ASIRT report released on incident which left Const. Dan Woodall dead

On June 8, 2015, pursuant to section 46.1 of the Police Act, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of Norman Walter Raddatz following an incident involving the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) and the attempted execution of an arrest warrant that resulted in the death of one officer, Const. Daniel Woodall, and the serious injury of another officer.

When a person dies in the custody of police, ASIRT might be directed to investigate whether police conduct caused or contributed to the death of a person, and if so, whether the police conduct was lawful. In cases such as this, when police have surrounded a residence with the intent to apprehend someone inside, that is considered an “in custody” event as the subject is contained and his or her movements are controlled such that he or she is not free to exit the residence and leave the area. That was the situation on June 8, 2015 with Norman Raddatz.

At the time of this incident, Raddatz was 42 years old, divorced and living alone in his house in the west end of Edmonton. He had no criminal record but for a single conviction in 1991 for an impaired driving-related offence. He had continuing disputes with bylaw enforcement regarding the parking of a recreational vehicle and the maintenance of his property, and had six convictions for bylaw offences in the preceding three months.

In April 2015, EPS received a complaint from an Edmonton man that Raddatz had been posting anti-Semitic comments and hate-filled messages online. The complainant and Raddatz had been friends but the relationship deteriorated in 2012 after Raddatz found out that the complainant was Jewish and also as a result of a dispute over money. The complainant feared for his safety, particularly if Raddatz had been drinking.

In addition to the online activity in relation to the complainant, Raddatz also frequently conveyed anti-banking institution and anti-bylaw enforcement/government messages.

After an investigation, police felt there was sufficient evidence to charge Raddatz with criminal harassment in relation to the continued online messaging. An outstanding warrant for a bylaw offence was also located. On June 8, 2015, EPS officers went to Raddatz’s home to place him under arrest.

They arrived on scene and knocked on the door of the home. Raddatz came to the front door but refused to open it to speak with police. EPS members identified themselves as police officers and advised Raddatz that they were there for a serious matter and would like to speak with him. They advised him that they needed to speak with him, that he was going to be placed under arrest for criminal harassment but that they were going to release him on a document called a Promise to Appear, meaning that it was not their intention to hold him in custody. Raddatz refused to open the door, prompting officers to tell Raddatz that they would get a warrant to enter and arrest him, if necessary. Raddatz responded, ”Go get a warrant, I’m not opening the door.” At the time, Raddatz appeared sober and calm — albeit uncooperative.

Although it took a little over one hour, the involved officers ultimately obtained the necessary warrant to enter the home to make the arrest.

During the time that the warrant was being obtained, Raddatz was speaking with the officers and observed through windows to be walking throughout the residence. His behaviour didn’t raise any concerns at the time and Raddatz didn’t make any threatening comments that suggested he would become violent. Raddatz told officers to leave his property until they had a warrant.

Once officers obtained the warrant, they went to a window and showed Raddatz the actual document, in the hope that he would surrender without the necessity of a forcible entry into the home. There was a conversation about the warrant as Raddatz could not see where it referred to criminal harassment and the document was explained to him. Raddatz chose not to open the door and/or surrender, even after being advised that police would forcibly enter the home if he did not comply. He replied with an expletive, “This is _____,” and walked away, out of view, immediately before the officers proceeded to attempt entry.

Four officers were standing at the front door when they tried entering the home using a battering ram. The door was struck three times and almost contemporaneous with the third strike, Raddatz fired shots through the front door, striking two of the four officers. Both officers were wearing their police-issued body armour. One officer sustained a single gunshot wound to the lower torso while the second officer, Const. Dan Woodall, sustained fatal injuries as a result of multiple gunshot wounds. Raddatz continued to fire at officers positioned outside the residence for an extended period of time. Many of those shots penetrated nearby vehicles and residences.

Not a single shot was fired by any member of the Edmonton Police Service. This was confirmed by all the evidence, including that of civilian witnesses in the area. At no time did any of the officers have a safe opportunity to do so, as they never actually saw Raddatz again after their conversation with him through the window.

During the ensuing standoff, Raddatz continued to fire shots from his residence. After some time, smoke was seen coming from inside the home. It became apparent that a fire had started within the home. Officers had no way of knowing where Raddatz was within the home, making it impossible to ensure safe entry to secure him without unreasonable risk to the lives and safety of others. Officers and firefighters were left with the only option to wait. Given Raddatz’s continuing unrestrained, uncontrolled and unpredictable shooting from inside the home, it was not possible for firefighters to even approach to try to control or put out the fire without placing themselves at imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm.

In these circumstances, the fire ultimately consumed the entire home without police and first responders having any idea of Raddatz’s location, or what had taken place inside the residence.The residence was safely entered the next day by Edmonton Fire personnel, police and ASIRT investigators who were on scene.

