Connect with us

Alberta

ASIRT releases findings on shooting death of armed murder suspect

Published

8 minute read

From Alberta Serious Incident Response Team: RCMP acted reasonably in shooting fatality during arrest

On Jan. 7, 2017, ASIRT was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of a 27-year-old man during an attempted arrest by the RCMP that same day. 

During a planned entry into a Stoney Nakoda First Nation residence to locate the man and two others suspected of involvement in a recent homicide, a confrontation occurred that resulted in the man being shot by an RCMP Emergency Response Team (ERT) officer.

ASIRT interviewed police and civilian witnesses, including the individuals present in the home that day and the involved officers. As well, the crime scene was examined, and photographs, radio communications and all available video were seized. ASIRT’s investigation is complete.

Having reviewed the investigation, executive director Susan Hughson, QC, concluded there were no reasonable grounds, nor reasonable suspicion, to believe a police officer committed a criminal offence.

On Jan. 7, 2017, RCMP executed several arrest warrants at residences on the Stoney Nakoda First Nation in search of three men, wanted for a murder that had occurred six days earlier. At the time, RCMP had information that the 27-year-old man had also been in possession of a firearm, which violated a court-ordered prohibition in effect until 2025. As such, the execution of the warrants was deemed to be high risk.

At approximately 4 p.m., ERT simultaneously sent teams to execute the warrants at two neighbouring homes, one being the home of the family of the 27-year-old man and his brother, also wanted in relation to the same homicide. The father of the men met the officers at the doorway to the residence. Officers located the brother inside on the first floor and arrested him without incident. As the officers proceeded further into the home, several other people were located and contained on the main level while others emerged from the basement. When asked whether anyone was still in the basement, the officers were told no.

A number of officers went down to clear the basement, announcing that they were police and that they had a warrant. As they moved along an interior wall towards a doorway in the basement, a man, later confirmed to have been the 27-year-old man, yelled at the officers to get out and leave him alone. A single shot was then fired from the opposite side of the wall, penetrating through drywall and narrowly missing the officers. The officers called out “shots fired”, returned to the main floor and, after throwing a tear gas canister into the basement, evacuated the residence.

At this point, officers were aware that they were dealing with an armed man and took up positions to contain the residence after everyone had been moved to safety. At this point, the RCMP would have had the benefit of time and resources.

One officer went towards the treeline on the west side of the residence to establish a rear sniper point. He positioned himself behind an old washing machine approximately 12 metres away from the house. While doing so, a gunshot was heard, believed to have come from the southwest corner of the basement near the basement window closest to the officer, and the officer reported hearing the sound of breaking glass.

Almost immediately, a woman climbed out of the window. As the officer yelled commands for her to walk towards him, the 27-year-old man emerged from the same basement window with a shotgun in his hands, carried at waist level and pointing in the direction of the officer and the young woman. The officer fired a single shot from his rifle, striking the 27-year-old man in the torso, causing him to collapse to the ground. Other ERT members moved in to secure the man and the shotgun, and to render emergency aid.

With the tear gas coming out of the basement window, RCMP moved the man and placed him on a jacket on the snow-covered ground to prevent hypothermia. The RCMP loaded the man into an RCMP vehicle and transported him to an ambulance waiting a short distance away, as the house and scene had not yet been cleared and confirmed safe by ERT officers. These officers re-entered the residence and found it empty.

The man was transported to a Calgary hospital where he was declared deceased. He sustained a single gunshot wound to the abdomen that injured internal organs and his spinal cord. More significantly, it cut through the main abdominal artery. This resulted in substantial hemorrhage and death. Toxicology was positive for methamphetamine.

The man’s gun, a 12-gauge tactical shotgun, was recovered loaded with three unfired shells. The pump action was in the forward firing position.

Section 25 of the Criminal Code states that a police officer is authorized to use as much force as is reasonably necessary in the execution of his or her duties. When necessary, an officer is entitled to resort to lethal force where there are, subjectively and objectively, grounds to believe that the person presents a risk of imminent bodily harm or death to the officer or another person. Lastly, an officer may use lethal force to prevent flight in limited circumstances.

The evidence is unequivocal that the 27-year-old man called out and fired upon the officers as they descended the stairs to clear the basement. The only other person in the basement was the unarmed woman who had exited the residence just ahead of the man. The woman confirmed that, although she did not see the events leading up to the officer-involved shooting, she immediately turned after the gunshot and saw officers approach the man and kick the shotgun away from the man as he laid on the ground.

Both objectively and subjectively, the man presented a risk of imminent grievous bodily harm or death to the officer, and potentially to the woman who would have been in the line of fire. The officer was lawfully placed and acting in the lawful execution of his duty. In the circumstances, the force used was both reasonable and authorized under the Criminal Code. There being no grounds to believe that an offence was committed by a police officer, no charges will be laid.

ASIRT’s mandate is to effectively, independently and objectively investigate incidents involving Alberta’s police that have resulted in serious injury or death to any person.

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Alberta

MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies

Published on

Alberta’s government is launching a public engagement to gather input about legislation and policies around assisted suicide, also referred to as medical assistance in dying (MAID).

Medical assistance in dying is a process that allows an eligible person to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. To be found eligible, a person must be suffering from a serious and permanent medical condition.

