IIO clears Vancouver officer who used Taser to arrest hammer assault suspect

The agency that investigates police officers' use of force in B.C. has found Vancouver officers were justified in using a Taser on an assault suspect last spring.

The man suffered injuries that met the Police Act’s definition of “serious harm,” which the act tasks the Independent Investigations Office of B.C. with investigating.

According to a report on the case published this week, the assault suspect – referred to throughout the document as the “affected person” or “AP” – suffered “a broken collar bone, five non-displaced rib fractures and lacerations to his head,” as well as “two small wounds” from the Taser barbs.

The incident occurred on May 9, 2024. The suspect had assaulted another person outside Pacific Centre in downtown Vancouver, punching the victim multiple times and swinging a hammer at them, according to the IIO report.

He then walked away carrying a backpack that apparently belonged to the victim.

Bystanders called 911 and four officers responded to the scene. One of them – referred to in the report as the “subject officer” or “SO” – attempted to use a “conducted energy weapon” when the suspect did not immediately comply with officers' demands.

“The SO discharged his CEW at the AP, but it was ineffective as one of the probes did not make contact with the AP,” the report reads. “The AP turned and ran away from the officers into the street.”

What happened next was captured on surveillance cameras at nearby businesses, according to the report.

“The AP can be seen running into the street, and is struck by a slowly-moving civilian vehicle,” the report continues. “He immediately gets up, apparently uninjured, and continues running. The SO is the closest officer behind the AP, and deploys his CEW at the AP for a second time. The CEW appears to be effective, as the AP’s body ‘locks up’ and he falls face-first to the ground. He is arrested and handcuffed by the pursuing officers.”

The Vancouver Police Department notified the IIO of the incident shortly after it occurred, but the agency did not appeal to the public for witnesses until almost a month later.

At the time, an IIO spokesperson said the agency’s investigators were still working to determine if the suspect’s injuries met the definition of serious harm.

Neither the subject officer nor the affected person provided a statement about the incident to IIO investigators, according to the report.

The agency’s chief civilian director Jessica Berglund compiled the report based on investigators' interviews with seven civilian witnesses, three first responders and five witness police officers, as well as video and audio recordings and photos of the AP’s injuries.

She concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe any officers had committed an offence, and closed the IIO investigation without recommending any charges to Crown prosecutors.

“The AP had demonstrated that he was prepared to use a weapon in an assault on a member of the public, and represented a continuing threat when he fled,” Berglund’s report reads.

“The responding officers were justified in apprehending him, and in using whatever force was reasonably necessary to do so. It appears that most or all of the injuries the AP suffered were caused by the SO’s second CEW deployment and the AP’s consequent fall to the ground, but it cannot be said that the use of a CEW, in the circumstances, amounted to unreasonable or excessive force.”