html

If you are in fact a police officer, thank-you for reaffirming why I do what I do and more importantly, motivating me to continue.

I will look forward to crossing paths with you in the future.

Joe Slemko

Sean,
If in fact you ARE a cop,and I don't know that you are,your attitude exemplifies just what it is that people dislike about cops in general.
Arrogance, and animosity towards anyone who questions their motives or actions.
Cops DO have to answer to the citzens of this country,whether they think they should have to or not!
If they don't like that,then they should not be cops in the first place,because as we all know,not all cops are GOOD at what they do!
Some are just plain bullies.
However,if you are NOT a cop,then you are entitled to your opinion, and that's all it is...not fact or even the truth as such, only an opinion,which really amounts to nothing.
Just like it applies to the rest of us.

Owl you are hilarious. My stepmom sent me a link yesterday you might enjoy.

http://www.skeptic.com/

Go to the mid left in the YouTube section and you can see clips on the lie detector/polygraph. Love this site!

Anyhow, have a great day...time to get off my arple and go for a walk with my little sweets.

:)

Nice to hear from you, Ben, and thank you for taking the time to respond.

Speaking of dribble, that is exactly how I rated your sensationalistic version of events when you wrote on the Ian Bush case following the RCMP Public Complaints Commission report on the in custody death of Ian Bush in a manner that is consistent with your narrowminded view of the world.

As for this article, do you not see the irony in the way your report; rather, create news? Whilst you state, "seek out the truth" with respect to this article, you wrote the other article I refer to in a manner that has nothing to do with the truth. I'd have happily nominated you for the Gutter Journalism of the Year Award, but you were over qualified in regards to that article.

As for you, "After five decades gathering and commenting on news I am not afraid to lead with my chin" Do you mean in the same manner police officers lead with their chins when confronting the violent reality of everyday police work and I don't mean by sitting at at keyboard, like yourelf.

Sean I think you need to do your research a little better I was a very close friend of Ians and I never heard of any stories of him beating up any officer before he supposedly started a fight with Koester

Trust me, JM, I have.

I'd be inclined to believe you if you were Ian's only friend, but you aren't.

Remember this, in small towns especially, what some people say privately and publicly are very different especially in cases that generate high emotions.

Please read my previous post again. "he picked fights with a lot of people when he drank, including police officers" I didn't say if they were on or off duty and Ian was well known in the town in regards to picking fights when he was drinking.

Ben

If you're so concerned about the truth, what motivated you to write the sensationalistic garbage you did in regards to, "Shooting Of Ian Bush ..Another Version"

If that wasn't a distortion of the facts, I don't know what is. Surely even Joe Slemko chuckled at your creative writing. I know I did!

Ben, thank you for following up on the Ian Bush event at the time it happened. I still have many questions which have never been answered to my complete satisfaction.

I am not going to go into details, but I don't think we were ever given a real factual account, in my opinion.

Let's hope something like that never happens again.

Actually Sean to tell the truth what I visioned in my head wasn't far off from what Ben thought. (I know this means nothing to you) I pictured Koester tried to pistol whip him a 4th time but gun went off instead maybe????? I believe he didn't mean to take his life but he went too far. Makes sense and could be possible or not. This coming from statements and photo's shown at the inquest which I payed close attention to no matter how hard it was to look at or listen to and to see Mr. and Mrs. Bush, friends and family sit in front of me being exposed to all of that. Who knows exactly what happened but when the last day of the inquest comes and the family is still left hanging it's hard not to think about how and why it happened years later. We're all allowed to wonder as they gave everyone no other choice but to wonder a different version happened. There was little sympathy shown to the family/friends. They did nothing wrong yet they were treated like they were cop haters....the enemy. Far from the truth. I'm glad to have met them, they are beautiful people.

Heidi

I have absolutely no doubt that Mr. & Mrs. Bush are beautiful people. I wouldn't suggest to anyone that they are cop haters and I never got that impression at all. As for your copy & paste input, let me put it to you this way. There was nothing weird about it; I was simply having a sarcastic go and was hoping you'd take it as such. Although we differ in several of our opinions on this site, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy sharing opinions with you.

Cheers!

As for Diplomat, "I am not going to go into details, but I don't think we were ever given a real factual account, in my opinion."

Speaking of factual accounts, I'm sure you realize Ben's version of events are, at best, sensationalistic and, at worst, gutter journalism.

