ASIRT says shooting of armed suspect reasonable use of force

From ASIRT (Alberta Serious Incident Response Team

On Sept. 27, 2017, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding the arrest of a 29-year-old man in Lloydminster that resulted in an officer-involved shooting.

During the arrest, the man was struck by a police vehicle and two RCMP officers discharged their service pistols, resulting in serious injury.

ASIRT interviewed police and civilian witnesses, including the 29-year-old man and both subject officers. Large portions of the events, including the uses of force were captured on audio and video recordings. 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 the involved officers committed any criminal offence.

On Sept. 27, 2017, Lloydminster RCMP officers attempted to stop a Dodge truck in relation to an outstanding investigation. The truck entered the drive-thru of a fast-food restaurant. An officer in a marked RCMP vehicle pulled behind the truck and activated its lights and siren. Other officers pulled in front of the truck. In response, the driver of the truck drove over the drive-thru curb and up an embankment to the roadway, speeding past two officers standing with their service pistols pointed at the truck. As the driver exited the parking lot, he headed northbound on 40 Avenue and engaged in a high-speed criminal flight from police.

As the truck approached 52 Street, it collided with a SUV driven by a 25-year-old woman, causing extensive damage to both vehicles and causing the woman’s vehicle to roll, landing on its roof. The woman did not sustain serious injury. The visible damage to her vehicle and the force of the collision would have easily left an observer with the belief that any occupant would have likely sustained serious injury or died. Data downloaded from the truck confirmed that immediately prior to the collision, it had been travelling at a speed of 144 km/h, and was moving at 124 km/h at the moment of collision.

The truck stopped on the side of the road. A passenger fled on foot from the truck to an adjacent field. The 29-year-old exited the truck holding a handgun, and immediately ran towards a man who stopped his truck to provide assistance.

An officer in pursuit pulled over his marked police vehicle and exited upon seeing the collision. He shouted verbal commands to drop the gun as the 29-year-old man ran towards the second truck. When the armed man failed to comply, the officer fired his service pistol. The man kept running and reached the civilian’s truck, attempting to gain entry. With a gun in hand, the man began banging on the driver’s window and yelling for him to “get out of the truck.”

As the armed man stood at the driver’s door, a second officer drove up in his unmarked RCMP SUV and clipped the armed man with the vehicle, causing him to spin away and fall, dropping the gun. As the second officer exited his SUV, the man got up, grabbed the handgun and raised it. The officer fired two shots from his service pistol striking the man.

The man fell to the ground, where he was arrested and handcuffed. RCMP members contacted Emergency Medical Services, who responded to the scene, provided medical attention and transported the man to a nearby hospital. He was subsequently transferred by STARS air ambulance to an Edmonton hospital where he was treated for what would ultimately turn out to be serious, permanent injuries including partial paralysis.

Under S. 25 of the Criminal Code, police officers are entitled to use as much force as is reasonably necessary to carry out their lawful duties. When necessary, where an officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the person presents an imminent risk of death or grievous bodily harm to the officer or any other person, he or she may use force that is intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. An officer may also use lethal force in limited circumstances to prevent the flight of a person.

During the course of these events, the 29-year-old man demonstrated he was highly motivated to escape, having driven over an embankment and fled police. He was not only prepared to endanger others to do so, but had possibly already injured or killed an uninvolved woman who had simply been in his path, having forcefully collided with her vehicle. Instead of remaining at the scene of the collision or checking on the condition of the driver of the other vehicle, the man took a handgun from the truck before running towards a vehicle that stopped to provide assistance. In these circumstances, the man objectively presented a risk of death or grievous bodily harm to the occupant of that vehicle. Having directed the man to stop or drop the gun, the first officer’s use of force was reasonable and necessary. This risk became even more immediate when the man reached and attempted to enter the stopped truck. The use of the police vehicle to remove the armed man from the vehicle door of the innocent bystander was reasonable in the circumstances.

Having been fired on by the first officer, and struck by a police vehicle, the man stood and instead of running or surrendering, decided to pick up the handgun. In that moment, the man presented a risk of grievous bodily harm or death to not only the innocent bystander but also to the officer.

The officers’ use of force during this event, while they were lawfully placed and engaged in the lawful execution of their duties, was both reasonable and justified in the circumstances. In the opinion of the executive director, there can be no doubt that the actions of the officers prevented the man from committing what could be characterized as an armed robbery, or more simply, a “car-jacking”, that could have easily resulted in the serious injury or death of the driver of that vehicle. As such, no charges will be laid against the officers.

