SIU Director’s Report - Case # 15-TFD-165
Issued: June 29, 2016
Explanatory note
The Ontario Government is releasing past SIU Director Reports (submitted to the Attorney General prior to May 2017) that include fatalities involving a firearm, physical altercation, and/or use of conducted energy weapon, or other extensive police interaction that did not result in a criminal charge.
Justice Michael H. Tulloch made recommendations about the release of past SIU Director Reports in the Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review, released on April 6, 2017.
Justice Tulloch explained that since past reports were not originally drafted for public release they may have to be edited substantially to protect sensitive information. He took into account that confidentiality assurances were given to various witnesses during the course of SIU investigations, and recommended that some information be redacted in the interests of privacy, safety, and security.
As recommended by Justice Tulloch, this explanatory note is being provided to assist the reader’s understanding of why certain information is redacted in these reports. Notes have also been inserted throughout the reports to help describe the nature of the information that was redacted and why it was redacted.
Law enforcement and personal privacy information considerations
Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 14 of the Freedom of Information and Protection to Privacy Act (FIPPA) (relating to law enforcement information), portions of these reports have been removed to protect:
- confidential investigative techniques and procedures used by the SIU
- information whose release could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding
- witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence
Consistent with Justice Tulloch’s recommendations and guided by section 21 of FIPPA (relating to personal privacy information), personal information, including sensitive personal information, has also been redacted, except that which is necessary to explain the rationale for the Director’s decision. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
- subject officer name(s)
- witness officer name(s)
- civilian witness name(s)
- location information
- other identifiers which are likely to reveal personal information about individuals involved in the investigation, including in relation to children
- witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, provided to the SIU in confidence
Personal health information
Information related to the personal health of individuals that is unrelated to the Director’s decision (taking into consideration the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004) has been redacted.
Other proceedings, processes, and investigations
Information may have also been excluded from these reports because its release could undermine the integrity of other proceedings involving the same incident, such as criminal proceedings, coroner’s inquests, other public proceedings and/or other law enforcement investigations.
Director’s report
Notification of the SIU
Notification Date and Time: 07/25/2015 at 0350 hours
Notified By: Police
On July 25, 2015, at 0350 hrs, Notifying Officer of the Toronto Police Service (TPS) reported police officers from Toronto Anti Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS) approached a vehicle near the Tryst Nightclub, located at 82 Peter Street, looking for a homicide suspect. A shoot out occurred with a man seated in a vehicle and the man was taken to St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH). At the time of reporting it was not known if the man was deceased.
Overview
On July 10, 2015, the TPS Homicide Squad obtained an arrest warrant for Mr. Kwasi Skene- Peters, for the offence of first degree murder (2 counts). On July 24, 2015, the TPS Intelligence Unit, under the supervision of Witness Officer #17, received information that Mr. Skene-Peters may attend the Tryst Nightclub. The TPS Intelligence Unit commenced a plainclothes operation with approximately ten to 12 plainclothes police officers along with uniformed members of (TAVIS) in the entertainment district of Toronto. During the operation Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle, a 2009 White Ford Focus, license plate number ----redacted, was located in a parking lot just south of the nightclub. Police officers observed a man, believed to be Civilian Witness #1, place an item into Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle. The item was believed to be a firearm. A plan was developed by the Intelligence officers and the (TAVIS) officers to arrest Mr. Skene-Peters, Civilian Witness #1, and any other person in their group when they were inside Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle.
At approximately 0305 hrs, as the Tryst Nightclub was closing, a group of individuals left the nightclub and walked towards the parking lot where Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle was parked. Mr. Skene-Peters and Civilian Witness #1 entered Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle while another vehicle, being driven by Civilian Witness #3, was also in the vicinity. Witness Officer #17 called for the take down of Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle and TPS uniformed Constables Witness Officer #14, Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2, along with several other police officers with the (TAVIS) unit and the Intelligence officers, converged on Mr. Skene- Peters’ vehicle with firearms drawn.
