On June 10th, 2011 Calgary Police Services shot and killed 40 year old Corey Peeace. This is his story.

Read the full story here.

Investigation RE: June 10, 2011 Police Killing of Corey Peeace | Produced on June 4, 2012 by J. Bowman, Founder of the ACP

Click below to watch video:

Advertisements

The search for justice for Corey continues::

Since R. v. Landry & Eccles v. Bourque ought to be the applicable pillars to the Corey Peeace litigation / investigation – justice, it seems in Alberta is lost.

Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms

“If the criteria of s. 450(1) of the Criminal Code and the standards enunciated in Eccles v. Bourque are met, a police officer can make an arrest on private premises without a warrant in the
execution of his duty for the purposes of s. 450(1)(a).” R. v. Landry, [1986] 1 SCR 145

“Section 450(1) of the Criminal Code does not alter the common law principles with respect to spatial limits on arrest without a warrant and the silence of the Code requires that the common
law apply. Eccles v. Bourque was not a case restricted to situations where a warrant, albeit unendorsed, existed, but rather dealt with the power of the police to arrest without warrant in private premises. The present case falls to be decided by application of Eccles v. Bourque, just as Eccles v. Bourque, on the view of the Court at that time, fell within the four corners of the old common law authorities. The policy underlying the cases, both older and more recent, is clear and compelling: there should be no place which gives an offender sanctuary from arrest. Although the Criminal Code provides for warrants for the search of things, it does not provide for the search of persons.
Absent the power of police to arrest on private premises, a criminal offender might therefore find complete and permanent protection from the law in a private home.

Parliament took for granted the common law power of forcible entry to effect an arrest. While the courts can decline to confer new common law powers intruding on civil liberties–and this Court has been cautious in conferring those powers–it is quite another thing for the Court to abrogate powers recognized by the courts, particularly when those powers descend from entrenched  authorities of the 17th century.

Legal Rights


LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON.

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


SEARCH OR SEIZURE.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

The right of entry to search for an offender is not unrestricted. This Court held in Eccles v. Bourque that entry could only be made against the will of a householder if: (1) there were reasonable and probable grounds for the belief that the person sought was within the premises, and (2) if proper announcement was made prior to entry. Proper announcement would ordinarily entail the police
giving (i) notice of presence, (ii) notice of authority by identifying themselves as police officers, and (iii) notice of purpose by stating lawful reasons for entry.

These requirements minimize the invasiveness of arrest in a dwelling and permit the offender to maintain his dignity and privacy by walking to the doorway and surrendering himself.

There is good reason to stand by the common law authorities in lieu of adopting a new rule requiring the police to obtain an arrest warrant in order to make an arrest in residential
premises. If a police officer is forced to obtain an arrest warrant before entering a residence, he will first have to attempt to obtain the name of the offender from the neighbours. In many cases the
neighbours will be unable to supply this information. Even if he obtains the offender’s name, the police officer will then have to seek a justice of the peace to execute a warrant. Valuable time–and
probably the offender–will be lost.

The specific concerns relating to arrests within a dwelling are met as fully as they can be, without unduly impinging an effective crime control, by the special requirements imposed on peace
officers who must make arrests in a house or apartment.

An affirmative answer to all of the following questions means the arrest is lawful:

(1)               Is the offence in question indictable?

(2)               Has the person who is the subject of arrest committed the offence or does the peace officer believe on reasonable and probable grounds that that person has committed or is about to
commit the offence in question?

(3)               Are there reasonable and probable grounds for belief that the person sought is within the premises?

(4)               Was proper announcement made before entry? This case arose before the Charter was in effect.

Furthermore, no determination was made on the nature and scope of the spatial limits of arrest without warrant under any section or subsection other than s. 450(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.”
R. v. Landry, [1986] 1 SCR 145

From: “The Tyranny of Good Intentions -How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice” By: Paul Craig Roberts & Lawrence M. Stratton

“The submission that a person who is by s. 450 of the Criminal Code authorized to make an arrest is, by s. 25, authorized by law to commit a trespass with or without force in the accomplishment of that arrest, provided he acts on reasonable and probable grounds, was not accepted.

Section 25 merely affords justification to a person for doing what he is required or authorized by law to do in the administration or enforcement of the law, if he acts on reasonable and probable grounds, and for using necessary force for that purpose. The question was whether the respondents were required or authorized by law to commit a [Page 740] trespass, not whether they were required or authorized to make an arrest. If they were authorized by law to commit a trespass, the authority for it must be found in the common law for there is nothing in the Criminal Code.

Unlike civil process, in the execution of criminal process the test is whether there are reasonable and probable grounds for acting. If the police officer has reasonable and probable cause to believe that the person named in the warrant for arrest is in the home of a stranger he has the right, after proper demand, to enter the home forcibly, to search and to arrest. In the present case the police officers had reasonable and probable grounds for believing that C was in the appellant’s apartment.

