Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

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

Published

6 months ago

18 minute read

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.

page4image940680560

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.

page5image940754576

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.

page6image939760224

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.

page7image940806608

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.
page8image846121168

A knife was found in the ditch near the AP (Figure 7).

page9image941688192

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:

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
illegal immigration / 33 mins ago

Northern border apprehensions highest in US history first 6 months of fiscal ’24

illegal immigration / 2 hours ago

Terrorist watch list apprehensions at northern border continue to break records

Crime / 6 hours ago

DEA doubtful of cartel order to stop fentanyl production

Alberta

Parent and gender dysphoria groups granted intervenor status in New Brunswick school policy case

Published on May 9, 2024

By

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that two groups, Gender Dysphoria Alliance and Our Duty Canada, have been jointly granted intervenor status in a constitutional challenge to a New Brunswick education policy. The policy requires that parents be notified when their child intends to undergo a gender transition by using a different name and pronouns at school.

On August 17, 2020, the New Brunswick government created Policy 713, which prohibited teachers from informing parents that their child had adopted a new name or pronouns at school (unless the child consented to such disclosure).

On June 8, 2023, the government changed the policy to require that parents of students under 16 years of age be notified by the school before the formal use of a different name or pronoun. “Formal” refers to the use of names and pronouns in the classroom and in school records.

The change to Policy 713 brought a firestorm of criticism and media coverage because it was the first of its kind in Canada to support parental rights on this issue. New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs stated that he believes he has the support of parents in the province on this issue.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) brought a constitutional challenge against the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, on September 6, 2023. The CCLA argues that Policy 713 infringes the students’ rights to freedom of expression, to equality, and to life, liberty and security of the person.

“The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has filed a court challenge against the right of parents to be fully informed about what is happening with their own children at school,” stated John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre.

“The Supreme Court of Canada explained in B.(R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto that the parental interest in bringing up, nurturing and caring for a child, including medical care and moral upbringing, is an individual interest of fundamental importance to our society,” continued John Carpay.

On May 2, 2024, Justice Richard Petrie of the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench granted intervener status to two groups: Gender Dysphoria Alliance is comprised of transsexual adults who seek to promote an evidence-based approach to gender dysphoria. Our Duty Canada is a peer support network for parents of children struggling with gender dysphoria and transgender ideation. As intervenors, they now have the right to present evidence to the court. The Justice Centre is providing for the legal representation of both groups, which seek to uphold the constitutionality of the amended Policy 713.

Prior to granting intervenor status, on March 5, 2024, Justice Petrie ordered that any proposed intervenors file the evidence they intend to present.

Gender Dysphoria Alliance and Our Duty Canada submitted the following testimonies as evidence:

  • The written testimony of a New Brunswick mother whose child underwent a social transition in school, about which she was not informed;
  • The written testimony of a young woman from Alberta who began to adopt new pronouns at school without her parents’ knowledge; she ultimately reversed course (detransitioned) after her parents became aware of her situation and were able to assist her;
  • The written testimony of the young woman’s father.

Karin Litzcke of Our Duty Canada says, “[Our] members are pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the development of jurisprudence in this area. What has happened to us could happen to any parents under policies that promote secrecy from families. We are grateful to the Justice Centre for its assistance in advocating for the interests of children and parents in court.”

Speaking on behalf of Gender Dysphoria Alliance, Aaron Kimberly says, “The Gender Dysphoria Alliance is pleased with the decision to grant us intervention status in this case. We believe New Brunswick’s policy is an important safeguarding measure for children experiencing gender incongruence, since we know that most kids with this experience turn out to be gay or lesbian, not trans. Prematurely labelling kids “trans” and socially transitioning them is a psychosocial intervention that risks putting pre-gay kids onto an unnecessary medical pathway.”

Hatim Kheir, lawyer for both groups, says, “The Supreme Court has affirmed that parents in Canada have the right to guide the moral upbringing of their children. This case provides an opportunity for the Court to apply those rights to issues surrounding gender which are becoming increasingly relevant in our society.”

