The province’s police watchdog has cleared a London police officer of criminal wrongdoing after a suspect holding knives was shot by police near the city’s downtown core over the summer.
The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) said Thursday that officers had been called to the scene in the 300-block of Dufferin Avenue around 10:30 p.m. on July 21 for a reported domestic disturbance.
According to the SIU report, police were contacted by a woman who told dispatch that she had been locked outside of her address by her partner, who indicated to her that there would be a “blood bath tonight” and that he would slit his wrists.
The caller told police a minute later that her partner “now has knives in his hands.” Two minutes later, she noted that he had mentioned in the past that he wanted “suicide by cop.”
At the scene, officers located the man, who emerged from the residence and began to make his way towards officers who were stationed down the driveway, the SIU report says, noting that it appeared the man had knives taped to both of his hands.
One officer, identified as Witness officer #1, spoke with the man, who asked the officer whether they wanted to be stabbed. The officer asked the man what was wrong, assuring him that police were not interested in a confrontation, the SIU report says.
“Despite repeated directions from the officers that he drop the knives in his possession and stop his advance, the Complainant continued to move in their direction,” the report states.
Another officer, identified as Witness officer #2, aimed and deployed his taser at the man’s chest, however the man remained on his feet and continued towards the officers, the report says. Roughly 30 seconds later, Witness officer #1 discharged his taser, however the man “continued to gain on the officer,” the report says.
It was then that the SIU says the officer at the centre of the agency’s probe, identified as the Subject officer, fired his semi-automatic pistol two times, striking the man in his right upper thigh and left hand, causing him to fall to the ground on his back.
“The officers approached the Complainant, pinned his arms to the roadway with their feet as they ‘cut’ the knives free of his wrists, and tended to his injuries,” the SIU report said. The man was later taken to hospital by paramedics.
In his decision, SIU Director Joseph Martino determined that, on his assessment of the evidence, where were no reasonable grounds to believe the officer who shot the man committed a criminal offence in doing so, in particular, section 34 of the Criminal Code which relates to self-defense.
“I am satisfied that the (Subject officer) acted to thwart a reasonably apprehended knife attack at the hands of the Complainant,” Martino writes in his decision, noting that despite repeated warnings, the man continued approaching, knives pointed at the officers.
“He remained undeterred even after two (conducted energy weapons) had been deployed in his direction. On this record, I am persuaded that the (Subject officer) acted to protect (Witness officer #1), who appears to have been within two metres of the Complainant, and possibly even himself, not much further away, when he fired his gun,” Martino continues.
“In arriving at this conclusion, it is instructive to note that (Witness officer #1) and (Witness officer #2) each similarly situated as the (Subject officer), believed that (Witness officer #1’s) life was at imminent risk.”
Martino writes further that he was satisfied with that the use of gunfire by the (Subject officer) was a reasonable use of force, given efforts at verbal deescalation and use of the conducted energy weapons was futile.
In the circumstances, it would appear there was very little else the (Subject officer) could have done other than discharge his firearm at the Complainant if he was going to prevent a potentially lethal attack on his or (Witness officer #1’s) person,” he writes.
“Though the officers, including the (Subject officer), had retreated backwards a distance in an effort to maintain some distance between them and the Complainant, withdrawal was not a realistic option given the presence of (civilian witness #1) and her daughter in the vicinity, and legitimate concerns for their health and safety.
The SIU’s full report can be found on the agency’s website.
Comments