The Police have released details of the reports into the rubber bullet shooting of Stephen Proctor in January, 2001 and by and large the report clears the officers concerned of any wrongdoing.

The Police will always have to make decisions, often minute to minute, about what action is best when dealing with dangerous individuals or confrontations.

And clearly they must take into account their own safety and the safety of any bystanders when doing so.

In the Proctor incident, it is clear from the Police statement that Mr. Proctor was attempting to injure the officers at the scene and that peaceful efforts to get him to calm down had failed.

Regardless of Mr. Proctor's mental state at the time, it is clear from the report that he was a danger to the officers at the scene and to himself. The firing of the rubber bullets seems to have been justified and it also appears that they were fired so as not to have been lethal.

In the absence of the full reports - which should be released - it must be concluded that this was, in the Police vernacular, a "good shooting".

That does not mean that this incident was perfectly handled.

The Police statement makes it clear that some procedures were breached, and that the decision to shoot was ultimately taken by the constable handling the weapon. Although it is likely, according to the statement, that a senior officer would have authorised the action, this was not in fact done.

A senior officer should be on the scene for events of this kind and should, in the event that armed officers are needed to deal with an armed suspect, make clear to the officers beforehand when it is necessary to discharge their firearms and what kinds of weapons are appropriate.

The Police have, according to the statement, taken this criticism on board. Given that it was raised both by the internal inquiry and by an external assessment commissioned by the Police, that is the right thing to do.

A clear chain of command and a clear plan to ensure that all the officers needed are called out is also needed. In this case, it was not done. The fact that this incident was handled well does not mean that those procedures should not be followed; it could have ended in tragedy.

It is also good to see that the Police have taken seriously the statements of lawyer Patrick Doherty with regard to the mental state of Mr. Proctor.

It is difficult to judge whether, for example, a mental health professional or psychologist could have helped to calm Mr. Proctor down without the need to resort to force.

But that possibility cannot be ignored and the agreement with the Hospitals Board to "better coordinate the use of expert mental health, psychiatric and/or psychologist assistance" should enable this to occur in the future if it becomes necessary.

It has to be assumed that no Police officer looks forward to discharging their weapons in a case like this; if they do, they are in the wrong job. But it is essential that if it becomes necessary, that it is handled properly by well trained and well-led officers.

In the absence of the full reports being made public, it cannot be said with certainty that all the criticisms have been made public or met. But based on what has been said, this incident appears to have been handled properly, and the steps the Police have now taken should go a long way to avoiding any unnecessary tragedies in the future.