Connect with us

general

No charges against officers who killed man with pellet gun near Scarborough school in May

Published

on

ADVERTISEMENT

The Ontario Police Oversight Board has cleared two Toronto police officers of any wrongdoing after they shot and killed a man with a malicious handgun in Scarborough in May.

According to a Friday press release from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), Director Joseph Martineau found no reasonable basis that either officer had acted illegally when they encountered and shot the 27-year-old near William J. Davis Jr. Public School in May 26. .

“As such, there was no basis to proceed with criminal charges in this case,” the press release read. File closed.

According to the SIU’s report on the incident, Toronto police first received a phone call about a man walking with a rifle near Scarborough Public School around 1:35 that afternoon. Officers responded and found the man hiding in some bush near a house in Maberley Crescent, near East Lawrence Street and East Avenue.

SIU says the man was carrying this pellet pistol when he was shot. (special investigation unit)

The SIU said the officers told the man to get out of the bush, at which point the man pointed a shotgun at the police. Two officers shot the man who died at the scene.

The report says the man was suffering from an undisclosed mental illness, and “had a particularly difficult time in the previous week coming to terms with his mental health”.

Advertisements

“The officers wouldn’t have known” the weapon was an air rifle

He sustained gunshot wounds to his left shoulder, left wing, left hip and stomach. A .22-caliber Diana Stormrider pellet pistol, fitted with a Tasco Air rifle scope, was found near the sidewalk on the west side of East Avenue in Adam’s Creek.

The SIU also says the man had 28 pills in his pants pockets when he was shot.

Pieces of the man’s clothing, medical debris and other objects could be seen at the shooting scene. (special investigation unit)

The unit’s decision stated that the officers’ fire constituted a “reasonable defensive force.

The report stated that “the weapon in the complainant’s possession was an air rifle, but the officers would not have known this, nor would it have been clear, had they known, that they could be certain that it was non-lethal.”

“For all intents and purposes, the officers would have reasonably realized that their lives were at stake when the complainant deliberately raised the gun toward them.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Trending

Advertisements

Copyright © 2022 strongbat.com. Theme by The Nitesh Arya.