A Police State Needs Police Who Can Shoot Straight!

This is a bit of a different thread for a slightly different look at the problems we have in our nation today.

This is not an Anti-Cop thread. I say that, despite what I'll be pointing out, because I do not believe professionals in general should be held far beyond the level of their overall training and ongoing efforts to maintain a high skill level.

When this is not supported and actually discouraged in both subtle and tangible ways? It needs to be noted that firearms skills are perishable skills in terms of losing the high degree one reaches with frequent, routine practice.

This is the failure and this is where the breakdown comes, in my humble opinion.

This is also not an Anti-NYPD or Anti-FBI Thread. These two agencies are among the largest in the world so, they've been the focus of studies more than others.

If anything, their numbers generally come out better, which is something. Kinda.......

The Problem - STOP SHOOTING US!

On Saturday night in New York City’s Times Square, police opened fire on a man who was walking erratically into oncoming traffic and, when approached by law enforcement, reached into his pocket as if he were grabbing a weapon. The officers fired three shots.

Lets assume it was a valid and legitimate immediate threat they were reacting to. Lets give the full benefit of the doubt that it was a good 'shoot' situation. They got the guy, right? Well.... No.. They didn't.

One hit a 54-year-old woman in the knee and another grazed a 35-year-old woman’s buttocks. None hit the suspect, whom police subsequently subdued with a taser.

(facepalm)....(sigh). . . It's important and only fair to note shootings are rare in police contact with the public, and this article notes that. I'll also get to that a bit later..but here again, it's not a question of whether it was a good shoot.

We'll ASSUME for this thread, they are all good in the go/no-go sense. Another incident is described within the same article...

Just last year, New York police injured nine onlookers in the course of responding to a murder suspect near the Empire State Building. As police chased the man through rush hour crowds, he fired at the cops; they returned 16 shots, hitting the man 10 times. That actually counted as accurate shooting for the NYPD.

Source: Time Magazine

Why yes, the Time article is correct. That is good shooting by statistical norms of past history. 62% hit rate, in fact! That isn't the norm, at all.

New York City police officers fire their weapons far less often than they did a decade ago, a statistic that has dropped along with the crime rate. But when they do fire, even at an armed suspect, there is often no one returning fire at the officers. Officers hit their targets roughly 34 percent of the time.

When they fire at dogs, roughly 55 percent of shots hit home. Most of their targets are pit bulls, with a smattering of Rottweilers and German shepherds.

55% on dogs? Oh...guys..that just..hurts. I mean, really? 34% on people. These are MSM numbers and they are on the higher end, as I noted.

John C. Cerar, a retired deputy inspector who was the commander of the Police Department’s firearms training section from 1985 to 1994, said the accuracy rate is comparable to that of many other major police departments. In some cases, it is better.

In Los Angeles, which has 9,699 officers, the police fired 283 rounds in 2006, hitting their target 77 times, for a hit ratio of 27 percent, said Officer Ana Aguirre, a spokeswoman. Last year, they fired 264 rounds, hitting 76 times, for a 29 percent hit ratio, she said.

Source: New York Times

Okay... this is what I meant about comparable numbers. NYPD isn't unique and they aren't the worst by any means. They are just closely examined to get solid numbers. They are also not special in the root of what I think the problem is.

Firearms Training - How Much Works?

How much works and how much is enough?

Well, I guess that depends on how much we want our police to HIT what they shoot at vs. how much we want to hope the 40-70% or more rounds which miss don't hit anything TOO important.

What does it take to be "That Good"? How much is required to simply NOT Miss when it matters in the most critical ways? Too much, as it happens, but lets look anyway.

Members of Team Six are known as 'black' operatives - their missions are never spoken about, do not officially exist and often operate outside international laws.

The unit’s personnel reportedly fire an average of 2,500 to 3,000 rounds per week in training - which amounts to more than the entire U.S. Marine Corps per year.

Source

This is a look at another nation's 'Best of the Best'.....

On an average, a commando fires 2000 rounds of live ammunition during practice sessions throughout the year. This is apart from the two months that units have to spend in alert status and for whom it's a daily stint at the range. "I did more firing in a week of alert status than in my entire 10-year stay in the Army," says an NSG Officer. On average a person fires close to 14,000 rounds over a period of two months in alert status. The target strike rate has to be above 85% for a person to remain in the force.

