The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) has concluded that an officer’s use of force in a February 10, 2022, incident in downtown Ponoka was justified. The incident involved a man carrying a paintball gun resembling a real handgun who was shot by a responding officer after reportedly pointing the replica weapon at him.At 9:35 a.m. a 911 caller reported a man, referred to as the Affected Person (AP), walking through Ponoka’s downtown area with what appeared to be a handgun. Surveillance footage showed the AP heading toward the Provincial Building, where he was seen carrying an object in his right hand and shouting outside the locked doors of the courthouse.Witnesses reported that the AP pointed the object toward officers who responded shortly after. The Subject Officer (SO) arrived with a carbine rifle, followed by a second officer, Witness Officer 1 (WO1). Witnesses nearby said they heard the SO give multiple commands to drop the weapon before firing on the AP, who then fell to the ground. Emergency responders arrived and transported the AP to a hospital, where he was treated for non-fatal injuries. A paintball gun resembling a handgun and a knife were later found at the scene.In his statement to ASIRT, the SO described the item in the AP’s hand as appearing to be a handgun equipped with a suppressor, leading him to believe that the AP posed an imminent threat. The SO reported issuing verbal commands, but when the AP reportedly aimed the paintball gun in his direction, he fired several times, fearing for his own life."The AP said that, on that day, he had smoked methamphetamine approximately two hours before going for a walk. He was carrying a paintball gun, which he felt was his right. He thought it was obvious that it was not a real gun," reads the ASIRT report."The AP did not think the officers should have shot him because they should have realized that the paintball gun was not a real gun."Under Section 25 of Canada’s Criminal Code, officers may use force if it is necessary for the self-preservation of the officer or others. In ASIRT’s analysis, the officer's belief that he was facing a life-threatening situation was deemed reasonable, as the paintball gun resembled a firearm and had been reported as such by witnesses.ASIRT’s investigation determined that the SO’s actions were lawful under both Section 25 and Section 34 of the Criminal Code, as he acted in self-defense and used force in a manner deemed necessary and reasonable given the threat.
