Another Story in the Naked City

A woman walked down the winding stairs at Carnegie Community Centre, from the third floor to the lobby and out the front door. She was naked.

There were scores of witnesses at Carnegie on this busy Saturday evening at around 9 p.m. It was cold that night, just as it was for much of this 3-day holiday weekend as Vancouverites celebrated the Queen's birthday.

A regular Carnegie volunteer who didn’t want his name published, told me that he was in the lobby when he saw the woman come down the stairs. “She had a nice tan,” he said “except for her bum; her bum was white.” She walked west on the 100 block Hastings Street. “You could see this white bum walking down Hastings”, he said, chuckling. “She was walking calmly, not hurrying at all.”

About 1 ½ minutes later, Dean, a musician who drops into the Carnegie Music Program, came down the winding staircase to the Carnegie lobby with the woman’s clothes in his arms. “Where did that woman go?”, the witness recalled Dean saying. “Here’s her clothes.” Then Dean’s girlfriend showed up. The Queen was not amused.

Dean was just trying to help the naked woman, the witness said. He left her clothes at the reception desk in the lobby and took off down the street with her coat, looking for her.

"People in cars going by were honking their horns. Guys were whistling. Girls were going, ‘Ahhh, look at that.’”

The police came back to Carnegie to get the woman’s clothes. The witness said that, according to Dean, “She ended up at St. Paul’s [hospital].”

Because the witness didn’t want his name used, I asked Bill Simpson, who goes to Carnegie daily, if he knew of this incident. “Dean saw the whole thing”, Simpson said. The woman reportedly had a "break down" and took her clothes off by a window on the 3^rd floor," Simpson told me. “She’s in St. Paul’s.”

There are a million stories in the naked city. You have just read one.

Boy, 14, to be charged with 2nd degree homicide in death of 13 yr. old

The Vancouver teen accused of fatally stabbing Chris Poeung will be charged with second degree homicide, VPD Constable Tim Fanning told reporters today, not manslaughter as originally anticipated.

"The new charge means the prosecution will allege the youngster used a weapon that he should have known could cause death", the Globe and Mail reported.

The accused 14 year old will remain in jail until his appearance in provincial youth court on Tuesday.

Teenagers Visit Parking Lot Memorial for Chris Poeung

A large mound of about 20 bouquets of flowers appeared today on the pavement in the parking lot across from the Main St. Skytrain Station. The flowers appeared at the exact spot where Chris Poeung, 13, lay after being fatally stabbed late yesterday afternoon, allegedly by a 14 year old boy.

All afternoon, teenagers came and went. They stood around the bouquets of flowers in the almost empty parking lot, talking, in the Vancouver drizzle. There were neatly printed messages on some of the bouquets at their feet:

"R.I.P. baby bro,
I love you lots and I miss you."
Melay

"You were like a brother to me."
Annie Tran

"...you will never be forgotten."
Deanna Tran

At about 6:15 p.m., when I last went by, there were 10 young people standing by the bouquets.

A tree at the edge of the parking lot, a few meters south of the mound of flowers on the pavement, had a new, white, spray-painted message on it: a heart and below it the large letters, "R.I.P. C.P." A piece of yellow police tape lay twisted on the grass below. Nearby on the grass, somebody had placed a round container of bright pink flowers.

Local residents dropping into McDonalds next door for coffee were talking about the fact that Chris Poeung had died. Barry, a pensioner who has lived on Downtown Eastside for 30 years said that after leaving McDonalds yesterday, one of the Asian teenagers was in such a hurry to get out of that parking lot that, "He almost knocked me over." But Barry is street smart. He believes there is a history between some of these teenagers that we don't know about: "Somebody doesn't just start stabbing people for no reason."

CTV has since spoken to Chris Poeung's girlfriend, Cathy Le, who said the fight that resulted in Poeung's death was over a girl. But Poeung was not even directly involved, she said.

Stabbing Near McDonalds Leaves Boy, 13, Dead

Update:
Stabbing victim, Chris Poeung, died late last night in hospital. He was born Mar. 3, 1994 and was 13 years old.