Source: India's National Security Guards (NSG)

I think we can agree in a department with over 35,000 officers like the NYPD or over 9,000 like the LAPD, ammunition allowances of 7- 12,000 rounds per man, per month could never work.

How much do they actually do now? If we can agree the above is far TOO much for civilian law enforcement......why would I say there isn't enough?

Let's have a look at what is happening out there in the real world of law enforcement. The RAND Corp did a study which is referenced in sources above, in 2008. It looked very closely at some of this and here is some of what they found.

For example: during 2006, only 156 Officers out of the force of some 37,000, were involved in a firearm-discharge incident. And fewer than half of those incidents involved an Officer shooting at a human being. Most involved Officers shooting at dogs.

Also, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ): "of the 43.5 million persons who had contact with Police in 2005, an estimated 1.6% had force used or threatened against them, a rate that was nearly the same as in 2002 (1.5%)."

Okay, that sounds reasonable and realistic to what we see in the news every day. The next line notes the stark truth behind the stats, and why perspective matters so much.

The rarity of incidents might be a reason for not doing much if anything about them administratively. However, for the participants, they are deadly serious and personal. And if one goes badly, it can become a public relations nightmare for an Agency.

Yes.. Indeed.. For those who get shot, it's mighty personal, I'm sure.

Especially someone minding their own business and hit by wild fire. Wild POLICE fire from something they are totally unrelated to.

There also are semiannual firearm qualifications which include a two-part lecture, practice fire of 45 rounds of ammunition at stationary targets at 7-, 15-, and 25-yard distances, un-scored practice on a tactical pistol course, and qualification firing of 50 rounds at stationary targets at 7-, 15-, and 25-yard distances. A minimum of 39 hits is required to qualify (78 percent).

. . .

Per the report, the firearm-qualification program is less about making sure Officers can effectively use their pistols in real-life situations, than it is about meeting legal requirements and professional standards.

Source: Results of the 2008 RAND Study

Well... Golly... Twice a year, eh? A whole 95 rounds absolutely required to be put downrange...every 6 months? Yeah.. I'm sure that's plenty. (cough)..

This RAND report is also selling a specific system at the end. It's a worthwhile thing to learn. It's one of many though, and pushing any one of them isn't my focus.

Gaining solid skill in ANY one of them would do. Then, of course, the time and training available to maintain those perishable levels of skill.

So.... This is just NYPD right? This is just MSM and we've all heard about those bad people at the RAND Corp, huh? (Yup.. Same RAND as studied Vietnam for some not-so-nice reasons). It's a limited issue...right?

Well.. No.. It isn't. I wish it were. It just isn't limited. It's a systemic problem.

Continued. . .

Continued. . .

Lets see what one police site has to say.

At a recent use-of-force class I was instructing for a Public Risk Management group, the topic of firearms training frequency came up. The discussion was prompted by the fact that during the latest round of FBI suspect interviews conducted for the third book in the Officer Assaulted and Murdered trilogy (“Violent Encounters”), it was revealed that those suspects believed that police officers trained between two and three times a week with their firearms. In reality, most police departments only train about two times a year, averaging less than 15 hours annually. In contrast to our frequency of training, those same suspects revealed that they practiced on average 23 times a year (or almost twice a month) with their handguns.

(emphasis added)

Yeah.. That's outright pathetic. (both sides for that matter).

During a poll taken during this class which represented about a half dozen Florida law enforcement agencies, I asked how many train more than twice a year. No hands went up. When asked how many train or qualify with their duty guns only once a year. Everyone raised their hands. Hence, the genesis for this article.

Source

....Not just pathetic. It's helpful to explain why our cops CAN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT!

Training makes the skill, practice maintains the skill. NEITHER is being given all THAT much focus.

One final look here is from Portland, as a 3rd point of example to get a feel for the widspread nature of the issues.

. . .Twenty shots to kill a mental patient waving a pellet gun. Thirty-six shots from submachine guns to kill a small-time drug dealer. Sixteen shots to kill a drunken burglar who held a 12-year-old boy hostage-and killing the boy in the process.

