FrankDrebin
Moderator
But they shot him 14 more times than YOU did.....
Better shot than law enforcement?
- Thread starter Metellus
- Start date
Blackhawk6
New member
Mannlicher,
First, they fired 41 shots striking Diallo nineteen times, not fourteen. They did not empty four 17-round magazines. That puts their hit percentage at about 46%.
Second, how many rounds have you fired in defense of yourself or others and what percentage connected? How many were fired while you were backing down a stairway one-handed?
First, they fired 41 shots striking Diallo nineteen times, not fourteen. They did not empty four 17-round magazines. That puts their hit percentage at about 46%.
Second, how many rounds have you fired in defense of yourself or others and what percentage connected? How many were fired while you were backing down a stairway one-handed?
I think I have more of an issue with the fact that they all emptied their magazines. It doesn't seem like one *possibly* armed guy is a big threat after being hit multiple times. Just firing until you are out of quarters is an arcade-game attitude, not the halmark of disciplined officers.
-tINY
FrankDrebin
Moderator
How long does it take to tell whether someone is still a threat?
D.S. Brown
New member
I'd be the first, and usually am, to disparage your average law enforcement officers shooting skills because I've been on both sides of the fence.
I would say that in a safe and static environment most gun enthusiasts could shoot much better than most average LEO's. However if those targets ever started shooting back my money is with the LEO.
He/she may not shoot any better but they are generally better prepared through training and mindset to keep their cool under fire and to take the fight to the bad guy. Most citizens don't have that level of training, and thus even with superior marksmanship skills than police, they may not prevail in the same scenario. As someone said before the police win more gunfights than they lose.
My thoughts.
Best,
Dave
I would say that in a safe and static environment most gun enthusiasts could shoot much better than most average LEO's. However if those targets ever started shooting back my money is with the LEO.
He/she may not shoot any better but they are generally better prepared through training and mindset to keep their cool under fire and to take the fight to the bad guy. Most citizens don't have that level of training, and thus even with superior marksmanship skills than police, they may not prevail in the same scenario. As someone said before the police win more gunfights than they lose.
My thoughts.
Best,
Dave
Last edited:
Time to evaluate situation
If you need to reload, then you should have enough time to analyse the situation. If I remember correctly, each of the officers involved had to reload. I believe in the few seconds it takes to reload the officers could have assessed the situation. I can understand that in armed confrontations with high adrenaline levels, we are bound to be nervous. However when no shots are returned one must re-evaluate the dangers. One is supposed to use sufficient force to stop the attack, not more than necessary. These officers clearly used more force than was needed.
Its all past tense now, but maybe these officers could have benifited from more training in shoot/don't shoot scenarios. Also, using flashlights in low light situations could have been helpfull too. This was a regrettable tragedy.
If you need to reload, then you should have enough time to analyse the situation. If I remember correctly, each of the officers involved had to reload. I believe in the few seconds it takes to reload the officers could have assessed the situation. I can understand that in armed confrontations with high adrenaline levels, we are bound to be nervous. However when no shots are returned one must re-evaluate the dangers. One is supposed to use sufficient force to stop the attack, not more than necessary. These officers clearly used more force than was needed.
Its all past tense now, but maybe these officers could have benifited from more training in shoot/don't shoot scenarios. Also, using flashlights in low light situations could have been helpfull too. This was a regrettable tragedy.
Last edited:
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Well, if it was so obvious to you, why do you suppose it wasn't as obvious to the jury? Was it a case of jury nullification? By a NY jury supporting a bunch of white cops who shot an unarmed black guy numerous times? Or was it a bench trial and the judge was corrupt? Or could it be that when all the evidence was in, their actions were not so obviously unreasonable after all given the totality of the circumstances?
BreacherUp!
New member
This one time, in band camp...........
That they were justified in what they did in the situation is not the only consideration. The factors that put them in that situation (especially since he turned out not to be a bad guy) are important.
I'm sure that the NYPD reviewed it's tactics and training after that. If they didn't, they are worse than I imagined.
-tINY
"He/she may not shoot any better but they are generally better prepared through training and mindset to keep their cool under fire and to take the fight to the bad guy. Most citizens don't have that level of training, and thus even with superior marksmanship skills than police, they may not prevail in the same scenario. As someone said before the police win more gunfights than they lose."