The events unfolded quickly with Mr. Skene-Peters discharging a firearm six times. Subject Officer #1 discharged his/her firearm 13 times, and Subject Officer #2 discharged his/her firearm 11 times. Mr. Skene-Peters was struck once in the torso. Mr. Skene-Peters exited his vehicle through the driver’s door as the shooting unfolded and he then ran eastbound out of the parking lot and onto Peter Street, where he collapsed to the ground. Mr. Skene-Peters was subsequently arrested, handcuffed and transported to SMH, where he was pronounced dead.
The Scene:
The incident took place in a parking lot on west side of Peter Street between Adelaide Street West and King Street West. The Total Station diagram below depicts the scene after the incident and includes trajectory details added by SIU forensic investigators (FI) for clarification.
On July 25, 2015, at 0510 hrs, the SIU arrived on scene. There were a number of civilian vehicles, marked police cruisers, unmarked police surveillance vehicles, police bicycles, paramedic bicycles, and a taxi cab parked at various locations in the parking lot and on the street in close proximity to the parking lot. Within the parking lot there were 25 spent Winchester cartridges believed to be police issue located in the vicinity of Mr. Skene- Peters’ vehicle. Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 were transported from the scene to 52 Division before the SIU arrived. Their use of force options, along with their firearms went with them.
The following vehicles, in order of importance, were located inside the parking lot and had bullet strikes:
- 2009 Ford Focus, LIC # ----redacted VIN: ----redacted which was operated by Mr. Skene-Peters. This vehicle contained a total of 19 projectile impact sites on the hood and windshield
- 2012 Chevrolet Cruze, LIC # ----redacted VIN: ----redacted which was parked on the east side of Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle, contained impacts on the driver’s side
- 2010 Chevrolet Silverado Silver Pickup Truck, LIC # ----redacted, VIN: ----redacted which was parked to the west of Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle, contained impact sites on the hood and windshield
The following vehicle was located on Peter Street and had a bullet strike:
- Beck Cab which Civilian Witness #4 was driving
There was a 9mm Springfiled Armory semi-automatic pistol
There were six spent 9mm projectile cases located on scene. Four were located inside Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle. One was located in front of and on the passenger side of Mr. Skene- Peters’ vehicle, while the other was located behind the Silver Chevrolet Pickup truck.
On the building wall of 82 Peter Street, which was behind Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle, there were several projectile impact sites. The building wall on the south side of the parking lot, which was behind the officers, contained further impacts and one impact perforated a window to the interior of the building.
There was a 40 calibre Smith and Weston pistol, with its serial number removed, located on scene and underneath the Chevrolet Pickup Truck, which was located to the west of Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle. It was reported that Civilian Witness #1 was arrested in that area. This pistol contained one live cartridge in the chamber as well as a removable magazine that contained four live cartridge cases.
The investigation
Response Type: Attend Immediately
Date and Time Team Dispatched: 07/25/2015 at 0415 hours
Date and Time SIU Arrived on Scene: 07/25/2015 at 0510 hours
Number of SIU Investigator(s) assigned: 7
Number of SIU Forensic Investigator(s) assigned: 4
Cmplainant
Kwasi Skene-Peters N/A
Civilian Witnesses
Civilian Witness #1 Initial Interview: July 25, 2015
Civilian Witness #2 Initial Interview: July 25, 2015
Civilian Witness #3 Initial Interview: July 25, 2015
Civilian Witness #4 Initial Interview: July 25, 2015
Civilian Witness #5 Initial Interview: July 27, 2015
Civilian Witness #6 Initial Interview: July 31, 2015
Civilian Witness #7 February 22, 2016
Civilian Witness #8 N/A
Civilian Witness #9 N/A
Civilian Witness #8 and Civilian Witness #9 were contacted by the SIU but after it was determined that they did not witness the incident, they were not interviewed.
Subject Officers
Subject Officer #1 Declined to provide a statement
Subject Officer #2 Declined to provide a statement
Copies of notebook entries were not provided by the Subject Officers.
