View Full Version : LEO Proficiency
I was speaking with a local LEO I met yesterday and I asked what pistol he carried for duty. He stated a Smith & Wesson .45. When I asked if it was an M&P, he said no but that he did not know what model it was. Further discussion allowed me to determine it is a traditional DA pistol with the magazine safety. He complained that the department's Q scores are low because of the heavy first trigger pull, but that the department felt that was necessary to reduce ADs. To me, this was bad enough, but then it got worse.
We began speaking about practice and he admitted that he only fires his weapon once a year for department qualification. He stated that he knows he should practice more, but the department only has one day a week for open range and they do not provide any ammunition over the annual qualification ammunition.
It is very disheartening to see law enforcement agencies that do not mandate firing more than once a year, and do not provide any practice ammunition or incentive. The worst part is that this department is constantly involved in shootings because they have some very rough areas under their jurisdiction. Annual qualification is not enough for LEO when many of their shootings are in residential areas with lots of innocents on the other side of those walls their shooting through. When will we wake up and start ponying up the price for improved security.
This guy obviously meant well and I wish him safety in all his duties. I fault his department more than the individual, even though he realizes he should practice more.
No offense, but nothing..well except excuses, is stopping him from practicing on his own!
woodandsteel
06-21-09, 12:09
By law we have to qualify with our handguns twice a year and do a night fire once a year. Unfotunately some agencies do the minimum that the state requires.
We are lucky in that we got a new chief who is all about training. He said twice a year is not nearly enough. His first order of business was to set up open range days for officers to go out and shoot at our range with the firearms instructors present.
He is also trying to incorporate a monthly training schedule to get us formal training on a regular basis.
One thing that I have noticed is that fewer new officers are really all that into shooting and guns in general. I was glad to see one of our instructors call out a new guy because he tried to leave the range one day with an unloaded duty weapon. he first asked the young officer if he had an off duty weapon. When the officer said no, he then called him out for not carrrying a loaded firearm on him when leaving the range or when off duty. The newer officer was later approached by myself and other officers and given advice on carrying off duty. He was polite in accepting the advice. But, you can almost bet, the only time this officer carries a gun is when he is on duty.
woodandsteel
06-21-09, 12:12
No offense, but nothing..well except excuses, is stopping him from practicing on his own!
This is true.
Some officers complain about the range not being open. The answer to that is to go to a public range and shoot. (even if it costs you money)
It would be no different than an officer paying to join a gym to work out at.
You shouldn't rely on the department for all of your training needs.
Cops are no different then anyone else. Most of them are not "gun people". Most of them only shoot when the department tells them they have to (and then many bitch about it). Anyone who has had the task of teaching in service training has heard those two famous questions at the beginning of the day; 1.) What time is lunch? 2.) What time are we getting out of here?
After 17 years of teaching in service firearms, DT and less lethal training to Law Enforcement I would MUCH rather teach a class that the students are paying to attend. There is no question about their desire to learn. Having to supply the enthusiasm for everybody is a real challenge.
Don't get me wrong. I have enjoyed teaching cops how to survive on the street and I wouldn't change anything. But at this point I'd rather direct my efforts to the guys who really want to learn.
Joe, I feel your pain. I just started on our firearms staff as a part timer (meaning between all the other crap I do 60+ hours a week, I am on the range 6 times a Quarter) and you are absolutely right, those are the two biggest questions heard. On the other hand, I do understand why. Our guys are all plainclothes, they all have cases, court, trials to prep for, affidavits to write, etc. Our range being 30-50 miles away from their offices doesn't help matters much in making going to the range convenient for them. There are guys and gals that do show up early, in their raid gear, ready to fight, that ask for additional training ammo, that ask questions about how to do things better, and for those guys it makes it all worth it.
Our agency only qualifies once year, shotgun, pistol and patrol rifle. Currently, we do not provide training ammo for our officers. Its a cost issue. I am trying to get it put into the budget that we at least supply them with 1 case of pistol ammo so they can shoot on thier own but again its a budget issue. When I taught shotgun quals last year, I bought the training ammo out of my pocket. This year they are bringing thier own. We qualify with what we carry ammo wise, that took a while to implement. Improvements (almost said change) take time. With all thatbeing said, my caveat. As said above, most officers are too lazy/bored/busy/insert reason here to get quality training on thier own. I pay for all of my outside training, ammo etc. You can try to get them motivated to train on thier own but again it comes down to the individual officer.
It is an unfortunate situation. The departments that don't provide adequate training are doing the public, officers and the dept an injustice. The courts have already addressed several matters in regards to training. Qualifications do not equal training. In other words time spend on qualifications does not count as time considered as training. The courts have also mandated a minimum standard for training topics. The courts have outlined that LE agencies and their admin have an affirmative duty to train the officers they employ. Failure to do so may result in liability of the admin.
There are several topics that have been outlined by the courts as a minimum for training. An agency failing to do so would constitute a failure to train. In regards to in service training, the courts have already deemed that in service firearm training only twice a year, is a not really adequate. The reality of the matter is that many PD's fall very short of the minimal standards already outlined by the courts.
While the majority of my instruction is limited to within my division of 50 or so guys, from time to time, the training division asks for assistance from the firearms instructors outside of the training division to assist when they get swamped with recruit training and in service training. I will say that I much prefer working with the recruits than with the in service officers.
When I was a CO, the regular qualification was once a year, rifle, pistol, and shotgun. But there were those of us assigned to do transport or other armed duties that qualified quarterly.
Most of us got together and shot on our own, as the agency range was always available to us, we just had to provide our own ammo but we could use state owned duty weapons.
It is the responsibility of anyone who carries a weapon as part of their public safety duties to be able to use them proficiently. Anything less is gross incompetence.
Heavy Metal
06-21-09, 13:14
By law we have to qualify with our handguns twice a year and do a night fire once a year. Unfotunately some agencies do the minimum that the state requires.
We are lucky in that we got a new chief who is all about training. He said twice a year is not nearly enough. His first order of business was to set up open range days for officers to go out and shoot at our range with the firearms instructors present.
He is also trying to incorporate a monthly training schedule to get us formal training on a regular basis.
One thing that I have noticed is that fewer new officers are really all that into shooting and guns in general. I was glad to see one of our instructors call out a new guy because he tried to leave the range one day with an unloaded duty weapon. he first asked the young officer if he had an off duty weapon. When the officer said no, he then called him out for not carrrying a loaded firearm on him when leaving the range or when off duty. The newer officer was later approached by myself and other officers and given advice on carrying off duty. He was polite in accepting the advice. But, you can almost bet, the only time this officer carries a gun is when he is on duty.
I wonder how he is going to feel the first time he is in Wallyworld with the family and runs into a thug he arrested before?
woodandsteel
06-21-09, 13:24
I wonder how he is going to feel the first time he is in Wallyworld with the family and runs into a thug he arrested before?
Funny you should mention this. A buddy of mine was at the public library when a guy he arrested approached him. My friend did the transport. Another officer pepper sprayed and actually put this guy into handcuffs. But, the bad guy only remembered the officer who transported him.
According to my friend, it was probably only due to the fact that it was winter and the bad guy didn't know my friend was not carrying (plus some fast talking) that caused the bad guy to say a few words and then leave. My friend was at the library with his wife when this happened. Since then, my friend never went anywhere unarmed again. And his wife learned a valuable lesson too. She used to make fun of him for carrying a gun off duty. She used to ask him, in a joking way, if carrying a gun made him feel like more of a man. She doesn't joke about it so much anymore.
The ones I worry about are the ones that won't be out of prison until after I have retired, in 9 years.
I bump into parolees and former inmates all the time, small town lots of prisons (9 units) in a 50 mile radius most of them are cool and go on with their business, for the others I carry either a SIG 226 or Colt 1911 to deal with.
I've drawn my weapon one time in a public place because of an imminent threat.
I am a civilian now and carry on my CHL, but I will not hesitate to defend myself if necessary.
The Officers that don't carry off duty are only fooling themselves, they may be off the clock but the scum don't care if you are with your family or not.
To the OP: if your local PD has open range days and the thing keeping officers from practicing is lack of free ammo, drop off a case or two of .45 some time. Complaining online that the agency isn't distributing its funding to the things you think are important won't accomplish anything. Most local governments are absolutely broke right now. Convincing an LE administration to spend an extra $50k per year on ammo is going to get the same response as suggesting they buy Ferraris for all the officers.
Most departments have very inefficient training and qualification programs. Sometimes, these are mandated by the local or state governments and there's not much anyone can do because such programs usually have tremendous institutional momentum. By that, I mean there are a lot of lazy department rangemasters who are very happy to run annual quals and never be responsible for real training (read: effort).
Probably the best qual program I've seen was Orlando PD's. Don't know if they're still doing it, but while Frank Repasse was their rangemaster they used his "One Shot Qualification" system. You'd shoot one of various drills, which ended when you hit a steel target. Most of them, as you can guess, were one shot. You keep shooting until you hit the target.
So the simplest one is just "draw and hit." There's a steel plate at 10 yards or so. On the buzzer, you draw and fire until you get a hit. Do it in one shot or take 20 shots, you shoot until you get your hit. Then your time is compared to a chart and you get a score from 100 percent down to 1. If you make a passing score (can't remember whether they used 70% or 80%), you qualified.
Compare this with the typical LE qualification. Show up, shoot 50 rounds. Fail? Shoot 50 more. Fail? Get 50 rounds of practice then try again. Ta-da, there is your 200 rounds for the year.
With the 1-shot system, you can qualify in, let's say, 2-3 rounds. Now you've got 195+ rounds for training. Combined with the fact that you can "qualify" 20 people in about ten minutes using the 1-shot system, you've got plenty of ammo and all day to train. All for the same cost in terms of ammo, time, etc. as a typical qualification.
If your department normally quals twice a year and budgets 200 rounds per officer per qual, you can now switch to quartery half-day quals which not only looks better in court but you can show that you're actually getting continuing training in addition to just qualifying. An awful lot of cops with mediocre shooting skills would benefit from a 100rd training sessions every quarter.
And if Frank's system sounds so brilliant it's like rocket science, it won't surprise you to learn that he is now the head of firearms training for a NASA facility in FL. :cool:
Frank Repasse was their rangemaster they used his "One Shot Qualification" system. You'd shoot one of various drills, which ended when you hit a steel target. Most of them, as you can guess, were one shot. You keep shooting until you hit the target.
