Range Qualifications and Real Life Training Scenario?

[Synergy]

Let me start by saying this question is based off the recent LE shootings, such as the 101. I am not trying to Monday morning QB the police's actions. I support cops, since I work so much along side them. I am sorry that some of you stood in the wrong line at the personnel dept.

So my fire agency has 2 sayings:

Drill as if your life depends on it, cause it does!

Practice like you play.

Our responses to actual structure fires are going down every year, as much many police officers can go a whole career without have to fire their weapon in defense. Yet we are constantly training on fire ground scenarios. usually 4-12 hours a month. Wearing all our gear running at full speed and throwing ladders, roof ventilations, hose evolutions and rescue situations. Most recently a lot of training on self rescue and firefighter survival. Always the scenario is done like real life in the dark. We often train to exhaustion and put firemen in situations to get the adrenaline going and kick in that "fight or flight" response. Our goal is to be prepared and eliminate the tunnel vision. then when the SHTF, you fall back to the basics and survive.

Maybe I am wrong in my comparison. I liken an officer doing quals at the range in a calm sterile environment as if we qualified a fireman by drawing a house and having him verbally describe how to put the fire out.

So my questions are:

1- How often does a officer use his weapon against a human, while standing still and shooting at a still target?

2- Are agencies modifying their firearms training to incorporate exhaustion, adrenaline and darkness.

3- Are agencies changing qualifications to include movement, run 100 yards then fire your weapon? Situations commonly faced in real scenarios.

Yes, I am aware the standards are to accommodate the lowest common denominator. So every agency has be able to allow some special people to pass.

I am not trying to start a bash thread, hence why I posted it here and not OT. I am just curious about firearms training that officers receive and if it is evolving?

[biochembruin]

[Synergy]

Bio - I hope you didn't take my question as accusatory, nor was I bad mouthing your training. I was just curious and I understand LAPD has a budget and logistical nightmare with training.

[biochembruin]

Bio - I hope you didn't take my question as accusatory, nor was I bad mouthing your training. I was just curious and I understand LAPD has a budget and logistical nightmare with training.

I didn't take it that way. Most of my response was just addressing general assumptions.

[TASK, LLC]

Qualification and training are two totally different animals.

Qualification is done for the agency. Training is done for the officer. Both are in a constant state of evolution.

To try to answer your questions,

So my questions are:

1- How often does a officer use his weapon against a human, while standing still and shooting at a still target?

2- Are agencies modifying their firearms training to incorporate exhaustion, adrenaline and darkness.

3- Are agencies changing qualifications to include movement, run 100 yards then fire your weapon? Situations commonly faced in real scenarios.

1- It is hard to say statistically, but often either the Officer or the Suspect is moving. Often both are.

2- This has been done for decades.

3- This is more appropriately done in training. Depending on the specific assignment and weapons responsibilities of the officer, this may occur often or not-so-often.

In regards to Officer-Involved Shootings and the number of shots fired, the suspect actions dictate the number of shots. There is no minimum or maximum number of shots allowed- it is situation dependant. When looking at total rounds, questions which I ask instead of the total rounds fired is: How many rounds did each officer fire? And why?

If we take a hypothetical situation of an OIS with 50 rounds fired, did one officer fire 50 rounds? Or did 10 officers fire 5 each?

I have cross-trained with members of the Fire Department in situational risk assessment. A MAJOR difference between the Fire and Police sides is the human element. Risk assessments are done based on the experience of the structure, known construction and estimated contents, temperature, weather, and other factors. On the police side, there is a human element known as the Suspect who may not follow any predictable pattern.

As Bio has already stated, it is apples/oranges.

[tanksoldier]

Even in the military firearms training that even approaches actual combat conditions is rare and usually reserved to elite units. It is expensive, time consuming, somewhat dangerous and a perishable skill... you have to train constantly to maintain high proficiency.

Hitting an evading target, with cover, that is shooting back, in poor visibility deliberately with placed shots is virtually impossible. I am, if I say so myself, a highly skilled pistol shooter. I compete at the state and local level in various forms of "combat" pistol matches, and have won and placed in more than my share of meets. I have also engaged the enemy on the battlefield with pistol and rifle... and while various forms of training are beneficial, nothing you can do outside combat really prepares you for combat.

Also, as mentioned, qualification isn't training. Qualification has to be done to a set standard, with variables minimized. Ideally training should be dynamic and deliberately induce variables. More frequent qualification wouldn't necessarily result in better trained officers, and true "good training" doesn't necessarily show results on the qualification range.

