Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Investigation concludes police shooting of suspect holding gun a reasonable use of force

Published

4 years ago

8 minute read

Alberta Serious Incident Response Team ASIRT

From the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team

RCMP used reasonable force during serious injury incident

On April 29, 2019, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed to investigate the circumstances surrounding injuries sustained by a 33-year-old man during his arrest by members of the Lloydminster RCMP that same date.

On that date, members of the Lloydminster RCMP observed a male driver operating a stolen Dodge Ram 2500 truck within Lloydminster city limits. The truck had been stolen earlier that day during a break and enter at a local vehicle repair shop. Video footage from the repair shop depicted the 33-year-old man as the individual responsible for the break and enter, and at the time, the man was also under investigation in relation to a homicide that had occurred on April 27, 2019.

Police attempted to conduct a traffic stop on the stolen truck, but the truck fled. Officers elected not to pursue the vehicle; however, the vehicle was known to have engine problems and was not expected to be drivable for long. A short time later, two police officers observed the stolen truck in an industrial area of the city. In order to avoid a pursuit, both officers followed the truck from a distance until they observed plumes of smoke emanating from the truck, leading them to believe that the vehicle’s engine had failed.

The two officers stopped their fully marked police vehicles in front of and behind the truck, blocking its path. The man exited the driver’s side door of the truck and fled on foot toward the rear of the truck and into a fenced compound. One of the police officers pursued the man on foot while the second ensured the stolen truck was empty before joining the foot pursuit a short distance behind. As the first officer ran, he called out to the man by name, advising him that he was under arrest. The man continued to run, but soon lost his footing and stumbled on the gravel. The officer drew his conducted energy weapon (CEW) and issued a verbal command for the man to stay down. When the man rose to his feet and began running again, both officers observed a black handgun in the man’s right hand. The first officer radioed that the man had a gun, then drew his service pistol from its holster and issued repeated verbal commands for the man to drop the gun. The man continued running and, as he rounded the corner of a building, he pointed the handgun at the pursuing officer, who then fired his service pistol.

After the officer fired, the man ran behind a parked Volkswagen Jetta. As he turned to get behind the Jetta, still holding the gun in his right hand, the officer fired again. The man ducked behind the car as the officer fired at him through the window of the parked Jetta. The second officer described the man’s actions as a tactical movement to use the vehicle as cover, and after the first officer fired, the man crouched down behind the vehicle. As both officers shouted repeated verbal commands for the man to drop the firearm, the man rose and lifted his firearm. At that moment, the officer fired again – this time striking the man, who fell to the ground, still holding the handgun. Following repeated verbal commands, the man eventually pushed the gun away and rolled over, at which time the second officer placed him in handcuffs.

With the man now in handcuffs, the first officer placed pressure on his wound while the second officer retrieved a first aid kit from the police vehicle. The two officers administered first aid to the man until he was transported by EMS to hospital, where it was confirmed that he had sustained a single penetrating gunshot wound to his left shoulder.

A loaded semi-automatic .22-calibre handgun was recovered from the incident scene, along with other items associated with both the man and the owner of the stolen vehicle. An image of the recovered firearm is not being released at this time, as it relates to a matter that remains before the courts.

Physical and video evidence confirm that five shots were fired during the incident by the first police officer, with approximately 22 seconds elapsing between the first shot and the final shot. Video evidence confirms the placement of the two officers matches the description in their statements, and civilian witness evidence confirms that the man retained possession of the firearm up until the officer’s final shot.

Under Section 25 of the Criminal Code, a police officer is authorized to use as much force as is necessary in order to carry out their lawful duties. In this case, the evidence conclusively establishes that both police officers were on duty, were operating marked RCMP vehicles, and were attired in RCMP uniforms. At the time of the incident, the man was subject to lawful arrest for both the theft and possession of the stolen truck, as well as the flight from police that preceded the incident. In addition to those grounds for arrest, the officer who fired was also aware of the man’s involvement in a homicide incident several days prior, during which a firearm was used. The officer’s knowledge of the man’s involvement and the nature of that incident reasonably elevated the officer’s risk assessment of the situation.

During his interview, the man denied any intention to harm police; however, it is clear from the evidence that throughout the incident he repeatedly refused to follow verbal commands and maintained possession of a firearm until after the officer’s final shot. The man’s actions during the incident, combined with the information available to the officer, were more than sufficient to establish an objectively reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily harm on the part of the officer, and to justify a use of force proportionate to that threat.

While the man sustained an injury during the arrest, his actions gave the officer reasonable cause to believe that his life was endangered; therefore, the force that he used to address that danger was also reasonable. Accordingly, there are no grounds to believe that an offence was committed by any police officer, and no charges will be laid.

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.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Crime / 5 hours ago

Time to call Antifa what it is — a terrorist organization

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Sylvan Lake high school football coach fired for criticizing gender ideology sends legal letter to school board

COVID-19 / 5 hours ago

Freedom Convoy leader slams Canadian gov’t agency for praising its treatment of protesters

Alberta

Sylvan Lake high school football coach fired for criticizing gender ideology sends legal letter to school board

Published on September 18, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The letter on behalf of Alberta high school volunteer football coach Taylor ‘Teej’ Johannesson mentions ‘workplace harassment’ while demanding his job back.

