Alberta
Investigation reveals terrifying life and death situation faced by police officer forced to shoot attacking suspect
Figure 1 – HAWCS video showing the AP (circled in white) driving on the wrong side of the highway and forcing a vehicle off the road.
News release from the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT)
ASIRT’s Investigation
ASIRT’s investigation was comprehensive and thorough, conducted using current investigative protocols, and in accordance with the principles of major case management. Investigators interviewed all relevant police and civilian witnesses, and secured and analyzed all relevant radio communications.
This incident was captured on video by a Calgary Police Service (CPS) helicopter air watch community safety (HAWCS) helicopter. Some of the incident was also captured on cameras in the RCMP vehicles. These videos provide objective evidence and are therefore extremely valuable to ASIRT investigations.
Circumstances Surrounding the Incident
At approximately 1:50 p.m. on February 12, 2023, CPS received a 9-1-1 call about the affected person (AP). The caller was concerned that she was suicidal. RCMP officers responded to an area east of Calgary, and a CPS helicopter went to assist.
At 3:35 p.m., the witness officer (WO) located the AP in her vehicle on the side of Highway 564. The AP sped off and the WO followed. The CPS helicopter located the AP and the WO shortly after and began to record the incident.
The AP was driving extremely fast, including at speeds of over 175 km/h, and often on the wrong side of the highway. There were other vehicles on the road at that time. The AP drove through a stop sign at the intersection of Highways 564 and 9 and was briefly launched into the air due to her speed and the elevated intersection. The AP continued to drive on the wrong side of the highway (Figure 1).
At Highway 21, the AP turned around and travelled back west. She then briefly went off the road and into the ditch. At 3:51 p.m., the SO used a tire deflation device that punctured some of the AP’s tires. The AP then came to a stop and, at 3:52 p.m., the SO stopped his marked police vehicle behind the AP.
As the SO stopped, the AP exited her vehicle. She had a knife in her left hand and a beer in her right (Figure 2).
Figure 2 – The SO’s vehicle video showing the AP with a knife in her left hand.
The SO can be heard to yell, “drop the knife!” on the police vehicle video. The AP took a few steps toward the SO and then began to run toward him (Figure 3).
As she was running, the AP said, “I’m going to fucking kill you!” The SO said “drop the knife” repeatedly. The SO moved backwards and drew a handgun and then a conductive energy weapon (CEW).
Figure 3 – HAWCS video showing the AP running at the SO.
The AP continued to run at the SO until she reached the rear of his police vehicle, when she turned and attempted to go into the police vehicle (Figure 4).
Figure 4 – HAWCS video showing the AP entering the SO’s police vehicle.
The SO ran back to his vehicle and used his CEW on the AP. The AP then turned and ran at the SO again (Figure 5).
Figure 5 – HAWCS video showing the AP running at the SO again.
The AP again said, “I’m going to fucking kill you!” The SO then fired seven shots at 3:53 p.m., hitting the AP and causing her to fall to the road and drop her knife (Figure 6).
The SO approached the AP and kicked away the knife. The SO began to assess the AP, and other officers arrived within one minute to provide first aid to the AP. At 4:06 p.m., emergency medical services arrived and assumed care of the AP. An air ambulance was then used to transport the AP to hospital.
The AP had seven gunshot wounds to her chest, midsection, arms, and legs. She required surgeries and stayed in the hospital for some time.
Figure 6 – HAWCS video showing the AP falling to the road after being shot by the SO.
A knife was found in the ditch near the AP (Figure 7).
Figure 7 – Knife found in ditch near the AP.
Civilian Witnesses
ASIRT investigators interviewed or reviewed interviews with eight individuals who saw the incident or the AP driving that day. Their evidence was generally consistent with the above.
Affected Person’s (AP) Statement
ASIRT investigators interviewed the AP on February 28, 2023. She told them that she was suicidal on February 12. Initially she planned to find a semi-truck to run her over.
After the WO had stopped chasing her, she turned around to reengage with the police. She drove over the tire deflation device and then pulled over. Before she left her vehicle, she grabbed a knife because she thought that the police would not shoot her unless she had something. She left her vehicle and walked fast toward the SO, saying something like “just hit me” or “shoot me.”
The SO used his CEW on her but she pushed through the pain and continued to move toward the SO. She said something like “fucking hit me you little bitch” and the SO shot her. She continued to approach the SO and he then jumped on her, taking her to the ground and injuring her leg.
