Trends in Police Training – Part 3

Here are parts One and Two covering the Law Enforcement Education Program presentation at this year’s SHOT Show.

Good Enough?

How good do you have to be? No one will argue that you should not be as good as you can be. However, it is equally unrealistic to expect every officer to be a master-class shooter. When do you address other skills?

AmericanCop writer John Hearne has tried to codify this. He looked at performance in competition, on drills or qualification courses, and the degree to which that suggested mastery of skill – using the term “automaticity.” Passing any POST qualification course at 70% is damn poor, while shooting it at 100% indicates some automaticity. Being an IDPA Expert or Master class shooter and scoring 280 on the FBI’s Bulls’ Eye qual indicates a higher skill level. Finally, a 1.5-second Bill Drill would be impossible without automaticity.

Metrics

I referenced Dr Biggs in Part 1. Based on his studies regarding deadly force decision-making, Hearne reached out to him. During their conversation, Biggs was asked how good is good enough. Unable to give a specific metric, Biggs did say that if one was a high C class to low B class shooter, he believed they had all the technical skills needed in a fight.

While that might be unreasonably low to the competitive shooting community, how many officers can hit the metrics for that classification? In one of my instructor development courses, I have the students shoot the IDPA 5×5 classifier. I use the Sharpshooter (middle of five) standard for IDPA’s Carry Optics division. It is not uncommon for instructors to not make that standard in class.

Validation

Firearms training is much harder to validate than hands-on control skills. While simulation training with Non-Lethal Training Ammunition (NLTA) has come a long way, it still has drawbacks. One of these is that we know the consequences are not real.

The courts have given us training mandates in cases like Popow v Margate, Oklahoma City v Tuttle, and Zuchel v the City of Denver. While those cases are not new, some agencies still do not comply. One way is by considering the qualification course as training.

LEOKA

Contrast that with the BadGuys. Looking at the FBI’s LEOKA – Law Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted – data, we can identify issues. Many violent offenders grew up being exposed to violence and (illegal) firearms. That data shows they shoot on average twenty-three times a year. How often are your officers hitting the range?

 

Improvements

Two areas we can radically improve upon with little effort and cost are target size and time constraints.

Targets

The acceptable scoring areas on many organizational targets are too generous. When compared to human anatomy, the black part of a B-8 bull eye is roughly equal to the areas we need to hit. Maybe we should consider targets from action shooting sports – rather than those that allow hits almost anywhere from the belt buckle to the forehead, along with the shoulders and love handles. IDPA’s target has a not quite a B-8 size down zero score area. The USPSA target has a vertical rectangle on the chest. Both have two additional scoring areas out of the ones referenced, and they cost the shooter points.

Time Constraints

A lot of the allowed times are too generous. For the presentation, I shot my former agency’s current qualification course three times. Once using the par times, then under time + penalty scoring, and with hit factor scoring.

The 25-yard and 15-yard stages are the same – draw while stepping diagonally hit the target in the chest twice, take another diagonal step, kneel, and hit the chest twice more. My 25-yard times were 7.6-7.8 seconds, with one or two in the -1 area (C zone). At 15 yards, I was 6.6-6.7 seconds with no points down. The time standard? 30 seconds and 20 seconds, respectively, and I’m 59 with wrecked knees.

The scoring area on their target is the USPSA A zone and the upper half of the C zone. When I shot the qualification course for the presentation, I used an IDPA target and scoring system.

What Factor?

Hit factor scoring is the points scored divided by the time it took. The higher that number, the better the shooter did.  For example, in a recent local match, I finished in the upper third of shooters – my hit factor for the three stages was 2.92, 3.81, and 3.65, respectively. For the complete department qualification, my HF was 4.01. I commonly see competitive shooters with HF in the 8 and 9 range.

Unfortunately, HF scoring tilts the emphasis towards one’s shooting speed. That allows for less optimal hits, such as -1 or C zone, if they are fired quickly enough.

Looking at it from an agency training perspective, I would use HF scoring on recurring drills rather than tying qualification courses to it.

Cover

Body armor only protects so much of your person. Seek, move to, and use cover—objects that will stop the incoming gunfire. To help our students with that, we need to get them moving rather than stationary on the firing line. Run drills with cover nearby, then get them to use it.

Realistic Application

With minimal searching, one can find videos tying match stages to officer-involved shooting footage. That video would provide one way to motivate any less than enthusiastic co-workers.

 

Goal?

Regardless of the skill we are training officers on, the goal should be to get them as comfortable with the mechanics as possible. Why? So that the physical skill at hand runs in the background. That frees the mind to work on the problem. What limb to grab and how? What is downrange or in the background? Where is the best available place to deliver that shot?

 

Look at performance shooting. Reduce scoring areas on targets. Shorten allowable times. Emphasize cover. Push officers to address these issues in training so they can better problem-solve.