Ontario police watchdog clears officers who fired on man who pulled cop into his apartment while holding knife

A Glock 22 handgun fired by a TPS officer during an encounter with an armed mentally ill man on April 13, 2021 is shown. (SIU)

TORONTO -

The province’s police watchdog has cleared two Toronto police officers who shot a schizophrenic man multiple times after he allegedly pulled one of the officers into his apartment and brandished a knife when police showed up to apprehend him.

On the morning of April 13, 2021, after multiple attempts to arrest a man for an outstanding warrant and also to recall him to hospital to ensure he was taking medication for Schizophrenia, two officers arrived at an apartment on Shuter Street to detain him.

They were warned the man was violent with law enforcement in the past, and the Emergency Task Force (ETF) was monitoring police radio chatter in the area in case they needed to intervene.

They knocked on the man’s door and he opened it, before shutting it in their face, officers told the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

They called two more officers to the scene and discussed how to proceed. A Mobile Crisis Intervention team trained to deal with subjects suffering from mental health issues would not be available for several hours.

One officer then kicked the door to get the man’s attention, and the SIU said the man then did open the door and was seen carrying a large knife.

“There ensued a struggle at the doorway’s threshold in which (Subject Officer 2) was being pulled into the apartment by the Complainant as (Subject Officer 1), behind her, grabbed and tried to pull her away from the door,” SIU investigators wrote.

Subject Officer 2 ended up inside the apartment and on her back, according to witness officers.

One of the witness officers fired his Taser into the doorway but ended up hitting Subject Officer 1 with an electrified barb. He fired a second time and hit nothing.

“Shortly after the (conducted energy weapon) discharges, with the door now closed and locked with only (Subject Officer 2) and the Complainant inside, (Subject Officer 1) fired his gun twice at the door,” SIU investigators wrote. “In and around the same time, (Subject Officer 2) fired her gun twice at the Complainant from inside the apartment. The Complainant was struck three times – once each to the left and right arms, and once to the abdomen.”

An officer then forced the door open and two officers began to administer first aid to the complainant while paramedics made their way to the scene.

The 54-year-old complainant did survive his injuries.

Twenty minutes after shots were fired, paramedics brought both subject officers to hospital for “critical injuries related to stress,” the SIU wrote.

SIU investigators interviewed Subject Officer 1, five other witness officers and two civilian witnesses.

Subject Officer 2, who was pulled into the apartment by force, declined to speak to investigators or hand over her notes, as is her legal right.

SIU Director Joseph Martino said what the officer who was pulled into the apartment did was ultimately justified.

“Finding herself alone in a locked apartment with an armed and erratic Complainant, it would appear that the officer was entitled to meet a lethal threat with lethal force of her own,” he wrote.

But the other officer took a great amount of risk firing through a closed door into an apartment.

“The real issue relates to the propriety of Subject Officer 1’s gunfire. At the time, the evidence establishes that the apartment door was closed. In effect, the officer was shooting blind into the apartment through the door, potentially placing the life of the very person he was trying to save – Subject Officer 2 – at risk, as well as any other person who might have been present in the unit.”

But he said the risk was calculated and only driven by a desire to save his partner.

“Having tried and failed to force open the door physically, the officer decided that he had no other option if he was going to save (Subject Officer 2’s) life than to fire his weapon in the direction he had last seen the Complainant and away from where he had observed (Subject Officer 2) on the ground.”