So the simplest one is just "draw and hit." There's a steel plate at 10 yards or so. On the buzzer, you draw and fire until you get a hit. Do it in one shot or take 20 shots, you shoot until you get your hit. Then your time is compared to a chart and you get a score from 100 percent down to 1. If you make a passing score (can't remember whether they used 70% or 80%), you qualified.2 years ago, I started re-writing our divisional quals. A bit different from our departmental quals. Our department has also taken the less is more approach, which seems to be a trend nowadays. I am not against that at all.
I spent a good year researching other departments quals, heavily those quals from departments of similar size, with full time units like ours especially from within our Courts Circuit, and the myriad of reasoning behind the different types of quals. Having done that, our divisional quarterly qual, for our weapons systems stand as what they are.
I have heard of the qual you mention, but wasn't aware of the name of the guy who created it. Now I know. :) In any event, since courts consider quals to be an achievement standard, as a test of the training received, do you feel that this type of "one shot" qualification will be qualified enough in a courtroom setting? The only reason I ask, is that I have been, and will be (if necessary in the future) put in that type of situation where I may have to provide records and / or testimony. It seems that court cases hinge on the issues of whether or not, prior to an incident, if there were signs that more training was necessary, in a particular area, by either the officer or the dept in general. I am curious if there is any case history, whether it made it to trial or not, that you are aware of, that may have put to question, this type of abbreviated qualification?
I am also of the less is more theory, and streamlined our past quals quite a bit, however, as the one who may be called to the carpet on this, I am not sure how I might be able to articulate that such a simplified qualification is an accurate representation, test, or achievement standard that can accurately reflect training. I am also not just speaking in regards as to a tactical unit, but for an agency as a whole. Again I am not knocking the qual, as I have streamlined ours, but I am looking for insight, or backing on my end of things. The more I know, the more I may be able help our officers avoid any potential, or unnecessary grief down the line. Any input is appreciated.
I'm not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.
To the best of my knowledge, the department still used the "regular" qual for trainees. So before you graduate and get sworn in, you've passed the qual. You've demonstrated that you learned proficiency.
Then over the course of your career, every three months you are tested on some particular skill. Maybe it's just draw and shoot. Some of the drills involved reloads; some involved movement; some involved shooting on the move. Getting tested piecemeal four times a year, and following it up with valuable training, beats getting tested on everything in a sterile environment with unrealistic timeframes once a year.
Not that I'd want to be a cop forced to do so, but let's be honest ... you could explain why the typical "2 shots in 45 seconds" qual program is a lot less useful a measure of skill than a 1-shot test of whether an officer can draw & hit a chest plate in < 3 seconds.
Another thought: if your state mandates annual training but your department budgets for semi- or quarterly, do the "big" qual once a year per mandate and then do 1-shot quals for the rest. Or you could even do two or three of the 1-shot quals at once, which would test a lot of the same stuff as a "full" qual but still do it in less than 10 rounds and about an hour. That would still give you a lot of ammo for training that day.
edited to add: and the training thing is key to justifying the qual. So if your admin guy says, "So we can just budget 10 rounds and an hour for qual each year," no that won't work.
Again, I am not your lawyer and this has not been legal advice.
Heavy Metal
06-21-09, 15:05
To the OP: if your local PD has open range days and the thing keeping officers from practicing is lack of free ammo, drop off a case or two of .45 some time. Complaining online that the agency isn't distributing its funding to the things you think are important won't accomplish anything. Most local governments are absolutely broke right now. Convincing an LE administration to spend an extra $50k per year on ammo is going to get the same response as suggesting they buy Ferraris for all the officers.
Most departments have very inefficient training and qualification programs. Sometimes, these are mandated by the local or state governments and there's not much anyone can do because such programs usually have tremendous institutional momentum. By that, I mean there are a lot of lazy department rangemasters who are very happy to run annual quals and never be responsible for real training (read: effort).
Probably the best qual program I've seen was Orlando PD's. Don't know if they're still doing it, but while Frank Repasse was their rangemaster they used his "One Shot Qualification" system. You'd shoot one of various drills, which ended when you hit a steel target. Most of them, as you can guess, were one shot. You keep shooting until you hit the target.
So the simplest one is just "draw and hit." There's a steel plate at 10 yards or so. On the buzzer, you draw and fire until you get a hit. Do it in one shot or take 20 shots, you shoot until you get your hit. Then your time is compared to a chart and you get a score from 100 percent down to 1. If you make a passing score (can't remember whether they used 70% or 80%), you qualified.
Compare this with the typical LE qualification. Show up, shoot 50 rounds. Fail? Shoot 50 more. Fail? Get 50 rounds of practice then try again. Ta-da, there is your 200 rounds for the year.
With the 1-shot system, you can qualify in, let's say, 2-3 rounds. Now you've got 195+ rounds for training. Combined with the fact that you can "qualify" 20 people in about ten minutes using the 1-shot system, you've got plenty of ammo and all day to train. All for the same cost in terms of ammo, time, etc. as a typical qualification.
If your department normally quals twice a year and budgets 200 rounds per officer per qual, you can now switch to quartery half-day quals which not only looks better in court but you can show that you're actually getting continuing training in addition to just qualifying. An awful lot of cops with mediocre shooting skills would benefit from a 100rd training sessions every quarter.
And if Frank's system sounds so brilliant it's like rocket science, it won't surprise you to learn that he is now the head of firearms training for a NASA facility in FL. :cool:
So THAT is the guy who trains the door gunners on the Shuttle?!?:D
What the OP wrote is not unusual.
Firearms training/proficiency is just 1 thing of what LEOs do.
LEOs do a lot more than what most people care to know. And about 98% of the time when making contacts, no force is used. When force is used, it is overwhelmingly of the non-deadly type.
For many reasons, LEOs try to avoid using force and deadly force, not the least of which because of the potential liabilty: admin, civil, crimininal, federal civil, federal criminal.
Add to this the fact that LEOs are about 3x more likely to be killed or sustain a career ending injury in a collision-related incident than a firearm related incident.
So, we have a very important skill that is also a seldom used skill, apart from administative handling of the firearm. Plus, there are typically 2 to 4 different weapons systems to maintain proficiency in.
There are many things that LEOs should be competent in, however resources to maintain competency are few and diminishing.
Anyone who has cringed at the cost of ammo lately should consider what you'd be paying if you had to buy ammo for a dept.
Here is an *incomplete* list of skillsets that LEOs *should* conduct periodic training on, to maintain their skills:
Use of Force
-Firearms
--Pistol
--Rifle
--Shotgun
--Backup/Off duty
-all the above in lowlight
-moving targets
-scenario/sims/force decision making
-Active shooter Response
-Taser
-OC/chem
-12ga less lethal
-37mm less lethal
-Baton
-Hands/feet/etc.
-shields
-Policy/case law for all the above
-Any additional specialty training (interview training, crime scene processing training, collision investigation training, DRE training, interdiction training, FTO/PTO training, boat/plane/motor/bicycle/orv training, recurring tactical team training, chem agent, terrorism, WMD, armorer, etc. etc. etc. ad naseum . . . )
-Emergency Driving
-Spike Strips
-PIT
-DUI processing/BAC (Breathalyzer)
-First Aid/CPR/AED/pathogens
-Various and Sundry Legal updates
-NCIC/state database training
Most of the training above cannot be done by reading a book, or by taking an online class. These are SKILLS, with a knowledge component, which have to be done, in specialized environments, with specialized equipment, with instructors who have some kind of certification in their respective specialized skills.
Also, since you can't rob patrol of the staffing they need to handle calls, this training is usually done on a day off, at the OT rate, which increases costs in a time when budgets have decreased.
On duty training reduces the costs, but you need sufficient numbers to pull people off the street while they are training. For this reason, it's not a viable option for a lot of agencies.
Yes, some of this training they can do on their own (dry fire, airsoft, live fire, firearms training classes), but again, for many reasons (long hours, burnout, court, off-duty gigs, OT, child care, having a life outside LE), this does not typcially occur except in the case of especially determined LEOs.
Agencies do have liabilty for not providing training (Popow v. Margate, Canton v. Ohio, etc.), but they have a lot of training they should provide and not enough recources to provide it. It is not unusual for an agency to have offer less than 40 hrs of training each year. In WA, officers must receive 24 hrs of training, minimum.
I can think of agencies that do less than 8 hrs of training each yr, and agencies that do more than 40 hrs.
Even with 40 hrs, this is clearly not enough to address the list of skills mentioned above.
Yes, it is important to shoot well (very important!), but there are also other important things that we do every day, that we need to be good at doing or to maintain a certification in.
Theremore, firearms proficiency is shorted. Not saying it's right, just saying how things are.
I say the above having been in LE for a long time, an instructor since 1993, and working my ass off at my agency to improve things (not to mention a competitive shooter, when schedule permits). Some guys are switched on, and many guys look at firearms the same way as they look at a fire extinguisher (except they think they are more likely to use the fire extinguisher).
Travis is correct in that 99% of the time someone may merely sit on their ass, but that 1% of the time involves fighting and you better know what you're doing. I'm amazed that the win/loss results are so tilted in the favor of LE, considering all the things working against us.
I'm suprised my town, Chicago, is not the worst when it comes to firearms training.
We only need to qualify once a year with our pistol. Additional training is voluntary and on your own time and dime, even the courses the city offers. our ranges are free and open most of the time, and you are issued 100 free rounds a year to practice.
Shotgun training is voluntary and offered every year. They are a headache to sign out for search warrants, and that's about all we can use them for.
Rifle training...well, rifles were just authorized last year. A physical agility test is required before you're allowed to take the training. The waiting list is LONG to do both. Rifle qualification is every three months with the physical agility test required once a year.
Could we use more? Hell yeah! Will we get it? This is Chi Town, so no. Does my wife complain about how much time and money I spend training independently? Not if she knows what's good for her! ;)
the1911fan
06-21-09, 17:43
How about sweeping our own doorsteps training wise, what others do is up to them
Another thought: if your state mandates annual training but your department budgets for semi- or quarterly, do the "big" qual once a year per mandate and then do 1-shot quals for the rest. Or you could even do two or three of the 1-shot quals at once, which would test a lot of the same stuff as a "full" qual but still do it in less than 10 rounds and about an hour. That would still give you a lot of ammo for training that day.
