Posted by 
An Edmonton police officer has been acquitted of assaulting a man with a stun gun during an arrest.
Const. Dustin Adsett was found not guilty Tuesday after Court of King’s Bench Justice Kent Davidson concluding Adsett’s decision to fire his Taser into Lee Van Beaver’s back as he lay on the ground beneath two other officers was not excessive and protected under Section 25 of the Criminal Code.
Davidson nonetheless noted Beaver suffered an “assaultive” arrest despite following police direction and showing “the compliance one would expect of a respectful citizen confronted by police officers.”
“There was nothing in Mr. Beaver’s demeanour that would suggest any need for force,” Davidson said, adding Beaver deserved to be treated with “more compassion, respect and dignity” by the other officers involved.
Beaver was arrested March 23, 2021, while walking to a friend’s home in Ritchie. Beaver told court he planned to visit a family member on the north side and wanted to pick up a bike from the friend because it was late and the LRT had stopped running.
As Beaver neared Ritchie Market, he noticed a blacked-out SUV that appeared to be following him. He grew paranoid and said he thought he was about to get “jumped.” Beaver pulled out a can of bear spray from where he carried it at his side.
Two uniformed officers then exited the unmarked SUV and identified themselves as police. One drew his pistol and pointed it at Beaver as he walked down the alley beside Transcend Coffee. A security camera captured the entire arrest, showing Beaver raising his hands and lying prone on the ground as the officers approached.
The jolt stunned Beaver, was was placed in handcuffs about 90 seconds after police first laid hands on him.
Court heard the officers were in the area after the EPS helicopter spotted someone checking car doors in the neighbourhood, though it was later established Beaver was not that person. Beaver had outstanding warrants, but none of the officers knew this when they decided to arrest him.
Adsett testified in his own defence. He told court he arrived to find a chaotic scene centred on what appeared to be a man resisting arrest.
When he later watched the surveillance video of the entire arrest, Adsett was “disheartened” to see Beaver had complied with police directions and only appeared to be resisting due to the way the other officers were manipulating his body.
The Crown nevertheless said Adsett’s actions were excessive and that he was wrong to use the Taser.
Davidson disagreed. He said Adsett had no way of knowing how the encounter with Beaver began when he arrived. Instead, he was confronted by two officers struggling with an apparently resistant man.
The bear spray in the air heightened the tension. Davidson concluded the spray remained in Beaver’s pocket and went off accidentally during the struggle with police.
Davidson ultimately found both Adsett and Beaver were credible witnesses. He faulted Beaver on only a few points, including his claim he had placed the bear spray on the ground when he surrendered to police — a claim Beaver admitted was incorrect after being shown the surveillance video.
Davidson concluded Adsett did assault Beaver, but that his actions were protected under Section 25 of the Criminal Code, which governs use of force by police officers.
The judge said Adsett established he was authorized to enforce the law, that he acted on reasonable grounds, and that he was permitted to use as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Davidson said in hindsight, Adsett was mistaken in his assessment of the situation. However, he noted police are entitled to make mistakes in fast-moving situations like the Beaver arrest, “so long as they are honest ones.”
Davidson concluded by saying there were nevertheless “elements of this case that are deeply disturbing,” in particular how Beaver was treated at the outset of the arrest.
Michelle Kai prosecuted the case for the Crown. Defence lawyer Mona Duckett represented Adsett.
