FROG LAKE, ALBERTA - Nearly four years after the July 19, 2018 officer-involved shooting happened, Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) has released a report that details what lead to the death of a 40-year-old man from Frog Lake.
On July 19, ASIRT was called to investigate circumstances around the death of the 40-year-old man who was shot during an altercation with RCMP officers that same day.
"ASIRT’s investigation was comprehensive and thorough, conducted using current investigative protocols, and in accordance with the principles of Major Case Management," reads the report, released on April 13, 2022.
The 40-year-old man was a member of Frog Lake First Nation, "he had a loving family including nine children and four grandchildren," reads the ASIRT report. "His mother was present during some of the incident. She repeatedly asked to go to the residence to try to convince her son to surrender, but the RCMP did not allow her to go. She also went close to the residence on her own and yelled to her son to give up."
The ASIRT report includes background on what lead to the July 19 incident.
On July 5, 2018, Elk Point RCMP were called to a residence in Frog Lake. The occupant of that residence told police that the "affected person and the affected person’s brother had come to the house, armed with firearms, and said that the occupant owed them money. He further told officers that the pair had assaulted him with a firearm, rendering him unconscious and causing a wound on his head."
The occupant did not want to provide police with a statement.
On July 6, "RCMP received an anonymous tip that the affected person was driving around Frog Lake in a black Dodge Avenger, armed with firearms and threatening to shoot people. RCMP were unable to locate the vehicle at that time."
Then on July 14, while a police was on patrol, the occupant from the July 5 incident approached the officer and told him that "the affected person, the affected person’s brother, and two unknown males had come to his home, again stating that he owed them something. The occupant stated that the affected person’s brother and the unknown males beat him with a baseball bat, and stole his vehicle, a blue Chevrolet Venture."
Again, it was reported that the group was in possession of firearms.
The next day, the same occupant called RCMP to report the affected person had come again to his house and pointed a gun at him. The occupant provided police with a statement this time.
On July 16, arrest warrants were issued for the affected person and his brother. And on July 18, police received information from a different individual stating the affected person and his brother had forced him - at gunpoint - to sign over ownership of a vehicle - a black Dodge Avenger.
During the morning of July 19, officers with the RCMP Eastern Alberta District Crime Reduction Unit (CRU) went to the residence of the affected person's uncle, where a black Dodge Avenger was observed, covered by a tarp. While the uncle gave permission for police to enter the residence, "the affected person yelled to the officers that he was armed and wanted them to enter the house for a confrontation."
Officers did not enter the residence. Instead a perimeter was set up. A warrant to enter the residence was granted shortly afternoon noon.
"After containment of the residence was established, general duty RCMP officers continued to speak to the affected person, and advised him that he was under arrest. The affected person offered to come out at one point, but then said he was going to get into a shootout. The affected person also told the officers that he was using methamphetamine in the residence," reads the ASIRT report.
The RCMP Edmonton Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT) was called out to negotiate. Negotiations took place for about eight and a half hours.
"CNT officers repeatedly told the affected person that they did not want to hurt anyone, and told him to exit the residence with nothing in his hands."
The Emergency Response Team (ERT) arrived on scene at about 3 p.m., and brought methods of video surveillance, recording many of the events that took place. Police attempted to communicate with the man numerous times and threatened police multiple times.
"At 8:58 p.m. and as recorded on video, the affected person was at the same open front window. He pointed a rifle out of the window and, according to multiple witnesses, fired a single shot," reads the report. A civilian witness who had remained in the residence thought the affected person shot at an officer, at the road, or at a police vehicle.
The report states that "Subject officer #1 said the affected person pointed the firearm down the driveway toward them and fired. Subject officer #2 said he waved it at the subject officers' position three times and, on the third, fired one shot in their direction."
In response, both subject officers fired a single shot, both striking the affected person, who fell to the ground. The man was pronounced dead at 9:17 p.m.
The analysis in the report states there was a clear threat to police on the day of the incident, as the affected person said he wanted officers to enter the residence for a confrontation.
"It was abundantly clear to the affected person that he was surrounded by a significant number of police officers. In such an environment, firing a rifle from a front window is a clearly threatening act."
Although investigators did not find a shell casing in the location where the gun was reportedly shot by the man, all witness evidence, including that of the civilian who stayed in the residence, point toward the shot being fired.
"The only reasonable conclusion with the evidence on the file is that the affected person fired a single shot from the .22 calibre sawed-off rifle," reads the report.
"In their statements to ASIRT investigators, both officers indicated that they believed that the affected person was firing in their direction and that they feared for their safety and the safety of other officers as a result."
The reports adds, "While the consequences were tragic, the actions of the affected person in those final moments left the subject officers with no other reasonable choice that preserved their lives."
For about 11 hours, police presented the affected person with many chances to surrender, which were rejected. There are no reasonable grounds to believe either of the subject officers committed a criminal offence, according to ASIRT.
The report concludes by saying, "The fact that the subject officers’ actions are not criminal does not change the tragedy of the death of the affected person for his family and friends. Regardless of the allocation of blame, this incident will have long-lasting effects on the affected person’s family and friends, and the residents of Frog Lake First Nation."
The ASIRT report is signed by Michael Ewenson, executive director.
