TRAINED TO SHOOT

they are trained to use firearms

AS I was sitting in the canteen of the Metropolitan Police Firearms Training School at Lippetts Hill, a sergeant instruc- tor approached me and introduced himself. 'We've been told to treat you just like everyone else on the course. Is that all right with you?' It certainly was, even if it did mean having to learn by rote the safety rules, and appropriate sections of law and police regulations. To be allowed the unique opportunity of participating in a basic firearms course and to be treated like everyone else was more than anyone re- searching police use of force could hope for. This would be 'learning by doing' and I was about to learn a great deal.

About half the two-week course was spent on the range, learning the mechanic- al skills of firing the Smith and Wesson model ten .38 revolver that is standard issue to uniformed officers. At seven metres, officers learn to shoot by 'sense of direction' when there is insufficient time to take careful aim. At 15 metres they are taught to aim and fire and at 25 metres to do so in a variety of positions.

Even here one is immediately aware of how far reality departs from the screen myth. Screen heroes do not stand or even hold the gun correctly, and even the recoil is not as fierce as one might suppose. On the other hand, as one fumbles through initial reloads, one wishes for Clint East- wood's dexterity.

However, it is away from the range that the gap between myth and reality becomes most evident. In a variety of lectures, film shows and practical exercises, trainees are taught the rudiments of tactics. Through- out, the emphasis is repeatedly placed on methodical caution. Force policy is to avoid confrontation unless there is an immediate threat to innocent life or there is an over-riding need to secure evidence. Thus, in responding to an armed incident, police are trained to `contain' it by sur- rounding the location, keeping the gunman in and innocent bystanders out, seeking to conclude the episode with a peaceful sur- render.

The risks of confrontation are twofold: the first is that of one's own death or injury. The criminal's preferred weapon is the sawn-off shotgun, the lethalness of which is demonstrated by photographed injuries taken of victims, usually corpses. All nine balls of shot from a cartridge called 'small game' or 'SG' are likely to it a target's torso simultaneously with a ballistic impact equivalent to being shot nine times with .38 revolvers. Any linger- ing doubts about the danger that such weapons pose are eliminated by the in- structor's dramatic demonstration of the shotgun's fire-power. First, he peppers a variety of objects behind which the unwary might seek protection; then a plastic con- tainer full of water — having roughly the physical properties of the human head — explodes, as it is ripped apart by a shot fired from around ten metres. Suddenly, the instructors' joking phrase, 'shotguns lower your height', becomes deadly se- rious.

Equally serious is `Sod's law'. This states that any shot you fire will prove to be a mistake. Confrontation with an armed criminal will require the officer to make a split-second decision (estimated at 3/8 of a second) as to whether or not to shoot. If he is pointing a gun at you, all you will see is the muzzle-end and in a possibly dark- ened room the likelihood of error is obviously enormous. A wrong decision

'It's a British Telecom satellite.'

could mean that either you or some inno- cent person will be dead or severely injured. Any misguided belief in the quick- ness of one's reactions is dispelled when standing on a specially constructed range where one confronts a series of `shoot/no shoot' decisions. I will admit to shooting a man who pointed towards me! One won- ders how many armchair critics would do likewise.

Since confrontation is so dangerous, tactical training emphasises its avoidance.

The aim is to contain and allow time for peaceful resolution, if possible. To this end, officers are shown how to surround a house, stop a moving vehicle and stage the interception of armed robbers. In each case, instructors show just how easily things can go wrong. Case histories are reviewed in which things did go wrong. For example, in Leicester some 15 years ago, officers untrained in armed tactics re- sponded to an incident in which a man had gone berserk with a shotgun. He had already killed a neighbour, but succeeded in also killing a police sergeant and ambu- lanceman, and gravely wounding a woman police constable and policeman, before he Was arrested.

The stress of actual armed incidents cannot be fully simulated in training.

However, it is surprising just how realistic some of the staged exercises can be. The imperative not to make a public fool of oneself seems sometimes to be enough to encourage impetuosity. After ridiculing an officer, who, in an actual situation filmed by a television crew, `cocked' his revolver and then pushed it — still 'cocked' — into his trouser pocket, risking an accidental discharge, I did almost the same thing, having become momentarily dis- tracted while on the range — a mistake that cost me dear in 'fines'.

Even when everything seems to be resolved and the gunman has surrendered, any lapse of concentration is penalised. The television cop's peremptory 'frisk' is replaced by the careful search for con- cealed weapons. A building in which a gunman has taken refuge is not considered 'safe' until it has been thoroughly searched by a team moving silently and methodically through it.

One comes away from the course with a tremendous respect for the professionalism of the instructors, who also act as the elite Dll tactical firearms teams used for the most difficult tasks. One must also respect the dedication and courage of those `autho- rised firearms officers' who might be sud- denly called away from normal police duties to respond to an armed incident.

Of course the training should be longer. One is aware of just how little one knows and hopes that this knowledge will inhibit officers from taking rash actions. Better training would stretch an already over- stretched budget and take more officers away from normal police duties. However, faced with the seemingly inexorable growth of armed crime, perhaps this is a modest price for ensuring that those who risk their lives on our behalf are as thor- oughly trained as is necessary. P.A.J. Waddington of the University of Reading is conducting research on police use of force, under the auspices of the Police Foundation.