What he wrote does no one any good, including Ian's parents, CST. Koester, the RCMP and society in general. He ought to be ashamed of himself.

Looks like more people out there need to be ashamed of themselves according to this article and I don't mean the journalist:
http://www.southerngazette.ca/index.cfm?sid=111306&sc=387

Coming from your wifes neck of the woods if I remember right Sean...I remember you teasing about where she came from.

Well, Heidi, journalists create news; they don't report it.

Check this out:

Politicians and lawyers top a global list of the most hated professions. Other reviled occupations in the survey of the best and worst jobs include:

Journalist
Real estate agent
MP
Advertising executive
Car dealer
Company director
Accountant


Doctors topped the most respected list. They were closely followed by:

Nurse
Teacher
Police officer
Firefighter
Ambulance driver
Soldier
Scientist
Caregiver

Sean …

Was Ian armed when he was shot in the back of the head?

Did Ian commit a crime punishable by death?
Was the shooting accidental?

If the answer to all of those is no, then the RCMP officer who shot him was incompetent ands should not only be dismissed from the job, but should be charged with manslaughter at the least.

There is nothing magic about RCMP officers. They are just as capable of being incompetent as people in other vocations.

Everything you say about Ian points to a higher probability for someone to want to get even. So keep that kind of information coming since it can do exactly the opposite of what you think it does. Rather than it being an excuse to shoot, it is evidence that there may have been a reason for another hot head (if Ian was a hot head) to teach him a lesson. That lesson went wrong!

Get serious!

One does not have to be armed to pose a threat, but the general public would never understand that. Many unarmed people are are considered a deadly threat.

You make it sound like Koester was judge, jury and executioner. Bush was attempting to kill him. You lot will never accept that because you have taken your simplistic views so far passed the objectivity pendulum that there is no room for return.

By you asking those three questions, you obviously don't have the answers to them.

As for what I say, I cannot help the way you perceive things. Your perception is based on knowing nothing about the violent reality of everyday police work. The general public is very sheltered. Yes, they have opinions, but they have no knowledge.

Sean …

What you obviously do not get is that just because you say something or I say something or John Doe says something does not make it the truth.

Once you accept that other people can have opinions, and that they can be different than yours, and that they can even be right sometimes and you can be wrong sometimes, you might become a more reasonable person to discuss things with.
You think I do not know that one does not have a weapon to be a deadly force? Do you think I do not know that police should be taught to handle a person like that without killing them with a gun? You think I do not know that Ian was not a killing machine.

I do not need the answers to the questions I posed. I know the answers from the information which was provided, other than the last one. The first two are “no”. The last one is maybe.

We have not been provided enough information by the authorities to make reach a conclusion. Where you in the room? In that case, you might know the answer to that question.

"Your perception is based on knowing nothing about the violent reality of everyday police work."

And you base this opinion from what knowledge about me?

Do you think police work is more violent than playing hockey?

Who do you think gets injured more often in their workplace?

The two have something in common. Both are actually in situations where they initiate the violence.

While a taxi driver is also one of those high on the list of being in a violent vocation, they would very rarely initiate the violence.

So, being in a violent vocation really means that one should take care to ensure one does not encourage violence, but rather mitigates violence.

We do not know what the officer who shot Ian did to mitigate or to encourage the violence. You do not know that for sure nor I know that for sure, unless you are that officer.

Police work compared to hockey.

You're starting to make me laugh now.

Clearly, you've got the world view of Bart Simpson.

Bye!

How exciting Troll and Owl were right and it really does work!

http://www.carers.net.nz/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=150&mode=&catid=11&thread&order=0&thold=0

I'm so glad I got to test it out

;)

Oh crap I think I messed that up and I so wanted to be a smarta$$ :(
On this list police officer is further down than on your list...

"Nurse
Teacher
Firefighter
Ambulance driver
Soldier
Scientist
Police officer
Caregiver"

:)

Wait a second.....

"Real estate agent
MP
Journalist
Advertising executive
Car dealer
Company director
Accountant"

Compare...your list seems to have journalist at the top...hmmm. Can you please include your link for us as this is the only one I could find and i'd hate to think you weren't being truthful.

