Globe: In-custody deaths, Discussion
Post
In-custody deaths, Globe and Mail, Tuesday, May 16, 2006, Gary Mason - Question & Answer
On Oct. 29 of last year, a likeable, hard-working young man from tiny Houston, B.C., was taken into police custody after being caught with an open beer at a hockey arena.
Ian Bush, a 22-year old mill worker who had lived his entire life in the town, gave a rookie police officer a false name and was arrested for obstructing an investigation. Minutes later — 20 to be exact — Mr. Bush was dead from a gunshot wound to the head.
To date, there has been no coronor's inquest, and no information from the RCMP since the day of the shooting, despite constant pressure from Bush's parents. RCMP's silence in man's death unfair to parents
A Globe editorial recently called for answers from the RCMP: Editorial: Where are the answers about Ian Bush's death?
Globe and Mail B.C. bureau columnist Gary Mason has been following the story from Day 1. What do you think happened? Mr. Mason was on-line earlier to take your questions and comments.
Scroll down to read the questions and answers.
Gary Mason began his journalism career in British Columbia in 1981, working as a summer intern for Canadian Press. One of his first assignments was covering the last days of the province's favourite son, Terry Fox.
Mr. Mason would later go on to work for the Victoria Times-Colonist before joining The Vancouver Sun, where he worked for 19 years in a variety of roles, including legislative bureau chief, city editor and deputy managing editor before he began writing a popular sports column in 1997.
Mr. Mason joined The Globe and Mail in 2005 as a national columnist writing on B.C. affairs.
Mr. Mason has twice been the recipient of the Jack Webster Award, the highest journalism honour handed out in B.C., and has also been nominated for a National Newspaper Award on three occasions, winning in 2000 and 2002 for sports writing. Mr. Mason is the author of several best-selling books, including his latest Oldtimers: On the Road with the Legends of Hockey.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Allison Dunfield, globeandmail.com, writes: Hi, Gary. And thank you for taking part in today's discussion. Judging from the reader feedback there are many people out there who feel strongly about this case, and this issue. Can you start by telling us whether you believe we'll ever really find out what happened? Do you believe that the RCMP will eventually allow for an investigation?
Secondly, can you give us a bit of a sense of how people in the community are feeling and what they are saying? Have they lost hope that Ian Bush's death will be properly probed?
Gary Mason writes: Thanks Allison. I always enjoy the chance to take part in on-line discussions with readers. This will be fun.
Now to your questions: first, will be ever know what really happened? That may be the greatest question of all. And no one really knows the answer. As anyone familiar with the case knows, there is only one witness to what happened and that is the young police officer who was in the holding room at the time of Ian Bush's death. We know a scuffle broke out between the two. We don't know what prompted that fight. And we know that Ian Bush was shot in the back of the head.
Because the young officer is the only one who can tell us what happened I guess we will have to believe his version of events. The only thing that could happen is if his version of events don't jibe with other evidence, such as the manner in which the blood splattered after Mr. Bush was shot. I am not a coroner but I have been told that blood splatter evidence is often key to telling investigators what happened.
But further to this point, the problem that we have here is often the problem with in-custody deaths. There are usually no witnesses so it's the police officer's word against the word of a dead person. I am going to have to reserve judgment on whether I believe the police officer's version of events in the Ian Bush shooting until after I get a chance to see them.
As for the town of Houston where the shooting took place, the situation is not good and only gets worse as the investigative process drags on. Mr. Bush was one of the most popular residents in the town. It wouldn't be overstating things to say he was loved. People are very, very suspicious of the police there and will remain that way until they get some answers. To make matters worse the memorial that was built behind the police station mysteriously disappeared. Many people think the RCMP, which didn't want the memorial there, got rid of it themselves. The police, however, say they didn't and are treating the incident as a theft.
T. J. from Canada writes: Where is the integrity of the young arresting officer, the only one who was in the room when the tragedy took place? Where is his conscience, his moral fibre? Where are the lofty ideals he aspired to when he put on the red tunic of the RCMP? Is this how his parents raised him? He knows the truth. He alone should come forward, out of respect for Mr. Bush's family, and put an end to their anguish.
Gary Mason writes: Thanks T.J. for your question. It is one that is obviously filled with emotion. There are many people who feel exactly the same way you do. However, the officer in this case is likely being closely advised by a lawyer. They do not want him to say anything to anyone for fear it could jeopardize him down the road should this matter end up in court. We have to assume that the officer in question gave a full accounting of what happened to the RCMP team from Prince George that first investigated the shooting.
But I couldn't agree more that the family needs to be put out of their anguish. Actually, they never will be put out of their anguish likely. They will be haunted by this the rest of their lives. But it will allow them to move on. Right now they can't. They need to know what happened. And that's what really burns me about this whole thing: there is only one person to interview for heaven's sake. What's taking so long?