Witnesses saw the suspect leave the scene of the stabbing and hop on the #19 bus. Police reportedly took him off the bus as it headed up Kingsway. There are reports that a second person was also taken into custody but released.

There were a total of four teenagers stabbed. Three had injuries that were not life threatening.

The following article was posted yesterday, shortly after I left the scene of the stabbing.
----------------------------------------

A teenage girl called her mother today and told her to come to the parking lot at Terminal & Main. Her brother, Chris Poeung, had just been stabbed.

It was about 5:15 or 5:20 p.m. I had just left McDonalds next door with a take-out coffee in my hand. I saw a swarm of Asian teenagers, both male and female, crossing the parking lot at Main & Terminal -- the parking lot kitty corner from the Pacific Central Station -- headed towards McDonalds. Some of the boys in the huge group were fighting. But it seemed to be over quickly.

Then I saw about three boys looking back as they rushed from the parking lot, at least one of them holding a cell phone. I got the impression that for them this fight wasn't over. But I really didn't pay much attention and kept walking.

Then I heard some girls in the parking lot screaming as they stood over an individual lying on the pavement. I went over to see if I could help. There was a pool of blood around a young Asian man in a white track suit. The white top of his track suit was soaked in blood. It was obvious that he had been stabbed near the heart. He had also been stabbed on the chin.

I told the victim to hang on, that an ambulance was on the way. I kept repeating that. I had read about an accident victim who said that having a person beside them reassuring them that the ambulance was on the way was helpful. The victim seemed to have almost lost consciousness, and by the time help arrived would be completely unconscious. One of the teenage girls standing near the victim's feet began crying, a scared sounding crying.

Later another woman passerby crouched down and put her hands on the sides of the victim's head and talked softly to him, continuously. Yet another woman passing by was on her cell phone to police saying, "I didn't realize that I had witnessed a stabbing."

A young woman with long dark hair who looked like a teenager came over. She said she was the victim's sister. She had apparently not witnessed the stabbing but may have been with the large group of teenagers as it took her just a couple of minutes to get to the scene. She screamed for a second when she saw the massive amount of blood that her brother was lying in. A couple of minutes later, she got on her cell phone and called her mother. She was crouched beside me as she made the call asking her mother to come to the parking lot across from the Main St. Skytrain station, saying, "Somebody's been stabbed." She must have been pressed to provide more information over the phone as she then stated in a calm voice that it was Chris who had been stabbed.

"The suspect", I would later hear a female police officer say into her phone, "goes to Tupper School." I believe the officer also identified him as "Thai."

Just a few seconds after I had arrived in the parking lot to see if I could help, I noticed a local mechanic, Garrett, on his knees by the victim. Garrett, a very young looking 43 year old originally from Winnipeg, works at a car repair shop nearby and drops into McDonald's almost daily to have coffee with local residents.

Garrett was using his bare hands to apply pressure over the wound by the victim's heart. He kept his hands there until the fire department paramedics arrived about 10 minutes later.

Later as he washed the blood off his hands with a cleansing gel police had given him, I asked Garrett, who I know from the McDonalds koffee klatch, "How did you know to do that?" He said he had taken a first aid course as "a form of self-improvement" two months ago out in Surrey where he has just moved. (He used to live on a boat behind McDonalds in False Creek, until all the boat squatters got evicted.) "That was good timing," I said.

It had seemed to take a long time for the paramedics to arrive: I would say 10-12 minutes, but I wasn't wearing a watch. And because everybody standing around was desperately waiting for the ambulance, time may have seemed to go slowly. The Vancouver Police were first to arrive, then the Fire Department paramedics, then the first of two ambulances. When the first police car arrived, I said to the female officer, "Where's the ambulance? We've been waiting ten minutes." She ignored me and looked at the victim.

The female police officer made the same call that a number of others had already made on cell phones, a request for an ambulance. She said into her phone, as she squatted by the victim's head, he was "not doing well." The officer then took over the job of talking to the victim. At one point, I thought the victim had died; he went completely still but then seemed to get a second wind and took a couple of deep breaths. I said to his sister, "You talk to him, he knows your voice." She leaned in toward him and started to speak but the police officer told her to move back and give him more space. The officer continued talking to him.