Witness Officers
Witness Officer #3 Initial Interview: July 26, 2015
Witness Officer #4 Initial Interview: July 26, 2015
Witness Officer #5 Initial Interview: July 26, 2015
Witness Officer #6 Initial Interview: July 26, 2015
Witness Officer #7 Initial Interview: July 27, 2015
Witness Officer #8 Initial Interview: July 26, 2015
Witness Officer #9 Initial Interview: July 26, 2015
Witness Officer #10 Initial Interview: July 27, 2015
Witness Officer #11 Initial Interview: July 30, 2015
Witness Officer #12 Initial Interview: July 30, 2015
Witness Officer #13 Initial Interview: July 30, 2015
Witness Officer #14 Initial Interview: July 30, 2015
Witness Officer #15 Initial Interview: July 30, 2015
Witness Officer #16 Initial Interview: July 30, 2015
Witness Officer #17 Initial Interview: September 24, 2015
Upon request the SIU obtained and reviewed the following materials and documents from TPS:
- Duty Roster - July 24, 2015
- Firearm Acquired - Glock ----redacted, Subject Officer #2’s service pistol
- Firearm Acquired - Smith and Wesson, its serial number destroyed
- Firearm Acquired - Glock ----redacted, Subject Officer #1’s service pistol
- Firearm Acquired - Springfield Armory ----redacted, Mr. Skene-Peters’ pistol
- ICAD-Event Details Report - ----redacted
- Involved Officers’ Observations - Event ----redacted
- Major Crime Scene Log
- Notes-Witness Officer #9
- Notes-Witness Officer #4
- Notes-Witness Officer #10
- Notes-Witness Officer #15
- Notes-Witness Officer #15
- Notes-Witness Officer #8
- Notes-Witness Officer #7
- Notes-Witness Officer #1
- Notes-Witness Officer #14
- Notes-Witness Officer #5
- Notes-Witness Officer #2
- Notes-Witness Officer #18
- Notes-Witness Officer #6
- Notes-Witness Officer #11
- Notes-Witness Officer #16
- Notes-Witness Officer #13
- Notes-Witness Officer #13
- Notes-Witness Officer #3
- Notes-Witness Officer #12
- Notes-Witness Officer #17 Part 1
- Notes-[Witness Officer
- Notes-Witness Officer #17
- Person Search-Skene-Peters, Kwasi
- RCMP C-163 Notification of Death
- Transfer of Exhibit 2 (Smith and Wesson) to Toronto
- Copy of Information and Warrant for the Arrest of Mr. Skene-Peters
- Communication Tape, and
- Witness List from Witness Officer #9 notes
On July 25, 2015, at 1000 hrs, SIU FIs went to 52 Division and seized Subject Officer #2’s Glock 22 pistol, serial # ----redacted
SIU FIs also seized Subject Officer #1’s Glock 22 pistol, serial # ----redacted. It was loaded with a live cartridge in the chamber and one empty magazine.
Communication Tape (Summary)
The SIU received and reviewed the TPS communications recording relative to this incident. The recording was not time stamped and it captured the intelligence officers, including Witness Officer #17, communicating with dispatchers as well as the (TAVIS) officers. Witness Officer #17 was heard calling out the activities associated to Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle. Witness Officer #17 eventually reports the headlights for Mr. Skene-Peters vehicle are on and the take down is called. An unknown officer then reports shots fired, the suspect is down and a firearm has been recovered.
Witness statements and evidence gathered in the course of the investigation provided to the SIU in confidence (Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations)
Director’s decision under s. 113(7) of the Police Services Act
I am satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the subject officers Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 were legally justified in shooting Mr. Kwasi Skene-Peters on July 25, 2015. The numerous witness statements, extensive forensic analysis and available video recordings provide a comprehensive and coherent account of the events. The entirety of the evidence collected during this Unit’s investigation leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the two subject officers were acting in self-defence when they discharged their firearms and fatally wounded Mr. Skene-Peters.