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.

Duane Rolheiser

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

Carney government should apply lessons from 1990s in spending review

Business / 5 days ago

Cannabis Legalization Is Starting to Look Like a Really Dumb Idea

Disaster / 1 week ago

Texas flood kills 43 including children at Christian camp

Alberta

Median workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan

Published on July 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

Moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans in the form of lower contribution rates (which could be used to increase private retirement savings while receiving the same pension benefits as the CPP under the new provincial pension), finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate through a separate provincial pension plan while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan.

Assuming Albertans invested the savings from moving to a provincial pension plan into a private retirement account, and assuming a contribution rate of 5.85 per cent, workers earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025) could accrue a stream of retirement payments totalling $454,741 (pre-tax)—a 71.6 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

Put differently, under the CPP, a median worker receives a total of $264,968 in retirement income over their life. If an Alberta worker saved the difference between what they pay now into the CPP and what they would pay into a new provincial plan, the income they would receive in retirement increases. If the contribution rate for the new provincial plan was 5.85 per cent—the lower of the available estimates—the increase in retirement income would total $189,773 (or an increase of 71.6 per cent).

If the contribution rate for a new Alberta pension plan was 8.21 per cent—the higher of the available estimates—a median Alberta worker would still receive an additional $64,672 in retirement income over their life, a marked increase of 24.4 per cent compared to the CPP alone.

Put differently, assuming a contribution rate of 8.21 per cent, Albertan workers earning the median income could accrue a stream of retirement payments totaling $329,640 (pre-tax) under a provincial pension plan—a 24.4 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments.

“While the full costs and benefits of a provincial pension plan must be considered, its clear that Albertans could benefit from higher retirement payments under a provincial pension plan, compared to the CPP,” Hill said.

Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan

Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate with a separate provincial pension plan, compared with the CPP, while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP.
Put differently, moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans, which could be used to increase private retirement income. This essay assesses the potential savings for Albertans of moving to a provincial pension plan. It also estimates an Albertan’s potential increase in total retirement income, if those savings were invested in a private account.
Depending on the contribution rate used for an Alberta pension plan (APP), ranging from 5.85 to 8.2 percent, an individual earning the CPP’s yearly maximum pensionable earnings ($71,300 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $429,524 and $584,235. This would be 22.9 to 67.1 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($349,545).
An individual earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $329,640 and $454,741, which is between 24.4 percent to 71.6 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Joel Emes

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta ban on men in women’s sports doesn’t apply to athletes from other provinces

Published on July 15, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act bans transgender males from women’s sports within the province but cannot regulate out-of-province transgender athletes.

Alberta’s ban on gender-confused males competing in women’s sports will not apply to out-of-province athletes.

In an interview posted July 12 by the Canadian Press, Alberta Tourism and Sport Minister Andrew Boitchenko revealed that Alberta does not have the jurisdiction to regulate out-of-province, gender-confused males from competing against female athletes.

“We don’t have authority to regulate athletes from different jurisdictions,” he said in an interview.

Ministry spokeswoman Vanessa Gomez further explained that while Alberta passed legislation to protect women within their province, outside sporting organizations are bound by federal or international guidelines.

As a result, Albertan female athletes will be spared from competing against men during provincial competition but must face male competitors during inter-provincial events.

In December, Alberta passed the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act to prevent biological men who claim to be women from competing in women’s sports. The legislation will take effect on September 1 and will apply to all school boards, universities, as well as provincial sports organizations.

The move comes after studies have repeatedly revealed what almost everyone already knew was true, namely, that males have a considerable advantage over women in athletics.

Indeed, a recent study published in Sports Medicine found that a year of “transgender” hormone drugs results in “very modest changes” in the inherent strength advantages of men.

Additionally, male athletes competing in women’s sports are known to be violent, especially toward female athletes who oppose their dominance in women’s sports.

In February, Andres ranted about why men should be able to compete in women’s competitions, calling for “the Ontario lifter” who opposes this, apparently referring to powerlifter April Hutchinson, to “die painfully.”

Interestingly, while Andres was suspended for six months for issuing death threats, Hutchinson was suspended for two years after publicly condemning him for stealing victories from women and then mocking his female competitors on social media. Her suspension was later reduced to a year.