Are members of CO19 trained too politically influenced?

[Rich H]

By that question I mean, are members of any British Police firearms units trained to be too careful regarding use of force and the accountability of each round fired?

Are they still trained in the use of 'double taps'?

Do members of such units feel that their role is detrimentally affected by the Police Complaints Commission and that the relevant forces are not necessarily conducting this role in the best interests of a quick and successful conclusion to any armed incident, nor the interests of the officers involved?


Please can only those who are or have been employed in this role answer.

Many thanks.


Rich H

[co19]

The British Police are trained to act within the law, at the end of the day the use of firearms should be the last resort when all other options have either been tried and failed or likely to fail in the circumstances.

Police officers are not soldiers, before they were firearms officers they were beat bobbies and when they are finished in firearms some go back to being bobbies on the beat.

Double taps are no longer considered reasonable force, if you can stop a person with one round then why should you have to fire a second.

You are not shooting to kill, you are shooting to stop.

Obviously some tactics call for more than one initial round to be fired, but i do not intend to talk about that.

The most important thing about being a firearms officer is being a good copper that is experienced and can read situations and give a balanced justified response.

[Scab]

Question for you CO19;

If you are engaging an firearm armed individual are you still shooting to stop?

[Rich H]

Thanks CO19.

The reason why I ask is to understand and possibly outline the training downfalls of the 3 main CP units in their primary roles when re-training for the CP environment.

The SAS, Rmp and Police all provide CP but all provide the role as a secondary specialist role to their main role. The SAS, as we know, have a primary role of covert action behind enemy lines for sabotage, causing general mayhem and int gathering. The RMP are also soldiers first but not in a front line fighting role but one of policing. The police are police officers first and foremost and their intial training and in-role training and experience is affected by politics and the law of innocence until proven otherwise.

Members of all three units operate in CP as a ‘secondary role’ to their core areas of initial responsibility and primary employment. My point is that this influences their overall performance in their respective CP roles due to the nature of their previous training. Members of the Police for example are subject to conflicting training methods. The Specialist Firearm Command branch of the Metropolitan Police Service or CO19 are rigidly trained and exercised in the use of force. The ‘double-tap’ method of engaging a threat - target/ subject/ assailant/ attacker etc, was, and to some extent still is, open to question and as you mention is generally not implemented. The Independent Police Complaints Commission, (IPCC), investigate all incidents whereby an officer has discharged his weapon in the course of duty. Justification for each round fired and the provision of evidence that the required outcome of an incident, i.e. neutralising the threat could not have been gained by firing just one round at the target or other avenues of possibility. To highlight this problem further; a target who drops his weapon after being shot once, immediately presents a highly reduced threat and lives. That same target, who was engaged with a ‘double tap’, although still immediately presented a highly reduced threat, dies. Anyone reading this who is not British will be horrified at the way the British Police are subjected to such unsympathetic views, (especially if they are serving SWAT Police in the US). I won’t begin to elaborate my thoughts on this matter in any great detail only to state that a job needs to be done and the threat needs to be neutralised – fast. If that involves the death of the attacker then that is the outcome and that outcome should not be questioned. Unfortunately, the Police are subject to justifying their actions and those involved in protection duties are no exception. One can clearly see that the mindset of a BG employed in the Police could have an ‘affected reaction’ to an armed confrontation and threat to the Principal that is not as effective as it could or should be. The Police provide a service that is compounded by what some may describe as interfering elements. The law is an ass as they say.

The SAS still continue to run their ‘BG Course’ but this has now become a state of continuing because it ‘overlaps’ CRW duties and they must, as a matter of course have knowledge and skills in this area and due to the fact that a chance remains they may be requested for such duties in the future such as high risk extraction, however remote. Of course, the role is not going to be taken away from them but the situations whereby they would be deployed are becoming scarce. The regiments ‘BG Course’ predominantly comprises of anti-ambush counter attack and high risk operational procedures. Etiquette and protocol are not on the course syllabus and the course is based more around ‘training the trainers’, enabling training teams to deploy and train other countries in anti-ambush drills as opposed to a ‘full-on’ proper CP Course. It is without doubt that members of the SAS are amongst the best soldiers in the world. This is due in part to the selection and training process of those members and also the UKSF adopted policy of operating procedures. However, Close Protection involves personal attributes that arguably work directly in conflict with those attributes of SF soldiers. Since the famous Iranian Embassy siege, ‘Operation Nimrod’, in 1980 the regiment has been at the forefront of related media articles. The excellent publicity provided by unprecedented live TV coverage of the event ensured the future of the SAS regiment was guaranteed as it had previously been under threat of disbandment. As a result of this publicity, the SAS continually attracts a disproportionate amount of media coverage to their actual individual skill sets including that of CP and it is widely assumed, as a result, that all members are experts in all related subject matter. Contrary to this misplaced perception, this is indeed not the case. Stating this, is in no way attempting to debase their reputation but is underlining important principles of reality, knowledge and values in Close Protection which I have experienced first-hand, both operationally, and in training, on another UKSF course.

