November 16, 2003

PARANOIA ACROSS THE POND:

Shoot-to-kill bodyguards protect Bush: London protesters fear ‘trigger-happy’ agents (Neil Mackay, 11/16/03, Sunday Herald)

ARMED US Secret Service agents will have the right to "shoot to kill" when they provide the bodyguard for President George W Bush on his controversial state visit to the United Kingdom this week.
Special agent Ann Roman, an official spokeswoman for the US Secret Service (USSS), told the Sunday Herald that the estimated 200 agents who will be in Britain to guard Bush would open fire if he were in danger or under threat.

When asked if US agents would use lethal force, Roman said: "We are trained to protect the President, so we will evaluate the situation and if the situation warranted action to that level then we'd do it."

The UK's security services have now been put on the second highest possible state of alert amid intelligence of a possible al-Qaeda attack. The Home Office said that SO19, the police firearms unit, also had the power to use lethal force. A spokesman said: "Our officers are allowed to shoot someone if it is deemed necessary, and the Americans will be under the same regulations."


Anyone know the last time, if ever, a Secret Service guy discharged his weapon while defending the president?

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 16, 2003 10:04 AM
Comments

Off the top of my head, I think the Secret Service took a couple of shots at the Puerto Rican nationalists who shot at Harry Truman as he stepped out of Blair House while the White House was being renovated.

Posted by: David Cohen at November 16, 2003 11:56 AM

By the way, professionals only shoot to kill.

Posted by: David Cohen at November 16, 2003 11:56 AM

Mr. Judd;

What's ironic is that the primary reason this level of security is being used is those very same protestors.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 16, 2003 3:54 PM

David, you are right about "shoot to kill". My
brother is a young cop and current training
doctrine does not call for anything like a
"warning shot" or shoot to maim.

In my opinion however, I think this puts the average beat cop in a precarious position knowing
that he must err on the side of lethality and
yet he may also be hauled into court for such
actions.

Posted by: J.H. at November 17, 2003 9:15 AM

JH -

I think some of this confusion is due to unrealistic media violence; the lethality of guns and the difficulty and importance of accurate shooting is hugely underplayed in most cinematic gunfights.

I believe your chance of stopping an attacker quickly will drop dramaticly if you try anything other than quickly aiming and then putting half-a-dozen shots to their torso.

Posted by: Mike Earl at November 17, 2003 10:24 AM

Mike your right that that half a dozen shots
to the torso is the current training
doctrine.

However, this doctrine may cause officers to wait
until the threat is "imminent" rather than letting
go of a couple of rounds getting immediate submission from the perp.

I don't really know, I'm just wondering to what
extent the most well known cases of police
brutality and the "perpetrator as victim" mentality in our culture are making training
guidelines less flexible for officers.

Posted by: J.H. at November 17, 2003 10:40 AM
« CATAPULT: | Main | TURNING THE FURY INWARDS FILES: »