Nearly four years after a man was shot and killed by police outside an apartment building in south Edmonton, ASIRT has released its decision on whether the force used by officers was reasonable.
The report said on Dec. 26, 2018, police were tracking the 34-year-old victim Buck Evans. Evans had five outstanding warrants for his arrest.
“Officers had received information that (Evans) had made comments about shooting a firearm at police if they attempted to arrest him,” reads the ASIRT report.
Police followed his truck as it drove to an apartment building at 7909 71 Street, including officers in a police helicopter.
“Due to the perceived threat from (Evans) to officers, the EPS Tactical Section was brought in to execute the traffic stop on the vehicle and arrest (Evans),” said ASIRT.
Just after 2 p.m., the truck — a Chevrolet Avalanche — pulled into the apartment parking lot. An officer said over the radio that the plan was to wait for all of the occupants to exit the vehicle and then arrest them, the ASIRT report said.
- Human smuggling case heads to trial after family deaths at Canada-U.S. border
- FBI releases new photo of Ryan Wedding as Canadian Olympian still on the run
- Trial set for U.K. suspect accused of killing 3 girls at Taylor Swift dance class
- Legal fight deepens over plea deal for alleged mastermind of 9/11 attacks
However, before anyone exited, an officer in a marked police car drove into the parking lot and toward the Avalanche, tipping the occupants off about the police presence. The report said this was due to a misinterpretation of the truck’s location.
“Once it appeared to (that officer) that the occupants of the Chevrolet Avalanche had noticed his marked police vehicle, he felt committed to initiating the traffic stop,” said the report.
Get daily National news
Three more police cars drove in and five officers got out and began shouting commands at the people in the truck. The report said the other two people in the truck got out and were taken into custody.
However, Evans, who was sitting in the rear passengers seat, didn’t follow this direction and instead appeared to officers to be doing something down by his feet. Then, three tactical section trucks pulled up carrying five officers.
One officer fired a baton from his ARWEN, which ASIRT called a “less-lethal” device, hitting Evans on his side. About eight seconds later, a gun was fired from the truck, according to ASIRT.
The report details how it determined from overhead infrared footage from the helicopter and other evidence that the shot indeed came from the truck. It said the shot missed multiple officers by a few meters.
Six of the responding officers began shooting their guns multiple times over a period of 11 seconds. An autopsy later determined Evans died as a result of 12 gunshot wounds and a total of approximately 37 rounds were fired by police.
“All subject officers perceived the shot from the Chevrolet Avalanche to mean that their lives or the lives of their fellow officers were at risk,” said ASIRT.
ASIRT said multiple officers believed they had hit Evans and he slumped forward in his seat. When officers opened the passenger side door, a sawed-off Simonov SKS rifle loaded with 30 cartridges fell out.
ASIRT has determined that Evans was ignoring demands to get out of the truck and that he fired a gun in the direction of officers, and that the officers’ response was reasonable as they all believed their lives were at risk.
“The subject officers only discharged their firearms in response to (Evans). They did not create that part of the risk. (Evans) did,” the report said.
“Viewing the situation as a whole, the subject officers’ uses of force were reasonable.”
During the shooting, five bullets entered the apartment building behind the truck and ASIRT places most of the blame for that on Evans.
“If (Evans) had not discharged his firearm at the subject officers, the subject officers would not have returned fire and the apartment building never would have been struck,” said ASIRT.
One of those bullets ended up in the bedroom of a then three-year-old girl. Her father, Jody Day was at Thursday’s hearing and says he hopes operational procedures are looked at further.
“You know, why did this one officer make a mistake, why was he not in the right place,” wondered Day.
“The report said it was maybe a communication problem but they didn’t elaborate on it too much and I’d like to know a little more about that. I’m not laying blame on the one officer but they train for this and they have to work on the execution of when they do these operations or somebody might get hurt.“
Day thinks the whole situation could have been handled differently.
“I probably would have tried to deescalate the situation if I were making the call… because you don’t know what’s behind those walls. It was my daughter behind the wall this time, I mean we weren’t there by about 10 minutes but that’s pretty close.”
The report said there are no reasonable grounds to believe any of the officers committed a criminal offence.
“The events of Dec. 26 were dynamic and high-risk. In a situation where an individual is set on shooting at police, as (Evans) may have been, the risk of an officer involved shooting in public cannot be eliminated.”
Comments