Ian Bush Bits & Pieces
Post
07/09/06, Gary Mason, Answers needed in B.C. inquest, (Source).
07/09/06, Editorial, How the Ian Bush investigation failed, (Source).
07/09/06, Shannon Kari, No-charges decision defended in B.C. case, (Source).
07/09/06, Gary Mason, Answers needed in B.C. inquest, (Back).
VANCOUVER — It will likely be a couple more months, maybe longer, before the family of Ian Bush gets any answers to what happened on Oct. 29 of last year that led to the 22-year-old ending up dead on the floor of the Houston, B.C., RCMP station with a bullet in his head.
Even then, any revelations coming out of a coroner's inquest are unlikely to offer much solace.
On Tuesday, the Crown announced that the officer who fired the deadly shot would not be charged. It was a decision that shocked no one, least of all Mr. Bush's family.
It was clear from the first day of this nauseating affair that self-defence would be Constable Paul Koester's defence. In its first press release, issued hours after the shooting, the RCMP indicated Mr. Bush had become "very violent and attacked the officer." A "violent struggle ensued," the release said, and Mr. Bush died at the scene.
There were only two people who knew what happened that night, and one was no longer alive. It was always going to be Paul Koester's word against that of a dead man's.
There was no one else present in the detachment at the time of the shooting. And for some reason, the video and audio equipment in the interview room where the incident took place was not turned on.
Wally Oppal, B.C.'s Attorney-General, told The Globe and Mail on Tuesday that he was in "thorough agreement" with the decision not to lay charges. He indicated evidence showed the officer sustained bruises to his face. There were also signs he had been choked before he shot Mr. Bush.
I don't doubt that for a second.
When two grown men fight that's often what happens. Punches are thrown. Noses are broken. Eyes are blackened. And in the course of a scuffle, both men might grab the other by the neck. I have no doubt Constable Koester had marks around his. What I'll never believe is that Ian Bush intended to kill him. Not a chance in the world.
This was a described as one of the "nicest kids in town," with no history of violence other than the odd dust-up in the local bar.
Constable Koester will no doubt tell the coroner's inquest that he felt his life was threatened. On those grounds, he will say, he felt justified in shooting Mr. Bush. What I'm interested in hearing is how in God's name it ever got to that point to begin with.
Mr. Bush was arrested outside the local arena for having an open beer and giving a fake name when questioned about it. He was led away in handcuffs. Every time I think about what happened next I ask myself: How badly could the officer have mismanaged the situation to put himself in the position of killing an unarmed man 20 minutes arresting him?At the time of the arrest, there was another officer on the scene. So you have two armed RCMP constables, and the guy with nothing more than an empty beer ends up dead. Huh?
Among the many questions the Bush family will be looking to have answered at the coroner's inquest -- which could be held as early as November -- is what RCMP policy is regarding handling of prisoners.
When handling a prisoner alone, for instance, should an RCMP officer have a weapon that could possibly be used against him?
If Constable Koester explains Ian Bush tried to take his gun or that he feared Ian Bush was going to take his gun and shoot him, who's to argue? Also, Constable Koester had only been out of RCMP training school five months. The Bush family has been told an RCMP officer is supposed to have at least six months experience before being left alone with a prisoner.
Also expected to be a key focus of the inquest is the "blood splatter" the shot produced. It can tell investigators a lot about where the two men were in relation to each other when the gun went off.
Prince George-based coroner Shane DeMeyer will conduct the Bush inquest. He has an excellent reputation for being thorough and fair. He is unlikely to be intimidated by the RCMP or the national attention this inquest will generate.
The sooner it begins the better.
07/09/06, Editorial, How the Ian Bush investigation failed, (Back).
After a nearly year-long investigation that was irreparably compromised, an RCMP officer has been exonerated for shooting a 22-year-old man in the back of the head shortly after taking him into custody. Justice has not been seen to be done in the shooting death of Ian Bush of Houston, B.C. Another, more independent criminal investigation is urgently needed.
