Modern police shooting failing?

[thiswayup]

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect02a.htm

A very interesting article - officers required to fire with an 87% accuracy on the range to keep their jobs only managed 17% accuracy in combat, not much better than the 10% managed by criminals, most of who have little training, and man of who are firing ***over the shoulder while fleeing***.

Can it be that modern police handgun training in "modern technique" is simply a two handed version of the training that was getting Shanghai police officers killed before Fairburn introduced Point Shooting?

[DocH]

Yes,it is. At least in local dept.,anyway,tho the officers have fared well in shootings. They have recently leaked the fact to me that they are about to begin a more aggressive firearms training program,due to the expectation of terrorist threats on middle schools.
What this will consist of,I havn't a clue.I could offer some suggestions but they have been shrugged off before,so I'll remain silent and wait and se.

[thiswayup]

Yes,it is. At least in local dept.,anyway,tho the officers have fared well in shootings. They have recently leaked the fact to me that they are about to begin a more aggressive firearms training program,due to the expectation of terrorist threats on middle schools.


Realistically, is there anything that could be done if facing a Beslan type threat once it has occurred? I doubt even the SAS or Sayeret could do anything once a bunch of kids have been herded around a propane tank connected to a deadman switch.

[JMusic]

Key IMO is first responders must take the initative. This was done commonly when I was in LE. In fact though we had a SWAT Team, it was never deployed during the time of my tenure. In todays world, we have become a society of specialists. That can't happen in todays crisis's. The people who show up first must be the ones who enter the building if shooting is going on.

I have watched several video's of police shootings. One thing that seems common throughout is the officer was surprised when it went bad. I don't believe you can blame the square range training as the only weakness. Officers appear to be at a disadvantage even when they are in a position of strengh. Standing at a car interviewing a driver comes to mind as one example. Being prepared is an absolute must. Seldom should you be surprised in a shooting. Awareness is the key.

Jim

[Brownie]

The people who show up first must be the ones who enter the building if shooting is going on.

The admins who make the decisions need to understand this concept and make every effort to train the men and woman most likely to be first responders accordingly. We all know the homeland security funds are being issued for this in huge amounts to any dept that requests it so it isn't like they can say the funds are not available for the training.

Even more important perhaps is the right training needs to be applied based on the prospective scenarios they'll face based on past events.

[Guantes]

I think the amount of training may effect the accuracy as much or more than the type of training. For many depts officer shootings are realtively rare things and more so for the officers, many of which go through an entire career without firing their weapon for real. Add to this the amount of officers who do not practice on thier own and you have many who barely qualify, without any stress.

As to major level threats like school takeovers etc, I hope that administrators do not choose to ignore the problem until it bites them in the butt. I am sure many of them cannot even think about such a situation. The civil litigation following one of these events is going to be monumental and every mistake or even bad luck will be crucified.

[Brownie]

I think the amount of training may effect the accuracy as much or more than the type of training

I could not agree more with the premise that more training has to occur first and foremost, and the type of training being equally important. Without the more training, the type of training won't matter as much.

Training, any training, as your life could depend on it, is paramount to being comfortable with the tools you are given. I think people who carry for a living need to understand that, and for the most part the majority has been given too much leeway to not train in the past.

[JMusic]

It goes beyond training though. Many LEO's consider firearms as tools. Just as they do batons, H2H, and automobiles. Simply part of the equipment they must use in their day to day job. Other LEO's consider these "tools" as a way of life and strive to be as good as they can be with their use. That is the difference between professionals and workers. Many members here are current or ex Military or LE. Their use and efforts in firearms and weapons would be the same even if they were not involved in the "trade". Training will not help those who see firearm training as a necessary evil. Training will only wet the whistle of those who see firearm training as a way of life. Its mindset folks, that's the difference not the training.

Jim

[DocH]

I think you pretty much nailed it down there,Jim.

[JMusic]

Thanks Doc, I want to clarify my statement though. Training be it PPC or Drivers Ed gives you the basics which is needed. Taking an advanced firearms course or say a Skip Barbour or Richard Petty driving course will give you advanced skills, but still you are not a gunfighter or a championship driver. That comes from the heart. It is the drive to be better than the norm. Guantes talked of this in another thread here recently. It is a rare breed that will continualy strive to improve. You don't get good at anything by accident it takes effort. It is the 80/20 rule. When we see a police shooting that was sucessful we think that is an exception. I think you ran into one of the 20% people who take their job serious.

