I dream of the day where our minimum qualification score is 80 or better. Currently there are folks that have trouble getting above 70, which scares the hell out of me. There is talk with my agency of having one (1) range day per year that our guys will have to go and spend that day under instruction of the firearms instructors. It's not enough, but it's better than what we are currently doing...which is show up once per calendar year to qualify...and that's it.Originally Posted by KevinB
Me too, but here are lots of poor reasons why they do it:
1. It's cheaper
2. Reduced liability when you try to fire someone for failing a more difficult standard that the State POST decides is acceptable. A minimum standard tends to make the argument that the higher standard is job related more difficult. This is often the way they try to increase minority hiring and retention. Can't pass, lower the standards to the lowest possible.
3. Lowering of recruiting standards. By example; at one time your chances of becoming an LSP trooper were slim unless you had prior military or law enforcement experience, and both were preferred. College was also good, but didn't override prior mil or LE experience. That changed with the requirement for more minority hirings. I'm hoping that the WOT will once again put vets back in LE, where they generally excel.
For a period of time, I taught the Officer Survival block at the LSP academy. The last basic class I did was somewhere in the early 2000's. In that class, over 50% of the group had never been in a fight, hit anyone or been hit. I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.
4. Qualification focus rather than training. You know the difference, but for many agencies the qual course is all the firearms training they get. Make it easy and check the agency liability block.
5. A general shift away from training gunfighters to being more officer friendly.
Something the general public has been demanding for the last several decades. Folks are getting exactly what they've been asking for. You can't train people to hand out lollipops and rainbows, then expect them to react appropriately under situations of extreme stress. Some will freeze and others will over react depending upon their emotional and psychological make up. Society is getting the law enforcement it deserves.
We may lose and we may win, but we will never be here again.......
No need to be sorry...it's the truth.
This is where we are now...which is hopefully about to change.
That may have been the justification, but the real reason was the bullshit "discrimination" suit those three bolo's filed. Rick saw that coming, so we documented their pathetic non-performance six ways from Sunday… and hammered their asses all the way to the state supreme court.
No matter. Political correctness won; again.
On the one hand, we (collectively speaking) know that has trumped facts and common sense for far too long now, and its easy to give up in resignation. Its a sad fact that the great majority of our guys these days do not possess nearly the marksmanship skills that our generation did… had to have, as you pointed out, to even keep the job.
On the other hand, these less-capable "new breed" types are still winning their fights. Which begs the question… does it really matter? That is, as long as cops are trained to a given competency level so they can at least get the rounds headed in the proper direction, do the relaxed accuracy (i.e., distance) standards degrade the issue enough to be seriously concerning?
That's the $64 question, in my mind. And I don't have the answer. I do think that the fact that almost all of our shootings involving the regular road guys have been relatively close-in has a lot to do with the success rate.
All I know for sure is that I'm glad to be out of the game, and let someone else deal with it.
But I still think that you should buy that Wilson, and we'll square off at the long line, standing on our hind legs...
.
Body cam video released of Utah shooting in West Jordan. I tend to think of body cams as "appropriate gear" and that matches up to the title of the thread. If these videos are inappropriate, I'm only posting new ones, let me know and I'll shift course. Quick synopsis, someone called cops on guy, he said he'd "shoot the cops" and this was relayed to 911 operator, running and pivots towards cop, found with metal pipe and laser attached along with a knife. Video cleared police officer in the shoot.
Nice shooting on the run.
Wow. That is probably the nicest thing that has been said about me on the interwebs.
I am fairly convinced that most agency heads don't think - they emote, an entirely different process.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
That may have been the justification, but the real reason was the bullshit "discrimination" suit those three bolo's filed. Rick saw that coming, so we documented their pathetic non-performance six ways from Sunday… and hammered their asses all the way to the state supreme court.
Yep, I've sent felons to prison with less paperwork. But "they" got scared and decided to do anything they could to avoid another suit.
No matter. Political correctness won; again.
On the one hand, we (collectively speaking) know that has trumped facts and common sense for far too long now, and its easy to give up in resignation. Its a sad fact that the great majority of our guys these days do not possess nearly the marksmanship skills that our generation did… had to have, as you pointed out, to even keep the job.
On the other hand, these less-capable "new breed" types are still winning their fights. Which begs the question… does it really matter? That is, as long as cops are trained to a given competency level so they can at least get the rounds headed in the proper direction, do the relaxed accuracy (i.e., distance) standards degrade the issue enough to be seriously concerning?
That's the $64 question, in my mind. And I don't have the answer. I do think that the fact that almost all of our shootings involving the regular road guys have been relatively close-in has a lot to do with the success rate.
I'm a bit out of the loop now, but it does seem most Patrol shootings are still up close and 1 v 1. But, we can also remember a few that were not. I don't think a minimum POST shooter would have done well in RD's shooting (Guy with rifle @ about 25 yards). It's training to the average and it works, until it doesn't.
But I still think that you should buy that Wilson, and we'll square off at the long line, standing on our hind legs...
I'm afraid that I couldn't leave it as a safe queen, and I'm not sure I want to go back down that road……just yet
.
"… a few that were not."
Indeed. That's why I wrote ALMOST all.
"Its training to the average, and it works, until it doesn't."
Absolutely. But it ain't our dog anymore, thank goodness.
As for the Wilson… trust me, after carrying that heavy sucker for a couple of days, you'd be GLAD to put it back in the safe! I got my EB with the full intention of never carrying it (emergencies excepted, of course). Weight aside, I'd have to do some SERIOUS training to get back up to speed on the safety manipulation.
.
I bolded the parts that I generally agree with; but I disagree strongly with the rest. Pre-requisites for hiring and job-specific training allow for a broader hiring pool then considering only those that already satisfy one requirement\standard or another. More so, why disqualify candidates from further consideration and training, for something that can be so readily taught as firearms use? What of the benefits of the relative tabula rasa's in a given student body? Physical ability to a given standard is a must to be able to train and reduce liability to the organization; a lack of shooting ability entering an initial-training environment cannot say the same.
You need a DL before EVOC; but should candidates for a LEA be required to have EMT certs so they can receive BLS or TCCC training? Should they require ham radio licenses to operate Motorola's?
Altering qualification courses and shooting standards can also be used to artificially shrink an agency through increased attrition: some would argue that this can go to fault.
Reply With Quote
