The Chronicle Herald (Provincial)
Chantel Moore’s killing was a homicide, jury rules
Recommends process to repair relationships between police and Indigenous peoples
A jury has ruled that the 2020 police killing of 26-year-old Indigenous woman Chantel Moore was a homicide, and is calling for an Indigenous liaison and significant changes in police policy to prevent similar deaths in the future.
As the jury returned following its deliberations, the presence of Moore’s mother, Martha Martin, was announced by drumming and traditional song. Members of the jury, the Crown and presiding coroner Emily Caissie watched the grieving mother as she walked into the room wearing regalia, including a shawl with eagle wings spread on each side which she said was to help carry her when she’s too weak to walk. The shawl was designed for her after her son died while in police custody, just five months after her daughter was shot, and Martin said the wings represent each of her children.
Tears streamed down her face as she approached the seat tied with yellow ribbon and a yellow paper dress featuring Chantel’s name in elegant handwriting. As she took her place in the courtroom, a memorial shawl that read “No Justice, No Peace,” in large bold print hung over the back of her chair.
Martin moaned in sorrow as a member of the jury read the conclusions, which included establishing an independent body to oversee instances of police use of force, and the establishment of clear and concise protocol on how to activate the process for all police agencies in New Brunswick. The jury also recommended a formal process to repair relationships between law enforcement and Indigenous peoples in the province, including cultural sensitivity training and a formal recognition of the mistrust that First Nations communities may have for police authorities.
AGREED WITH FINAL WITNESS
The jury said it agreed with recommendations put forth by the final witness, retired inspector and use of force expert, Christopher Butler, who had been asked by the New Brunswick Chief Coroner’s Office to provide an independent review of Const. Jeremy Son’s conduct in advance of the inquest.
Butler told the jury that, based on the evidence available, he concluded Son had no other option but to use lethal force when Moore came out of her apartment and moved towards him holding a steak knife.
Butler said tactical repositioning, or moving himself out of harm’s way, wasn’t an option because Son did not give himself a clear exit. He said if Son had moved in another direction when Moore opened the door, he might have been able to disengage and go down the stairwell, but when Moore moved onto the balcony, she was blocking his only exit.
Butler told the jury that in the process of his investigation, he identified several issues within the Edmundston Police Force, including policies and procedures on the administration of first aid in a medical emergency. Butler said based on national best practices, when an officer initiates life-saving first aid, those efforts are to continue until qualified medical personnel arrive to take over. He went on to say that an officer is not trained to make a determination of death and stop CPR.
STOPPED FIRST AID
Earlier this week, Son testified that he applied pressure on one of Moore’s gunshot wounds, but when another member of the Edmundston Police Force could no longer detect Moore’s pulse, Son stopped administering first aid and CPR was not attempted.
Butler also told the jury that the police force lacked policies related to carrying use-of-force equipment such as Tasers or pepper spray, and didn’t have a formal policy for dealing with broken or damaged police equipment. He recommended better training in de-escalation tactics, crisis intervention and first aid, and a process by which officers should not respond to safety checks alone as happened in Moore’s case. Butler said he couldn’t understand why the second officer who responded on June 4, 2020 stayed in his police cruiser in the parking lot of Moore’s apartment building and didn’t join Son until he heard gunshots fired.
AN EMOTIONAL DAY
Moore’s eight-year-old daughter, Gracie, joined the family May 19 for the final day of testimony. Wearing a traditional ribbon skirt and carrying a Nintendo Switch, the child hid behind her grandmother as they passed the security guards outside the courtroom.
“It’s OK, you are safe,” Martha Martin was heard whispering to her granddaughter, of whom she now has custody, “They aren’t police.”
Martin told reporters that since the child’s mother was killed, she has been scared of uniformed officers and worries they will hurt her, too.
Wolastoq Grand Chief Ron Tremblay fanned sacred smoke throughout the courtroom using an eagle wing, as Gracie sat quietly looking at the banner of photographs of her playing with her mother displayed at the front of the room. She left the room as the sole testimony of the day began.
When the jury finished reading its findings, the coroner expressed her condolences and embraced Martin, a display of empathy that had come to mark her interactions throughout the inquest.
“It’s very hard to see so much pain, I feel very deeply for the loss that they suffered,” Emily Caissie said.
“I hope that this was able to bring them answers. If there’s anything I could do, at least if I could have brought the family some answers they were looking for, then the inquest was successful,” Caissie later told reporters.
Speaking to reporters, Martha Martin reflected on the week, saying that hearing about the details around her daughter’s death was like losing her all over again.
“Those are images that I see when I close my eyes. Nobody wants to visualize their child dying alone on their porch. That’s what I’ve been through this week. Hearing details of how she died and hearing details about her last breath, and those are things that I wasn’t aware of,” she said.
Martin said it’s time for action and she expects the jury’s recommendations from the jury to be implemented.
Caissie said the next step is to deliver the recommendations to the parties responsible for their implementation. They will then have six months to respond, detailing what action, if any, will be taken.