If you actually read the "Final Report on the Chair-Initiated Complaint into the Shooting of Ian Bush" (http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca/DefaultSite/Reppub/index_e.aspx?articleid=1583#5O), especially the parts regarding Mr. Slemko's testimony, you can understand his bosses reluctance to honour him with any medal.
"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."

Well of course they are going to say that and they know they can and that's final...nothing we can say or do. How was Koester not covered in blood? How was there no smear from him getting out from under Ian? Why are those questions always ignored? And why do you always take over when Sean screws up Tim or did he?

I still maintain that every police detachment should have video surveillance cameras in every room, inaccessible to being switched off or disabled in any way, transmitting to a central recording station where records will be kept 24/7/365(366).

Interrogation rooms may require two cameras to assure that every angle is properly covered.

Nobody should be allowed to conduct interrogations in any place where cameras or recording devices are not functioning. Contravening this requirement should result in immediate dismissal.

This would be not only for the protection of the public but also for the protection of the officer(s).

If you have something going with Sean, Heidi, then take it up with him. I don't care.
Point is, Slemko was called in by the Bush family as a bloodstain analyst, and he gave testimony on use of force and biomechanics, etc... areas where he obviously has no expert experience, as shown at the hearings. If you were there as you claim to have been, you would have seen demonstrated how Koester's description of the events could have happened.
The Public Complaints Commission is a body independant of the RCMP, and it found that Slemko, basically, was out to lunch. It's not a case of cops protecting cops.

Raparee:

I fully accept that both you and Sean and any anyone else for that matter are entitled to your opinions about the Bush case.
However, here are my quotes from the National Post:
"I have never disputed that there was a physical altercation between Bush and Koester," said Const. Slemko yesterday. "My opinions were directed at the point in time when Bush’s blood-letting injury was generated. That is what bloodstain pattern analysis is based upon - blood evidence."
The conclusion by Mr. Kennedy that he preferred Sgt. Hignell's evidence because he could not comment definitively about the positioning of Mr. Bush and Const. Koester at the time of the shooting is puzzling, Const. Slemko said. "It does not make sense that he prefers Sgt. Hignell's rationale because he cannot comment on Const. Koester's version of the positioning. How can Mr. Kennedy then say it supports Const. Koester's version of the events?
"Unlike the RCMP, I actually conducted a reconstruction with actual human models to try and prove or disprove Const. Koester's version of the positioning in the context of the observed blood stain evidence. I was not able to prove his version and I am still waiting for someone to show me otherwise," Const. Slemko said.

Furthermore, I have never represented myself at anytime to be an expert, nor have I ever given testimony, including at the Bush inquest, regarding kinetics, pathology, biomechanics, the use of force or any other area outside of bloodstain pattern analysis. If you were able to read my report you would see that is all qualified. All I did was conduct simple human modeling demonstrations based on Cst. Koester’s own version of the positioning, much like Sgt. Hignell tried to do at the inquest, but with wooden toy models. Modeling and reconstructions are part of a thorough and competent scientific analysis and any basic BPA textbook will state that BPA is used to determine the position of victim(s) and assailant(s) in the context of the observed bloodstain patterns. BPA and victim/assailant positioning are not mutually exclusive.

As previously stated to the National Post, I am still waiting for someone to prove to me Cst. Koester’s version of the positioning within the context of BUSH’s gunshot injuries and the observed bloodstain pattern evidence.

Just listen to all of the imaginative theories.

Perhaps CST. Koester's genuine sincerity is threatening to those with an already cynical view of the police and society in general.

I have a martial arts background and I am, therefore, extremely flexible and can wiggle and twist out of almost anything. However, I am also aware that everyone can meet their match at some point.

For you, Heidi, to claim that you tested Koester's theory is delusional and laughable. If Slemko is no expert in this area, what makes you even remotely qualified to comment on it?

Since when have any of you been in a fight for your life?

Just listen to all of the imaginative theories.

Perhaps CST. Koester's genuine sincerity is threatening to those with an already cynical view of the police and society in general.

I have a martial arts background and I am, therefore, extremely flexible and can wiggle and twist out of almost anything. However, I am also aware that everyone can meet their match at some point.

For you, Heidi, to claim that you tested Koester's theory is delusional and laughable. If Slemko is no expert in this area, what makes you even remotely qualified to comment on it?

Since when have any of you been in a fight for your life?