J. C. from Kitchener Canada writes: The evidence in question would most likely be video of the incident, forensic scene reconstruction, the autopsy and statements from the officers present at the time. Additionally, the subject officer's record and the deceased's background would be reviewed. How could this possibly take so long? Even more troublesome... Why is major crime heading the investigation and not the homicide or internal affairs (or their equivalents in the RCMP)? In Ontario we have the Special Investigations Unit run by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to look into such occurrences as a third party, why is there not such oversight for the RCMP?
Gary Mason writes: Hi J.C. Thanks for your question.
Actually, it's not nearly as complicated as you outlined. First, there apparently is no video of the incident. The recording equipment for whatever reason was not turned on so there is no video evidence of what took place. The officer who was in the room with Mr. Bush was the only one present in the detachment at the time of the shooting so there is no one else to interview. Yes, DNA and other tests take a bit of time but not that much time. The RCMP always says they have to wait for forensic results because the RCMP labs are always so busy. Maybe they are but maybe they should say: hey, this is a pretty unusual circumstance. There has been a death of a civilian in custody and in these cases all forensic work moves to the front of the line.
As for the investigative process the RCMP employs, I couldn't agree more. It's seriously flawed but no one in Ottawa seems to care. There is a reluctance to question anything the Mounties do. At least that has been my impression in researching this story.
Jim Cookson from Revised Question Canada writes: Please accept this as a revised question to the version I sent you earlier. Gary, I would like to congratulate you on the excellent, in-depth coverage of the Ian Bush case and in particular for highlighting that 21 other people have died while in police custody in British Columbia during the past four years. While reading your articles I did some research and as well wrote numerous personal letters to Mr. Les, Mr. Day, Mr. Toews, Mr. Harper, Mr. Austin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Oppal and Mr. Cullen. In terms of statistics, according to the information I found, more people have died while in police custody in the past 4 years in B.C. than Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan (22 versus 16). While I have a huge amount of respect for our soldiers, I wanted to highlight these numbers in order to provide some perspective to this debate. In my view, one civilian dying in police custody in B.C. (or as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan) is one person too many and each death should be investigated carefully and measures implemented to reduce the probability of another similar incident occurring. My question to you is: Why do the people who are responsible for the RCMP i.e. Mr. Day and in particular Mr. Les not feel a burning desire to investigate these deaths and make changes to procedures and the governance model of our police force? They are clearly aware of this issue and yet Mr. Day is only noticeable by his complete silence and Mr. Les is noticeable through his unmerited and partisan attack on Mr. Cullen! The RCMP has a proud image and history in Canada and I believe that the faith that we have as Canadians in Mr. Day, Mr. Les and as well the RCMP's proud image is riding in the balance of these investigations. How do we as members of the public get Mr. Day and Mr. Les to proactively take up their responsibilities and move these investigations forward in an open and transparent manner?
Gary Mason writes: Thanks for your great question Jim, and your intense interest in this story. The statistic you pulled out says so much doesn't it? I was shocked when I was told there had been 22 in-custody deaths of people in B.C. in the last four years. That is a lot of people. Why hasn't there been a bigger fuss made about this? My hunch is because no one cares about the people who have died. They have, for whatever reason, been classified as societal losers. The dregs who likely put themselves in a position to die. So there is little sympathy for them in the end. Then someone like Ian Bush comes along, someone described as the nicest kid in town, and suddenly people take notice. But most of us know very little about the other people who died. Many of them were probably nice people too. Yes, many of them had likely fallen on hard times. Some of them were likely petty crooks. So they had issues. Does that mean that their lives should mean nothing? The only comparable I can think of is the missing women of the Downtown Eastside. Over a 10 year period 60 of them went missing and no one really cared much because they were prostitutes.
As for the politicians, I don't know what to say honestly. As I've already said, there seems to be a great reluctance to even question the RCMP and its policies and procedures. And there seems to be this attitude on the part of the RCMP that politicians shouldn't be telling us our business. The RCMP wouldn't even tell an elected MP the whereabouts of the officer in question in the Ian Bush case, an officer who is being paid by B.C. taxpayers. And apparently we have no right to know where he's working. I found that astonishing. But then I've found so much about this case frustrating and astonishing.
Jim Welch from Ottawa Canada writes: Q1: When the Canadian Airborne regiment tortured and killed a Somali boy in 1993, the federal government decided that the unit had a culture that was dysfunctional (to put it politely) and disbanded it. In your opinion, does the RCMP have a dysfunctional culture in general or is this 'shoot and stonewall' behaviour unique to the RCMP in British Columbia? Q2: I was under the impression that cops generally avoid discharging their weapons because of all the ensuing paperwork. How is it that the existing mechanisms for investigating these matters have failed? Is the RCMP without any federal or otherwise public oversight?
