Police Response to Toy Gun Incident Deemed Appropriate
Police "did not use excessive force" when responding to a report of a firearm which was later identified as a toy water pistol, according to an investigation by the Police Ombudsman.
The incident occurred in September 2025 when armed response officers were dispatched following reports of a gun seen in a vehicle being driven in Belfast.
Following a complaint about the officers' conduct, Police Ombudsman investigators concluded that the officers acted appropriately in treating the situation as a potentially serious threat.
Senior Investigator Martin McCaffery stated:
"There was no evidence the officers acted in a manner that would warrant a recommendation for either criminal or misconduct sanctions."
Investigators reviewed body worn video footage and CCTV recordings related to the event.
The Ombudsman reported that the footage showed the complainant exiting the vehicle and complying with officers' instructions by placing his hands on his head.
He was subsequently brought to the ground by two police officers.
The report detailed that one officer told investigators he:
"made a split-second decision to pull the complainant to the ground after his left hand moved downwards and he believed that it was a high-risk situation."
The investigation noted that this movement was not clearly visible on the video footage, but the officer's account was consistent with his notebook entry and the recorded motion of his own hands at the time.
The Ombudsman concluded that taking the complainant to the ground and maintaining control until he was handcuffed and the suspected weapon secured was within the bounds of reasonable force.
Officer's Use of Water Pistol at the Scene
The Ombudsman also examined a complaint concerning the same officer's use of the water pistol during the incident.
The officer acknowledged spraying the water pistol once at the ground, explaining that his intention was to de-escalate what was "likely to have been a traumatic incident for the complainant and others involved."
It was further noted that by this point, the complainant's friends were "engaging positively" with officers.
Although the act was considered "unprofessional" in the context of an armed response deployment, investigators accepted the officer's explanation and did not recommend any further action.