Jim

[DocH]

I agree again,Jim,and well stated. This has been my consuming passion,at least since I started to see the the big picture around 1970.
I'll never get good enough to suit me.:)

[Guantes]

Jim,

I think your right on.
The thing I never got was if you are a plumer and screw up with your wrench you get a busted knuckle. If your a cop and screw up with your gun, you get dead. Some never seemed to grasp the difference.

[Sgt443]

Gentlemen I agree with the points made. Training in marksmanship and weapon manipulation is only part of the formula, and I think it may be the smaller part. Mindset is what makes the difference and I'll step out on the limb and suggest that mindset may be more than just the third point of Cooper's combat triad.

I would suggest that, (and this line of thinking did'nt gel until I read this thread) perhaps, mindset should be thought of as an all-encompassing sphere that contains the physical stuff like marksmanship, manipulation, H2H, tactics etc.

Like Jim was saying about so many having the wrong outlook on training, I have yet to have a deputy come to me and ask me to help them become a gunfighter. It is, in fact, entirely too rare that anyone even asks for assistance just to get through the next qualification.

To pick up on thiswayup's question; Fairbairn's changes in firearms training could be seen as his way of "bringing the street to the range". He did'nt teach just point shooting; he included use of cover, moving with the gun in hand and humanoid targets (among other things). All these things I do in teaching at the basic academy and in-service training, yet Shanghai saw a dramatic improvement in gun fight success rates and, as thiswayup pointed out, we manage a 17% success rate.

Could it be that the drastic change in the training venue had an even greater affect on the officer's mindset?

What do you think?

Lonnie

[DocH]

You're quite right,Lonnie. For so many years the "new" MT and frontsight press stuff overshadowed the old techniques that won so many gunfights.
With the QK and other threat focused training that Brownie,7677,and others are offering, the real way to do things is being brought back to the forefront for those who are serious about this.
If there's any doubt about the success rate of these techniques,all you have to do is talk to men like Dave James who was fortunate enough to be trained first hand by the best in the business,and some true legends.
Thank God more and more of the good guys are seeing the light.It's about time.

[Brownie]

Key IMO is first responders must take the initative

Mindset is what makes the difference

Take these two statements, throw in the politically correct attitudes consciously developed at academies and later on the line by the admins, add a dab of hesitation to act aggressively to win on the streets as a result of their present PC training, and you'll not see either developed effectively to deal with what they'll face on the streets.

[Guantes]

Add in the voluntary and sometimes forced hiring of those with neither the physical, mental or psychological attributes necessary for LE and you have the complete package.

[Sgt443]

Add in the voluntary and sometimes forced hiring of those with neither the physical, mental or psychological attributes necessary for LE and you have the complete package.
Amen to that Guantes. For years I have told administrators that if they would give me someone that could read and write I could make a cop out of them. In the last year, or so, I have added a request that the candidates also have "heart" because of the lack of some, or all, of the attributes you mention.

But then, what do I know of such things. I'm just a Patrol Sergeant and a teacher that believes in Rule #1: "Go home at the end of your shift":D

Doc, I think there are more of us out there than we see. I brought up the "point shooting" topic with the academy's lead instructor thinking I might be stepping where angels fear to tread. He told me that he had, at one time, done his own research and written a dissertation on the subject, he was in favor.

Ironically I feel that I am on the horns of a moral dilemma sometimes. I have fellow deputies that often struggle with the marksmanship test and I fear that introducing the Threat Focused techniques may have a negative side effect of lowering their, already, marginal scores. (scenario: deputy fails annual qual and is assigned remedial training; instructor, if they are doing their job, asks what happened that caused their diminished performance; deputy answers: "Well, Sgt Buckels showed me....:eek: )

My plan for overcoming this obstacle is to fully train with Brownie, not only learning the techniques fully myself but to also learn the correct teaching techniques to transition the student from QK to FSP so that they understand the concept.

Lonnie

[PcMakr]

I think there are several factors that are all combined to make the situation what it is today.

First, the politicians (mayor, city manager, city council, whatever) do not like to appropriate more money than they absolutely have to in order for a dept. to operate at a perceived functional level. Training can be very expensive, especially for a large dept. You also have to have enough officer on staff to cover for those that are in continued training; more money. Training has to be more than once a year. It needs to occur on a regular scheduled basis and cover a wide range of skills, not just firearm proficiency.

Second, they need to get over the political correctness crap, and quit trying to please everybody. Law enforcement is one area that you have to have the right kind of people, qualified in communication, physical attributes, logical thinking ability, and sometimes just good common "horse sense". Having to hire someone just so you can meet a govt.-mandated quota will not help IMHO.

