No blame in youth’s fatal jump

NEWS/ POLICE —  An RCMP officer who Tasered a youth in the Royal Inland Hospital parkade last June made a “split second decision” in an attempt to stop the young man from jumping to his death, says a report from the Independent Investigations Office.

Richard Rosenthal, chief civilian director with the IIO, said in his report “I do not consider any officer may have committed an offence under any enactment and will not be making a report to Crown counsel.”

The IIO is an independent body that investigates cases in which someone is harmed during an encounter with police. The report on the RIH parkade death reveals no names, either of the person who died or of the officers involved.

Police were called to the parkade June 11 at about 7:20 p.m. when a youth left the hospital and was in emotional distress.  Officers arrived within a few minutes. He acted “oddly including balancing on the outside of the railing” and was threatening to jump.

The man said he was getting cold but “wouldn’t be shivering for long.” Blankets were sent for and cigarettes provided to him. Rosenthal’s report said the conducted energy weapon, or CEW (commonly known by its brand name Taser or TASER) was deployed after about 40 minutes of unsuccessful negotiations but it didn’t immobilize him.

“The affected person showed no response to the CEW and immediately turned, took about four or five strides and jumped off the corner of the parkade.”

The IIO report said the central issue was whether the use of force was “disproportionate or unnecessary.”

“Police are bot held to a standard of perfection and are not required to measure with nicety the force that they use. A legally acceptable use of force is one which is not gratuitous, and which is delivered in a measured fashion.”

The report said the officer who used the CEW “was justified” in using it “as it was clear that there was potential for death or serious harm were the affected person to have jumped from the parkade.” The officer was faced with making a split second decision, it said.

“Given all of the evidence, there is no cause to believe subject officer 2 committed any offence based on the actions he took in attempting to take the affected person into protective custody.”