Mountie shot man in self-defence, says B.C. attorney general

[Inspir]

Mountie shot man in self-defence, says B.C. attorney general


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2006/09/07/bc-oppal-bush.html?ref=rss

Attorney General Wally Oppal is defending the Crown's decision not to charge an RCMP officer in connection with the shooting last year of a young mill worker in the small northern B.C. community of Houston.

Oppal says the Mountie told investigators he was nearly choked unconscious at the RCMP detachment by the man before he pulled his gun and shot 22-year-old Ian Bush in self-defence.

"He feared at that time for his life," said Oppal. "That's the evidence we have. That's the only evidence we have."

Bush had been arrested and taken to the detachment after being caught having a beer outside a hockey game, and then giving police a false name.

Oppal says Bush was about to be released from the detachment when he punched the officer, cutting and bruising the policeman's face, leading to a struggle.

"The officer was put into a headlock by Mr. Bush, the officer withdrew his revolver, a struggle took place and Mr. Bush unfortunately and tragically was shot."

Oppal says if charges had been laid against the officer, the Crown would have had to disprove the Mountie's self-defence claim.

Mother rejects police version of events

The dead man's mother, Linda Bush, says she doesn't believe the officer's story.

"I can't see how it's possible, and how it's possible for him being choked and have his gun out and find his target so accurately," she told CBC News.

"Even though they said it's a possibility, it doesn't mean it's what happened."

Oppal says he's "terribly sympathetic" to the Bush family, but he says he hasn't spoken with them because he's one of the people they're suing in a civil lawsuit stemming from the shooting.

The victim's family has launched a civil suit against the officer and the B.C. government, and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has taken the case to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

The B.C. Coroners Service also plans to hold an inquest.

I can understand the mother's reasoning's and I regret the lose of her son. If a LEO shot a member of my family I would be upset as well, even if it was justified.

I found a video of somewhat the same scenario where a LEO was forced to use deadly force:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baix0Xa9x3o

What do you think? Did the LEO in both instances have reasonable grounds to authorize the use of deadly force?
I myself think that if you even lay a hand ill manered on a LEO you should have it broken... but that's me.

 

[MPIKE]

While I can see you may have good intentions here in trying to instill a discussion I'm not sure you'll find many that will likely armchair your examples.  Especially as the issue in your article is still open as civil litigations are still ongoing.

The youtube vid is slamdunk easy and RPG was there and it was all on video. Thankfully, the officer had his dash cam documenting his fight for his life.

On a closing note, your fooling yourself if you think your penalty would ever be rendered.  Many courts see it as the cost of doing business I'm afraid..

Ha but the ol' timers still keep saying the pedulum will swing back one day..  ;D 


hey wait a minute  as school is back in session are you looking for us to answer your first essay question?  :-X

 

[Inspir]

hey wait a minute  as school is back in session are you looking for us to answer your first essay question?  :-X

never ............. it's research 

 

[maniac78]

I think if you're getting choked by someone their intentions are pretty clear. The response was appropriate.

 

[Wolfmann]

It's a messy world out there. Few fail to understand that.

There may be a liberal thinker or two who disagree, but Mounties/Police Officers just don't tend to kill people out of whim - even the sick and twisted one's. If the forensic evidence was saying a different story, sure...but it doesn't appear to be. Neither case deserves to be a criminal issue. If the forensic evidence later says differently, then so be it...but it's not right now, and like in 99% of these cases...it won't.

Civil Litigation will get some sort of damages for the families... Civil law implies responsibility, not guilt...two different things. The police officer DID shoot the person and kill him, so the family can recover damages no different than if a police officer kicked in a door, broke a window, or ruffled up the flower beds in the course of his/her duties. What the family hopes to recover, though I don't know. Even if the police are 100% responsible, there is responsibility that falls back on the suspect.

In many of these situations, the person that is forgotten is the one pulling the trigger. Few understand the suffering of the LEO's AND his/her family. Suggesting that the LEO's families receive some sort of compensation from the family (such as a percentage of the money won or settled in the civil suit) would be great...but the liberal left wingers that support the rights of criminals would go nuts.

In the end no one wins in these situations, which is why Police Officers (and those authorized to carry fire arms) receive so much training in use of force, firearms, and conflict resolution - it's why police officer no longer chase stolen vehicle, or call their ERT/ETF teams for gun calls. It's absurd to think that a police officer would just, on a whim, shoot a suspect or an innocent person without justification...the implication and accusations are ALWAYS there in officer involved shootings.

 

[Blackhorse7]

Inspir,

I don't want to sound confrontational, but I checked your profile.  I see that it says "Hopefully MP after college."

I hope that stands for Member of Parliament, and not Mounted Police.  If you have to even ask if the officer in the video was justified in what he did, then you shouldn't be a Police Officer.

As for the member in Houston, he was justified as well, as the Coroner's Inquest has found.  You cross a very defined line when you attack a Police Officer.  And when that attack escalates to the point where that officer fears grievous bodily harm, or death, there is only one response to that.  We go home to our families at the end of the day, period.  If that means that someone else doesn't, so be it.  Certainly unfortunate, but the deceased made his choice when he fought Police and continued to the point where the officer feared for his life.

 

[Inspir]

Didn't mean to offend. It was a discussion brought  forth in our Sociology course, and I was just gauging public opinion. Simple as that.

Sorry

 

[Blackhorse7]

No apology necessary, and as I said, I mean no offence.  But until someone does this job, I can only say that the general public simply has no idea what this job is about.  Everybody plays armchair critic saying things like "Why didn't the Police shoot him in the arm?"  "Why did they have to kill him?"  "Aren't Police trained to fight?"

