The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) has concluded its inquiry into a July 25 2019, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer-involved shooting near Rocky Mountain House, clearing the Mountie of any wrongdoing.The chain of events unfolded at approximately 6:08 p.m. when the Rocky Mountain House RCMP received a distress call from the Affect Person (AP) himself, alleging an assault on his wife and expressing intentions to harm her upon his return to her residence. The AP later admitted to ASIRT investigators he was attempting to provoke a response from the police with the aim of inducing "suicide by cop" and approached the officer in "a mean way."The designated Subject Officer (SO) responded, locating the AP on Hwy. 11A. The ASIRT investigation revealed that, upon stopping, the AP approached the officer with his hands in his jacket pockets.Verbal exchanges took place and the situation escalated rapidly when the AP removed his right hand from his pocket, holding an object and advancing towards the officer.In a span of approximately 10 seconds, the SO discharged his firearm four times, hitting the AP twice. Post-incident evidence included two pairs of glasses near the front of the police vehicle and four shell casings near the rear.Interviews with the AP, conducted on July 26 and July 31 2019, revealed his explicit intent to provoke a lethal response from the police, confessing to a desire for "suicide by cop." The AP presented wounds consistent with gunshot entry and exit points, emphasizing that he did not wish to implicate the SO in any wrongdoing.In contrast, the SO, exercising his right to remain silent, provided a written statement through counsel on January 20 2020. According to the SO, he perceived a threat when the AP, within close proximity, produced an object he believed to be a knife. Fearing for his safety, the SO discharged his weapon in response.Legal analysis, specifically under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, permits officers to use force necessary for the execution of their duties. In this case, the ASIRT investigation concluded the force employed by the SO was proportionate, necessary and reasonable given the perceived threat.The AP's deliberate actions, including mimicking a weapon with eyeglasses and advancing aggressively, contributed to the SO's reasonable belief that his life was in imminent danger. The ASIRT investigation found no reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offense occurred, and the defense provided to the SO under s. 25 of the Criminal Code applies.
The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) has concluded its inquiry into a July 25 2019, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer-involved shooting near Rocky Mountain House, clearing the Mountie of any wrongdoing.The chain of events unfolded at approximately 6:08 p.m. when the Rocky Mountain House RCMP received a distress call from the Affect Person (AP) himself, alleging an assault on his wife and expressing intentions to harm her upon his return to her residence. The AP later admitted to ASIRT investigators he was attempting to provoke a response from the police with the aim of inducing "suicide by cop" and approached the officer in "a mean way."The designated Subject Officer (SO) responded, locating the AP on Hwy. 11A. The ASIRT investigation revealed that, upon stopping, the AP approached the officer with his hands in his jacket pockets.Verbal exchanges took place and the situation escalated rapidly when the AP removed his right hand from his pocket, holding an object and advancing towards the officer.In a span of approximately 10 seconds, the SO discharged his firearm four times, hitting the AP twice. Post-incident evidence included two pairs of glasses near the front of the police vehicle and four shell casings near the rear.Interviews with the AP, conducted on July 26 and July 31 2019, revealed his explicit intent to provoke a lethal response from the police, confessing to a desire for "suicide by cop." The AP presented wounds consistent with gunshot entry and exit points, emphasizing that he did not wish to implicate the SO in any wrongdoing.In contrast, the SO, exercising his right to remain silent, provided a written statement through counsel on January 20 2020. According to the SO, he perceived a threat when the AP, within close proximity, produced an object he believed to be a knife. Fearing for his safety, the SO discharged his weapon in response.Legal analysis, specifically under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, permits officers to use force necessary for the execution of their duties. In this case, the ASIRT investigation concluded the force employed by the SO was proportionate, necessary and reasonable given the perceived threat.The AP's deliberate actions, including mimicking a weapon with eyeglasses and advancing aggressively, contributed to the SO's reasonable belief that his life was in imminent danger. The ASIRT investigation found no reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offense occurred, and the defense provided to the SO under s. 25 of the Criminal Code applies.
