Alberta
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.
From LifeSiteNews
According to a report, Canada’s mail service notified the Trudeau government via a letter that it would not participate in the buyback scheme, citing safety concerns for its employees.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government crackdown on legal gun owners through a buyback scheme has hit a major roadblock after Canada Post, a federal-run institution, signaled it will refuse to participate in scooping up thousands of legally purchased firearms at the bequest of the government.
According to government sources in a recent Radio-Canada report, the Trudeau Liberals were hoping Canada Post would help collect approximately 144,000 “assault” and “military-style” firearms that were recently banned by the government. Canada Post currently delivers guns via mail that are legally purchased to those with firearms licenses.
The inside source, who chose not to be named, noted that Canada Post notified the Trudeau government via a letter that it would not participate in the buyback scheme, citing safety concerns for its employees.
According to the source, Canada Post is still talking with the federal government, with one idea being to allow it to transport guns but not oversee getting them from their legal owners.
“It’s a challenge, but we do not think this jeopardizes our timetable or the government’s desire to move forward,” said one source, adding, “We want the discussions to continue.”
As for the Trudeau federal government, it continues to say that having Canada Post be involved in the gun buyback is the “most efficient” as well as “least costly” way to get the guns back from owners.
Trudeau’s gun grab was first announced after a deadly mass shooting in Nova Scotia in May 2020 in which he banned over 1,500 “military-style assault firearms” with a plan to begin buying them back from owners.
Late last year, the Trudeau government extended the amnesty deadline for legal gun owners until October 30, 2025. It should be noted that this is around the same time a federal election will take place.
The Canadian government’s controversial gun grab Bill C-21, which bans many types of guns, including handguns, and mandates a buyback program became law on December 14, 2023, after senators voted 60-24 in favor of the bill.
In May 2023, Bill C-21 passed in the House of Commons. After initially denying the bill would impact hunters, Trudeau eventually admitted that C-21 would indeed ban certain types of hunting rifles.
Alberta and other provinces promise to fight Trudeau’s gun grab tooth and nail
On the same day news broke that Canada Post said it would not participate in Trudeau’s gun buyback, Alberta chief firearms officer Teri Bryant last Wednesday issued a statement saying, “We urge the federal government to abandon this ill-advised program and meaningfully consult the provinces as we work to address the actual causes of firearms crime.”
“Canadians are still waiting for concrete details about the federal firearms confiscation program that has been in the works since 2020, and Canada Post’s refusal to participate in the federal government’s firearms ‘buy-back’ program is just one more example of how little forethought or engagement has gone into implementation of this program,” Bryant said.
Bryant noted that the buyback will not “significantly improve public safety” because it does not target those “involved in criminal activity and gun violence, and Albertans can be assured that our government will continue to advocate for our law-abiding firearms community.”
“We believe in a principled and informed approach to firearms policy that preserves public safety and recognizes the immense responsibility that comes with firearms ownership,” she noted.
Bryant observed that the federal confiscation program is not only causing uncertainty for many firearms businesses, but it is also “pulling attention and resources away from programs and initiatives that would help address public safety.”
“It is also undermining public confidence in the fairness of our entire firearms regulatory scheme,” she added.
Indeed, LifeSiteNews reported in February that despite Trudeau’s crackdown on legal gun owners, Statistics Canada data shows that most violent gun crimes in the country last year were not committed at the hands of legal gun owners but by those who obtained the weapons illegally.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, along with premiers from no less than four additional provinces, are opposed to C- 21.
Late last year, Smith promised she would strengthen the gun rights of Albertans because of Trudeau’s gun grab.
From LifeSiteNews
“If the federal government refuses to abide by the constitution, we will take them to court again to defend our jurisdiction and the thousands of Albertans who work in the petrochemical sector”
Alberta has rejected the Liberal government’s “unconstitutional” federal plastics registry and production limit.
In an April 25 press release, Alberta’s Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz promised to take Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault to court over his proposal to create a plastics registry, mandating companies to report their plastic production and implementation.
“If the federal government refuses to abide by the constitution, we will take them to court again to defend our jurisdiction and the thousands of Albertans who work in the petrochemical sector,” Schulz declared.
“This unilateral announcement is a slap in the face to Alberta and our province’s petrochemical industry, and the thousands of Albertans who work in it,” she continued.
Guilbeault’s plan, set to be implemented in September 2025, would mandate that businesses record how much plastic they place on the market in addition to the amount of plastic waste generated on their commercial, industrial, and institutional premises.
Companies would then report that amount to the federal government. The plan exempts small businesses which produce less than one tonne of plastic each year.
However, Schulz explained that the registry would negatively affect Alberta, as “plastics production is a growing part of Alberta’s economy, and we are positioned to lead the world for decades to come in the production of carbon neutral plastics.”
“Minister Guilbeault’s proposal would throw all of that into jeopardy and risk billions of dollars in investments. This includes projects like Dow Chemical’s net-zero petrochemical plant in Fort Saskatchewan, a $9-billion project that will create thousands of jobs,” she warned.
Schulz further pointed out that the mandate will not reduce plastic production since countries such as China will produce more plastic to make up for Canada.
“If the federal government limits plastic production in Canada, other countries like China will just produce more. The only outcome that this federal government will achieve will be fewer jobs in Canada,” she explained.
Schulz’s statement comes after the November decision by the Federal Court to rule in favor of Alberta and Saskatchewan, declaring that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government overstepped its authority by classifying plastic as “toxic” and banning all single-use plastic items, like straws.
Essentially, the ruling overturned Trudeau’s 2022 law which outlawed manufacturing or importing plastic straws, cutlery, and checkout bags on the grounds of government claims that plastic was having a negative effect on the oceans. In reality, most plastic pollution in the oceans comes from a few countries, like India and China, which dump waste directly on beaches or in rivers.
The November ruling was only one of two recent court rulings that have dealt a blow to Trudeau’s environmental laws.
The second ruling came after Canada’s Supreme Court recently sided in favor of provincial autonomy when it comes to natural resources. The Supreme Court recently ruled that Trudeau’s law C-69, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is “mostly unconstitutional.” This was a huge win for Alberta and Saskatchewan, which challenged the law in court. The decision returned authority over the pipelines to provincial governments, meaning oil and gas projects headed up by the provinces should be allowed to proceed without federal intrusion.
The Trudeau government, however, seems insistent on defying the recent rulings by pushing forward with its various regulations.
A Wealth-Creating Way of Reducing Global CO2 Emissions
Alberta government should create flat 8% personal and business income tax rate in Alberta
Alberta’s baby name superstar steals the show again
Low and middle income Canadians hit hardest by high marginal effective tax rates
Now We Are Supposed to Cheer Government Surveillance?
Red Deer Doctor critical of Alberta’s COVID response to submit report to Danielle Smith this May
Desperate Liberals move to stop MPs from calling Trudeau ‘corrupt’
-
COVID-192 hours agoPeckford: Hallelujah! Supreme Court of Canada to hear Newfoundland and Labrador charter case
-
Business10 hours agoOttawa’s capital gains tax hike—final nail in ‘business investment’ coffin
-
Automotive10 hours agoCanadian interest in electric vehicles falls for second year in a row: survey
-
COVID-193 hours agoFormer Canadian lawmaker has no regrets about refusing COVID shot despite losing his job
-
Alberta3 hours ago
Canada’s postal service refuses to help with Trudeau’s gun ban buyback program: report
-
Brownstone Institute2 days agoThe Numbers Favour Our Side
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoHow much do today’s immigrants help Canada?
-
Fraser Institute16 hours agoFederal government’s fiscal record—one for the history books