Death By Cop; Fix By Coroner

Police treatment of persons killed at their hands, speaks volumes. EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS In the Ian Bush case, cops prevented examiner access to the corpse for over 48 hours.

EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS

Are cops experts? In BC, the Justice Institute trains recruits for only 65 days, then they face short internships. Training is only 6 times as long as that for security guards. Don't believe what you see on TV show like "CSI," Coroners and cop examiners are not medical professionals. BC Coroners earn $71,000 per year, and training is less than 150 days. Lawyers generally study for over 500 days; Doctors, much more.

A very sad day.

EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. PLEASE REVIEW TYEE COMMENT GUIDELINES. TYEE EDITOR

Someone please ask the coroner......

Someone please ask the BC coroner why over 60 people have been killed by SkyTrain by suicide and no one gives a damn.

Sad fact is, putting sliding glass doors at stations, which is the law in Europe on automated (driver-less) transit systems, is not worth the cost of a human life here.

Coroners are hacks!

Editing

Editors bear "qualified privilege," especially where there is coverup. The RCMP withheld the name of Constable Koester until they were embarassed after a loud exchange with a Globe and Mail columnist. In addition, they withheld the cop's picture, and assignment after the incident. (Police sources leaked the central BC location) Those tactics obstruct similar fact evidence arising from 3rd parties. Any Editor or reporter is at liberty to go-with-what-you-know, even if what is printed is not true. If it isn't, then retraction - with blame pointing at the concealing party - would be in order. Cops invoke qualified privilege (para 56):
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2005/2005bcsc499/2005bcsc499.html

Libel chill kept the Medical Examiner scandal out of the press for 4 years. That was 4 years of anguish to families. That was 4 years where the media was not doing its job.

However, since we have to speak in generalities, or through judge's mouths: why do cops kill persons in custody? Answer: insufficient exterior control. Anyone with time might want to read the report, linked below, of Justice James Kolts, into excessive force at the Los Angeles Sherriff's Dept.

http://www.parc.info/special_independent_commissionsblue_ribbon_reports.chtml

At pg 319, "This is not a story of a bungled arrest...it is the same attitude that caused another deputy to fly into a rage and crush the testicle of a man who had the temerity to call the deputy 'fat' and suggest he 'get a real job'"...It is the same attitude that caused a sergeant to order deputies to spray Mace on an inmate who had the audacity not to face the sergeant when spoken to. As a highly placed LASD officer said, 'Anger not fear is the number one cause of excessive force. It is rage in defiance of authority.' This is the worst aspect of police culture, where the worst crime of all is 'CONTEMPT OF COP'; the deputy cannot let pass the slightest challenge or failure to immediately comply. It is here that excessive force starts and needs to be stopped."

Actually, excessive force begins when oversight authorities - including the media - play pigeon to police con-men.

Gestapo Style

Grumpy

EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. TYEE EDITOR

Oh give me a break

Holding an open beer at a hockey game was the 'crime' that started this tragedy.

EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. TYEE EDITOR

Canadian provinces should stop using the RCMP to do Provincial and local police work - as both Ontario and Quebec do now. In Ontario, they already have a better and more independent method for investigating RCMP mistakes and malfeasance. Long past time for this hierarchical holdover from the era of the Raj to get its walking papers.

All the more the tregedy.

G West

People do stupid things under the influence of alcohol. Why don't you suggest that the breweries be dragged into this affair. It would make just about as much sense.

The holes in the case are

The holes in the case are staggering.

1) The was no audio or video recording of this incident. Both of which, from what I gather, are mandatory. No tape in the recorder? Or tape removed from the recorder? Probably the latter. His original notes were destroyed leaving only a coached written statement written 2 weeks after the incident as the only record. He removed all potential evidence and destroyed the only un-coached account of what happened.

2) The officer has yet to explain how he manages to shoot Bush in the back of the head from an impossible position. When asked what happened he says he doesn’t know. When asked to demonstrate by the police how he could manage this, he refuses. When asked by the inquest to do the same, he refuses. When a specialist tries to explain how this could happen with figures he can’t. If you can’t replicate it, is it even possible? Or should we believe a miracle happened?

3) Why would you shoot someone in the head when the likelihood that bullet could pass through to yours was very real. How could you be so accurate to place the bullet perfectly when according to him he was passing out and almost unconscious. He couldn’t see, he was losing consciousness, but he could perfectly place a bullet in the back of someone’s head while getting head locked. I doubt Jack Bauer could have done that. Wouldn’t a, much easier, bullet to the leg have stopped a choke hold?

