Police acted 'appropriately' after armed response to toy gun

Police "did not use excessive force" when responding to a report of a firearm which was then found to be a toy water pistol, according to a Police Ombudsman investigation.

The incident happened in September 2025 when armed response officers were called to reports that a gun had been seen in a car being driven in Belfast.

After investigating a complaint about what happened, Police Ombudsman investigators found officers had been right to treat it as a potentially serious threat.

Senior Investigator Martin McCaffery said there was no evidence the officers acted "in a manner that would warrant a recommendation for either criminal or misconduct sanctions".

Body worn video footage and CCTV was reviewed.

The Ombudsman said it showed the complainant stepping out of the vehicle and placing his hands on his head as instructed.

He was then brought to the ground by two police officers.

The report said that one of the officers 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 found that this movement was not clearly visible on video footage, but that the officer's account "was consistent with his notebook entry and the recorded motion of his own hands at the time".

The Ombudsman said taking the complainant to the ground and maintaining control until he was handcuffed and the suspected weapon secured, fell within the bounds of reasonable force.

The Ombudsman also examined a complaint about the same officer using the water pistol at the scene.

He acknowledged he sprayed it once at the ground and stated that his intention had been to de‑escalate what was "likely to have been a traumatic incident for the complainant and others involved".

It was also noted that by this stage, the complainant's friends were "engaging positively" with officers.

Although the act was deemed to have been "unprofessional" in the context of an armed response deployment, investigators accepted the officer's explanation and did not recommend further action.