Did military training lead Peter Khill to shoot to kill? Styres family wants to know

Jon Styres's widow wants to know if the Canadian military trains its reserves to shoot to kill, even in civilian situations similar to the one that led,in 2016,to her spouse's death.

But theDepartment of National Defence won't answer.

From the911 call made moments after he killedStyres,to his testimony in front of the jury that ultimately found him not guilty of second-degree murder, former Hamilton-area reservist Peter Khill maintained he was just following his military training, and that shooting theman allegedly stealing his truck was an act ofself-defence.

• Ontario chiefs call on Attorney General to appeal PeterKhillverdict
• Not guilty verdict for PeterKhillshows Canada's justice system still broken afterBoushie, says chief

Now, as the family of Styres, a 29-year-old from Ohsweken, Ont., on the Six Nations reserve, struggles with averdict they call"excruciatingly heartbreaking," the mother of his two young girls is asking Canada's Armed Forces if what he says is true.

"Is this what the Canadian military teaches?"Lindsay Hill wrote in a recent statement. "For a person who was trained for three months that is currently in civilian life to leave a civilian [hisgirlfriend]and approach an unknown situation armed with a gun and shoot and kill someone... "

Canada's Department of National Defence told the CBC"we will not provide comment on any aspect of this trial."

Fire at a specific target

The military might not be willing to comment, but two retired soldiers told the CBCthattraining for Canadian soldiers is meant to teach disciplinewhen usingweapons, and to allow them to make decisions on whether the force they're using is appropriate.

I would expect a former military person to have more discipline and more control because of their training.-Retired colonelMichelDrapeau

Retired colonelMichelDrapeau, whoserved in Canada's Armed Forces for more than three decades, said soldiers have to follow the same laws as every other Canadian. He added thatKhill'straining should have kept him from pulling the trigger at all.

"Soldiersare part of a unit, a machine, andonly fire when ordered to do so. They don't just take a weapon and leave to fire at somebody. They fire at a specific target," he said.

"I would expect a former military person to have more discipline and more control because of their training."

Like riding a bike

Prosecutors argued the killing didn't need to happen and the entire situation could have been avoided if someone had just called 911.ButKhilltold the courtdialling that number wasn't part of his training.

PsychologistLaurence Miller testified that the type of trainingKhilltook part in can change a person's brain structure. He saidthey remember it years, even decades, later like driving a car or riding a bicycle.

The same goes for reservists who have been trained to "neutralize" threats, Miller explained. That couldexplain whyKhillgrabbed a gun and not his phone, he said, when he heard someone outside home.

'Not a mindless activity'

MatthewOvertonspent 39 years in the Canadian Armed Forces before retiring in 2017 and becoming executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute. Speaking generally, he said, comparing training to riding a bike is fair, but soldiers still have to make their own decisions about use of force.

He added it's true the purpose of repetitive training is to make the motions of usingweapons automatic. But that's only so a soldier's mind can be focused onevaluating what's happening around them to ensure the way they're acting makes sense.

"First of all, you have to decide to get on thatbike. Relying on muscle memory to pedalallows you to constantly be evaluating and making decisionsabout where and how you're riding," he explained. "It's not a mindless activity."

I felt that I was being threatened and that I wasn't in control of the situation. I needed to ...neutralize any threat that was there.- Peter Khill

Overtonsaid one difference that sets soldiers apart from Canadians without that type of training is "greater confidence" in using their unique skill set including deadly force because they've been drilled to be so familiar with it.

"Still,that does not mean you automatically use it," he said.

Repetitive training

Much of the evidence called by Khill's defence lawyer during the trial was focused on his training.

Walter Sroka, Khill's superior officer with the 56th Field Artillery Regiment in Brantford, testified the 28-year-old completed basic military courses that included repetitive drills focused on making reactions instinctive.

Part of those coursescovered "immediate threats" where soldiers are taught to allow their training to take over so they can make quick decisions when potentiallydangerous situations happed suddenly and in close quarters, he explained.

In those situations, soldiersare trained to be proactive. They're trained to protect themselves and others. They're trained to use deadly force if necessary, the court heard.

During the trial,Khillsaid when he looked out his bedroom window into the pre-dawn, pitch dark on Feb 4, 2016 and saw the dashboard of his pickup truck was lit up the lessons he'd learned during his five years as a part-time reservist came rushing back.

"I felt that I was being threatened and that I wasn't in control of the situation," he said. "I needed to gain control of the situation and neutralize any threat that was there."

Khill said he grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun from his bedroom closet, loaded it with two shells and headed out the back door,leaving his girlfriend inside and walking through a breezeway between the garage and house. Then heopened a door to see the figure of someone bent over the passenger seat of the truck.

Hetold the court he used rolling steps to muffle the sound of his approach and opened the door as silently as he could all in line with his training.

"Hey! Hands up!" he recalled shouting.

Khillsaid he'd also been trained to watch people's hands for potential threats, and as the man turned towardhim, his hands swept up to about waist-height, so Khill fired twice, believing the other man had a gun.

"I thought my life was in danger and I think the right to self-defence is overlapping between military and civilian life," he told the court.

Styresdidn't have a gun, court heard, just a folding knife found closed and in his pocket.