Most cops are not better prepared either through mindset or training. Police win more gunfights than they loose because most Bad Guys are really lousey shots. Cops seldom take the fight to the bad guy as most police shootings are spur of the moment affairs. In standup gunfights, they fare poorly being trained as armed social workers, rather than as expert purveyors of violence. "Get behind the squad and get on the horn, S.W.A.T. will be here soon".
The trend is only now changing with some officers being trained in so called "active shooter response". 
Cops who are shooters are rare, but they do exist.
The average citizen who is a shooter as opposed to a gun owner, can usually make enough cash hustling the local force to keep himself well supplied with victuals. I spent the late 70's working my way through the bars and resturants of DC/Maryland/Virginia on the proceeds of "shooting lessons" given to all and sundry cops from Baltimore to Richmond
At the time I was LE but the ammo money and range time came on my dime not the deptments.
Sam
Most cops are not better prepared either through mindset or training. Police win more gunfights than they loose because most Bad Guys are really lousey shots. Cops seldom take the fight to the bad guy as most police shootings are spur of the moment affairs. In standup gunfights, they fare poorly being trained as armed social workers, rather than as expert purveyors of violence. "Get behind the squad and get on the horn, S.W.A.T. will be here soon".
The trend is only now changing with some officers being trained in so called "active shooter response". Cops who are shooters are rare, but they do exist.
The average citizen who is a shooter as opposed to a gun owner, can usually make enough cash hustling the local force to keep himself well supplied with victuals. I spent the late 70's working my way through the bars and resturants of DC/Maryland/Virginia on the proceeds of "shooting lessons" given to all and sundry cops from Baltimore to Richmond
At the time I was LE but the ammo money and range time came on my dime not the deptments.
Sam
FrankDrebin
Moderator
I GENERALLY trust cops with guns more than I trust the typical gun nut, self-proclaimed shooting instructor, homeowner who anwers the door with a gun in his hand every time, gun shop groupie, person who spends more time rationalizing a "reasonable fear of great bodily harm" when someone looks at him cross-eyed instead of just getting up and leaving, guy who carries a gun because he lives in the suburbs and is afraid of the government taking his guns away, or other various and sundry gun people because I know that most cops deal with jerks every day, and they must learn to control their temper and deal with potentially violent people in a detached, objective way without pulling their guns out at the drop of a hat. They realize that even if they're right, the "bad guy" may not be charged, and while frustrated with this, it isn't something they dwell on. They realize a gun is only one of many tools they have to control a situation.
The reason I trust cops more with guns than I do the other types of people I mentioned, not that some cops aren't also included in those groups, has very little to do with their shooting ability, training or the type of gun they carry. It has more to do with a whole bunch of other intangibles, the least of which is their commando SWAT guy abilities.
D.S. Brown
New member
Of course perhaps comparing LEO shooting skills with civilian shooting skills is fallacious on my part since the responsibilities of both groups are different. Usually when the balloon goes up your typical cop, even if his situational awareness detects danger, doesn't have the luxury of leaving. They generally have to "run to the danger," or at least hold it at bay until S.W.A.T. arrives.
When I said "take the fight to the enemy" I wasn't really being literal.
Sam D are you going to tell me that a police officer with 40 hours of firearms training (usually, and btw not nearly enough time), supplemented by use of force training and being able to respond appropriately to a violent situation through the use of force continuum, not to mention his/her carrying a gun everyday, and being required to qualify annually, and by the necessity of the job is in condition yellow/orange for at least their shift, is less trained and less prepared to deal with a violent encounter than your average non leo shooter/concealed handgun licensee. The latter of whom, at least in Texas, are required to take just 10 hours of state mandated minimum instruction and pass a background test to acquire said license. The latter licensee by the way is unlikely to pick up a handgun again to shoot it until he has to re-qualify to retain said license 4-5 years later. Similarly you might get 1 out of 100 that seek additional practical training such as a 2 day training class or something longer like Ayoobs LFI 1. It's just not happening. I think it's ludicrous to intimate that your average citizen is better trained to deal with confrontational violence than a police officer. I'm not saying cops are end all be all, but as many of my instructors have said you will default to your lowest level of training. As lowly and pathetic the training is for most police officers it still exceeds what joe citizen shooter is likely to have and that small margin is likely the key to going home at the end of the day vs. going to the morgue.
