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

Alberta RCMP hero borrows boat, rescues 10 on Ghost Lake

Don't Miss

Hall of Fame Nomination deadline moved up to September 30th

Lindsey Lubkey

Follow Author

More Important Now Than Ever: Remembrance and a few thoughts on this World Suicide Prevention Day

Arts / 6 years ago

Enjoy wine and support local art at ‘Art! Live at the Hive!’

Entertainment / 6 years ago

An amazing lineup of headliners awaits at this year’s CFR Cabaret!

International

Zelensky, not Trump, instigated Oval office clash

Published on March 4, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Miranda Devine pushes back against claims that 47th President Donald Trump “ambushed” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during their Oval Office meeting, arguing that it was Zelensky who provoked the confrontation. Devine contends that Trump was “cordial” and intent on brokering peace, while Zelensky entered the meeting “in bad faith,” contradicting and interrupting the president before ultimately derailing the negotiations.

Key Details:

Devine asserts that Zelensky was “negative from the start,” contradicting Trump within minutes and repeatedly interrupting him in an “insolent” manner.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Zelensky should have voiced concerns privately at a scheduled lunch instead of creating a public spectacle.
Trump’s detractors, according to Devine, are using this incident to fuel yet another “Russia hoax” in their ongoing attempts to discredit him.

Diving Deeper:

Miranda Devine, in her latest op-ed for the New York Post, refutes the mainstream media’s portrayal of 47th President Donald Trump’s recent Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as an “ambush.” Instead, she argues, it was Zelensky who instigated the confrontation by entering the meeting with “negative body language” and a “hostile attitude.”

“Trump could not have been more cordial,” Devine writes, emphasizing that Trump had successfully navigated complex negotiations to bring both Russia and Ukraine to a moment where peace seemed possible. But Zelensky, she asserts, was determined to sabotage that effort.

From the outset, Zelensky took a defiant tone, directly contradicting Trump’s assertion that Europe had provided far less financial support to Ukraine than the U.S. “President Trump said that they made less support, but they are our friends,” Zelensky interjected, attempting to downplay Trump’s concerns. When Trump reiterated his position, Zelensky repeatedly interrupted with “No, no, no.” Despite Trump’s attempt to keep the exchange lighthearted, the tension in the room was palpable.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent later weighed in on the debacle, telling Fox News that “if Zelensky wanted to contradict Trump, the proper venue for that would have been 15 minutes later [at a private lunch].” Instead, Zelensky chose to grandstand before the press, leading to what Devine describes as the complete “blowing up” of the peace talks.

At the end of the meeting, Zelensky’s smirk and thumbs-up to someone off-camera left little doubt in Devine’s mind that he had orchestrated the confrontation deliberately. His ambassador, she noted, appeared distraught, watching the spectacle unfold “with her head in her hands.”

Devine sees a broader political game at play. She argues that the media and Trump’s political enemies have seized upon this incident to spin yet another “Russia hoax,” akin to the discredited Steele dossier, the first Trump impeachment over a call with Zelensky, and the “Laptop from Hell” censorship saga. “They could not tolerate that Trump… would be successful in ending the war,” Devine writes, suggesting that warmongers on both sides of the aisle needed this peace effort to fail.

Trump, for his part, did not let the moment pass without drawing a direct line to the Biden family’s corruption in Ukraine. He referenced Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop, telling Zelensky: “It came out of Hunter Biden‘s bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden’s bedroom. It was disgusting. And then they said… the ‘laptop from hell’ was made by Russia. The 51 agents. The whole thing was a scam.”

Despite his provocations, Zelensky was met with Trump’s signature diplomatic coolness. When Zelensky dismissed the minerals deal, a key component of Trump’s proposed peace framework, Trump did not lash out. Even when Zelensky warned that “your American soldiers will fight” if Ukraine failed, a “severe provocation” as Devine puts it, Trump remained composed.

