Fatally shooting 16-year-old driver was reasonable, B.C. police watchdog rules

CTV News

14-07-2025

Investigators from B.C.'s Independent Investigations Office are seen in this file photo from the IIO.
An RCMP officer who shot and killed a 16-year-old pickup driver in Creston did not commit an offence when using lethal force, B.C.'s police watchdog has ruled.
The Independent Investigations Office released its public report on the Dec. 14, 2022, incident last week, shedding light on the events that lead to the teenager's death.
The interaction began at 4:23 a.m., when one officer noticed a pickup truck running stop signs and driving erratically, according to the IIO. After the truck sped past a second officer and blew through another stop sign, police made a plan to pursue it.
Two officers followed tracks in the snow along the highway and then onto a residential street, where they found the truck, which was reportedly stolen several hours prior.
When he saw the officers, the teenager, referred to as the 'affected person' or AP, turned into a driveway in front of them. The officer who fired the shots, referred to as the 'subject officer' or SO, followed. The other Mountie's vehicle captured the incident on video.
'As the SO stepped out of the driver's door of his police vehicle and stood next to (it), the AP's pickup truck accelerated and drove towards the SO, scraping along the driver's side of the SO's police vehicle and nearly running over the SO, who had drawn his gun,' the report reads.
'The SO moved backwards along the side of his vehicle to avoid being hit. As the SO did this, he fired his gun towards the driver's area of the AP's pickup truck which continued forward and then collided with WO2's vehicle.'
Forensic analysis determined the Mountie fired eight shots in rapid succession, and the final shot went through the driver's window and hit AP as he drove by.
The SO then said over radio, 'Shots by police. Shots by police. Suspect vehicle, black Chev pickup. Tried to run me over,' according to the report.
The pickup truck drove off, and police found it crashed in a ditch two kilometres away at 4:47 a.m. The IIO said it found 'information to suggest' that a passenger who was in the truck took over driving after AP was shot, but the individual did not respond to investigators' interview requests.
Officers removed the now-unconscious AP from the vehicle and performed life-saving measures, which were continued by paramedics for about 45 minutes, the report says. The teenager was declared deceased at 5:45 a.m. An autopsy found he died of a single gunshot wound to the torso.
In cases of lethal force, the IIO's chief civilian director is tasked with determining whether an officer's actions were lawful, based on the threat posed by the 'affected person' and 'whether, in the words of the Criminal Code, it gave reasonable grounds for the officers to believe lethal force was 'necessary for the self-preservation of (the officer) or the preservation of anyone under (the officer's) protection from death of grievous bodily harm,'' according to the agency.
In the report, chief civilian director Jessica Berglund said based on the video and evidence from the witness officer, it was 'objectively reasonable' for the SO to believe the AP's driving posed a threat of death or grievous harm.
'Based on reaction times and the physiological processes involved in firing a weapon, it was reasonable for the SO to continue firing the gun until he reasonably believed he was out of danger,' she wrote.
'It was reasonable for the SO to believe that AP's driving posed a risk to his life as the pickup truck drove towards him. The SO fired his gun to prevent the pickup from continuing its path and stopped firing believed he was out of danger.'
She said the AP's intent when he drove toward the police cars – and the only exit from the dead-end driveway – is unknown, but regardless of intention it was 'objectively reasonable' for the officer to believe he was in serious danger.
'Given these considerations, it cannot be said that the SO's decision to shoot the AP was unreasonable in the circumstances,' Berglund wrote. 'Accordingly, as the chief civilian director of the IIO, I do not consider that there are reasonable grounds to believe an officer may have committed an offence under any enactment and therefore the matter will not be referred to Crown Counsel for consideration of charges.'