A Look At The Shooting Of Don Lewis From The Other Side Of The Room

Monday, June 09, 2008 03:45 AM

Meisner begins a four part series on the shooting death of Don Lewis at McLeese Lake, the manner in which the RCMP handled the shooting and the manner in which the justice system treats an inquest.

Part 1

I have had the benefit of covering all three of the high profile inquests in the region that have been called as a result of a police shooting.

The most believable story is the one unfolding at a Coroner’s inquest in Williams Lake into the death of Don Lewis.

While there may be some color added to the story, Const Brewer didn’t commit any of the major mistakes that I suggest to you happened in the two other cases.

Brewer goes to a complaint in McLeese Lake. He goes up a hill to a camp and finds a guy sleeping in a tent. So far nothing wrong with that story, and the way the complaint was phoned in there was little reason to send two cops.

He checks out a motorcycle parked in the bush and discovers it’s registered to a Sara Penny in Whistler. Nothing wrong there also. It wasn’t reported stolen, so, no big deal .

He now approaches a guy in a tent in what appears to be a camp of a more permanent nature than would normally occur.

He talks to the guy, but still does not know who Lewis is. Had he known who the guy was perhaps he may have acted like the two border officers and an RCMP officer in Whistler, who didn’t chase Lewis into the bush when he bolted from them.

Lewis takes off, Brewer is in hot pursuit. Brewer catches Lewis and the question is why in the world he would chase him down into the bush? Folks, if police officers don’t chase fleeing criminals as a practice it won’t be long before rather than stop for a police check you simply take off. Lewis had been successful on one occasion of out running the law; he was looking for a second. Granted Lewis may not pose a danger to anyone, but Brewer is not a mind reader.

So the struggle begins, Lewis knows that if he is arrested he is heading to the US border once more, and facing a second conviction for resisting arrest. No matter how petty the charges were they do add up. He has a reason to put some ground between himself and Const Brewer.

Do you believe that a fight took place in which Brewer tried to hit him with the baton first and then tried to nail him with pepper spray? Well I believe at least half of that story. Now did Lewis grab for Brewers gun, I can’t say, but regardless if even Brewer pulled his weapon and bonked Lewis on the head which he did, he obviously was not trying to kill him.

Does Lewis then grab for the gun and Brewer shoots him? Maybe. But remember Lewis was shot at close range, a few inches and that to me suggests they were fighting in very close quarters.

As for the handcuffs. You don’t handcuff a dead man and so the story of handcuffing Lewis to a tree while he went to get back up seems reasonable enough. Brewer said Lewis was still putting up a struggle after he shot him, and so he was fearful this guy wanted to get away. Remember, Brewer doesn't know whether this guy is just a camper gone berserk or the highway 16 killer.

Should they have returned to the scene faster? Indeed. Should there be better radio reception in the area? You bet. But all of that folks comes after the fact and the fact is that given the set of circumstances that Const Cole Brewer acted under I to would have very likely acted in the same manner.

Now as to how the RCMP has handled the shooting, the way in which an inquest is held, ahh!! , that is an entirely different matter and tomorrow I look at that side of the coin.

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

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, June 09, 2008 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: tinyapplecork on June 9 2008 4:35 AM

Well written Ben!

Posted by: RUEZ on June 9 2008 5:02 AM

A very good summary.

Posted by: pisspulper on June 9 2008 9:03 AM

Good summation Ben. A truly tragic incident for both Mr.Lewis and Cst. Brewer, a harmless encounter gone wrong. And yes Mr. Lewis played a significant role towards the outcome.

I will propose a "what if?" or two. What if Cst. Brewer drew his gun after the baton and pepper spray didn't work? What if Mr. Lewis blindly managed to get his hands to touch the gun while in a struggle? Cst. Brewer sees this as a threat and fires. At what point did he manage to hit Mr. Lewis with the butt of the gun? Wouldn't striking the criminal with the baton be more effective at such close quarters than unholstering your weapon and making it available. Perhaps Cst. Brewer had inadvertently pepper sprayed himself and panicked. Certainly Mr. Lewis chose the area to live to avoid police scrutiny. Oops. Handcuffed to a tree with a hole in your chest? Simple logic, follow the blood trail of the wounded suspect. I might suggest someone would fear for their life and struggle more after being shot!

