(FilmThePolice.ca) Huron OPP are now facing attempted murder allegations after an apparent botched execution attempt in Seaforth.
NOTE: Traditional media have used a cropped photo to help cover-up the unjustified shooting. The image below is from the SIU report, and contains one of the bullet holes proving it was an unjustified shooting. All other media outlets have chosen to edit out or omit the bullet hole.
The SIU evidence and investigation shows that Huron OPP repeatedly failed to use standard and appropriate methods to stop a vehicle, and instead tried to execute unarmed civilians in an extrajudicial punitive measure. The telltale bullet holes in the vehicle clearly show the officer lied in his notes, and then they refused to be interviewed. All residents of Huron County are encouraged to lockdown their property and video record ALL police interactions until this officer’s name is released.
The SIU’s decision to exonerate the officer in Case #23-PFI-424 is a grotesque miscarriage of justice. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the officer’s gunfire was not defensive but retaliatory, targeting the passenger (Complainant #1) after the vehicle had already passed him. The SIU’s conclusion that this shooting was “reasonable” is a disgrace—it rewards reckless violence and sends a clear message: police can shoot first, fabricate a threat later, and walk away unscathed.
1. The Shooting Was Not Defensive – It Was Punitive
A. The Officer Was No Longer in Danger When He Fired
- The SIU admits there is conflicting evidence on whether the SUV was moving when shots were fired.
- Video footage (from residential cameras) suggests the vehicle was already turning away when the officer discharged his firearm.
- Forensic evidence shows bullets struck the passenger-side windshield and door—areas that would not be in the officer’s direct line of fire if he were truly defending himself from an oncoming vehicle.
Conclusion: The officer was not firing to stop an imminent threat—he was firing to punish the occupants for fleeing.
B. The Third Shot Was Especially Suspicious
- Witnesses and audio recordings confirm two rapid shots, followed by a delayed third shot.
- This pause suggests the officer reassessed and chose to fire again—not in panic, but in retaliation.
- The bullet that struck Complainant #1 in the chest came from this third shot, proving the officer adjusted his aim to ensure a hit.
Conclusion: This was not “self-defense.” This was an execution attempt.
2. The SIU’s Flawed Justification Relies on Police Privilege
The SIU’s reasoning is a textbook example of cop logic:
- “He feared for his life”—despite no evidence the civilians were armed.
- “The SUV was a weapon”—ignoring that the officer stepped in front of it instead of retreating.
- “The shooting was proportional”—even though three bullets into a fleeing car is excessive by any standard.
The SIU’s decision is not based on facts—it’s based on deference to police.
3. This Was Retaliation, Not Protection
The officer’s actions fit a well-documented pattern of police using lethal force as punishment:
- Complainant #1 had just evaded arrest—a “sin” that often triggers police rage.
- The officer shot at the passenger side, where Complainant #1 was seated, despite the driver being the alleged threat.
- No attempt was made to disable the vehicle (tires, engine block)—the officer chose to shoot at human targets.
This was not about stopping a threat. It was about sending a message: “You don’t run from us.”
4. The SIU’s Decision Encourages More Police Violence
By rubber-stamping this shooting, the SIU has:
✅ Legitimized retaliatory gunfire against unarmed civilians.
✅ Reinforced that police can lie, exaggerate threats, and face no consequences.
✅ Sent a clear signal to officers: If you’re angry, you can shoot.
This is not oversight—it’s complicity.
Final Verdict: A Criminal Act Whitewashed as “Self-Defense”
The evidence proves this shooting was unjustified and retaliatory. The SIU’s decision to clear the officer is a betrayal of justice and a green light for further police violence.
If this is “reasonable,” then the law is broken.
Demand:
- An independent review of the SIU’s decision.
- Charges against the officer for aggravated assault.
- Legislative reform to strip police of their “shoot first, justify later” immunity.