Civpol marksmen

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by OldRedCap, May 12, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. See that appeal court has cleared the guys who killed the man whe had table leg wrapped up in paper. Inquest said they were culpable. Appeal on grounds that they had good reason to be scared.
    So, we all know what to say from now on don't we? Don't be fright = just tell the nice investigator you were scared just like them two big coppers.
  2. I do feel that if a polis marksman is given the shoot order or is placed into a situation where he is forced to take the Kill Shot and all shots are kill shots.
    Then he must not be hauled up in court.
    Parliment has decide we should have armed police, it lays down the training the system has taken the decisions and the system not the guy risking his neck should answer.
  3. I'd love to put you on the judgement range at Gravesend for the afternoon, O.R.C. I'm sure you'll tell me that in the army you have similar training regimes. I doubt it.

    Handing my firearms ticket back in was one of the wisest things I ever did.

    Police firearms doctrine is, in this context, identical to that of the military: all shots are aimed at the centre of the main body mass of the target. The only deviation is the drill for targets wearing body armour, where you are trained to make head shots. This might have changed, because I did my AFO course in '98, prior to the HRA.

  4. Vegetius
    I was always educated that you are not shooting to wound and you must expect to kill with each hit.
    I think its disgracefull to give the Bobby the part of executioner, used to be a specialist trade.
    Parliment and the lawyers have abandoned their responsibility and are shifing it to the guy at the bottom of the chain of command, the man risking his neck.
  5. Firearms are now an almost routine part of modern policing: if you wander around Whitehall you can't fail to notice heavily-tooled up cops everywhere. Or airports, for example. Armed Response Vehicles are commonplace, you see them daily. Many rapid entry tasks on raids that in my early service would have been carried out by the local uniform with a sledgehammer are now subject to "armed dig-outs" by SO19 teams. Whom, incidentally, are known as "Ninja Turtles."

    The criminal armoury is also getting bigger and better.

    As for "executioner," well I don't really think the cap fits there. Yes, you know when you shoot someone the chances are you're going to kill them. This is why all police AFOs are volunteers and are made utterly aware that shooting a suspect probably makes you a murder suspect. It's just that increasingly obtuse legal decisions made under political pressure have made police firearms use increasingly difficult.

    The tactics phase of police firearms training is all about not shooting people. It's about containment, communication etc. I remember comparing my CIVPOL AFO tactics module with my TA infantry FIBUA package: chalk and cheese. All of the AFOs I ever met, to a man and woman, were extremely keen not to have to shoot somebody.

  6. F**k 'em I say - if there are some armed coppers pumped up with adrenaline shouting at you to put your weapon down/lay down/stand still etc and you are stupid enough to ignore them, then you deserve to be shot. It's called natural selection.
  7. ^ I take it you're not a coroner, then :wink:
  8. In this case though, If you are shouted at from behind, when minding your own business, the natural tendancy is to turn and look. You wouldn't expect to get shot for it.
  9. I intended no criticism of the actual marksmen. It is the attitude. I know very well from NI experience 70-72 that a soldier there, trained only to basic military standards and having undergone no psychological testing or stress training, would have been judged much more harshly than seems to have happened in this latest appeal. Look at VCP shootings in particular. The latest appeal didn't go any further so won't be case stated but - as I posted - will take a lot of pressure off a poor old squaddy if he mentions it in any post-shooting debrief or milpol interview.
  10. As far as I am Away and please correct me if i am wrong . The bloke was shot as he turned round hadnt made any suspicious movements now a
    squaddie could be expected to jump to conclusion while police marksman
    should be held to a higher standard .They shot and killed an innocent man
    going about his lawful busniess at the very least they should be thrown out
    of the force imho.
  11. The guy they shot was partially deaf. Not a good day for the plods.
  12. If I'd been told that the guy has a shotgun and is carrying a plastic bag that appears to have a sawn-off shotgun in it then turns towards me when told to stand still I think I could well have done exactly the same thing that they did. The fact that he may have been partially deaf is immaterial, folks don't wear big badges advertising the fact.
  13. Partially deaf? Oh, I forgot, people with disabilities are all law abiding citizens - not heard of the PIRA guy with one leg? "Why didn't you shoot him Pte Bloggs?" "Well Sir, he was a cripple...". Lets give the plods a bit of respect for doing a bloody hard job under difficult circumstances...their rules of engagement are far stricter than ours (and quite rightly so).
  14. The officer's evidence was that when he turned around and was challenged repeatedly, (this is unambiguous: HALT! ARMED POLICE! and was corroborated by an independent civilian witness) he raised the bag with the chair leg in it. It seems to me that this case turned on the previous information that the two officers had been given via the 999 system: that the man had been seen in a pub with a sawn-off shotgun.

    So, in good faith, the officers thought they were confronting a man armed with a shotgun who refused to put it down when challenged. Discuss. There is another debate to be had about police management of real-time intelligence systems, but these officers didn't, at that time, have that luxury.

    Yes, they shot and killed an innocent man. That is a genuine shame, I personally feel very sorry for Harry Stanley's family. Whether these officers should be continued to serve in an armed role is a fair debate. But sacking them because of a politically-motivated campaign by the Left when it was proven in law that they acted in good faith is out of order.

    A lot of firearms officers have handed their tickets in over this; the support isn't there. The Job is almost impossible as it is, and having been an AFO and knowing lots of police firearms people I find it difficult not to believe the SO19 guys' version of events.

  15. It depends if he lifted the bag or not. if he did fair shoot if he didnt its not
    on .People are idiots so the idea that some one coming home from the pub confronted by armed police will act rationally is a unwise assumption.
    I heard several diffrent versions of the event so i guess the courts got it best