In his Final Report, Mr. Kennedy makes two significant findings:

1. Constable Koester had a reasonable apprehension of death and believed that he could not otherwise preserve himself from death other than to use lethal force. Constable Koester's actions were consistent with the self-defence provisions as contained in subsection 34(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. In addition, given Constable Koester had tried lesser forms of intervention that were not successful, Constable Koester was authorized under the RCMP's use of force policy to use lethal force.

2. The North District Major Crime Unit conducted a highly professional investigation into Mr. Bush's death and exemplified the best practices for major crime investigations. The North District Major Crime Unit conducted the investigation into Mr. Bush's death in a timely manner free from any manner of conflict of interest, bias or partiality.

Deal with it cynics!

Joe

"Furthermore, I have never represented myself at anytime to be an expert"

Then you'll have no problem reminding the Ben Meisners of this world of that and to tell them to stop referring to you as such.

The officer's view that the version of events put forward by RCMP Const. Paul Koester about what led to his shooting Mr. Bush was not plausible, was attacked by Paul Kennedy in his report into the October, 2005, incident that was released earlier this week.

Const. Slemko was accused by the public complaints commissioner of inappropriate speculation and going beyond his area of expertise in his work on behalf of the Bush family this past spring.

The public complaints commissioner said in his report that he preferred the evidence RCMP forensics officer Sgt. Jim Hignell, who concluded that the bloodstain pattern analysis supported Const. Koester's version of what happened.

Joe and Heidi, Slemko is simply an analyst; not an expert.

As for people who cannot accept the findings of the RCMP's PCC, don't place sentiment ahead of reality.

Sean:
Again, you are taking things out of context or distorting them to fit your own argument......I stated: "I have never represented myself at anytime to be an expert, nor have I ever given testimony, including at the Bush inquest, REGARDING kinetics, pathology, biomechanics, the use of force or any other area OUTSIDE of bloodstain pattern analysis.

Also, I never speculated, I only used Koester's own version of the positiong...nothing more.....and Hignell only said "it could be possible", he never proved it (See my intial comments regarding Kennedy's flawed rationale).

I have the utmost respect for Sgt. Hignell (and I always will), however, he had less than two years experience in BPA when he had to deal with the BUSH case. I have had over 14 years.

Hi Joe

I realize that. It was Ben and the papers who said you were an expert, not yourself. I trust that is what you are referring to.

Cheers!

Sean,
I AM an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis, as is Sgt. Hignell. We just have a significant differences in our resumes. I was teaching BPA long before Sgt. Hignell was even going to be considered a student. However, that does not mean that I do not respect him or his opinion. If you ever look at you reports you will find that we agree on a number of significant points, including the position of Bush.......however, in the end, he states, "it could be possible" and I state, "it couldn't be possible".

Sean,
I AM an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis, as is Sgt. Hignell. We just have a significant differences in our resumes. I was teaching BPA long before Sgt. Hignell was even going to be considered a student. However, that does not mean that I do not respect him or his opinion. If you ever look at you reports you will find that we agree on a number of significant points, including the position of Bush.......however, in the end, he states, "it could be possible" and I state, "it couldn't be possible".

That's fair enough, Joe. Even if there is doubt in any fatality involving the police, in this type of violent employment, I think you know who should be given the benefit of the doubt. Crown Counsel would not approve charges, as you know in the Bush case, yet they did with CST. Ferguson, so the public perception of cover up is ludicrous.

Anyway, Joe, thanks for replying. I think you and I can agree that this one is running its course.

If it means anything to you, I'm happy you received your 20 year service medal. I think I can speak for you as well when I say there were no winners in the Bush case.

That's fair enough, Joe. Even if there is doubt in any fatality involving the police, in this type of violent employment, I think you know who should be given the benefit of the doubt. Crown Counsel would not approve charges, as you know in the Bush case, yet they did with CST. Ferguson, so the public perception of cover up is ludicrous.

Anyway, Joe, thanks for replying. I think you and I can agree that this one is running its course.

If it means anything to you, I'm happy you received your 20 year service medal. I think I can speak for you as well when I say there were no winners in the Bush case.

Sean sorry if I hurt your feelings about the whole link posting job career thing but c'mon you know you had that one coming....that was an easy given.....


