Connect with us

Alberta

ASIRT rules police officer’s use of lethal force permissible in this case

Published

14 minute read

From the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT)

Edmonton officer acted reasonably in fatal shooting

On March 9, 2017, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding an Edmonton Police Service (EPS) officer-involved shooting that occurred the same day that resulted in the death of a 55-year-old man.

Shortly before 1:30 p.m., multiple 911 calls were made regarding a possible impaired motorist driving a minivan on 149 Street that had entered onto the Whitemud Freeway. The make, model, and vehicle’s licence plate number were provided to police. Two independent callers to police both described the driver, who was the lone occupant of the van, indicating that he looked “drunk.” Police were advised that the van had earlier hit a snowbank and a curb, was being driven in and out of lanes, “swerving all over the road,” including down the middle of two lanes and had nearly collided with a vehicle. The van was reportedly “all over the road” and at one point, went off the roadway. As the van approached the 119 Street exit, it almost collided with another vehicle, and both callers advised that other vehicles were “swerving” to avoid the van. One of the callers advised police that the van was driving at speeds between 30 and 120 km/h. The driver took the freeway exit ramp southbound on 119 Street, followed by one of the callers.

As the driver went south on 119 Street, swerving along the way, he turned right at 23 Avenue to proceed westbound, driving close to and over the curb, and nearly colliding with concrete blocks on a small bridge over a ravine. It was reported that the van looked like it was about to crash. After turning onto Hodgson Way, driving over the curb along the way, the driver turned into a cul-de-sac, stopped in the middle of the road, then returned to Hodgson Way at a higher speed. The driver then turned into Holland Landing, at which point a marked EPS vehicle pulled up, so the caller who was following the van went on his way, leaving the driver to the police. He did not observe any interaction between police and the driver of the vehicle.

The lone EPS officer, in full uniform, had arrived on scene in a marked police SUV. He observed the van, matching the earlier provided description, coming directly towards him, driven by a large man, also matching the description provided. The van stopped and the officer pulled the front end of the police SUV up to the front end of the van, slightly to the driver’s side to block the vehicle.

The officer exited his vehicle and approached the van. As he did so, the man exited the van against the officer’s commands to remain in the vehicle. The officer noted signs of the man’s impairment including the smell of liquor, glazed eyes, difficulty focusing, and swaying from side to side. When questioned, the man said he had not been drinking, but slurred his words. The officer told the man he was under arrest for impaired driving, and ordered him to turn around and place his hands behind his back. The man asked, “what do you want me to do?”, and the command was repeated. When the officer tried to take control of the man’s arm, the man went to reach for something at his waist. The officer instructed the man to keep his hands visible, and stepped back to call for assistance. This call took place approximately 50 seconds after the initial traffic stop.

The officer again instructed the man to show his hands. At this point, the man produced a hunting knife in his right hand. The man was described as raising the knife in front of his body and pointing it at the officer. The officer attempted to gain distance but the man followed the officer. The officer slipped on the roadway, covered in fresh snow, and fell to his back. As he tried to get up, the man fell on top of him, still holding the knife in his right hand. The officer yelled several commands for the man to “stop” and “get back”, and tried to push him away. The officer kicked the man away to gain space, and continued to shout commands to drop the weapon and “get back”. When the man again advanced, still holding the knife, the officer discharged four rounds from his service pistol from his position on the ground. He saw the man fall away to the left. The officer rose to his feet, and called in “shots fired” stating “he came at me with a knife”. This second call was approximately 20 seconds after the first call for assistance.

The situation between the officer and the man had deteriorated extremely quickly. The time between when the officer indicated that he was “off” with the subject, meaning he was going to go deal with him, and the time that he reported shots had been fired was one minute, 14 seconds.

The knife was still in the right hand of the man, who had fallen on the snow-covered roadway. The officer holstered his firearm, moved the knife away from the man and attempted CPR until other officers arrived on scene.

No civilian witnesses saw the actual shooting, but several were present and made observations immediately after the shots were fired. Upon hearing the shots, two witnesses exited their residence. One of these witnesses reported that just prior to hearing the shots fired, he heard yelling but could not hear what was being said. The officer was described as breathing heavily, had snow on his face and in his hair, and was described as looking like he had been in “a battle”. A photograph that was taken at the time by one of the witnesses showed snow on the back of the officer’s patrol jacket and pants. Another civilian witness reported he heard shots, looked out his front window and saw a man lying on the street and a uniformed police officer standing within a foot of the person. He advised investigators that he watched the police officer holster his sidearm, walk towards the man, remove a knife from the man’s hand to move it approximately three feet from the body towards the sidewalk.

The knife recovered from the scene matched the branded sheath found attached to the man’s belt.  A DNA profile from the handle of the knife matched the DNA profile of the man. The man was also known to carry a hunting knife. The man was 55 years of age at the time of his death. He held dual Russian and Canadian citizenship. He had been an Edmonton resident for years and operated his own business and worked as a sub-contractor. He was not working on March 9, 2017 because of inclement weather. He has no prior criminal record. By all accounts, the man’s conduct with the officer on March 9, 2017 was out of character.

Upon autopsy, the man’s blood alcohol level was determined to be at least three and a half times over the legal limit of 80 mg/%.

