Design a Qualification Course

Pluspinc,

The course is run regardless of weather at the academy I attended. We had eight hours of mandated night shooting. My department mandated day and night shoots. The range days were set months in advance- so mother nature dictated the weather.

It should be run that way everywhere. On this we agree.

The course is designed for pistols with 8 round magazines. You can only load 8 rounds in magazines, though you may top off between stages. Revolvers are "obsolete" per Colorado POST. I do not agree, but that is a different arguement as individuals grandfathered in still shoot the same course- and do well, I might add.

Finally - This is a basic pistol qualification test! Yes more should be considered! Yes shotguns should be covered! Yes mindset and the color stages of readiness should be drilled into recruits! Yes failure drills should be taught! Blah blah blah... But to argue that the basic test is inherently flawed is misleading. It is a starting place...

Erik
 
First of all, if we're going to have a discussion about successful firearms training for police, we need to define our standards for success. Hitting the target is obviously important, but it's not the only criterion. Here are some of the numbers I'd want to look at (in no particular order of importance):

Hit rate (shots on target/shots fired)

Casualty rate of all officers (number of officers killed or wounded by criminals/number of officers on the street)

Casualty rate of officers involved in shooting incidents

Rate, both per officer and per shooting, of innocent persons hit by police gunfire (due both to misses/ADs/NDs and mistakes of judgement)

Training costs per officer

Casualty rate of suspects fired upon by officers

And if I were examining the numbers for a given department, I'd want some details on what happened and why.

But back to the questions at hand:

> So you agree the present system has a 80% failure rate and we should strive to ACHIEVE that rate of failure and accept it?

We should strive for the best rate of success we can reach. If (please note that this is just hypothetical) human beings are condemned by a genetic fright factor to no more than a 20% hit rate, then I guess we either have to live with that or try to improve things through gene therapy instead of through training.

I don't know what would be a realistic goal. If I were managing a baseball team, for instance, I'd be foolish to fire the batting coach because my team's batting average was "only" .385.

> The real success stories come from individuals not depts.

That makes it difficult to apply the lessons learned. If I were to go to my local school board and say, "Hey, my home-schooled kid did great on the state proficiency tests and most of yours flunked so you should do things my way", they'd have a hundred and one reasons why my way wouldn't work in their school.

Still, I'd be very interested in an analysis of some of those individual success stories.
 
I'd make sure the test includes:

-drawing from holster and firing asap to score a hit COM or "head".

-firing at standard 21ft range after running 1/4 mile, with no rest in between

-firing at a target obscured by cover and by concealment

-fire at a hostage+BG target at whatever range the officer deems realistic, be that 5ft or 20ft or 50ft, just so that the LEO knows own limitations

If the officer can do those with whatever technique thay prefer, they should be OK.
 
I have a few concerns about training in or
testing on the use of a pistol to shoot
beyond 25 feet.

Over 900 videos have failed to show sighted
shooting is used in gunfights. And no one
has come up with a video to show that is not
true.

Also the sight shooting folks say the Point
Shooting (shooting sans sights), just does
not work.

So if you use a pistol beyond 25 feet in a
gunfight, you will miss unless you are Erp
or Oakley, or you get real lucky, because
you will shoot without using a sight.

As such, condoning the use of a handgun at
distances beyond 25 feet via either training
or testing, is condoning the irresponsible
and negligent use of a handgun to apply
deadly force.

Also, accidental shootings at distances
over or under 25 feet will fall into the
category of having resulted from the
irresponsible and negligent use of a
firearm, because it can be shown via a
preponderence of video evidence that
the shooter did not follow either sight
type or Point Shooting training, unless
he/she has strong evidence showing
otherwise.

Further any officer shot in a gunfight,
or his survivors, can claim that his/her
employer was grossly irresponsible and
negligent in providing use of deadly force
training, because it can be proven by a
preponderence of video evidence, to be
usless in the real time use of deadly force,
and as such the employer is liable for a
civil or criminal action unless it has
compelling evidence to the contrary.

How about bringing an action against your
trainer, private or police?

Any lawyers out there or others who wish
to set me straight?

Keep in mind, that if I can think of it,
and if any of this is valid, an action or
two has probably already been filed and is
now wending its way through our judicial
system.

It's time for you trainers and gun experts
to take your heads out of the sands of the
past, and come up with a better method and
means of applying deadly force that can be
proven to work in real time and be captured
on real time videos. The video technology
is here to stay and it won't go away.