In its outward appearance, the police investigation fell well below the standards Canadians expect to be met in any fatality involving the police, let alone a death so bizarre and seemingly avoidable. Mr. Bush, who had a reputation as a hard-working, honest young man, was holding an open beer in a parking lot outside a hockey arena last Oct. 29. RCMP Constable Paul Koester, an officer for just five months, asked him his name, and when Mr. Bush gave him a false name, prompting laughter from his friends, Const. Koester arrested him and drove him to a nearby police station. Twenty minutes later, Mr. Bush was dead.
It should not need saying that police have a near-monopoly on the legal use of deadly force, and are accountable for it; but the RCMP acted throughout as if the obvious had never occurred to it. Although legally entitled to investigate itself in shooting deaths, the RCMP could have chosen an out-of-province detachment to conduct that investigation. It did not do so. It could have chosen a detachment in another district; British Columbia has four districts. It did not do so. It gave the investigation to the next detachment, 350 kilometres down the road from Houston, in Prince George.
Once that investigation was done, the RCMP compounded its error by asking the local police force in New Westminster, B.C., to review its work. At the same time, an RCMP-led team was investigating a New Westminster officer in the shooting of 16-year-old Kyle Tait in August, 2005. (No decision has been announced on that file after more than a year.) In those circumstances, the RCMP's choice of New Westminster suggests, if not bias, an arrogant disregard for the basic notion that justice needs to be seen to be done.
The investigation into Mr. Bush's death was also compromised by the appalling and inexplicable length of time it took. There has not been a reasonable explanation from the authorities for the leisurely pace. "It takes long because it takes long," the RCMP's designated spokesman in Vancouver, Staff Sergeant John Ward, said when the investigation was six months old. "The public doesn't have a right to know anything."
Why, then, should Canadians have faith in -- or accept -- the results of the investigation? On Tuesday, B.C.'s criminal justice branch released a bland two-page statement saying that it believes Const. Koester acted in self-defence. The statement does not even mention him by name. It is empty of detail about what happened between Mr. Bush and Const. Koester. The statement reeks of Staff Sgt. Ward's the-public-has-no-right-to-know attitude. Here is a sample: "Mr. Bush and the officer returned to the detachment office and during their time there an incident occurred that resulted in the officer discharging his firearm and fatally wounding Mr. Bush." Memo to the RCMP and the B.C. government: Blind trust in the authorities died out a long time ago.
At the very least, the B.C. government had an obligation to provide a detailed explanation of how a seemingly routine encounter led to a bloody death. Such an explanation would in no way prejudice a coroner's jury that is still months down the road. B.C. Attorney-General Wally Oppal showed no concern about possible prejudice when he selectively provided details to the media on Tuesday. In accepting the exoneration of Const. Koester, he said that pictures show the officer had bruises on his face. He added that the officer was choked. Neither of these details is convincing or helpful. There was no indication that Mr. Bush had a weapon. Why was the video system at the police station apparently not operating? Why was the gun pulled in the first place? (Mr. Oppal, feeding out a couple of more details yesterday, suggested that the officer at first used it to break the chokehold.)
The highest standards of independence and urgency were needed in this investigation. The RCMP botched the job. Public faith in the force is at risk when by appearances it is treated as a law unto itself. Mr. Oppal should ask for an independent criminal investigation to give Canadians some assurance that justice has been done.
07/09/06, Shannon Kari, No-charges decision defended in B.C. case, (Back).
VANCOUVER -- An RCMP officer was choked nearly unconscious before firing his weapon and killing Ian Bush, B.C. Attorney-General Wally Oppal said yesterday in the clearest official explanation so far of what led to the shooting.
Mr. Oppal again defended the decision to not file criminal charges against Constable Paul Koester, who shot the 22-year-old sawmill worker in the back of the head during an altercation last October at the RCMP detachment in the northern B.C. town of Houston.
"The officer is about to lose consciousness but he was able to withdraw his revolver and he struck him [Bush] in an effort to break his hold," Mr. Oppal told The Canadian Press in a series of unusual public comments on the shooting. "Finally he discharged his revolver, striking him in the head and he [Bush] succumbed to that injury."
The lengthy RCMP investigation into the shooting, which occurred after Mr. Bush was arrested for having an open beer outside a local hockey rink, has been marked by a lack of public information.