While "budget and time constraints" are poor excuses to limit something as vital as deadly force training, especially in a setting as sensitive as civilian law enforcement... it is also the reality. They do the best they can with what they have, just like everybody else.

[Falconis]

1 - depends on the agency he or she works for.

2 - yes and pain

3 - yes

But don't expect standards that makes every cop a trained SEAL or Delta Operator. Those expectations are unrealistic for the work done and the costs in training would also be astronomical. I think military guys get X number of days per month, we calculate on a yearly basis. That and could you imagine the crapstorm if every cop in the state started training on a full on military scale? The liberals would crap themselves and other anti types would start hemorrhaging from the ears about militarization. But the bottom line is that training and quals are evolving over time and taking a number of factors into consideration.


So my questions are:

1- How often does a officer use his weapon against a human, while standing still and shooting at a still target?

2- Are agencies modifying their firearms training to incorporate exhaustion, adrenaline and darkness.

3- Are agencies changing qualifications to include movement, run 100 yards then fire your weapon? Situations commonly faced in real scenarios.

Yes, I am aware the standards are to accommodate the lowest common denominator. So every agency has be able to allow some special people to pass.

I am not trying to start a bash thread, hence why I posted it here and not OT. I am just curious about firearms training that officers receive and if it is evolving?[/QUOTE]

[BigDogatPlay]

Qualification and training are two totally different animals.

Qualification is done for the agency. Training is done for the officer. Both are in a constant state of evolution.

Spot on!

1 - depends on the agency he or she works for.

2 - yes and pain

3 - yes

Training and qualification standards do vary greatly from agency to agency. Budget considerations, logistics and agency mindset have the most to do with it.

But the attitudes of the individual LEO have skin in the game as well. If all LEOs were born gunnies, or at least as interested in their own survival as I was in mine, then training evolutions would likely be a lot easier to manage. I've known officers who actively avoided anything to do with the shotgun; a lot of them (I think) because they were never properly trained with it. I saw guys who barely qualified in the academy and had no interest in improving their skills go out every day to work.

The goal for both trainers and LEOs in service is to train as realistically as possible and as often as can be managed, as well as to continuously improve both the program and the outcomes / results. Defensive firearms use is perhaps the most perishable skill in our tool set, at least in my opinion.

[yzErnie]

while various forms of training are beneficial, nothing you can do outside combat really prepares you for combat.

This is reality. I have always called our range qualifications "sterile" shooting. There are so many outside variables that come into play there is no way to factor all of them into 'training'.

I have been shot at and I have been a shooter. Although everything went as planned and according to law and policies, none of the experiences were pleasant to have been involved in. What I have told my trainees, fellow deputies and now the deputies who work for me is the reality of it all is being mentally prepared to handle business if/when you need to.

Society as a whole is becoming more and more violent and mankind is refusing to respect each other. The biggest thing I have seen over the years is the mindset that allows you engage a lethal threat immediately yet safely. Those of you who have been around a little while know exactly what I mean.

[fullrearview]

As a firearms instructor, I can say our training is ramping up a lot. Some of our guys are responsive to it. Some not. Most of our guys are gun guys and hunters. We are doing a lot of shooting on the move, off hand, from awkward cover, etc. One thing we are going to incorporate this year is more stress and fatigue.

No shoot scenarios are key as well. I have pulled my weapon many times, but have yet to shoot anyone. Bears and rubber rounds don't count. Our agency has the time to get a lot of these in. I just ordered a ton of targets where I can change scenarios on the fly.

For qualifications, we do a pass/fail. Hit the vitals, CNS, and when told to do so, the pelvis, and you will pass. miss, even by a cm.. Remedial training them qual again.

The biggest thing I have seen over the years is the mindset that allows you engage a lethal threat immediately yet safely. Those of you who have been around a little while know exactly what I mean.

Maybe it's the long shift, or the fact that I have not been around for "awhile"... Can you elaborate on this.

[Patrick Aherne]

Our FD spends about double the amount our PD spends on OT. Much of that is spent on training or training replacement. They also can do training on duty. Even at my small, suburban, nothing ever happens PD, there are calls for service. When budgetary times get rough, the first thing most PDs do is cut training to the bare minimum. FDs, in my experience, have a different culture regarding training and safety.

[yzErnie]

Can you elaborate on this.

I guess I could have worded it a little bit different. I don't care to discuss this topic in an open forum so I'll PM you with my reply.