# "Toronto police exploring ‘clown guns’ for officers"



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2015)

Sensationalist headline aside, it appears TO's PS is looking at another option for less-than-lethal force:  what looks like a slide-on attachment for a sidearm, allowing the officer to fire a bigger but way slower projectile at someone - see attached picture and link to company site for more tech details.  More from the _Toronto Star_:


> With ongoing controversy about officers shooting unarmed people, the Toronto Police Service is exploring whether a new device, known as a “clown gun,” could be a viable alternative to lethal force.
> 
> This spring, a coroner’s inquest jury in Toronto recommended that the police service “continue to explore new technologies in the area of less-than-lethal use-of-force options.” The jury was examining the circumstances around the death of Donald Percival Thompson, a 45-year-old man fatally shot by police while brandishing a machete on Aril 26, 2013.
> 
> ...


So, one more tool on the belt, or another gadget to worry about?


----------



## Tibbson (18 Aug 2015)

IMHO it sounds like another plan from the "good idea fairy".  Considering that it will only work on the first shot...and cops are taught to double tap, I can see lots of potential for problems.  Heck, even with directed energy weapons we still occasionally have cops shooting people because they either grabbed the wrong weapon in the heat of the moment or they chose not to use it and went straight for their weapon.


----------



## Jed (18 Aug 2015)

Wow, this is an appropriately named weapon.


----------



## northernboy_24 (18 Aug 2015)

Police are not taught to "double tap" we are taught to stop the threat.  Be that one shot or more is at officers discretion based on the threat and situation.  There is no policy anywhere that an officer is to double tap someone.

I don't want to get into this a lot in the public forum but police are not shooting people if they are not justified.  If an officer takes out the weapon it is for a reason.  The national use of force model requires a lot for an officer to draw their weapon.  We shoot those that are threatening death or grievous bodily harm.  The CEW/Taser or other intermediate weapon is used at different times and officers do not draw their weapon in haste thinking it is the Taser.

Please stay in your lane in this case.  We do not need to be spreading any lies about police officers and the use of force in Canada.

If you have questions please PM me or look into the National Use of Force Framework.


----------



## RCDtpr (18 Aug 2015)

northernboy_24 said:
			
		

> Police are not taught to "double tap" we are taught to stop the threat.  Be that one shot or more is at officers discretion based on the threat and situation.  There is no policy anywhere that an officer is to double tap someone.
> 
> I don't want to get into this a lot in the public forum but police are not shooting people if they are not justified.  If an officer takes out the weapon it is for a reason.  The national use of force model requires a lot for an officer to draw their weapon.  We shoot those that are threatening death or grievous bodily harm.  The CEW/Taser or other intermediate weapon is used at different times and officers do not draw their weapon in haste thinking it is the Taser.
> 
> ...



Interestingly enough.....I'm a cop and while not taught to necessarily double tap.....our shooting drills are never one shot.  So while not explicitly being taught to double tap, we essentially are through muscle memory.

Further, the guy you told to stay in his lanes has (from what I've been able to learn from reading the boards) been a cop for like 20 years.

Just saying

Back on topic...that weapon attachment seems like junk.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (18 Aug 2015)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough.....I'm a cop and while not taught to necessarily double tap.....our shooting drills are never one shot.  So while not explicitly being taught to double tap, we essentially are through muscle memory.
> 
> Further, the guy you told to stay in his lanes has (from what I've been able to learn from reading the boards) been a cop for like 20 years.
> 
> ...



That first round will not stop an aggressor a majority of the time anyway; calling for subsequent follow up shots anyway.

Considering the 8 Meter Rule (or 21 Foot Rule) as well, you need to be able to get off enough shots in that short time and distance to neutralize the threat. If that means a double tap... Then it better be a double tap.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Aug 2015)

...I was just trying to get past people having an issue with police having to shoot a person brandishing a machete...


----------



## Teager (18 Aug 2015)

I have a question. If an officer does end up carrying this device is it already on the gun or is it something that must be attached quickly? Either way I see issues. If it's already attached then when some guy is firing a gun at you you would have to fire it wasting precious time. If you have to attach it then i don't see it being used as a lot of situations happen very quickly with only seconds to react.

What happens if this device does kill an individual? There will be an uproar over it saying police forces should ban it. It seems like there's no winning sometimes and I feel for the officers.