On July 10, 2015, a Canada-Wide Warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr. Skene-Peters on two charges of first-degree murder. Two weeks later, on July 24, 2015, the Toronto Police Service Intelligence Unit received information indicating that Mr. Skene-Peters would be attending the Tryst Nightclub located at 82 Peter Street in the entertainment district of downtown Toronto. Witness Officer #17 of the Intelligence Unit attended a briefing respecting the arrest warrant. He received information concerning Mr. Skene-Peters’ physical appearance (including a colour photograph) and particulars respecting his car (a 2009 white Ford Focus, bearing Ontario licence plate ----redacted). During the briefing, Witness Officer #17 was also advised that Mr. Skene-Peters was believed to be armed and dangerous.
Witness Officer #17 then met with his/her team at approximately 12:42 a.m. on July 25, 2015. They developed a strategy that involved conducting surveillance on Mr. Skene-Peters and the potential execution of the arrest warrant if circumstances permitted. Multiple members of the Intelligence Unit were dispatched to Tryst Nightclub to set up surveillance.
At approximately 2:05 a.m., Mr. Skene-Peters’ car was found parked in a lot just south of Tryst Nightclub. A team of undercover officers set up near the lot to maintain observations of the car. Witness Officer #17 also enlisted the (TAVIS) Unit to provide additional officer support. As a result, multiple uniform officers from the (TAVIS) Unit set up in the area, including the two subject officers who took a position at the rear of the parking lot via an alleyway to the west. Marked police vehicles were also requested to take stationery positions nearby, but not on Peter Street itself to avoid alerting Mr. Skene-Peters to the police presence.
During the course of the surveillance efforts, undercover officers relayed their belief to Witness Officer #17 that they had identified Mr. Skene-Peters in the Tryst Nightclub lineup. There was a dispute between some people in the lineup, which resulted in two men (one of which was believed to be Mr. Skene-Peters) heading south towards the parking lot. They approached Mr. Skene-Peters’ car, and one of the individuals (believed to have been Mr. Skene-Peters’ associate Civilian Witness #1) removed what was suspected to be a firearm and placed it into the vehicle. The two men then returned to Tryst Nightclub.
Witness Officer #17 was of the view that the two men left the lineup in anticipation of being searched by the security staff. As such, they deposited a firearm in Mr. Skene-Peters’ car in order to prevent its discovery. Witness Officer #17 was already concerned that Mr. Skene- Peters was armed, and this information served to heighten his/her concerns. At approximately 2:18 a.m., Witness Officer #17 voiced his/her concerns over the radio so that all of the officers on scene were properly apprised of the risks.
Witness Officer #17 then directed the undercover team to maintain surveillance on Mr. Skene-Peters. He decided that the best course of action would be to arrest him in the parking lot when he returned to his car. Once Mr. Skene-Peters entered his car, two undercover police vehicles would enter the parking lot and block him in. He would then be extracted from the car and arrested.
Witness Officer #17 was advised by the surveillance team that Mr. Skene-Peters and his associate Civilian Witness #1 had left the club and entered Mr. Skene-Peters’ car. A vehicle driven by Civilian Witness #3 then pulled up and stopped directly in front of Mr. Skene-Peters’ car, effectively boxing him in. At approximately 3:04 a.m., Witness Officer #17 called for the take down over the police radio. The time that elapsed from when the take down order was issued until Mr. Skene-Peters was apprehended was less than 30 seconds.
As soon as the take down was called, multiple uniformed police officers, undercover police officers, officers on bicycles, marked police vehicles, stealth police vehicles and undercover surveillance vehicles converged upon Mr. Skene-Peters’ car. An undercover surveillance vehicle drove directly into the parking lot blocking the entrance. A police stealth car stopped behind the surveillance vehicle and was followed closely by a marked police cruiser. The stealth car and the marked police vehicle had their emergency equipment activated, which included roof lights and sirens. The marked police cruiser was equipped with an in-car-camera system, which captured audio of the event as well as video of the surrounding area.
After the police vehicles entered the lot, three uniformed police officers on bicycles from the (TAVIS) Unit quickly moved from the alleyway in the rear of the parking lot and approached the front of Mr. Skene-Peters’ car. Those officers were Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 (the two subject officers) and Witness Officer #14. Given the information concerning the gun that was believed to have been deposited in the car earlier, all three officers had their firearms drawn as they approached the vehicle.
