Canada Kicks Ass
Another banner day for the RCMP

REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Zipperfish @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:53 pm

Ian Bush? Mouthed off a cop, cop took him in, probably tried to rough him up a little or maybe Bush took a swing at him. Bush was a big boy, cop ended up in a bad situation, bang, you're dead. The RCMP botched the investigation from the get-go and practically guaranteed no one would ever get at the truth.

   



Dayseed @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:23 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Ian Bush? Mouthed off a cop, cop took him in, probably tried to rough him up a little or maybe Bush took a swing at him. Bush was a big boy, cop ended up in a bad situation, bang, you're dead. The RCMP botched the investigation from the get-go and practically guaranteed no one would ever get at the truth.


Actually, the investigation the RCMP did of themselves was thorough. However, if by botched you mean permanently attached the appearance of impropriety, then yes, they "botched" it.

   



digerdick @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:21 pm

Not the rcmp BUT a interesting piece of police corruption EDIT BY MOD-OFF TOPIC I like when the fool looks right in the camera and plants the dope.........

   



Benn @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:33 pm

diggerdick diggerdick:
Not the rcmp BUT .



Then off topic.

Heck not even the right country.

   



digerdick @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:40 pm

police corruption is a problem all over north America and is not OFF TOPIC

   



andyt @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:45 pm

EyeBrock EyeBrock:
andyt said:

$1:
I formed my opinions on the Ian Bush case from what I read in the mainstream media.


You should have stopped right there andy.



See, Dayseed accuses me of paranoia, but saying the media is out to get the police isn't? Thank God somebody brings this stuff forth.

   



andyt @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:52 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Ian Bush? Mouthed off a cop, cop took him in, probably tried to rough him up a little or maybe Bush took a swing at him. Bush was a big boy, cop ended up in a bad situation, bang, you're dead. The RCMP botched the investigation from the get-go and practically guaranteed no one would ever get at the truth.



There ya go. Koester didn't set out to kill Bush. I would guess deliberate cop killings are incredibly rare in Canada. But with investigators waiting a month before interviewing Koester, and giving him the questions they were going ask him beforehand, there's no way things weren't "shaped" to look best for him and the force. Same as putting all the officers in the Dziekankski case in the same room so they could get their stories straight.

And again, all we have is Koester's story to go on about what happened. The video was conveniently off. So if it all hinges on his story, then he should be able to demonstrate what happened, not be able to claim it would all be conjecture for him to recreate the events.

   



herbie @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:05 pm

When you figure out how if someone has you in a stranglehold and you should them in the back of the head, you are NOT shooting towards your own head, let me know.

   



EyeBrock @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:22 pm

andyt andyt:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Ian Bush? Mouthed off a cop, cop took him in, probably tried to rough him up a little or maybe Bush took a swing at him. Bush was a big boy, cop ended up in a bad situation, bang, you're dead. The RCMP botched the investigation from the get-go and practically guaranteed no one would ever get at the truth.



There ya go. Koester didn't set out to kill Bush. I would guess deliberate cop killings are incredibly rare in Canada. But with investigators waiting a month before interviewing Koester, and giving him the questions they were going ask him beforehand, there's no way things weren't "shaped" to look best for him and the force. Same as putting all the officers in the Dziekankski case in the same room so they could get their stories straight.

And again, all we have is Koester's story to go on about what happened. The video was conveniently off. So if it all hinges on his story, then he should be able to demonstrate what happened, not be able to claim it would all be conjecture for him to recreate the events.



Why don't you read the report instead of getting your info from the media?

   



Benn @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:34 pm

herbie herbie:
When you figure out how if someone has you in a stranglehold and you should them in the back of the head, you are NOT shooting towards your own head, let me know.


Its been explained in other threads. I don't feel like finding them for you but there is a search feature that is handy.

   



digerdick @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:00 pm

It can only be performed by police who are desperately trying to cover their ASSES......