4) The autopsy wasn’t done for 3 days and they didn’t refrigerate the body. Making toxicology etc useless. A huge fresh bruise on the inside of Bush’s leg, consistent with a knee to the groin, was not investigated. This suggests that the struggle wasn’t one way like the officer portrayed.

EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS. TYEE EDITOR.

What's your point.

EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS

There are significant holes in all areas.

The story told by the cop

EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS -- TYEE EDITOR

Lessons: For citizens. Don't bad-mouth or resist legally-armed people for stupid or unimportant reasons. Also: Do not get into wrestling matches with people who have guns--except to save your life. (Which may have been what happened).

For police: video type such encounters and try to have two officers--not one--present.

Cop's story: The two are sitting across from each other politely discussing the situation. The kid seems "sad." For no apparent reason the kid decides that he's going to kill this armed, large man with his bare hands.

I don't think so.

EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS

EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS -- TYEE EDITOR

1. The cop didnt turn on any recording equipment in the interview room.

2. The cops original notes were destroyed.

3. The body wasnt removed and examined by the coroner for 3 days. Why not?

4. No one can explain how the cop could have shot the victim in such a bizarre way. Not even the cop.

5. Bush had a bruise on his inner thigh, consistant with being kneed in the groin - this was not investigated or explained.

6. The cop had no bruises on his neck. This alone refutes his entire story.

7. The body was found slumped face down on the couch. If the cop had been under the victim when he was shot, he would have had to push the victim aside to get out from under him.

8. The RCMP took 9 months to investigate without any explaination as to why a case with only 1 witness would need to take so long.

Cops are trusted with weapons, they are trusted with our lives. Cops should be held to the HIGHEST standards. EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS

steampunk: ...and the cop

steampunk:

...and the cop didn't make a complete statement on the incident for 3 months, and then it was issued with police support, legal counsel, and with knowledge of forensic results.

Obstruction of Justice engages when ANY act is done that either "delays" or "defeats justice." Exactly how is justice facilitated by a process that allows cops to prepare an exhoneration script for a fellow cop?

Of course, Ian Bush was arrested for Obstruction of Justice. Was it a lawful arrest? No. Case law does not engage when someone goofs on a cop by giving them a fake name; it only engages when there is a clear attempt to defeat justice, and a present ability to do it. Koester admitted that Bush complied almost immediately. That would negate Obstruction.

As for the open-beer "charge," unlike Criminal Code offences - only Crown Counsel may register charges in BC, Quebec and New Brunswick - cops can enter charges under the Provincial Offences Act, but the usual practice is to have the alleged offender sign a promise to appear, under penalty of arrest for Obstruction. As long as they present ID, there is no obligation to take them in for booking. Koester admits that Bush was arrested because the cop omitted to carry the Promise to Appear document (that is a gross abuse of process, that would negate the Provincial Offence). An arrest is an extreme deprivation of liberty; arrests cannot be executed because a cop feels humiliated by temporary non-compliance.

Bush had no legal liability, thus was hardly motivated by homicidal rage. However, although it is yet to be tested at the Bush inquest, homicidal Cop-Rage has been proven to arise where they perceive a threat to their self-described "authority." Remember: cops are schooled in only 65 days; their real training comes as they embrace the perverse Codes of Silence, Loyalty and Retaliation. How does one become an "expert" or "professional" in 65 days? Can't happen.

Pro-cop elements are generally social climbers, who seek elite approval. They would gladly wash Donald Trump's car.

Excellent point, regarding the three months

it took the cop to cobble together an official statement, Visible Justice.

I'm sure this statement was part of the fiction-writing effort: "I said, 'Ian, the fight's over. Just let go and you can go.'

To which the kid "yelled back": 'I'm not leaving so you can arrest me again!'

(The kid thinks his problems will all be over if he can just kill the cop, eh. I guess he thinks the other cops will just forget about it.)

Later in the cop's testimony: "That's when he said to me, 'Take your last breaths.' "I knew he was trying to kill me."

I'm wondering what could possibly be the kid's motive for this kind of behaviour.

And how often do people telegraph their intent to murder armed people with their bare hands, without expecting likely fatal resistance? Is it only a coincidence that such a threat by the kid would furnish the cop with the justification for responding by shooting the kid?

Or was the entire one-act play written to furnish the cop with a foolproof defence--which it apparently did?