When the province's Criminal Justice Branch issued a news release on Tuesday announcing there would be no charges, it suggested the officer, who had less than one year's experience, could have acted in self-defence. There was no further comment because of a coroner's inquest, expected to be held before the end of the year.
In the past two days, Mr. Oppal has spoken to a number of media outlets and explained why he believes it was the correct conclusion. He said he personally reviewed the file. "I fully support the decision," not to lay charges, he said yesterday. The Attorney-General, a former judge on the B.C. Court of Appeal, also laid much of the blame on Mr. Bush.
The mill worker was alone with Constable Koester in the RCMP detachment when they got into a fight. Moderately drunk and not handcuffed, Mr. Bush managed to put a chokehold on the officer, Mr. Oppal told The Canadian Press. Constable Koester began to pass out, but before he lost consciousness, he managed to punch Mr. Bush and then fire his weapon, Mr. Oppal said.
The Attorney-General told The Globe and Mail on Tuesday that the officer had a number of bruises on his face. He stressed yesterday that he had "no input" in whether to charge the officer. The Criminal Justice Branch "sent me a review of the file," said Mr. Oppal and that is what he used to make his public comments. "We provided a briefing to the minister, after we had come to a decision in the matter," said Stan Lowe, a spokesman for the Crown counsel in British Columbia.
"That is all we provided to him."
Mr. Lowe explained that the decision was made by officials in the Criminal Justice Branch in Victoria, in consultation with the regional senior Crown in Prince George.
Mr. Bush's mother, Linda Mae Bush, has filed a civil lawsuit against Constable Koester, Mr. Oppal and Solicitor-General John Les, claiming Constable Koester was negligent for not having other officers at the scene, failing to turn on the video monitors in the detachment and for not using less-than-deadly force. The lawsuit seeks punitive damages against the province for not appointing an independent lawyer to decide whether charges should have been filed.
Mr. Oppal rejected any suggestion there might be a potential conflict of interest because the Crown decided whether there should be criminal charges and the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are defendants in the civil suit. "The fact there are no charges has nothing to do with what a [B.C.] Supreme Court judge may decide down the road," in the civil action, Mr. Oppal said.
(Back)
07/09/06, Editorial, How the Ian Bush investigation failed, (Source).
07/09/06, Shannon Kari, No-charges decision defended in B.C. case, (Source).
07/09/06, Gary Mason, Answers needed in B.C. inquest, (Back).
VANCOUVER — It will likely be a couple more months, maybe longer, before the family of Ian Bush gets any answers to what happened on Oct. 29 of last year that led to the 22-year-old ending up dead on the floor of the Houston, B.C., RCMP station with a bullet in his head.
Even then, any revelations coming out of a coroner's inquest are unlikely to offer much solace.
On Tuesday, the Crown announced that the officer who fired the deadly shot would not be charged. It was a decision that shocked no one, least of all Mr. Bush's family.
It was clear from the first day of this nauseating affair that self-defence would be Constable Paul Koester's defence. In its first press release, issued hours after the shooting, the RCMP indicated Mr. Bush had become "very violent and attacked the officer." A "violent struggle ensued," the release said, and Mr. Bush died at the scene.
There were only two people who knew what happened that night, and one was no longer alive. It was always going to be Paul Koester's word against that of a dead man's.
There was no one else present in the detachment at the time of the shooting. And for some reason, the video and audio equipment in the interview room where the incident took place was not turned on.
Wally Oppal, B.C.'s Attorney-General, told The Globe and Mail on Tuesday that he was in "thorough agreement" with the decision not to lay charges. He indicated evidence showed the officer sustained bruises to his face. There were also signs he had been choked before he shot Mr. Bush.
I don't doubt that for a second.
When two grown men fight that's often what happens. Punches are thrown. Noses are broken. Eyes are blackened. And in the course of a scuffle, both men might grab the other by the neck. I have no doubt Constable Koester had marks around his. What I'll never believe is that Ian Bush intended to kill him. Not a chance in the world.
This was a described as one of the "nicest kids in town," with no history of violence other than the odd dust-up in the local bar.
