Adam Bramburger
Beaver Staff
An OPP officer that shot an armed and suicidal man with a rubber bullet in Greater Napanee in August 2016 not only acted appropriately, his actions contributed to saving the man’s life.
That’s the conclusion Special Investigations Unit (SIU) acting director Joseph Martino reached this July as he decided the police officer involved should not face charges following the shooting incident. The SIU, Ontario’s independent police watchdog, released the decision last Thursday.
According to an incident narrative in Martino’s report, just before 7 p.m. Aug. 23 last year, police received a 911 call from a female party who claimed she ended a relationship with the 30-year-old man involved that night. She indicated she received numerous e-mails from the man who induced he intended to end his own life. Officers attended a residence at a County Rd. 8 trailer camping park.
The narrative said the man yelled out the window at the first officers to ask what they wanted and put a BB gun to his head. He pulled the trigger, but the weapon did not fire. The man also reportedly squirted lighter fluid on his body and said he’d light himself on fire. He also threatened to blow himself up and he had small propane cylinders inside his trailer that could be used to do so.
The officers attempted to get the man to exit his trailer but, Martino reports, he would not.
Later in the evening, members of the OPP Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) arrived on the scene, including the officer who was subject to the investigation.
At about 10:55 the man was observed to have cut himself on his chest and both his wrists. The officer in question shot two non-lethal plastic rounds from a weapon known as an Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield, striking the man once. Upon impact, he fell back from a window. At that point, TRU members entered the trailer and apprehended the man. He was taken by ambulance to hospital and diagnosed with a broken left clavicle.
In completing the SIU investigation, a team of three investigators and two forensic investigators responded to the complaint.
The complainant, the woman who contacted police, and five officers at the scene provided interviews. Another officer provided notes. The officer who was the subject of the investigation declined to be interviewed or provide notes, which is his legal right. Police communications recordings were also reviewed.
Martino reported that pursuant to Section 25(1) of the Criminal Code, police officers are restricted in the use of force to that which is reasonably necessary in the execution of a lawful duty. He surmised their actions met that challenge.
“Turning first to the lawfulness of the complainant’s apprehension, it is clear from all of the evidence that the complainant was intent on taking his own life and had taken numerous steps to carry out that intention, including putting a pellet gun to his head and pulling the trigger, dousing himself with lighter fluid and attempting to set himself and his trailer on fire, putting propane tanks on his stove, and attempting to blow himself up and slashing his wrists, chest, and abdomen with a knife,” he wrote.
“As such, police had reasonable grounds to believe the complainant was a danger to himself or other and therefore had grounds to apprehend him pursuant to the Mental Health Act.”
Martino then turned to the shots fired, noting he found the officer “was more than justified in the circumstances,” and that he “used no more force than necessary.”
Martino said in light of the self-harm the complainant had done and the threats of harm he was threatening, “it was certainly not a stretch for officers to believe on reasonable grounds that the complainant was capable and intent on ending his life, if not subdued.”
The report suggested it was clear the plastic bullet did cause the injury to the man’s clavicle, but it was not an excessive use of force.
Martino indicated it was clear the action was only taken after attempts to talk the complainant out of his stated intentions had failed and it appeared the only remaining option was to forcefully save the man’s life.
“As such, I find on this record that the actions by the (officer) fell within the range of what was reasonably necessary in the circumstances to effect the complainant’s lawful detention, preserve his life and ensure public safety.”