Police firearms policy-SME suggestions.

[Dagga Boy]

Based on the Fairfax thread, I thought I would throw this out there as maybe a constructive guide for someone like Cody to see what those who write/or have written firearms policy would like to see for agencies. I would request that the moderators on this forum keep a very tight lid on this thread and try to limit posts to truly educational and constructive posts on a very serious subject. Also, I would suggest that if you have no experience writing policy, implementing policy, and having your policies court challenged....please save posting those ideas elsewhere. For the SME's here on this subject (not forum SME's, folks who a court has determined you are an SME) I am curious to see your ideas for policy as well. In the end, it may be a worthwhile endeavor to get together and actual create a model policy here for folks looking to update their agency policy. The next post will be some ideas I typed up tonight of the top of my head.

[Dagga Boy]

Thoughts on policy regarding deployment of firearms by law enforcement

First and foremost, he goal of the policy is to encourage best practices for the safety of the officer and public. Often, policy is written with a very short sided view and the goal is some sort of means to prevent liability when it often creates it. Policy should be fairly generic to allow officers to properly handle a crisis based on what is actually occurring rather than a vision created in a sterile administrative environment.

Policy is not a replacement for training-period. The attempt to use policy for this goal is a complete and total abandonment of leadership by management and political officials. Training should be used as the first and most important step to attain goals. That training needs to be relative, recent, on going, and reviewable to ensure that it is best practice. Those who cannot or will not respond to training should be dealt with as individuals and policy should not be used to avoid correcting individual officer's deficiencies through restriction of all.

In the case of firearms deployment, these are often situations that are highly chaotic, stressful, very unique and often very unpredictable with no two ever really alike. The key to creating policy is simplicity and training. First, absolute adherence to basic firearms safety rules as an agency wide culture is likely all that is needed to create good policy.....as an example:

Firearms are always considered loaded. This simple mindset will demand a level of seriousness that should be present whenever a firearm is around. This encompasses not only officers individual firearms, but those encountered in the field whether recovered as evidence, in the hands of citizens or other officers, or as found property. This mindset prevents incidents from occurring in which unsafe activity is deemed acceptable because someone assumes a firearm is unloaded or non-operational. We should also not second guess officers in regards to status of any object that looks like a functional firearm. Until confirmation is made, by anyone who handles it, anything that looks like a firearm should be treated as a loaded and functional one. Those devices used in police training to simulate firearms should be easily recognized as training tools and should be used properly and whenever possible for training.
Muzzle Discipline. Officers need to be constantly aware of where their muzzles are covering. Pointing is a conscious act, covering truly encompasses an officers responsibility at all times. Officers should avoid covering anything they are not willing to destroy with a firearm. If they do have to cover something with a muzzle they should be able to articulate exactly why they did it. This should be consummate with current laws both state and federal, and in accordance with current Supreme Court decisions that cover an officers actions in this regard. It is recommended that if an officer covers another person with a firearm muzzle, they should document that action in some form (arrest report, notes, or call disposition). Most importantly, their actions must conform to a "reasonable man" standard. It is highly recommended that officers who wish to have better access to their firearm in a situation should use appropriate ready positions that will always be situation dependent. It is critical that training in appropriate ready positions to provide the best tactical advantage to officers is on going to reinforce proper use of both ready and contact positions and good muzzle discipline at all times.

Trigger finger. The trigger finger should be off the trigger and in register along the frame of the firearm and away from the trigger guard unless a target has been identified and a decision to shoot made. This should be a conscious action and articulable by an officer as to why a finger was on the trigger. Equally, the department must provide on going quality training that reinforces proper trigger discipline and to be aware that officers may unconsciously place a finger on a trigger during times of intense stress or fear. This needs to be mitigated through training. Officers that cannot respond to training in this regard should face potential discipline, and remediation. If the officer still cannot respond to documented training and remediation, they should not be allowed to carry a firearm and their police powers suspended.

