Mr. Hanson Case Summary

1. On 20 June 2017, at approximately 2230hrs. Troop 1 was ordered to execute their EAP and to board the M/V Queen Jean (finding 1, 3, 4 and 5). During the training exercise, the troop encountered shoot and non-shoot role players near the pier and boat, and near the end of the boarding exercise, FBI agent (Mr. P. Hanson) (finding 6). Approached the boat, during this interaction, there was physical contact between a student (finding10) and Mr. Hanson (finding 11). My conclusion being, his actions, before and during these interactions created the situation for his injury (finding 17). Mr. Hanson as the role player and a senior instructor, failed to exercise sound judgment to properly control the training scenario, allowing him to be injured and potentially students
Hanson should have stopped his aggression and called break. To further confuse the scenario, Mr. Hanson did not convey his intensions to the OINCT, PI, or TSO (finding 10). If he had, they could have coordinated to be in close proximity to control the situation and not have to wholly control it. The Course Manager being the role player also created a dilemma for the PI since he was not sure of Mr. Hanson’ intensions, was hesitant with the intervention for fear of ruining the training objective. Mr. Hanson failed to heed the PI calling break and then Yelling Break a second time (finding 10). Mr. Hanson denies hearing the call and only complied after the PI called ENDEX, even though the AFC heard and stopped his actions during the first break. My conclusion is Mr. Hanson either ignored the call or lost situational awareness; either is unacceptable from a senior instructor even as a role player. During advanced tactical training there should be realistic Use of Force scenarios giving students the ability to make Use of Force decisions throughout the force continuum, but should not be a role player as an FBI agent. During troop 1’s first debrief Mr. Hanson interjected (finding