Todd, I don't want to hijack this thread but this is kind of where I am. Our state requires qual once a year and we do training and qual twice a year. I wouldn't be able to use this drill for the state requirement but there's no reason I couldn't for the other time. If you wouldn't mind I'd like some more details on how they're doing this. You can PM me if you want to. \
Thanks
This is true.
Some officers complain about the range not being open. The answer to that is to go to a public range and shoot. (even if it costs you money)
It would be no different than an officer paying to join a gym to work out at.
You shouldn't rely on the department for all of your training needs.
I'm not making any excuses for the LEOs, but I know guys working double shifts, etc. to pay for 4 kids, wife going to school, house, etc, who get 3-4 hours of sleep per night if they are lucky, much less get to the range. Unless it's training that comes to them via dept time, they get no range time beyond quals. It's easy to give them a hard time for not being more proficient with their side arm (and I know if that was my line of work I would make every effort to be...) but many are really stretched to the limit, especially these days. Just another prospective to keep in mind.
I'm not making any excuses for the LEOs, but I know guys working double shifts, etc. to pay for 4 kids, wife going to school, house, etc, who get 3-4 hours of sleep per night if they are lucky, much less get to the range. Unless it's training that comes to them via dept time, they get no range time beyond quals. It's easy to give them a hard time for not being more proficient with their side arm (and I know if that was my line of work I would make every effort to be...) but many are really stretched to the limit, especially these days. Just another prospective to keep in mind.
The above statement is unfortunately an accurate one in all to many cases. The danger does not come from their lack of proficiency in any given job requirement but the fact that too many are running around exhausted before they exit lineup. They then are your backup....
There are jobs and there are professions. Treat law enforcement as a just a way to pay your bill and you are lining yourself up to be a statistic. Most cops just like the rest of the general public are not gun people and many are not as proficient with their firearms as they could/should be. No matter what the reason, that's not a good thing.
John_Wayne777
06-21-09, 21:33
I wonder how he is going to feel the first time he is in Wallyworld with the family and runs into a thug he arrested before?
...or encounters another situation where he reacts in "cop" mode and finds out about halfway into that situation that he's unarmed when he reaches for his sidearm. I've seen that before, too.
Most cops are not meat-eating gunfighters. For them the sidearm is just another piece of equipment. They aren't gun people either, so they don't have a lot of interest in it. I know police officers who don't like shooting at all. Add on to this that many of them are working their ass off on a job that pays beans and they're forced to moonlight if they hope to support a family with small kids, and frankly the opportunities/resources for them to train are limited.
Could many do better if they tried? Sure...but there are also guys out there who are really doing the best that they can do.
MSP "Sarge"
06-21-09, 23:42
I heard this said years ago and it makes sense. "Your firearm and other personel defense weapons will get you in more trouble and cost you more money (law suits) if used incorrect". So why do we train with these weapons only once or twice a year?
Standing in front of your target sending rounds down range with a somewhat long amount of time between whistles is, well just plan dumb and boring. When someone has a jam or miss fire, they raise their hand. A range instructor strolls over and clears it for him or her. What ever happen to going to a back up weapon or clearing your own weapon? Have to do it on the street. It's a shame they way some officers and departments train.
This is true.
Some officers complain about the range not being open. The answer to that is to go to a public range and shoot. (even if it costs you money)
It would be no different than an officer paying to join a gym to work out at.
You shouldn't rely on the department for all of your training needs.
exactly.the leo has to take an active interest in his/her proficiency.their lives depend on it.
I'm not your lawyer and this is not legal advice.
To the best of my knowledge, the department still used the "regular" qual for trainees. So before you graduate and get sworn in, you've passed the qual. You've demonstrated that you learned proficiency.
Then over the course of your career, every three months you are tested on some particular skill. Maybe it's just draw and shoot. Some of the drills involved reloads; some involved movement; some involved shooting on the move. Getting tested piecemeal four times a year, and following it up with valuable training, beats getting tested on everything in a sterile environment with unrealistic timeframes once a year.
Not that I'd want to be a cop forced to do so, but let's be honest ... you could explain why the typical "2 shots in 45 seconds" qual program is a lot less useful a measure of skill than a 1-shot test of whether an officer can draw & hit a chest plate in < 3 seconds.
Another thought: if your state mandates annual training but your department budgets for semi- or quarterly, do the "big" qual once a year per mandate and then do 1-shot quals for the rest. Or you could even do two or three of the 1-shot quals at once, which would test a lot of the same stuff as a "full" qual but still do it in less than 10 rounds and about an hour. That would still give you a lot of ammo for training that day.
edited to add: and the training thing is key to justifying the qual. So if your admin guy says, "So we can just budget 10 rounds and an hour for qual each year," no that won't work.
Again, I am not your lawyer and this has not been legal advice.Thanks, and I appreciate the disclaimer. ;)
This topic has been discussed with several Fed, State, Local and non LE training guys in great detail. I am always open to, and seek opinions from those not directly employed by a LE agency as outside opinions may offer a fresh perspective. Don't worry about the disclaimer, I won't hold you to anything. ;)
Even though lawyers are lawyers, being a large metro city, we still seek opinions from our corporation counsel, as well as from our sanctioning bodies, for obvious reasons.
Thinking and planning 3-4 steps ahead of the liability issue in our profession always sucks, but it is necessary. While I am a proponent of a simplified qual, IMO an overly simplified qual can create issues that are not necessary and easily avoided. Finding the right balance maybe difficult to achieve, especially as times change.
dookie1481
06-22-09, 15:50
This is kind of a funny subject to me; younger sister of one of my good friends (the only "gun guy" friend that I have) is a cop and she kind of laughs and makes fun of us for wanting to shoot all the time and buying tons of ammo. We went bowling recently and guess which one of us wasn't carrying? That's right, the sworn LEO. I asked her why she wasn't carrying, and she said something along the lines of "it's hard to carry in girl's clothes".
She is an officer in North Las Vegas, one of the biggest shitholes in America. I think I got to her when I asked what she would do if someone she arrested saw her and started shit.
Jay
woodandsteel
06-22-09, 15:54
I'm not making any excuses for the LEOs, but I know guys working double shifts, etc. to pay for 4 kids, wife going to school, house, etc, who get 3-4 hours of sleep per night if they are lucky, much less get to the range. Unless it's training that comes to them via dept time, they get no range time beyond quals. It's easy to give them a hard time for not being more proficient with their side arm (and I know if that was my line of work I would make every effort to be...) but many are really stretched to the limit, especially these days. Just another prospective to keep in mind.
I may have been to quick to speak out on this.
You are right, doing shift work and trying to meet the needs of your family can greatly impact your free time. And with two youngsters at home (and a third one on the way:)) I know what it is like getting off work at 0400 and having the kids wake you up at the crack of dawn. When you throw court time into the mix, your day is just shot.
In a perfect world, the department would allow ample training and ammunition. We are fortunate in my department that the chief has publicly come out and said that training will be a top priopority. He just adjusted our shift schedule so that we will have training sessions during our normal shift hours on a bi-weekly basis. This will start in January, so hopefully I will be able to post a positive report on this next year.
I appreciate what you had to say. I should keep that in mind, and I should think more before I post.:)
eta; However, what BigLee said is also very true.
exactly.the leo has to take an active interest in his/her proficiency.their lives depend on it.
Wow, what a great discussion. I did not foresee this when I started the thread.
My biggest concern, is that departments should make the training/shooting mandatory and on department time and money. I know everyone's resources are tight because of the current economy, but I also know there is a lot of waste out their in government spending (I witness it weekly). LEO pay is ridiculously low, just like school teachers. I don't like the idea of paying more taxes, but if that's what it takes to provide security and a good education for my family then so be it. (Let the rants begin....)
Agency standards should not be this poor. The Army is not much better. They just transitioned to twice a year quals a while back and most non-infantry types get very little if any practice ammo or reflexive fire training. We, as a society, better start paying the price of security and education or we are going to find ourselves if a very deep hole.
My hats off to all LEO and teachers. You perform a critical function that many are not willing to perform and you receive far too little pay for doing so.
Todd, I like the ammo donation recommendation. I think I'll contact my local department and see how I might donate ammo/cash for training ammo. Great advice.
Tex
I sympathize with most of the guys who want to keep up with the training but cannot because of any number of systemic reasons. My Dept. provides a once a year qualification with two practices. Force Options re-cert includes a CEW (Taser) refresher, unarmed combat and two days of reality based training in and around vehicles, hallways etc and active shooter response. They stress high tactics, low emotions and go through radio calls under stress as well as takeaway drills using sim guns. It is not a bad program for institutionalized training. Despite that there are a few of us who continue to train and compete and encourage other to join in...the buy in is not easy especially among the older members, but slowly there is progress. As far as I am concerned this is my chosen profession and despite budget, pay and time there is an expectation from the public that we be proficient in our duties...from report writing to firearms. The other plus is that when the FORCE Options folks identify the keeners ammo seems to find its way to you.:D and when the managers see the Dept. name on 100 year old trophies time off to compete seems to materialize as well.:cool:
There are other forms of nonformal training out there that are a great deal of fun, and still push you to a limit. I would suggest getting involved with IDPA or IPSC or tac 3 gun. Hell you can go for 4-5 hours with your buddies or family shoot real life scenerios, and do this twice a month if time permits. Even once is better than none. For those that train and or compete we all know how things go wrong and this will at the very least open the eyes of the nonbelievers of training, or the lazy.
We have 3 scheduled shooting qualifications a year, including low-light and stress, along with the shotgun and M4. They have recently been adding to this, by utilizing air-soft simulators. The Reserve unit i'm with purchased 4 air soft, supplimented by several personal ones, and we frequently train with those. Last training was extracting a downed officer from a house. We used a vacant house and had one of the RO's be the bad man. lol at 5 feet those air soft definitely sting. We video taped several sticks making the run, and it was nice to see how much they improved each try. As others watched the video, it reinforced the effectiveness of the training.
btw.....the RO (bad man) had way too much fun as the barricaded gun man and was quite proficient at hitting delicate spots (knuckles, thighs, groin, etc.)
This is kind of a funny subject to me; younger sister of one of my good friends (the only "gun guy" friend that I have) is a cop and she kind of laughs and makes fun of us for wanting to shoot all the time and buying tons of ammo. We went bowling recently and guess which one of us wasn't carrying? That's right, the sworn LEO. y
I know many LEOs who do not carry off duty. You might be surprised how many do not. Some depts actually require it.
