Dismal Truth: Police Use-of-Force Training

3 Comments

Dr. Bill Lewinski executive director of the Force Science Institute often notes in his public presentations that the average high school football player gets more training in his sport in his brief career than the average peace officer receives in use-of-force instruction across his or her entire working life.

In a first-of-its-kind survey in conjunction with Calibre Press and Crawford Coates has confirmed that dismal truth.

Calibre Press editors invited readers of its popular Street Survival newsletter to complete an anonymous poll regarding their departmental training policies. Nearly 900 officers from small agencies to large participated, with these results:

  • Range time. Nearly two-thirds of officers said they are required by policy to shoot on the range with their sidearm only once (23.66%) or twice (37.66%) a year. Only about 8% have to shoot as often as monthly.
  • Qualification. Monthly official qualification with their sidearm is required for only 1.37%, while roughly 84% need to qualify only annually (46.81%) or semi-annually (37.24%).
  • Scenarios. The monthly requirement shrinks even more (to 0.91%) when it comes to “dynamic ‘shoot/don’t shoot’ scenario-type training.” One-quarter never have to experience such training, and over half (56.26%) do so only once a year or less often.
  • DT training. Close to 15% of officers said they are never required by policy to do “defensive/control tactics-type training.” For two-thirds (63.82%), such training is mandated only once a year (42.32%) or less (21.5%). Fewer than 2% must train hands-on monthly.
  • Less-lethal. Monthly requirement virtually fades off the chart (at 0.57%) when it comes to training with “less-than-lethal weapons” such as TASERS, batons, and OC spray. Annual training predominates at over 55%. One in five officers trains less frequently than that, and over 10% never have to engage in this type of training.

Jim Glennon, Calibre’s director of training and lead instructor for its Street Survival Seminar observes, “The line is being pushed by the media and by critics like the Police Executive Research Forum that departments and academies are overly invested in ‘warrior’-type military training, spending too many hours on the range and teaching defensive tactics at the expense of emphasizing communication.

“In reality, as this survey shows, we’re just scratching the surface of use-of-force training, teaching the very barest fundamentals. When a quarter of departments never do dynamic force training and over half train with scenarios at most once a year, it is very disingenuous to claim that use-of-force training is over-emphasized.

“When officers over-react or under-react on the street, it’s usually because they have not been sufficiently conditioned to respond appropriately through realistic training under stress. What’s needed is not less training in this area but more.”

Dr. Lewinski adds, “The public expectation is that law enforcement officers will perform flawlessly when thrust into life-or-death force encounters. But when these are the standards of practice and training demanded of officers by their departments, how can anything even approaching perfection reasonably be anticipated?

“Yes, conscientious officers will supplement the minimal requirements with training on their own time and dime. But that’s an approach for enhancing individual excellence, not a universal solution.

“Raising the use-of-force training bar by policy for all officers and designing training that truly reflects the challenges of the street should be the top priorities of any demands for police ‘reform.’ ”

Someone come get their policia 😂😂😂 Gat tip: thanks to everyone who sent it in

A post shared by ENDO (@everydaynodaysoff) on

Advertisements

Cops same as Novice Shooters

1 Comment

[T]he research shows that officers on average are only marginally better than lesser-trained shooters in terms of getting rounds on target

Despite being a low percentage occurrence, a high stakes event such as a fight warrants developing sufficient skill and is the reason police and military expend resources attempting to build this. Success rates are sometimes lacking. Hit rates and percentages are bandied about. Some suggest curriculum changes, increases or decreases to standard square range exercises, changes of doctrinal shooting positions, and the increased or decreased emphasis of sighted fire.

Here is the terrible truth almost everyone fails to address. Any change in doctrine, curriculum, or funding is doomed to failed improvements until a progressive skill standard is enforced. It doesn’t matter if the number of required qualifications are quadrupled if participants are continually held to the same, elementary, basic, easy, low standards merely sufficient to graduate academy/recruit/basic training. And training isn’t “advanced” unless it includes an actual, measured skill assessment students are held to, one that increases in difficulty over time. The number of training hours or successful qualification results are meaningless until faced with scored tests that are more challenging over time.

Studies of this nature continue to find police and military personnel are only slightly more skilled than those never having fired a gun before. This is because most police and military personnel are in fact only slightly more skilled than those never having fired a gun before.
https://firearmusernetwork.com/firearm-training-naive-shooter-law-enforcement-hit-probability/

Based on the personnel chosen for “expert”, “intermediate”, and “naive” groups in this study, every one of them are actually at a novice level. There’s no difference in results because there is no real difference in skill between them.

The skill difference between a completely untrained shooter, marginally-qualified personnel, and personnel capable of “expert” or near “perfect” qualification scores is marginal. They’re all still novices, though some of them are slightly worse than the others. It’s like the difference in mathematics knowledge between a second-grade child scoring a 70 or 90 on an elementary arithmetic quiz. It’s the reason there is no connection found between combat and qualification range results.
https://firearmusernetwork.com/the-connection-between-combat-and-range-results/

More:

Study: Newbies Better Able to Kill Assailants With Head Shot Than Cops

 

Skill Development and the Real World

Leave a comment

It all came together… for once.

Didya ever notice how it’s not hard to nail a reload, not hard to nail the draw, not hard to fire 6 fast accurate shots, but all together with 6 more accurate shots?

Yeah, not that easy.

Which puts the foolish bleating from self-appointed tactical experts about why a drill like this isn’t useful into perspective.

Yes, the skills involved are elementary. Yes, the targets and scenario are known in advance. It should be easy. Overcoming the various gremlins involved make it a challenge.

Consistently performing this drill under 10 seconds with all centered hits indicates sufficient skill to shoot at the “speed of life.” The performance above is twice that fast.
More

Firearm Training Reality – The Naive Shooter from a Law Enforcement Perspective: Hit Probability

5 Comments

Force Science Institute published The Naive Shooter from a Law Enforcement Perspective: Hit Probability, a study that identifies the problem with shooters that remain at novice skill levels.

By actual test, an average police recruit completing academy firearms training is only marginally more skilled in shooting than a person who has never shot or even held a firearm. The study found that personnel completing military or police handgun instruction and passing qualification enjoyed a mere 13% improvement over complete novices. Between groups labeled “expert”, “intermediate”, and “novice” there was no effective difference in skill between the identified groups.

Force Science Institute executive director Dr. Bill Lewinski said, “[R]esults indicate an alarming need for improved firearms training for officers,” because despite being academy graduates and passing mandated firearm qualifications the new officers “were a mere 13%” more accurate than novices in shooting at distances where a high proportion of officer-involved shootings occur. What these statistics appear to imply is that officer firearms training is not extensive enough and occurs too sparsely for officers to gain, and maintain, the expert level of accuracy with their service weapons that is expected of them.”
More

%d bloggers like this: