News
Investigation Finds Police Justified in Shooting Death of Suspect on Christmas Day 2015

This isn’t something you’ll find on Todayville every day. However, in this particular case the details of this report are so astounding we decided to share it as it was released to the media from the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team. These are the findings of the ASIRT investigation into the fatal shooting of a Red Deer man back on Christmas Day of 2015. The photo on the thumbnail is courtesy of Global News.
ASIRT confirms RCMP officers’ actions justifiedOn December 25, 2015, the Director of Law Enforcement directed ASIRT (Alberta Serious Incident Response Team) to investigate the circumstances surrounding an officer-involved shooting which resulted in the death of a 37-year-old male Red Deer resident. That day, in the early morning hours, the man attended the residence he shared with his common-law. At that location, it is alleged that he committed several serious violent criminal offences. Following a series of 911 calls, Red Deer RCMP began investigating the matter and information was obtained that suggested that the man might be found operating a stolen truck. RCMP began searching for the man and the stolen vehicle. An RCMP officer located the stolen truck being operated near Sylvan Lake and activated his emergency equipment to initiate a vehicle stop. The driver of the stolen truck, identified as the affected person, stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road. As the officer prepared to exit the vehicle, without warning, the stolen truck reversed at a high rate of speed and struck the police vehicle. The force used to ram the police vehicle was so significant it resulted in minor injuries to the officer and disabled the officer’s vehicle. The affected person then fled the scene in the stolen truck. At approximately 12:50 p.m., RCMP received a 911 call reporting that the man had attended the rural home of people he knew in the area, stating he was in trouble for ramming a police vehicle and requesting money, a cell phone, and keys. The residents refused to provide assistance, and the man, unhappy with the refusal to provide assistance, returned to the stolen truck and drove it into the residence and a snowmobile in the yard before driving away. Officers located the stolen truck abandoned in the Caterpillar (CAT) Finning lot in the Edgar Industrial area in Red Deer. The man had left the truck, entered a CAT 937K front-end loader, and began driving it through the area. He drove through and over a fence gaining access to the Baker Hughes parking lot. There, he struck multiple vehicles with the loader, ramming them and/or flipping them over onto their sides, causing extensive damage. He was located in a nearby field driving the loader into and over stacked hay bales. RCMP followed the man as he drove the loader through fields and on roadways including driving it on a portion of Highway 2, where he came within feet of civilian vehicles on the roadway. As the loader encountered a substantial amount of traffic in the areas it travelled, RCMP were extremely concerned about public safety and officer safety. In order to ensure public safety, RCMP temporarily closed access to the highway to prevent the front-end loader from coming into close proximity to additional civilian vehicles. A request for the assistance of the RCMP Emergency Response Team and the Calgary Police Service’s HAWCS helicopter was made. It is clear that the RCMP were hoping to resolve the situation without the use of significant force while attempting to divert civilians from the area to ensure their safety. At approximately 1:30 p.m., two officers, in two separate unmarked police vehicles, were attempting to set up a spike belt on Range Road 273A when the man drove into the area and, upon seeing the officers, drove directly at the police vehicles. As both officers attempted to reposition their vehicles, one officer, operating an unmarked Dodge Charger and facing the oncoming loader, was required to proceed in reverse on the roadway. That officer reversed into a driveway and was followed in by the man in the loader. The second officer, having observed the vehicles turn into the driveway, parked and ran through the trees towards the driveway and yard. Having followed the first police vehicle into the driveway, the man was able to ram the police vehicle with the loader and push it into a nearby large tree, effectively pinning the officer, who was still inside, and beginning to crush the Charger between the loader and the tree. The man attempted to lower the bucket down onto the roof of the Charger but it became wedged or hung up in the tree and he was unable to do so. The second officer had, by this time, come upon the scene and having observed the attack, he began firing his service pistol at the man in the cab of the front-end loader. Notwithstanding damage to the door of the Charger, the first officer managed to escape the Charger and also fired upon the man in the front-end loader. Both officers ceased firing when the front-end loader proceeded into a nearby field where it twice moved around in a large circle in the field. Officers in a 4 x 4 vehicle drove up parallel to the front-end loader and observed the man to be slumped on the floor of the cab, motionless. Having concerns for public safety and wanting to get the man medical care as soon as possible, a decision was made to attempt to shoot out the tires to try and slow or stop the loader. An officer discharged his police service weapon at the front left tire of the loader, which had no impact and made it readily apparent that this raised a risk of uncontrolled ricochet, so no additional shots were fired. The front-end loader eventually straightened out, driving into