A letter written to Ian Mulgrew of the Vancouver Sun

[Chin_Lee]

Came across this and I thought it was an interesting read .......


A letter written to Ian Mulgrew of the Vancouver Sun

Dear Mr. Mulgrew:

I have followed with interest the coverage of the inquest into the
tragic death of Mr. Ian Bush. This is a situation that despite all of
the dry, sterile processes that are in place, and all of the "Hollywood"
education about police incidents that we have been subjected to over the
course of our lifetimes, that none of us will ever understand.
Given the media-perspective on this incident, I have to ask myself this
question: Why would a young man who spent a considerable part of his
life going through perhaps the most stringent of selection processes
(academic, emotional, physical, psychological testing), then
successfully navigate his way through a highly-disciplined training
process directed entirely at serving the community - at great risk to
himself - why would such a young man wake up one day and say or think:
"I am going to start a confrontation with a member of my community such
that I have to kill this person"? Why would a young man subject
himself, his family, and his community to such emotional, psychological
and physical trauma? I ponder this question and suggest the answer is - he would not. It seems much easier to answer the question: Why would an intoxicated, young male - charged with a criminal offence and taken to the local lock-up begin fighting with the arresting police officer? The answer is - this happens every day in our society. Usually the event does not make the paper because no one dies or is seriously injured. When a
citizen is killed during an encounter with the police it is newsworthy.
When a police officer is murdered at the hands of a suspect it is
newsworthy. However, it is important to report objectively on the known facts of a given incident and not to opine on issues that one either knows nothing about, or chooses to remain ignorant of, deliberately indifferent or
wilfully blind to, despite volumes of information and research being available that would assist in presenting a more balanced perspective.
Mr. Mulgrew, you have attacked the Coroner, the RCMP, and the young
officer - and you have done so through genuine ignorance, deliberate
indifference, and/or wilful blindness regarding the inquest process, the
incident facts, the volumes of existing scientific research on critical
incident stress, survival stress, post-traumatic stress disorder and
their impact on memory, and on 'best practises' regarding investigational procedures, and you have cheated the public out of an objective, fact-oriented perspective. The Coroner's Inquest has a very specific purpose - which was explained thoroughly by Shane DeMeyer. The Coroner is correct in stating that questions into the investigation procedure were beyond the scope of the inquest. However he indicated clearly where these issues could be properly addressed - apparently this was not to your satisfaction. Therefore you deemed it "a whitewash". You criticize the RCMP for questioning witnesses immediately after the incident to obtain their best recollection, but failing to question or interview Constable Koester. Even the uninitiated should understand the difference between interviewing an uninvolved 'witness' - someone who
did not actually experience a life-or-death struggle - who did not
experience survival stress, critical incident stress or post-traumatic
stress, and interviewing someone who:
a) according the highest statutory law in the land (The Charter of Rights and Freedoms) has no obligation to talk with anyone - ever; and
b) who has just killed someone while engaged in a chaotic struggle that could have ended in their own death, and is likely experiencing the effects of survival stress, critical incident stress and post-traumatic stress.
The latter is in no position to provide any kind of useful statement because of memory loss, critical incident amnesia, etc. - the scientific research on these phenomena is clear. The former is best interviewed immediately for best recollection. You criticize the officer for not providing a statement for almost 3 weeks. Yet he provided a lengthy, detailed statement - something he had no obligation to provide - ever. You criticize the officer for engaging a lawyer to assist with his statement. Police officers have the same rights as the rest of the citizenry and any wise person who agrees to provide any kind of statement should only do so with the advice of counsel. Police officers have been wrongfully convicted in the past for providing statements in good faith, knowing they did the right thing in a chaotic moment and believing that the 'justice system' would work.
You criticize the officer for repeatedly refusing to re-enact the
incident. Once again demonstrating complete ignorance, deliberate
indifference or wilful blindness of the effects of survival stress,
critical incident stress and post-traumatic stress. It is highly
probable that Constable Koester has no real recollection of the details
of this event - so why would he attempt to re-enact it? This would be
foolish once the dry, sterile 'justice system' becomes involved because
if the re-enactment isn't precise, or doesn't match the shell-casing
ejection pattern, or the blood-spatter evidence - the conclusion is
always the same: The officer is lying. The reality is that clinical
analysis (be it blood spatter evidence, shell-casing ejection pattern
evidence, etc.) can never account for the chaos that is a life-or-death
struggle - especially when it is matched up with memory recall evidence
of involved parties - because that recall is inherently flawed.
The death of Ian Bush is a tragedy - for everyone. The Bush family, the community of Houston, the RCMP, and Constable Koester and his family. Sadly, the impact of such a tragedy could be significantly lessened and so much more could be learned from it, if the media played a more responsible role in reporting on incidents like these.

Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Joel A. Johnston