Except in exigent circumstances, the police officers must make an announcement prior to entry. In the ordinary case, before forcing entry, they should give (i) notice of presence by knocking or ringing
the doorbell, (ii) notice of authority, by identifying themselves as law enforcement officers and (iii) notice of purpose, by stating a lawful reason for entry.” Eccles v. Bourque et al., [1975] 2 SCR 739

FACT: Corey Peeace and his family endured unlawful Calgary police entries of their residence on 3 separate occasions within as many years prior to his killing in June 2011.  

FACT: Officer Cook, Corey’s killer, was the subject of a complaint and litigation Corey initiated in respect of an unlawful entry, assault and unlawful arrest on February 2010 when Cook trespassed, assaulted, handcuffed & tasered Corey while he was sleeping in bed.

FACT: Chief Hanson, Officer Cook, Gary Creasser & Cliff Purvis each appear to have unclean hands not only in respect of appearing to each be parties to Corey’s killing, but also in respect of what appears to be obstruction, conspiracy and cover-up.

^ (click to watch) ^

June 10, 2011 Killing of Corey Peeace – Corey’s Story

by Ca Douglas 

“I’m a lawyer.” – Cliff Purvis

A.S.I.R.T. Director Cliff Purvis verified that the Calgary policeman who first handcuffed and tasered (& later shot and killed) Corey Peeace is four-division officer Stephen Cook. This officer may have motive – wanting to end a lawsuit against him for tasering Peeace while handcuffed and the Calgary Police Service for Human Rights abuses.

Justice for Corey

On the evening of June 10, 2011, Corey Peeace (pronounced Pea-Ace) and his extended family were watching a National Hockey League playoff game at Corey’s home in Calgary. Like many other families across Canada, they were gathered around the family set, eating, some of them having a couple of beers as they cheered for their favoured team. At around 6 p.m., an argument broke out between family members over a missing package of cigarettes opened by Corey moments before – Corey became uncharacteristically angry and a family member called his mother, Stella who had just left the house.

Stealla Peeace & Her Family

There are differences between the story being told by the police and the story being told by the family about the police response that ended when a police officer felt justified in shooting Corey four times in the chest to death.

Scene of the Corey’s Killing (Rear Entrance of his Calgary Residence)

If you read about it in the city’s three newspapers, or watched on the 4 major networks, one would be led to believe that the shooting was justified.

Alberta Justice?

After two conferences with Peeace’s family directly regarding the circumstances into Corey’s death, a picture emerged from the family that not only seemed reasonable, but credible. This is their story and one that has never been told by the Calgary media. The story actually began in another house on another street in the same “Erin Woods” neighbourhood in Calgary. It is a neighbourhood, not unlike any other neighbourhood in Calgary where the houses are crammed together, most made cheaply and rented out.

Is Lady Justice Blind?

There were two “First Nations’ families” in this neighbourhood, Corey’s and his neighbours who lived two houses down. One night, the police from “Four Division” raided both houses, apparently because of a “gun call.” In a flash, police members shoved the faces of the two families down into the ground, all hands restrained behind their backs, each of them thoroughly searched. Then there were a lot of high fives and derogatory racial slurs made against the two native families by the police officers on the scene. It is interesting to note that the house in between the native families’ homes lived a white family and was excluded from the raids. These raids turned up no weapons in the subsequent search of the homes of the two families and there were no charges laid. After the incident, Corey Peeace complained to the Human Rights Commission (the outcome remains unknown). After the incident, Corey’s family relocated to a new home a couple of blocks away. In February 2010, the family was watching an Olympic Hockey game when an argument broke out between Corey and his spouse Vanessa. 911 was dialed on that night as well. After the short argument, Corey went to his bed and slept. Quite literally, he was dead to the world. Another call was placed to 911 to tell the dispatcher that Corey had gone to bed and was no longer any issue. It was over 50 minutes after the initial 911 call before officers showed up at the front door, even after the call to say they were no longer needed. This report did not name the officers because it seems to be police policy here in Calgary not to name officers in such incidents, including when an officer shoots a civilian dead. This is unlike the policy in other forces such as the Toronto Police Services and the Ontario Provincial Police, where officers involved in serious incidents are named to the public. The officers entered the family’s residence without invitation, demanding to know where Corey was. They were adamantly told that he was asleep and their presence was not required, but they continued uninvited into their home and found Corey in his bedroom. The officers then proceeded to physically wake Corey up. Corey, in a alcohol induced slumber, was not aware that the police were in his room and he batted them away. He wanted to do nothing more than sleep. The officers perceived this as an assault on police officers and proceeded to handcuff Corey behind his back. One officer got on top of Corey’s back with one knee with his other knee pushed into Corey’s ribs. With Corey well restrained, the other officer then discharged his taser on Corey in front of his on-looking family. One of the officers then proceeded to try to pressure Corey’s spouse to utter a statement declaring that Corey had hit her but she refused to lie.