Now let me reiterate something in case I wasn't clear. I think that in a static, non violent range scenario your average gun enthusiast/nerd will prevail handily over the shooting skills of your average police officer. However once again when you add violence to the mix my money is on the cop. Is it a 100% guarantee? Nope, but it is a safer bet.
Best,
Dave
When I said "take the fight to the enemy" I wasn't really being literal.
Sam D are you going to tell me that a police officer with 40 hours of firearms training (usually, and btw not nearly enough time), supplemented by use of force training and being able to respond appropriately to a violent situation through the use of force continuum, not to mention his/her carrying a gun everyday, and being required to qualify annually, and by the necessity of the job is in condition yellow/orange for at least their shift, is less trained and less prepared to deal with a violent encounter than your average non leo shooter/concealed handgun licensee. The latter of whom, at least in Texas, are required to take just 10 hours of state mandated minimum instruction and pass a background test to acquire said license. The latter licensee by the way is unlikely to pick up a handgun again to shoot it until he has to re-qualify to retain said license 4-5 years later. Similarly you might get 1 out of 100 that seek additional practical training such as a 2 day training class or something longer like Ayoobs LFI 1. It's just not happening. I think it's ludicrous to intimate that your average citizen is better trained to deal with confrontational violence than a police officer. I'm not saying cops are end all be all, but as many of my instructors have said you will default to your lowest level of training. As lowly and pathetic the training is for most police officers it still exceeds what joe citizen shooter is likely to have and that small margin is likely the key to going home at the end of the day vs. going to the morgue.
Now let me reiterate something in case I wasn't clear. I think that in a static, non violent range scenario your average gun enthusiast/nerd will prevail handily over the shooting skills of your average police officer. However once again when you add violence to the mix my money is on the cop. Is it a 100% guarantee? Nope, but it is a safer bet.
Best,
Dave
No need to be astonished if you understand that a typical recruit is a college grad with NO firearms experience and that that the academy firearms program is a compromise between reasonable cost vs. good training. That, and the 70% National LE scoring standard isn't condusive to turning out 1st class pistoleros.
TLM225 points out that "police officers are much better shots than the AVERAGE citizen, they received training on proper techniques...."
Well, the average citizen doesn't have any practical experience with a handgun and may have no firearms experience at all. The average citizen who does shoot (handguns) does it voluntarily and is likely, in my opinion to be better than the average Police Officer.
Of course there are LE Officers for whom the issue of saving their life with a handgun is a lot more than just qualifying periodically to keep their job, and consequently, they become very proficient--but that comes with xtra, non mandatory training. There are lot's of LE and Civialians in firearms training and competition that goes beyond anything mandatory.
shooting skills of the police
Most cops don't shoot very well because they aren't that interested in guns or shooting and they don't practice. Period.
In my state new recruits get 40 hours of firearms training and shoot 750-1000 rounds in entry level training. The basic training cirriculum that we use is pretty good, but it's BASIC. There is no state standard here on how often officers have to qualify or requalify once they're on the job, although many/most states have some kind of modified PPC that all officers shoot on once a year to measure marksmanship skills. My department shoots handgun quarterly, about 150 rounds per session. That's about enough to keep officer's skills at the same level they graduated recruit school with, in most cases. We don't have the time or the money or the staffing to do much more firearms training than that.
I've got about 3 cops (out of 40) that always have trouble qualifying. They're all smaller females with limited grip strength, limited upper body strength and small hands. Going to a weapons platform with a thinner grip and a shorter reach to the trigger helps somewhat, but they still struggle. I had to do coaching and requal on a couple of these individuals two weeks ago. I think these women came to the range hoping that I could coach them and give them the "secret" that would magically transform them into competent shooters. Well, I did. As we all know, the secret is PRACTICE. I told them to buy 50 or 100 rounds of .40 practice ammo every payday and go shoot. I gave them a list of simple drills to do. I promised that if they followed that program, when our next session of inservice training starts in September, they would qualify with no problem.
Of course, I did some remedial instruction with these same individuals last summer and again this last spring, and told them the EXACT same thing and gave them the EXACT set of practice drills to shoot, and they didn't follow through on it. Not that I was surprised or anything . . .