Yes, they are like the many other "what ifs?" Unfortunately, claims to be made by the surviving witness during any inquest will be the half-truth save my job and reputation version. Have we not already witnessed the inquest nonsense and their results or lack thereof?

Our national police force needs serious scrutiny. Future canditates need more thorough screening, and extensive training. When one officer(or more)can't deal with a 140 lb suspect or an 82 year old man, something is amiss. It almost seems that some of these incidents are not being assesed for severity, determining proper procedure or need for back-up. Appears as if emotional reaction is superceding common sense and training( or again, Lack Thereof)

With the state of our medical system, our devotion for the care of the elderly and cerebrally challenged, how many more will be dealt with in this manner?

Posted by: owl on June 9 2008 9:53 AM

"Certainly Mr. Lewis chose the area to live to avoid police scrutiny"

I suggest that to avoid police scrutiny one should live where most others live, in a campsite.

Even as a US citizen, he would simply be seen as a person who is travelling for the season through BC on the way to wherever.

In this country it is still not a requirement to leave your passport at the office or check to see if you have a visa. In fact, one does not require a visa to travel from the USA to Canada.

He must have eaten, he must have put gas into his cycle, thus he must have had some money. He may, however, not have had that magic card that is much more powerful than any other card when travelling ... a credit card with room to charge more "stuff" on it ......

Posted by: owl on June 9 2008 12:33 PM

"the way the complaint was phoned in there was little reason to send two cops"

That should be easy to determine. There should be a standard operating procedure which would indicate when one or when two officers are sent to a scene. If that is not in place, then there is something wrong with the management of the detachment and the district. What is that procedure?

Here is the way I would look at a SOP for a couple of sample call outs.

1. A break and entry has happened overnight in a store and is discovered in the morning by the manager. From the point of view of safety to the public and the officer, a second officer would not be required to inspect the crime scene no matter how far the distance to travel for back-up.

2. An alarm rings at 3am from a retail premise and a security company monitoring the alarm calls 911. Police are available within a block and two officers are dispatched to the crime scene for both security of the officers in case the intruder reacts violently and capacity to capture the intruder should he/she still be around.

3. A neighbourhood watch individual in a rural part of the city of Williams Lake notices that someone appears to have driven up to a small, treed, well hidden park at the end of the road and set up a camp for the night or longer. They call in and report the "suspicious" incident.

One officer is dispatched to the scene. The officer is within communication range at all times. Back-up is available within 5 minutes. He/she has notified the detachment that there may be a need for back-up once the scene is viewed or has entered the scene.

4. The same as three, except 15 minutes away for back-up when called, a more remote site than a small park at the dead end of a rural road, communication is likely unavailable if back-up is needed. Much more risky than #3. Either two should be dispatched or a strict determination made after initial arrival at the scen before engaging the individual whether help is needed, in addtion to a test of the access to communication channels.

One knows little about what might be found at a scene such as that. Due to the unknown, the distance for backup, the iffy communications, the risk is high. Throw in a motorbike rather than a 2001 Corolla and the risk is likely even higher. (sorry bikers)

Posted by: heidi1555 on June 9 2008 2:00 PM

We need to find officers that won't act in that manner. Not only did Don Lewis's actions lead to his own death but so did Constable Brewer's. I wish it were the highway 16 murderer he had strapped dying to a tree but it wasn't. It was Don Lewis. Either way he should have left the snoring man snore and gone to get backup. Death in these situations shouldn't be an easy option. If the person is unarmed I can't see how two officers can't get him down and cuff him. Anyway, life goes one right?