An RCMP officer who shot a man who was ramming his police truck has been cleared by the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT).In the early hours of January 11 2020, the Cold Lake RCMP received a report of a break and enter in progress at a commercial lot in the city. The designated (Subject Officer) SO arrived at the scene around 2:32 a.m. A red car, illuminated with some of its lights on, was parked near the lot's entrance.The SO activated emergency lights and positioned his marked police truck strategically behind the red car. The situation escalated rapidly when the red car, reversing into the police vehicle, forced it backward. Subsequent actions by the SO included drawing his handgun, issuing commands to the occupants of the red car and requesting assistance over the police radio.Despite repeated commands and escalating threats, the driver of the red car continued to maneuver aggressively, prompting the SO to discharge his handgun four times within a span of two seconds. The entire sequence, from the initial stop to the fourth shot, transpired in approximately 24 seconds.The red car eventually came to a stop and the SO, with his handgun still drawn, maintained a defensive posture until other officers arrived. The occupants of the red car were then apprehended without further incident. Emergency medical services were called to attend to the injured individual, who was later released from the hospital after treatment for a gunshot wound to the left calf.Notably, a rifle was discovered in the back seat of the red car, emphasizing the heightened danger the officers faced.ASIRT investigators also reviewed pre-incident video footage from a nearby business, revealing activities of the Affected Person (AP) and an unidentified individual prior to the SO's arrival. The AP, suspected of being involved in the break and enter, was observed alongside another person engaging in suspicious behavior, including handling what appeared to be a firearm.Interviews with the AP revealed a different perspective, with the individual claiming he only realized the SO was present after the shots were fired and did not hear any commands until after the incident. The AP admitted to using methamphetamine earlier that evening.In contrast, the SO, exercising his right to silence, provided a statement on February 21 2020, emphasizing the imminent threat he perceived. The SO described a scenario where the AP, having rammed the police vehicle, posed a clear danger, prompting the use of lethal force.Legal analysis under Section 25 of the Criminal Code allows officers to use force necessary for the execution of their duties, with the ASIRT investigation concluding the SO's actions were proportionate, necessary and reasonable given the perceived threat to his safety.Similarly, Section 34 of the Criminal Code, providing defence for the use of force in self-defence, is likely to apply, considering the imminent danger faced by the SO.ASIRT's findings suggest no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, and the defence provided under the Criminal Code is likely to apply to the actions of the SO.
An RCMP officer who shot a man who was ramming his police truck has been cleared by the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT).In the early hours of January 11 2020, the Cold Lake RCMP received a report of a break and enter in progress at a commercial lot in the city. The designated (Subject Officer) SO arrived at the scene around 2:32 a.m. A red car, illuminated with some of its lights on, was parked near the lot's entrance.The SO activated emergency lights and positioned his marked police truck strategically behind the red car. The situation escalated rapidly when the red car, reversing into the police vehicle, forced it backward. Subsequent actions by the SO included drawing his handgun, issuing commands to the occupants of the red car and requesting assistance over the police radio.Despite repeated commands and escalating threats, the driver of the red car continued to maneuver aggressively, prompting the SO to discharge his handgun four times within a span of two seconds. The entire sequence, from the initial stop to the fourth shot, transpired in approximately 24 seconds.The red car eventually came to a stop and the SO, with his handgun still drawn, maintained a defensive posture until other officers arrived. The occupants of the red car were then apprehended without further incident. Emergency medical services were called to attend to the injured individual, who was later released from the hospital after treatment for a gunshot wound to the left calf.Notably, a rifle was discovered in the back seat of the red car, emphasizing the heightened danger the officers faced.ASIRT investigators also reviewed pre-incident video footage from a nearby business, revealing activities of the Affected Person (AP) and an unidentified individual prior to the SO's arrival. The AP, suspected of being involved in the break and enter, was observed alongside another person engaging in suspicious behavior, including handling what appeared to be a firearm.Interviews with the AP revealed a different perspective, with the individual claiming he only realized the SO was present after the shots were fired and did not hear any commands until after the incident. The AP admitted to using methamphetamine earlier that evening.In contrast, the SO, exercising his right to silence, provided a statement on February 21 2020, emphasizing the imminent threat he perceived. The SO described a scenario where the AP, having rammed the police vehicle, posed a clear danger, prompting the use of lethal force.Legal analysis under Section 25 of the Criminal Code allows officers to use force necessary for the execution of their duties, with the ASIRT investigation concluding the SO's actions were proportionate, necessary and reasonable given the perceived threat to his safety.Similarly, Section 34 of the Criminal Code, providing defence for the use of force in self-defence, is likely to apply, considering the imminent danger faced by the SO.ASIRT's findings suggest no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed, and the defence provided under the Criminal Code is likely to apply to the actions of the SO.