A Sylvan Lake high school football coach who was fired for sharing his views opposing transgender ideology on social media in a video discussing his Christian faith sent a legal demand to his former school board demanding he get his job back.

H.J. Cody High School volunteer coach Taylor “Teej” Johannesson, as reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier this month was fired by his school’s principal because he spoke out against gender-confused youth who “take their hatred of Christians” to another level by committing violent acts against them.

School principal Alex Lambert fired Teej, as he is known, as a result of a TikTok video in which he speaks out against radical gender ideology and the dangers it brings.

In a recent update involving his case, local media with knowledge of Johannesson’s issues with the principal at H.J. Cody High School in Sylvan Lake, Alberta, confirmed a legal demand letter was sent to the school.

The letter reads, “From his perspective, this opposition is consistent with the Alberta government’s position and legislation prohibiting prescribing prescription hormones to minors and providing care to them that involves transition surgeries.”

In the letter, the school board’s “workplace harassment” procedure is mentioned, stating, “Any act of workplace harassment or workplace violence shall be considered unacceptable conduct whether that conduct occurs at work, on Division grounds, or at division-sponsored activities.”

The legal demand letter, which was sent to school officials last week, reads, “Given that Mr. Johannesson’s expression in the TikTok Video was not connected to his volunteer work, the principal and the division have no authority to regulate his speech and punish him by the Termination decision, which is ultra vires (“beyond the powers.)”

Johannesson has said, in speaking with local media, that his being back at work at the school as a volunteer coach has meaning: “It’s about trying to create some change within the school system.”

He noted how, for “too long,” a certain “political view, one ideology, has taken hold in the school system.”

Johannesson has contacted Alberta’s Chief of Staff for the Minister of Education about his firing and was told that there is a board meeting taking place over the demand letter.

According to Teej, Lambert used his TikTok video as an excuse to get rid of someone in the school with conservative political views and who is against her goal to place “safe space stickers” all over the school.

Teej has been in trouble before with the school administration. About three years ago, he was called in to see school officials for posting on Twitter a biological fact that “Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina.”

Alberta’s Conservative government under Premier Danielle Smith has in place a new policy protecting female athletes from gender-confused men that has taken effect across the province.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, the Government of Alberta is currently fighting a court order that is blocking the province’s newly passed ban on transgender surgeries and drugs for children.

Alberta also plans to ban books with sexually explicit as well as pornographic material, many of which contain LGBT and even pedophilic content, from all school libraries.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Parents group blasts Alberta government for weakening sexually explicit school book ban

Published on September 17, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The revised rules no longer place restrictions on written descriptions of sexual content.

Some parental rights advocates have taken issue with the Conservative government of Alberta’s recent updates to a ban on sexually explicit as well as pornographic material from all school libraries, saying the new rules water down the old ones as they now allow for descriptions of extreme and graphic sexual acts in written form.

As reported by LifeSiteNews last week, Alberta Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides of the ruling United Conservative Party (UCP) released revised rules outlining the province’s ban on sexually explicit content in school libraries.

The original ban included all forms of sexually explicit as well as pornographic material. However, after a large public school board alleged the ban applied to classic books, the government changed the rules, removing a clause for written sexual content that has some parental rights groups up in arms.

Tanya Gaw, founder of the conservative-leaning Action4Canada, noted to media that while she is happy with Premier Danielle Smith for the original book ban, she has deep concerns with the revised rules.

“We are very concerned about the decision that no longer places restrictions on written descriptions of those acts, which is problematic,” she said in an interview with The Epoch Times.

Gaw noted how kids from kindergarten to grade 12 should “never” be “exposed to graphic written details of sex acts: incest, molestation, masturbation, sexual assaults, and profane vulgar language.”

According to John Hilton-O’Brien, who serves as the executive director of Parents for Choice in Education, the new rule changes regarding written depictions “still shifts the burden onto parents to clean up what should never have been purchased in the first place.”

He did say, however, that the new “Ministerial Order finally makes catalogs public, and what we see there is troubling.”

Alberta’s revised rules state that all school library books must not contain “explicit visual depictions of a sexual act.” To make it clear, the standards in detail go over the types of images that are banned due to their explicit pornographic nature.

As reported by LifeSiteNews in May, Smith’s UCP government went ahead with plans to ban books with sexually explicit as well as pornographic material, many of which contain LGBT and even pedophilic content, from all school libraries.

The ban was to take effect on October 1.

The UCP’s crackdown on sexual content in school libraries comes after several severely sexually explicit graphic novels were found in school libraries in Calgary and Edmonton.

The pro-LGBT books in question at multiple school locations are Gender Queer, a graphic novel by Maia Kobabe; Flamer, a graphic novel by Mike Curato; Blankets, a graphic novel by Craig Thompson; and Fun Home, a graphic novel by Alison Bechdel.

Continue Reading

Trending

X