Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Modern Police Training, Unrealistic Expectations"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Modern Police Training, Unrealistic Expectations"

    From Tom Givens

    "The bottom line is, most police departments don’t care if their officers can shoot well. They don’t care about the officers’ welfare nor about the public’s safety. “Qualification” once per year has been consistently held to be inadequate by U.S. courts, yet it is still the standard in many areas. “Training” every two years is criminally negligent, but that’s “good enough” for these agencies."

    https://www.facebook.com/tom.givens....&fref=mentions
    "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

    "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

  • #2
    That is dismal. IIRC, both of my brothers had to qualify four times a year. Seattle PD, maybe not so much. I have no idea what the local agencies do.
    Taceant colloquia. Effugiat risus. Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae.
    The Pale Horse available on Amazon for your digital reader.

    Comment


    • #3
      I honestly could care less how many times they make officers qualify. Qualifications as we see time and time again are flawed and don't translate to the real world. Like common core silliness in our public school system agencies instructors develops classes to pass the test instead of alive in a real fight. In fact it would probably be best if they stopped making officers qual.
      Failure is an opportunity to learn.

      Comment


      • #4
        Officer qual is about public relations, not competency.
        "In Heaven there will be no law, and the lion will lie down with the Lamb... In Hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will Be meticulously observed". - Professor Grant Gilmore, Yale Law School

        "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -George Bernard Shaw

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by GMC70 View Post
          Officer qual is about public relations, not competency.
          I can see both, plus liability.
          Taceant colloquia. Effugiat risus. Hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae.
          The Pale Horse available on Amazon for your digital reader.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GMC70 View Post
            Officer qual is about public relations, not competency.
            I could care less what it's about the FACT is, I've seen it first hand by a multitude of agencies from the feds to county, city and even different levels of private security up to and including private military contractors.

            How's the public relations thing working so far? Not very good at all. Training with a focus on context would be better for pub relations than the training they get now. Why? Because they'd be much more prepared to respond and would respond much more appropriately if they weren't misled and treated like children by old guard loving range masters who think they're training monkeys to pass a stupid and meaningless test. Of course it's not every agency but it's way to many of them.
            Failure is an opportunity to learn.

            Comment


            • #7
              The Counselor is correct, a big part of LEO quals is for PR. The Brass likes it if they can point to the scores--high ones--IF anybody brings the subject up. Quals can also play a role in investigations of OIS's. In the event of a civil lawsuit after an OIS, if the involved officer regularly has really high scores, then misses a bad guy and hurts an innocent, the shysters can/will try to use those high scores to 'prove' the officer was negligent; if an officer tends to regularly score on the low end of making the quals, the same shyster can/will try to 'prove' that officer should not be allowed to be armed, and thus raise the settlement price.
              We had one rangemaster who would [privately] suggest that we don't shoot 'too good' during qualifications; something about if you always score no misses, then get involved in a situation and miss a shot(s), the lawyers can use it against you.
              We also had a couple of rangemasters who fought to include actual training in the schedule. Sometimes The Brass actually allowed it; but it was tough, because after all, training time, ammunition, and targets cost a lot of money that could be better spent on a new style of paper clip or something.
              About the best result from qualification was that the non-gun-guys/gals actually got a little bit of 'refreshing' on the actual manipulation of their duty guns--plus they would have to give them a good cleaning afterwards. Ace2
              Sometimes the term 'Idiot' is a description and not an insult.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ace View Post
                The Counselor is correct, a big part of LEO quals is for PR. The Brass likes it if they can point to the scores--high ones--IF anybody brings the subject up. Quals can also play a role in investigations of OIS's. In the event of a civil lawsuit after an OIS, if the involved officer regularly has really high scores, then misses a bad guy and hurts an innocent, the shysters can/will try to use those high scores to 'prove' the officer was negligent; if an officer tends to regularly score on the low end of making the quals, the same shyster can/will try to 'prove' that officer should not be allowed to be armed, and thus raise the settlement price.
                We had one rangemaster who would [privately] suggest that we don't shoot 'too good' during qualifications; something about if you always score no misses, then get involved in a situation and miss a shot(s), the lawyers can use it against you.
                We also had a couple of rangemasters who fought to include actual training in the scheulde. Sometimes The Brass actually allowed it; but it was tough, because after all, training time, ammunition, and targets cost a lot of money that could be better spent on a new style of paper clip or something.
                About the best result from qualification was that the non-gun-guys/gals actually got a little bit of 'refreshing' on the actual manipulation of their duty guns--plus they would have to give them a good cleaning afterwards. Ace2
                A question

                If just shooting a score for qualification is all that is required can a PD's firearms instructor be held liable if he/she teaches anything beyond what is required to qualify and an officer involved shooting goes bad?
                "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

                "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

                Comment


                • #9
                  I get a kick out of people defending quals, especially the, it's a way to show the officer was proficient and thus decrease liability. I have an idea. How about officers actually receive the training that would allow them to actually make appropriate decisions, teach them the skills they'll need if they are ever forced into a fight, and educate them in a manner that will allow them to apply those skills in an actual critical incident.