Anyone who has arms growing out of their body can try and do what Koester claimed to do. It's a free world. Oh you probably mean my pistol whipping comment. It was just a thought I had is all. He already had 3 marks from the barrel of the gun shown in a pic. so really a 4th attempt is fair to think it could be possible.
Remember also Koester's own words were that Ian was over him to the right. So in my mind that would make Ian over Koesters right shoulder. The last time I checked that part of my body has a joint which gives you arm movement but if someone had his body weight on my shoulder (scapula) while choking me I really can't see how the arm wouldn't be restricted. Hard enough bending like Gumby in that way without someone on your back/shoulder choking you.

"As the shoulder joint moves, the scapula moves. Movement of the scapula necessitates movement at both ends of the clavicle, at the sternoclavicular and acromioclavicular joints."
http://www.med.mun.ca/anatomyts/msk/shoulder.htm

Just one of the sites i'm reading.
No i'm no doctor or expert, yes I do have arms and the freedom to read and think.

:)

Sean,

Thanks.....yes, there will never be any winners. The Ferguson case is a mess also.

My major concern with all of this is that if you or I (I am assuming you are a police officer) ever have to use lethal force, I want the public to be assured that I was investigated in a totally unbiased and thorough manner and that I was found to be completly justifed.....I do not want a cloud hanging over my head, or any police officers head, or to ever have to play the "benefit of the doubt card".

I did not take on the Bush case for any other reason than I believed it was the right thing to do because of an oath I swore over 21 years ago. Unfortunately, I never would have imagined the toll it has taken upon me........

I DO NOT enjoy the media attention and unfortunately, because of the internet, people are now able to anonymously attack my reputation, generally based on misinformation.......At the end of the day....all we are left with is our reputations.....and I am willing to defend mine.

Stay safe out there..........

Joe

Joe

Keep in mind that, yes, the Bush case will always remain controversial and I have a major problem with "Joe Citizen" taking the moral high ground when it comes to the world's most thankless profession; they simply cannot comprehend the violent reality of police work. I think you know that, but I don't expect you to comment on it here. I see no reason why you should let the Bush case be the defining case of your 20 year career, so don't let it and that is why I am happy you received your 20 year service medal.

Whilst we may not agree on the Bush case specifically, you did stick your neck out and you and I know that police work does attract political animals with one eye firmly on their road ahead and they shy away from controversy, lest it damage their career aspirations and I don't have even a crumb of respect for them.

I'd much prefer to draw a line under this topic by ending it on a positive note with you so, again, don't let the Bush case alone define your career.

Cheers!

Hi Heidi

Please understand that Irish wit and humor doesn't always come across the way it was intended, nor do chats in general via e-mail.

I'm sure Joe Slemko would agree, along with yourself, that had many of these replies taken place face to face, there'd be a lot less misunderstanding.

As for me, I can take the banter as well as I give it out; no problem there. However, there are now close to 60 comments on this topic, so a topic of this nature does get people's passion going.

Exactly a passion ...passion sure sucks at times doesn't it? I think we all have aged more than we should've the last few years because of topics like this and shame on us for letting it happen as no wrinkle cream is strong enough...don't let those ads fool you :) If Kevin saw how upset I still get over this topic it would sadden him afterall, "No mother of my child can be just fine.", were some of his lasts words to me. He really had a good heart. Tsk, tsk on me.
Either I can bash my head against a brick wall because of something so wrong within an organization that was meant to be so right or I can bash my fingers against a keyboard. The trick is getting across to the ones that can make the change and unfortunately I have no clue how to do that or if they even care??? So when I see someone trash talk someone who has passed away (hopefully to a better place) or trash talk a good man/woman who believes in the right still after all the attacks done on them by the ones that should be supporting them it really gets to me. I'm a middle child I can't help it and because i'm an aries i'm stubborn as all heck. (about stuff like this only.....eh hemmm)

I want it kept real and I want it right. Why is that so hard for some people?
Yes face to face is much better even though guaranteed I would've bantered you just the same and you would've seen me laugh at your attempt to verbally rearrange the best/most hated career list...

Respect for the dead has always been something high on my list, next to honesty and the right to live.

Joe you seem very grounded and real and i'm very happy for you (minus the stress you feel). www.realage.com
It said I was 41!!!! I'm only 34!!! I wanted to cry. Has some excellent tips on health and wellness and because you are excellent at what you do you better go check it out and that's an order Mister.

Sean one day you'll see the light.....lol...(no i'm not irish i'm german surprise surprise) lol...

;)