London Police Service Internal Review after death of Samuel Maloney (PDF)
Police released details in shooting death of Samuel Maloney
Days after an inquest into the death of Samuel Maloney was announced, more information on how he died has been released.
Maloney was shot by London police during a raid of his Duchess Street home on Dec. 23, 2016.
Earlier this week, Ontario's Office of the Chief Coroner said it would be conducting an inquiry into the death, though the Special Investigations Unit has cleared police.
On Friday, the London Police Services Board released the four-page report completed by the chief of police, which is required whenever the SIU becomes involved in an incident.
According to the report, 11 Emergency Response Unit officers breached the front door in a 'dynamic entry' and spread through the house.
In addition to Maloney, his wife Melissa Facciolo, and two of their young children were at home at the time.
The report says Maloney was in a front computer room and, without warning, shot an officer in the abdomen with a crossbow.
That officer, believing Maloney had a gun, fired three times, hitting him once in the shoulder before pulling back and asking him to come out with his hands empty.
He then reportedly refused, and holding a hatchet above his head, screamed and ran to a rear bedroom where is wife and two infant children, along with two additional officers, were located.
That's where he was shot by two separate officers, in the chest and then in the head, and died.
Referring to the SIU report, the document goes on to describe how Maloney was awake and at his computer, and had cameras on the outside of the home, and therefore knew officers were coming.
In fact, the SIU believed he was waiting to shoot the officer. The report also indicated Maloney may have also been carrying a knife at the time.
There are also reports Maloney asked to see the search warrant and was asking for medical attention, though not all involved heard those conversations.
As to the planning and execution of the warrant, the SIU was critical of some decisions, but did not believe that they constituted a criminal offence.
Police believed computer equipment at the home contained evidence of criminal offences and sought a warrant to search for it.