The police officers provided her with medical attention immediately. She asked them to let her die.
The AP said it was her goal to die and she did not want to hurt any police officers.
Subject Officer’s (SO) Statement
On May 1, 2023, ASIRT investigators interviewed the SO. He provided a written statement and then answered questions after reading it. Subject officers, like anyone being investigated for a criminal offence, can rely on their right to silence, and do not have to speak to ASIRT.
The SO’s evidence was consistent with the video evidence and provided some insight into his view of the incident. The SO did not hear what the AP said when she was running at him. After he shot her, he heard her say things like “let me die” and “you never help me.”
When the AP was running at the SO for the second time, he recognized that he could only run backwards for so long before tripping or falling and being at risk. He feared that the AP would cause him grievous bodily harm or death and fired at the AP until she stopped advancing.
Analysis
Section 25 Generally
Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, police officers are permitted to use as much force as is necessary for execution of their duties. Where this force is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, the officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the self-preservation of the officer or preservation of anyone under that officer’s protection. The force used here, discharging a firearm repeatedly at a person, was clearly intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The subject officer therefore must have believed on reasonable grounds that the force he used was necessary for his self-preservation or the preservation of another person under his protection. Another person can include other police officers. For the defence provided by s. 25 to apply to the actions of an officer, the officer must be required or authorized by law to perform the action in the administration or enforcement of the law, must have acted on reasonable grounds in performing the action, and must not have used unnecessary force.
All uses of force by police must also be proportionate, necessary, and reasonable.
Proportionality requires balancing a use of force with the action or threat to which it responds. This is codified in the requirement under s. 25(3), which states that where a force is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, the officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the self-preservation of the officer or preservation of anyone under that officer’s protection. An action that represents a risk to preservation of life is a serious one, and only in such circumstances can uses of force that are likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm be employed.
Necessity requires that there are not reasonable alternatives to the use of force that also accomplish the same goal, which in this situation is the preservation of the life of the officer or of another person under his protection. These alternatives can include no action at all. An analysis of police actions must recognize the dynamic situations in which officers often find themselves, and such analysis should not expect police officers to weigh alternatives in real time in the same way they can later be scrutinized in a stress- free environment.
Reasonableness looks at the use of force and the situation as a whole from an objective viewpoint. Police actions are not to be judged on a standard of perfection, but on a standard of reasonableness.
Section 25 Applied
The SO was assisting on a call that evolved as time went on. It started as a welfare check, became a serious dangerous driving investigation, and ended with dealing with an assaultive person. The SO’s actions throughout were required or authorized by law and he acted on reasonable grounds.
The first stage in assessing whether the force he used was excessive is proportionality. The AP was running at the SO with a knife, which could affect the SO’s self-preservation. He responded with his firearm, which was intended or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. These two forces are proportionate.
The necessity element of the assessment recognizes the dynamic nature of incidents such as this. Here, the AP ran at the SO suddenly, which created a serious situation. The SO recognized at this point that he could attempt to deescalate the situation by moving away from the AP. However, the AP then attempted to get into his police vehicle, which would have created a profoundly serious danger to him and other users of the highway. He then used his CEW, which was not effective. The AP began running at him again. With the threat still present and having exhausted reasonable alternatives, it was necessary for the SO to fire at the AP at that time.
The final element, reasonableness, looks at the incident overall. The SO conducted himself carefully and showed restraint at the beginning of the incident. His actions were reasonable.
As a result, the defence under s. 25 is likely to apply to the SO.
Section 34 Generally
A police officer also has the same protections for the defence of person under s. 34 of the Criminal Code as any other person. This section provides that a person does not commit an offence if they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used or threatened against them or another person, if they act to defend themselves or another person from this force or threat, and if the act is reasonable in the circumstances. In order for the act to be reasonable in the circumstances, the relevant circumstances of the individuals involved and the act must be considered. Section 34(2) provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered to determine if the act was reasonable in the circumstances:
(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
The analysis under s. 34 for the actions of a police officer often overlaps considerably with the analysis of the same actions under s. 25.
Section 34 Applied
For the same reasons as under s. 25, this defence is likely to apply to the SO. The AP was running at him with a knife and, like anyone would be, he was entitled to use force to repel her.
