The Police Ombudsman has concluded that police acted appropriately when they fired a Taser at a man they thought might have been reaching for a gun.
The incident happened on 7 April 2010 in the Glebe Road area of Newtownabbey. Police had received reports that a man had been shot and had returned fire on his attackers, hitting one of them.
Ambulance control also informed police that they had received a similar call from the same address.
Police firearms units were tasked to respond. They sealed off the area around the house and attempted to contact anyone inside.
When they received no answer, fearing that someone may have been injured, they forced entry to the house.
Four officers entered the property and shouted a warning that they were armed police. They found a man lying face down on a sofa, apparently unconscious.
The officers ordered the man to open his eyes. He did so and immediately reached under the sofa.
Fearing that he might be reaching for a gun, the officers ordered him to show his hands. The man responded by threatening to shoot the officers and began to move his hands around under the sofa.
An officer then discharged a Taser which allowed them to subdue the man, who was then arrested and taken into police custody.
The officer who discharged the Taser later told Police Ombudsman investigators that as well as fearing that the man might have been reaching for a gun, he was aware that the man had a history of violence and aggression.
After the Taser discharge, paramedics who had also arrived at the scene, provided first aid.
During their investigation of the case, Police Ombudsman investigators secured all relevant police documentation, as well as statements from the officers involved. They also examined electronic data downloaded from the Taser.
The officer who fired the Taser was also found to be properly trained in the use of the weapon, which, along with its ammunition, had been properly signed out and recorded.
Having considered the evidence, the Police Ombudsman, Mr Al Hutchinson, concluded that the use of the Taser was justified, lawful and proportionate to the circumstances.
"The man's failure to show his hands, the fact that he was reaching under the sofa, and his threat to shoot the officers clearly suggested that he was reaching for a weapon," said Mr Hutchinson.
"In such circumstances it was reasonable for police to consider that there was the potential for loss of life or serious injury. The use of Taser was therefore proportionate to the threat faced by officers, and in compliance with legislation and police guidelines regarding the use of firearms."