Edited 15:26 Pacific Time


[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
OkJoe,

I am big fan of instinctive shooting.. though I don't htink you need to "point" to do it.... That said, there are several instances of accurate shooting by LEOs using sights.
Case in point:
Last year a Nashville Metro officer stopped an armed man at over 40 yards with one aimed shot. The suspect (who had just blown two big shotgun pattern holes in the cruiser) was moving away (no or little side to side movement) and the officer used his trunk as a rest. So, it does happen occassionally.

Gettting back to the orginal question:
(a question that I would love for Plus-P to answer, BTW)...

Here's my suggestion:
All phases begin with officer in a good "interview" position.

I.Contact distance (shove & shoot) 2.5 sec:
2 chest
2 chest 1 head

II. 1 yard line (Rentention (off-hand high block, shooters choice for gun hand (speed rock or elbow at hip))2.0 sec:
1 shot
1 shot
2 shots

III. 3 yard line (one hand shooting)2.5 sec:
2 chest
2 chest 1 head
1 head 2 chest

IV. 5 yard line (2 hand) 12 seconds:

12 rounds, mandatory reload.

10 seconds:
6 rounds with one dummy round loaded by shooting partner into magazine (round #2-5).

V: 5 yard line, weak hand unsupported, weapon in hand, low-ready, 2.5 secs:

2 chest
2 chest

VI: 15 yard line (two hands) 25 seconds: mandatory magazine save reload from behind cover:

3 rounds strong side cover
3 rounds weak side cover
3 rounds kneeling strong side
3 rounds kneeling weak side

(these strings may be fired in any order)
___________________________________

That will give you 50 live rounds fired.(Note that in Phase IV part 2 the shooter only actually fires 5 rounds.) I would use a "Q" target.. all hits on the gray zone would be worth 2 pts. Each time violation would give the shooter a -3 pts (that is important). Also, -3 for procedural violations.. including poor use of cover.
70% or better pass/fail only. Recording only Pass/Fail is very important for 2 reasons:
1. Liability: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, acording to training records the Yourcity, PD allowed the defendant to carry a gun knowing that he missed his target over 20% of the time! Of the 12 bullets he was carrying in his weapon, Yourcity, PD knew that at least 3 of them would miss their intended target. That is why little Sally Bystander is in a wheelchair today!"
2. Morale: Officers are more likely to believe in themselves and their partners if "everyone passed" instead of "Schmucky and Schuckmette only got 72%". To this end, I suggest that targets are scored with only an RO and the shooter present, then immediately destroyed after the P or F goes on the clipboard.
I hear the way Officers who "scrape by" talk about thier own abilities... it is not confidence inspiring.


I would shoot the same course at night (or in low light indoors) 1x/yr, giving the officers 10% more time or 1 extra second, whichever is greater. When I say low-light, I don't mean pitch black.. I mean typical outdoor lighting conditions during the night shift. I wouldn't train any one particular flashlight method... that would be shooter's choice. Phases I & II.. no flashlight. Phase III flashlight in hand at start. Phases IV-VI, flashlight on belt at start. No flashlight allowed for weakhanded shooting.

This course is not designed around pinpoint marksmanship as an end goal, that's why the Q target and P/F system. It is designed to induce factors of stress like strict time requirements, reloads, malfuntion drills, smart use of cover, even a little shooting & moving in Phase I. It also is designed to add elements of chance (malfunction drill) and individual style (flashlights, retention, order of strings in Phase VI). Hopefully, the officer will think about more while shooting this course than just "Sight alignment/Sight picture".


Some other things about this course:

1. Scores will not be the 95%+ that many cops like to get.
2. Night shooting scores should be noticably lower across the board.
3. Good ROs are necessary to keep procedural errors scored accurately.
4. I used the Glock Instructors eval course as a base, though there are several noticable modifications, including the low-light provisions, malfunction phase and scoring system.
5. Note that head hits and chest hits are not scored seperately.. a hit is a hit. Two different aiming points are used during the course to induce another stressor and cause the shooter to consider two targets... albeit two that are in close proximity to one another. It is the most expedient way that I can figure to get multi-target shooting into a fast moving course. The only head shots are taken up close, so that marksmanship should not be a major factor in hitting or missing.