----------



## Tibbson (18 Aug 2015)

northernboy_24 said:
			
		

> Police are not taught to "double tap" we are taught to stop the threat.  Be that one shot or more is at officers discretion based on the threat and situation.  There is no policy anywhere that an officer is to double tap someone.
> 
> I don't want to get into this a lot in the public forum but police are not shooting people if they are not justified.  If an officer takes out the weapon it is for a reason.  The national use of force model requires a lot for an officer to draw their weapon.  We shoot those that are threatening death or grievous bodily harm.  The CEW/Taser or other intermediate weapon is used at different times and officers do not draw their weapon in haste thinking it is the Taser.
> 
> ...



First off, I never said there was a policy to shoot any time other than when it was needed.  And as far as the national use of force framework is concerned, I have a copy of it as well as the new Use of Force manual that is currently undergoing proofreading and translation.  

With regards to my double tap comment, take a look at just about every qualification shoot we have used in the Branch (including the CP and Air Marshal shoot) and you will see plenty of instances where more than one shot is fired.  Of course nothing says the weapon is to be fired in any other circumstance but when it is absolutely required, but that doesn't take away from the fact we are taught to shoot until the threat is neutralized.  Unless the cop carrying one of these weapons is only carrying the one round I can see circumstances where there is a large red welt found right next to a hole in the subject.

And lastly, with respect to officers mistaking their service weapon for the taser they carry, I offer the following links:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/13/tulsa-police-shooting-eric-harris-district-attorney-weighs-charges
http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2011_9th_torres.shtml
http://sfbayview.com/2009/01/did-bart-cop-who-killed-oscar-grant-mistake-gun-for-taser/
I never said it happened often...but it does and can happen.


----------



## shootemup604 (18 Aug 2015)

Maybe this is a stupid question, but what happens when you actually need the lethal force capability of your sidearm like RIGHT NOW and the first shot and precious seconds are wasted?


----------



## midget-boyd91 (18 Aug 2015)

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> Maybe this is a stupid question, but what happens when you actually need the lethal force capability of your sidearm like RIGHT NOW and the first shot and precious seconds are wasted?



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wxE0Bd2Ooco

For those interested;  there is a link showing video of how the system would be used


----------



## shootemup604 (19 Aug 2015)

Can be attached/detached quickly - that's a plus.


----------



## Jed (19 Aug 2015)

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> Can be attached/detached quickly - that's a plus.



So, would this be a replacement for a taser or just more kit to pack along?


----------



## Lumber (19 Aug 2015)

This just seems like a terrible idea.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Aug 2015)

This is just a clever adaptation of the "shot trap" idea used in some rifle grenades to create a non lethal response, essentially giving an officer the ability to knock down someone without having to get the shotgun and load a beanbag or baton round.

Like everything else there are pros and cons, and you could come up with a lot of "what ifs?" to emphasise good or bad points, but in the end, I would suggest that it gives officers an option, and with good training and practice, they will be able to decide if this actually is an option or not.


----------



## Alberta Bound (19 Aug 2015)

First off this won't replace CEWs which can also be used in touch mode for certain scenarios or if needed you can "recyle" (re energize) your subject in probe mode and good contact. 

This is a less lethal projectile. We already have less lethal projectile rounds (bean bag rounds) in dedicated launchers and also for shotguns. I personally don't feel this one has value. 

My reasons: you only use less lethal (of this style) in higher risk scenarios when you have multiple officer response and lethal over watch. In that case why not have a shotgun with less lethal projectiles ( more accurate and can be loaded with multiple projectile rounds - some can also be pepper balls). Then if needed you can transition to your pistol. This would be another piece of kit to carry and do you carry one? Two? More?  

For lesser force in a one officer scenario we have batons and OC and possibly CEW besides hard and soft hand. Would one officer unholster his pistol to attach this, use it and if unsuccessful reholster and transition to something else? or try again?

Plus more "tools" to decide on and use in stress scenarios adds to a lag in decision making and then add in gross motor function issues and I see nothing but issues. Or will some people advocate having this attached in advance to pistols to be removed if lethal force is required? 

As has been said, there is no double tap rule but we train to neutralize the threat and multiple shots is a common tactic especially with the increase in body armour and of course winter clothing. Even with no clothes a determined person (mental health, drugs, alcohol, etc) can take a lot of hits. 

Ferguson Police are to be trained. But if you look at the shooting there; would a single officer conducting a traffic stop who then gets in a physical altercation have the time, ability, safe opportunity to add this to his pistol. 

I see this as something that looks really good to people with little understanding of policing. It may have a place in the options but I see the opportunities for positive use as few and far between with the opportunities for public criticism rapidly increasing. 

My humble opinion


----------