I've been a soldier and a Police Officer.  Having never been in combat, I would NEVER suggest that a combat action could have been done better, or criticize what troops on the ground have done ( to the boys over there)

But that being said, I have faced danger.  I have faced uncertainty.  And I have certainly faced tragedy, both from my victims and members of the public, and from my co-workers being killed and injured.  Every single call a Police Officer attends could be his last.  For a member of the public (and again, I don't mean you) to suggest a better course of action or to call into question the actions of a Police Officer until the facts are known is a slap in the face and plain ignorance. 

Aside from our brave men and women that serve and continue to serve oversea's, you will not find another job that demands so much of you, for so little in return.  People should remember that before they open their mouths. 

Sorry for the rant, but some things need to be said.

 

[Wolfmann]

You can't really know what it's truly like to be an LEO until you go into any situation with butterflies in your stomach and face odds possibly stacked against you.

But that doesn't mean that you can't make comment on how the situations are handled, or you can't even review them with peers. A comment like, "Can't the officer just have shot the gun out of his hand?" sound like a dumb one, but it's not.

If someone that really doesn't understand is trying to come off as an expert, that's a different story. But HEALTHY discussion shouldn't be discouraged, especially about sensitive issues.

 

[Blackhorse7]

I disagree.  I'm not saying that healthy discussion is wrong.  But throw in with that statement "healthy informed discussion".

Too many times, media, the public and those not in possession of the facts are too quick to jump to conclusions or assume incorrect things.

And by the way, "Can't the officer just have shot the gun out of his hand" is a dumb question.  Anybody that has done any sort of stress shooting or combat shooting will tell you that the centre of mass is your target.  Under stress, even an expert marksman's ability to hit a small, moving target is slim at best.

I have yet to see any media or members of the public asking the question "Why didn't the suspect obey the lawful commands of the Police Officer?"

 

[Wolfmann]

I disagree.  I'm not saying that healthy discussion is wrong.  But throw in with that statement "healthy informed discussion".

Too many times, media, the public and those not in possession of the facts are too quick to jump to conclusions or assume incorrect things.

And by the way, "Can't the officer just have shot the gun out of his hand" is a dumb question.  Anybody that has done any sort of stress shooting or combat shooting will tell you that the centre of mass is your target.  Under stress, even an expert marksman's ability to hit a small, moving target is slim at best.

I have yet to see any media or members of the public asking the question "Why didn't the suspect obey the lawful commands of the Police Officer?"

I agree with you, but how does one become "informed"? Ii feel that if the greater public is ignorant...to not address and educate such ignorance is enabling further ignorance. If chastising people for their "opinion" they will be less willing to provide that opinion, and will continue to think in error. So if someone's attitude is obviously anti-police, chastising them is simply supporting them. Having them offer suggestions on what they feel should have been done is better than saying, "You're a lower deck idiot, and until you've walked a mile in my shoes, don't speak."

You keep people honest in how they think...and understand you may never educate or inform people who do not want to hear any other view point than one from their own agenda.

To let you know though...the world is full of dumb questions and even dumber answers, with very few smart ones mixed in amongst the sheep. If dumb answers were offered, we'd never be able to identify the smart one's.

 

[Blackhorse7]

"If dumb answers were offered, we'd never be able to identify the smart one's."

Too true.  I am just frustrated that the finger always seems to be pointed at the Police as being at fault rather than the actions of the suspect being examined.  As someone pointed out (I can't remember if it was back in this thread or not), Police are not running around shooting people at random.  Even LEO's that should not be in the job for mental reasons (and they are out there) aren't running around randomly using deadly force.

For a situation to escalate to the point that an officer feels he/she needs to deploy deadly force, things have to be pretty bad.  But the public as an ongoing theme seem to either forget that, or gloss over that fact and jump right to the same frequent questions we have discussed earlier.  Why didn't the Police do something different?  Why didn't they shoot to wound?  And the list goes on...

 

[Wolfmann]

"If dumb answers were offered, we'd never be able to identify the smart one's."

Too true.  I am just frustrated that the finger always seems to be pointed at the Police as being at fault rather than the actions of the suspect being examined.  As someone pointed out (I can't remember if it was back in this thread or not), Police are not running around shooting people at random.  Even LEO's that should not be in the job for mental reasons (and they are out there) aren't running around randomly using deadly force.

Unfortunately the public see police officers as faceless, nameless that, by proxy of their nature of being protectors, are super-human. If we approached our own lives with the high level of standards, expectation, and integrity we expect of our police officers, our society would be much better off - but it's not, and as citizens we reseve the right to critize unconditional those that we transfer the power of civil, criminal, and personal protection to.

Like in many public or private service industries people expect your successes and only focus on your failings.

For a situation to escalate to the point that an officer feels he/she needs to deploy deadly force, things have to be pretty bad. But the public as an ongoing theme seem to either forget that, or gloss over that fact and jump right to the same frequent questions we have discussed earlier.  Why didn't the Police do something different?  Why didn't they shoot to wound?  And the list goes on...

Many in the public live in a comfortable bubble they call their lives. From time to time that bubble grows and shrinks as they move through life, other times it gets popped quite suddenly. It offends our sensibilities to have that bubble popped and harsh reality come shining through, either by personal experience or through casual observation (such as reading the paper).

As it relates to these two cases, it doesn't surprise me the families feel the police could have used less force - their loved one has been harmed or are dead, and by their very right as family they are going to want to protect their loved one. As members of he public, we may empathise with them, and as a result may not draw our own rational conclusions even if we have  ALL the facts - which we rarely ever do.

If you understand their point of view, it makes the grating, annoying, and ingratiating anti-police comments a bit easier to take. You then look forward to showing these people the error of their thoughts, by reflecting them back in the shoes of the police officer.

But overal  I agree with you that some people should learn to STFU.