ASIRT investigation into Blackfalds RCMP shooting determines officer response appropriate

In the police vehicle video, investigators say it is clear that the three males are all larger than the officer. She spoke with CW1 and asked for documentation such as license and registration. The plate on the Jeep did not match the vehicle and CW1 did not have his license, and the officer discussed this with CW1.

The SO then began to walk away from the Jeep. CW1, who was slightly behind the officer, lunged at her and put her in a chokehold.

Video shows CW1 brought the officer down, hitting her head on the Jeep’s rear wheel in the process. The officer began to struggle against CW1, and CW2 assisted with restraining her.

From what is visible on the video, investigators say CW1 and CW2 appear to have been trying to remove the officer’s equipment. Shortly after the officer was thrown to the ground, the AP exited the passenger side of the Jeep and watched what was happening, soon joining in.

The AP then took something from the officer and threw it toward the ditch. He also grabbed the officer’s microphone cord from her radio and pulled it as though he was attempting to sever it.

CW2 then appeared to find something on the officer, and he turned and ran toward the officer’s police vehicle. The AP joined him.

CW1 remained with the officer and flipped her on her side, appearing to try to get something on her left hip, which is where her handgun was.

Investigators say that video shows CW2 started to drive away in the police vehicle, with CW1 getting up and going into the vehicle.

The officer got up, drew her handgun, and fired four shots at the police vehicle. As CW2 drove by the Jeep, an apparent bullet hole appeared in the windshield of the police vehicle. The AP was struck once in his left calf.

CW2 drove into the ditch, and then returned to the road before stopping briefly. They continued for some distance before severely damaging and then abandoning the police vehicle. Officers moved into the area and arrested all three.

Affected Person’s (AP) Statement

On December 13, 2019, the AP spoke to ASIRT investigators. He told them that, on the evening before the incident, he had been using cocaine and marijuana. He met up with two friends and they went into the country to help a friend who was stuck. CW1 picked him up in a white Jeep.

Once they were out in the country, they became stuck. The officer stopped shortly after that. The officer went to help another vehicle and then returned to help them. After the discussion of the Jeep’s paperwork, CW1 took down the officer and CW2 helped restrain her. CW1 and CW2 yelled for him to help them. He grabbed the clip from the radio and threw it away, and then hid on the other side of the vehicle. He did not see anyone try to grab her handgun. Once he was in the vehicle, he heard four or five shots. Several hit the vehicle before he was hit.

Civilian Witness #1 (CW1)

CW1 refused to speak to ASIRT investigators.

Civilian Witness #2 (CW2)

On January 2, 2020, CW2 spoke to ASIRT investigators. He said that he and CW1 had done methamphetamine and then picked up the AP. After the officer stopped the first time, CW1 became anxious. When she returned, CW1 grabbed her in a full nelson. CW1 told him to grab the officer’s gun and shoot her. CW2 said that he pretended that he couldn’t get the handgun out of the holster.

Prosecution of the AP, CW1, and CW2

From this incident, the AP, CW1, and CW2 were all charged. The AP was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 4 years’ jail. CW1 and CW2 were each sentenced to 5 years’ jail on convictions for robbery and disarming or attempting to disarm a police officer.

Scene

ASIRT investigators examined the Jeep and surrounding area. Two shell casings and a knife were found on the ground near the Jeep. A loaded pistol was found in the glovebox of the Jeep.

Subject Officer’s (SO) Statement

On February 5, 2020, ASIRT investigators interviewed the officer. This interview consisted of a written statement from the SO and follow up questions from the investigators.

The SO confirmed the reason she was in the area and her initial dealings with the three males at the truck. The issues with the Jeep caused her to be suspicious, but the three were complying with her directions so she did not call for backup. When she started to walk back to her vehicle, CW1 put her in a chokehold, and they fell to the ground while struggling.

CW1 was trying to get her gun and telling the others to get the gun. She pushed the emergency button on her radio and gave her location. She continued to struggle and was hit multiple times.

One male said he was sorry, and another said not to fight back or he would “!@#$ [her] up.” She thought she was going to die.

As a tactic, she stopped struggling and focused on keeping her gun in its holster. One of the males pulled on the microphone cord from her radio and they took her keys from her belt. The males then left her and went to her police vehicle. One of them started to drive, and the last one got in. She was approximately 10-15 feet away from the vehicle at this time. The officer knew that the road was a dead end, and she was concerned they would come back to harm or kill her. She was also concerned they may go to residences down that road and harm occupants. As a result, she fired three to four shots from her handgun at the driver.

ASIRT notes that all uses of force by police must be proportionate, necessary, and reasonable. ASIRT further notes that police actions are not to be judged on a standard of perfection, but on a standard of reasonableness.

On that day, ASIRT investigators say the officer was performing normal duties when she was attacked by three men. Her duty, once no longer being attacked, became to apprehend the three, who had just committed very serious offences against her and had stolen a marked police vehicle.

She was required or authorized by law to stop the threat they posed to her and the public quickly. The group of three males had shown they were willing to attack a police officer.

CW1 appeared to want to kill a police officer. They now had a marked police vehicle and could impersonate police officers. The danger they presented to her, and the public was extreme, and her response was warranted.

The ASIRT investigation further concluded, it would be unreasonable to expect someone who had just almost been murdered to not react in self-defence.

—

Download the rdnewsNOW mobile app on Google Play and the Apple App Store for all the latest updates on this and other stories.

by rdnewsNOW staff

ASIRT investigation into Blackfalds RCMP shooting determines officer response appropriate

What's Trending