Conclusion
The AP was suicidal on February 12, 2023. She initially intended to drive into a semi- truck, but then decided to force police to shoot her. She did this by running at the SO with a knife in her hand. The SO was justified in responding with his firearm.
The defences available to the SO under s. 25 and s. 34 are likely to apply. As a result, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed.
Marathon Petroleum’s Detroit refinery in the U.S. Midwest, the largest processing area for Canadian crude imports. Photo courtesy Marathon Petroleum
From the Canadian Energy Centre
More than 450,000 kilometres of pipelines link Canada and the U.S. – enough to circle the Earth 11 times
As U.S. imports of Canadian oil barrel through another new all-time high, leaders on both sides of the border are warning of the threat to energy security should the incoming Trump administration apply tariffs on Canadian oil and gas.
“We would hope any future tariffs would exclude these critical feedstocks and refined products,” Chet Thompson, CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), told Politico’s E&E News.
AFPM’s members manufacture everything from gasoline to plastic, dominating a sector with nearly 500 operating refineries and petrochemical plants across the United States.
“American refiners depend on crude oil from Canada and Mexico to produce the affordable, reliable fuels consumers count on every day,” Thompson said.
The United States is now the world’s largest oil producer, but continues to require substantial imports – to the tune of more than six million barrels per day this January, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Nearly 70 per cent of that oil came from Canada.
Many U.S. refineries are set up to process “heavy” crude like what comes from Canada and not “light” crude like what basins in the United States produce.
“New tariffs on [Canadian] crude oil, natural gas, refined products, or critical input materials that cannot be sourced domestically…would directly undermine energy affordability and availability for consumers,” the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s largest trade association, wrote in a recent letter to the United States Trade Representative.
More than 450,000 kilometres of oil and gas pipelines link Canada and the United States – enough to circle the Earth 11 times.
The scale of this vast, interconnected energy system does not exist anywhere else. It’s “a powerful card to play” in increasingly unstable times, researchers with S&P Global said last year.
Twenty-five years from now, the United States will import virtually exactly the same amount of oil as it does today (7.0 million barrels per day in 2050 compared to 6.98 million barrels per day in 2023), according to the EIA’s latest outlook.
“We are interdependent on energy. Americans cutting off Canadian energy would be like cutting off their own arm,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, a special advisor to the Business Council of Canada.
Trump’s threat to apply a 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada, including energy, would likely “result in lower production in Canada and higher gasoline and energy costs to American consumers while threatening North American energy security,” Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEO Lisa Baiton said in a statement.
“We must do everything in our power to protect and preserve this energy partnership.”
Energy products are Canada’s single largest export to the United States, accounting for about a third of total Canadian exports to the U.S., energy analysts Rory Johnston and Joe Calnan noted in a November report for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
The impact of applying tariffs to Canadian oil would likely be spread across Canada and the United States, they wrote: higher pump prices for U.S. consumers, weaker business for U.S. refiners and reduced returns for Canadian producers.
“It is vitally important for Canada to underline that it is not just another trade partner, but rather an indispensable part of the economic and security apparatus of the United States,” Johnston and Calnan wrote.
After years of neglect and exploitation, Alberta refuses to back Trudeau’s countermeasure plan against Trump’s tariffs, exposing the cracks in Canada’s so-called unity.
Let’s take a moment to appreciate Justin Trudeau’s brilliant strategy for handling Trump’s latest stunt: tariffs. Trump, in true Trump fashion, threatens to slap a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, because apparently, Canada is responsible for all of America’s problems—from border security to fentanyl. And Trudeau’s response? A $150 billion countermeasure plan that includes the possibility of crippling Alberta’s energy sector. Genius! Except one small problem: Alberta said, ‘No thanks.’
Why wasn’t Alberta there? Because Premier Danielle Smith isn’t an idiot. Trudeau’s plan includes export levies on Canadian oil, a move that would essentially tell Alberta to torch its own economy to help Trudeau look tough on Trump. Alberta exports $13.3 billion of energy to the U.S. every month, making it the lifeblood of this country’s economy. But sure, let’s just gamble that away because Trudeau needs a distraction from his sinking legacy.
