I Guess I was Naive in Thinking that all Police Officers were Excellent Shots.

[Rob Pincus]

Quote:
Maybe we should focus on the results.

It would probably be more productive to focus on the reasons for the results.

This is huge issue.

Complacency based on success rates is what leads to stagnation in training and skill development. It is like CQB teams that I work with who are overwhelmingly successful but are incredibly sloppy. They have run by hundreds of doors, they have taken their eyes off thousands of danger areas, yet they are still alive and have been very successful. Why? The fact that someone didn't shoot at you from the place you weren't looking Does Not equal a rationalization that you don't need to look where people could be hiding.

Focusing not only on the reasons for the results in general, but specifically the reasons for failures or delays in the positive endings is the way we learn and develop. It is looking for and examining the failures that creates the Learning Opportunities to improve.

-RJP

 

[CWiley]

The positive side to most of you guys seeing LEOs at the range is at least they are PRACTICING. Like anything in life you have to practice to get good at it. A few sports come to mind like maybe all of them! There are too many things that require practice to list. As usual there will be some naturals at any given thing but they will still benefit from additional practice. My 2 cents.

 

[BillCA]

If it works, what is the problem? If we have a 20% hit rate and a 99% (rates for example purposes only) win rate, I don't see the problem if our concern is with winning the gunfight. That does not mean I'm an advocate of the status quo, BTW. The status quo comes in many parts. Some I support, some I advocate, some I'm against.

For the assumption that winning the gunfight is paramount (and it will be to the officer(s) involved) if a 20% hit rate works, that's fine. From a different view, the question is how much of a danger the 80% miss-rate presents to the public.

I'll grant you, that during any event in which someone is trying to kill you, your primary focus is to win the fight. Scant thought goes to worrying about where a missed shot went when bullets are whizzing past your ear and sparking off the car's A-pillar or you're dodging a fire axe. But that doesn't mean we should not strive to find ways to improve the hit rate.

There is also the disparity between a miss by the police and a miss by a civilian to consider. We all know liability is attached to every bullet. But police are typically shielded by government agencies and statues while civilians are on their own.

The best example of that comes from an instructor friend of mine in Nevada. One of his students found himself being waylaid in a Las Vegas parking garage by two thugs with aluminum bats. He was hit twice by surprise, one hit breaking his left arm. He fired 4 shots from his .40 Firestar. Two shots drilled the larger man c.o.m. and his 3rd shot, from a supine position between cars, struck perp #2 in the right knee. The 4th shot grazed the prep's side and shattered the window of a Toyota SUV two aisles away. A police sergeant who talked to him in the hospital subjected him to a 30 minute lecture on his liability for that one missed shot, that there were dozens of others in the garage that he "put in danger", he could lose his permit, etc. etc. He was eventually cleared. That same sergeant was involved in a violent car stop some months later. In that incident, he fired 11 rounds. Two hits put the suspect down, but 3 of the remaining 9 shots struck vehicles parked in a nearby day-care center about 80 yards away. A press statement by the agency said their officer "did everything right". One can only hope he got the same lecture he gave.

Unfortunately, government budgets being what they are, we are unlikely to see training programs that teach shooting at moving targets or how to shoot well while moving.

 

[BillCA]

The reasons why cops win gun fights is simple.

Criminals do not have guns so they can win fights with cops, but so that they can commit crimes like robbery or defend themselves against fellow criminals.

I think you're close. Criminals have guns for the purposes you mentioned, but when they're used in a gunfight with police, the reason behind using the gun is different on each side.

The criminal uses his gun to disengage from the police and prevent his capture. The police use their firearms to engage a violent criminal to prevent their escape.

It is the psychopathic criminal who will hang around to execute a downed officer or pursue a retreating officer to kill him.

 

[David Armstrong]

How can somebody in that position NOT be an expert in the application of the Martial Arts, firearms included.

Because there is relatively little need for that expertise. Contrary to the TV shows, most LE work is fairly boring and mundane, with lots of paper work and talking, very little fighting or shooting. There are some jurisdictions that fit the "Fort Apache" mold, but they are rare.

Focusing not only on the reasons for the results in general, but specifically the reasons for failures or delays in the positive endings is the way we learn and develop. It is looking for and examining the failures that creates the Learning Opportunities to improve.

While I will agree with that to some extent, I would point out that one also has to balance the learning opportunities with the cost of improvement. As long as what we are doing is quite successful, it is hard to justify using very limited resources to fix something that is not broken.

 

[M1911]

How could this guy get through a police academy or training program?!?