Gary Mason writes: Great question Jim. I don't think the RCMP has a dysfunction culture in general. I honestly believe that most of the officers working for the force are hard-working, right-thinking Canadians who want to do the best job they can. I really believe that. But I think there is an over-arching attitude that frames these officers, one that comes from the top, that no one should tell the RCMP how to do its business. I mean, the optics surrounding the investigative process in the Ian Bush case - the subject of a fantastic editorial in the Globe today - are just terrible. Do our politicians give a flying fig? Not that I can see. I think we all read Nathan Cullen's comments last week in which he honestly expressed his apprehension about going after the police. He got fried for his comments but a lot of other politicians feel exactly the way he does, trust me.
Brian Silva from Kitchener, Canada writes: How culpable is Ian for the actions that led to his death in view of the fact that he lied to a police officer, was drunk, and most likely started the fight that led to his death?
Gary Mason writes: Brian, that is a really fair question. Yes, Ian Bush was holding an open beer outside a hockey game. It should be noted, though, it wasn't his. Yes, he stupidly gave someone else's name when he was asked by the arresting officer. And yes he probably had one too many although witnesses say he was not notably drunk or out of hand in any way. We don't know why the fight broke out but it's probably fair to say that Ian Bush, who was apparently a lot stronger than the officer, was getting his licks in. Having said all that, you still shouldn't end up with a bullet in the back of the head for all that. I think there were all sorts of things that should have been done along the way that would have prevented such a tragic result.
[there seems to be a discontinuity here - as if Tom(?)s question has been lost ...]
Gary Mason writes: Boy, Tom, there are a lot of great questions in there. I'll try to answer as many as I can.
I'm not sure that turfing the RCMP from the province has to happen. What I think needs to happen is two things: first, we pay the salaries of the RCMP officers in B.C. That's you and I. I think the B.C. government should have a great deal of say over how the RCMP conducts itself in this province when we're paying their salaries. Doesn't that make sense? Instead, the Solicitor-General of B.C. says he really can't comment on the Bush case because the RCMP are a federal responsibility.
The media liasion officer here in Vancouver can say: "The public doesn't have a right to know anything," and this apparently doesn't bother the Solicitor-General of B.C. Doesn't apparently bother the federal minister responsible for the RCMP either, Stockwell Day.
When there has been an in-custody death of a civilian at the hands of police there has to be an impartial, third-party review of the facts. The situation that we have in the Ian Bush case is completely ridiculous. We have the RCMP investigating one of its own officers. And to show everyone that they believe in a far and impartial review of the facts, the RCMP graciously agree to turn over its internal report to the New Westminster police department so it can review it. But wait, the RCMP is reviewing a controversial police shooting of the New Westminister police. Hmmm. And the New Westminster police have already publicly defended the actions of the police officer involved in the shooting death of a youth in a stolen car. What do you think the chances are that the New Westminister police team charged with reviewing the RCMP's own report into the actions of its own officer in the Ian Bush shooting are going to contradict the results of that report?
Zero.
It stinks.
RB from Calgary Canada writes: This case, and an eerily similar case in Alberta from a few years back, are symptoms that point to a lack of training and professionalism that is rampant in the RCMP. This is a force that has come to believe it's own historical mythology ('they always get their man') while the record shows something quite different. Asleep while guarding the PM's residence, shootings in the heads of unarmed prisoners, even the deaths of the RCMP officers at Mayerthorpe: these all point to an incompetent police agency. Coupled with an arrogant disregard for public disclosure and accountability, the RCMP is in dire need of an overhaul or a dismantling. But don't bet the farm on it happening, ever. Tread carefully Mr. Mason, and good luck if you probe deeper.
Gary Mason writes: Great point, RB. It will be really interesting to see what the RCMP says about training and policy and procedures in the death of Mr. Bush. It's my understanding that any new officer who has been on the job less than six months has to always be accompanied by a veteran training officer. The officer in question in the Bush shooting had only been on the job five months and yet was alone. Also, there is conflicting information about having a gun on you while you are alone with a prisoner. I've been told by an ex-RCMP officer that you are never, under any circumstances, supposed to have a gun on you when you are alone in a holding cell with a prisoner because that prisoner might try and use the gun on the officer himself. So what happened there? And what about the video equipment in the room? Should it have been turned on?
I tried to ask the RCMP what its policies and procedures were in these areas and I was told it was none of my business. When I told the media liaison officer I was speaking with that the public had a right to know, that's when I was now famously told: "The public doesn't have a right to know anything."