Only after an extended barrage of Zelensky’s interruptions and dismissive tone did Vice President JD Vance finally respond, stressing that “the path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.” That set Zelensky off, leading Trump to finally push back. “We’re trying to solve a problem,” he told the Ukrainian leader. “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel, because you’re in no position to dictate that.”

Now, with the negotiations shattered, the fate of Ukraine rests in Europe’s hands at an upcoming summit. “Ukraine can’t survive without America,” Devine warns, and Zelensky may soon realize that the stunt he pulled in the Oval Office cost him far more than he anticipated.

You can watch all 46 minutes of the February 28 meeting between Trump, Vance and Zelensky here.

Daily Caller

All Epstein Files Are In, Attorney General Reveals What Will Go Public Starting Thursday

Published on March 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hailey Gomez

If something’s redacted, you will know the line, and you will know why it’s redacted, the victim’s name, identifying information of a victim.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday evening on Fox News that the thousands of withheld files on deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein are now in the hands of the FBI, adding certain redactions will be made, with an explanation provided for each one.

The Department of Justice released the first phase of “The Epstein Files” — an over 100-page document — on Thursday, but it failed to contain a majority of new information, sparking controversy online. On “Hannity,” Fox’s Sean Hannity addressed the controversy, asking Bondi for her response. She said she had been informed fewer than 24 hours before the release that “there were way more documents that they were supposed to turn over.”

“You’re looking at these documents going, ‘These aren’t all the Epstein files.’ There were flight logs, there were names, victims’ names, and we’re going, ‘Where’s the rest of the stuff?’ That’s what the FBI had turned over to us,” Bondi said. “So a source said, ‘Whoa, all this evidence is sitting in the Southern District of New York.’ So based on that, I gave them the deadline, Friday at 8, a truckload of evidence arrived.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“It’s now in the possession of the FBI. Kash is going to get me, and himself really, a detailed report as to why all these documents and evidence had been withheld,” Bondi added. “We’re going to go through it, go through it as fast as we can, but go through it very cautiously to protect all the victims of Epstein, because there are a lot of victims.”

Before the release of “Phase One,” Bondi told Fox News last Wednesday that the DOJ would be releasing “some” of the files by Thursday, hoping the public would see “a lot of flight logs, a lot of names, a lot of information.” However, the DOJ and Trump administration faced pushback online after conservative influencers obtained a binder labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1.” Some of those influencers were seen smiling and holding it up outside the West Wing.

WATCH:

Hannity pressed Bondi about additional potential redactions in the files.

“National security, some grand jury information, which is always going to be confidential, but we’ll see. Let’s look through them as fast as we can. Get it out to the American people, because the American people have a right to know,” Bondi said. “Not only on that, but on Kennedy, on Martin Luther King, on all of these cases that the Biden administration has just sat on for all these years.”

“It’s really — it’s not sad. It’s infuriating that these people thought that they could sit on this information, but they can’t,” Bondi said. “And when we redact things, Sean, what we’re going to do is not just pull pages out like they used to do. If something’s redacted, you will know the line, and you will know why it’s redacted, the victim’s name, identifying information of a victim.”

Epstein was arrested and charged in 2019 with sex trafficking, only later to be found dead in his New York Metropolitan Correctional Center cell a month after his arrest. Since his death, Republicans, including Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, have called for the full, unredacted records of Epstein to be released to the public, which includes his infamous flight log.

After the release of phase one, Bondi requested that the FBI deliver the remaining documents to the DOJ by Friday at 8 a.m., tasking newly confirmed FBI Director Kash Patel with investigating “why the request for all documents was not followed.”

“We believe in transparency, and America has the right to know. The Biden administration sat on these documents. No one did anything with them. Why were they sitting in the Southern District of New York? I want a full report on that,” Bondi said.

“Sadly, these people don’t believe in transparency, but I think more, unfortunately, I think a lot of them don’t believe in honesty,” Bondi added. “It’s a new day. It’s a new administration, and everything’s going to come out to the public. The public has a right to know. Americans have a right to know.”