Recherche
Recherche plein texte sur tous les incidents publiés. Les noms d'agents ne sont jamais indexés — les résultats portent sur le résumé caviardé, le nom du corps policier, la référence tribunalaire et les champs à vocabulaire contrôlé (type d'incident, constat, disposition).
- Corps policier: siu-on×
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU or authorize the release of their notes. In the early morning of 2026, the affected person was driving in Brampton when a police cruiser started to follow their vehicle, attempting to pull them over. The affected person did not stop for the cruiser. They turned into some side streets, ultimately losing control of their vehicle because of icy road conditions and striking parked cars. The affected person exited their car and fled the scene on foot through some backyards. An officer was on patrol when their ALPR registered a hit on the affected person's vehicle, indicating that the registered owner was a suspended driver. The officer briefly chased the affected person on foot and broadcast they were subject to arrest for failing to remain at the scene of an accident. The affected person made their way home to the area of the collision scene. The subject officer was waiting for them in the area and grabbed a hold of the affected person, throwing them to the ground, just as they were attempting to enter a house. The officer kept the affected person pinned to the ground with their body weight for a period before they were joined by another officer, responding to the scene. The affected person struggled against the officers' efforts to control their arms and bit an officer's finger. The subject officer kneed the affected person in the left ribs and pulled them onto their left side. The parties continued to wrestle for control of the affected person's arms and the subject officer delivered another knee strike to the torso. With the arrival and intervention of additional officers, the affected person was handcuffed and taken into custody. The affected person was charged with multiple offences and released at the scene. They subsequently attended hospital and were diagnosed with a fractured left rib.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person made their way to a bridge. Their intention was to jump from the bridge. They called 911 to advise emergency responders of their intention and provided them their location. Two call-takers – one from a police service and another from the ambulance service – spoke to the affected person. They assured them they had done the right thing by calling them, asked them not to jump from the bridge, and told them help was on its way. The affected person stayed on the line for several minutes. At the very end, they told the police call-taker that they could hear and see responding police officers, and that they were going to jump. They proceeded to do just that. The subject officer was the first officer on scene. They stopped their cruiser in a parking lot by the bridge, exited and was making their way to the affected person’s position when the affected person jumped from the bridge onto some snow-covered rocks below. The officer provided care and comfort to the affected person while they waited for paramedics. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police witnesses and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In early 2026, two officers were dispatched to an address in Toronto, following a 911 call. The caller did not address the call-taker but utterances were heard in the background suggesting an ongoing and potentially violent disturbance involving a male and female. The officers entered the home despite objections from the woman who opened the door – the affected person. The affected person was placed under arrest by one of the officers after they observed a male – the affected person – with a cut to the forehead. The affected person refused to cooperate as the officer sought to question them about what had happened. Standing on a second floor landing, the affected person asked the officers to leave and then called 911 asking for additional officers. The officers told the affected person to disconnect the 911 call as they were the police. When they failed to do so, they warned that they would be arrested for public mischief. Shortly after, the officers took hold of the affected person to take them into custody. The affected person refused to surrender their arms to be handcuffed and was grounded. On the floor, they resisted the officers’ efforts to control their arms behind the back and was met with a punch to the face by one of the officers. Moments later, as the struggle continued, the officer delivered two punches to the affected person’s head in quick succession. It would take another five minutes, during which the other officer kicked the affected person once or twice in the legs and exhorted them verbally to give up their arms, before the officers wrestled control of their arms behind the back and secured them in handcuffs. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person made their way to a bridge. Their intention was to jump from the bridge. They called 911 to advise emergency responders of their intention and provided them with their location. Two call-takers – one from a police service and another from the ambulance service – spoke to the affected person. They assured them they had done the right thing by calling them, asked them not to jump from the bridge, and told them help was on its way. The affected person stayed on the line for several minutes. At the very end, they told the police call-taker that they could hear and see responding police officers, and that they were going to jump. They proceeded to do just that. The subject officer was the first officer on scene. They stopped their cruiser in a parking lot by the bridge, exited and was making their way to the affected person’s position when the affected person jumped from the bridge onto some snow-covered rocks below. The officer provided care and comfort to the affected person while they waited for paramedics. The affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected gives rise to the following scenario. In the evening of late 2025, police officers were dispatched to a location. The police had received a call about a disturbance involving the affected person and their partner. The subject officer arrived on scene and was joined by other officers. A crisis worker was also in attendance with the police. The