The three officers stopped in front of Mr. Skene-Peters’ car. Witness Officer #14 was directly in front of the passenger side headlight, Subject Officer #1 was directly to his/her left and Subject Officer #2 was in front of the driver side headlight. As the officers approached the vehicle, it was driving forward slowly despite being blocked by the civilian vehicle. All three officers voiced repeated police challenges, yelling, “Stop,” “Put your hands up,” “Police,” “You’re under arrest,” and, “Freeze – don’t move.” The vehicle then slowly reversed and hit the brick wall behind it.
As the officers continued to voice demands of Mr. Skene-Peters, a firefight erupted. It lasted approximately four seconds. It was during this exchange of gunfire that Mr. Skene- Peters sustained a single and fatal gunshot wound to the chest.
Multiple witnesses indicated that while the two subject officers and Witness Officer #14 were yelling police demands at Mr. Skene-Peters, two gunshots rang out. The civilians and the police officers who were interviewed confirmed that the sequence of events involved two initial shots in quick succession, followed by a rapid chain of multiple gunshots. Moreover, an available in-car camera video captures the audio of two initial gunshots followed by multiple overlapping shots, spanning approximately four seconds.
The one witness who provided a different account is Civilian Witness #10. Although Civilian Witness #10 provided his/her identification and address to a police officer on scene, she demonstrated a clear disinterest in participating in the SIU investigation. On July 31, 2015, investigators attended the address that he/she had provided but learned that he/she had not resided there for over a year. Despite further unsuccessful attempts, Civilian Witness #10 was eventually located with the aid of a person in May 2016. When the investigator spoke to him/her on the phone, he/she indicated that he/she did not want to provide a statement, Confidential Witness Statement . The investigator made a further attempt to speak to Civilian Witness #10, and succeeded in convincing him/her to provide a statement, which was obtained on May 25, 2016.
Confidential Witness Statement His/Her account is generally consistent with those of the other witnesses present, with the exception of one crucial difference. Civilian Witness #10 indicated that Confidential Witness Statement If these assertions were correct, then Civilian Witness #10’s evidence would have significant ramifications for the ensuing legal analysis. However, I am unwilling to accept Civilian Witness #10’s account as an accurate depiction of the events on July 25, 2015.
Civilian Witness #10’s claim Confidential Witness Statement is definitively contradicted by the substantial body of further evidence. Multiple witness accounts and the available in-car camera video reveal that there was an initial sequence of sequential shots, quickly followed by multiple shots in rapid succession. Civilian Witness #10 also claims that Confidential Witness Statement . However, forensic analysis has confirmed that the only officers who discharged their firearms were Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2. These material inconsistencies lead me to conclude that Civilian Witness #10 is simply mistaken about Confidential Witness Statement .
In all the circumstances, it is not difficult to understand how Civilian Witness #10 could make such a mistake. He/She was in the midst of a highly volatile firefight. I have no doubt that this would have been a distressing, if not traumatic, experience. Moreover, Civilian Witness #10 provided a statement to the SIU about an event that occurred ten months prior. Such a significant passage of time would have obvious adverse effects on his/her ability to recall details with accuracy and specificity. While Civilian Witness #10 cannot be faulted for providing an account that is clearly inaccurate, the substantial irrefutable errors
Two initial discrete shots came from inside Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle. At least one of the shots went through the windshield, towards the three police officers who were attempting to effect the arrest. This was confirmed by two police witnesses (Witness Officer #14 and Witness Officer #4) who provided information that the initial two shots coincided with muzzle flashes from inside Mr. Skene-Peters’ car. Two separate police witnesses (Witness Officer #9 and Witness Officer #6) also confirmed that the two initial shots were accompanied by shards of glass from the windshield flying outwards towards the arresting officers. By all accounts, after the two initial shots were fired from inside Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle, Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 each returned fire by simultaneously discharging their weapons multiple times at Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle.