a densely treed area where it knocked over a large tree before becoming lodged. An officer was able to remove the unresponsive man from the cab, and upon Emergency Medical Services’ arrival and assessment, the man was pronounced deceased. An autopsy was conducted by the Chief Medical Examiner’s office. It was determined the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds to the torso. Toxicology results found both methamphetamine and amphetamine, a metabolite of methamphetamine, in the man’s blood. ASIRT executive director, Susan D. Hughson, Q.C., received the completed ASIRT investigation and after a careful review of the evidence has confirmed all the officers involved were lawfully placed, were acting lawfully in the execution of their duties, and the use of force was reasonable and justified. The man had been ingesting methamphetamine and had engaged in unpredictable, violent acts.The Caterpillar 938K that he was driving has an approximate operating weight of 35,104 lbs, and has the capacity to carry an additional 20,997 lbs. It was approximately 10 feet tall, 9 feet wide, and 24 feet long. It has a top speed of 40 km/hr. The standard tire is a Michelin XHA2, which has a reinforced sidewall and a special rubber compound to reduce tearing. The cab is designed for safety with curved glass and integrated roll cage. Operating this front-end loader in the manner he did resulted in it becoming a weaponized 35,000 lb blunt instrument that was much more difficult to stop or contain than any other standard vehicle. Even prior to the ramming of the Charger police vehicle, it is my opinion that the officers had a duty to ensure public safety and apprehend the man to render the situation safe. Importantly, officers did not directly engage the man. Instead, it was the man who escalated the incident by attacking the officers. In doing so, he committed acts objectively capable of causing death or grievous bodily harm. An officer may use lethal force where he or she reasonably believes that the someone presents a risk of death or grievous bodily harm to another person. In this case, the situation had gone beyond the mere perception of risk. The man’s actions, in ramming the police vehicle while the officer was still inside, pushing it into a tree, and trying to lower the bucket onto the roof of the vehicle, placed that officer at imminent risk of grievous bodily harm or death and only the split second decision to use lethal force prevented that from happening. The force used was necessary and reasonable in all the circumstances notwithstanding the tragic outcome. This finding in no way diminishes the sad fact that a family has lost their loved one. On behalf of ASIRT, the Executive Director extends condolences to the family and friends of the deceased in relation to this tragic event. ASIRT would like to take this opportunity to thank those who came forward in response to our request for witnesses. Although not often mentioned, in any ASIRT investigation, the assistance of members of the public can be critical. Those who come forward are just another reflection of the good people in this province. 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, as well as serious or sensitive allegations of police misconduct. |
International
UK Supreme Court rules ‘woman’ means biological female

Susan Smith (L) and Marion Calder, directors of ‘For Women Scotland’ cheer as they leave the Supreme Court on April 16, 2025, in London, England after winning their appeal in defense of biological reality
From LifeSiteNews
By Michael Haynes, Snr. Vatican Correspondent
The ruling, in which the court rejected transgender legal status, comes as a victory for campaigners who have urged the recognition of biological reality and common sense in the law.
The U.K. Supreme Court has issued a ruling stating that “woman” in law refers to a biological female, and that transgender “women” are not female in the eyes of the law.
In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled today that legally transgender “women” are not women, since a woman is legally defined by “biological sex.”
Published April 16, the Supreme Court’s 88-page verdict was handed down on the case of Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v. The Scottish Ministers (Respondent). The ruling marks the end of a battle of many years between the Scottish government and women’s right campaigners who sought to oppose the government’s promotion of transgender ideology.
In 2018, the Scottish government issued a decision to allow the definition of “woman” to include men who assume their gender to be female, opening the door to allowing so-called “transgender” individuals to identify as women.
This guidance was challenged by women’s rights campaigners, arguing that a woman should be defined in line with biological sex, and in 2022 the Scottish government was forced to change its definition after the court found that such a move was outside the government’s “legislative competence.”
Given this, the government issued new guidance which sought to cover both aspects: saying that biological women are women, but also that men with a “gender recognition certificate” (GRC) are also considered women. A GRC is given to people who identify as the opposite sex and who have had medical or surgical interventions in an attempt to “reassign” their gender.
Women Scotland Ltd appealed this new guidance. At first it was rejected by inner courts, but upon their taking the matter to the Supreme Court in March last year, the nation’s highest judicial body took up the case.
Today, with the ruling issued against transgender ideology, women’s campaigners are welcoming the news as a win for women’s safety.
“A thing of beauty,” praised Lois McLatchie Miller from the Alliance Defending Freedom legal group.