Third, you have to find the person with the right mental outlook, the right heart, if you will. That may be the hardest thing to accomplish. The type of person I hesitate to say, would be something along the lines of a SEAL or Ranger. I am reluctant in this regard, because that type of person also has to have great restraint, and try to stay within the force continuum and the law. They need to have the desire to train on a regular basis.

Lastly, we need to get to the point where the victims have as many rights to justice as the perp, and a judicial system that metes out justice appropriately, and do away with so much plea bargaining.

JMHO.

[7677]

I research the reasons why LEO's are killed in the line of duty to prevent it from happening in the future. We must always remember that gunfighting is the only event where a person can violate every tactical rule and still survive or use picture perfect tactics and end up dead.

However, the data is pretty clear that officers are getting killed at a greater rate inside of 7 yards and most officers died at 5 feet.

FBI statistical summaries reveal that of victim officers who managed to shoot back, only 15 percent managed to kill or even hit their assailants.
From the NYPD gunfight reports to the FBI's annual Officers Killed� summary, the statistics show that officers tend to die in close, not just at 7 yards but at 7 feet, and they tend to neutralize their attackers and survive unscathed as the distances increase.
(This is why I think that point shooting is useful for LEO's to have in their tool box)

Now, we know that the solution to the problem isn't as simple as teaching officers just to point shoot. While point shooting is useful for close quarters combat and evens up things when the shooting start, but lets go further and look at where the real problem starts? LEO's seem to violate age old rules such as:
1) Improper search and use of handcuffs,
2) Missing danger signs
FBI summaries report that of officers slain, almost 60 percent did not even have their guns unholstered.
(NO shooting style works with the gun in the holster)
3) Taking a bad position and the improper use of cover and concealment
4) Failure to watch a suspect’s hands
Always remember…The eyes are the windows of the soul, "but they kill you with their hands"
5) relaxing too soon and/or giving up cover prematurely.

[David Williams]

Exactly.

If we want to explore why officers are getting killed, then the answer is multi-layered. By itself, changing the "methods" by which officers find the target and pull the trigger won't address that problem.

However, I believe that many of the reasons 7677 stated are simply symptoms of a larger problem. One of the things I would constantly drill into the heads of my Marines in theater was that I'd rather deal with a court-martial than have to explain why Mrs. PFC Jones no longer had a husband and why their 4 yr old daughter no longer had a father. Point is, I didn't want any of them getting killed because the fear of getting in trouble caused them to hesitate in a critical situation or to make a stupid decision for the sake of looking good for the news crews.

You guys in LE do not have someone telling you the same thing. Maybe some of you do, but not enough to make a difference. Most officers have been taught to fear the lawsuit, and to expect zero support when things go south.

In my opinion, it is that fear and expectation of subsequent abandonment by the brass that contributes to officers overlooking things, growing complacent, or simply making a decision that they know in the back of their minds isn't right.

Why would an officer leave cover too early? Surely not because he thinks the fight is over and everyone can sit and have tea now. No, I suggest it is because he has been taught to believe that every confrontation has the potential to end peacefully, and that it is fully his responsibility to ensure that they do.

I think 7677 is right on concerning the things officers do that get them killed. I just think that there is a reason those things happen. LEOs have been taught to fear the consequences of surviving more than fearing the thought of not coming home to the wife and kids at the end of their shift.

[JMusic]

I've made this statement before," I had the mindset to shoot first and to make a conscious decision to not shoot. In other words I had no hesitation to draw and shoot. That thought process nearly cost me a couple times but I was able to stop. More importantly I was quick enough to be ahead of the curve allowing me to appraise the situation. That is a big deal that many LEO's never get the oppertunity to do. They are deciding should I draw, should I point my weapon, should I should I. I had no such thoughts. I was on auto pilot when it came to danger I sometimes didn't remember drawing to the point of hitting one guy in the head with my revolver barrel. That difference in mindset gives you the edge to appraise your surroundings and decide if you are in a dangerous situation. I met the US Marshal a few times but I'm still here to write about it. I also never paid a penny for my actions.

Jim

[Dave James]

"Its easier to beg forgiveness,,than ask permission"

I operated under this thinking for years and lived to go home "most " nights.

Too bad the younger generation doesn't

[JMusic]

Not just that DJ but your partner did also. I could start a sentence and he could finish it. WE both agreed on what was proper force and didn't have to worry about the other second guessing. That comes from having good chemistry and working together 18 /36 hrs straight. Something that doesn't happen now I don't believe.

Jim