   



Benn @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:05 pm

diggerdick diggerdick:
It can only be performed by police who are desperately trying to cover their ASSES......


Ugh, comeback about....whats up his ass....too easy...must resist.......

   



digerdick @ Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:38 pm

The TRUTH hurts dont it BOY

   



andyt @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:03 am

EyeBrock EyeBrock:


Why don't you read the report instead of getting your info from the media?


Because I don't think the report is worth much. All we have is Koester's account, since the video was conveniently turned off. He was given a month to think about his statement, and given the questions he would be asked beforehand - so he had lots of opportunity to shape the scenario to his advantage. He was not made to re-enact the situation, yet his account is what the inquiry went by, since it was the only one available. If he's able to testify as to what happened, he's able to recreate it too.

I sure hope they're watching Koester carefully in his new posting, that he doesn't get himself into a situation like this again. But if course with the RCMP, if he does, they'll just try to bullshit themselves out of that one too. SOP and all.

   



Dayseed @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:21 pm

You must be purposefully lying or incredibly stupid at this point. There is no way you could even begin to argue that you have your facts straight. You admit you don't. Plus, I accused you of being hopelessly biased against the police, a cop-hater, because you don't incorporate new information into your screeds.

And you claim you're not, you're an objective protector of human rights, but then you post this horseshit.

Here's why you're wrong.

andyt andyt:
There ya go. Koester didn't set out to kill Bush. I would guess deliberate cop killings are incredibly rare in Canada. But with investigators waiting a month before interviewing Koester, and giving him the questions they were going ask him beforehand, there's no way things weren't "shaped" to look best for him and the force.


Did the investigators really wait a month before interviewing Koester? That would seem pretty sloppy if it were true.

But they didn't. Koester gave an account THE NEXT DAY of what happened AND he was compelled to be a witness against himself, in violation of his Charter rights, in doing so!

The investigators waited a month to ask clarifying questions because Koester was an emotional wreck. One thing that marks you as especially despicable is you imagine Koester and Bush to be empty vessels waiting for you to provide them with actions, motivation and purpose. As you write it, Koester is a cold-blooded killer who pistol-whipped a man to death, engaged in a cover-up, continually lied about it and then went on his merry life whistling dixie. Bush is just a guy who took a bullet in his squash for no apparent reason. One of the advantages, inter alia, of reading the report is that you can understand the human side of things.

If you were attacked, nearly killed, killed a fellow man in self-defence all because buddy didn't like you doing your job, how would you react? Would you be all smiles?

Also, you should realize that Koester gave his statement the next day. He's under no legal obligation to respond to further questioning. You want to convict him? Prove it conclusively with the evidence...oh wait, that didn't pan out very well at all, did it?

How do I know this? Oh, I READ THE GODDAMN REPORT!

$1:
And again, all we have is Koester's story to go on about what happened.


No, all YOU have is a bunch of media reports you can't objectively verify.

Had you read the report, you would have known there were emergency radio transmissions caught on tape, other cops responding 90 seconds after the shooting where their observations were recorded over the radio. Those same officers gave statements AND were compelled to testify at the Commission hearing where they recounted Koester's spontaneous utterances about the fight. They also photographed his injuries.

$1:
The video was conveniently off.


Had you read the report, you would have read how a score of officers testified that under the circumstances in which Bush was arrested, the video wasn't routinely recorded. Koester DID have the video on to observe Bush while he prepared his release papers. It wasn't conveniently off, it was routinely off.

$1:
So if it all hinges on his story, then he should be able to demonstrate what happened, not be able to claim it would all be conjecture for him to recreate the events.


Here's a familiar phrase: Had you read the report, you would have known that he said things got hazy as he was blacking out from being choked. All he could have done was guess at how it happened. Then fucking idiots like you would pounce all over the discrepancies as evidence of a cover-up. It's guesswork leading to a no-win situation.

So there you have it once again AndyT. You're either incredibly stupid or a perfidious liar.

Your choice.

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next