Backstop. Officers should be aware of their target and what is beyond. This is also a mindset issue and one that is critically important. Officers must positively identify a target before engagement with a firearm. Emphasis should be placed on proper containment of an officers rounds if fired. Due to the nature of law enforcement, the best way to contain rounds fired is that they strike the intended target. Emphasis should be placed on marksmanship and gun handling in all department firearms training. A 100% hits on a standardized silhouette training target will be required in training to ensure that this emphasis is understood by all members of the department. While a passing score (70% minimum) may be less than 100%, any officer that misses a target in training or qualification will be immediately disqualified and remediation will begin. If an officer is unable to qualify with 100% hits on target after remediation, they will be restricted to station duty until they can qualify with both a passing score and 100% hits. If they cannot perform this task in a reasonable timeframe, their police powers will be suspended. This standard is a department wide standard and regardless of rank or assignment.

Critical elements of training. Training will be constant and on going. It will be reflective of actual police firearms usage that covers threat assessment, threat elimination (verbal, lethal non-lethal), proper pre and post shooting actions. It will emphasize gun handling in a 360 degree environment. It will emphasize a high level of marksmanship skill, and application of those skills in realistic time standards. It will emphasize professional gun handling at all times, and be focused on the importance that use of lethal force level implements deserve. The department shall place an emphasis on on-going use of force training on a monthly basis (including but not limited to, briefing training, video presentation, distribution of appropriate articles regarding use of force cases, and review of current events and court decisions). The department will provide quarterly firearms qualification. At least annually, the department will provide dedicated training to operations in low/no light with firearms for those officers assigned to any detail or area of the department where it is likely that they will be faced with use of force decision making in less than optimal lighting conditions (this can be done with live or training weapons as deemed necessary by the use of force training staff). The department shall provide advanced training and/or instructor development training to their firearms training officers on an annual basis at minimum, to ensure quality and relevance of the training they provide. Firearm training officers will be required to score at a 90% or better on the department firearms qualification courses and will be tested monthly to ensure they meet this standard. 



Basing a policy on the above allows the officer a great amount of latitude with firearms deployment. It places shared responsibility with the agency to provide training that reflects the goals of the department for proper use and deployment of firearms, and a responsibility on the officer to both respond to training and use that training as a standard for how they operate in the field. Proper training, proper response to training, and application of training in the field will protect the officers, the public and the agency equally. It also provides for a means to get rid of those in the position of providing training who should not be and force an agency to place people in a training assignment based on some level of ability and not as a retirement job or hiding place for members of the department. The key is to force accountability on everyone....including the executive and political management.

[Erick Gelhaus]

If the discussion is policy, not training, I would not put the training specific verbiage in policy. I subscribe to the belief that policy needs to be easily understood and re-explained when asked of the officer, not the instructor. Ones view on this may change when they have to discuss policy (multriple policies) at deposition.

Graham standard plus Garner and numerous other case law decisions will be the foundation for policy. When it comes to "appropriateness" there will be a general definition but specifics will be covered in training and tested in scenarios.

One qual with each weapon per year, actual training with each in the other three quarters or more frequently.

More later as the thread develops.

[Dagga Boy]

The original document didn't translate well from my iPad to the forum. Firearms police would be separate from training policy, but the key is you have to have both. How many times have we seen things like weapon mounted light policy.....with no training policy. Eventually, we all know, with the training element written into policy, the administration will find a way to not do it, cut it from budgets, etc. Truthfully, management is in far more need of policy to require training, than the troops are to dictate actions in the field.

[Wayne Dobbs]

You've alluded to it above, Darryl, but there has to be a policy mechanism to deal with folks who don't meet the standards and it should be a short process ending in significant improvement and success OR reassignment/termination. The "frequent flyer" program of remediation needs to go away to ensure program and policy credibility and to strengthen the organization's liability positions.

[Dagga Boy]

The single most important thing I got pushed through at my place to change the culture was a means to fire folks who could not qualify in conjunction with increased firearms training and an emphasis on solid performance instead of standards aimed at getting the LCD's to pass.