------------------
-Essayons



[This message has been edited by Rob (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
Wasn't the discussion on a BASIC firearms qualification? Quite honestly, while I would feel more comfortable with guys that can shoot, a BASIC qualification by it's very nature cannot and will not immunize a dept form a lawsuit. That would require advanced courses and more time and money than anyone has.
Some of what I read (with the exception of the Co. course of fire) is simply asking too much as a bsaic qualification. Yes it would be nice if everyone could pass an instructor-level class, but we KNOW that that won't happen. And yes, shooting at longer ranges forces officers to use those funny little things on top of their pistols....I think they call them....SIGHTS!
Yes, I'm a firm believer in use of sights when at all possible. I also know that most shootings don't have anyone getting good sight pictures. but at least TEACH them how.And I'd like to see some of you guys instruct the boneheads we get.
 
As a moron citizen, I thought tests were
based on 100. Fifty shots = 2 points per
hit on a human sized target.

Rigging the deal using big targets and over
100 possible points so a "bad" score falls
in the nineties is fraud, or presents an
appearance of impropriety. And particularly
so when the issue is killing people.

Even if it is standard practice, it's
dishonest. An A shooter is an A shooter,
and a D shooter is a D shooter. The Army
used to give out Marksman, Sharpshooter, and
Expert awards in the olden days. E shooters
should lose their pistol carrying privaledge
for thirty days or so. Tough s. If they
screw up everyone else pays.

There is a big difference between aimed
shooting with a pistol at long ranges, and
cq shooting.

There is no proof that current cq training
can be applied in cq situations. If there
was, the trainers would be shouting about
it from the highest rooftops and demanding
merit pay increases.

Dumb luck rules, and that is too bad as it
is the cq situations which generate all the
shooting related problems, ie NY, Riverside,
etc.. which we all pay for.

Also, to blame the shot or dead for being
shot and dead, or to blame poor cq shooting
on the cops on the street is taking the low
road. If there is anyone to blame, look
in the mirror if you are a trainer or a boss.
You are responsible, not them.

If this upset any of youse, tough; do better
and I will applaud your future success.
Edited 10:51 Pacific Time

[This message has been edited by okjoe at aol.com (edited March 04, 2000).]
 
nyte,

I've gotten some of the same boneheads... and if they hadn't been beaten over thier boneheads by dogmatic old fashioned "qualifiers" (note, I don't use "instructors"), they'd be alot easier to deal with.

I don't think any beginner shooter who understood his weapon would have any trouble at all running through my course in the 70's... after a week of training (the min for any academy I am familiar with) it shouldn't hard to shoot it in the 90's with maybe 1 or two procedural penalties... that is still a safely passing score.

What skills are we trying to develop here? I vote for "combat shooting ability" not "marksmanship"...

Put 99% of the officers who have ever missed in the real world in front of the same target in a static situation, in a training environment, with no time constraints, in good lighting and I'll be they don't miss. That's why we can have a list full of 95+ shooters hanging on the assembly room wall, but out on the street we are lucky to get 20% hits. The qualifying courses do not reflect the real world.


All that said, being a "bonehead" might just have to disqualify one from being a cop. I know it is not very PC, but maybe we should actually train every cop to a tactically sound one... there's a novel idea!

------------------
-Essayons
 
By training them to utilize sights, you encourage them to strive for accuracy. For many officers, the job is the first contact with firearms in their lives. A basic qualification course is there to provide training on the basics of shooting and safe weapon handling. A more advanced course should be provided at some point for instruction in tactics and advanced shooting techniques. The training division in my department was forward-thinking enough to incorporate a 'legals' section in the basic Q class. This helps to educate the officers on when force is not only appropriate,but allowable, and has kept one or two out of serious legal trouble. It also protects the department against jerks who just want to wave a gun around in public.
 
The topic is a basic qualification course.

Most ( all? ) states only require passing this course in the academy, and then every year, maybe twice. Some departments/agencies take in upon themselves to test more often- good for them.

Advanced training is optional. If any one can cite state mandated advanced training I'd appreciate it. Politics, budget restraints, fear of change, "we know enough" attitude- there are many reasons advanced training isn't prevelant. I am a big proponent of advanced training. For my purposes "advanced" is anything beyond the basics.

I seperate firearms training from training dealing with attitude and situational awareness. These should be thoroughly drilled into anyone who ever wears a badge. It should permeate day one of the academy through the day of retirement of an officer.

Hits to the hand are different from hits to the lower abdomen which are different from hits to center mass or the head- so they are scored differently.

Erik
 
Nyte,

I think most PDs have a classroom portion nowadays with annual/bi-annual requals that includes use of force topics.

I don't want you guys to think that what I proposed was an advanced course. It is what I think every street officer should be able to accomplish, at a minimum. To ask for less, would be (and is) to send cops out with less than realistic skill levels... as so many documented incidents have proven.

------------------
-Essayons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top