PM from Vancouver Canada writes: On Ian Bush's death: The RCMP REFUSE to provide information about these incidents. They appear to believe that they are above the law and that they have NO responsibility to the public or particularly to those who have a vested interest in the deaths. What avenues does the public have to force the RCMP to provide information to the concerned persons?
Gary Mason writes: My information is the RCMP will provide the Bush family a summary of its investigation into the shooting. But they will not see the full report, which I've been told could be up to 2,000 pages. I find that difficult to believe myself but nonetheless. I don't think the RCMP's full internal report is ever made public and I think that is wrong. When it involves the in-custody death of a civilian we should have a right to review the full RCMP report into the matter otherwise how do we know how thorough that investigation is?
Jim Terrets from Vancouver writes: Can't the Bush family get a lawyer and sue the RCMP? In the U.S., people are launching lawsuits against the police all the time, is there some law in Canada that protects the RCMP from legal action? Given the circumstances of the death and the slowness of the RCMP in investigating or prosecuting anyone it seems that there are sufficient grounds for a civil suit.
Gary Mason writes: Thanks for your question Jim. The Bush family has hired a lawyer, although he's keeping an extremely low profile. His name is Howard Rubin and he has a lawsuit 90 per cent drafted that he is preparing to file. But the money the Bush family can claim is very limited. Ian Bush lived with his mother and helped her pay the mortage. Who knows how long he would have lived at home. He was 22. But Mr. Rubin is suing for the mortgage payments Mr. Bush would have likely helped his mother out with had he not been killed. And that, apparently, is about all the family can sue for. It's different than the U.S.
James Lee from Canada writes: From what I recall of recent stories, it seems that police are more likely to be disciplined for things like misusing databases, or sending racist emails than for things like beating a teenager to a pulp. Sometimes it seems that they are more or less untouchable for their actions (unless someone happens to have a video camera running). Stories of suspicious deaths at the hands of police often barely make the news, then quickly disappear, never to be heard of again. On the other hand, if a policeman dies on duty, or even his horse does, it's front page news for days or weeks. One can understand why the relatives of those who die in police hands get very frustrated. There should not be this automatic cover-up attitude every time some cop goes too far.
Gary Mason writes: James, I couldn't agree more. These cases, as I said earlier, rarely receive any kind of attention at all. Not to toot our own horn here but there was very little interest in the Ian Bush case. There was a flurry of stories when it happened but after the first week that was it. I'm proud of our newspaper for committing the resources and the space in our newspaper to continue to cover this important story.
Randy Canuckistan from Canada writes: Where is the Canadian media? The silence, particularly of newspapers in surrounding towns in sickening. Very, very few people seem to give a damn. That may be jumping to conclusions but how will the public ever know if someone doesn't demand answers, and soon. While the opposite seems to be true, police officers should be held to a higher, not a lower standard given their inordinate powers. If Canadians are satisfied to let the police remain untouchable then perhaps Canada should be removed from the G8 and relegated to third world status in line with our actions.
Gary Mason writes: Thanks Randy. I partially answered that question above. I think in the case of Ian Bush he lived in a remote part of the province in a small town that isn't easy to get to. Not cheap either. So a lot of news organizations just don't have the budgets to commit to sending reporters up there to take a deeper look. Luckily The Globe and Mail does.
There is an amazing statistic that jumped out at me in our editorial today. In Ontario, the average length of time it took to investigate the seven fatal shootings by police last year was 38 days. In B.C. the investigations take an average of six to nine months. Sometimes it's a year or two (even longer) before we ever see the final report. Why is that? And why is no one saying or doing anything about it on a political level?
Maybe Nathan Cullen is right. Maybe politicians are afraid of taking on the police.
Allison Dunfield, globeandmail.com, writes: Gary, thanks so much for your extremely thorough and thoughtful questions to this difficult issue and case. Very much appreciated, and I think our readers found this discussion helpful in giving them a forum for their concerns about Ian Bush's death.
To our readers: We have to wrap up now, but please check our website frequently for future discussions.
Gary Mason writes:Thanks Allison. The Ian Bush case, and the whole issue of in-custody deaths of civilians at the hands of police, is an extremely hot topic. The number of emails I have received about this issue, and the Bush case in particular, is now well into the hundreds. There have been so many I just haven't been able to respond to them all and I feel badly about that. But I think the RCMP is well aware of the public interest in this case and likely knows that the results of its investigation into the shooting is going to be heavily scrutinized by the public and the media.
I'm very disappointed in our politicians. There doesn't seem to be any political will to bring in the changes that are necessary to insure that the public has faith in the investigative process in these cases. And having police investigate police just doesn't cut it in my opinion.
All I would say in summary is: stay tuned. We haven't heard the end of this yet.
