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.

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.

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:#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

Investigating Biden’s last minute pardons

Business / 6 hours ago

Five key issues—besides Trump’s tariffs—the Carney government should tackle

conflict / 6 hours ago

Inspired by Ukraine, Armed by the U.S., Reinvented by Tech: Taiwan’s New Way of War

Alberta

Alberta’s oil bankrolls Canada’s public services

Published on May 12, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Perry Kinkaide and Bill Jones

It’s time Canadians admitted Alberta’s oilpatch pays the bills. Other provinces just cash the cheques

When Canadians grumble about Alberta’s energy ambitions—labelling the province greedy for wanting to pump more oil—few stop to ask how much
money from each barrel ends up owing to them?

The irony is staggering. The very provinces rallying for green purity are cashing cheques underwritten not just by Alberta, but indirectly by the United States, which purchases more than 95 per cent of Alberta’s oil and gas, paid in U.S. dollars.

That revenue doesn’t stop at the Rockies. It flows straight to Ottawa, funding equalization programs (which redistribute federal tax revenue to help less wealthy provinces), national infrastructure and federal services that benefit the rest of the country.

This isn’t political rhetoric. It’s economic fact. Before the Leduc oil discovery in 1947, Alberta received about $3 to $5 billion (in today’s dollars) in federal support. Since then, it has paid back more than $500 billion. A $5-billion investment that returned 100 times more is the kind of deal that would send Bay Street into a frenzy.

Alberta’s oilpatch includes a massive industry of energy companies, refineries and pipeline networks that produce and export oil and gas, mostly to the U.S. Each barrel of oil generates roughly $14 in federal revenue through corporate taxes, personal income taxes, GST and additional fiscal capacity that boosts equalization transfers. Multiply that by more than 3.7 million barrels of oil (plus 8.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas) exported daily, and it’s clear Alberta underwrites much of the country’s prosperity.

Yet many Canadians seem unwilling to acknowledge where their prosperity comes from. There’s a growing disconnect between how goods are consumed and how they’re produced. People forget that gasoline comes from oil wells, electricity from power plants and phones from mining. Urban slogans like “Ban Fossil Fuels” rarely engage with the infrastructure and fiscal reality that keeps the country running.

Take Prince Edward Island, for example. From 1957 to 2023, it received $19.8 billion in equalization payments and contributed just $2 billion in taxes—a net gain of $17.8 billion.

Quebec tells a similar story. In 2023 alone, it received more than $14 billion in equalization payments, while continuing to run balanced or surplus budgets. From 1961 to 2023, Quebec received more than $200 billion in equalization payments, much of it funded by revenue from Alberta’s oil industry..

To be clear, not all federal transfers are equalization. Provinces also receive funding through national programs such as the Canada Health Transfer and
Canada Social Transfer. But equalization is the one most directly tied to the relative strength of provincial economies, and Alberta’s wealth has long driven that system.

By contrast to the have-not provinces, Alberta’s contribution has been extraordinary—an estimated 11.6 per cent annualized return on the federal
support it once received. Each Canadian receives about $485 per year from Alberta-generated oil revenues alone. Alberta is not the problem—it’s the
foundation of a prosperous Canada.

Still, when Alberta questions equalization or federal energy policy, critics cry foul. Premier Danielle Smith is not wrong to challenge a system in which the province footing the bill is the one most often criticized.

Yes, the oilpatch has flaws. Climate change is real. And many oil profits flow to shareholders abroad. But dismantling Alberta’s oil industry tomorrow wouldn’t stop climate change—it would only unravel the fiscal framework that sustains Canada.

The future must balance ambition with reality. Cleaner energy is essential, but not at the expense of biting the hand that feeds us.

And here’s the kicker: Donald Trump has long claimed the U.S. doesn’t need Canada’s products and therefore subsidizes Canada. Many Canadians scoffed.

But look at the flow of U.S. dollars into Alberta’s oilpatch—dollars that then bankroll Canada’s federal budget—and maybe, for once, he has a point.
It’s time to stop denying where Canada’s wealth comes from. Alberta isn’t the problem. It’s central to the country’s prosperity and unity.

Dr. Perry Kinkaide is a visionary leader and change agent. Since retiring in 2001, he has served as an advisor and director for various organizations and founded the Alberta Council of Technologies Society in 2005. Previously, he held leadership roles at KPMG Consulting and the Alberta Government. He holds a BA from Colgate University and an MSc and PhD in Brain Research from the University of Alberta.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Alberta

Alberta’s industrial carbon tax freeze is a good first step

Published on May 12, 2025

Todayville

By Gage Haubrich

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is applauding Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s decision to freeze the province’s industrial carbon tax.

“Smith is right to freeze the cost of Alberta’s hidden industrial carbon tax that increases the cost of everything,” said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. “This move is a no-brainer to make Alberta more competitive, save taxpayers money and protect jobs.”

Smith announced the Alberta government will be freezing the rate of its industrial carbon tax at $95 per tonne.

The federal government set the rate of the consumer carbon tax to zero on April 1. However, it still imposes a requirement for an industrial carbon tax.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said he would “improve and tighten” the industrial carbon tax.

The industrial carbon tax currently costs businesses $95 per tonne of emissions. It is set to increase to $170 per tonne by 2030. Carney has said he would extend the current industrial carbon tax framework until 2035, meaning the costs could reach $245 a tonne. That’s more than double the current tax.

The Saskatchewan government recently scrapped its industrial carbon tax completely.

Seventy per cent of Canadians said businesses pass most or some industrial carbon tax costs on to consumers, according to a recent Leger poll.

“Smith needs to stand up for Albertans and cancel the industrial carbon tax altogether,” Haubrich said. “Smith deserves credit for freezing Alberta’s industrial carbon tax and she needs to finish the job by scrapping the industrial carbon tax completely.”