[Updated 2021-01-14 17:30 with Alberta Crown Prosecution Service statement]

On June 7, 2019, an officer with the Edmonton Police Service committed a negligent discharge of their service pistol at the William Nixon Training Centre but will not face criminal charges.

Crown prosecutors decided not to lay charges against the Edmonton police officer because it was not in the public interest.

“There is absolutely no doubt that a different decision would likely have been made had anyone sustained injury or died,” the ASIRT news release stated.

In essence, Crown prosecutors decided that because nobody was injured or killed, there was no need to press charges.

I take issue with that determination.

When a highly trained police officer ignores every rule of firearm safety, points a loaded firearm with live ammunition at another officer and intentionally pulls the trigger, it is in the public’s interest for that officer to face the consequences of their actions.

It’s distressing and problematic, to say the least, that the decision on whether to lay criminal charges against this police officer depends solely upon the outcome of his crime – on the fact nobody was hurt or killed.

Would a mere citizen who committed a similar negligent discharge be granted the same lenience?

Not a chance.

Alberta Crown Prosecution Service Statement:

“After review of this file, the responsible Crown prosecutor determined that this accidental discharge of a firearm did not meet the criminal threshold for prosecution.”

 

The Ugly Details

From the ASIRT press release about this negligent discharge:

As was noted earlier, officers in the bullpen were relaxed and approaching the end of their day. While the involved officer was on the firearms training side of the bullpen, another officer on the tactics training side popped up and pointed the SIRT pistol at the involved officer.

In the words of the tactics training officer, he “lasered” the involved officer, then popped back down behind the desks where he was out of sight.

Based on the scene examination and the evidence of the various officers present in the bullpen, the involved officer responded by raising a Glock pistol and pulling the trigger, resulting in the discharge of a single live round in the direction of the other officer’s desk on the tactics training side of the bullpen.

A metal pinging sound was heard as the round struck a battering ram that had been placed on top of the other officer’s desktop shelving unit.

Remarkably, the discharge of the firearm resulted in no injury to any of the many officers in the bullpen at the time.

The damage to the battering ram was significant and immediately evident.

The officer who committed the negligent discharge did not, as is their right, supply a statement to investigators from the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team.

This refusal “created an evidentiary gap regarding how and why the officer came to discharge a live round from a firearm.”

The evidence clearly established the physical discharge of the firearm in the direction of the tactics training side of the bullpen, towards the location of the officer who had “lasered” the involved officer and the desk he had popped down behind.

Firearms examination confirmed that the firearm was functioning properly and that the trigger pull required was within the normal range. In other words, this was not a situation where a firearm malfunctioned or had a hair trigger.

The involved officer deliberately pulled the trigger when he pointed and fired the firearm. There is, however, an evidentiary gap regarding what the officer’s intent was, what the officer was thinking in that moment, why the gun was fired.

The ASIRT press release goes on to say the subject officer’s intent and/or state of mind can best be described as follows (emphasis mine):

• The officer mistakenly raised the Glock pistol, believing it to be the SIRT training pistol, and pulled the trigger, resulting in the discharge of the firearm. As the SIRT pistol is designed with very significant and obvious differences to make it much less likely for an officer to make this mistake, this is unlikely, but given the context and the speed of the response, it cannot be completely eliminated as a possibility. As such, this remains an available inference as to the officer’s intent at the time of the discharge of the live round.
• The officer knowingly raised and fired his Glock pistol, mistakenly believing it to be unloaded, or loaded with simunition (simulated non-lethal ammunition used for training purposes) and pulled the trigger, resulting in the discharge of the live round.
• The officer knowingly pulled the Glock pistol and intentionally fired the gun in the direction of the other officer(s) in the Tactics Training Section. With this possibility, one would need to assess whether the gun was fired at the other officer with malice, or whether it was fired not at the officer but in that direction, either as a joke or with the intent of “scaring” the officer.

While all three scenarios could result in serious criminal offences, the first two scenarios imply there was no intent to cause harm. The subject officer’s actions were negligent but without intention.

The third scenario “would constitute the highest level of both moral and legal culpability. Intentionally firing a gun at another person, or even in the presence of other persons in an enclosed room in these circumstances, could constitute any number of offences, from careless use of a firearm up to and including attempted murder.”

A police officer, particularly a member of the Firearms Training Section, should be held to the highest standard of safe handling of firearms.

At best, the involved officer’s handling and use of the firearm fell far short of the specific and rigorous duty of care expected and established by Parliament.

“That no one was injured or killed was nothing short of exceptional good fortune.”

The evidence clearly provided reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence occurred and, as required by the Police Act, the issue was forwarded to the Alberta Criminal Prosecution Service.

ASIRT’s job is to determine of an offence occurred and, if so, turn the matter over to Crown prosecutors.

The Crown’s job is to determine if there is a reasonable likelihood of conviction and, if so, to determine of the prosecution is in the public interest.

The Crown declined to prosecute, saying it was not in the public interest to do so, even though the likelihood of securing a conviction was high.

The ASIRT report explains the decision this way:

The fact that the officer will not face criminal prosecution does not mean that the officer’s conduct was not viewed as serious or deserving of some form of sanction.

It was the Crown’s opinion that the public interest did not require the full weight of the criminal law be brought to bear in the circumstances of this case.

While there will be no criminal prosecution, it is reiterated that the evidence in this case established, at a minimum, an extremely serious lapse in judgment and carelessness in the handling of a firearm.

There is absolutely no doubt that a different decision would likely have been made had anyone sustained injury or died.

As I said earlier in this commentary, it’s deeply distressing that the decision on whether to lay criminal charges against this police officer depends solely upon the outcome of his crime – on the fact nobody was hurt or killed.

Would a mere citizen who committed a similar negligent discharge be granted the same lenience?

Not a chance.