I know many LEOs who do not carry off duty. You might be surprised how many do not. Some depts actually require it.
And on the flip side of that I knew officers who not only carried off duty but wore their Body Armor as well
I know many LEOs who do not carry off duty. You might be surprised how many do not.
I see it like this:
The overwhelming majority don't carry off-duty at all.
A small quantity do.
A smaller number with some definition of regularity.
A smaller number with any real forethought, proficiency, or expertise.
A smaller number will carry a second or third gun.
The smallest number will be truly dedicated practitioners of the craft.
woodandsteel
06-23-09, 13:58
And on the flip side of that I knew officers who not only carried off duty but wore their Body Armor as well
I notice that you are in Florida. Is this where the officers you speak of wear their body armor? That is some dedication. Of course they might be wearing a lower level of vest. But still, I would find that too be uncomfortable. Here in the Midwest, during summers, I have a hard enough time dressing in a way to conceal my Glock, while off duty. I can't imagine trying to conceal my vest as well. When on duty, my t-shirt is usually soaked within the first hour of my shift.
After reading through some of these posts, I have to wonder how prepared I am for an off-duty situation. Probably over 90 percent of my shooting/training is done with me using my duty belt. I can't remember the last time I trained using my off duty gear. I guess I know what I will be doing this summer at the range. I may even suggest this to our training coordinator. I remember years ago the department had a small session about off-duty carry. But, all they discussed was holster options and going over our policy in regards to off-duty situations.
After reading through some of these posts, I have to wonder how prepared I am for an off-duty situation. Probably over 90 percent of my shooting/training is done with me using my duty belt. I can't remember the last time I trained using my off duty gear. I guess I know what I will be doing this summer at the range. I may even suggest this to our training coordinator. I remember years ago the department had a small session about off-duty carry. But, all they discussed was holster options and going over our policy in regards to off-duty situations.The courts have already outlined off duty scenario's, equipment, training etc, as one of the minimal requirements, in order to avoid a failure to train situation. Any department that fails to train its employees in this area is already set up for failure if something were to go south.
QuietShootr
06-23-09, 19:13
By law we have to qualify with our handguns twice a year and do a night fire once a year. Unfotunately some agencies do the minimum that the state requires.
We are lucky in that we got a new chief who is all about training. He said twice a year is not nearly enough. His first order of business was to set up open range days for officers to go out and shoot at our range with the firearms instructors present.
He is also trying to incorporate a monthly training schedule to get us formal training on a regular basis.
One thing that I have noticed is that fewer new officers are really all that into shooting and guns in general. I was glad to see one of our instructors call out a new guy because he tried to leave the range one day with an unloaded duty weapon. he first asked the young officer if he had an off duty weapon. When the officer said no, he then called him out for not carrrying a loaded firearm on him when leaving the range or when off duty. The newer officer was later approached by myself and other officers and given advice on carrying off duty. He was polite in accepting the advice. But, you can almost bet, the only time this officer carries a gun is when he is on duty.
And this is exactly the kind of guy who will break a citizen's balls if he catches him carrying a pistol (even with a license). "Whatchu need that for, boy? You lookin for trouble?'
What many fail to take into consideration is that after one has dealt with the worse that society has to offer for a long day or work week of double shifts or overtime, many cops just want to take the uniform off, put the tools away, and just be normal people and not cops for a few hours before they have to head in and start the cycle again. Can you blame them?
many cops just want to take the uniform off, put the tools away, and just be normal people and not cops for a few hours before they have to head in and start the cycle again. Can you blame them?
Nope.
What a lot of shooters forget is that while we may like to justify the expense and hours of commitment we devote to our hobby, we're doing this because we enjoy it. Anyone who says he can't stand shooting but does it anyway "for my family's sake" twice a week is a lying sack. Especially the ones who say that while eating a Double Big Mac with one hand and drinking a Mountain Dew Ultra with the other ... while driving down the highway at 80mph.
Expecting folks with no interest or affinity for shooting to be as devoted as a die-hard hobbyist is just silly.
Are most cops under trained? Not according to the departments that qualify them. That's the simple reality.
Do I think most cops could use more & better training? Yes. Which is why I volunteer at training conferences, etc.
Sitting in front of a computer lamenting, "Damn, cops should be better shooters!" is just a waste of time & energy.
What many fail to take into consideration is that after one has dealt with the worse that society has to offer for a long day or work week of double shifts or overtime, many cops just want to take the uniform off, put the tools away, and just be normal people and not cops for a few hours before they have to head in and start the cycle again. Can you blame them?
Nope, BTDT.
Where we part company is that my obligation to my non-cop self, and my family, goes on when my obligation to the general public ends. I train, arm, and live accordingly.
The tools we bear aren't solely the tools of a cop, nor is the skill that brings them to task.
I have taken more lives with an audio recorder and word processor than any of the firearms I have carried on duty. Now if they would just start executing some of them instead of letting them sit on death row…
There are many facets to law enforcement and the use of a firearm is a small portion. Most officers never discharge a firearm in the line of duty other than a training environment. That does not excuse an officer from becoming and remaining proficient with his firearms, as he should. I merely point it out because few in the general public actually understand the job.
Officers should train more with firearms and other tools used for self defensive. I have been a firearms instructor for 23 years, but it was only my primary job for 3 years. I very much agree with the person that posted about the attitude of Officers during in service training. I would only add a 3rd question and that is “How long of a lunch break do we get?” I also enjoyed teaching people who paid to be there, for the same reason you stated, they wanted to be there and learn. I always found it interesting when an Officer attended a class he or the agency paid for and when he returned he would sing the praises of the class. Why, because it was outside the agency and someone paid for it. The reality is the paid class would have the same doctrine as the agency’s in service training, but the Officer paid attention because someone paid for him to be in the class and he didn’t know the instructors, so it must be better.
It is difficult getting 2000+ armed individuals through annual qualifications every year and conduct all other in-service training. Add to that the fact our range is 1.5 hours one way from my house. (My agency covers 9,226 square miles) Fortunately I have made many contacts throughout the years and I can get on other agency’s ranges to practice or use the local outdoor range where I have a membership. Unfortunately many Officers do not have that luxury. Add to that, as many have pointed out, the fact Law Enforcement is not necessarily a gun culture. We need to find a way to change attitudes. Even if you require Officers to qualify once a month or quarter most would still pass with a minimal score and not improve, nor will they until we change attitudes and they desire to take training seriously.
woodandsteel
06-24-09, 05:03
And this is exactly the kind of guy who will break a citizen's balls if he catches him carrying a pistol (even with a license). "Whatchu need that for, boy? You lookin for trouble?'
I'm not sure which one of the two you are talking about here.
If it was the instructor, rest assured, he is very much a proponent of people being able to defend themselves.
As far as the new guy, he is just young and needs some direction. Trust me, we will work on him and help mold his outlook on firearms. ;)
I know what kind of officer you are talking about. Luckily I don't know any personally. I've only seen them on TV. And I cringe everytime I see them.
QuietShootr
06-24-09, 06:41
I'm not sure which one of the two you are talking about here.
If it was the instructor, rest assured, he is very much a proponent of people being able to defend themselves.
As far as the new guy, he is just young and needs some direction. Trust me, we will work on him and help mold his outlook on firearms. ;)
I know what kind of officer you are talking about. Luckily I don't know any personally. I've only seen them on TV. And I cringe everytime I see them.
I was talking about the new guy. We have several of those on IMPD (indianapolis).
We get a proficency bonus if we qualify twice a year, and the sheriff bought every Deputy a range membership. Even with those incentives, there are alot of people who only shoot twice a year, and even then are a hazzard to themselves and others.
I think most of the attitude regarding this issue, comes from the attitude at the top. Unfortunately a high amount of the basis for their attitude comes from liability issues and costs......what is the minimum amount of training they can get away with to cover liability issue....and how to hold down ammo costs. I honestly don't feel that the issue of having their officers trained to a high proficiency level, really enters into the process.
our Reserve unit met at the range, to practice some of the things they don't cover in the regular shoots (drawing and shooting while seated in the car, changing mags with one hand, changing mags while laying on your stomach, ect.). We used our own ammo (reload), but still got in trouble because it was considered "official training", and we can't do that unless one of the RO's is there also. Now we just "happen to meet" down at the range, during the week, but it's not part of our Reserve training, nor is it entered into our training log or meeting minutes. oh well...no good deed goes unpunished
And on the flip side of that I knew officers who not only carried off duty but wore their Body Armor as well
I know plenty who carry off duty. Can't think of any that wear body armor off duty. Would be interesting to know what % of LEO do carry off duty who are on depts. that don't require it. Perhaps I will do a poll on that and see. I get a feeling a % might say they do when they don't however. :cool:
I know plenty who carry off duty. Can't think of any that wear body armor off duty. Would be interesting to know what % of LEO do carry off duty who are on depts. that don't require it. Perhaps I will do a poll on that and see. I get a feeling a % might say they do when they don't however. :cool:
Definition of terms would be important, too.
What does "carry" mean? Does sticking it in the console or glove box of the car count?
Frequency criteria? Do we count a guy that doesn't carry every day? All day every day?
Etc...
I was speaking with a local LEO I met yesterday and I asked what pistol he carried for duty. He stated a Smith & Wesson .45. When I asked if it was an M&P, he said no but that he did not know what model it was. Further discussion allowed me to determine it is a traditional DA pistol with the magazine safety. He complained that the department's Q scores are low because of the heavy first trigger pull, but that the department felt that was necessary to reduce ADs. To me, this was bad enough, but then it got worse.
We began speaking about practice and he admitted that he only fires his weapon once a year for department qualification. He stated that he knows he should practice more, but the department only has one day a week for open range and they do not provide any ammunition over the annual qualification ammunition.
It is very disheartening to see law enforcement agencies that do not mandate firing more than once a year, and do not provide any practice ammunition or incentive. The worst part is that this department is constantly involved in shootings because they have some very rough areas under their jurisdiction. Annual qualification is not enough for LEO when many of their shootings are in residential areas with lots of innocents on the other side of those walls their shooting through. When will we wake up and start ponying up the price for improved security.
This guy obviously meant well and I wish him safety in all his duties. I fault his department more than the individual, even though he realizes he should practice more.
The "norm" is that officers ONLY shoot 1-2 times a year (for qualification). That is IT!
The main issue is money for ammo. Many a PD's and Sheriff's do NOT budget money for the puchase of training ammo. Couple that with officers that are under paid (or just cheap) and get NO TRAINING ROUNDS FIRED. :mad:
There is another flip side to this. I am fairly certain that if I gave some LEO's FREE ammo, they would not go shoot anyway as they are not getting paid to do so. :rolleyes:
C4
Im not surprised many carry off duty, just surprised about their armor LOL
dookie1481
06-24-09, 18:53
The "norm" is that officers ONLY shoot 1-2 times a year (for qualification). That is IT!
The main issue is money for ammo. Many a PD's and Sheriff's do NOT budget money for the puchase of training ammo. Couple that with officers that are under paid (or just cheap) and get NO TRAINING ROUNDS FIRED. :mad:
There is another flip side to this. I am fairly certain that if I gave some LEO's FREE ammo, they would not go shoot anyway as they are not getting paid to do so. :rolleyes:
C4
All the bullshit my tax money gets spent on, and they won't even buy ****ing ammo for PD's. Makes me sick.
Jay
My observations regarding off duty carry for approximately 100 deputies is as follows; several(including me) carry everywhere they go, everywhere. Most carry at least occasionally, and the enbittered ones don't carry at all because they're afraid of how the agency will treat them if the get into an altercation.
Our policy says that we are encouraged the carry all of the time, but we will not be disciplined if we do not have it.
Once upon a time the sheriff promised training ammo whenever we wanted it. I never came about, we did, however get the range memberships, which is cool and I try to go once a month.
We had one of the finest female officers I have ever worked with would wear her armor to and from work, and sometimes in the jail:eek:
Speaking of ammo, we have 26 M16's from the .gov, a bunch of old SP1's and some SBR's in the armory. The sheriff told a large ohio newspaper during the height of the ammo craze that we couldn't get ammo for them. So then we bought a shitpile of 40S&W instead.
There is another flip side to this. I am fairly certain that if I gave some LEO's FREE ammo, they would not go shoot anyway as they are not getting paid to do so. :rolleyes:
C4Can you make mine .45ACP and .300WM please. We don't stock these calibers. :)
Oh shit, I get paid to shoot on duty. Can I still get some ammo anyway? ;)
GLOCKMASTER
06-24-09, 20:15
There is another flip side to this. I am fairly certain that if I gave some LEO's FREE ammo, they would not go shoot anyway as they are not getting paid to do so. :rolleyes:
C4
There is a lot of truth to this. I have given some folks ammo ( up to a 1000 rnd case at a time) in the past have they never used it and then wondered why they struggled during qualification.
There is a lot of truth to this. I have given some folks ammo ( up to a 1000 rnd case at a time) in the past have they never used it and then wondered why they struggled during qualification.
And then there are those that you give the ammo, and who will shoot it on their own time, but who will put it to waste rather than fruitful activity.
I am a fan of programs that are generous with ammo, but who require or provide guided activities in which to use it. Range days, fun shoots, etc.
Raise the standards. You'll find out really quick who likes their job.
The "norm" is that officers ONLY shoot 1-2 times a year (for qualification). That is IT!
There is another flip side to this. I am fairly certain that if I gave some LEO's FREE ammo, they would not go shoot anyway as they are not getting paid to do so. :rolleyes:
C4
When I did armed security in a HUD housing project back east, I had a part time co-worker who was also with a local PD. He would bring the ammo in that he received from the PD and sell it to us cheap, including the carry ammo. When I asked him if he should be keeping it or practicing with it, his answer was that he only needed enough to qualify with every 6 months, which he barely did, apparently. HUD didn't provide any ammo to us, but I still spent almost every Sunday, weather permitting, at a local range with my firing instructor. That's probably what I miss the most out here.
As for my co-worker, I was told he had an OIS with the local PD a little while after we were laid off from the HUD job and the word was that he shit the bed.
I asked her why she wasn't carrying, and she said something along the lines of "it's hard to carry in girl's clothes".
She is an officer in North Las Vegas, one of the biggest shitholes in America. I think I got to her when I asked what she would do if someone she arrested saw her and started shit.
But I'm gonna bet that she carries her badge for getting out of tickets and such. You should tell her the story of that LASD deputy who got caught unarmed with his wife in the robbery of a hair salon in LA and got executed when the perps found his badge.
If you're going to carry your badge, you should have your gun. No gun, no badge. And if you're carrying you should also make the decision not to drink. I've seen more drunk off-duty Metro carrying guns at my job than I care to repeat.
And this is exactly the kind of guy who will break a citizen's balls if he catches him carrying a pistol (even with a license). "Whatchu need that for, boy? You lookin for trouble?'
Sounds like the NHP officer I had the pleasure of dealing with about a month ago when I was involved in a minor accident of which I was not at fault. I made the mistake of politely informing him of my CCW and I was yanked out of my car and nearly handcuffed for my trouble. My iPhone ended up in traffic and I watched as the other NHP officer completely disassembled my pistol, misplacing the barrel in the process. All in the name of officer safety I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, hijack over.
the1911fan
06-25-09, 12:07
Raise the standards. You'll find out really quick who likes their job.
BTDT..the union got the q course busted back down to the state minimum course
I gave up...I train for me, at my department I am the only officer to go to ANY voluntary shooting classes over the last 5 years
"I gave up...I train for me, at my department I am the only officer to go to ANY voluntary shooting classes over the last 5 years"
I would be in the same boat, but as an instructor, I take what I learn from my own training and competitive experience, and pass that on in what I teach my guys.
The results have been very positive.
dookie1481
06-25-09, 13:36
I've seen more drunk off-duty Metro carrying guns at my job than I care to repeat.
Oh man, the stories I've heard...
dookie1481
06-25-09, 13:38
Sounds like the NHP officer I had the pleasure of dealing with about a month ago when I was involved in a minor accident of which I was not at fault. I made the mistake of politely informing him of my CCW and I was yanked out of my car and nearly handcuffed for my trouble. My iPhone ended up in traffic and I watched as the other NHP officer completely disassembled my pistol, misplacing the barrel in the process. All in the name of officer safety I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, hijack over.
On the flipside, I got a speeding ticket the other day (the only road I always end up speeding on) from a bike cop. When he approached, I informed him I had a CCW and I was carrying. He ended up thanking me 3 times for informing him and was extremely polite and professional. My guess is that NHP is less accustomed to dealing with CCW holders.
Jay
the1911fan
06-25-09, 14:39
"I gave up...I train for me, at my department I am the only officer to go to ANY voluntary shooting classes over the last 5 years"
I would be in the same boat, but as an instructor, I take what I learn from my own training and competitive experience, and pass that on in what I teach my guys.
The results have been very positive.
We have training dollars to spend and we send anyone that wants to LAV or the good courses Chris Cerino puts on at OPOTA or EAG Tactical...you name it...they are'nt interested. I am instructor also but I am not Pat Rogers or LAV or Chris Cerino. I do some damn good trigger jobs on 1911's too but Ted Yost/Chuck Rogers/ Ned Christensen I am not. Staying in my lane.
We offer to send guys to the source...not what I picked up at training and I am staying in my lane as I am not the instructor level that gents above are, just being realistic and honest. They instruct for a living...I do it at a 20 man dept. of which only 1 person cares enough to do it on their own. It's not as if they are ever denied the training requests.
One of the main keys to training is the desire to be proficient/present and if that is lacking I don't care if you are Hackathorn/LAV/Pat Rogers rolled into one you are'nt turning the unmotivated ROD's into anything more than they want to be
You should tell her the story of that LASD deputy who got caught unarmed with his wife in the robbery of a hair salon in LA and got executed when the perps found his badge.
If you're going to carry your badge, you should have your gun. No gun, no badge.
Yesterday in Anaheim CA an off-duty LEO was involved in a shooting. According to the local news the following occured;
Adult male Police Officer (Off-Duty) just finished watching baseball game with wife and kids. Returned to his car to find two men breaking into vehicle. Confrontation ensued and allegedly he was assulted with beer bottles and physical force. He drew his sidearm fired. He shot one suspect in the arm and the second in the chin (head). -both lived.
No further details yet at this point.
His name or the agency he works for has not yet been released. A family memeber of the two men shot claimed that the officer was drunk and instigated the entire incident.
Orange County District Attorneys Office will be investigating the "Incident".
I don't know if this has hit the National news yet, but I caught the report this morning. If you are an LEO or Investigator engaged in the enforcement of laws for whatever agaency NOT carrying a firearm off-duty places you at a distinct disadvantage.
I agree with others have said. I have "run" into three persons that I arrested on my own time (thankfully I was alone/ no family around) and thus far nothing resulted other than an exchange of words [Which is another reason I am a firm believer in putting some distance between where you 'work' and where you 'live'].
And as for the poll of "Carrying" a firearm off-duty. I can only think of 2-3 LEOs that I know or have worked with in several agencies who CONSISTENTLY carried a gun off-duty. Most don't carry at all or leave it in the car (Locked in trunk/ glovebox, or under the seat).
SkiDevil
decodeddiesel
06-25-09, 15:22
Sounds like the NHP officer I had the pleasure of dealing with about a month ago when I was involved in a minor accident of which I was not at fault. I made the mistake of politely informing him of my CCW and I was yanked out of my car and nearly handcuffed for my trouble. My iPhone ended up in traffic and I watched as the other NHP officer completely disassembled my pistol, misplacing the barrel in the process. All in the name of officer safety I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, hijack over.
Lawsuit.
Lawsuit.
Probably why he spent the 2nd half of the situation apologizing profusely to me. I'm not the kind of douchebag who likes to sue over nothing though. As for the bitch who hit me and acted as if it was my fault, that's a whole different story. I got enough pleasure out of explaining to the officer's supervisor the next day why I was returning his officer's Streamlight Stinger (he left it in my trunk when he put my gun parts in there).
Oh man, the stories I've heard...
And those officers should google Ron Mortenson to see the worst case scenario involving the combination of Metro officers and alcohol.
So ... we're not talking about police firearm qualification programs any more?
decodeddiesel
06-26-09, 10:03
So ... we're not talking about police firearm qualification programs any more?
Sorry about that. I know the original intent of the thread was to discuss the lack of training and interest shown in improving firearms proficiency from many LEOs but to me though "LEO Proficiency" covers every skill set pertaining to their job.