Thanks again Allison. And thanks to all who wrote in.
On Oct. 29 of last year, a likeable, hard-working young man from tiny Houston, B.C., was taken into police custody after being caught with an open beer at a hockey arena.
Ian Bush, a 22-year old mill worker who had lived his entire life in the town, gave a rookie police officer a false name and was arrested for obstructing an investigation. Minutes later — 20 to be exact — Mr. Bush was dead from a gunshot wound to the head.
To date, there has been no coronor's inquest, and no information from the RCMP since the day of the shooting, despite constant pressure from Bush's parents. RCMP's silence in man's death unfair to parents
A Globe editorial recently called for answers from the RCMP: Editorial: Where are the answers about Ian Bush's death?
Globe and Mail B.C. bureau columnist Gary Mason has been following the story from Day 1. What do you think happened? Mr. Mason was on-line earlier to take your questions and comments.
Scroll down to read the questions and answers.
Gary Mason began his journalism career in British Columbia in 1981, working as a summer intern for Canadian Press. One of his first assignments was covering the last days of the province's favourite son, Terry Fox.
Mr. Mason would later go on to work for the Victoria Times-Colonist before joining The Vancouver Sun, where he worked for 19 years in a variety of roles, including legislative bureau chief, city editor and deputy managing editor before he began writing a popular sports column in 1997.
Mr. Mason joined The Globe and Mail in 2005 as a national columnist writing on B.C. affairs.
Mr. Mason has twice been the recipient of the Jack Webster Award, the highest journalism honour handed out in B.C., and has also been nominated for a National Newspaper Award on three occasions, winning in 2000 and 2002 for sports writing. Mr. Mason is the author of several best-selling books, including his latest Oldtimers: On the Road with the Legends of Hockey.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Allison Dunfield, globeandmail.com, writes: Hi, Gary. And thank you for taking part in today's discussion. Judging from the reader feedback there are many people out there who feel strongly about this case, and this issue. Can you start by telling us whether you believe we'll ever really find out what happened? Do you believe that the RCMP will eventually allow for an investigation?
Secondly, can you give us a bit of a sense of how people in the community are feeling and what they are saying? Have they lost hope that Ian Bush's death will be properly probed?
Gary Mason writes: Thanks Allison. I always enjoy the chance to take part in on-line discussions with readers. This will be fun.
Now to your questions: first, will be ever know what really happened? That may be the greatest question of all. And no one really knows the answer. As anyone familiar with the case knows, there is only one witness to what happened and that is the young police officer who was in the holding room at the time of Ian Bush's death. We know a scuffle broke out between the two. We don't know what prompted that fight. And we know that Ian Bush was shot in the back of the head.
Because the young officer is the only one who can tell us what happened I guess we will have to believe his version of events. The only thing that could happen is if his version of events don't jibe with other evidence, such as the manner in which the blood splattered after Mr. Bush was shot. I am not a coroner but I have been told that blood splatter evidence is often key to telling investigators what happened.
But further to this point, the problem that we have here is often the problem with in-custody deaths. There are usually no witnesses so it's the police officer's word against the word of a dead person. I am going to have to reserve judgment on whether I believe the police officer's version of events in the Ian Bush shooting until after I get a chance to see them.
As for the town of Houston where the shooting took place, the situation is not good and only gets worse as the investigative process drags on. Mr. Bush was one of the most popular residents in the town. It wouldn't be overstating things to say he was loved. People are very, very suspicious of the police there and will remain that way until they get some answers. To make matters worse the memorial that was built behind the police station mysteriously disappeared. Many people think the RCMP, which didn't want the memorial there, got rid of it themselves. The police, however, say they didn't and are treating the incident as a theft.
T. J. from Canada writes: Where is the integrity of the young arresting officer, the only one who was in the room when the tragedy took place? Where is his conscience, his moral fibre? Where are the lofty ideals he aspired to when he put on the red tunic of the RCMP? Is this how his parents raised him? He knows the truth. He alone should come forward, out of respect for Mr. Bush's family, and put an end to their anguish.
Gary Mason writes: Thanks T.J. for your question. It is one that is obviously filled with emotion. There are many people who feel exactly the same way you do. However, the officer in this case is likely being closely advised by a lawyer. They do not want him to say anything to anyone for fear it could jeopardize him down the road should this matter end up in court. We have to assume that the officer in question gave a full accounting of what happened to the RCMP team from Prince George that first investigated the shooting.
But I couldn't agree more that the family needs to be put out of their anguish. Actually, they never will be put out of their anguish likely. They will be haunted by this the rest of their lives. But it will allow them to move on. Right now they can't. They need to know what happened. And that's what really burns me about this whole thing: there is only one person to interview for heaven's sake. What's taking so long?