When the first paramedics from the Fire Department did get to the victim, three of them worked swiftly and calmly, putting a clear plastic mask over his mouth and cutting off his blood-drenched shirt. About five minutes later, the ambulance showed up. Then a woman showed up, who I believe may have been the mother of the victim. She stood outside the yellow police tape surrounding the scene and spoke to the sister.

A second victim, a young male with a bloody wound to his arm, sat on a curb in the parking lot near where the first had been laying. He was tended to by paramedics and may have been put in a second ambulance that arrived.

A young male police officer politely gave the order that nobody was to leave the scene. Police corralled everybody at the side of the parking lot, on the grass. They spoke to the sister and several witnesses, many of whom were teenagers. After about 10 minutes, police let me go as I had really not paid attention to the faces of any of those involved in the fight.

Garrett was still trying to get the blood off his hands. He pointed to the bottle of cleansing gel on the grass and asked, "Could you squirt more of that on my hands?"

A stocky, middle-aged firemen walked over to us and asked Garrett for his name, after the ambulance had left. The fireman commented that the victim had lost a lot of blood. He made a point of commending Garrett: "That kid has a chance because of you."

TD Bank Reimburses Robbed Customer

When Downtown Eastside resident C. Laird used the bank machine at the TD-Canada Trust on Main St. in Chinatown recently, somebody was standing behind him watching him punch in his pin number. The man then grabbed Laird's card. Before Laird had a chance to cancel the card, the man had raced to another bank and drained Laird's account.

Laird, a former ambulance attendant now on Disability because he has severe diabetes and other health problems, asked the TD-Canada Trust bank if they could reimburse him. "No", was the response.

Laird is not without connections though. He is a regular at the Carnegie Centre at Main & Hastings and has been a Board member there. Ethel Whitty, Director of the Carnegie Centre -- who has herself been accused of highway robbery for the $104,000 salary she drains from the public purse annually, a salary approaching what the Mayor earns -- wrote a letter to TD-Canada Trust requesting that they return the stolen money. Others at Carnegie wrote letters to the TD as well: Marlene George, Carnegie Seniors Programs Coordinator; Alphie and Sindi, Volunteer Co-ordinators; and Jean Swanson, an organizer with the Carnegie Action Project and author of the book, "Poor Bashing: The Politics of Exclusion". Sources believe a letter may also have been written by Paul Taylor, a member of the editorial committee of the Carnegie Newsletter, a left wing publication with a record of criticizing corporations.

The TD-Canada Trust reversed their decision.

TD-Canada Trust reimbursed Laird the money he was robbed of via their bank machine and sent him a letter a few days ago apologizing for the inconvenience.

Black Mom gets White Justice

Dennis “Rocka” Knibbs was a black defendant facing a white jury – ten jurors were white and two were of Asian ancestry – in his murder trial in Vancouver. When this fact was mentioned early in the trial on the Downtown Eastside Enquirer blog, it drew a response from Lanre Aba Habib, mother of 21 yr. old Trumaine “Ekoh” Habib whom Knibbs, now 31, was accused of shooting multiple times in the New Wings Hotel. Habib wrote: “And as my son was half white, all I ask the court is that they would give his white side some form of JUSTICE”.

She got justice.

But questions linger about whether justice was stretched a little thin in places during the trial which saw Knibbs, the Montreal born son of Jamaican immigrants, convicted of second degree murder and sentenced last Thursday to 25 years in prison, with a mandatory ten years before being eligible for parole. Defense lawyer, Glen Orris, had argued in the hours before the verdict that Knibbs was being denied his right to fully defend himself.

Orris had felt ambushed when the jury was told at the last minute that they could consider whether the victim, Habib, had acted in self-defense when firing the first shot. Orris said he would have defended his client from this angle had he learned of it before the jury was heading off to deliberations.

“Who goes into a hotel they were just banned from toting a SHOTGUN?!!…he intended to what? Use it as a coat hanger?”