I cannot speak about LEO, but perhaps there are some similarities to my .mil experience?
In the Army when I first joined in the 90s it was a smiliar story, if you made it to the range 2x a year to zero (usually with 15-18 rounds, in the prone, at 25m) and "qualify" on the Ivan pop-up range you were doing good. Qualification consisted of 40 rounds, and zero'ing was 15-18 rounds. M9 qualification was even worse. Basically you were lucky to shoot 200 rounds a year. Albeit my first job was in Armor and we shot a fair amount of 120mm, .50 cal, and 7.62 during the year to maintain proficiency on the Abrams weapon systems but the small arms were lacking.
Fast forward a few years to 2004. Now I am in Light Artillery, and in the 101st ABN. This is the period we returned from our first tour in Iraq where we spent 90% or the tour in an Infantry role and the lack of small arms proficiency, and small unit infantry tactics became glaring.
When we got back and got settled in all we did was hit the small arms range. Huge amounts of resources went into increasing small arms proficiency. We had glass houses set up outside the barracks, wooden silhouettes set up against the wall, and we drew our personal weapons daily from the arms room.
Due to the triggering event of OIF when we saw a paradigm shift in the mentality of the leadership on the interpretation of what skills a soldier should have. Albeit many were trying to find a reason to justify the presence of Artillery in the Iraq setting, however the main push was just for more small arms training and better equipment across the board. Much more emphasis was placed on small arms proficiency.
Perhaps it will take a similar triggering event on the part of the particular agency or individual officer in order to force a paradigm shift toward more firearms training. I am willing to bet the majority of officers whom show no interest nor initiative toward increasing their proficiency have probably never been in a gun fight, nor have they been in a situation where their lack of training/skills has become apparent to them. One would just hope that if such a situation occurred they would survive it in order to "see the light" so to speak and get serious about training.
So ... we're not talking about police firearm qualification programs any more?
Thought we were talking about LEO proficiency/incompetence in general, not just qualifying.
As for "seeing the light", all you need to do is pick up a copy of Grossman's On Combat. If you read some of the stories in there and you don't want to train more, I'm not sure what will help.
I notice that you are in Florida. Is this where the officers you speak of wear their body armor? That is some dedication. Of course they might be wearing a lower level of vest. But still, I would find that too be uncomfortable. Here in the Midwest, during summers, I have a hard enough time dressing in a way to conceal my Glock, while off duty. I can't imagine trying to conceal my vest as well. When on duty, my t-shirt is usually soaked within the first hour of my shift.
It was a very few who did the off duty armor bit, one of the guys did have a lot of potential enemies due to the are he worked, and yes it was in Florida. Still it was rare overall but i did happen :eek:
Sure it gets hot here but I ALWAYS wore my armor, it made for some uncomfortable days but I did it anyway. Too many LE here get popped who would have been likely saved had they worn their armor but they opted not too because it was too hot etc, but I also grew up in the deep woods(as deep as they get here) and didnt have AC for most my life so i was more used to it I suppose
decodeddiesel & Rider 79,
I am in no way making excuses or trying to trivialize the topic. I do place a high priority on firearms training and think all officers should also. However what follows is reality and tends to be human nature in general.
The problem is that it is people tend to pay more attention to things that do frequently. The fact is, that most police officers, never use their firearms in an actual shooting. I do agree that of the least used tools that an Officer has, the firearm is the most critical when needed.
As you guys found in the desert, your small arms / tactics training may have been lacking until put in that situation from artillery to infantry duties.
Yes Officers need to be more diligent with their firearms training, but the reality is they are far more proficient with a pen and pad, than with a pistol. They pull their pen often in the course of a single day. The firearm, well some rarely clear leather. You can bet if they were in a combat situation, or encounter deadly use of force encounters daily, their priority for firearms training would dramatically increase.
...I am fairly certain that if I gave some LEO's FREE ammo, they would not go shoot anyway as they are not getting paid to do so...
I'll gladly shoot it up for those who won't! :D :cool:
I look forward to actual shooting classes/ simunition training / shooting on my own time...even if it means paying a little out of my own wallet when the dept denies a training request. :)
decodeddiesel & Rider 79,
You can bet if they were in a combat situation, or encounter deadly use of force encounters daily, their priority for firearms training would dramatically increase.
I feel the main point of this discussion is an attempt to accelerate LEO recognition of the importance of firearm training to increase their chances of surviving that first encounter.
I for one thank all LEOs for what they do and express my thanks whenever possible. It was very comforting for me when I was deployed that our Sherrif's office is very involved in our neighborhood and responded quickly when my wife called with her concerns. Their efforts provided me with the piece of mind to focus on my task at hand and I thanked that officer upon return.
Let us all help spread the word and help our LEO perform their very difficult task.
I'm pretty happy with what my department has to offer. We have to qualify with our handguns once a year, a daytime as well as a nighttime. If we carry a backup, we have to qualify with it once a year. If we carry a personally owned patrol rifle, we have to take an 8 or 9 hour class then qualify with it, that qual is once a year as well.
Our range policy states that once per month you can be given 1 box of free ammunition. Whether you use it right then or just stockpile it is up to you.
CarlosDJackal
07-03-09, 13:25
Talk about a dead horse coming back to life!! :eek:
The reality is LE Agencies are microcosms of the community they serve. The percentage of Officer who cannot shoot is roughly the same as the regular populace. Why? Because their priority is not to be the best shot in their agencies. Most LEOs only carry a gun because they are required to.
For example, I belong to a gun club that has roughly 900 members. I would be willing to wager that only about a hundred of those members (if that) regularly shoot and most of those shoot trap and skeet and could care less about rifles and handguns. The rest only show up when they buy a new gun or when hunting season comes around. JM2CW.
I feel the main point of this discussion is an attempt to accelerate LEO recognition of the importance of firearm training to increase their chances of surviving that first encounter.
Agree 100%. As an instructor / trainer your preaching to the choir.
Unfortunately as human nature dictates, cops, military, whatever, we tend to practice or become proficient at things that we do on a regular or daily basis, not necessarily prioritizing skill sets by importance such as firearms training. Sad yes, true, yes. Often times we get very good at the mundane that we repeat often, but the things that can actually save our lives takes a back seat, because it isn't a common occurrence. Sounds incomprehensible to most of us enthusiasts here, but that is reality.
Unfortunately it usually takes that first encounter before an individual prioritizes such training a bit higher, but often times, that is too late. Human nature is hard to combat, but we still try, and that is why most of us do what we do. However, any input is always appreciated. :)
decodeddiesel & Rider 79,
the reality is they are far more proficient with a pen and pad, than with a pistol.
That really doesn't say much for their pistol proficiency then ;) . I work with a lot of different law enforcement agencies all over Texas and I'm very often appalled at what I see when I get copies of reports. I am the first to admit to being a grammar nazi and realize that not every document needs to be a Pulitzer finalist but some of this stuff is ridiculous.
[TRYING TO SLIGHTLY GET BACK ON SUBJECT]
Perhaps then more officers need to have regular grammar and composition training as the pen is used far more often than almost any other tool in the arsenal (seriously).
[/TRYING TO SLIGHTLY GET BACK ON SUBJECT]
Just said they used the pen more than the sword. Didn't say they knew how to speel.
Put two guys away earlier this year, one for nine years, the other for twelve using a cell phone and and Microsoft Word. Effective writing is probably the single most important aspect of the profession. If I could do it all over again I'd have been an English Arts major instead of majoring in Criminal Justice.
We are very fortunate. We must qualify quarterly with every weapon we carry; primary handgun, back-up/off-duty, 870, and M4. If one wants to come to the range more often it is encourage if operational needs don't interfere. If someone wants additional practice ammo we'll give it to them provided we know they are actually using it because we don't have tons of it to spare. We also conduct tactical training quarterly as well as additional skills training based on real-world encounters, usually based on a recent incident. last quarter it was the Oakland shootings. We also make it a point to find recent and relevant court decisions that relate to use-of-force and pass them on too during the eight hours we have quarterly. We do this and can still see the need for additional training but the operations tempo does not allow it; there are just so many hours in the day. If we can accomplish anything I find that giving the tools for effective decision making, situational awareness, and the will to fight and win are much more important than the number of rounds one throws downrange.
The reality is LE Agencies are microcosms of the community they serve. The percentage of Officer who cannot shoot is roughly the same as the regular populace.
I'd take this a big step farther. The average cop, poor as his shooting skills may be, is significantly more skilled and capable than the average CCW holder. Being held to an easy standard once or twice a year might not encourage someone to become the whirling dervish of the gun world, but it's a damn bit better than handing someone a piece of paper and saying, "See ya!"
I'd take this a big step farther. The average cop, poor as his shooting skills may be, is significantly more skilled and capable than the average CCW holder. Being held to an easy standard once or twice a year might not encourage someone to become the whirling dervish of the gun world, but it's a damn bit better than handing someone a piece of paper and saying, "See ya!"Agreed.
Alaskapopo
07-03-09, 17:46
No offense, but nothing..well except excuses, is stopping him from practicing on his own!
He should practice on his own, however his department should also provide ammo and training time far in excess of one qualification a year. If one of there officers get into a shooting that goes bad (say hits a bystander) they will be writing a huge check because their training standards are so low.
Pat
He should practice on his own, however his department should also provide ammo and training time far in excess of one qualification a year. If one of there officers get into a shooting that goes bad (say hits a bystander) they will be writing a huge check because their training standards are so low.
Except it doesn't work that way. If the agency can demonstrate that it means required training standard minimums, then it's met its burden in that regard. Plenty of officers lack the skill to make the mythical "hostage shot," that doesn't make them unqualified to patrol.
It's also worth keeping in mind that an awful lot of private citizens who get no free ammo and no free guns and no free training take their personal safety and the safety of their loved ones extremely seriously, which is why they are willing to spend their own money to achieve proficiency.
LEOs. their trainers, and their administrators should be familiar with these,
http://www.degrata.com/pdf/firearms_training_related_case_law.pdf
Alaskapopo
07-03-09, 19:15
Except it doesn't work that way. If the agency can demonstrate that it means required training standard minimums, then it's met its burden in that regard. Plenty of officers lack the skill to make the mythical "hostage shot," that doesn't make them unqualified to patrol.
It's also worth keeping in mind that an awful lot of private citizens who get no free ammo and no free guns and no free training take their personal safety and the safety of their loved ones extremely seriously, which is why they are willing to spend their own money to achieve proficiency.