Police say those incidents are an aberration. They say they really aren't shooting too much. They say they shoot only when they have to and Portland has become much more violent.

Goodness... That looks bad, doesn't it? So..They're a bunch of roid 'raging gun nutting madmen out there in the Portland PD, right? Well... Nope.. Not really..and again, to SOME degree? That IS the problem.

Portland police go 14 months between firearms qualification tests - longer than allowed by any of the major police departments queried by the Oregonian. Shortly after the January 16 accidental shooting of 12-year-old Nathan Thomas, the bureau said it would propose firearms qualification every six months, starting in July.

Source

Well, still my beating heart. At least they'll go from FOURTEEN MONTHS between qualifications of men entrusted with the authority to take life down to a cramped 6 month schedule. Of course, as noted, that was just being proposed at the time of that writing.

I think people assume cops are far more skilled and far more practiced with their firearms than they either are or ever get the opportunity to become short of great personal expense and in some areas, great hassle.

Solutions - What are Some Solutions?

Well, never one to be a bitter bunny by pointing out problems without solutions? I do think I have a couple.

There is a high dollar solution and a reasonable solution.

The HIGH Dollar Approach

If University can be said to offer the pinnacle of learning for a given field of study, then firearms should have something like that, shouldn't it?

Wouldn't you know...there is such a place! At least, it's one example and one of the better in the nation for what they do.

Gunsite Academy basically is the graduate level of firearms training outside formal agency based training, while being superior to most, IMO.

At courses ranging from a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars or more to cover a week to ten days worth of focus? It's by no means a class at the local shooting range. However, it's one of a growing industry and one approach to making quality firearm skill.

----

It also won't work for long. . . . Yes, I said it won't work for long. You could spend a few million to put every NYPD cop through Gunsite and you'd have crack shots and firearms handlers ......for a period of time. Within a fairly short period, lessons learned would stay but skills to use them wouldn't. It'd be a waste in the long term.

----

So.. What IS the answer? Easy..... Give cops the ability to train as much as they want.

I don't want average cops. I'd call my neighbor if I wanted average in a crisis. My neighbor would be a threat to half the street...and so are many of the cops right now.

The LOW Dollar Approach

Indeed... Cost is a bitch in today's world. Brass, lead and other raw materials below that are not cheap. Raw materials of all kinds are, in fact, quite expensive.

Ammunition is a shining example of inflation to supply and demand in action. I'll leave the politics off to say it exists that way now, and there IS a way to keep cops trained and not MISSING WHEN THEY SHOOT.

RELOAD!

The Camdex 2100 Series Loading Machine is speed adjustable to 4400 cycles per hour. The 2100 series will stop for and indicate on the touch screen control if any of ten faults have occurred. The 2100 Series features a total redesign of the control and monitoring system to enhance operator use and make fault correction fast and easy.

Source

Now it would look silly and I'd want tickets to come see if they set up some goober with consumer reloading equipment to feed the training needs of a department or even one federal field office. Oh, that would be a hoot and I'd pity the poor guy.

That's why they make INDUSTRIAL re-loaders and a brass case can be cycled through to use again 3-5 times in my personal experience of loading my own. It varies by load strengths more than anything.

So, that's my little story on why I think the news is covering more and more police shootings where the outcome is NOT what anyone wanted, as well as at least one idea of how to address that specific aspect of the police issues.

I think the incidence are increasing, but not by psychos in uniform. Simply men and women who aren't given or required to go through training sufficient to the responsibilities they face every day.

For the record, I would load weight and powder to match factory loads, while supplying factory ammunition for on-duty carry. Call it my own quirk but even reloading my own (or especially because of it) I don't carry reloads. I just shoot range time with them.

Watcha all think?

Wow.. well-thought-out and researched post. I agree, most officers don't get enough official range time in. I am sure many of them are gun enthusiasts on the side and do a fair amount of shooting on their own time, but not all.