Continue Reading

Alberta

Canadian Christian chiropractor fights ‘illegal’ $65,000 fine for refusing to wear mask

Published on May 7, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Dr. Curtis Wall went against the College of Chiropractors of Alberta’s COVID mask mandate in 2020 and the organization has been pursuing disciplinary action ever since.

The legal team for Dr. Curtis Wall, a Canadian chiropractor who was recently fined $65,000 by his medical college for not wearing a mask in 2020 despite the fact public health orders last year were nullified by a court, has vowed to fight the “illegal” fine, saying that Wall was targeted because he is a “Christian man of integrity and principle.”

“Dr. Wall should not pay any fines or costs when the public health orders he was charged with not following have been declared void by the courts,” said Wall’s legal team, Liberty Coalition Canada (LCC), in a press release.

“He is a Christian man of integrity and principle — attributes that make him a target for government overreach in the era of COVID.”

Wall was practicing in Calgary in 2020 when the COVID crisis was gearing up, went against Alberta’s public health orders and chose not to wear a mask during patient visits. Many of his patients also decided to not wear masks during their visits, which quickly drew the ire of College of Chiropractors of Alberta, which had mandated that all chiropractors wear masks.

Wall, who has been seeing patients for the last 25 years with a pristine record, was then targeted by the College, which tried to strip him of his license to practice. The College was unable to strip Wall of his license and he continued to practice, sans mask in 2021 and 2022.

In 2021, the College had brought against Wall, as per the LCC, “a long list of charges of unprofessional conduct against Dr. Wall, most of which related to Dr. Wall not wearing a mask while treating patients and permitting his patients to not wear a mask.”

Wall was then brought before a disciplinary hearing Tribunal to mediate his case, which went well into 2022, and had placed a publication ban on all “identities of all witnesses,” including Wall’s.

James Kitchen, Wall’s lawyer from the LCC, was successful in getting the publication ban lifted, as the LCC noted due to the College “wishing to avoid likely defeat before the courts” regarding keeping the ban in place.

Fined chiropractor says college did not recognize his ‘Christian convictions’

The Tribunal’s decision noted the LCC is “riddled with errors of fact and law and is so poorly decided it is an embarrassment to the chiropractic profession.”

Wall spoke with LifeSiteNews and observed that while in his point of view he does not feel his fines and costs imposed on him by the college “are a direct result of my Christian faith,” he did note that the tribunal did “not recognize my honest Christian convictions as a valid reason for my not wearing a mask.”

“They put placed no merit in the argument that as a Christian I believe I am created in the image of God,” Wall said.

“My face is an expression of Him. Having man arbitrarily mandate that I cover my face is an affront to that expression and signifies that I am living in the fear of man, not by faith.  So, in all, I don’t feel directly persecuted as a Christian, but certainly indirectly.”

Wall told LifeSiteNews that in his opinion the college could have “handled this issue much differently.”

“There must always be room for exceptions to a rule. I did present a doctor’s note to verify my inability to wear a mask. They did not place any weight on that note. They blamed me for ‘self-diagnosing’ my problem,” Wall said.

“Number one, I’m a doctor. I think eight years of schooling has given me some wisdom to diagnose my own signs and symptoms. Number two, if someone eats a peanut and their throat swells shut, can they not diagnose themselves and stay away from nuts? It’s not a problem to self-diagnose.”

Wall said that despite his legal team presenting four expert witnesses to demonstrate “the obvious inadequacy and lack of efficacy in mask-wearing, not to mention the harms as well,” the college “did not cite the record once in their verdict.”

He noted that “common sense, science and past and present studies overwhelmingly demonstrate” the lack of efficacy regarding mask-wearing.

The LCC noted that although both Kitchen and Wall hoped for an “unbiased decision from the tribunal,” they knew it was more “likely the tribunal members would lack the courage to oppose the government’s COVID narrative by accepting the scientific evidence masks are utterly ineffective at preventing the transmission of COVID and harmful to wearers.”

“Nonetheless, it is shocking the lengths the tribunal went to dismiss the evidence of Dr. Wall, three of his patients, and his four expert witnesses while blithely accepting all the evidence of the College.”

