Police acted ‘appropriately’ after toy water pistol sparked armed response

By Jonathan McCambridge, Press Association

Police in Northern Ireland did not use excessive force when responding to a report of a firearm in a car which turned out to be a water pistol, a report has concluded.

The Police Ombudsman said the incident happened in September 2025 when armed response officers attended reports that a gun had been seen in a car being driven in Belfast.

Investigators concluded that officers had been right to treat the incident as a potentially serious threat.

The office of the ombudsman said body-worn video and CCTV coverage was reviewed, showing the complainant stepping out of the vehicle and placing his hands on his head as instructed.

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

We are satisfied that there is no evidence to suspect that the officers have conducted themselves in a manner that would warrant a recommendation for either criminal or misconduct sanctions

The ombudsman said one of the officers told investigators that he had 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 ombudsman’s investigation found that while this movement was not clearly visible on video footage, the officer’s account was consistent with his notebook entry and the recorded motion of his own hands at the time.

Ombudsman investigators also assessed whether the force used was both necessary and proportionate.

They concluded that given the nature of the report, the perceived risk, and the officer’s belief that the complainant’s hand had moved, 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 having used the water pistol at the scene.

The officer told investigators he sprayed it once at the ground and said that his intention had been to de‑escalate what was “likely to have been a traumatic incident for the complainant and others involved”.

The report said that by this stage, the complainant’s friends were engaging positively with officers.

The ombudsman said the act was deemed to have been “unprofessional” in the context of an armed response deployment but accepted the officer’s explanation and did not recommend any further action.

Senior investigator Martin McCaffery said: “Having carefully assessed the evidence, including the reports made to police by members of the public, we are satisfied that there is no evidence to suspect that the officers have conducted themselves in a manner that would warrant a recommendation for either criminal or misconduct sanctions.

“It is important that all such actions by police are independently and robustly investigated to ensure that the use of force by police is necessary, justified and proportionate in the circumstances.”