Appropriate gear and weaponry for cops....

[Chuck Whitlock]

One of the very best uses of federal money for CONUS LE that I have ever seen was the now de-funded Sioux City training center. That organization got a lot of small town cops training that they never would have been able to afford otherwise. One of the many issues I have with the current administration is cutting that program.

+1!

I was lucky enough to attend a couple of courses there. Top notch training that the village I worked for would have never paid for.

[41magfan]

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.

In my last job - working for a Sheriff, no less - I was not only able to raise the qualification standard to 80% (on the way to 90%, ultimately), but we did it with a fairly tough COF fired on an standard IPSC target - not a cheesy B-27. Out of 150+ guns, about 10% of the officers could shoot in the high 90's with another 10% or more in the low to mid 90's. Over time it became obvious that our COF was "relatively" demanding since most lateral transfers scored poorly or failed to qualify at all in some instances.

To make this standard doable, we offered monthly training opportunities which obviously requires a commitment with regard to staffing and resources. That reality alone prevents a lot of smaller agencies from pursuing higher standards.

Anyway, after almost 8 years of steady progress that program fell apart with the election of a new Sheriff. And so it goes ......

[David Armstrong]

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.

I would add to this the idea that I am not aware of any sort of reasearch that indicates success on the range equates to success in actual gunfights for LE, while there seems to be some evidence that there is no relationship between higher range scores and increased chance of winning a gunfight. Heck, if we are going to raise requirements I'd push for better driving, report writing, and H2H as having far more impact than better shooting.

[John Hearne]

I would add to this the idea that I am not aware of any sort of reasearch that indicates success on the range equates to success in actual gunfights for LE, while there seems to be some evidence that there is no relationship between higher range scores and increased chance of winning a gunfight.

My point was that how we hire reflects our priorities. When the FBI wanted gunfighters back in the 1930's, they hired people like Jelly Bryce. Why? Because they wanted people with a proven track record of putting bad guys in the dirt.

Regarding the research, there have been two studies that tried to correlate the two. One study found no relationship. The other found a very small relationship but it wasn't enough to be statistically significant.

Of course the problem with this is that no LE qual (except the old FAM) tests for the reflexive use of the pistol. It's like arguing that there is no correlation between 1.5 mile run times and success in foot pursuits. If your standard is a 45 minute 1.5 mile run (a literal crawling pace) and you either pass or fail then of course there will be no relationship. The standard is set too low to be a meaningful metric.

What the research does show, across a huge variety of domains with a high level of certainty, is that skills possessed with automaticity are more likely to be successfully executed during periods of high stress. If the higher levels of skill didn't improve your chance in a gunfight then it would be the first such area of motor performance that we've found.

[David Armstrong]

I understand the process and the issue of priorities, which actually explains the whole problem (if it is a problem) IMO. Very little of what most LE does has anything to do with guns, so skill with guns becomes a non-issue, particularly in an era of tight budgets and limited resources. Management, when tasked with improving officer performance, should go with those areas where you get the greatest bang for the buck. In gunfights you really don't need a particularly high skill set most of the time. Maybe if we trained all officers to Gunsite "E" ticket level, or Thunder Ranch II, or similar it would matter, but I doubt any agency is going to spend the time and resources to do that across the board. So instead we go with minimal standards that balance the cost with the potential benefit.

[FotoTomas]

I am coming in late but here goes...

I currently work as a uniformed cop. I have many years of experience in LE going back to 1975 when I started. I believe the adoption of SWAT tactics and uniforms for many types of routine LE is where the "militarization" is coming from and I for one do not like it.

I recently had a need for interaction with the local LE agency and was very put off by the regular road cops (no rifles or armored vehicles) that were wearing black tactical uniforms, bloused boots, external armor carriers with pockets for ammo magazines radios and other gear. It simply looked to me to be too damn tactical. I want my road cops to have an easily identifiable uniform that is NOT looking like a SWAT raid is imminent.

Tactical trousers and a Polo with a duty belt is cool. External vest carrier is OK if it is designed to blend in with the uniform shirt. Have an emergency??? grab the rifle and a bail out kit and go to work. Makes sense to me and does not impede the "Officer Friendly" look for regular duties. Got a riot...fine...send in the riot squad. That I expect. Got a serious situation... fine... send in the M113 or later model of armored vehicle. Routine, day to day police work should NOT have officers looking like the riot or emergency is about to happen.

If you do have a riot squad and/or SWAT/QRF/favorite acronym then do NOT look for ways to use them in regular police work. If you do it will frighten the horses and cause much gnashing of teeth. This leads to a tsunami of public distress and bull$#!+.

As for marksmanship training. I was raised on the 50 yard line qualification and am a good shot because of it. I am a trained police armorer and instructor and the best shot in my local office. I am a rather mediocre shot when compared to many here or a lot of the club shooters at my local gun club. That to me shows how mediocre my agencies training standards are. We still qualify at the 25 yard line but for only two (2) shots. The rest are 15 yards or less with an 80% passing score required and NO other option for the training folder. Get 40 hits anywhere on the target out of 50 rounds fired and you get a P for pass.

