Bringing Up The Average

G

Gabe Suarez

New member
Mr. Louis pointed out in the previous thread (Something about El Presidentes), that the average officer/operator was not as dedicated to training as he should be and was therefore not likely to perform as well as he should. This is very true.

My question would now be - Do we:

1). Accept the fact that many trainees are soup-sandwiches, unlikely to ever be good and lower our training expectations to allow the LCD to at least "manage"?

2). Maintain standards as high and strive to inculcate a greater appreciation for training? How?

3). Do we strive to develop greater technical skill, or a better attitude (mind set) in the officer/operator?

I'm interested in everyone's take on this as this has always been a point of balance-seeking for all trainers.

Gabe Suarez
HALO Group http://www.thehalogroup.com
 
1) No. Lowering our standards to meet the Least Common Deniminator is self-defeating. The Public should expect, and rightly so, better than that from us. Unfortunately, the Politicians always seem to push LCD solutions on us.

2) High standards should be maintained. This can be as easy as raising the bar on exams. For example, when I first joined LE in Texas, the State requirements were 70% on the TCLEOSE Test and 70% on a yearly Firearms test. The first Sheriff I worked for would only hire those who scored 85% on the TCLEOSE Test and demanded (and expected) that his deputies would shoot at least 85% on the Semi-annual Firearms test. You were also expected to make at least an 80% on any other training--no matter what it was. If you didn't, he would suggest that you work somewhere else.

Local, State and Federal Politicians actively work to discourage this, too.

3) With one, usually comes the other. The more technically developed your skills become, the better mind-set you get. On the other paw, firearms training is only a small part of the training required per year, and the County- and State- sponsered Firearms training that I have attended have been quite dry and dull.

Again, the first Sheriff I worked for fostered technical skills by not sending us to more than the required Firearms schools. Instead, he would issue each full-time deputy several boxes of whatever ammo was cheapest. Along with the ammo was the command to, "Use it all by next month." When you did, he handed you more boxes. The training time that would normally be used for firearms was used to further our knowledge in other areas of Law Enforcement.

This led to a lot of informal competition among the deputies, the competition was fun, and our skills grew rapidly. (I stopped a lot of terrorist prickly pear.} We got to be quite good, and all it cost the Sheriff was some cheap ammunition.

I realize that the solutions developed by a small county Sheriff may not work in big cities, but it may give someone a place to start.

LawDog
 
I do not in any way suggest lowering "standards". In fact, I appreciate the method used by Dog's boss. We know there is "qualification", that is done for the state and liability reasons, and "training", which is done for officer survival. In most agencies, it's all the budget can handle to accomplish the former, with little or no monies left for the latter.

What I'm suggesting is to focus some of the "training" toward the basics, not always the advanced stuff. You know: night fire, within 7-10yds, etc. Let's face it, the "committed" guys usually train on their own, on their own time. The LCD'S are the ones who need a little extra attention, just like our teachers used to do in grade school. The advanced students required the least "one-on-one". Hope I clarifed myself. :)
 
Some comments and observations from a non-LEO:

Lowering standards is not the answer - even though it's politically correct these days. Encouraging realistic shooting practice is the answer, but how?

During the '98 IDPA Nationals I had occasion to listen in on a conversation led by a Sheriff (can't recall his name but I believe he was from Mississippi) who is a Master Class IDPA competitor and DEMANDS that all his Deputies shoot IDPA Marksman Class or better. If they don't, they go home. He makes sure that his Deputies know that, even though gunmanship is only a small part of their training, proficiency with a firearm is the one part of their training that can mean life or death to them or someone else. He encourages them to shoot with their local IDPA club and uses the IDPA classifier course of fire for testing.

That said, our local club has practically begged local law enforcement to come out and shoot with us. We have some LEO regulars, and they are really good, but that's because they are shooters. They would be shooters even if they weren't in law enforcement. The excuse that's most often used for lack of participation is cost of ammo or not enough time. Our LEO regulars say it's more likely to be anxiety over an expected poor performance.

So how can LEO's be encouraged to become shooters? Local clubs can help if the officers are encouraged (ordered?) to attend and compete. They have to understand that a poor performance under those conditions usually equates to a poor performance on the street. This is something they need to know and if it bothers them to get waxed every week perhaps they will work hard to get better.

Also, as a certified instructor and competitive shooter, I have offered to volunteer time to instruct local officers in competitive shooting techniques. No dice! They always quote liability as the reason for no "civilians" being allowed to train an officer. So we are left with finding a way to get them to show up and shoot with local clubs.

Or you could send them to sensativity training...

Mikey
 
My initial answer is this: We need to drastically increase the standards of firearms training for anyone that uses them (like Cops) and it seems that in order to get approval for this, we somehow need to get it into the general populace's heads how ineffective handguns are. They see movies and think that if you pull a handgun, you will shoot the bad guy and he will fly back through a glass window and die. Therefore they cannot understand why Cops need more training and why they miss so much and why they ahve to shoot people so many times. If we could get people in general to realize how ineffective handguns are and how difficult it is to use one in defense, then maybe we could get the general consensus to see that Police Officers and others need LOTS more training and practice. People are aghast when they hear that a cop shoots someone 20 times, but they don't realize that they shot them that many times because that is how long it took to stop the person. If the general public knew how ineffetive handguns are, then they would not be afraid of them so much, and also it would become more PC to train cops and others more fully in how to use them. People's attitudes are what drive these kinds of things. If the general public understood that cops need more training, then the Police Chiefs could increase said budgets and there would be no whining about it. Cops need much higher quality training and a lot more of it along with a lot more practice. They should at least have to go through a few hundred rounds a month in practice. But, in order to get the budgets to allow this kind of quality training and practice, it has to be generally accepted that it is worth spending the money on. How things are right now, most people cannot fathom why cops need more training on how to shoot, because they think thst the gun shoots itself and the bad guy falls down and the good guys ride off into the sunset.
 
