Morning:
8°c
No training can prepare marksmen for extreme stress
Justin Davenport, Crime Correspondent12 Dec 2008
POLICE marksmen will inevitably face further questions today over the final moments in the Tube carriage which led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.
A jury today rejected the account of firearms officer Charlie 12 that he shouted "armed police" before opening fire. His account was questioned by Tube passengers - and even his colleague Charlie 2 - none of whom heard the challenge.
The irony is that if either marksman believed, as they did, that Mr de Menezes was a suicide bomber about to detonate a device, shouting a warning to him was the last thing they should have done.
Officers facing the threat of a suicide bomber are trained to shoot first to "incapacitate" - in fact kill - and not ask questions or shout warnings. Police colleagues say that it is more likely that Charlie 12 genuinely believed he shouted "armed police"- or meant to - but under the extraordinary stress of the moment he did not.
Analysis of how marksmen react under the stress of facing a threat from a gun or a knife shows the body shuts down many senses, such as hearing, and the mind distorts what actually happens. It focuses on the immediate visual threat - and no amount of training can prevent it.
A colleague of Charlie 12 said: "It is so ingrained in you to normally shout 'armed police' that maybe he was about to say it or he meant to say it to the extent that he really believed he had done so. In fact, in this situation he should not have shouted a warning and he gained nothing by saying that he did."
Reader views (6)
With Command comes Responsibility. A Commander can delegate Authority but not Responsibility. Those in Command that day have not lived up to the tenants of Leadership. The Command Team that day are the ones to be held to account for the actions of C12 and C2.
- Donnie, Canada, 16/12/2008 23:29
Report abuse
As an american police oficer we have learned the hard way that indecision will get you and others killed.
Terrorism armed response will not be popular or percieved as fair. It is unfortunate that innocent people sometimes suffer but under the extreme conditions of high stress events do not fault someone who is ultimately looking after the safety of you and your children with no intent of ill will such as C12.
- Richard, USA, 14/12/2008 11:43
Report abuse
To all the ''do gooders'' I say, YOU WERE NOT THERE AT THE TIME!!!
And if you think YOU would have done things differently, tell us exactly what you would have done!
- Mr Ex Armed Forces, East Midlands UK, 12/12/2008 23:32
Report abuse
If you wind up a gun team - they were briefed to expect to perform a hard stop - then hold them back until its almost too late - then order them in to a "must be stopped target" then after they run onto the tube the target spotting team yell "That’s him! That’s him", then one thing is certain you are responsible for the inevitable death.
We keep hearing that the situation faced by the police was unprecedented in its danger as there was a failed bomb team on the loose - could not be prepared for etc.
Well yes, but so what, are failed bomb teams more dangerous than a new bomb team - probably not. It should be noted that the failed bomb team whilst a risk did not actually kill or injure people
Why were the police not trained for such a situation? A live bomb team is exactly what they are supposed to be trained for.
- Bill G, Slough, 12/12/2008 18:08
Report abuse
If C12 truly believed the target was about to trigger a device, a head shot was the only option. The reality of the situation is that Met management went in with both feet before identifying the target.If Sharon Shoesmith was canned for the Baby P case, then Cressida Dick must fall on her swiord for her ineptitude which has been well documented.
- Stewart Robertson, Wimbledon, 12/12/2008 16:58
Report abuse
There are a number of cases where it is necessary to investigate the circumstances under which police 'marksmen' have killed civilians. The fact that they have given versions of events that the Jury flatly rejected in this case should terrify everyone - we should not forget the desire of the police who shot the barrister in Markham Square to discuss their evidence together which can only now be viewed in a worrying light. Of course it's a terribly difficult job outside the experience and understanding of the rest of us, but if you cannot trust those who have the heavy responsibility of using lethal weapons to tell the truth about what happened when they did, where does that leave us please?
- Michael, london, 12/12/2008 16:42
Report abuse