I've been a cop since 1980 and a firearms instructor since 1982, and I shoot occassionally in PPC, IPSC and IDPA (usually about 4 matches a year).( I'm a "marksman" in PPC, upper C class in IPSC in "production" class and high edge of "sharpshooter" in stock service pistol in IDPA. So, competent but not outstanding or exceptional or anything.)(I personally shoot about 250 rounds a month in practice with my primary duty gun.) All of my non-police competitive shooting friends expend a LOT more ammunition in practice and when shooting in matches than any cop I know, other than myself and members of the local tac team. Of course they're better -- they have a recreational interest in shooting and they PRACTICE. And when they practice, it just isn't some aimless expenditure of ammo, they have drills they shoot to develop specific skills.
There are a lot of cops who have a mild interest in shooting and go out and practice once in a while. There are many others who at least go shoot in practice a little bit before they have their next qualification, so they fire a better score. The majority of cops just sort of bumble along and get by. And many who do practice don't get full value out of it because they don't have any plan to what they're practicing. At the least, keep shooting the mandated qualification course until you can consistently get a high score under all circumstances. Just following that course will give some kind of structure to your practice routine.
Of course, marksmanship skill isn't the only issue to survival. Tactics and situational awareness are citical.
And shooting isn't the only skill that cops need. Once skill I find sadly lacking is writing skills. The work product of the police officer is a written report (in that way they're just like a newspaper reporter). I find a lot of cops (MANY on my department) who have awful writing skills and they're always getting reports rejected by the supervisors or by the DA's office. At least where I work, they need to implement MUCH higher standards on reading comprehension and writing skills for new employees, to avoid these problems.
And the cops need to be able to be proficient in emergency vehicle operation, and defensive tactics, and elementry interrogation and investigation and keep up on changes in the law & procedure and maintain an acceptable level of physical fitness and . . . so marksmanship isn't the ONLY skill they need nor the only thing the PD needs to train on. But, to be a professional, you need to be able to perform competently on ALL that stuff, and a police officer's level of marksmanship skill and gunhandling is one way to evaluate their personal professionalism and commitment to the job.
The good cops will make the effort to be competent on all those skills, even if they don't have a particular personal interest in some of them.
Most cops don't shoot very well because they aren't that interested in guns or shooting and they don't practice. Period.
In my state new recruits get 40 hours of firearms training and shoot 750-1000 rounds in entry level training. The basic training cirriculum that we use is pretty good, but it's BASIC. There is no state standard here on how often officers have to qualify or requalify once they're on the job, although many/most states have some kind of modified PPC that all officers shoot on once a year to measure marksmanship skills. My department shoots handgun quarterly, about 150 rounds per session. That's about enough to keep officer's skills at the same level they graduated recruit school with, in most cases. We don't have the time or the money or the staffing to do much more firearms training than that.
I've got about 3 cops (out of 40) that always have trouble qualifying. They're all smaller females with limited grip strength, limited upper body strength and small hands. Going to a weapons platform with a thinner grip and a shorter reach to the trigger helps somewhat, but they still struggle. I had to do coaching and requal on a couple of these individuals two weeks ago. I think these women came to the range hoping that I could coach them and give them the "secret" that would magically transform them into competent shooters. Well, I did. As we all know, the secret is PRACTICE. I told them to buy 50 or 100 rounds of .40 practice ammo every payday and go shoot. I gave them a list of simple drills to do. I promised that if they followed that program, when our next session of inservice training starts in September, they would qualify with no problem.
Of course, I did some remedial instruction with these same individuals last summer and again this last spring, and told them the EXACT same thing and gave them the EXACT set of practice drills to shoot, and they didn't follow through on it. Not that I was surprised or anything . . .
I've been a cop since 1980 and a firearms instructor since 1982, and I shoot occassionally in PPC, IPSC and IDPA (usually about 4 matches a year).( I'm a "marksman" in PPC, upper C class in IPSC in "production" class and high edge of "sharpshooter" in stock service pistol in IDPA. So, competent but not outstanding or exceptional or anything.)(I personally shoot about 250 rounds a month in practice with my primary duty gun.) All of my non-police competitive shooting friends expend a LOT more ammunition in practice and when shooting in matches than any cop I know, other than myself and members of the local tac team. Of course they're better -- they have a recreational interest in shooting and they PRACTICE. And when they practice, it just isn't some aimless expenditure of ammo, they have drills they shoot to develop specific skills.