Even laypersons discussing this murder case instinctively gravitate toward the issue of whether Habib was defending himself or provoking Knibbs when he fired that first shot. Early in the case, Habib’s mother wrote to the Enquirer,

“…all I want to say is that my son was defendeding (sic) himself from two thugs that had nothing but bad blood towards him and he defended himself as he knew how to…”

After the verdict, a Knibbs supporter who wished to remain anonymous, argued that Habib’s conduct was more provocation than self defense:

“Who goes into a hotel they were just banned from toting a SHOTGUN?!! … Its obvious why this guy went back with a deadly weapon.. to use deadly force. I'm sure if he took it, he intended to what? use it as a coat hanger?”

The fact that the victim, Habib, had brought a shot gun to the New Wings Hotel in the hours before the shooting is a fact that was agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense in this trial. Leroy Charlie, a 19 yr. old New Wings resident, had allowed Habib to stay in his room and later testified that Habib had walked in, pulled a shotgun out of his pants, and showed it to him.

Other facts too were agreed upon by both sides: Later in the day on which Habib had brought the shotgun into the hotel, Liscombe and Knibbs had been looking for Habib; Liscombe pushed on the door of Charlie’s room and as the door opened partially and then slammed shut again, Knibbs joined Liscombe in pushing on it – that’s when Habib fired the first shot from his shotgun. That first and only shot fired by Habib hit Liscombe in the gut, a wound from which he would die a few hours later in St. Paul’s hospital. A few days before Habib brought the shotgun into the hotel, he and Liscombe had gotten into a fist fight in the hallway of the hotel and Habib, the smaller of the two, had grabbed a baseball bat and whacked Liscombe across the head, leaving a cut that required a hospital visit and stitches. After that fight, Habib had been barred from the hotel by the manager but had returned to Charlie’s room with a concealed shotgun and an intent, he told Charlie, to “lay low” for awhile.

In closing statements, prosecutor Michael Luchencko told the jury that it was likely that Habib had brought the shotgun into the hotel simply because of the nature of the business he was in – Habib, Knibbs, and Liscombe were drug trafficking in the New Wings -- and not specifically to harm Liscombe or Knibbs.

Judge Silverman instructs the jury: first he says they could, then he says they couldn’t, then he says they could

After the verdict, a supporter of Knibbs commenting on the Downtown Eastside Enquirer blog, accused the jury of letting race influence their decision.

"Let me ask the jury this , 'How could you say that Ecko acted on self defense if he was barred from the New Wings . Means he isnt allowed in . How do you know defendent (sic) wasn't tryin to escort him out of there'. . . . You have it out for black people and I really think that it's a nasty attitude."

But if the jury's decision was colored by anything, it may have been Justice Silverman's instructions about whether they could consider if Habib had acted in self-defense when firing the first shot. First he said they could, then he said they couldn’t, then he said they could.

Trouble started when Justice Silverman, before sending the jury out to deliberate, instructed them that they could consider the issue of whether Habib had been acting in self-defense. The minute the jury left the room, Orris stood up and objected, telling the judge that it was unfair to put this issue to jurors for the first time as they were heading out to deliberate. Orris argued that the prosecution had not raised this issue during the trial, denying Knibbs an opportunity to defend himself in relation to it.

Orris -- who had told the jury the day before in closing statements that this case “screams out” for an acquittal based on the fact that Knibbs had been the one acting in self defense – now gave the judge an idea of how he would have defended his client if he had known that the jury would be asked to consider whether Habib had been acting in self-defense. Orris said he would have gotten the jury to distinguish between whether it was Knibbs or Liscombe that Habib may have felt the need to defend against.

Orris won over the judge. Justice Silverman recalled the jury and gave them strict instructions not to consider whether Habib had been acting in self-defense: “Take that off your radar.”

The jury didn’t take it off their radar. The next day, after deliberating until almost dinner time, the jury sent the judge questions. They asked: “When Liscombe and Nabib forced entry, did Nabib have the right to fire the shotgun? Was that an unlawful act?” And they asked for a brush-up on the “provocation” defense, specifically the part that states that some “unlawful act” must have suddenly been committed to provoke a person into committing murder. Even Orris’ receptionist smelled trouble here; she had dropped into the courtroom with an armful of papers and said in worried tone, “They’re talking about provocation.” Orris, a 30 year veteran of court rooms, responded, "Who knows why." He did not sound happy.