With regards to the RMP, some may say that they are not capable of the aggressive tone that anti-ambush requires. Their training is choreographed under strict safety guidelines and the actual individual employed in RMP CP has not undergone any formal selection process whether pschometric or otherwise.

I strongly believe, without being biased, that for the most part when considering the application of skills; personal and tactical, that the RMP are the leaders in CP due to a common level of decorum and the fact that their training does produce the necessary skills and aptitude to counter attacks in such an aggressive manner that time and a safer envelope is produced for the extraction of the Principal. I strongly believe that the civilian police are probably the best CP for government figures due to their discreet methods adopted and tactical application of driving abilities. I also believe that their role, if tested in a contact situation is detrimentally affected due to politics of use of force. The regiment are good at their primary role but do not have the personable skills required to work in a diplomatic environment. They get bored easily and their mentality generally is not conducive to the CP work place.



Rich H

[TJIF]

A great deal of what you say has merit, but I'm afraid the last comment about getting bored easily spoiled it for me.

I'm remembering sitting in an OP for 3 months working 12 hour shifts.........bored?, certainly. Much more so than if I had been part of a team working Close Protection. But does this mean that I wasn't at the top of my game or that I was pining for a bit of green soldiering? Not in my case.

I was going to end there but having just re-read some of your post it strikes me that you are generalising too much. An example is your comment about etiquette and protocol. I might easily generalise and describe the average monkey on CP......bullet headed (due to the skinhead haircut), covered in tattoos and wearing an ill fitting Marks and Spencer suit. Decorum? Personable? Hmmm.

This perfectly describes my experiences of seeing Rmp but may not necessarily accord with your views.

regards

TJIF

[Rich H]

TJIF,

You are right. There are indeed good and bad whatever and wherever you work right across the board. That said, my opinions, (and yours), are based on our own experiences. Conducting Surveillance was one of my own experiences. Making too much noise, wearing bad kit. Not exactly fitting with the image and portrayal of the worlds best regiment you must admit. You are most certainly right with a few Rmp lads as well. Some are over weight and do not really fit the bill you would expect either. My point (generalising) is that the regiment receives a disproportaionate amount of media coverage concerning individual skill sets due to its military reputation, secrecy and the word 'special' that no matter what area they work that they are the best - Close Protection and Surveillance included.

Personally, and from experience, I would argue the contrary.


Rich H

[kennyjulie1]

Armed police officers are first and foremost police officers,albiet they have the extra responsibility of carrying a firearm.All use of firearms are the responsibility of the officer carrying it and as such they would have to justify their actions.All officers actions should be;
JUSTIFIED
ACCOUNTABLE
PROPORTIONATE
AUTHORITY
NECESSARY
This is in line with ACPO guidlines and ECHR.
The flip side would be unecessary anonymous piece of so called journalism as featured in THE INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY,in which a former British Soldier lambasts CO19 officers for the handling of a recent armed incident in Chelsae

[co19]

And my thoughts are what does an ex British Army soldier who:

A. Hasn't been a police officer

B. Hasn't been an armed police officer

know about policing the streets of the UK, he made his few hundred quid for his comments probably, but it doesn't help anyone.

From an ex soldier,police officer, armed police officer, commercial security consultant and senior manager within a commercial organisation.

P.S.

Kenny what are you doing reading the Independent!!!

I have just read the article and come to the conclusion the ex army guy is an idiot!!

[kennyjulie1]

I`m well informed mate it was you that read the Daily Sport,but been away from CO19 a while now but still makes the blood boil when idiots write such ridiculous articles.However it was this sunday INDEPENDENT who published it ,so no suprise there.Whats this your of to europe on your travels,god you got an easy life.

[co19]

I'm 3 days in Spain this week also and then a trip over to Moscow and New York planned at some stage.

Get me name dropping.

Just like Del Boy Trotter