But Alberta’s refusal isn’t just about this plan. It’s about years—years—of Ottawa treating Alberta like the black sheep of Confederation. Remember the Northern Gateway Pipeline? Trudeau killed it. Energy East? Dead, too. Those projects could’ve given Alberta access to global markets. Instead, Trudeau left the province landlocked, dependent on the U.S., and completely vulnerable to economic extortion like this. And now, after all that sabotage, he expects Alberta to ‘unite’ behind his plan? Please.
And don’t even get me started on Bill C-69. They call it the ‘Impact Assessment Act,’ but Albertans know it as the ‘No More Pipelines Bill.’ This masterpiece of legislation basically made it impossible to build anything that moves oil. And just to twist the knife, Trudeau slapped on a carbon tax—because nothing says ‘we care about your economy’ like making it more expensive to run it.
And then there’s Quebec. Oh, Quebec. The province that’s spent years wagging its finger at Alberta, calling its oil sands ‘dirty energy’ and blocking pipeline projects that could’ve helped the whole country. Meanwhile, Quebec gleefully cashes billions in equalization payments, heavily subsidized by Alberta’s oil wealth. That’s right—the same people who call Alberta the bad guy are more than happy to take their money. And now Trudeau wants Alberta to step up and take one for the team? Give me a break.
Danielle Smith saw this nonsense for what it is: exploitation. She flatly refused to sign onto any plan that includes export levies or energy restrictions. And you know what? Good for her. She said, ‘Federal officials are floating the idea of cutting off energy supply to the U.S. and imposing tariffs on Alberta energy. Until these threats cease, Alberta cannot support the federal government’s plan.’ Translation: Alberta is done being Ottawa’s doormat.
Let’s not forget why Alberta is even in this mess. For nine years, Trudeau’s government has treated Alberta like its personal piggy bank, siphoning billions through equalization payments while doing absolutely nothing—zero—to support its economy. When oil prices collapsed and families were struggling, what did Alberta get? Crickets. Trudeau was too busy virtue-signaling to his globalist pals to care. And now, with Trump threatening a 25% tariff that could cripple Alberta’s economy, Trudeau has the audacity to turn around and ask Alberta to make the ultimate sacrifice. You can’t make this stuff up.
And then Danielle Smith does what any rational leader would do—she heads to Mar-a-Lago to defend her province’s interests. And what does Trudeau’s cabinet do? They lose their minds, clutch their pearls, and call her ‘unpatriotic.’ Unpatriotic? Are you kidding me? This is coming from the same government that has spent nearly a decade treating Alberta like the annoying little sibling of Confederation—good enough to bankroll Quebec’s luxurious equalization payments, but not important enough to actually listen to. And now, after years of kicking Alberta to the curb, they expect Smith to roll over, play nice, and ‘work together’? Please.
Doug Ford says, ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’ Great soundbite, Doug. But unity doesn’t mean asking one province to carry the load while others reap the rewards. Quebec Premier François Legault says, ‘Nothing’s off the table.’ Of course not—Quebec isn’t paying the price. This isn’t unity; it’s a shakedown.
Here’s the reality: Alberta isn’t at the table because Ottawa hasn’t earned the right to ask them to be. You don’t treat a province like an ATM for nearly a decade and then expect them to roll over when you need a favor. Danielle Smith stood up and said, ‘Enough.’ And frankly, good for her.
So here’s the real question: how long does Ottawa think it can keep exploiting Alberta before the province decides it’s had enough? Because let me tell you, when Alberta’s done, it’s not just the energy sector that’s going to feel it—it’s the entire country.
Nanaimo syringe stabbing reignites calls for involuntary care
5 things to keep in mind before playing at an online casino
Fixing the Trudeau – Guilbeault Policy Mess May Take Longer Than We’d Like – Here’s Why
50,000 Students Missing: Trudeau’s Immigration Circus Hits New Low
-
National1 day agoTrudeau not seeking re-election as MP following resignation as prime minister
-
Carbon Tax1 day agoTaxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
-
Business2 days agoConservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation
-
Business2 days agoReport: Chinese government considering sale of TikTok to Elon Musk, possible X merger
-
Daily Caller2 days agoUS Ally’s Approach To Handling Drones Over Military Bases Is Vastly Different From Biden Admin
-
Daily Caller2 days agoTrump Could Put An End To Biden’s Offshore Wind Vanity Projects
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoNo, Really. Carney Is An Outsider. And Libs Are Done
-
Alberta1 day ago
Trudeau’s Tariff Retaliation Plan: Alberta Says “No Thanks”