Constable Koester will no doubt tell the coroner's inquest that he felt his life was threatened. On those grounds, he will say, he felt justified in shooting Mr. Bush. What I'm interested in hearing is how in God's name it ever got to that point to begin with.
Mr. Bush was arrested outside the local arena for having an open beer and giving a fake name when questioned about it. He was led away in handcuffs. Every time I think about what happened next I ask myself: How badly could the officer have mismanaged the situation to put himself in the position of killing an unarmed man 20 minutes arresting him?At the time of the arrest, there was another officer on the scene. So you have two armed RCMP constables, and the guy with nothing more than an empty beer ends up dead. Huh?
Among the many questions the Bush family will be looking to have answered at the coroner's inquest -- which could be held as early as November -- is what RCMP policy is regarding handling of prisoners.
When handling a prisoner alone, for instance, should an RCMP officer have a weapon that could possibly be used against him?
If Constable Koester explains Ian Bush tried to take his gun or that he feared Ian Bush was going to take his gun and shoot him, who's to argue? Also, Constable Koester had only been out of RCMP training school five months. The Bush family has been told an RCMP officer is supposed to have at least six months experience before being left alone with a prisoner.
Also expected to be a key focus of the inquest is the "blood splatter" the shot produced. It can tell investigators a lot about where the two men were in relation to each other when the gun went off.
Prince George-based coroner Shane DeMeyer will conduct the Bush inquest. He has an excellent reputation for being thorough and fair. He is unlikely to be intimidated by the RCMP or the national attention this inquest will generate.
The sooner it begins the better.
07/09/06, Editorial, How the Ian Bush investigation failed, (Back).
After a nearly year-long investigation that was irreparably compromised, an RCMP officer has been exonerated for shooting a 22-year-old man in the back of the head shortly after taking him into custody. Justice has not been seen to be done in the shooting death of Ian Bush of Houston, B.C. Another, more independent criminal investigation is urgently needed.
In its outward appearance, the police investigation fell well below the standards Canadians expect to be met in any fatality involving the police, let alone a death so bizarre and seemingly avoidable. Mr. Bush, who had a reputation as a hard-working, honest young man, was holding an open beer in a parking lot outside a hockey arena last Oct. 29. RCMP Constable Paul Koester, an officer for just five months, asked him his name, and when Mr. Bush gave him a false name, prompting laughter from his friends, Const. Koester arrested him and drove him to a nearby police station. Twenty minutes later, Mr. Bush was dead.
It should not need saying that police have a near-monopoly on the legal use of deadly force, and are accountable for it; but the RCMP acted throughout as if the obvious had never occurred to it. Although legally entitled to investigate itself in shooting deaths, the RCMP could have chosen an out-of-province detachment to conduct that investigation. It did not do so. It could have chosen a detachment in another district; British Columbia has four districts. It did not do so. It gave the investigation to the next detachment, 350 kilometres down the road from Houston, in Prince George.
Once that investigation was done, the RCMP compounded its error by asking the local police force in New Westminster, B.C., to review its work. At the same time, an RCMP-led team was investigating a New Westminster officer in the shooting of 16-year-old Kyle Tait in August, 2005. (No decision has been announced on that file after more than a year.) In those circumstances, the RCMP's choice of New Westminster suggests, if not bias, an arrogant disregard for the basic notion that justice needs to be seen to be done.
The investigation into Mr. Bush's death was also compromised by the appalling and inexplicable length of time it took. There has not been a reasonable explanation from the authorities for the leisurely pace. "It takes long because it takes long," the RCMP's designated spokesman in Vancouver, Staff Sergeant John Ward, said when the investigation was six months old. "The public doesn't have a right to know anything."
Why, then, should Canadians have faith in -- or accept -- the results of the investigation? On Tuesday, B.C.'s criminal justice branch released a bland two-page statement saying that it believes Const. Koester acted in self-defence. The statement does not even mention him by name. It is empty of detail about what happened between Mr. Bush and Const. Koester. The statement reeks of Staff Sgt. Ward's the-public-has-no-right-to-know attitude. Here is a sample: "Mr. Bush and the officer returned to the detachment office and during their time there an incident occurred that resulted in the officer discharging his firearm and fatally wounding Mr. Bush." Memo to the RCMP and the B.C. government: Blind trust in the authorities died out a long time ago.
