Eishia Hudson was 16 years old when she was shot and killed by Winnipeg police in April 2020. (Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth – image credit)
A Winnipeg police lawyer grilled a use-of-force expert during the inquest into the death of a 16-year-old girl Friday, challenging his finding that the 2020 shooting by an officer was unjustified.
Peter Rampat, a former Toronto officer who teaches use of force at a police college, also previously told the inquest into the death of Eishia Hudson that the officers who responded to the scene didn’t follow safety protocols in the lead-up to the fatal shooting.
Hudson was behind the wheel of a stolen Jeep in a police chase in April 2020, after other teens in the car were involved in a liquor store robbery where one of them threatened to stab a security guard. Police started the pursuit after an employee reported the theft, describing the suspects as Indigenous youth, an agreed statement of facts prepared for the inquest said.
Const. Kyle Pradinuk told the inquest in February he thought his colleagues’ lives were in danger when he fired two shots at the teen, believing the vehicle was moving toward other officers who had surrounded it after Hudson crashed it.
Winnipeg Police Service lawyer Kimberly Carswell challenged Rampat’s findings related to Pradinuk’s actions during cross-examination Friday. She said the expert’s report didn’t include what she said was relevant evidence, such as a witness account from a person who said they “thought the vehicle was going to run the officer over.”
Carswell also said Rampat made a number of assumptions in his report, including that Hudson was panicked at the time and that she turned the steering wheel counterclockwise to avoid police. Rampat agreed he couldn’t see that in the witness video he used for his assessment.
Rampat told presiding Judge Margaret Wiebe the officers should have left more space between them and the stolen vehicle instead of rushing toward it despite the risks. Carswell said Pradinuk testified he moved forward to lower the risk of hitting someone else in the vehicle and so the driver could better hear police commands.
“Those are all reasonable tactical decisions, to do what he did,” Carswell said.
“Sure,” Rampat responded.
Carswell said some of the details in Rampat’s report were not necessarily facts police were certain of at the time, including that the driver was a teenager.
She also accused the expert of at one point “mocking” Pradinuk in his earlier testimony.
“He indicated that he was concerned about potential administration of first aid, as well as getting individuals into custody. And your evidence indicated, ‘Well, which one is it?'” Carswell said.
“Why, sir, would you be so dismissive of Const. Pradinuk’s plan that had too many goals?”
Rampat said he “wasn’t trying to mock or be dismissive” of the officer.
“What I was trying to understand is, what was the motivation for moving in when the risks were very clear?”
Rampat testified at the inquest for the second consecutive day.
On Thursday, he criticized an earlier use-of-force expert’s report prepared for the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba as part of the watchdog’s probe into the shooting. In particular, he said the fact that expert didn’t consider the witness video in his report was concerning and “speaks to impartiality.”
Carswell on Friday noted Rampat was “very critical” of that expert for the exclusion and asked him to explain “why we shouldn’t be critical of you” for what she described as similarly omitting some evidence in his report.
He testified while he read the witness accounts that were provided, he didn’t include them because his report focused on the movement of the vehicle at the time the shots were fired. He said he leaned more heavily on the witness video of the scene than witness accounts because it was objective evidence.
The earlier expert’s report was part of the basis the watchdog gave for its decision not to recommend charges against Pradinuk in the shooting in its final report, issued in 2021.
The inquest into Hudson’s death won’t assign blame but will look at whether systemic racism played a role in the death of the teen — an Ojibway member of Berens River First Nation — and whether the use of force was appropriate.
It’s scheduled to resume with testimony from a Winnipeg police expert in June before lawyers deliver their final submissions later that month.