No officers charged in probe of rough arrest
But some force could be deemed beyond the ‘reasonably necessary,’ ASIRT finds
An investigation into the November 2016 shooting of a suspected car thief has cleared the Calgary officer involved while raising questions about the conduct of two others in the incident.
The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT), in a decision released Friday, determined the officer’s use of force — 11 shots were fired in under three seconds — was justified given the lifethreatening circumstances.
But the police watchdog, following a separate review, suggested at least one officer acted unreasonably by kicking the suspect after he had been pulled from the stolen Honda Civic.
ASIRT said investigators became aware of additional uses of force during the “chaotic” aftermath of the altercation and eventual arrest of the 20-year-old suspect.
Much of the evidence was captured on CPS patrol vehicle video.
“On the available evidence, it is more difficult to see this use of force as reasonably necessary,” it said. “Objectively, the actions could be viewed as unnecessary, punitive and the result of heightened emotions rather than tactical need.”
Despite ASIRT’s finding, Crown prosecutors decided no officers will face charges, stating there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction for any of the force used.
The Nov. 3, 2016, incident began when two officers in a marked police cruiser encountered the stolen Civic in the northeast community of Dover. When stopped in an alley, the suspect attempted to flee, ramming the cruiser.
While his partner struggled to shift the vehicle into park and detain the driver, a second officer fired into the vehicle, striking the suspect four times.
While pulling the wounded suspect from the car, an officer tripped and fell backward, taking the man down with him. On video, one of the first officers who stepped in to assist delivered three quick, closed-fist punches to the man’s torso.
With a number of officers and the suspect on the ground, another officer stepped in and kicked the suspect five times near his head and upper torso, ASIRT said.
The officer who had fallen regained his footing and told everyone to “chill.” Following that, the officer who had previously kicked the suspect, stepped in again and kicked him three more times.
“In this case, while some use of force may have been subjectively and objectively necessary, some of the force used was capable of being viewed as more than what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances, particularly as it related to the kicks to the man,” ASIRT said.
ASIRT is required to send an investigation to Crown prosecutors when there is evidence capable of providing reasonable grounds to believe an offence was committed.
ASIRT executive director Susan Hughson said the first officer’s three punches to subdue the suspect would be considered reasonable; the actions of the second officer who twice kicked the man were more difficult to assess.
“Mindful that there is no evidence of what the officer perceived nor any reason given by this officer for why this force was used, the first series of kicks might have been subjectively and objectively reasonably necessary to gain control of the man,” she said.
“The greater challenge arises with the respect to the second set of kicks, administered after a pause in the action, after an opportunity for sober second thought and after officers had effectively been called off by the primary officer dealing with the man.”
The two involved officers declined to provide a statement or any information during the ASIRT investigation.
Hughson determined there was no evidence to suggest the officer who fired the shots committed any Criminal Code offence.
“While it is unfortunate that the man sustained serious injuries, his actions in attempting to escape would have created a reasonable apprehension that the first officer’s life was in danger,” the ASIRT release reads. “The force that was used to address that danger was reasonable given all of the circumstances.”
ASIRT investigates incidents involving police that result in serious injury or death in addition to serious allegations of police misconduct.
Objectively, the actions could be viewed as unnecessary, punitive and the result of heightened emotions.