As established by the high blood alcohol results, the egregious driving pattern observed by civilians, the observations of the civilian witnesses and the officer as to the physical signs of impairment, the man was grossly intoxicated at the time of his death. This level of intoxication would not only have resulted in physical signs of impairment but would also have compromised thought processes, judgment, perception and a person’s intellectual and emotional functioning.

Under the Criminal Code, a police officer is authorized to use as much force as is reasonably necessary to perform his or her lawful duties. This can include force intended, or likely to cause, death or grievous bodily harm if the officer reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend themselves or someone under their protection from imminent death or grievous bodily harm. Further, any person, including a police officer, is entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence or in defence of another person. An assessment of the reasonableness of force will consider different factors, including the use (or threatened use) of a weapon, the imminence of the threat, other options available and the nature of the force (or threat of force) itself.

The officer had more than reasonable grounds to believe that the man was operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol. He was lawfully placed and acting in the lawful execution of his duty, and had both the grounds and the authority to place the man under arrest.

Based on the available evidence as a whole, it is very clear that the conduct of the man presented a very real risk of death to the officer. The situation escalated at the point when the man twisted away and produced the knife. In response to these actions, the officer attempted to reposition himself to reduce the threat, and had issued numerous commands to the man to stop and to drop the weapon.  The man was non-compliant with those commands, and initiated a physical confrontation with the officer, despite the officer’s attempts to create distance, and did so while armed with a knife. In the circumstances, the officer’s conduct was clearly objectively and subjectively reasonable and necessary. When assessing the danger posed to the officer by the man, and factors such as the presence of a weapon, the immediacy of the threat to the officer, and the lack of time, distance or the availability of other alternatives, it is evident that the action taken by the subject officer, while tragic, was reasonable in the circumstances. As such, the subject officer’s use of lethal force, having regard to the protections provided in the Criminal Code, was permissible and did not constitute a criminal offence.

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. This mandate includes incidents involving discharge of a firearm that would likely have resulted in serious injury or death had the person been struck.

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

Ford and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess

Published on

CAE Logo

 

By Dan McTeague

 

Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.

There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.

It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.

This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.

Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.

But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.

First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”

Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).

But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.

Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”

And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.

Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”

But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.

In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”

Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.

(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)

Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”

This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.

While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.

As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Your towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing

Published on

From the Alberta Motor Association

Know Before the Tow: Towing Rights in Alberta

Predatory towing is a growing concern in major cities across the province. The Alberta Motor
Association (AMA), in partnership with the Calgary Police Service and Calgary Fire Department,
wants to ensure Albertans are not only aware of this emerging issue but also know how to stop
it.

Today, AMA launches Know Before the Tow—a new, provincewide awareness campaign that
empowers Albertans with the knowledge needed to stay confident and in control when faced with
a tow scam. The campaign features a list of five key towing rights that every Alberta driver should
know:

1. You have the right to refuse unsolicited towing services.
2. You have the right to choose who tows your vehicle, and where, unless
otherwise directed by police.
3. You have the right to access your vehicle to retrieve personal items during a
storage facility’s business hours.
4. You have the right to ask if the towing company receives a kickback for taking
your vehicle to a particular storage facility or repair shop.
5. You have the right to a quote prior to service, and an itemized invoice prior to
making payment.

“Being in a collision or broken down at the roadside is stressful enough; the last thing any Albertan
needs is high pressure from an unscrupulous tower,” says Jeff Kasbrick, Vice-President,
Advocacy and Operations, AMA. “These towing rights are clear and remind every Albertan that
they’re in the driver’s seat when it comes to who they choose to tow their vehicle.”

Edmonton and Calgary in particular are seeing increasing reports of predatory towing. Unethical
operators will arrive at a collision or breakdown scene uninvited, create a false sense of urgency
to remove the vehicle, and ultimately leave drivers facing huge fees.

Starting today, Albertans can visit ama.ab.ca/KnowBeforeTheTow to download a digital copy of
their towing rights, helping them feel confident if faced with a tow scam. And soon, all AMA centres
will offer free print versions, which are small enough to tuck in a glovebox.

“Alberta’s towing industry is still highly reputable, with the vast majority of operators committed
to fair and professional service. In fact, AMA and our roadside assistance network is proud to
represent 80% of all private-passenger tows in the province, so our members can be confident
that we’ll always protect them—just as we have for nearly 100 years,” says Kasbrick.

“By knowing your rights and choosing trusted providers like AMA, you can avoid unnecessary
stress, costs, and uncertainty. Because the road to recovery after a collision shouldn’t have to
include fighting for your vehicle.”

Sergeant Brad Norman, Calgary Police Service Traffic Section, says law enforcement continues
to work diligently with first responders and community partners like AMA to put the brakes on
predatory towers, who “are showing up at collision sites and pressuring overwhelmed and
frightened victims into paying high towing rates.”

“Our priority is to ensure the safety of collision victims, the public, and first responders at
collision sites. Part of this effort is educating motorists about their rights so that they Know
Before the Tow that they can say no to unsolicited towing services and choose a reputable
tower of their choice instead,” says Norman. “No one deserves to be taken advantage of after
being involved in a collision.”

To learn more, and to view an expanded version of Alberta towing rights, visit
ama.ab.ca/KnowBeforeTheTow

Continue Reading

Trending

X