[cclaxton]

How big of a role does budgeting have to do with training versus policy? On the political side I see legislators wanting to pass laws instead of approving budgets...because taxpayers don't like higher taxes. If so, is there a way to get taxpayers to see the benefit?
Cody

[scw2]

How big of a role does budgeting have to do with training versus policy? On the political side I see legislators wanting to pass laws instead of approving budgets...because taxpayers don't like higher taxes. If so, is there a way to get taxpayers to see the benefit?
Cody

Do you have any idea what the costs for a suggested level of training would be versus those arising from poor training and policy such as lawsuit costs? Maybe rough numbers per year could be helpful.

[KevinB]

Do you have any idea what the costs for a suggested level of training would be versus those arising from poor training and policy such as lawsuit costs? Maybe rough numbers per year could be helpful.

5,000 rounds a year = maybe 2k at most
Range Staff = already salaried
Range = already owned
Guest Instructors = say 2-4 a year for a week each, 20-400,000 k depending on who/what etc.
Logical Policy : about 15min to write



City Lawsuit for negligence - in the M's



Risk mitigation and ass coverers should be crying for training

[cclaxton]

City Lawsuit for negligence - in the M's
Risk mitigation and ass coverers should be crying for training

That is a really great point. Fairfax County has paid out at least $6M in Civil Litigation over three incidents I know of. Think of all the extra training that could have bought. And, we now have one cop on trial for murder...intangible costs in lost productivity, management distractions, etc.
Really good point...
Cody

[JustOneGun]

Nyeti,

What are your thoughts on why we should do this for Cody? What do you expect can be gained? While I agree that a generic policy for those uninitiated to how it works is a good thing. The common language and thought process can lead to a better discussion and understanding by every side of the arguments ie Fairfax thread. But given the different departments, POST standards and how they are interpreted by each agency the discussion often just bogs down.

My question goes to framing. Are we discussing a generic set of policies as we think they should be (unframed) or the way they end up? It is very rare to have an SME police officer in Arizona write their policies. As someone suggested they are framed by court cases. Written by department lawyers, risk managers/insurance cost minimization agents ie CALEA.

After framing in draft form the SME gets an input to fight for needed changes. Ultimately it's the command staff that writes and approves. In Arizona the POST SME's then get together on certain subjects (recruit training and qualification) and decide, not individual SME's. I.e 8th grade politics. My point is that the policies in Arizona all look pretty much the same with very similar framing.

So are you after what input you think should be there or proposed? And how do you believe that difference will balance in any discussion on the individual policies?

In my experience it's different with training policy. What POST says is a minimum becomes the framing for the maximum amount of training. The SME writes or has written the policy and then the brass change it as they wish and approve it. In my opinion this is where good departments and bad are differentiated. Short answer, succeeding in spite of all the framing is what differentiates the ordinary police training unit and the great ones.

[scw2]

5,000 rounds a year = maybe 2k at most
Guest Instructors = say 2-4 a year for a week each, 20-400,000 k depending on who/what etc.


I would have thought that 9mm would cost closer to $1K a year, not sure what Fairfax uses. With a bit under 1.5K officers, we're talking $1.5M - 3.0M in ammo costs and under $500K in trainers, so $2.0-3.5MM a year.




Fairfax County has paid out at least $6M in Civil Litigation over three incidents I know of. Think of all the extra training that could have bought. And, we now have one cop on trial for murder...intangible costs in lost productivity, management distractions, etc. Cody

Do you know over what time period these lawsuits occurred? If this is once a year, we're talking $2MM+ in settlement costs alone each year. Once you account for the suffering of those injured/killed plus all the other costs, it very quickly looks like a no-brainer to just pay for the training.

[JustOneGun]

5,000 rounds a year = maybe 2k at most
Range Staff = already salaried
Range = already owned
Guest Instructors = say 2-4 a year for a week each, 20-400,000 k depending on who/what etc.
Logical Policy : about 15min to write



City Lawsuit for negligence - in the M's



Risk mitigation and ass coverers should be crying for training




Kevin,

You might need to kick this to a different thread as to not bog down Nyeti's post?