J. C. from Kitchener Canada writes: The evidence in question would most likely be video of the incident, forensic scene reconstruction, the autopsy and statements from the officers present at the time. Additionally, the subject officer's record and the deceased's background would be reviewed. How could this possibly take so long? Even more troublesome... Why is major crime heading the investigation and not the homicide or internal affairs (or their equivalents in the RCMP)? In Ontario we have the Special Investigations Unit run by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to look into such occurrences as a third party, why is there not such oversight for the RCMP?
Gary Mason writes: Hi J.C. Thanks for your question.
Actually, it's not nearly as complicated as you outlined. First, there apparently is no video of the incident. The recording equipment for whatever reason was not turned on so there is no video evidence of what took place. The officer who was in the room with Mr. Bush was the only one present in the detachment at the time of the shooting so there is no one else to interview. Yes, DNA and other tests take a bit of time but not that much time. The RCMP always says they have to wait for forensic results because the RCMP labs are always so busy. Maybe they are but maybe they should say: hey, this is a pretty unusual circumstance. There has been a death of a civilian in custody and in these cases all forensic work moves to the front of the line.
As for the investigative process the RCMP employs, I couldn't agree more. It's seriously flawed but no one in Ottawa seems to care. There is a reluctance to question anything the Mounties do. At least that has been my impression in researching this story.
Jim Cookson from Revised Question Canada writes: Please accept this as a revised question to the version I sent you earlier. Gary, I would like to congratulate you on the excellent, in-depth coverage of the Ian Bush case and in particular for highlighting that 21 other people have died while in police custody in British Columbia during the past four years. While reading your articles I did some research and as well wrote numerous personal letters to Mr. Les, Mr. Day, Mr. Toews, Mr. Harper, Mr. Austin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Oppal and Mr. Cullen. In terms of statistics, according to the information I found, more people have died while in police custody in the past 4 years in B.C. than Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan (22 versus 16). While I have a huge amount of respect for our soldiers, I wanted to highlight these numbers in order to provide some perspective to this debate. In my view, one civilian dying in police custody in B.C. (or as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan) is one person too many and each death should be investigated carefully and measures implemented to reduce the probability of another similar incident occurring. My question to you is: Why do the people who are responsible for the RCMP i.e. Mr. Day and in particular Mr. Les not feel a burning desire to investigate these deaths and make changes to procedures and the governance model of our police force? They are clearly aware of this issue and yet Mr. Day is only noticeable by his complete silence and Mr. Les is noticeable through his unmerited and partisan attack on Mr. Cullen! The RCMP has a proud image and history in Canada and I believe that the faith that we have as Canadians in Mr. Day, Mr. Les and as well the RCMP's proud image is riding in the balance of these investigations. How do we as members of the public get Mr. Day and Mr. Les to proactively take up their responsibilities and move these investigations forward in an open and transparent manner?
Gary Mason writes: Thanks for your great question Jim, and your intense interest in this story. The statistic you pulled out says so much doesn't it? I was shocked when I was told there had been 22 in-custody deaths of people in B.C. in the last four years. That is a lot of people. Why hasn't there been a bigger fuss made about this? My hunch is because no one cares about the people who have died. They have, for whatever reason, been classified as societal losers. The dregs who likely put themselves in a position to die. So there is little sympathy for them in the end. Then someone like Ian Bush comes along, someone described as the nicest kid in town, and suddenly people take notice. But most of us know very little about the other people who died. Many of them were probably nice people too. Yes, many of them had likely fallen on hard times. Some of them were likely petty crooks. So they had issues. Does that mean that their lives should mean nothing? The only comparable I can think of is the missing women of the Downtown Eastside. Over a 10 year period 60 of them went missing and no one really cared much because they were prostitutes.
As for the politicians, I don't know what to say honestly. As I've already said, there seems to be a great reluctance to even question the RCMP and its policies and procedures. And there seems to be this attitude on the part of the RCMP that politicians shouldn't be telling us our business. The RCMP wouldn't even tell an elected MP the whereabouts of the officer in question in the Ian Bush case, an officer who is being paid by B.C. taxpayers. And apparently we have no right to know where he's working. I found that astonishing. But then I've found so much about this case frustrating and astonishing.
Jim Welch from Ottawa Canada writes: Q1: When the Canadian Airborne regiment tortured and killed a Somali boy in 1993, the federal government decided that the unit had a culture that was dysfunctional (to put it politely) and disbanded it. In your opinion, does the RCMP have a dysfunctional culture in general or is this 'shoot and stonewall' behaviour unique to the RCMP in British Columbia? Q2: I was under the impression that cops generally avoid discharging their weapons because of all the ensuing paperwork. How is it that the existing mechanisms for investigating these matters have failed? Is the RCMP without any federal or otherwise public oversight?