Here in MA, police academy recruits get 40 hours of firearms training (60 for state police). It isn't that much. Police officers who are excellent shots didn't learn that skill at the academy.

Some agencies have rigorous qualification tests. But most qualification tests are not that rigorous.

Some police officers are excellent shots and far better than I am, but many aren't.

 

[vox rationis]

Because there is relatively little need for that expertise. Contrary to the TV shows, most LE work is fairly boring and mundane, with lots of paper work and talking, very little fighting or shooting. There are some jurisdictions that fit the "Fort Apache" mold, but they are rare.

I understand what you are saying, but just because there is little chance for fighting and shooting doesn't mean that these LEOs should lack seriousness and be mediocre and complacent when it comes to training that they ought to be diligent about undertaking. And I'm not taking about becoming Master Pistolero Ninjas, we are talking about just being able to hit paper here! At the very least they ought to have an average IDPA level pistol skills set, and ought to be able to group 2" or less at 10-15 yards or so off hand.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

It's matter of cost/benefit. Take the upper portion of NY state for example. Outside of the cities of Rochester, Syracuse and Buffalo, there is a near zero chance that any officer in the state will fire their gun "in anger" at any point in their entire careers. (Even in those cities the odds are probably 1000:1) The amount of money that each department and each officer would have to spend to make them proficient to the levels expected of Gun Site or other schools is simply not available. If it were available, it would be used for things that seem more important.

Now, I'll grant you, during that 30 seconds that any officer may actually be involved in a shooting it suddenly seems VERY worth it. When those situations end in tragedy there is usually a brief time of intensified training but it doesn't last. Those times are few and far between.

 

[M1911]

It's matter of cost/benefit. Take the upper portion of NY state for example. Outside of the cities of Rochester, Syracuse and Buffalo, there is a near zero chance that any officer in the state will fire their gun "in anger" at any point in their entire careers.

Agreed. Police departments are under huge budget pressures, but rarely have officer involved shootings.

There are about 35,000 officers in the New York City Police Department. About 60 times per year, an NYPD officer shoots at a private citizen. Very few NYPD officers will shoot their gun at a person during their career. The rate is even lower in most other jurisdictions in NY State.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

shooting at somebody who is shooting back at them, or shooting after sprinting 1/4 mile.

Most police officers have never done either of these things.
In my CCW class stats on shootings were mentioned to the effect of cops hit 18% in fire fight, citizens 15% and criminals 13%.

I have also shot with cops before and found their inaccuracy pretty terrifying. Of course there are shooting enthusiasts in the police force but many are not and as others mentioned just approach firearms training as an 'I have to qualify thing.'

 

[IdahoG36]

Not to bash my local PD, Boise PD, but there have been a few incidents over the years involving a lot of missed shots during a pursuit/shootout. There would be in the range of 50-75 shots fired by officers, and nobody hit.
Then, to top it all off, during the incident, citizens were calling in to dispatch reporting bullets striking their houses. Pretty scary.
I guess one of the cardinal rules of shooting, *Make sure you know what is behind your target*, pretty much goes out the door during police involved shootings.

 

[Rob Pincus]

Quote:
Focusing not only on the reasons for the results in general, but specifically the reasons for failures or delays in the positive endings is the way we learn and develop. It is looking for and examining the failures that creates the Learning Opportunities to improve.

While I will agree with that to some extent, I would point out that one also has to balance the learning opportunities with the cost of improvement. As long as what we are doing is quite successful, it is hard to justify using very limited resources to fix something that is not broken.

Good Point DavidA.... We're seeing significant improvements when the training methodology is changed. The same amount of time/effort/energy resources can be used to much greater effect when we get away from the traditional, mechanical shooting instruction/practice and train more realistically.

 

[NormOps]

+1 on what Nanuk said.

It all starts with the mind.
It's about bearing down, being the best you can be. Competition? You bet. That does not destroy the concept of team work at all. A good team is made up of individuals who are on top of their game, with a common goal and leadership.
I shot a 99.6% on the first fire arms qualification I did (the only one so far) and I have not had any formal training at all yet. As of yet I am working in detention, but still I want to be at the top of my game in every aspect possible.

 

[David Armstrong]

I understand what you are saying, but just because there is little chance for fighting and shooting doesn't mean that these LEOs should lack seriousness and be mediocre and complacent when it comes to training that they ought to be diligent about undertaking.

You make an assumption that they lack seriousness, or that they are mediocre and complacent. Not thinking something is of particular importance does not fit that. Understand, in the LE training heirarchy, there are LOTS of things that are far more important and far more commonly used than firearms.