Alberta’s government is reviewing how MAID is regulated to ensure there is a consistent process as well as oversight that protects vulnerable Albertans, specifically those living with disabilities or suffering from mental health challenges. An online survey is now open for Albertans to share their views and experiences with MAID until Dec. 20.

“We recognize that medical assistance in dying is a very complex and often personal issue and is an important, sensitive and emotional matter for patients and their families. It is important to ensure this process has the necessary supports to protect the most vulnerable. I encourage Albertans who have experience with and opinions on MAID to take this survey.”

Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice and Attorney General

In addition to the online survey, Alberta’s government will also be engaging directly with academics, medical associations, public bodies, religious organizations, regulatory bodies, advocacy groups and others that have an interest in and/or working relationship to the MAID process, health care, disabilities and mental health care.

Feedback gathered through this process will help inform the Alberta government’s planning and policy decision making, including potential legislative changes regarding MAID in Alberta.

“Our government has been clear that we do not support the provision of medically assisted suicide for vulnerable Albertans facing mental illness as their primary purpose for seeking their own death. Instead, our goal is to build a continuum of care where vulnerable Albertans can live in long-term health and fulfilment. We look forward to the feedback of Albertans as we proceed with this important issue.”

Dan Williams, Minister of Mental Health and Addiction

“As MAID is a federally legislated and regulated program that touches the lives of many Albertans, our priority is to ensure we have robust safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals. Albertans’ insights will be essential in developing thoughtful policies on this complex issue.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Health

The federal Criminal Code sets out the MAID eligibility criteria, procedural safeguards and reporting obligations. The federal government has paused MAID eligibility for individuals with a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition until March 2027 to ensure the provincial health care systems have processes and supports in place. Alberta’s government does not support expanding MAID eligibility to include those facing depression or mental illness and continues to call on the federal government to end this policy altogether.

Related information

Continue Reading

Alberta

On gender, Alberta is following the science

Published on

Aristotle Foundation Home

 

 

By J. Edward Les, MD

 

Despite falling into disrepute in recent years, “follow the science” remains our best shot at getting at the truth of the physical sciences.

But science, if we are to place our trust in it, must be properly defined and understood; it is at its essence an ever-changing process, a relentless pursuit of truth that is never “settled,” and one that is unafraid to discard old hypotheses in the face of new evidence.

And it is in this light—in the unforgiving glare of honest science—that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives around gender policy are properly understood, notwithstanding the opprobrium they’ve attracted from critics.

Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, proposes to prohibit the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria to youth aged 15 and under. It would allow minors aged 16 and 17 to begin puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes only with parental, physician, and psychologist approval. The bill also prohibits health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.

Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to enshrine parents’ rights to be notified if their kids change their names/pronouns at school, and it gives parents the right to “opt in” to what sort of gender and sex education their kids are exposed to in school.

And Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, is designed to protect females in sports by ensuring that women and girls can compete in biological female-only divisions, while supporting the formation of co-ed opportunities to support transgender athletes.

Each of these initiatives is entirely reasonable, given what we know of the science underpinning “gender care,” and of the undeniable advantages that a male physique confers upon biological males competing in sports.

The notion that the trifecta of puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and revisionist surgery is a pathway to good health was a hypothesis initially devised by Dutch researchers, who were looking to ease the discomfort of transgender adults struggling with incongruence between their physical appearance and their gender identities. As a hypothesis, it was perhaps reasonable.

But as the UK’s Cass Review exposed in withering detail last spring, its premises were wholly unsupported by evidence, and its implementation has caused grievous harm for youth. As Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, one of the architects of that country’s gender program, put it last year, “Gender affirming care is dangerous. I know, because I helped pioneer it.”

It’s no accident, then, that numerous European jurisdictions have pulled back from the “gender affirming care” pathway for youth, such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

It makes perfect sense that Canadians should be cautious as well, and that parents should be apprised if their children are being exposed to these theories at school and informed if their kids are caught up in their premises.

Yet the Canadian medical establishment has remained curiously intransigent on this issue, continuing to insist that the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model is rooted in evidence.

Premier Smith was asked by a reporter last month whether decisions on these matters aren’t best left to discussions between doctors and their patients; to which she replied:

“I would say doctors aren’t always right.”

Which is rather an understatement, as anyone familiar with the opioid drug crisis can attest, or as anyone acquainted with the darker corners of medical history knows: the frontal lobotomy saga, the thalidomide catastrophe, and the “recovered memories of sexual abuse” scandal are just a few examples of where doctors didn’t “get it right.”

As physicians, we advocate strongly for self-regulation and for the principle that medical decisions are private matters between physicians and patients. But self-regulation isn’t infallible, and when it fails it can be very much in the interests of the public—and especially of patients—for others to intervene, whether they be journalists, lawyers, or political leaders.

The trans discussion shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although it certainly has become one in Canada. It’s worth noting that Britain’s freshly elected Labour Party chose to carry on with the cautious approach adopted by the preceding administration in light of the Cass Review.

Premier Smith’s new polices are eminently sensible and in line with the stance taken by our European colleagues. None of her initiatives are “anti-trans.” Instead, they are pro-child, pro-women, and pro-athlete, and it’s difficult to see how anyone can quibble with that.

Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, is a pediatrician in Calgary, senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

Continue Reading

Trending

X