Investigation reveals terrifying life and death situation faced by police officer forced to shoot attacking suspect

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.

Related Topics:#AlbertaSeriousIncidentResponseTeam #PoliceShootingAirdrie #PoliceShootingInvestigation ASIRT feature

Up Next

Federal electricity regulations threaten Albertans with high costs and power outages

Don't Miss

Record setting drug bust in Edmonton. EPS takes $1.8 million worth of cocaine

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canadians will soon be versed in massive West Coast LPG mega-project

Daily Caller / 10 hours ago

Tom Homan Predicts Deportation Of Most Third World Migrants Over Risks From Screening Docs

Artificial Intelligence / 11 hours ago

‘Trouble in Toyland’ report sounds alarm on AI toys

Alberta

Keynote address of Premier Danielle Smith at 2025 UCP AGM

Published on November 30, 2025

Todayville

From the YouTube Channel of Rebel News

Alberta

Net Zero goal is a fundamental flaw in the Ottawa-Alberta MOU

Published on November 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari

The challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass.

The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the federal and Alberta governments lays the groundwork for substantial energy projects and infrastructure development over the next two-and-a-half decades. It is by all accounts a step forward, though, there’s debate about how large and meaningful that step actually is. There is, however, a fundamental flaw in the foundation of the agreement: it’s commitment to net zero in Canada by 2050.

The first point of agreement in the MOU on the first page of text states: “Canada and Alberta remain committed to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” In practice, it’s incredibly difficult to offset emissions with tree planting or other projects that reduce “net” emissions, so the effect of committing to “net zero” by 2050 means that both governments agree that Canada should produce very close to zero actual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consider the massive changes in energy production, home heating, transportation and agriculture that would be needed to achieve this goal.

So, what’s wrong with Canada’s net zero 2050 and the larger United Nations’ global goal for the same?

Let’s first understand the global context of GHG reductions based on a recent study by internationally-recognized scholar Vaclav Smil. Two key insights from the study. First, despite trillions being spent plus international agreements and regulatory measures starting back in 1997 with the original Kyoto agreement, global fossil fuel consumption between then and 2023 increased by 55 per cent.

Second, fossil fuels as a share of total global energy declined from 86 per cent in 1997 to 82 per cent in 2022, again, despite trillions of dollars in spending plus regulatory requirements to force a transition away from fossil fuels to zero emission energies. The idea that globally we can achieve zero emissions over the next two-and-a-half decades is pure fantasy. Even if there is an historic technological breakthrough, it will take decades to actually transition to a new energy source(s).

Let’s now understand the Canada-specific context. A recent study examined all the measures introduced over the last decade as part of the national plan to reduce emissions to achieve net zero by 2050. The study concluded that significant economic costs would be imposed on Canadians by these measures: inflation-adjusted GDP would be 7 per cent lower, income per worker would be more than $8,000 lower and approximately 250,000 jobs would be lost. Moreover, these costs would not get Canada to net zero. The study concluded that only 70 per cent of the net zero emissions goal would be achieved despite these significant costs, which means even greater costs would be imposed on Canadians to fully achieve net zero.

It’s important to return to a global picture to fully understand why net zero makes no sense for Canada within a worldwide context. Using projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its latest World Energy Outlook, the current expectation is that in 2050, advanced countries including Canada and the other G7 countries will represent less than 25 per cent of global emissions. The developing world, which includes China, India, the entirety of Africa and much of South America, is estimated to represent at least 70 per cent of global emissions in 2050.

Simply put, the challenge of GHG emissions in 2050 is not in the industrial world but rather in the developing world, where there is still significant basic energy consumption using timber and biomass. A globally-coordinated effort, which is really what the U.N. should be doing rather than fantasizing about net zero, would see industrial countries like Canada that are capable of increasing their energy production exporting more to these developing countries so that high-emitting energy sources are replaced by lower-emitting energy sources. This would actually reduce global GHGs while simultaneously stimulating economic growth.

Consider a recent study that calculated the implications of doubling natural gas production in Canada and exporting it to China to replace coal-fired power. The conclusion was that there would be a massive reduction in global GHGs equivalent to almost 90 per cent of Canada’s total annual emissions. In these types of substitution arrangements, the GHGs would increase in energy-producing countries like Canada but global GHGs would be reduced, which is the ultimate goal of not only the U.N. but also the Carney and Smith governments as per the MOU.

Finally, the agreement ignores a basic law of economics. The first lesson in the very first class of any economics program is that resources are limited. At any given point in time, we only have so much labour, raw materials, time, etc. In other words, when we choose to do one project, the real cost is foregoing the other projects that could have been undertaken. Economics is mostly about trying to understand how to maximize the use of limited resources.

The MOU requires massive, literally hundreds of billions of dollars to be used to create nuclear power, other zero-emitting power sources and transmission systems all in the name of being able to produce low or even zero-emitting oil and gas while also moving to towards net zero.

These resources cannot be used for other purposes and it’s impossible to imagine what alternative companies or industries would have been invested in. What we do know is that workers, entrepreneurs, businessowners and investors are not making these decisions. Rather, politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa and Edmonton are making these decisions but they won’t pay any price if they’re wrong. Canadians pay the price. Just consider the financial fiasco unfolding now with Ottawa, Ontario and Quebec’s subsidies (i.e. corporate welfare) for electric vehicle batteries.

Understanding the fundamentally flawed commitment to Canadian net zero rather than understanding a larger global context of GHG emissions lays at the heart of the recent MOU and unfortunately for Canadians will continue to guide flawed and expensive policies. Until we get the net zero policies right, we’re going to continue to spend enormous resources on projects with limited returns, costing all Canadians.