Falsely Charged

Corey was nonetheless charged with assault and made to endure the process of the Calgary Courts. The Crown Prosecutor’s Office refused to drop the assault charges and rather used the false charge in order to maneuver Corey into a plea bargain that saw him agree to take anger management classes. The discharge meant that there would be no criminal record, yet still being portrayed by the press as having one. When Corey returned home from court that day to tell the family the outcome of the court proceedings, they all broke out into laughter because Corey was so rarely brought to the boiling point of those the anger management classes are meant to target. Because of the tasering, Corey also lodged a complaint with Professional Standards against the two officers.  He also began proceedings with a Calgary lawyer, who warned Corey that the police had “goon squads” that went around harassing people who lodged complaints against the police.

just US vs. just THEM

This seems to be common knowledge here in Calgary and fear allows these incidents to continue without opposition.

Corey’s family wants everyone to know that Corey was a hardworking family man, who held a steady job. He had a university education, but drove a delivery truck for a grocery chain, which paid the bills and supported his family. Corey is said to have “provided for his family and never left any of them wanting for anything.” The family all smiled as they remembered his proclivity for barbecues and feeding everyone who came to them. He also cared for other members of his family, like his brother Kenny, who while living in Toronto suffered a stroke. It was Corey who gave him a place to live after he was medically released from hospital care. Everyone in the family helped to care for Kenny, who needed to walk with a cane and was progressing in his speech. Everyone, who met Corey, liked him. Everyone but the two police officers who tasered Corey and on June 10, 2011 returned to his home within minutes of the 911 call being placed. This time, family members witnessed the two police officers approach with their guns drawn, a contradiction to police reports that their guns were not drawn before they kicked the door open. Neither officer uttered any warning to Corey. Scared, Corey’s neice, (who was terrified at the sight of the approaching gunmen) quickly shut and locked the front door to Corey’s home.  Within short moments the officers had kicked in the front door and found Corey standing in his kitchen – stunned with a sandwich knife in his hand. A sandwich knife by the way, that had a broken hilt and would have made a lousy weapon to attack anyone with, let alone an armed police officer. The family says that Corey would never have used this sandwich knife or anything else as a weapon – he had never in the past – and simply did not have it in him. It remains obvious that 40-year-old Corey Peeace did not stand a chance. The door flew open, bang, bang, bang, bang and Corey was lying on the floor, dying in a growing pool of his own blood. Neither in police reports to the media, nor in statements from the family, was Corey warned to “put his weapon” down, which contrasts greatly from appropriate police procedure. Everyone deserves that chance.

“volatile and dangerous”

Following the shooting, the chief of police Rick Hansen was quick to make statements to the press regarding details of the shooting immediately exonerating his officers, even before the official investigation began. One of those details he discussed in a “SUN TV” interview was that there was a “disconnect call” made to 911 regarding a “threatening situation” in the home. He made another statement in which in said that there had been a “hang-up phone call.” When asked, the person who placed the 911-telephone call was genuinely shocked to hear that the chief of police was making those claims. The caller is adamant that 911 recordings will show that she was on the line from the time she place the telephone call until after Corey had been shot. She maintained that the line was not “hung-up,” nor was there any “disconnection” of the call. The chief of police went on in that interview to say that the 911 operators heard a “distinct threat” and other press have reported that those words were, “someone is going to die today.” There were several members of the family that were on scene at the time of the entire incident and were stunned in response.  One of Corey’s three sons bewildered by the comments then said that the words, “someone is going to die today,” is just not something that his dad would have ever said. It wasn’t in his nature. Everyone agreed. In fact it turns out that Corey and his family were afraid for his life and understood him to be saying “Oh great, now somebody’s gonna die today” – meaning HIM.  If so, Corey was correct. Corey’s statement was inaccurately reported to the media and this misperception has been allowed to stand. All present agreed that Corey was not in any way acting in a threatening manner, nor was there anyone in danger at anytime other than by police. The family admits that a disagreement existed between Corey and family members and that the alcohol that had been consumed had blown the issue out of proportion. There are family members who feel a great deal of guilt as a result of their own actions, but none of them pulled the trigger. The family, who had spent the last several hours with Corey all state that at no time was anyone in danger of being harmed. Police are adamant that a split second decision was all that was necessary to judge that Corey’s life ought to be brought to an end right there and then. Chief Rick Hansen before the investigation even began determined to sell to the public through an unquestioning press that Corey was a danger to human life.  The media acquiesced and released statements to the public that were untrue. They even reported that Corey did indeed have a criminal record as the press began to vilify the victim and this has happened in other police shootings as well. There are screen captures of comments made to and published by the press that shows an unnatural tolerance for these killings, although it is suspected that some of these comments came from other radical police officers on the force. Immediately after Corey had been shot, many police officers converged on the scene, the family says more than 30, all within five minutes of the call to 911. Contrary to proper police procedure and despite the presence of a back exit, family members were then made to walk out of their home through the front door and over the dying body of Corey. Did this not interfere with what then should have been considered a crime scene until the death could have received an investigative ruling? By disturbing the scene, police may have obliterated evidence valuable to the investigation. The family states that officers then entered the home as they were being taken away and before the arrival of the investigators from the Province’s Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT). Police have made statements that there were other weapons nearby. A walk-through of the night’s events with the family shows that Corey was standing just inside the front door. The only items available to him were the family’s shoes on a mat. One family member, a minor, recalls protesting to the police at having to exit her home over the dying body of her dearest Uncle Corey. It just wasn’t right to her.