During the course of this four-second shootout, Mr. Skene-Peters exited his vehicle via the driver’s door. He attempted to take flight by running behind the rear of the two easterly vehicles parked to his immediate left in order to access Peter Street. This is captured on the same in-car camera video that recorded the audio of the shooting. Confidential Witness Statement
When Mr. Skene-Peters appears on the police in-car camera, he is frantically running towards Peter Street. Civilian Witness #3 (the civilian driver of the vehicle that blocked Mr. Skene-Peters’ car) can be seen falling directly in front of Mr. Skene-Peters, who in turn trips over him and falls to the ground. Mr. Skene-Peters landed in front of the police scout car that had stopped just shy of the parking lot entrance. As he hit the ground, a black semi-automatic handgun flew from his right hand and landed at the feet of Witness Officer #13. Multiple police witnesses saw Mr. Skene-Peters holding the firearm as he tried to take flight. Witness Officer #13 immediately secured the firearm with his/her foot and slid it under the rear of a police vehicle. It was subsequently collected by the SIU for analysis.
Police officers converged on Mr. Skene-Peters as soon as he landed on the ground. He was handcuffed and rolled over, at which point it became apparent that he had sustained a gunshot wound to the chest. Resuscitation efforts were immediately commenced. Mr. Skene-Peters was quickly brought to St. Michael’s Hospital by Emergency Medical Services. He arrived at 3:26 a.m. but was not displaying any vital signs. He was pronounced dead at 3:59 a.m. The cause of his death was a single gunshot wound that went through the right ventricle of his heart. The bullet entered the front of his chest on the left side and lodged in his body.
Rigorous forensic analysis was conducted in relation to this police shooting. The scene was processed in order to recover available shell casings and bullet fragments. The firearm stated to have been in possession of Mr. Skene-Peters was seized, as was a firearm recovered from the location where Civilian Witness #1 had been arrested. All of the duty equipment of the two subject officers was also seized for analysis, including their respective firearms. Mr. Skene-Peters’ car was also seized for the purposes of analyzing the trajectory of the multiple bullet holes and recovering bullet fragments.
I am confident in concluding that Mr. Skene-Peters was in possession of a firearm as described by the multiple police witnesses on scene. The firearm in question is a black 9 mm semi-automatic Springfield Armory pistol. Bloodstains were found on the gun at the rear of the slide and at the bottom of the trigger guard. Testing performed at the Centre of Forensic Sciences revealed that Mr. Skene-Peters was the source of that DNA (with an error rate of 1 in 3.0 quintillion). In addition to the accounts of the various police witnesses and the presence of Mr. Skene-Peters’ DNA, there is also the in-car camera footage. While the video is not perfectly clear, freezing a particular frame of it as Mr. Skene-Peters is falling to the ground shows that he has a linear black object clenched in his right hand that is consistent with the profile of the Springfield Armory pistol. As such, I will hereafter refer to the Springfield Armory pistol as belonging to Mr. Skene-Peters.
All four seized firearms were subjected to forensic analysis. It was revealed that the weapon found near Civilian Witness #1 (a silver semi-automatic Smith & Wesson with its serial number removed) was not fired during the course of the confrontation. The significance of this piece of evidence is that it supports the conclusion that the gunshots that came from inside the car were fired exclusively by Mr. Skene-Peters.
Shell casings recovered from the scene reveal that Mr. Skene-Peters fired his gun a total of six times. Despite being perforated with bullet holes, the windshield of Mr. Skene-Peters’ car did not shatter, which allowed for forensic confirmation that at least one shot was fired from inside the vehicle through the windshield. There are two other impact sites on the interior dashboard which indicate additional shots being fired from inside the vehicle. The forensic evidence leads me to conclude that Mr. Skene-Peters fired at least three rounds from inside the car. A shell casing found outside and in front of Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle supports an inference that he fired at least one further round at the police officers as he exited through the driver’s door. Bullet holes were observed in the area south of where the arresting officers had been standing. One of Mr. Skene-Peters’ shots went through the first floor window of the proximate building and struck a wall, while another of his shots struck the brick wall beside the window. This is further confirmation that Mr. Skene-Peters was firing shots at the police officers.