Once entry was made, evidence of a homemade bomb was located in what was believed to have been a front closet. The remains of a dog were found in the kitchen area. The dog had been shot. Raddatz’s remains were recovered in an area of the house that was believed to have been a bedroom. Parts of multiple firearms that survived the fire were located within the residence, including one found in close proximity to where the remains were located.

An autopsy conducted by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner determined that Raddatz died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head. Additionally, the autopsy found no soot in his airway, which would suggest that he died prior to fire overtaking the area he was in and, as such, the fire played no role in his death.

Examining the conduct of the involved police officers, it is beyond question that all the officers were lawfully placed and engaged in the lawful execution of their duties. Having obtained the warrant, they had the lawful authority to enter the home and arrest Raddatz. Nothing they did in their attempt to do so exceeded their lawful authority or was unreasonable. There is no evidence or even reasonable suspicion to believe that the officers did anything wrong that day that caused or contributed to the death of Raddatz.

Words will never fully express the magnitude of the tragedy on this day and the countless lives that were impacted and changed. ASIRT extends its condolences to the Raddatz family, as Norman Raddatz’s actions were his own, not those of his family members, who were among those left devastated by his actions.

Our sincere condolences are also extended to the family of Const. Daniel Woodall in their senseless and unimaginable loss of a husband, father and son. They have shown considerable grace and strength throughout this time. Our hearts go out to all the involved officers that day and their families during this unspeakably horrific event and its aftermath, the Edmonton Police Service as a whole, and to the Alberta policing community. This case is a stark reminder of the potential risks law enforcement face everyday as they work to keep our communities safe.

Up Next

Attend Lacombe County’s ‘Cannabis in Your Community’ public meetings

Don't Miss

UPDATE: Breton RCMP and RCMP Major Crimes Unit Investigating a Female’s Death

Lindsey Lubkey

Follow Author

Australia Has Lost a Cricket Legend – Shane Warne

Sports / 3 years ago

Pia Babnik excited to defend individual title in Jeddah finale of Aramco Team Series

Sports / 3 years ago

The 2022 Olympics Are Over – Here’s What You Need to Know

Business

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Published on November 21, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Tegan Hill

Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.

In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.

This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.

However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.

Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.

Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.

Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.

Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.

Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.

Authors:

Alex Whalen and Tegan Hill

National

Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election

Published on November 12, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Pushing back the date would preserve the pensions of some of the MPs who could be voted out of office in October 2025.

Aides to the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed that MPs from the Liberal and New Democratic Party (NDP) did indeed hold closed-door “briefings” to rewrite Canada’s elections laws so that they could push back the date of the next election.

The closed-door talks between the NDP and Liberals confirmed the aides included a revision that would guarantee some of its 28 MPs, including three of Trudeau’s cabinet members, would get a pension.

Allen Sutherland, who serves as the assistant cabinet secretary, testified before the House of Commons affairs committee that the changes to the Elections Act were discussed in the meetings.

“We attended a meeting where the substance of that proposal was discussed,” he said, adding that his “understanding is the briefing was primarily oral.”

According to Sutherland, as reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, it was only NDP and Liberal MPs who attended the secret meetings regarding changes to Canada’s Elections Act via Bill C-65, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act before the bill was introduced in March.

As reported by LifeSiteNews before, the Liberals were hoping to delay the 2025 federal election by a few days in what many see as a stunt to secure pensions for MPs who are projected to lose their seats. Approximately 80 MPs would qualify for pensions should they sit as MPs until at least October 27, 2025, which is the newly proposed election date. The election date is currently set for October 20, 2025.

Sutherland noted when asked by Conservative MP Luc Berthold that he recalled little from the meetings, but he did confirm he attended “two meetings of that kind.”

“Didn’t you find it unusual that a discussion about amending the Elections Act included only two political parties and excluded the others?” Berthold asked.

Sutherland responded, “It’s important to understand what my role was in those meetings which was simply to provide background information.”

“My role was to provide information,” replied Sutherland, who added he could not provide the exact dates of the meetings.

MPs must serve at least six years to qualify for a pension that pays $77,900 a year. Should an election be called today, many MPs would fall short of reaching the six years, hence Bill C-65 was introduced by the Liberals and NDP.

The Liberals have claimed that pushing back the next election date is not over pensions but due to “trying to observe religious holidays,” as noted by Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen.

“Conservatives voted against this bill,” Berthold said, as they are “confident of winning re-election. We don’t need this change.”

Trudeau’s popularity is at a all-time low, but he has refused to step down as PM, call an early election, or even step aside as Liberal Party leader.

As for the amendments to elections laws, they come after months of polling in favour of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre.

A recent poll found that 70 percent of Canadians believe the country is “broken” as Trudeau focuses on less critical issues. Similarly, in January, most Canadians reported that they are worse off financially since Trudeau took office.

Additionally, a January poll showed that 46 percent of Canadians expressed a desire for the federal election to take place sooner rather than the latest mandated date in the fall of 2025.