subject officer was met by the affected person and allowed inside. The two made their way to the rear yard to talk. The other officers remained in the house to speak with the partner. Over the course of the next 45 minutes, the subject officer attempted to have the affected person explain what had happened. An intoxicated affected person engaged with the officer in fits and starts, unable to provide a coherent account of the events and occasionally adopting a belligerent posture. The officer told the affected person that they would not be allowed to stay at the location that night and would need to explore alternative accommodations. The affected person became increasingly frustrated, unable to secure themselves a place for the night. Near the end of their discourse, the affected person walked towards the rear door of the location. The subject officer grabbed a hold of them, told them they were under arrest for public intoxication, and attempted to pull them away from the location. The affected person resisted the officer by pulling in the opposite direction. There followed an altercation. The subject officer threw the affected person to the ground and positioned themselves overtop their supine torso. Another officer was by the affected person’s upper body. The affected person thrashed their legs about. The subject officer delivered a series of elbow strikes to the affected person’s face, after which their arms were controlled in front of their body and handcuffed. Following their arrest, the affected person was transported to hospital and diagnosed with a fractured shoulder.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, the affected person was at a public square to protest against a demonstration by a specific movement. The demonstrators had made their way to the public square from another location, where they had initially gathered. The affected person, with a group of other people, had also been at the other location attempting to disrupt the demonstration. Police officers had been assigned to police the demonstration and counter-protest. They were to preserve the peace and attempt to keep the rival factions separated. At the public square, officers used their bicycles to erect a perimeter between the demonstrators, at the centre of the square, and the counter-protesters, on its periphery. The affected person was in the area of the northeast corner of the square when they and others were asked to leave the square. The affected person began to slowly walk away but stopped to object to the treatment of a woman, who was being physically escorted by police in a certain direction. The subject officer ordered them to leave or they would be arrested for obstructing police. The officer then pushed the affected person by the arms towards a roadway, the roadway that bordered the square to the north. The affected person told the subject officer that they did not have to touch them and turned to face the officer. The subject officer reacted by turning them around and pushing them in the back towards the roadway. The affected person stumbled forward and fell onto the sidewalk, fracturing their left hip in the process. The affected person was transported by paramedics to hospital and treated for their injury.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, the affected person was at a square to protest against a demonstration by a movement. The demonstrators had made their way to the square from another location, where they had initially gathered. The affected person, with a group of other people, had also been at the other location attempting to disrupt the demonstration. Officers had been assigned to police the demonstration and counter-protest. They were to preserve the peace and attempt to keep the rival factions separated. At the square, officers used their bicycles to erect a perimeter between the demonstrators, at the centre of the square, and the counter-protesters, on its periphery. The affected person was in the area of the northeast corner of the square when they and others were asked to leave the square. The affected person began to slowly walk away but stopped to object to the treatment of a person, who was being physically escorted by police in the direction of a street. The subject officer ordered them to leave or they would be arrested for obstructing police. The officer then pushed the affected person by the arms northward towards the street, the roadway that bordered the square to the north. The affected person told the subject officer that they did not have to touch them and turned to face the officer. The subject officer reacted by turning them around and pushing them in the back towards the street. The affected person stumbled forward and fell onto the sidewalk, fracturing their hip in the process. The affected person was transported by paramedics to hospital and treated for their injury.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police were dispatched to an apartment in the area of a city. The person who called 911 wanted the affected person removed from their residence. The officer arrived on scene with another officer shortly before 11:00 p.m., joined shortly by a third officer. The person who called 911 met them outside the building and provided them a key to the apartment. One of the officers opened the door, stepped inside and was splashed with cooking oil from a bottle by the affected person. The affected person retreated into the kitchen area and was physically engaged by the officers. They were taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back by the officer. The affected person was placed in the backseat of the officer's cruiser and transported to a police detention facility. En route, they slipped the handcuffs under their legs so that they were then positioned in front of their body. In statements made to police personnel at the station, they would explain that the pain in their left wrist was the result of this maneuver. The next day, the affected person was seen at a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured left wrist.