At the very least, the B.C. government had an obligation to provide a detailed explanation of how a seemingly routine encounter led to a bloody death. Such an explanation would in no way prejudice a coroner's jury that is still months down the road. B.C. Attorney-General Wally Oppal showed no concern about possible prejudice when he selectively provided details to the media on Tuesday. In accepting the exoneration of Const. Koester, he said that pictures show the officer had bruises on his face. He added that the officer was choked. Neither of these details is convincing or helpful. There was no indication that Mr. Bush had a weapon. Why was the video system at the police station apparently not operating? Why was the gun pulled in the first place? (Mr. Oppal, feeding out a couple of more details yesterday, suggested that the officer at first used it to break the chokehold.)
The highest standards of independence and urgency were needed in this investigation. The RCMP botched the job. Public faith in the force is at risk when by appearances it is treated as a law unto itself. Mr. Oppal should ask for an independent criminal investigation to give Canadians some assurance that justice has been done.
07/09/06, Shannon Kari, No-charges decision defended in B.C. case, (Back).
VANCOUVER -- An RCMP officer was choked nearly unconscious before firing his weapon and killing Ian Bush, B.C. Attorney-General Wally Oppal said yesterday in the clearest official explanation so far of what led to the shooting.
Mr. Oppal again defended the decision to not file criminal charges against Constable Paul Koester, who shot the 22-year-old sawmill worker in the back of the head during an altercation last October at the RCMP detachment in the northern B.C. town of Houston.
"The officer is about to lose consciousness but he was able to withdraw his revolver and he struck him [Bush] in an effort to break his hold," Mr. Oppal told The Canadian Press in a series of unusual public comments on the shooting. "Finally he discharged his revolver, striking him in the head and he [Bush] succumbed to that injury."
The lengthy RCMP investigation into the shooting, which occurred after Mr. Bush was arrested for having an open beer outside a local hockey rink, has been marked by a lack of public information.
When the province's Criminal Justice Branch issued a news release on Tuesday announcing there would be no charges, it suggested the officer, who had less than one year's experience, could have acted in self-defence. There was no further comment because of a coroner's inquest, expected to be held before the end of the year.
In the past two days, Mr. Oppal has spoken to a number of media outlets and explained why he believes it was the correct conclusion. He said he personally reviewed the file. "I fully support the decision," not to lay charges, he said yesterday. The Attorney-General, a former judge on the B.C. Court of Appeal, also laid much of the blame on Mr. Bush.
The mill worker was alone with Constable Koester in the RCMP detachment when they got into a fight. Moderately drunk and not handcuffed, Mr. Bush managed to put a chokehold on the officer, Mr. Oppal told The Canadian Press. Constable Koester began to pass out, but before he lost consciousness, he managed to punch Mr. Bush and then fire his weapon, Mr. Oppal said.
The Attorney-General told The Globe and Mail on Tuesday that the officer had a number of bruises on his face. He stressed yesterday that he had "no input" in whether to charge the officer. The Criminal Justice Branch "sent me a review of the file," said Mr. Oppal and that is what he used to make his public comments. "We provided a briefing to the minister, after we had come to a decision in the matter," said Stan Lowe, a spokesman for the Crown counsel in British Columbia.
"That is all we provided to him."
Mr. Lowe explained that the decision was made by officials in the Criminal Justice Branch in Victoria, in consultation with the regional senior Crown in Prince George.
Mr. Bush's mother, Linda Mae Bush, has filed a civil lawsuit against Constable Koester, Mr. Oppal and Solicitor-General John Les, claiming Constable Koester was negligent for not having other officers at the scene, failing to turn on the video monitors in the detachment and for not using less-than-deadly force. The lawsuit seeks punitive damages against the province for not appointing an independent lawyer to decide whether charges should have been filed.
Mr. Oppal rejected any suggestion there might be a potential conflict of interest because the Crown decided whether there should be criminal charges and the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are defendants in the civil suit. "The fact there are no charges has nothing to do with what a [B.C.] Supreme Court judge may decide down the road," in the civil action, Mr. Oppal said.
(Back)
Home