Police-Encounters-With-People-In-Crisis

70. The Metropolitan Police Service of London, England has indicated that its armed
officers (a small percentage of overall police in London) will soon begin wearing
cameras while on duty.
D. Alternative equipment options
71. Although the equipment issued to police is regulated at the provincial level, the
Review learned that the TPS is continuously investigating alternative use-of-force
options, including alternative weapons, and evaluating whether such equipment can
reduce fatalities in police interactions. Some of the literature considered by the Review
suggested non-lethal firearm options, such as beanbag shotguns or rubber bullets, as
possible alternatives when dealing with people in crisis. 59
72. For example, the Metropolitan Police Service in London, England equips its
Territorial Support Group—the special team that deals with maintaining public order,
including responding to incidents involving edged weapons—with shields and CEWs,
but not firearms. In Toronto, ETF members are issued shields, ARWEN launchers that
discharge foam or wooden bullets, tear gas canisters, CEWs, and handguns. The ETF
also has access to small mobile cameras that can be used to investigate an incident
environment remotely. However, the ETF is not always deployed or able to attend in
time to incidents involving people in crisis armed with edged weapons.
II. Overview of Issues Highlighted by Stakeholders
A. Conducted Energy Weapons
73. Although the Review received many diverse and comprehensive submissions
regarding CEWs, two major positions emerged. Several stakeholders communicated that
the risk of injury or death from a CEW is lower than the risk associated with firearms,
and that expanded access to these weapons will have the effect of saving lives. Further,
they suggested that CEWs can reduce the risk of injury to police officers compared to
firearms, batons, and physical control techniques.
74. Other stakeholders held the opposite view. They contended that CEWs will not, in
practice, be used in place of firearms when police perceive an imminent threat of death
or serious bodily harm. Rather, they suggest that CEWs will be used in place of less
intrusive intermediate options, such as verbal de-escalation or waiting out situations
where there is no immediate risk to anyone’s safety. Even members of police services
acknowledged that CEWs are rarely appropriate in dynamic, close-range situations (the
situations in which firearms are most often used) and that there is a risk that officers
will over-rely on CEWs when they are first issued. Procedures must be enforced and
breaches punished in order to maintain accountability concerning the use of the
weapons.
59
Cleveland Division of Police, 2.1.02 “Beanbag Shotguns” (Cleveland, OH: Cleveland Division of Police, 2013).
Police Encounters With People in Crisis |258