Two Calgary police officers have been cleared of any wrongdoing in an incident that saw a suspect lose a testicle after being shot with an anti-riot weapon.
The incident unfolded on Aug. 2, 2022, after police received several 911 calls saying a man had broken into the municipal building and set several fires inside.
Officers arrived to find the suspect still inside the building, armed with a large machete.
Though police asked him to drop the weapon, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team’s (ASIRT) report, released on Thursday, indicates he “refused to comply.”
Two officers armed with Anti Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) devices shot the suspect nine times over the course of 35 minutes.
The ARWEN devices shoot plastic projectiles “designed to incapacitate” suspects so they can be taken into custody without resorting to the use of firearms.
The report noted that though most of the rounds hit the suspect, none of them “had the desired effect” of getting him to drop his weapon or surrender.
A photo showing the machete used by the suspect. (ASIRT) Eventually, one of the officers convinced the man to drop the machete, at which time the other officer shot him again with the ARWEN. A police dog was also deployed, and they were able to take the man into custody.
Calgary police investigate after a man started fires inside city hall on Tuesday, August 2, 2022. ASIRT said the suspect suffered “extensive injuries” to his genitals from the ARWEN device.
Despite undergoing surgery, the man lost one testicle. The other was injured and only a portion could be saved.
‘Necessary and reasonable’
In the report, ASIRT executive director Michael Ewenson concluded that while the use of the ARWEN did result in man suffering a significant injury, it was an “unfortunate and unintended consequence” of a lawful use of force.
“The use of an ARWEN by the subject officers was proportionate, necessary and reasonable in all of the circumstances,” he said.
As such, Ewenson found they were “acting properly” and didn’t engage in any “unlawful or unreasonable conduct.”