Budget managers won't like this. Ate lunch yesterday with a buddy who was serious special forces guy in VietNam but who is now a professor like me. He's organizational psych and I'm cognitive. We were discussing motivating our staffs.

He said: Figure out the average pay rate for that kind of person in your region and then pay a little more. This is so you will attract the best person.

So figure out what these guys get paid and pay more for good people. Those who will appreciate the need for training. Then pay for more for those who train beyond the norm.

Give them some recognition also that goes into promotion files.

Motivation works better than demanding things,
IMHO.
 
I am going to commit heresy :)

Here's an idea that just occured to me. In Europe the cops don't even have guns. Is weapons training THAT important. Perhaps interpersonal skills are more important than being a gunslinger, then when wyatt earp is needed you bring him/her (SWAT) in.

Now before I get flamed if I had the job I would seek out as much training as possible, after all it may save my life some day. However for the average cop the chances of using their weapon other than show is very small, particularly in some municipalities.

regards,

Olazul
 
I've heard various LEO unions complaining about wages, health plans, retirement plans, and legal stuff, but never training. and most departments increase training requirements only after some bad incident. as can be seen from the many heated threads on online boards about LE issues, its clear to me that most LEOs aren't going to take any criticism from citizens (and telling someone that they need more training is a clear-cut criticism; it'd be taken about as well as giving him/her driving pointers).

LawDog's boss has the right approach; set high standards, maintain a culture of high expectations, and provide the resources to enable each officer to excel. unfortunately, that philosophy is inconsistent with the culture of large organizations. that approach is not going to infiltrate most large departments IMHO, since large organizations "tend towards the mean".

the only thing I can think of that may help is if y'all form some sort of "blue-ribbon panel" of nationally recognized LEOs/trainers to create a "training crusade". run ads in all the trade rags, arm-twist the big-city chiefs, mayors, and councilmen, and browbeat the unions to get on board. it will require a lot of $$ for travel and advertising; perhaps the gun and gear manufacturers could help out.
 
Everybody is entitled to their opinion,so here's mine. If you wear a gun every day, LEO or civilian, you had better know when to use it, or not use it, and be able to use it competently if deadly force is called for. And that means taking it seriously--yes, I know far too many get so complacent they never think of maintaining their weapon or making sure they get realistic training. You also need street (interpersonal) skills--again, whether you're LEO or not--and though you will need these many times more often than you will need your firearms skills, failure of the latter just might mean you don't go home again. Tex'n.
 
I have seen many LEOs at IDPA events that don't fare so well in the match and never come back. I often feel sorry for them and understand how they must feel. Many times they don't shoot badly,they just don't win or come close to the top and I guess they feel embarassed . I guess they feel like they should be able to beat us civilians.The guys I shoot with are more then happy to help anyone even it means getting beat by that person.Maybe the LEOs should not tell us that they are LEOs and then they would not have to
worry how they "looked" and instead just have fun and maybe learn something in the process.

They way I look at LEOs and guns is that guns are a PART of ther job and they should at least be competent with them if not proficient. If they don't want to be then don't carry or get another job.
 
Olazul,
I lived in Germany in in the 1980s. I had a friend who was in the Polezei, the German police. He was armed with an HK 9mm pistol and an HK MP5. The pistol was found on his hip, the MP5 in the trunk of his car. He was well trained in their use.

The rest of Europe's police conspicuously carried weapons only SWAT teams in the USA would dream of deploying.

England stood out as ludicrous in their policy of not arming their Bobby's, but I understand this is changing.
 
Olazul,
Cops not having guns in Europe is a myth that is passed around by the media. As Erik said, the LEOs in Europe have weapons in their trunks that I have only shot in training to know what the SWAT guys get to play with.

Most of the English LEO's are now carrying guns on them or in their trunks. I find this interesting because England has disarmed its citizens.
 
The reality is that more attention is paid to training in diversity, conflict management, verbal judo, and every trendy buzzword and cliche etc. In the Diallo shooting, the cry for more training is in those areas NOT shooting.
Most departments only train officers to the lowest minimum requirements and that training is designed to protect the employer from liability not to keep an officer alive.
That is why when there is a window to provide training to the police it must be stripped of nonsense and converted to the most bare bones effort with a focus of MASTERING the bare bones. Depts often lower qualifaction requirements to get those that are "gun challenged" to pass. Some even claim if they fail they put them to work and will "work it out later."
When they pay out millions in civil claims they cry their eyes out. It is a fate they have earned.
My favorite was the LAPD "study" done after the riots of 1992. Cost several million dollars and they claimed they couldn't apply any of the ideas they got in the study. They didn't have the money. Strange there is always millions for "blue ribbon" studies and never enough for the training dept.
 
I agree with Pluspinc. I am a former training officer in arrest control techniques. I stopped doing it because the administration was not interested in me teaching officers to protect themselves but protecting admin from liability. Also I don't know of any department that requires remedial training in handguns but we are required to take politically correct classes every year. Each state requires LEOs to take a certain number of hours per year in training once those hours are fulfilled your training is done.

The other dangerous thing about lack of handgun training is a lot of the public expects LEOs to be able to shoot like a marksman. Or to be able to do things that are impossible like shoot that knife out of a suspects and that is attacking you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top