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. Two officers travelled to a residence in a specific area to arrest the affected person for criminal harassment. They had earlier spoken to a woman, who reported that the affected person had stalked her and she was concerned for her safety and the safety of her family. The affected person answered the officers’ knock on the door and was told they were to be arrested. They told the officers to get a warrant and closed the door, making their way to the basement. They called a family member, made remarks suggesting self-harm, and locked themselves in the bathroom where they proceeded to harm themselves. The officers were allowed into the residence by a witness, who expressed concern for the affected person’s safety. The officers went to the basement and started to speak to the affected person through the bathroom door. They told them they wanted to ensure their safety. The affected person said they were fine and taking a shower. The officers grew increasingly worried with the affected person’s wellbeing as their voice started to fade and attempted, unsuccessfully, to force open the door. Within minutes, additional officers arrived with a breach tool. The door was opened and officers entered. The affected person was inside the bathtub with injuries. Paramedics were called to the scene and transported them to hospital.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In early 2026, police officers were dispatched to a residence. A resident had called police to remove an intoxicated and unwelcome guest – the affected person – who was refusing to leave. Officers arrived on scene and took a belligerent affected person into custody to prevent a breach of the peace. They were placed in a cruiser and transported to the police detachment. The affected person remained confrontational at the detachment. At one point, after they had been stood facing a wall to be searched, the affected person turned and started to close their hand in the direction of one of the searching officers. The officer standing behind the affected person reacted by wrapping an arm around their neck, forcing them to the floor and delivering a punch in the direction of their upper body. The affected person, prone on the floor, did not readily release their arms at the officers’ direction and was met with several punches to the legs and torso by the officers. The officers wrestled control of their arms after the strikes and handcuffed them behind their back. The affected person was subsequently transported to hospital when they complained of facial pain. They were diagnosed with a broken nose.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may briefly be summarized. In the morning of early 2026, members of the Emergency Response Team convened at a house situated in the area of Cornwall. Acting under the authority of a search warrant, the team entered the house to search for controlled substances. The affected person was present at the time and alerted to the officers’ presence outside the home. They entered the main floor bathroom and attempted to conceal themselves behind a sink. They were quickly located by an officer and placed on the floor in a prone position. The subject officer, the team leader, had forced their way into the bathroom and located the affected person. Having positioned the affected person on the floor, the officer dropped their left knee intending to lower themselves by their side but inadvertently landed on the affected person’s back. The impact fractured the affected person’s left hand, which was underneath their chest at the time. The affected person was taken into custody and transported to the police station. They were seen at hospital later in the day and diagnosed with their injury.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The material events in question are clear on the evidence collected by the SIU and may be briefly summarized. In the evening of early 2026, the affected person was with her boyfriend, an off-duty officer, on a street in Toronto when the two quarreled and she left the area telling him that she was going to jump. She made her way to a bridge over a river and called the officer using a passerby’s cellphone. She told him she was going to commit suicide and that it would be his fault. The officer called police to report that the affected person was in mental health crisis and threatening to harm herself. He would subsequently learn from a third-party whose phone the affected person had used to call him that she was in the area of the bridge and a roadway. The subject officer drove in that direction, travelling across the bridge. With him was another officer. The subject officer approached the side of the bridge, brought his vehicle to a stop and exited with the other officer. They were just out of their cruiser when the affected person scaled the bridge guardrail and jumped down the other side. She landed on the frozen river below, a distance of about eight metres. The two officers made their way to the riverbank and walked onto the river to render aid to the affected person. Firefighters attended the scene and assisted in her removal. She was transported to hospital and diagnosed with fractures and injuries to her internal organs.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police and non-police eyewitness, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officers did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the morning of early 2026, the subject officer and the witness officer were dispatched to a convenience store in the area of a major road and intersection. A store employee had contacted police to report a male and female shoplifter. The officers arrived on scene and spoke with store staff, confirming that two suspects had left the store with alcohol and food without paying for the items. The employee showed a video clip they had taken with their cellphone, depicting the male and female. The subject officer and the witness officer located the suspects – the affected person and another individual – at a nearby bus shelter. The other individual was taken into custody by the witness officer without incident. The affected person, however, resisted when the subject officer attempted to secure them in handcuffs. The officer was able to affix a cuff to the right hand but had difficulty attaching the other cuff to the affected person’s left hand. The affected person objected to their arrest, denied that they had done anything wrong, and struggled against the subject officer’s efforts to bring their arms behind the back. The tussle eventually made its way outside the bus shelter where the witness officer intervened. The officers brought the affected person to the ground, after which the witness officer secured both their hands in handcuffs. Following their arrest, the affected person was taken to hospital and treated for a fractured right wrist.