The family was cruelly forced each into separate vehicles.

The family was herded into separate vehicles, taken away and put into separate rooms at the number four-division facility near Marlborough. Without counsel they were questioned, including the minors who were not even allowed the presence of a guardian during the questioning of that night or during subsequent questioning, contrary to proper police procedures. One element of the story that failed to even make it into the press, despite noting nothing more than “other injuries” may have been reported. It has never been revealed to the public what happened to Corey’s brother Kenny. The brother that the family cared for after the stroke, who walked with a cane, was not moving fast enough when police removed them from their home. Kenny had been made to walk over his dying brother and made it to the stoop of the front porch. One officer grabbed Kenny by the front of his shirt and pulled him down the stairs to go faster, but Kenny’s brain couldn’t handle what was being demanded of him and he fell to the ground smashing his skull against the walk. Family pleaded with police to get Kenny medical help or to let the ambulance through, but the officers just let him lay on the ground just as they did Corey. Family members state that medical attention was withheld from both men while an ambulance was kept waiting at the end of the street by police. Kenny was eventually rushed to Calgary’s Foothills Hospital needing surgery and now has to once again undertake the recovery of a brain injury. Corey’s niece talked about cleaning and organizing the basement just prior to that night, but when the family returned home, they found it a mess. They all wondered what it was that the police were looking for. With the loss of her spouse, their father, brother, uncle and friend, the family decided to move away from the place where Corey was so mercilessly and senselessly slaughtered. Another “First Nations’ Family” moved into the residence and shortly thereafter received a short letter simply stating, “Move out or die.” During this period, area neighbourhoods also found many racist posters posted in the neighbourhood. One has to wonder just what is going on? Family members have asked for Corey’s belongings back. ASIRT members refused stating to the Peeace family that they are investigating this as a homicide stating that the police officer will never go on duty again. The police officer has since returned to the streets after a month of desk duty. In a subsequent shooting in another neighbourhood in Four-division, another man was shot and similarly treated by the press. Without a questioning press, the killing will never stop.

just US vs. just THEM

UPDATE: In late April 2012, the name of the officer was determined as the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team, investigating the killing, determined that the shooting was indeed justified. The press did not report that Peeace lost his life over a package of cigarettes. From a photograph taken during interviews, it was the niece who was standing nearest to Peeace just before he was shot, but the niece is adamant that Peeace was NOT threatening her despite what was reported in the press about the A.S.I.R.T. investigation. In fact, reenactments of the A.S.I.R.T. report findings show that A.S.I.R.T. did indeed cover-up the murder of Peeace as their version of the events do not make any sense as they awarded the officer with a life saving award. The only conclusion one can draw is that the corruption in Alberta is so pervasive, with criminal elements having tentacles in the Government of Alberta, in the courts, in the Crown Prosecutor’s Office and in the police that any normal citizen doesn’t have a chance. —————————–

From: The Law of Torts 674 WRONGS TO POSSESSION AND PROPERTY. [Ch. 10] An entry upon the land of another is not a trespass unless it be unjustifiable. It may be justified, among other things, by legal pro- oess.i”” Civil process of law justifies an officer in breaking in the door of an inner room,^” but it does not justify him in breaking the outer door.i”‘ “Every man’s house is his castle.” This is an old expression, and comes down to us from those feudal times when the grand people lived in large and fortified houses, which were called “castles.” In these castles they resisted any entrance except by permission. From this source has come the expression. In accord- ance therewith, every man’s abode, however humble, is his castle; and it is said, “Even though the winds of heaven may blow through it, the king of England cannot enter it.” ^”^ Where the officer executing civil process is guilty of a trespass in forcing an entrance into a dwelling house, its owner is justified in resisting further progress in service of the writ by force.^^” From: “HAND-BOOK OF THE LAW OF TORTS” By: EDWIN A. JAGGARD, A. M., LL. B