Dialogue copied from Andy Ivens' column in the Vancouver Province, May 24, 2007 pg. A3.

Visible Justice

"Bush was arrested for giving a false name after being caught outside a hockey arena with an open beer."

Was it Murder?

snert:

Provincial, Liquor and Motor Vehicle offences are similar. If police catch you speeding, they can arrest if you can't produce ID. However, what usually happens is they issue a ticket or Promise to Appear before a JP (usually) to deal with the matter. Documents explain how to challenge the process.

Under cross-examination, Koester admitted that Bush complied and that he was only taken in because he lacked a Promise' document. I have seen cop-rage first hand, as a 3rd party. Yesterday, a New Westminster cop pleaded guilty to Common Assault.

Check out this conviction of a North Vancouver cop, who broke a handcuffed suspect's jaw:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2005/00/p05_0040.htm

A man who fought off an illegal cop arrest is acquitted at trial:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2002/05/p02_0585.htm

Generally, cops are goofs with little social skills.

It could have been an accident?

Visible Justice

If it was "cop rage" there must have been some kind of trigger because there is no indication that there was any altercation before arrival at the station.

I just find the kangaroo court in this forum to be rather biased. If they were vigilantes there would probably be lots of innocent people hung along with the guilty ones.

Snert, you ever have a gun

Snert, you ever have a gun pulled on you? Well, I have and trust me you freeze. In my opinion unless you are one cold motherf***er most people would.

Last Word

Impugning homicidal rage as a motive to Koester claims that Ian Bush - 5 inches shorter than the cop - tried to kill him, is untenable. Later witnesses will testify that Koester believed that Bush had ran from police to escape a DUI arrest. That would explain why as many as 25 other violators of Liquor laws were not approached, and Ian Bush was singled out.

The angry man in the police station that night was: Paul Koester.

He actually saw the gun?

BLONDE PITBULL

You and I might do it sober but......

I think the weapon was used as a club first but that doesn't mean it was actually seen or that the significance of a drawn weapon even sank in.

Snert

From what I have burned in my brain they make a very distinct noise(s) as they are armed and the feel of one is also very memorable as it hits you -does not feel like any other weapon I've been subjected to.
I'm someone who is going to be very hard to convince that if he was lucid enough to attempt to deceive about his name at an earlier time that he would not be able to discern the bone chilling threat that those nasty things are, especially in the hands of someone he knew who is trained and allowed to use it. Also I've had someone have their hands wrapped around my throat if I had a gun at my hip I would not try to shoot them from the back of the head I would shoot as close to where I got the gun loose from hip , leg, abdomen before the person on top of me (in a power position) had the chance to wrestle it away and use it. Only the opinion of a survivor take it as you will.

BLONDE PITBULL

Adrenalin rushes by there very nature are unpredictable. Some senses can be heightened while others dulled so what might be burned into your brain can be totally ignored by somebody else. They may not even be the same for multiple instances for the same person. I speak from personal experience.

I've also watched otherwise normal people explode with rage over something really stupid while stone cold sober. I'm talking uncontrolled rage to the point where the term 'going postal' starts running through one's mind. It's an established fact that alcohol can encourage these behaviours. Start counting the number of bar fights you've seen.

This much I do know and that is that we will never know exactly what happened to trigger this event. As strange as it seems it is still plausible to some degree that this young person was the author of his own demise. Certainly he didn't deserve it. Since when has that stopped people from doing unwise things in the past.

That being said if someone can prove that the police officer involved had a history of beating up girlfriends and kicking dogs while punching holes in walls as well as being a failed anger management participant then all bets are off.

Snert you believe what you

Snert you believe what you want I'll believe what I know.

It isn't that complicated

The fact remains, it is not possible for a competant police officer to shoot someone in the back of the head in self defense. This officer has failed in his job and should not again be allowed to carry a gun in the line of duty.

BLONDE PITBULL

I know that you don't have a clue as to what happened and nor do I. If people knew there wouldn't be an inquest, would there?

Some observations

If Mr. Bush was being issued a promise to appear, he was not in official custody. He was alone in a locked room with an inexperienced and untruthful officer. This is what we call being in custody.

If Mr Bush was in the office to give a signature on a form, there was no reason for him to be in a locked room at all, much less alone with his killer, therefore that whole part of the testimony is on balance, likely untrue.