                  Win, win for everyone. And a big win, maybe the biggest, then you wouldn't have these officers starting up training groups teaching the same garbage they were taught.

                  Well departments are already spending money on training why not spend it on sonething that will actually increase everyone's safety and at the same time go above and beyond accomplishing the COC's goals of minimizing liability. If they really cared it's a no-brainer even for those without a brain. I'm critical because it's such an easy concept.

                  Edit: yet another negative side effect of the current system, officers with a b.s. inflated sense of their competency thinking they're prepared because their score on some worthless shooting test.

                  And of course the question that will likely go unanswered, what does a score prove when it comes to performance in an actual critical incident?
                  Last edited by mjkeat; 12-09-2018, 09:28.
                  Failure is an opportunity to learn.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I recently read a survey done by Pew Research on the percetage of LEO's that fire their weapons during their careers

                    The result was 27%

                    That seems to be an awfully high number but if true, if 1 out of every 4 police officers fire their weapons and there are about 900,000 LEO's in the U.S., that's a lot of bullet's in the air

                    27% is a large enough number to validate better training than merely a qualification
                    "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

                    "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ricco View Post
                      I recently read a survey done by Pew Research on the percetage of LEO's that fire their weapons during their careers

                      The result was 27%

                      That seems to be an awfully high number but if true, if 1 out of every 4 police officers fire their weapons and there are about 900,000 LEO's in the U.S., that's a lot of bullet's in the air

                      27% is a large enough number to validate better training than merely a qualification
                      I can't remember the hit percentage but wasn't it around 15% to 20%? Let's round the number of LEOs to 1mil. and let's be ultra conservative on the number of shots fired per incident. That's roughly 500k bullets in the air, 80% of which won't hit their target. If my math is correct that = chaos. As responsible citizens how is this acceptable? How are we ok with the current training regime? If a teacher had 80% of their class fail each year for decades what would happen?
                      Failure is an opportunity to learn.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mjkeat View Post

                        I can't remember the hit percentage but wasn't it around 15% to 20%? Let's round the number of LEOs to 1mil. and let's be ultra conservative on the number of shots fired per incident. That's roughly 500k bullets in the air, 80% of which won't hit their target. If my math is correct that = chaos. As responsible citizens how is this acceptable? How are we ok with the current training regime? If a teacher had 80% of their class fail each year for decades what would happen?
                        Very often we have to multiply whatever the number of shots taken by the officer by at least two, the BG is also shooting

                        The sooner the officer makes the BG quit shooting the better off we all are

                        As peope in the background, those who are in authority to control such things owe it to us to see the least amount of shots needed are taken
                        "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

                        "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ricco View Post

                          Very often we have to multiply whatever the number of shots taken by the officer by at least two, the BG is also shooting

                          The sooner the officer makes the BG quit shooting the better off we all are

                          As peope in the background, those who are in authority to control such things owe it to us to see the least amount of shots needed are taken
                          Truth.
                          Failure is an opportunity to learn.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ricco View Post

                            A question

                            If just shooting a score for qualification is all that is required can a PD's firearms instructor be held liable if he/she teaches anything beyond what is required to qualify and an officer involved shooting goes bad?
                            I'd guess that depends on the skill of the lawyer. Seems that when the shysters get started, they include any and everybody they can on the list of defendants. Play the odds, I guess; somebody will have to pay up. Ace2
                            Last edited by Ace; 12-09-2018, 19:10.
                            Sometimes the term 'Idiot' is a description and not an insult.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Ace View Post

                              I'd guess that depends on the skill of the lawyer. Seems that when the shysters get started, they include any and everybody they can on the list of defendants. Play the odds, I guess; somebody will have to pay up. Ace2
                              Maybe that's one of the reasons police instructors only teach what is required by the state, maybe
                              "I suppose it's tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail...." ~Abraham Maslow~

                              "Skill makes you harder to kill" ~ Unknown

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X