Gary Mason writes: Great question Jim. I don't think the RCMP has a dysfunction culture in general. I honestly believe that most of the officers working for the force are hard-working, right-thinking Canadians who want to do the best job they can. I really believe that. But I think there is an over-arching attitude that frames these officers, one that comes from the top, that no one should tell the RCMP how to do its business. I mean, the optics surrounding the investigative process in the Ian Bush case - the subject of a fantastic editorial in the Globe today - are just terrible. Do our politicians give a flying fig? Not that I can see. I think we all read Nathan Cullen's comments last week in which he honestly expressed his apprehension about going after the police. He got fried for his comments but a lot of other politicians feel exactly the way he does, trust me.
Brian Silva from Kitchener, Canada writes: How culpable is Ian for the actions that led to his death in view of the fact that he lied to a police officer, was drunk, and most likely started the fight that led to his death?
Gary Mason writes: Brian, that is a really fair question. Yes, Ian Bush was holding an open beer outside a hockey game. It should be noted, though, it wasn't his. Yes, he stupidly gave someone else's name when he was asked by the arresting officer. And yes he probably had one too many although witnesses say he was not notably drunk or out of hand in any way. We don't know why the fight broke out but it's probably fair to say that Ian Bush, who was apparently a lot stronger than the officer, was getting his licks in. Having said all that, you still shouldn't end up with a bullet in the back of the head for all that. I think there were all sorts of things that should have been done along the way that would have prevented such a tragic result.
[there seems to be a discontinuity here - as if Tom(?)s question has been lost ...]
Gary Mason writes: Boy, Tom, there are a lot of great questions in there. I'll try to answer as many as I can.
I'm not sure that turfing the RCMP from the province has to happen. What I think needs to happen is two things: first, we pay the salaries of the RCMP officers in B.C. That's you and I. I think the B.C. government should have a great deal of say over how the RCMP conducts itself in this province when we're paying their salaries. Doesn't that make sense? Instead, the Solicitor-General of B.C. says he really can't comment on the Bush case because the RCMP are a federal responsibility.
The media liasion officer here in Vancouver can say: "The public doesn't have a right to know anything," and this apparently doesn't bother the Solicitor-General of B.C. Doesn't apparently bother the federal minister responsible for the RCMP either, Stockwell Day.
When there has been an in-custody death of a civilian at the hands of police there has to be an impartial, third-party review of the facts. The situation that we have in the Ian Bush case is completely ridiculous. We have the RCMP investigating one of its own officers. And to show everyone that they believe in a far and impartial review of the facts, the RCMP graciously agree to turn over its internal report to the New Westminster police department so it can review it. But wait, the RCMP is reviewing a controversial police shooting of the New Westminister police. Hmmm. And the New Westminster police have already publicly defended the actions of the police officer involved in the shooting death of a youth in a stolen car. What do you think the chances are that the New Westminister police team charged with reviewing the RCMP's own report into the actions of its own officer in the Ian Bush shooting are going to contradict the results of that report?
Zero.
It stinks.
RB from Calgary Canada writes: This case, and an eerily similar case in Alberta from a few years back, are symptoms that point to a lack of training and professionalism that is rampant in the RCMP. This is a force that has come to believe it's own historical mythology ('they always get their man') while the record shows something quite different. Asleep while guarding the PM's residence, shootings in the heads of unarmed prisoners, even the deaths of the RCMP officers at Mayerthorpe: these all point to an incompetent police agency. Coupled with an arrogant disregard for public disclosure and accountability, the RCMP is in dire need of an overhaul or a dismantling. But don't bet the farm on it happening, ever. Tread carefully Mr. Mason, and good luck if you probe deeper.
Gary Mason writes: Great point, RB. It will be really interesting to see what the RCMP says about training and policy and procedures in the death of Mr. Bush. It's my understanding that any new officer who has been on the job less than six months has to always be accompanied by a veteran training officer. The officer in question in the Bush shooting had only been on the job five months and yet was alone. Also, there is conflicting information about having a gun on you while you are alone with a prisoner. I've been told by an ex-RCMP officer that you are never, under any circumstances, supposed to have a gun on you when you are alone in a holding cell with a prisoner because that prisoner might try and use the gun on the officer himself. So what happened there? And what about the video equipment in the room? Should it have been turned on?
I tried to ask the RCMP what its policies and procedures were in these areas and I was told it was none of my business. When I told the media liaison officer I was speaking with that the public had a right to know, that's when I was now famously told: "The public doesn't have a right to know anything."