pursuit_custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and the subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. In early 2026, the affected person was arrested by the subject officer and another officer inside a residence. The officers had gone to the location following a call to police about smoke coming from the residence. The affected person was unlawfully inside the abandoned home. They had stepped in seeking shelter from the cold outside, and had started a fire in a crock pot to warm themselves. The affected person was searched by the subject officer at the scene and again at a police detachment. Some drug paraphernalia was confiscated. Asked whether they had consumed illicit substances in the last 24 hours, the affected person said they had not. The affected person was lodged in a cell. Later, upon returning to their cell from a phone room where they had contacted a lawyer, the affected person retrieved fentanyl from vials secreted in their groin area and consumed a quantity of the drug. They began to suffer the effects of the drug and became unresponsive on the cell floor. The subject officer entered the cell within minutes of the affected person's medical event and attempted to rouse them with a sternum rub. They placed the affected person in the recovery position, administered a couple of doses of nasal naloxone and contacted EMS. Paramedics arrived on scene and took charge of the affected person's care. They were transported to hospital and treated for acute fentanyl overdose.
custody_transport_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. Two subject officers travelled to a residence in the area to arrest the affected person for criminal harassment. They had earlier spoken to a woman, who reported that the affected person had stalked her. She was concerned for her safety, and the safety of her family as the affected person continued to attend their residence. The affected person answered the officers’ knock on the door and was told they were to be arrested. They told the officers to get a warrant and closed the door, making their way to the basement. They called a family member, made remarks suggesting self-harm, and locked themselves in the bathroom where they proceeded to harm themselves. The officers were allowed into the residence by a witness, who expressed concern for the affected person’s safety. The officers went to the basement and started to speak to the affected person through the bathroom door. They told them they wanted to ensure their safety. The affected person said they were fine and taking a shower. The officers grew increasingly worried with the affected person’s wellbeing as their voice started to fade and attempted, unsuccessfully, to force open the door. Within minutes, additional officers arrived with a breach tool. The door was opened and officers entered. The affected person was inside the bathtub with injuries. Paramedics were called to the scene and transported them to hospital.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person, a subject officer and other witnesses (police and non-police), and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, a subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. Shortly before midnight, in early 2026, police were asked to assist in the search of a suspect who had fled the scene of an attempted break and enter in a city and entered into a region with two accomplices in a vehicle. The vehicle had crashed on a street in the area, after which two of the suspects were arrested. The third took flight on foot and remained at large. Police deployed officers to the area of the collision and established a perimeter. Police dog teams were brought in to assist in the search, as was a police drone. Two subject officers were part of the police operations. They were paired with a dog handler, who conducted a track of the suspect across residential streets in the area and the rear yards of homes. At about 1:40 a.m., with the assistance of residents in the neighbourhood sharing their surveillance camera footage with the police, the subject officers and the dog handler located a male – the affected person – hiding underneath a covering in the rear yard of a residence in the area. They alerted other officers, who arrived at the location to assist in taking the affected person into custody. The dog handler loudly announced that officers were present and directed the affected person to surrender. Initially, there was no response from the affected person. The officer warned that they would deploy their dog if the affected person did not surrender, at which point the affected person indicated they would come out. Another brief period passed before the subject officers moved in and physically engaged the affected person. They removed them from under the covering and dragged them a distance away. The affected person was struck several times by the officers, including in the face, before they were handcuffed behind the back. Following their arrest, the affected person was seen at hospital and diagnosed with several facial fractures and a broken finger.