Reloading may or may not be the most cost-effective answer, there's have to be a cost analysis. I think buying ball ammo in bulk would suffice, because I don't think cops would necessarily have to go through a lot of ammo each trip to the range. They would benefit from a monthly trip to run through two boxes. When I go I am sometimes surprised at how little ammo I have gone through by the time I am ready to put my gear away.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Consistent time at the range practicing with their weapons is an absolute must but the twice a year qualifications seem accurate from what I'm seeing here at the local range. Every six months is simply not enough time practicing to provide a basic level of shooting accuracy.

A few ideas 1) every police station should have an indoor range and officers should make use of it once a week at a minimum, 2) every officer should have hands on weapons classroom training and firearms education and 3) to offset the cost of ammunition 90% of the ammo snarfed up by DHS should be redistributed to local police departments for practice training.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Great thread Wrabbit...

I really cannot understand why each major police precinct house does not contain a basement whose sole purpose is as a training range.

The simple fact of the matter is, that if a government decides that it is going to employ a large number of armed people to patrol the streets, then it is upon that government to provide the training necessary to ensure that those people represent the smallest possible threat to innocent people, and the largest possible threat to dangerous, violent felons.

A failure to hit the suspect at all with ANY round, should shame the policeman who discharges that round. To my mind, anything other than a head or heart shot is a miss anyway, since you cannot be certain that rounds hitting other locations on the body will incapacitate a person, because the suspect may be in an altered state through drug use, or psychological malfunction.

So extensive training, and an allowance of several thousand rounds a year per officer, SHOULD be made available, whether it causes hardship when the accounts come to be done, or not. Officers who have trained hard, and shoot better than the criminals they are there to defend their cities from, are going to be able to comport themselves with far less fear, far more control, and in the sure knowledge, that if it comes to gunplay, they will be able to confidently and accurately usher those who prove their eagerness to die, by commission of evil acts, into the arms of the reaper.

That confidence would eliminate an awful lot of the worst excesses of behaviour that are seen in aberrant situations of police brutality, because the training would focus the minds of the officers, as does mastery of any skill. It would mean that egos which would go through masses of fear and confusion during a shooting event, would be able to rely on the training they are given, rather than just hosing down entire areas with lead and hoping to God something sticks.

At the moment however, your average policeman in the states appears to have no support in those goals. This is a shambles therefore!

Now, obviously, I live in the UK, and we have just had an organisation called the NCA come into being in the last little while, touted as being the British version of the feebs in the states, and they carry weapons, and are authorised to use them in certain scenarios. Personally speaking, if I were to find out that the least able member of that group were incapable of hitting with more than 90 percent of their shots, then I would want that group disbanded until its officers were capable of doing their jobs in a way which presents less of a threat to the public than the actions of the criminals they are supposed to be taking down.

Now, the way I see it, either governments must train their armed law enforcement agents adequately, no matter what methods are used, and costs accrued, or they may not summon such a force into being, or at least must arm their officers with tools which can only do limited collateral damage, like swords, staffs, maces, and the like. Let's face it, training for genuine martial arts is going to be cheaper than training with guns, because all that gets expended during training for kicking someone in the back of the head, while standing in front of them, is sweat.

Of course, if the criminals have guns, then sending any number of state appointed Ninja destroyers at them is still not going to work fantastically well. So the bottom line, is that the training, how so ever come by and paid for, is necessary. Not only that, but a failure on the part of government to provide the best training that exists, makes the government legally and morally responsible for every single collateral damage incident. I will bet you anything you like, that training officers correctly would not be nearly as expensive as having the entire government sued for criminal negligence. Make no mistake, deaths caused by errant rounds from police, automatically make the government factually guilty of negligent homicide. Legally, they may be off the hook, but I require no lawyer to tell the difference between rose scent and sewer stink.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Lot of good info there . . . S&F.

Disclaimer: Some of this is generalization . . . which means there will be exceptions.

I've taken courses at Gunsite in Paulden, which was founded by Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper.

Gunsite was founded in 1976 by Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, author, columnist, professor, WW II and Korean War combat veteran. Col. Cooper intended Gunsite to be the vehicle for spreading the Modern Technique of the Pistol, which he created during his years in Big Bear Lake, CA.

The head instructor and range master, Ed Stock, related to us that generally his worst trained and performing students are LEO's.