Wall’s charges laid despite a recent court ruling nullifying all Alberta COVID health orders

According to LCC, the charges brought against Wall show that the College of Chiropractors of Alberta has “ignored the law” relating to non-criminal COVID-era charges handed out in the province.

As reported by LifeSiteNews before, last year a judge from Alberta ruled that politicians violated the province’s health act by making decisions regarding COVID mandates without authorization. This ruling came from the Alberta’s Court of Kings Bench’s Ingram v. Alberta decision, which put into doubt all cases involving those facing non-criminal COVID-related charges in the province. In effect, the ruling struck down and nullified all health orders issued by Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s former chief medical officer of health.

As a result, multiple people facing charges, such as Dr. Michal Princ, pizzeria owner Jesse Johnson, café owner Chris Scott, and Alberta pastors James Coates, Tim Stephens, and Artur Pawlowski who were jailed for keeping churches open under then-Premier Jason Kenney, have had COVID charges against them dropped due to the court ruling.

The Alberta’s Court of Kings Bench’s Ingram v. Alberta decision put into doubt all cases involving those facing non-criminal COVID-related charges in the province.

As a result of the court ruling, Alberta Crown Prosecutions Service (ACPS) said Albertans facing COVID-related charges will likely not be convicted but instead have their charges stayed.

However, last year, the College, and of important note after the Ingram ruling, ordered Wall to pay $65,000 in fines and costs “under threat of immediately losing his license to practice if he does not pay,” the LCC said.

Chiropractor’s lawyer to fight fine tooth and nail

According to the LCC, the College’s new complaints director said she will enforce the tribunal’s court-defying order and mandate Wall pay the $65,000.

Because of this, Kitchen submitted an application to the College “to prevent this injustice” against Wall, the LCC noted.

“The Application will be heard on June 21. It will be heard virtually and is open to public, although the College has erected a number of barriers to people attending its hearings. For one, people must register with the hearings director and must do so many days in advance,” he told LifeSiteNews.

“The Tribunal elected to ignore the Ingram decision despite issuing its decision over two weeks after Ingram was released by the Court.”

Kitchen noted that the Tribunal had a lawyer advising it who was being paid some $700 an hour. He told LifeSiteNews that “Tribunals can do whatever they want and often do.”

“Only if the affected person takes further legal action can they hold the Tribunals accountable. And even then, that’s very difficult because the first appeals are to the councils of the Colleges, which almost always rubber stamp whatever the Tribunals decide. Real accountability isn’t had until the impugned professional is able to reach the Court of Appeal, which of course takes years and an enormous amount of funding for lawyer fees,” Kitchen said.

Kitchen is working Wall’s case at discounted rates and noted that high legal costs in such cases dealing with tribunals, who can drag things on for years, to him appear to be a tactic the Colleges count on for “avoiding accountability.”

The LCC estimates the College, which is funded through payments from all chiropractors, paid some $600,000 in legal fees to fight Wall.

“LCC asks supporters to donate toward Dr. Wall’s case so he and Mr. Kitchen can hold the College of Chiropractors of Alberta accountable and bring an end to the unjust persecution of Dr. Curtis Wall. Liberty Coalition Canada is assisting Dr. Wall with his legal expenses through the Legal Defense Fund.”

Kenney quit after losing the confidence of his United Conservative Party (UCP) members for backtracking on his promise to not impose a COVID vaccine passport. Under Kenney, thousands of businesses, notably restaurants and small shops, were negatively impacted by severe COVID restrictions, mostly in 2020-21, that forced them to close their doors for a time. Many never reopened. At the same time, as in the rest of Canada, big box stores were allowed to operate unimpeded.

Under Kenney, thousands of nurses, doctors, healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Premier Danielle Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” people in her lifetime.

Recently, LifeSiteNews reported on how Alberta-based Rath & Company is in the process of putting together a class-action lawsuit against the Alberta government on behalf of many business owners in the province who faced massive losses or permanent closures from what it says were “illegal” COVID public health orders enacted by provincial officials.

Continue Reading

Trending

X