The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) has cleared three Edmonton Police Service (EPS) officers in an officer-involved shooting in 2019. But it said a kick to the head of the shooter was excessive.“On April 30, 2019, pursuant to Section 46.1 of the Police Act, the Director of Law Enforcement directed the ASIRT to investigate an officer-involved shooting causing injury that occurred earlier that day in Edmonton,” said ASIRT Assistant Executive Director Matthew Block in a Friday ruling. EPS was notified of a stolen Dodge Ram 5500 that had moved into Edmonton. The subject officers responded to the call, with two of them in one marked vehicle and one in an unmarked vehicle. Around 7:40 a.m., the subject officers arrived at 100 St. south of 106 Ave. where the stolen vehicle was sitting. The stolen vehicle appeared to be empty and one officer exited the marked vehicle while the other remained inside. At that point, the suspect sat up in the passenger side and slid over to the driver’s seat. He drove backwards into the marked car. He continued to drive backwards and push the vehicle. Two officers drew their firearms and began to fire on him and his vehicle. The suspect drove forward and collided with the unmarked vehicle, hitting it head on. The officer in the car drew his firearm and fired multiple times. The suspect dropped to the seat in the stolen vehicle. The officers approached and ordered him to put the vehicle in park and open the door. While he put the vehicle in park, he refused to open the door. One officer broke the vehicle’s window and opened the door, and another removed and handcuffed him. The suspect had one bullet wound to his left shoulder. The bullet fractured his upper arm bone, which required surgery. Under Section 25 of the Criminal Code of Canada, police officers are permitted to use as much force as is necessary for execution of their duties. Where this force is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, officers must believe on reasonable grounds it is necessary for their self-preservation or preservation of anyone under their protection. The officers were investigating a stolen vehicle and acting on good information from GPS data. Once the suspect drove his vehicle into the marked one, Block said their duty to protect the lives and safety of themselves and the public was engaged and made them required or authorized to respond by law. He added they were reasonable when carrying out their duties. While the investigation was unremarkable at first, it changed when the second officer approached to confirm the licence plate and the suspect began driving. The force used by the officers was not excessive. The defence available to them under Section 25 of the Criminal Code would likely apply. A police officer has the same protections for the defence of person under Section 34 of the Criminal Code as any other person. This section provides people do not commit an offence if they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used or threatened against them or another person, if they act to defend themselves or another person from this force or threat, and if the act is reasonable in the circumstances. He said the analysis under Section 34 for the actions of a police officer often overlaps with the analysis of the same actions under Section 25. He called this incident “where the subject officers were not only acting in furtherance of their duties, but also acting in self-defence and defence of their fellow officers.” Since the suspect presented a serious risk to the officers that day, they were entitled to respond as they did. The defence available to them under Section 34 of the Criminal Code would likely apply. The suspect and two witnesses said one of the officers kicked him in the head once he was taken out of the stolen vehicle. To justify this move, two of the officers said he was resisting. Block found there was no evidence to justify this was a justifiable use of force. He said the head is a vulnerable area, and kicks to it are seldom justifiable. There is no evidence about which of the officers kicked him in the head. Without such evidence, there are not reasonable grounds to believe any officer committed an offence in relation to the kick. Block concluded by saying the suspect “was clearly endangering the lives of the subject officers.” “When they responded with their firearms, it was justified,” he said. “The defences available to the subject officers under sections 25 and 34 of the Criminal Code apply, and there are therefore no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.”This ordeal comes after an EPS officer was told on September 1 a man with a firearm was outside a house close to 116 Ave. and 123 St. READ MORE: ASIRT investigating Edmonton police officer-involved shooting, man died on sceneThe officer went to the back of that house and found a man with a firearm. He had to discharge his firearm during a confrontation.An attempt to save the man's life happened at the scene. However, he died from his injuries.
The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) has cleared three Edmonton Police Service (EPS) officers in an officer-involved shooting in 2019. But it said a kick to the head of the shooter was excessive.“On April 30, 2019, pursuant to Section 46.1 of the Police Act, the Director of Law Enforcement directed the ASIRT to investigate an officer-involved shooting causing injury that occurred earlier that day in Edmonton,” said ASIRT Assistant Executive Director Matthew Block in a Friday ruling. EPS was notified of a stolen Dodge Ram 5500 that had moved into Edmonton. The subject officers responded to the call, with two of them in one marked vehicle and one in an unmarked vehicle. Around 7:40 a.m., the subject officers arrived at 100 St. south of 106 Ave. where the stolen vehicle was sitting. The stolen vehicle appeared to be empty and one officer exited the marked vehicle while the other remained inside. At that point, the suspect sat up in the passenger side and slid over to the driver’s seat. He drove backwards into the marked car. He continued to drive backwards and push the vehicle. Two officers drew their firearms and began to fire on him and his vehicle. The suspect drove forward and collided with the unmarked vehicle, hitting it head on. The officer in the car drew his firearm and fired multiple times. The suspect dropped to the seat in the stolen vehicle. The officers approached and ordered him to put the vehicle in park and open the door. While he put the vehicle in park, he refused to open the door. One officer broke the vehicle’s window and opened the door, and another removed and handcuffed him. The suspect had one bullet wound to his left shoulder. The bullet fractured his upper arm bone, which required surgery. Under Section 25 of the Criminal Code of Canada, police officers are permitted to use as much force as is necessary for execution of their duties. Where this force is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, officers must believe on reasonable grounds it is necessary for their self-preservation or preservation of anyone under their protection. The officers were investigating a stolen vehicle and acting on good information from GPS data. Once the suspect drove his vehicle into the marked one, Block said their duty to protect the lives and safety of themselves and the public was engaged and made them required or authorized to respond by law. He added they were reasonable when carrying out their duties. While the investigation was unremarkable at first, it changed when the second officer approached to confirm the licence plate and the suspect began driving. The force used by the officers was not excessive. The defence available to them under Section 25 of the Criminal Code would likely apply. A police officer has the same protections for the defence of person under Section 34 of the Criminal Code as any other person. This section provides people do not commit an offence if they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used or threatened against them or another person, if they act to defend themselves or another person from this force or threat, and if the act is reasonable in the circumstances. He said the analysis under Section 34 for the actions of a police officer often overlaps with the analysis of the same actions under Section 25. He called this incident “where the subject officers were not only acting in furtherance of their duties, but also acting in self-defence and defence of their fellow officers.” Since the suspect presented a serious risk to the officers that day, they were entitled to respond as they did. The defence available to them under Section 34 of the Criminal Code would likely apply. The suspect and two witnesses said one of the officers kicked him in the head once he was taken out of the stolen vehicle. To justify this move, two of the officers said he was resisting. Block found there was no evidence to justify this was a justifiable use of force. He said the head is a vulnerable area, and kicks to it are seldom justifiable. There is no evidence about which of the officers kicked him in the head. Without such evidence, there are not reasonable grounds to believe any officer committed an offence in relation to the kick. Block concluded by saying the suspect “was clearly endangering the lives of the subject officers.” “When they responded with their firearms, it was justified,” he said. “The defences available to the subject officers under sections 25 and 34 of the Criminal Code apply, and there are therefore no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.”This ordeal comes after an EPS officer was told on September 1 a man with a firearm was outside a house close to 116 Ave. and 123 St. READ MORE: ASIRT investigating Edmonton police officer-involved shooting, man died on sceneThe officer went to the back of that house and found a man with a firearm. He had to discharge his firearm during a confrontation.An attempt to save the man's life happened at the scene. However, he died from his injuries.