At the very least they ought to have an average IDPA level pistol skills set, and ought to be able to group 2" or less at 10-15 yards or so off hand.

Are you willing to pay for the officer to develop that skill level?

 

[David Armstrong]

We're seeing significant improvements when the training methodology is changed. The same amount of time/effort/energy resources can be used to much greater effect when we get away from the traditional, mechanical shooting instruction/practice and train more realistically.

Precisely. As I said before, until we can see some relationship between range quals/training and success in the field, I'm not going to worry much about it. Finding those types of training that do matter and using them, changing those methodologies as you put it, become key. As an example, getting our officers to go through the FATS every so often is a great program, IMO.

 

[bcarver]

Our bad shot..

We had one guy on our squad who could never qualify on the first try.
Every year he had to shoot at least twice to qualify.
Most police are only slightly better than average shooters at the range.
Most people at the range are better than average shooters.

 

[vox rationis]

You make an assumption that they lack seriousness, or that they are mediocre and complacent. Not thinking something is of particular importance does not fit that. Understand, in the LE training heirarchy, there are LOTS of things that are far more important and far more commonly used than firearms.

Well I don't think I'm being presumptuous to think that cops that can barely hit paper and eschew regular practice with their guns, and just come in for a qualification every 6 months lack seriousness

As far as the monetary cost of attaining a decent level of shooting, we're not talking Delta or Sky Marshall's shooting levels here, but just a basic proficiency, that many are saying is lacking. I can't see such training being prohibitively expensive. Actually I think that the training given in your typical Police Academy might be sufficient, IF the officers actually continued to practice regularly!

And if I got sub-par training, I don't know, I think I might just go get some instruction and practice on my own time, but maybe that's just me.

 

[JohnH1963]

In yesteryear, most people had a sense of responsibility. If there was some skill that was lacking, then the individual did whatever they could to bring themselves up to par or face being fired. In today's society, the company or organization is usually blamed for not training or instructing the individual properly when there is some type of skill that is lacking.

So, we went from the individual being responsible for their own actions to the company being responsible for the individual's actions.

My opinion is that if you are not good at your work then you should train **on your own time** to become proficient. However, the attitude today is that if you do anything that is work related then you should get paid for it. So most guys probably wouldn't take that extra time on the range to become proficient because the department won't pay.

I don't disagree with the concept of being paid for your work. However, when you get paid to work there is a certain skill set that is reasonably expected. If your work involves carrying around a deadly weapon then a reasonable expectation is that you are an expert with it whether you use it or not. I would expect anyone who carries a weapon to be able to shoot a tight group at 25 yards and be an expert with it (even armored truck guards and armed security).

If you are not an expert with the weapon you carry, then you need to spend some of **your own personal time** at the range until you have that skill set. Shooting for a police officer is a basic skill just like driving the patrol car. I know in the military when there was a person who couldn't keep up on the road marches or runs then they were expected to spend their free time performing remedial marches or runs until they could keep up with the platoon.

 

[Wagonman]

Of the 50 cops on my watch I would say that under 8 shoot with any regularity.

 

[M1911]

As far as the monetary cost of attaining a decent level of shooting, we're not talking Delta or Sky Marshall's shooting levels here, but just a basic proficiency, that many are saying is lacking. I can't see such training being prohibitively expensive. Actually I think that the training given in your typical Police Academy might be sufficient, IF the officers actually continued to practice regularly!

I understand why many cops don't practice regularly. Like many of us, they have busy lives with work and family obligations. Shift work makes it harder for them to see their families. And many police officers work large amounts of OT.

In terms of regular training, it is, in fact, a large cost. If the officer is on the range, he is not out on the street and his replacement is being paid overtime.

Let's make some assumptions and estimate a cost. Suppose our police department has 20 officers and the average salary is $50k per year. That works out to about $25/hr. Time and a half is $37.50. Assuming that overtime is paid to the officer replacing the officer on the range, 8 hours of range time costs $300 in salary.

Let's assume 16 hours of range training per officer, or $600 per year per officer. That is now $12,000 per year in OT. If we assume 400 rounds fired per officer during the training, that is 400x20 = 8000 rounds per year. At a current cost of about $300/1000, that brings us to $2400 in ammo, so $14,400 per year. Not an insignificant cost for police departments struggling against rising health care expenses. And one that is hard for them to justify because, for most such departments, they've never had an officer involved shooting.

I'm not saying that I think the current state of training is acceptable. What I'm saying is that it is understandable.