By Chelsea Laskowski

UPDATE: Police shooting inquest jury gives no recommendations

Sep 12, 2014 | 12:08 PM

The family of a man who was shot by police during a confrontation had little to say at the conclusion of an inquest into his death.

After a five-day trial the six-person jury concluded Ryan Natomagan-Nelson, 26, died on July 9, 2013 at 10:51 p.m. in Prince Albert’s Victoria Hospital.

The decision that he died from blood loss due to gunshot wounds, and that it was a homicide was based off 13 people’s testimonies and numerous documents.

The jury did not have any recommendations for people or institutions to enact to prevent future deaths of this nature.

Before the jury rendered their decision, the presiding coroner Brent Gough explained homicide has a different meaning in an inquest versus a trial. In an inquest, a homicide does not imply guilt whereas a trial usually involves murder and guilt.

2 New Directors

Getting to know the new members of the Prince Albert Chamber of Commerce

11h ago

warrant issued

Former Sask. Mountie, convicted of breach of trust, now accused of voyeurism and accessing child porn

12h ago

Aggravated assault

Dispute lands woman in hospital, man in jail

14h ago

According to evidence in this case, the homicide was a result of gunshots fired by two officers after a call about an assault. One officer determined there was a warrant out for the arrest of the accused, Natomagan-Nelson.

They officers testified Natomagan-Nelson was in a basement bathroom. Within those tight quarters they raised their firearms after he held up a knife and within about 12 seconds he lunged at them, Cst. Dwight Leblue and Cst. Ryan Banadyga stated. That’s when shots were fired, they said.

Family cried and shook their heads at times throughout the week-long testimony recounting Natomagan-Nelson’s death. For some, emotions peaked during Cst. Banadyga’s and Cst. Leblue’s testimony.

The family declined to comment following Monday, but on Friday Natomagan-Nelson’s aunt Shirley Nelson read a short statement to the media on behalf of the family.

“We are sorry that things came out the way it happened. Shots were fired, a person died, we cannot bring anyone back from the dead so we have to do our best to move on,” she said.

She declined to answer any questions.

Condolences were passed on to the family from the jury and Prince Albert Polices Service’s (PAPS) counsel, Mitchell Holash.

“It certainly has impacted the deceased family and friends significantly as it has the Prince Albert Police Service and the protective officers involved in the shooting,” he said.

Both Holash and the coroner’s counsel, Alma Wiebe, agreed the process of a coroner’s inquest helps the public understand why police take the actions they do to respond to a threat.

Wiebe’s impartial role involved her asking common questions after a shooting death.

“One of the questions that’s commonly asked in the public,” she said, is “’why shoot for center mass? Why not shoot for an appendage, a limb, hand, a foot, a knee? … We see things sometimes on T.V. that might not actually be reflected in reality.”

Evidence from several officers, in particular a use of force expert Sgt. Russell Laidlaw, described the likelihood of shooting a moving arm as “impossible” in the real world.

Holash said the rules and options for officers faced with a threat like a knife need to be clear, and drew a few conclusions from the lack of recommendations.

“In this case, clearly the jury had determined it was a justified use of force in the circumstances, justified but very, very unfortunate.”

Weibe said she’s been involved in many coroner’s inquests and it’s rare for the jury to come out of their deliberations without any recommendations.

claskowski@panow.com

On Twitter: @chelsealaskowsk