Training?

[Dino]

Can you train those that don't want to be trained. As a trainer for a fairly large agency I constantly run into the problem of people who have very little if any interest at all in the training. What do you teach to those who you know will not practice at all on their own and who will probably forget most of what you taught them once they leave.

In talking with some other trainers there seems to be two approaches. One approach is to teach only the most basic methods. Anything more than that and you will lose them. They won't remember anything else and will never move beyond the most basic level. Your good shooters will still be good because they take the time to practice. Approach number two says do not dumb down the training for people who do not care. It's their own fault. If they cared they would invest the time to learn.

Keep in mind that the number of real shooters is very low maybe 10%. Do you tailor your training around that 10% or do you tailor it around the other 90%. Maybe something else.

I have my own thoughts on this. What would be your approach?

[Coops]

Are you just talking about firearms training?

I believe that the lesson should be learnt earlier than firearms training. If you dept do annual DT classes, that is where the seed has to be sown. I'm not joking here, I turned a dept round with respect to their interest to DT etc in two years. It's how you approach the problem.

We do a damn good DT class which makes students start to think about things. Let me know if you want info.

I'm not joking here. This has worked in my force to a level I couldn't imagine.

Coops

[Brownie]

Can you train those that don't want to be trained

I believe you may be referring to departmental training with this question Dino?

One approach is to teach only the most basic methods. Anything more than that and you will lose them.

This might be the administrators approach to departmental firearms certification you are talking about?

Coops:

If you dept do annual DT classes, that is where the seed has to be sown.

Most dept's in the US have little or no DT training to speak of. My own experiences are that even when offered extra/more training [ I was a DT instructor in H2, defensive knife and stick for the last dept I worked for ] than the minimal if any they received at the academy or in service recerts, they chose not be there [ no interest in getting thrown around :eek: ].

[Dino]

Yes firearms training. I agree with your thoughts about DT training. The only problem is we don't do any. Yes I'm speaking of departmental training. Can be a real challenge. How to train those that show no interest.

[Roundeyesamurai]

The answer itself is actually very simple and obvious: Either get them interested, or don't bother.

Implementing it, on the other hand, is the tricky part.

Many departments have seen an increase in firearms training interest by offering an incentive of some sort- a monthly or yearly monetary bonus for firearms proficiency, for example.

Coops' idea is a good one- show them why firearms training is paramount.

Likewise, actually enforcing penalties for poor firearms performance is also important- and following that with the caveat that you will not provide firearms instruction immediately before qualifications, simply to help them qualify. "If you want to keep your job, you'd better get in here and do some training, in a reasonable timeframe. I'm not here to tutor you and everyone else the night before final exams."

Remember also, that the type of training being offered also has an effect- one single training methodology (and being a police training curriculum, it's bound to be pretty mundane) is not going to fit everyone. "It's not really my thing" is very often a cover for "I don't understand some of this", or "what you're showing me doesn't work for me", and so forth. Diversify the type of training being offered (if possible), or make recommendations or suggestions about where they can obtain alternative firearms training (if the department won't allow you to diversify). You'll very likely see the interest change, as they see their capabilities improve.

[Guantes]

While I agree with concepts like RES', I am not as tolerant.
If you want to be a snake charmer you had better know/learn how to blow the flute or you are going to get bit.

[Roundeyesamurai]

Gloves, that's part of the problem.

Some of these folks have their job because of their ability to "blow the flute", rather than job aptitude.

:D

[JMusic]

While going through college and the police acadamy in firearms training I really did not see this trait. I saw different levels of proficiency but the intrest was there. Going through Tactical training was intense and so were the students. Once I was through that though there was no structured training. Yeah there was some weapons training like PR 24 usage which was received with some mixed enthusiasm but as a whole unless you went to a seminar your shooting and self defense training was over. Someone mentioned only 10 % can shoot. I agree you will see the 80-20 rule applies to about any disipline going. Get use to it. The real question is do you train the 20 percent who basically carries the department or throw your hands in the air and do nothing. I train the 20 per cent. That is the core of your strength and frankly the only way you will drag the rest along. I feel we owe it to those with the presence of mind and gumption to rise above, after all these are the few we depend on to keep us all safe at night.
Jim

[Guantes]

RES,

I was referring to other than Brokeback PD.

JM,
I agree with keeping the level of training as high as possible. There is always unsatisfactory evaluations with remedial training, probation and termination, but I don't think you will see much of that.

We have to look at the purpose of training, outside of special units and the "hard chargers" who desire it. It is for liability purposes, not to imporve the skills of the line officer. If there was no liability, how much training, firearms or other would there be? Out of that grows the absolute minimum that is acceptable, liability wise and there you go.

[JMusic]

Were on the same page gloves.

[Dino]

My own thoughts on this seem to go pretty much with everyone else. I've been teaching at my job for 8yrs. I've come to the conclusion that I must try to motivate the students to train, try to stir up some interest and show them that there is a real need for the training. I feel that is the key. I give them the info. They have to decide what they are going to do with that info. Either train it and master it or do nothing and let it die. Choosing what methods to show them is important but if they ignore it and never train they will not be able to perform regardless of the method.