Ed Stock is a retired Agent with the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), assigned to the DPS Special Operations Unit as a Bomb Technician and Weapons Instructor. He is a Federal and Arizona qualified Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor and has taught classes to Drug Enforcement Agency, FBI, the US Army and several friendly foreign governments in both Firearms and Explosives. He has recently returned from serving in Iraq with the US Army. A Rangemaster for Gunsite since 1980, Ed is an instructor for Pistol, Rifle and Carbine.

Not only do they come in cocky/arrogant, fighting against instruction, but also tend to be the most unsafe with their weapons. When it comes to performance they usually finish well behind private citizens and military. When training up there, the LEO's I was grouped with seemed the most amateurish of all participants. They constantly had to be reminded to keep their trigger finger along the frame (as opposed to trigger) when not on target, had the most trouble holstering/unholstering their weapon, constantly chided for their grouping (or lack there of), and were horrible at sighting past 15yds.

In short . . . unteachable, unsafe, inaccurate, and always had an excuse.

It was always funny to watch the look on their faces when a female private citizen with very little training would out perform them on the range.

Gunsite

Just give the cops grenade launchers, It increases their chance of hitting the criminal. I suppose if they all launch grenades at the same time, some grenades will be blown to different areas to explode. Oh well, great fireworks display anyway.

I do not know why the police think it is necessary to send in the SWAT team with high power automatic weapons, REAL assault weapons to simply to a home invasion on a non-violent person growing plants. In a home invasion type of maneuver a hand gun is much more effective, most shots are within 10 yards easy even for a marksman and if they miss there is much less of a chance of 'collateral damage'.

I know from first hand experience when we cleared a house, a pistol is a much better option than a long assault rifle.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Oops . . I guess I should have read all the way through your posts before responding. I see that you mentioned Gunsite in your last post.

Carry on . . .

Our Archery club got a invitation from the RCMP to have a contest shooting .1/2 way through the match they gave up .They couldn't compete but were active in their own gun club . good thread S&F

a reply to: jrod

I think I know exactly why, and it's the whole wrong way to look at the citizenry by default. That is how it's come to be too. I think at one time, raids were something used when called for.

Now it's something used unless circumstances really show it's NOT necessary. A subtle shift of reasoning with a huge shift of outcome.

Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action!

^^ That's the operational rule of thumb for many of the US Special Operations and other door kicker types, as I understand it. That's also a GOOD way to go ...into an active barricade situation or a running shoot out or Bonnie and Clyde types, known to be happy to shoot it out.

it's become the default though, for the same reason I think physical abuse of force has come to be more common in small and large ways alike. A lack of confidence from a lack of true depth of training to be the best in the situations they encounter. Not the best member of a team, but the personal confidence to know without having to prove it, that's just the way it normally is.

Books I've read about some of the modern Texas Rangers and going back a couple generations on them are really interesting in that way. In some of the rural areas, those can be some of the most heavily armed and capable 'cops' anyone would ever want to really avoid the wrong side of. Despite that power and isolation for authority, they are usually who people call to investigate corruption, not to report their own guys guilty of it. Training and level of dedication.

We can work on one of those. lol...

Post all the stats you care too, they mean squat when you are in an actual gunfight..

Some ACTUAL facts

1. Everyone reacts differently in a gunfight
2. NO ONE knows how they will act until they are actually in one.. and REQUIRED to act
(Not talking about just being shot at, but having to take action)
3. It is all emotion and "Fight or Flight"
4. Training helps but NOTHING can prepare you for the "real thing"
5. TRUST me .. Even combat is different...

a reply to: semperfortis

I take your point and it's very true to say whatever a normal person does to practice, prepare or train, it'll still be a once in a lifetime event for most, in terms of trauma while it's happening, adrenaline off the chart and generally little going as imagined.

There are a couple things I was thinking about in making this. Both are problems to benefit cops in solving. One is the North Hollywood shootout which I'd just caught a lengthy special on. Seeing again the volume of long, sustained fire poured on both before and after higher power weapons were 'borrowed' from area gun stores was incredible for two things. How much they focused in one general area and how no damage managed to hit important things like the casing of their rifles..or the magazines which are real pain in the butt items for smooth operation in GOOD conditions. Training for marksmanship (real in that term) to be ..perhaps, not required..but common, not something to stand out, the way it may be now.