There are a lot of cops who have a mild interest in shooting and go out and practice once in a while. There are many others who at least go shoot in practice a little bit before they have their next qualification, so they fire a better score. The majority of cops just sort of bumble along and get by. And many who do practice don't get full value out of it because they don't have any plan to what they're practicing. At the least, keep shooting the mandated qualification course until you can consistently get a high score under all circumstances. Just following that course will give some kind of structure to your practice routine.
Of course, marksmanship skill isn't the only issue to survival. Tactics and situational awareness are citical.
And shooting isn't the only skill that cops need. Once skill I find sadly lacking is writing skills. The work product of the police officer is a written report (in that way they're just like a newspaper reporter). I find a lot of cops (MANY on my department) who have awful writing skills and they're always getting reports rejected by the supervisors or by the DA's office. At least where I work, they need to implement MUCH higher standards on reading comprehension and writing skills for new employees, to avoid these problems.
And the cops need to be able to be proficient in emergency vehicle operation, and defensive tactics, and elementry interrogation and investigation and keep up on changes in the law & procedure and maintain an acceptable level of physical fitness and . . . so marksmanship isn't the ONLY skill they need nor the only thing the PD needs to train on. But, to be a professional, you need to be able to perform competently on ALL that stuff, and a police officer's level of marksmanship skill and gunhandling is one way to evaluate their personal professionalism and commitment to the job.
The good cops will make the effort to be competent on all those skills, even if they don't have a particular personal interest in some of them.
big daddy 9mm
New member
hum....
some cops are probably good shots and others suck. I am sure that you will meet both.
some cops are probably good shots and others suck. I am sure that you will meet both.
Superhornet
New member
LEO's are no better or no worse than 99% of the civilians I see at the range. I used to shoot with a few who were into the GSSF match's and they were very, very fast and accurate.
Well said and true. However, many forget that shooting for police qualification is MUCH different than shooting for pleasure at the range. Very good (civilian) shooters would do poorly when placed into a stressed, timed qualification course. So, I'd say most cops are average to fair shooters with a few poor ones thrown into the mix. But, others are mean, fast and accurate at any distance.
D.S.Brown,
That's why I qualified it to the average SHOOTER, not the average OWNER.
And the quality of police training leaves a lot to be desierd. It really is not that intense or in depth, it is more akin to exposure.
Let me digress for a moment.
So long as our police departments are used as armed social workers and not as policeman, it will be that way. Very little time is spent actively looking for criminals and lots is spent on bureaucracy, enforcement of feelgood and revenue enhancing laws. In the "old days' our cops were much more in touch with people, not employed as a deterrent force and in many cases actually shot the hell out of criminals.
That's why you can name gunfighting officers of the 30's-50's and none from today. Used to be that the cop who was a shooter, was a killer of criminals, and people knew who they were. Not that way today. Different approach to keeping the peace. Rough towns actually used to compete for the services of a shooting cop. Paid a bonus for those who demonstrated real proficiency. You will never see a modern department, actively recruiting experienced crook killers. Lawyers and judges would be messing their britches or go out of criminal practice and into torts real fast.
Sam
That's why I qualified it to the average SHOOTER, not the average OWNER.
And the quality of police training leaves a lot to be desierd. It really is not that intense or in depth, it is more akin to exposure.
Let me digress for a moment.
So long as our police departments are used as armed social workers and not as policeman, it will be that way. Very little time is spent actively looking for criminals and lots is spent on bureaucracy, enforcement of feelgood and revenue enhancing laws. In the "old days' our cops were much more in touch with people, not employed as a deterrent force and in many cases actually shot the hell out of criminals.
That's why you can name gunfighting officers of the 30's-50's and none from today. Used to be that the cop who was a shooter, was a killer of criminals, and people knew who they were. Not that way today. Different approach to keeping the peace. Rough towns actually used to compete for the services of a shooting cop. Paid a bonus for those who demonstrated real proficiency. You will never see a modern department, actively recruiting experienced crook killers. Lawyers and judges would be messing their britches or go out of criminal practice and into torts real fast.
Sam