Actually departments have lost law suits for failing to provide realistic training to their officers. I agree with you on your other points. But as a firearms trainer for my department that more needs to be done with LEO's nation wide.
pat
Actually departments have lost law suits for failing to provide realistic training to their officers.
To the extent "realistic training" is necessary to achieve minimum acceptable standards, yes. To the extent that "realistic training" goes beyond those minimally acceptable standards, no. That's what I said last time. :cool:
Fail to meet minimal training standards: bad.
Meet minimal training standards: adequate.
While working as an assistant range master our range being indoors was rented out for U.S. Marshall qualifications one year. During the three day stint I witnessed 2-Accidental discharges. One a twelve gauge round which was inadvertentley fired into the ceiling baffles. the other when an officer was drawing a Smith 4506 and let a round go about two inches from his foot.
This wasn't the worst of the LEO incidents I saw from lack of range time over my time in this range but it never ceases to amaze me how someone who is going to place themselves into harms way on a daily basis can be so ill prepared.
By far the majority of Police officers I ran across do in fact take their training seriously enough to take matters into their own hands to ensure they have proper skills.
But just like on the civilian end of the firearms industry...there are many Rambo types in Law Enforcement with ego's the size of Mack Trucks.
I just never assume that just because someone wears a uniform and carries a badge that they are capable of safely handling a Firearm...let alone being proficent with it.
I apologize to any LEO who reads this and does not fall into this category..as I respect your commitment for doing what you do to keep the streets safe....I know it isn't that you are trying to get rich at the job.
Alaskapopo
07-03-09, 19:47
To the extent "realistic training" is necessary to achieve minimum acceptable standards, yes. To the extent that "realistic training" goes beyond those minimally acceptable standards, no. That's what I said last time. :cool:
Fail to meet minimal training standards: bad.
Meet minimal training standards: adequate.
I understand what you are saying the those standards are very arbitrary and and not standardized at all. In Alaska for example the minimum standard set by APCS is 70% but they don't specify a course of fire the departments do that. So I could set a qualification where you have to shoot a target 10 times at 2 yards in 2 minutes and have officers pass the "standard". There is no set standard on what is acceptable or is not.
Pat
I guess I'm sorta lucky with who I work for...
Many years ago, DOE was well known for its shooting ability. It was point of pride. Our pistol qual went to 50 yards, and the Officer of the year was based on a shooting competition.
Unfortunately much of that is changing, for many of the reason pointed out in previous threads. But, apparently we may still be somewhat ahead of the power curve...
Somethings to consider, as pointed out are
Op tempo/Manning requirements. DOE mandates numbers, we can not go below that.
Non firearms related training, everything pointed out earlier, plus corporate and Govt "feel good" training, Rad training( have to know the difference between Gamma rays, beta rays, Ray Charles, etc.)
The shear number of shooting skills we need to be tested on. It takes us 4, 8 hour, work days, minimum, to qual with every weapon system we need to. That doesn't include some specialized skills and weapons.
Pt tests, and physicals
Clearance work
Aircrew cert.
The program has been revamped some, we now shoot a combined qual, to lessen the burden.
But, we still qual twice a year, shoot about every month. Have free range days, if you can get to them.
Again, I guess we are somewhat lucky, out main focus is killin bad guys, so we get to spend a lot of time training for it, but we get hit with the ever present budget issues, complacent/unmotivated officers, scheduling issues, etc.
The only real answer is, hire more officers, & raise the standards. unfortunately those two things are almost directly opposed to each other.
Bob
Court defined set standards for qualifications.......None
Court defined minimum topics to be included as standardized training each department is obligated to give to its officers......Yes
Court defined minimum standards for achievement of such training topics.......None
However a department had best be able to show up to date tactics, materials, methodology / ideology on said training topics, and be able to show acceptable amount of training hours each officer receives on such topics. "Acceptable" often derives its definition from an average, or is commensurate with other agencies, especially within their own circuit. Also included are LE training organizations / sanctioning bodies.
I understand what you are saying the those standards are very arbitrary and and not standardized at all. In Alaska for example the minimum standard set by APCS is 70% but they don't specify a course of fire the departments do that. So I could set a qualification where you have to shoot a target 10 times at 2 yards in 2 minutes and have officers pass the "standard". There is no set standard on what is acceptable or is not.
Pat
Alaska has a standard. You just stated it. Flawed? Sounds like it. But it has one. Todd is making the point from a legality stand point. If the standard stated, shoot 5 rounds into the air, and officers/departments abide by it, it would be argued that their burden was satisfied.
Florida's, if I'm remembering correctly, is pretty rigid. Easy, but standardized beyond what you described Alaska's to be.
I haven't Shepardized Popow in a very long time. Any law school students (or lawyers without something better to do) willing to see if SCOTUS has ever cited Popow positively? The entire LE community takes it as codified law, but it's just a District Court decision ...
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-04-09, 17:43
Crap, you guys got me worried. I thought all cops where practicing once a week and could do head shots a 50m. Maybe a little exasgeration, but once a year, wow. I assume big cities are the worst?
Out of curiosity, what kind of training does a SWAT officer do in comparision to a regular patrolman, er person?
Not only would I have to wait for the police to arrive is there is ever trouble, I might have to help them clear a malfunction if they have one.
Going back to the early threads of what % of LEOs even carry off duty, I set up a poll on an LE forum* I visit regularly on 6/24. The poll questions were:
I generally carry off duty
I don't generally carry off duty
I am on a dept. that requires I carry off duty
Off duty, what's that?!
Currently, "I generally carry off duty" is running approx 75%. Of course we can only infer so much from such a poll, and it's far from "hard" data, but interesting I thought. If one adds the "I am on a dept. that requires I carry off duty" the % goes up of course, but that does not tell us if they would do it if they had a choice, so I don't add it personally. Some felt my wording was off so it didn't reflect well the numbers, but they didn't come back to explain how that is when I questioned them, so, it stands as is...
* = http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123683
Out of curiosity, what kind of training does a SWAT officer do in comparision to a regular patrolman, er person?
For my department it is a collateral duty, so we aren't training every single day like the big agency teams are. Part of being accredited with NTOA we have to have a minimum of 16 training hours per month. To work with our schedules, we split that into two 8 hour training days, one every other Wednesday. We typically will shoot for the first 2-3 hours, either pistol, long gun or both. Its never static shooting, always moving individually or with a group. After that, we move to a random location of the boss's choosing to practice clearing it, with and without live suspects and sometimes with air soft guns. Boss usually picks unique buildings like an old courthouse or church. Sometimes we reuse this crazy house built in the 1970s that has bizarre interior construction. Basically any place that will have a good training value and promote thought and discussion amongst the team.
Additionally, team members are put through actual classes on a random basis. We just had 4 come back from a 4 week GTI course.
Going back to the early threads of what % of LEOs even carry off duty, I set up a poll on an LE forum* I visit regularly on 6/24. The poll questions were:
I generally carry off duty
I don't generally carry off duty
I am on a dept. that requires I carry off duty
Off duty, what's that?!
Sorry, there won't be any useful data from that survey.
No "I always carry off-duty"?
Strike generally from the second question, a survey subject could assign himself to either category if he generally did or didn't carry. Also, there's no option for those that don't.
I might use: Always - Frequently - Sometimes - Rarely - Never type of design, with a short explanation. Like "always" really means "always", and "carry" means on-body or in a bag on-body, or whatever you'd define it to mean.
Sorry, there won't be any useful data from that survey.
No "I always carry off-duty"?
Strike generally from the second question, a survey subject could assign himself to either category if he generally did or didn't carry. Also, there's no option for those that don't.
I might use: Always - Frequently - Sometimes - Rarely - Never type of design, with a short explanation. Like "always" really means "always", and "carry" means on-body or in a bag on-body, or whatever you'd define it to mean.
As we don't live in a world of absolutes, I used what I felt were more realistic expectations of carry patterns. Thus, "I generally carry off duty" = more often then not, and so on. Yes, I see your points, and they are valid, but I don't agree no useful info is derived from the survey as it's written. What it tells us, from the sample size, from LEOs that visit that particular forum, approx 75% carry more often then not. That's more or less what I wanted to know, but yes, in a formal survey that was trying to get more objective actual figures, your set up is better, but then to be more exact, we would need to define "frequently" as a number: more then 70& of the time, or what have you and "sometimes" to = 50% of the time and so forth.
I didn't want to get into that level of specifics, so the way I set it up gets the jist across to the poll taker enough to give us people (or me at least...) an approx carry pattern of off duty LEO. My guess is (and it's a WAG) is that the poll number is a tad higher then what the actual national average is, but that's a hunch on my part based on experiences/impressions.
On the general topic of motivating officers to get better:
Something I've suggested to various departments which seems to help is simple team competition. You can do it by shift/squad or in larger departments by unit. For example, put the Motor guys up against the SWAT guys and see just how quickly bragging rights become important.
Make sure the competition is fair. No point having a carbine competition if SWAT is the sole unit that carries them.
You can make it something quick (the 1-shot standards discussed earlier in this thread; F.A.S.T.; El Presidente; etc.) or something more in-depth like your actual qualification course, the IDPA Classifier, etc.
The key is to score each team based solely off the worst scoring officer on each team. So if most of the guys working midnights are squared away but one guy on the squad sucks, he'll get special motivation from his squadmates to improve. Let's face it, getting the worst guy to achieve mediocre proficiency is more important than teaching the already decent guys to be masters.
The competition also has to have some kind of value and penalty. Losers have to wash the winners' cars, work a crappy detail (parade, etc.), or whatever your department will let you get away with. Simply rewarding the winners isn't enough ... the losers need to receive some ego-busting so they're motivated to come back next time and win.
Sometimes something as simple as the high shooter does not have to pick up brass is a useful motivator.
Todd,
Most of the facilities in the complex, have a bonus based on your qual scores. They all do it a little different, but getting $200-300(or more, don't recall) every 6 months, for shooting good, is a motivator.
For years, SPO's especially SRT, lived and breathed by how well they shot the old pistol qual. Not so much today, especially with all the new weapons, but, guys still look at each others target at the end of the day.
Bob
I don't disagree, and have been the beneficiary of my fair share of "don't have to police brass" wins. But rewarding the best guy doesn't really do a whole lot to raise the ones who aren't practicing to a new level.
