Officers trained to make ‘good faith’ calls on use of force, expert testifies

The “good faith efforts” of police officers to inflict minimal harm during an arrest doesn’t always go according to plan, court heard as the manslaughter and assault trial of Const. Daniel Montsion resumed this week.

“There’s no way for any training to anticipate every event,” retired Toronto police deputy chief Michael Federico said during exhaustive expert testimony on the training regimen for all police officers in Ontario, including the various use-of-force options police are authorized to use, and the challenges police face when dealing with people with mental health issues.

Federico said the “paramount” duty of police is to protect life — including the life of the victim, the suspect, members of the public and the officer — but acknowledged one of the fundamentals of police training is that “situations can rapidly change,” and officers need to adapt and adjust “on the fly.”

Any use-of-force option the officer employs during an arrest must be done with good reason, Federico said, and the officer should also expect to explain the rationale for using it.

“The officer would be expected to justify or explain their actions, but we also don’t want police officers during training to be so apprehensive about the restrictions around use-of-force that they’re hesitant or unable to actually carry out their duty because they’re either fearful of retribution or completely confused or bewildered,” Federico testified. “It’s reality-based training.”

One of those realities is that an arrest is likely to be a dynamic situation where “the subject won’t be standing still.”

Federico, while qualified by the court as an expert, was not permitted to testify about the specifics of Montsion’s case, and spoke only in general terms about the training officers receive and the standards they are expected to uphold.

Authorized use-of-force options include an officer’s pepper spray, extendable baton, firearm and, at the chief’s discretion, a Taser.

Physical force in the form of punches and kicks could also be a lawful force option, Federico testified, and while officers are cautioned against striking vulnerable areas like the head and neck, those “good faith efforts” don’t always work, as blows are “very likely to hit other parts of the body despite their best intentions.”

Federico also explained that an officer may use a “weapon of opportunity,” which could range from the officer’s pen to a broken chair leg to loose construction equipment, depending on the setting and the situation.

Court heard the gloves worn by Montsion during the July 24, 2016, fatal arrest of Abdirahman Abdi were not authorized as weapons, while Montsion’s defence team argued the reinforced knuckle-plated gloves aren’t weapons at all.

Federico was briefly excused from the witness stand Tuesday as Justice Robert Kelly heard arguments from the Crown and defence after prosecutor Philip Perlmutter proposed asking the witness whether the gloves would, theoretically, fall under the category of “intermediate” or “lethal” weapons.

“These are not weapons,” defence lawyer Michael Edelson objected, while arguing there has been no evidence yet at trial that the gloves are categorized as a weapon, and no expert testimony that has referred to the gloves as a weapon.