This sucks and I think it is poor policy and a serious accident waiting to happen. My bosses and the main bosses in Washington do not care. They play the odds, realizing gun fire is a very rare situation in my agency and would rather spend limited training dollars on more utilized skill sets. I see their point. The world is full of compromise and for a few it will be a very bad day.

Retiring at the end of this year and very happy to get away from this manure.

[KevinB]

I am coming in late but here goes...

I currently work as a uniformed cop. I have many years of experience in LE going back to 1975 when I started. I believe the adoption of SWAT tactics and uniforms for many types of routine LE is where the "militarization" is coming from and I for one do not like it.

I recently had a need for interaction with the local LE agency and was very put off by the regular road cops (no rifles or armored vehicles) that were wearing black tactical uniforms, bloused boots, external armor carriers with pockets for ammo magazines radios and other gear. It simply looked to me to be too damn tactical. I want my road cops to have an easily identifiable uniform that is NOT looking like a SWAT raid is imminent.

Many of the external carriers (which I don't like for other reasons) are being adopted due to attempts to reduce weight on officer's hips (medical issues) and the ability to deal with the vast amounts of crap that some departments make their officers carry (rightly or wrongly).
I really don't like external carriers - as the soft armor is then visible - I prefer to hide it under a uniform shirt.

However many organizations are going to scaleable carriers - so they can clip in their hard armor (if issued) and rifle mags etc for an active shooter/ barricade situation.

Tactical trousers and a Polo with a duty belt is cool. External vest carrier is OK if it is designed to blend in with the uniform shirt. Have an emergency??? grab the rifle and a bail out kit and go to work. Makes sense to me and does not impede the "Officer Friendly" look for regular duties. Got a riot...fine...send in the riot squad. That I expect. Got a serious situation... fine... send in the M113 or later model of armored vehicle. Routine, day to day police work should NOT have officers looking like the riot or emergency is about to happen.

Agreed, however more and more departments are seeing that "tac" gear clothing are cheaper than other (or additional) uniforms.

If you do have a riot squad and/or SWAT/QRF/favorite acronym then do NOT look for ways to use them in regular police work. If you do it will frighten the horses and cause much gnashing of teeth. This leads to a tsunami of public distress and bull$#!+.

agreed wholeheartedly.

As for marksmanship training. I was raised on the 50 yard line qualification and am a good shot because of it. I am a trained police armorer and instructor and the best shot in my local office. I am a rather mediocre shot when compared to many here or a lot of the club shooters at my local gun club. That to me shows how mediocre my agencies training standards are. We still qualify at the 25 yard line but for only two (2) shots. The rest are 15 yards or less with an 80% passing score required and NO other option for the training folder. Get 40 hits anywhere on the target out of 50 rounds fired and you get a P for pass.

This sucks and I think it is poor policy and a serious accident waiting to happen. My bosses and the main bosses in Washington do not care. They play the odds, realizing gun fire is a very rare situation in my agency and would rather spend limited training dollars on more utilized skill sets. I see their point. The world is full of compromise and for a few it will be a very bad day.

Retiring at the end of this year and very happy to get away from this manure.

Unfortunately very very trued.

[secondstoryguy]

I've heard people say that shooting skill/gun-handling is not that important to police work as it is only 1% of our job. That's like saying knowing how to work an ejection seat is only 1% of a pilots job (and working an ejection seat is a hell of a lot easier than shooting a pistol).

Our department has a very locked on training officer and the shooting standards are actually pretty high. The basic TCOLE standards(the state agency which licenses LEO in TX) are worthless, they essentially show you can safely fire a gun and that's about it. I actually giggled and was wondering if they were serious when I shot a basic TCOLE qualification for the first time...the targets were so huge and you had ridiculous amounts of time for the COF.

I would love to wear a scalable carrier at work. I'm currently shopping for a plate carrier (for active shooter/warrant service) that's compatible with the uniform that I'm currently wearing and I have no idea what to buy.

[czech6]

I would love to wear a scalable carrier at work. I'm currently shopping for a plate carrier (for active shooter/warrant service) that's compatible with the uniform that I'm currently wearing and I have no idea what to buy.

I have a SKD Brigadine plate carrier (that replaced a SKD Pig plate carrier) and have to say that IMO hands down it's one of the best LE patrol plate carriers out there. It's fast and simple to get on, it fits 10x12 velocity system plates like a glove, and it's out of the way of my duty belt. It's not in the way while driving a car. On the bad side, if you go traipsing through the woods, due to the copious amount of velcro, you'll come out with every sticker that you encountered embedded in the velcro.

[Lon]

I have a SKD Brigadine plate carrier (that replaced a SKD Pig plate carrier) and have to say that IMO hands down it's one of the best LE patrol plate carriers out there. It's fast and simple to get on, it fits 10x12 velocity system plates like a glove, and it's out of the way of my duty belt. It's not in the way while driving a car. On the bad side, if you go traipsing through the woods, due to the copious amount of velcro, you'll come out with every sticker that you encountered embedded in the velcro.

My go to PC as well.