“They looked at the whole argument, not just who goes in what bathroom and trans women. This is going to change organizations, employers, service providers,” Maya Forstater, chief executive of Sex Matters, told the Telegraph. “Everyone is going to have to pay attention to this, this is from the highest court in the land. It’s saying sex in the Equality Act is biological sex. Self ID is dead.”
“Victory,” commented Charlie Bently-Astor, a prominent campaigner for biological reality against the transgender movement, after she nearly underwent surgical transition herself at a younger age.
“After 15 years of insanity, the U.K. Supreme Court has ruled that men who say they are ‘trans women’ are not women,” wrote leader of the Christian political movement David Kurten.
Leader of the Conservative Party – the opposition to the current Labour government – Kemi Badenoch welcomed the court’s ruling, writing that “saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either.”
Others lamented the fact that the debate even was taking place, let alone having gone to the Supreme Court.
“What a parody we live in,” commented Reform Party candidate Joseph Robertson.
Rupert Lowe MP – who has risen to new prominence in recent weeks for his outspoken condemnation of the immigration and rape gang crisis – wrote, “Absolute madness that we’re even debating what a woman is – it’s a biological fact. No amount of woke howling will ever change that.”
However, the Supreme Court did not wish to get pulled into siding with certain arguments, with Lord Hodge of the tribunal stating that “we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.”
The debate has taken center stage in the U.K. in recent years, not least for the role played by the current Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Starmer himself has become notorious throughout the nation for his contradictions and inability to answer the question of what a woman is, having flip-flopped on saying that a woman can have a penis, due to his support for the transgender movement.
At the time of going to press, neither Starmer nor his deputy Angela Rayner issued a statement about the Supreme Court ruling. There has been no statement issued from the Scottish government either, nor from the office of the first minister.
Transgender activists have expectedly condemned the ruling as “a disgusting attack on trans rights.” One leading transgender campaigner individual told Sky News, “I am gutted to see the judgement from the Supreme Court which ends 20 years of understanding that transgender people with a GRC are able to be, for all intents and purposes, legally recognized as our true genders.”
International
Tulsi Gabbard tells Trump she has ‘evidence’ voting machines are ‘vulnerable to hackers’

From LifeSiteNews
By Stephen Kokx
Last month, Trump signed an executive order directing federal election-related funds to be conditioned on states “complying with the integrity measures set forth by Federal law, including the requirement that states use the national mail voter registration form that will now require proof of citizenship.”
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced during a Cabinet meeting last week at the White House that voting machines across the U.S. are not secure.
“We have evidence of how these electronic voting systems have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time, and vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast,” she said about a half hour into the meeting.
Gabbard’s remarks confirm what millions of Americans have long suspected about elections across the U.S.
President Donald Trump himself has maintained skepticism of current voting methods and has called for paper ballots to prevent cheating.
MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell was one of only a few voices to publicly argue that voting machines, like those run by Dominion and Smartmatic which were used during the 2020 presidential election, were compromised. GOP Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor-Greene took to X to praise the businessman after Gabbard made her remarks.
“Mike Lindell along with MANY others vindicated!!” she exclaimed on X. “Another conspiracy theory being proven right! Guess what Democrats already knew this and publicly talked about it in 2019! And then lied and lied and lied!!!”
Last month, Trump signed an executive order directing federal election-related funds to be conditioned on states “complying with the integrity measures set forth by Federal law, including the requirement that states use the national mail voter registration form that will now require proof of citizenship.”
Congress has also taken steps to ensure election integrity by voting on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (also known as the SAVE Act) last week. Dubbed “controversial” by the media and left-wing groups, the common sense bill would require persons to show proof of citizenship before voting. The House approved the measure 220-208 with four Democrats in support. The bill now heads to the Senate where it will face an uphill battle for the required 60 votes. Republicans currently have a 53 seat majority.
Gabbard told Trump at the meeting that the evidence she found “further drives forward your mandate to bring about paper ballots across the country so that voters can have faith in the integrity of our elections.”
-
Autism2 days ago
NIH, CMS partner on autism research
-
Economy1 day ago
Canada’s Energy Wealth Is Bleeding South
-
Business2 days ago
Innovative Solutions Like This Plan To Provide Power For Data Centres Will Drive Natural Gas Demand For Decades
-
espionage1 day ago
Hong Kong Police Detain Relatives of Canadian Candidate Targeted by Beijing Election Interference
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims
-
Business1 day ago
Trump announces UK will fast-track American products under new deal
-
Energy1 day ago
Ontario Leads the G7 by Building First Small Modular Reactor
-
Crime7 hours ago
How the CCP’s United Front Turned Canada’s Legal Cannabis Market into a Global Narcotics Brokerage Network