40 for all use of warning devices, especially where the device does not have a rangefinder or automatic cut-off mechanism. 7.8.4 There is a clear risk of acoustic weapons being indiscriminate in their effects, targeting sections of the crowd instead of focusing on individuals within it.117 This increases the risk that uninvolved persons may be affected.118 CIRCUMSTANCES OF POTENTIALLY UNLAWFUL USE 7.8.5 The indiscriminate use of an acoustic weapon against a crowd, or against targeted individuals at a range where the decibel output is likely to cause permanent hearing damage, would be unlawful.119 CCLA, Factum of the Moving Parties, 2010 (available at https:bit.ly/2NQucwm). Evidence of Dr. Harrison in Canadian Civil Liberties Assn. v. Toronto (City) Police Service [2010] O.J. No. 2715 2010 ONSC 3525 Court File No. CV-10-404640. 119 NATO, Non-Lethal Weapons and Future Peace Enforcement Operations RTO Technical Report, Doc. TR-SAS-040, 2004; see also Canadian Civil Liberties Assn. v. Toronto (City) Police Service [2010] O.J. No. 2715 2010 ONSC 3525 Court File No. CV-10-404640p8. 117 118