siu_code:tcd · 2025-Q4
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with police and non-police witnesses, and video footage that largely captured the incident, gives rise to the following scenario. The subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes, as was their legal right. In the early afternoon of Q4 2025, Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers were called to a hotel located in the Yonge Street area of Toronto. Hotel staff had contacted police to seek the removal of a guest — the complainant. The complainant had caused a commotion in the lobby and accused hotel employees of being associated with persons seeking her death. The complainant was of unsound mind at the time of her interaction with the officers. Since checking into the hotel a few days earlier, the complainant had frequently attended the front desk to complain about persons wanting her dead. She had returned to her room by the time of the officers' arrival. A group of TPS officers arrived on scene and, accompanied by the hotel manager, took the elevator to the 18th floor and attended at the complainant's room. Among them was the subject officer. The subject officer knocked on the door and asked for the complainant. The complainant indicated she had not called police and refused to open the door. The subject officer indicated that the officers would open the door if she did not let them in. The complainant did not respond. A female officer interjected and attempted to speak with the complainant, assuring her she was not in trouble and that they simply wanted to talk. Still, there was no response. Officers attempted to open the door, including with a master card key, but were unsuccessful as it had been double-locked from the inside. A TPS Mobile Crisis Intervention Team (MCIT) arrived on scene and also tried to have the complainant open the door. On learning from hotel staff that the complainant's room had a Juliet balcony from which the complainant could jump, a witness officer entered an adjacent room and onto its balcony. From that vantage point, the officer observed that the door to the Juliet balcony was open. Looking down, the officer observed the complainant lying on the roof of the third floor and immediately radioed for paramedics. The roof was accessed by Toronto Fire Service. The complainant was pronounced deceased shortly thereafter. At autopsy, the pathologist was of the preliminary view that the complainant's death was attributable to multiple blunt force trauma.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police eyewitnesses, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer did not agree to an interview with the SIU or the release of their notes. In the early morning of 2026, police officers were on the lookout for a vehicle following a call to police from a person. The person had called to report that a family member – the affected person – had left their residence in the vehicle. They were of unsound mind and experiencing suicidal ideation. Officers located the vehicle and attempted to pull it over. The affected person refused to stop and picked up their speed. Multiple officers, driving separate cruisers, joined the pursuit. The officers decided to attempt a rolling block of the vehicle. At about 12:40 a.m., the officers positioned their cruisers around the vehicle and brought it to a stop. The officers exited their cruisers and attempted to engage with the affected person. The affected person had a knife that they occasionally held at their neck and abdomen. The officers realized that the affected person was only a risk to themselves, and put their firearms away. They were upset and asked the officers to kill them. They talked of being infected with spores and fungi. As time went by, the affected person became less responsive to the officers’ overtures. A team of tactical officers arrived on scene and surrounded the vehicle. Among their ranks was a trained negotiator who also attempted to bring the standoff to a peaceful resolution. The affected person could not be persuaded to let go of the knife and exit the vehicle. A plan was agreed that the tactical officers would storm the vehicle to take the affected person into custody when and if they placed the knife away from their person. At a later time, the officers gave the signal to move in after the affected person had put the knife on the front passenger seat. Tactical officers smashed the front door windows and discharged less-lethal weapons at the affected person and spray into the vehicle. The affected person retrieved the knife and suffered a stab wound to the abdomen. The officers took possession of the knife and removed the affected person from the vehicle. The affected person was transported to hospital by paramedics and treated for a laceration to their abdomen.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the complainant and a subject officer, and video footage that captured the incident in part, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, one of the subject officers did not agree to an interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the afternoon of early 2026, two subject officers were on-duty together assigned to a neighbourhood resource team, a proactive policing initiative by the service. The officers attended an apartment complex in the area to perform welfare checks, enforce conditions of release and execute outstanding arrest warrants. The affected person was identified as a person associated with the building who was subject to an arrest warrant on theft charges. The officers were just outside the elevator when it opened and the affected person stepped out. Asked to identify themselves, the affected person provided a false name and attempted to walk by the officers. The officers took hold of them and a struggle ensued. The affected person was forcibly taken to the floor and handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was transported to hospital after their arrest and diagnosed with a fractured left knee.
custody_injury · 2026-Q1
The evidence collected by the SIU, including interviews with the affected person and police witnesses, gives rise to the following scenario. As was their legal right, the subject officer chose not to interview with the SIU. They did authorize the release of their notes. In the evening of early 2026, police officers were looking for the affected person. They had left the scene of a domestic disturbance threatening suicide and the police were concerned for their wellbeing. A location search returned a location in a specific area. The subject officer, in the company of two witness officers, arrived in the area. There was no answer at the first house they approached but one of the witness officers had noticed a light on at the house next door. The affected person had fled the scene of the disturbance and taken refuge in an empty house in the area. When one of the witness officers initially approached the house and asked them to identify themselves, the affected person provided a false name. With the officer now off the property, the affected person made their way outside to the rear of the property and inside a steel shed. They had a knife in their possession. Not long after one of the witness officers had left the residence where they encountered the affected person, the officer learned that, in fact, they had been dealing with the affected person. They, the subject officer and the other witness officer returned to the residence and eventually located the affected person in the rear shed. The affected person displayed a knife and began to walk with purpose towards the officers, repeatedly telling them to shoot them. The subject officer and one of the witness officers walked away from the shed and ordered the affected person to drop the knife. They did so, throwing it away, and continued their advance. When they were within striking range of the subject officer, the officer punched them in the face. The affected person was felled by the blow but continued to resist on the ground by refusing to surrender their arms. The witness officers delivered several more strikes to the torso and legs, after which the affected person was handcuffed behind the back. The affected person was diagnosed at hospital after their arrest with a fractured left orbital bone.