A Edmonton Police Service officer who shot and killed an unarmed suspect while investigating a weapons complaint broke the law when the opened fire, says ASIRTBut after reviewing the case, the Crown prosecutor's office declined to lay charges.The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team issued a 10,000-word release Wednesday outlining their investigation into the June 5, 2021 deadly interaction.On that date, about 11 p.m. EPS received a 911 call from a resident near 134 Ave.and 107 St. who reported a suspicious person in the neighbourhood, holding some sort of weapon, like a knife or a screwdriver. Two police officers wearing uniforms, but in an unmarked vehicle, responded to the call and came across the man they believed was the suspect.The ASIRT reported noted the man because agitated and attempted to pull something out of his pocket. It was then Const. Alex Doduk opened fire with six rounds being fired. Four of the bullets hit 33-year-old Steven Nguyen and he died at the scene.The item he was reaching for turned out to be a cellphone."A police officer’s use of force is not to be assessed on a standard of perfection nor using the benefit of hindsight. With the benefit of hindsight, time for detached reflection and knowledge of the ultimate outcome, it is easy to speculate about how things could have been done differently," read the ASIRT report."That is not the standard, however, against which an officer’s conduct is measured. The question is, applying principles of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness, whether the force used falls into a range of possible reasonable responses."ASIRT said the police officer (SO) subjectively believed that it was reasonable to shoot the man."Objectively this belief is lacking. (the police officer’s) version of events is problematic for a variety of reasons," said ASIRT.ASIRT’s investigation noted that after the shooting SO walked back to the scene to take a photo of a cell phone that had been possessed by dead man. This was the item he felt was a firearm. AP’s description of what he felt was the firearm may be purposely tailored to fit the description of his photo of the phone. While the SO said he did not use a flashlight during the encounter, the police helicopter captured footage of one on the ground near the shooting."There were therefore reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed by the SO and, as required by the Police Act, this matter was referred to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service (ACPS) for an opinion on whether a culpable homicide charge should be considered," read the ASIRT report.ACPS recommended no charges be laid against SO."It is important to note that ASIRT and ACPS are bound by different standards when assessing the viability of charges arising out of an investigation, read the report.ASIRT, as the investigative body, applies a Criminal Code standard that determines whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that an offence has been committed. ACPS, based on its internal policy regarding criminal prosecutions applies a standard which examines whether there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction arising out of the evidence, and whether it is in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. "As is evident in this case, the application of these two different standards to the same investigation will, in some cases, result in different conclusions regarding the same file," said the report.In this case, while ASIRT found reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed, for the reasons provided in their opinion, the ACPS did not recommend that charges be laid. A fatality inquiry is likely to be held into the incident.
A Edmonton Police Service officer who shot and killed an unarmed suspect while investigating a weapons complaint broke the law when the opened fire, says ASIRTBut after reviewing the case, the Crown prosecutor's office declined to lay charges.The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team issued a 10,000-word release Wednesday outlining their investigation into the June 5, 2021 deadly interaction.On that date, about 11 p.m. EPS received a 911 call from a resident near 134 Ave.and 107 St. who reported a suspicious person in the neighbourhood, holding some sort of weapon, like a knife or a screwdriver. Two police officers wearing uniforms, but in an unmarked vehicle, responded to the call and came across the man they believed was the suspect.The ASIRT reported noted the man because agitated and attempted to pull something out of his pocket. It was then Const. Alex Doduk opened fire with six rounds being fired. Four of the bullets hit 33-year-old Steven Nguyen and he died at the scene.The item he was reaching for turned out to be a cellphone."A police officer’s use of force is not to be assessed on a standard of perfection nor using the benefit of hindsight. With the benefit of hindsight, time for detached reflection and knowledge of the ultimate outcome, it is easy to speculate about how things could have been done differently," read the ASIRT report."That is not the standard, however, against which an officer’s conduct is measured. The question is, applying principles of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness, whether the force used falls into a range of possible reasonable responses."ASIRT said the police officer (SO) subjectively believed that it was reasonable to shoot the man."Objectively this belief is lacking. (the police officer’s) version of events is problematic for a variety of reasons," said ASIRT.ASIRT’s investigation noted that after the shooting SO walked back to the scene to take a photo of a cell phone that had been possessed by dead man. This was the item he felt was a firearm. AP’s description of what he felt was the firearm may be purposely tailored to fit the description of his photo of the phone. While the SO said he did not use a flashlight during the encounter, the police helicopter captured footage of one on the ground near the shooting."There were therefore reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed by the SO and, as required by the Police Act, this matter was referred to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service (ACPS) for an opinion on whether a culpable homicide charge should be considered," read the ASIRT report.ACPS recommended no charges be laid against SO."It is important to note that ASIRT and ACPS are bound by different standards when assessing the viability of charges arising out of an investigation, read the report.ASIRT, as the investigative body, applies a Criminal Code standard that determines whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that an offence has been committed. ACPS, based on its internal policy regarding criminal prosecutions applies a standard which examines whether there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction arising out of the evidence, and whether it is in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. "As is evident in this case, the application of these two different standards to the same investigation will, in some cases, result in different conclusions regarding the same file," said the report.In this case, while ASIRT found reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed, for the reasons provided in their opinion, the ACPS did not recommend that charges be laid. A fatality inquiry is likely to be held into the incident.
