EDMONTON — The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team says two officers who shot an armed Wetaskiwin man in March 2015 acted lawfully.
After an investigation, ASIRT concluded the officers’ use of force was “reasonable and justified in all the circumstances” when they shot a man wielding a crossbow on March 24, 2015.
RCMP were originally called to a domestic dispute at a Wetaskiwin apartment building. A woman who fled the building told police the man, who was later identified as 40-year-old Mark Mabbott, had a crossbow and said he might fight with police.
When officers arrived on scene, they spoke to the suspect through the door of the apartment suite but he would not leave the building.
Get daily National news
A standoff followed, during which time the suspect went in and out of the suite a number of times. At one point he came out carrying a knife. The next time he was holding a compound bow, police said.
After about an hour, the man came out of the apartment carrying the crossbow. Police said they repeatedly asked the man to drop the weapon but he did not comply.
Police said the suspect then pointed the weapon at the officers and drew back the arrow into a firing position. That’s when two police officers shot their weapons. The suspect was struck once in the upper body.
- ‘Use of force encounter’ in Winnipeg shuts down section of Route 90, police responding
- Toronto man arrested as second suspect in targeted shooting in Peterborough
- Man found dead near Manitoba self-storage compound, man charged
- Kenneth Law pleads guilty to 14 counts of aiding suicide, will see murder charges dropped
READ MORE: Man seriously injured following central Alberta police shooting
The man was taken to hospital where he underwent surgery. No officers were injured in the ordeal.
Mabbott was charged with four counts of aggravated assault, four counts of assault with a weapon, one count of possessing a weapon dangerous to the public, and one count of assault.
ASIRT Executive Director Susan Hughson received the finished investigation and has determined that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the officers involved committed a criminal offence.
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.