Second though, are the growing number of stories of Police departments and Sheriffs Offices which are flat unable to buy the ammo in supply itself or prices for what is there, beyond basic operational requirements. Cops don't make a bank, so they aren't buying it to train the time which all involved would probably love to see.

I think it's something that needs attention to bring the rate of problems down.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Watcha all think?

Good question at the end of a Great OP.

I think somebody lost site of the word 'qualified.' The standards are so incredibly low, that if you fail to 'qualify' ... You're unqualified to hold that aspect of the job. Somebody needs to pay back all the salary they drew from the last time they qualified to make up for it.

Not everyone is suited for every job ... but there's damn sure quite a few wannabes.

I don't agree with you that shooting is a perishable skill. Precision shooting ... yes. However, shooting a perp at 20 yards should be second nature to an LEO. We're talking about two different things entirely. I've been out of that line of work for sixteen years now. Still, I 'believe' I could strap up and be in the top .1% inside of a week.

I'm not bragging mind you, but 17 years behind a badge pretty much left me with eyes that can tell who's born to the job, who moulds themselves into a professional LEO, and the others who think it's just another fraternity to belong to. The frat-boys are the ones giving law enforcement a bad name and ninety-nine times out of a hundred they're the ones who fail to qualify on range day.

If you're familiar with my posts on the subject of cops in general, you'll recall I'm an advocate for avoiding any and all possible interactions with LE. I hope I'm never pulled over and given 'a ticket' for one of them free ice cream cones either, but as long as we'll keep to our side of the street ... I'm good.

a reply to: Snarl

I got to thinking a bit, and the lower standards or tolerance for such time between bothering to even check isn't unique to cops. You might have seen me mention this before but I had a real varied class for my CCW. In Missouri it consists of hours of classroom and focus on how many ways and reasons not to ever ever shoot a thing ...but when to if you have to anyway, followed by range time.

The range qualification is similar to the police one described in my op and that is scary. You are shooting a full size silhouette at 7 yards. For those who don't shoot, a 'full size' is your shadow + a couple inches all around. It's not small. Not hard. Score the min. within the black. It's not even required to shoot score on rings. Just black. Big target, recall. You could THROW the gun and score a head shot 7/10 attempts.

We had one almost fail outright and another poor gal with her Husband (who didn't do much better) qualify with a SIG mosquito (Think normal size automatic around tiny .22 round). She shotgunned the target almost waist to crown like a 12 gauge at 20 yards. No kidding...and passed. ....then I think about NYPD's 30-34% hit rate and it being one of the better rates among the recorded cities.

Oh.. Supply free ammo to the cops personally and unlimited tactical (not just straight lane) range time. Let them get as good as they have the wrist and arm strength or time to shoot for getting...not the meager budgetary allowance.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I would say in this day of age, when one considers the atrocities being committed against the populace, by those very same Police. We don't just require our so called officers of the law to be able to shoot straight, but also to think straight, preferably before they discharge there weapons!

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Good thread.

Remember that shooting at a static target on a one way range is easy to do. When bullets are flying back at you on a two wa range things change.

That being said there is a serious lack of training going on. At my department we only qualify once a year. We probably shoot about 100 rounds of pistol.

We used to be able to get 50 rounds a month to practice on our own. Due to budget cuts that was stopped about 3 years ago.

Some cops are gun enthusiasts some are not. Some of those enthusiasts practice some don't. I personally love shooting. Unfortunately, I only make $1000 every two weeks and don't have a lot of money left over after bills for practice.

I like your idea of more training. The only problem with that is money. Then if we found the money and began to shoot a lot of rounds and train in more tactical methods people would cry "militarization of the police."

a reply to: andy06shake

I agree with you as far as officers needing to be capable of critical thinking and problem solving on the fly.

I posted in a thread a while back as to why I think we are seeing an increase in police officers who cannot or don't do a great job of critical thinking.

Of course I was bashed by the anti police gang and basically accused of whining.

We will continue to see an increase of officers who have poor judgement skills unless things change. As the capable, seasoned veterans retire or leave the profession for something else (due to the reasons I stated in the other thread) we will see more.