Even a layperson sitting in the gallery could see that the jury’s questions hinted at trouble for Knibbs. The jury appearing to be reviewing the defense of “provocation”, a place where the judge told them to go only if they had already found Knibbs guilty of murder. The provocation defense would allow the jury to drop a murder conviction down to the lesser conviction manslaughter. The provocation defense works like this: If Habib’s firing of the shotgun into Liscombe’s belly could be viewed as an unlawful act that had “provoked” Knibbs into a violent response, then Knibbs could be convicted on the lesser crime of manslaughter and be out on parole in 4 years. But if Habib had a right to fire that shotgun – i.e. if he had been exercising his right to self-defense -- he was not committing an unlawful act and the jury’s option of dropping a murder conviction to manslaughter was dead.

Orris put up a fight. It was getting late, about 8:30 p.m.; the lights were out in the halls of the cavernous court building, the sheriffs were on overtime, and the Canucks were in overtime a few blocks away, playing what would be their final playoff game.

Orris argued to the judge that prosecutors had “never taken the position in opening or closing statements that Habib was acting in self-defense in acquiring the gun.” And there had been “no suggestion” by the prosecution during the trial that Habib had acted in self-defense. Orris further pointed out that raising this issue was unfairly “putting the onus on Mr. Knibbs to prove that Mr. Habib was not acting in self-defense”. It was too late for Knibbs to mount a defense now, Orris said.

“I didn’t get a chance to say to this jury,” Orris argued, “‘Nobody saw guns in the hands of either of these men’”, either Knibbs or Liscombe, as they entered the room where Habib was staying. And Knibbs took out a baton only after Habib fired the first shot. And Knibbs had intervened in a fight a few days earlier between Liscombe and Habib, punching Habib once, just enough to put an end to the fight. “So what are the chances he wanted to blow this guy away from 30 centimeters with a shotgun?,” Orris told the judge. “I didn’t get a chance to argue that. Don’t go there.”

The judge went there. Justice Silverman told Orris that he intended to rule against him. He intended, he said, to instruct the jury to use a “common sense” standard for whether Habib had been acting in self-defense. Orris protested: You’re going to say to the jury that the criteria for self-defense that you instructed them to apply to Mr. Knibbs, don’t apply to Mr. Habib, and that for Habib the standard to be applied is “common sense which is much wider”.

“Give me ten minutes”, the judge said, as he ducked out to prepare the tricky wording of his instructions to the jury. Orris turned to a sheriff: How are the Canucks doing?

Justice Silverman recalled the jury and instructed them to decide whether Habib had a “perceived need to defend himself” – that’s the key phrase to remember, he told them -- when he fired that first shot. In a general sense, the judge explained, “a person has a legal right to defend himself from danger or threat of danger.” You will have to be satisfied that Habib did have that “need”, before you can decide that he had the “right” to fire the first shot. “There are clearly some common sense limitations that you’re going to have to consider”, he further explained. You will have to determine that:

1. Mr. Habib “honestly and reasonably perceived serious danger and threat to himself”,
2. Mr. Habib fired the shotgun “in response” to the perceived danger,
3. Mr. Habib’s “reaction in firing the shotgun was not excessive” in those circumstances.

The judge emphasized, "Apply common sense."

Common sense was exactly the standard that Habib’s mother wanted applied in this case. In a comment left at the Downtown Eastside Enquirer near the start of the trial, the Surrey mother referred to the judge’s opening comments, “COMMON SENCE (sic) IS WHAT THE JUDGE KEPT SAYING TO THE JURY I TRULY HOPE THAT HE USES SOME."

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that this case isn’t over yet. As Knibbs sat in the prisoner’s box for the first time after the verdict was read, his tie now missing, a tall, young, Mulatto guy who had arrived with his Asian girlfriend, spoke with him through the glass. He encouraged Knibbs to hold out hope for his appeal. “Now three judges get to deal with it,” his pal reminded him. "And when they see what’s up, they’ll see what’s up.”