By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a February 2022 armed robbery, Edmonton police officers pursued a suspect who pointed a weapon—later determined to be a BB gun—at them, resulting in the suspect’s death from multiple gunshot wounds. Stray bullets from the officers’ return fire penetrated a nearby apartment building, fatally striking innocent bystander James Hanna. The Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) concluded that the officers’ use of force was justified given the perceived threat, finding no grounds for criminal negligence charges. While acknowledging the tragic nature of Hanna’s death, ASIRT stated that questions regarding its preventability fall outside its investigative mandate.
Read the original article here
Officers won’t be charged after an innocent Edmonton bystander was tragically killed while watching television. The incident involved a robbery suspect who pointed a weapon at police officers, prompting them to fire their carbines. This resulted in a bullet, possibly passing through the suspect first, penetrating the bystander’s apartment and fatally wounding him.
The police department stated that the officers involved acted without the intention of harming anyone other than the suspect. This explanation, however, fails to fully address the concerns surrounding the incident. The very fact that a stray bullet could travel through multiple walls and kill an innocent bystander highlights a serious issue with the use of high-powered weaponry in such close-quarters situations.
The use of carbines, specifically, is a point of contention. The powerful rounds fired from these weapons clearly possess the capacity to inflict harm far beyond the immediate target area. The question arises whether less lethal options could have been employed, potentially preventing this devastating outcome. The potential for ricochet and penetration, combined with the high-velocity nature of the ammunition, makes the risk of unintended casualties significantly higher.
Many question the lack of accountability in this case, pointing to the apparent disparity in how this incident is treated compared to other instances of lethal force. The argument is often made that if a civilian were to cause a similar accidental death, they would undoubtedly face serious legal consequences. This perception of double standards fosters distrust and outrage.
The issue goes beyond simply whether the officers intended to shoot the bystander. It touches on the fundamental principles of responsible use of force and the potential for negligence when employing high-powered weaponry in densely populated areas. The inherent danger in firing such weapons without absolute certainty of a clear and safe backstop should be paramount.
The argument presented by law enforcement that the officers responded to a perceived threat is understandable, yet fails to absolve them of all responsibility. A responsible use of force necessitates a thorough consideration of the potential consequences of any action taken. It’s argued that even in a high-stress situation, a higher level of precision and consideration for collateral damage is expected. Training on the limitations of the weapons used and the imperative to minimize risk should, ideally, prevent such occurrences.
The incident raises fundamental questions regarding the training and protocols surrounding police use of force, specifically the selection of appropriate weapons for varying scenarios. The debate about the role of military-style weaponry in police arsenals is directly relevant to this case. The power of these rifles and their potential for causing unintended harm must be factored into decisions regarding their deployment. The assertion that the officers acted appropriately based on the perceived threat does not necessarily equate to a lack of negligence in the outcome.
The lack of charges against the officers is interpreted by some as further evidence of a system that protects law enforcement from accountability, regardless of the tragic consequences of their actions. This perceived impunity fuels the growing public distrust in law enforcement agencies. This incident underscores the need for comprehensive reviews of police training, protocols, and the selection and responsible use of firearms.
The narrative that this was a “tragic accident” does not fully encompass the concerns surrounding the incident. While acknowledging the unintended nature of the bystander’s death, the argument focuses on the larger issue of the appropriate use of deadly force and the need for significantly greater accountability within law enforcement. The question remains – what level of responsibility rests with the officers when the very weapon they used had such a devastating and unforeseen consequence? The failure to hold these officers accountable fuels the sentiment that the laws are applied unequally and that justice is not always blind.
This tragic event highlights the need for a critical reassessment of police tactics, training, and the legal frameworks governing the use of lethal force. Ultimately, the debate extends beyond a single incident and speaks to broader concerns surrounding police accountability and the need for systemic reform. Without addressing these underlying issues, similar tragedies are likely to continue.