Mr Bush was in custody, without apparently having committed any particular offence except beerdrinking without brown paper bag. He was being confronted by this officer who by his own story had nothing to say to him except sign here, court is on Thursday.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that he was locked in that room with that officer for illicit reasons. Subsequent events indicate that those reasons were abusive and violent. The only wiggle room in these conclusions is whether the killing was intended from the beginning, in which case it's premeditated murder, or whether the intent to kill him arose in the course of the interview, in which case it's manslaughter.

In either case, or even if there is no finding of guilt in the killing, the destruction of evidence and the tampering with the body are several clear counts of obstruction of justice.

You don't pay attention, do you?

BLONDE PITBULL

Honey, I'm not going to

Honey, I'm not going to debate with you how they got to the fight. Obviously, there was uncontrolled anger involved what I am talking about is how that fight evolved to death.

BLONDE PITBULL

That's why it's called a Coroner's Inquest and not a Kangaroo Court.

Snert, you want the last word ....

Have it. Buddy, if you ever get some actual experience on fearing for your life because of someones superior strength or having a gun/weapon then I'll talk to you until then....

I will take the last word.

BLONDE PITBULL

I don't want to get into a pissing contest about who has had the worst life but as you persist in thinking for others and telling them how they have lived their lives I'll ask you, is your traumatic experience more or less significant than being directly involved in the deaths of people, on two occasions? I'll let you be the judge.

FWIW Your last comment provides insight into just what might have happened. Read it this time and embrace the concept that the coin has two sides.

Snert, no pissing match

Snert, no pissing match needed. My life has been full of experiences some good, some bad, some indifferent. Made me who I am. Just like yours have you. I'm just saying I've been there done that. That gives me insight that many -probably you- don't have as to what happens when you're fighting for your life. Any one who's been there and wants to debate with me about this I'd be willing otherwise enough. Cheers.

in a word: Yes

"is your traumatic experience more or less significant than being directly involved in the deaths of people, on two occasions? I'll let you be the judge."

It is simply running on a different track. I have been 'involved' in people's deaths and the circumstances surrounding them; I have seen red myself, and been on the receving end of others seeing red. I have had my life threatened, as well as been accused of threatening that of others. Just in the course of an average life time, you understand, I am not a member of any special forces or such. I have also lived through a day, where the odds for seeing the end of it were somewehat slim, in other words, I have looked death in the eye. I have even had the joyous experience of facilitating new lives into being. Every one of these endeavours left me different person from the one I had been before, but no two of them were the same. So we cannot really have a contest on this. It is a combination of the people, the place, the time, and the events, no two are the same, apples, pears and all manner of exotic fruit.

Being a judge is a dirty job, but somebody must do it. In this case, nobody really qualifies, and so as somebody said, both of the people who might have had the power to get the two of them out of this situation in a better way are paying for their failure. We, who were not there, must leave it at that.

G West

Perhaps, Dorothy, if it could be just 'left to that' I'd agree with you. Much more, however, is made of such things, especially in the media. As a consequence this particular act has taken on an emblematic significance in the broader society, both in Houston and generally in Canadian culture.

Since this is far from the first time - in at least the last 30 years - where the culture, the training, the actions and the investigative protocols and competence of the national police force has been called into serious question, I think it's legitimate to look beyond this incident (which has, as you say, ended one life, and altered many others) toward a better way of addressing what is a much changed and changing society. The old ways just won’t work any longer.

We aren't going back. The road ahead will be very challenging.

dorthy wrote: "one is struck

dorthy wrote: "one is struck by the amazing resemblance to Norse sagas, where the drama often unfolds in that a bunch of men screw up their commmunication worse and worse, until they are locked into a situation only solvable by someone's death"

This conflict could have easily been solved without any death if Koesher had so desired.

Interesting attempt to "mythologise" the story though. Koesher's story is a myth, i agree with you there, but I think a rather more bland one.

Halloween Mystery

(((Sorry its Koester, not Koesher)))

Bush was shot by Koester at 9:44 p.m. on Oct. 29, 2005 while in police custody.

Local coroner Tom Robinson took control of the body at 10:35pm on Oct. 30.

October 31? Unknown.

An autopsy was done the morning of Nov. 1 under the watch of two police officers.

This case is downright hard

This case is downright hard to follow. Either the cops, the coroner are rather inept or Some folks are doing their utmost to muddy the water.When it all gets sorted and if the cop is still on the force one should remember his anme as the fellow who really can't see to handle the job, or the local young fellow was simply too hard to control. The famies are stuck with the results.