Based on the shell casings recovered from the scene, the two subject officers discharged their firearms at Mr. Skene-Peters a total of 24 times. Subject Officer #1 fired 11 of the rounds and Subject Officer #2 fired 13.
Given the fact that the officers were acting on the basis of a valid arrest warrant in the circumstances the only issue that I need to consider in this case is whether the shooting was justified. There is no doubt in my mind that it was. The applicable provision of the Criminal Code is section 34(1), which provides the legal justification for the use of force in defence of self and defence of others. A person is not guilty of an offence if, at the time that they employ the force in question:
- they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person
- the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force, and
- the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, taking into account several factors that are enumerated in s. 34(2), including the nature of the threat, whether any weapons were involved, the availability of alternative means to neutralize the threat and the proportionality of the response
As soon as the take down was called, uniform members of the police service immediately closed in on Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle in order to effect the homicide arrest. Multiple police vehicles also converged in the parking lot with their emergency lights and sirens activated. The police presence would have been obvious to Mr. Skene-Peters. Confidential Witness Statement
The three arresting officers approached Mr. Skene-Peters’ vehicle with their firearms drawn. An arrest warrant had been issued for Mr. Skene-Peters for two counts of first- degree murder. Concerns had also been voiced over the radio that there was a firearm in the vehicle—concerns that were irrefutably validated after the fact. As such, it was prudent for the officers to attempt to effect a gunpoint arrest given obvious public safety concerns.
All of the available evidence allows me to conclude that, upon seeing the police officers closing in around him, Mr. Skene-Peters decided to shoot the officers and attempt to flee the scene. Given the observations of both muzzle flashes from the vehicle interior as well as the windshield glass flying outwards, I can conclude that the two initial gunshots captured on the video recording emanated from inside the car. It was only after Mr. Skene- Peters opened fire on the two subject officers that they returned fire. This is captured on video as the subsequent rapid sequence of shots. Given that Mr. Skene-Peters fired his weapon six times, his further four discharges also contributed to the rapid sequence of shots.
Mr. Skene-Peters shot at the police officers first, and persisted in an active gunfight with them as he exited his vehicle and sustained a gunshot wound to the front of his chest. He triggered this dangerous event in the middle of the downtown Toronto entertainment district. A review of the in-car camera footage reveals that the area surrounding the parking lot was crowded with civilians.
As soon as the officers announced their presence, they were fired upon. The frantic exchange of gunfire lasted less than four seconds, during which I have no doubt that both Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 feared for their own lives, the lives of one another and the lives of the multiple civilians and police officers in the immediate vicinity.
Although both officers declined to participate in the SIU investigation—as is their legal right—the available evidence satisfies all three of the requirements under section 34 of the Criminal Code on a substantial evidentiary foundation. There are no reasonable grounds, in my view, to believe that Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 exceeded the ambit of justifiable force in the circumstances. For the foregoing reasons, no charges will issue.
Original signed by
Date: June 29, 2016
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit
13 Sensitive Personal Information
Footnotes
- footnote[1] Back to paragraph See CFS Reports ----redacted & Request # ---- & ---- for DNA and ballistics results.
- footnote[2] Back to paragraph Subject Officer #1 and Subject Officer #2 both declined to provide their notes or interviews to SIU investigators. Therefore, SIU investigators were unable to obtain information about how many cartridges each police officer had loaded into their firearms and magazines.
- footnote[12] Back to paragraph For instance, he/she also claims he/she Confidential Witness Statement . Both Civilian Witness #3 Confidential Witness Statement and the video contradict his/her recollection of that event as well.
- footnote[14] Back to paragraph A subject officer is a police officer whose conduct appears, in the SIU Director’s opinion, to have caused the death under investigation.
- footnote[15] Back to paragraph In fact, Witness Officer #12 indicated that he/she heard Subject Officer #1 yelling, “He’s shooting at us.”
- footnote[16] Back to paragraph Witness Officer #10 indicated that Subject Officer # 2 stated, “I shot my firearm, I think I was shot at,” while pointing to his/her holster.