I'd be a lot more impressed with a guy who went from a 18-second El Prez to a 12-second El Prez in three months than the guy who went from an 8 to a 7 ...
As we don't live in a world of absolutes, I used what I felt were more realistic expectations of carry patterns. Thus, "I generally carry off duty" = more often then not, and so on. Yes, I see your points, and they are valid, but I don't agree no useful info is derived from the survey as it's written. What it tells us, from the sample size, from LEOs that visit that particular forum, approx 75% carry more often then not. That's more or less what I wanted to know, but yes, in a formal survey that was trying to get more objective actual figures, your set up is better, but then to be more exact, we would need to define "frequently" as a number: more then 70& of the time, or what have you and "sometimes" to = 50% of the time and so forth.
I didn't want to get into that level of specifics, so the way I set it up gets the jist across to the poll taker enough to give us people (or me at least...) an approx carry pattern of off duty LEO. My guess is (and it's a WAG) is that the poll number is a tad higher then what the actual national average is, but that's a hunch on my part based on experiences/impressions.
Understood. Despite how my post might be read, I'm not bagging on you. Just saying.
Crap, you guys got me worried. I thought all cops where practicing once a week and could do head shots a 50m. Maybe a little exasgeration, but once a year, wow. I assume big cities are the worst?
Out of curiosity, what kind of training does a SWAT officer do in comparision to a regular patrolman, er person?
Not only would I have to wait for the police to arrive is there is ever trouble, I might have to help them clear a malfunction if they have one.Big cities are generally understaffed to begin with. Now attempt to go through scheduling nightmares of conducting training while trying to maintain minimal manpower staffing on the streets, then combine costs and training can be a nightmare. Not making any excuses, and only touching on the tip of the iceberg, but there is a lot involved.
As for SWAT units, as mentioned by iroc dis, much depends on the department and unit. Most departments are part time, where they have other main duties and SWAT training is a side duty. They may have a few full time guys assigned to SWAT but most guys have collateral duties. There are only about 20 or so (last I checked) full time SWAT teams nationwide. My unit is a full time team and like iroc dis, we follow NTOA best SWAT practices and we far exceed the minimum training hours / standards for full time units. FEMA also has SWAT unit classifications, by units deployment capabilities / training / equipment, type I being the highest classification. Not a lot of type I units out there. So training and unit ability can vary greatly when it comes to SWAT teams. Most of this is funding and time for training related. It is generally pretty easy to pick out part time and full time teams, when watching them work, mostly just because big depts have the funds and the teams have and are afforded the time to train. No dig at the part time teams, but if you practice any activity with the same people with a lot of repetitions, you get to know what someone is going to do, before they do it. I also give part time teams a lot of credit as many dedicate a lot of their own time, and even money to participate on the teams! Takes a big commitment and often times much sacrifice, so kudos to them!
As far as helping with malfunctions, well Todd G summed it up pretty well. While cops are not necessarily the most bad ass gunslingers, they are generally much much better than your average CCW holder.
Going back to the early threads of what % of LEOs even carry off duty, I set up a poll on an LE forum* I visit regularly on 6/24.......Will, I appreciate the poll for what it is, however as I mentioned in the thread at O.com, you will find that the type of officers who take their time to visit a LE related website, probably take the role of a LEO more than just a job. Having said that, they will probably be more proficient with their weapons, and more inclined to be the types to get involved off duty and to carry a weapon off duty. So the results may reflect that. I will say that in my dept of 2500 sworn, there is no way that we would come anywhere near 75% carry rates, and we are a carry or have it "readily accessible" department.
On the general topic of motivating officers to get better:
Something I've suggested to various departments which seems to help is simple team competition. You can do it by shift/squad or in larger departments by unit. I agree that this is a good technique. I cannot speak for the department, as my primary focus is within my division. We shoot as a division 1 day per week (fortunate) and individual guys or teams may shoot as time allows the rest of the week. Our 1 day of divisional firearms training always ends in some type of competition. Great moral builder / motivational tool.
As a matter of fact we have a divisional competition and for the firearms portion, the top gun award this year will be a Sig 226 or 229. Nice bit of motivation. ;)
For years, SPO's especially SRT, lived and breathed by how well they shot the old pistol qual. Not so much today, especially with all the new weapons, but, guys still look at each others target at the end of the day.
BobWe used to run a 600 point system qualification on a B27. It used to come down to X count to determine the winner. Now we do a pass no pass qual on silhouette type target with a larger hit zone and no smaller inner rings and condensed times. However we all know where high center mass falls, and at the days end you still get guys looking at each others hits. :)
Will, I appreciate the poll for what it is, however as I mentioned in the thread at O.com, you will find that the type of officers who take their time to visit a LE related website, probably take the role of a LEO more than just a job. Having said that, they will probably be more proficient with their weapons, and more inclined to be the types to get involved off duty and to carry a weapon off duty. So the results may reflect that. I will say that in my dept of 2500 sworn, there is no way that we would come anywhere near 75% carry rates, and we are a carry or have it "readily accessible" department.
As mentioned, I bet it's closer to 50% in depts that don't require it. I'm sure there are some regional differences also, and it would be interesting to know what the actual national average is on that.
On the subject of officer proficency with their weapon(s), how many here train to deal with malfunctions such as stove pipes, double feeds, etc?
One of the things I do with my guys is to set up a "malfunction" with the weapon at the 7 yd. line. They stand at the 50yd line. when given the signal, they drop, do 20 pushups, stand and do 20 3 count jumping jacks (all to get the heart rate going). They then run to the 7, pick up the gun, fix the problem, fire 3 rounds on target, make the gun safe, holster it and then run back to the 50yd line. I do this with shape/color/number targets for target recognition training as well. The guys like it because it makes them think about what they need to do in case they have a problem in the field. It also make them realize that its one thing to talk about how to deal with a malfunction, its another thing to actually have to deal with it under stress.
I know I'll get boo'd down for this, but:
In my opinion, malfunction clearance skills are too heavily weighted in a lot of "serious" shooting programs. Like many things (e.g., tac reloads) it's a holdover from another era when the most popular gun wasn't nearly as reliable as what most agencies are issuing today.
Learning to clear a stoppage, especially something more complicated than a simple TRB, has more relevance to range practice than fighting. If a well-trained person can reduce a double feed in about three seconds, and the average gunfight lasts 3-5 seconds ... well, it's pretty easy to see that even if you're a wizard with malfunctions, clearing that double feed is going to take you the rest of the your life. Ergo, don't carry a gun that isn't as dead-nuts reliable as you can possibly find.
Throw a few dummies/snap caps into the ammo can and let shooters come across them randomly. That's the best way to assess their ability to handle a stoppage under stress. Setting up a stoppage purposefully and letting them know in advance that it's coming isn't testing their ability, it's just giving them another repetition at practicing the clearance.
For stovepipes and double feeds, the only safe & (somewhat) reliable way to induce them quasi-randomly is to muck with some training magazines' springs. Cut a coil at a time until you've got a magazine that balks once or twice per mag. Then mark that mag in a subtle way and toss it in the team's pile during practice.
But again, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in stoppage clearances. Knowing how to do them at the conscious level doesn't take a lot of time, effort, or money. Anyone who carries a gun should have that level of skill.
Moving from conscious skill to unconscious proficiency does take a lot of time, effort, and money ... time, effort, and money that would be better spent on teaching the guys how to shoot more accurately and faster so the fight ends with fewer rounds fired and fewer chances for a problem in the first place.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-07-09, 12:59
You guys have been discussing making the gun go bang. If many(some?) police officers are only shooting once or twice a year, for less than 200 rounds (?), how much time is spent on tactics, procedures and no-shoot/shoot situations? Are they at least review in a class room setting regularly?
Just an interested non-LEO civy.
You guys have been discussing making the gun go bang. If many police officers are only shooting once or twice a year, for less than 200 rounds (?), how much time is spent on tactics, procedures and no-shoot/shoot situations? Are they at least review in a class room setting regularly?
Just an interested non-LEO civy.
We are required to qual once a year in live fire; primary, shotgun, backup weapons, rifle. All on different days generally. We are required to get on the discretionary simulator once a year. Taser re certification. Driving re certification. D-Tac re certification, Required scenario sessions including simunitions, and on and on.
Seems like every time I turn around I'm in a training class. Our range is open almost every Thursday with free ammo to those who want to come. I won't say most of our guys take advantage but a decent share of them do.
In my area, it's officers commitment that keeps them from being trained. Our department definitely makes all the resources available and at no charge. Our D-tac training is generally the same bullshit stuff that never works but this last year they took some of our suggestions and made the program GREAT. I've been impressed with our training unit for the most part.
On the subject of officer proficency with their weapon(s), how many here train to deal with malfunctions such as stove pipes, double feeds, etc?
One of the things I do with my guys is to set up a "malfunction" with the weapon at the 7 yd. line. They stand at the 50yd line. when given the signal, they drop, do 20 pushups, stand and do 20 3 count jumping jacks (all to get the heart rate going). They then run to the 7, pick up the gun, fix the problem, fire 3 rounds on target, make the gun safe, holster it and then run back to the 50yd line. I do this with shape/color/number targets for target recognition training as well. The guys like it because it makes them think about what they need to do in case they have a problem in the field. It also make them realize that its one thing to talk about how to deal with a malfunction, its another thing to actually have to deal with it under stress.
We have a proficiency test for it, prior to every qual.
Otherwise, Todd makes some good points, we don't bother with it to much.
Bob
Alaskapopo
07-08-09, 02:28
On the subject of officer proficency with their weapon(s), how many here train to deal with malfunctions such as stove pipes, double feeds, etc?
One of the things I do with my guys is to set up a "malfunction" with the weapon at the 7 yd. line. They stand at the 50yd line. when given the signal, they drop, do 20 pushups, stand and do 20 3 count jumping jacks (all to get the heart rate going). They then run to the 7, pick up the gun, fix the problem, fire 3 rounds on target, make the gun safe, holster it and then run back to the 50yd line. I do this with shape/color/number targets for target recognition training as well. The guys like it because it makes them think about what they need to do in case they have a problem in the field. It also make them realize that its one thing to talk about how to deal with a malfunction, its another thing to actually have to deal with it under stress.
I require them to pass a malfunction test. Basically they need to clear 3 malfunctions in a row of a certain type under the time limit. If they miss the time limit ones they count starts over.
Pat
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.