PM from Vancouver Canada writes: On Ian Bush's death: The RCMP REFUSE to provide information about these incidents. They appear to believe that they are above the law and that they have NO responsibility to the public or particularly to those who have a vested interest in the deaths. What avenues does the public have to force the RCMP to provide information to the concerned persons?
Gary Mason writes: My information is the RCMP will provide the Bush family a summary of its investigation into the shooting. But they will not see the full report, which I've been told could be up to 2,000 pages. I find that difficult to believe myself but nonetheless. I don't think the RCMP's full internal report is ever made public and I think that is wrong. When it involves the in-custody death of a civilian we should have a right to review the full RCMP report into the matter otherwise how do we know how thorough that investigation is?
Jim Terrets from Vancouver writes: Can't the Bush family get a lawyer and sue the RCMP? In the U.S., people are launching lawsuits against the police all the time, is there some law in Canada that protects the RCMP from legal action? Given the circumstances of the death and the slowness of the RCMP in investigating or prosecuting anyone it seems that there are sufficient grounds for a civil suit.
Gary Mason writes: Thanks for your question Jim. The Bush family has hired a lawyer, although he's keeping an extremely low profile. His name is Howard Rubin and he has a lawsuit 90 per cent drafted that he is preparing to file. But the money the Bush family can claim is very limited. Ian Bush lived with his mother and helped her pay the mortage. Who knows how long he would have lived at home. He was 22. But Mr. Rubin is suing for the mortgage payments Mr. Bush would have likely helped his mother out with had he not been killed. And that, apparently, is about all the family can sue for. It's different than the U.S.
James Lee from Canada writes: From what I recall of recent stories, it seems that police are more likely to be disciplined for things like misusing databases, or sending racist emails than for things like beating a teenager to a pulp. Sometimes it seems that they are more or less untouchable for their actions (unless someone happens to have a video camera running). Stories of suspicious deaths at the hands of police often barely make the news, then quickly disappear, never to be heard of again. On the other hand, if a policeman dies on duty, or even his horse does, it's front page news for days or weeks. One can understand why the relatives of those who die in police hands get very frustrated. There should not be this automatic cover-up attitude every time some cop goes too far.
Gary Mason writes: James, I couldn't agree more. These cases, as I said earlier, rarely receive any kind of attention at all. Not to toot our own horn here but there was very little interest in the Ian Bush case. There was a flurry of stories when it happened but after the first week that was it. I'm proud of our newspaper for committing the resources and the space in our newspaper to continue to cover this important story.
Randy Canuckistan from Canada writes: Where is the Canadian media? The silence, particularly of newspapers in surrounding towns in sickening. Very, very few people seem to give a damn. That may be jumping to conclusions but how will the public ever know if someone doesn't demand answers, and soon. While the opposite seems to be true, police officers should be held to a higher, not a lower standard given their inordinate powers. If Canadians are satisfied to let the police remain untouchable then perhaps Canada should be removed from the G8 and relegated to third world status in line with our actions.
Gary Mason writes: Thanks Randy. I partially answered that question above. I think in the case of Ian Bush he lived in a remote part of the province in a small town that isn't easy to get to. Not cheap either. So a lot of news organizations just don't have the budgets to commit to sending reporters up there to take a deeper look. Luckily The Globe and Mail does.
There is an amazing statistic that jumped out at me in our editorial today. In Ontario, the average length of time it took to investigate the seven fatal shootings by police last year was 38 days. In B.C. the investigations take an average of six to nine months. Sometimes it's a year or two (even longer) before we ever see the final report. Why is that? And why is no one saying or doing anything about it on a political level?
Maybe Nathan Cullen is right. Maybe politicians are afraid of taking on the police.
Allison Dunfield, globeandmail.com, writes: Gary, thanks so much for your extremely thorough and thoughtful questions to this difficult issue and case. Very much appreciated, and I think our readers found this discussion helpful in giving them a forum for their concerns about Ian Bush's death.
To our readers: We have to wrap up now, but please check our website frequently for future discussions.
Gary Mason writes:Thanks Allison. The Ian Bush case, and the whole issue of in-custody deaths of civilians at the hands of police, is an extremely hot topic. The number of emails I have received about this issue, and the Bush case in particular, is now well into the hundreds. There have been so many I just haven't been able to respond to them all and I feel badly about that. But I think the RCMP is well aware of the public interest in this case and likely knows that the results of its investigation into the shooting is going to be heavily scrutinized by the public and the media.
I'm very disappointed in our politicians. There doesn't seem to be any political will to bring in the changes that are necessary to insure that the public has faith in the investigative process in these cases. And having police investigate police just doesn't cut it in my opinion.
All I would say in summary is: stay tuned. We haven't heard the end of this yet.
Thanks again Allison. And thanks to all who wrote in.
Home