The rough training dollars is more complex than a number. It would have to be made for each person as different departments have different numbers of officers. For my old department 5000 just covers qual once per year. Then we have remedial training cost and requal cost. Then we have actual training.

Depending on the size of the department we might have to pay people overtime to cover officers in training. It gets into the weeds real quick.

As to lawsuits, what you say may or may not be true. Often agencies settle no matter what in search of a more fixed cost. This settling has nothing to do with lawsuits for failure to train and such as POST usually mandates a framework for minimal training. If an agency does this type of settlement practice then doing the minimum training becomes more attractive irrespective of common sense ideas about officer's abilities to keep themselves and the public more safe with quality training. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just the way it is on many if not most departments.

[Dagga Boy]

Nyeti,

What are your thoughts on why we should do this for Cody? What do you expect can be gained? While I agree that a generic policy for those uninitiated to how it works is a good thing. The common language and thought process can lead to a better discussion and understanding by every side of the arguments ie Fairfax thread. But given the different departments, POST standards and how they are interpreted by each agency the discussion often just bogs down.

My question goes to framing. Are we discussing a generic set of policies as we think they should be (unframed) or the way they end up? It is very rare to have an SME police officer in Arizona write their policies. As someone suggested they are framed by court cases. Written by department lawyers, risk managers/insurance cost minimization agents ie CALEA.

After framing in draft form the SME gets an input to fight for needed changes. Ultimately it's the command staff that writes and approves. In Arizona the POST SME's then get together on certain subjects (recruit training and qualification) and decide, not individual SME's. I.e 8th grade politics. My point is that the policies in Arizona all look pretty much the same with very similar framing.

So are you after what input you think should be there or proposed? And how do you believe that difference will balance in any discussion on the individual policies?

In my experience it's different with training policy. What POST says is a minimum becomes the framing for the maximum amount of training. The SME writes or has written the policy and then the brass change it as they wish and approve it. In my opinion this is where good departments and bad are differentiated. Short answer, succeeding in spite of all the framing is what differentiates the ordinary police training unit and the great ones.

I ll try to make this simple. My goal is not to help Cody. I personally think the agency he is involved with has already screwed the pooch so bad it can't be fixed. The reason I thought it might be good to get some actual SME's to put down some ideas for policy is to have a source for those who lack experience to break from two things common in LE. First...."Its the way we always have done things" syndrome, often propagated by people who have not been to a firearms instructor class in decades or more, and placed by management who have not been in a police car in decades. Second....for a counter to policy written by City Attorney's who are provided job security when LE violates the unworkable policies they write. It is also a counter to the executive and political management who are usually kicking a problem down the road and the taxpayers. I figure if some folks can come up with some workable ideas and how to balance policy by making it harder on the management and lawyers with responsibility on their end, and it may be helpful to some up and coming folks who have a chance to save some agencies.

[cclaxton]

I ll try to make this simple. My goal is not to help Cody. I personally think the agency he is involved with has already screwed the pooch so bad it can't be fixed. The reason I thought it might be good to get some actual SME's to put down some ideas for policy is to have a source for those who lack experience to break from two things common in LE. First...."Its the way we always have done things" syndrome, often propagated by people who have not been to a firearms instructor class in decades or more, and placed by management who have not been in a police car in decades. Second....for a counter to policy written by City Attorney's who are provided job security when LE violates the unworkable policies they write. It is also a counter to the executive and political management who are usually kicking a problem down the road and the taxpayers. I figure if some folks can come up with some workable ideas and how to balance policy by making it harder on the management and lawyers with responsibility on their end, and it may be helpful to some up and coming folks who have a chance to save some agencies.
I would like to add there is value to ordinary citizens who need to be educated about the issues in public policy and law enforcement. The smarter we are as voters and advocates, the more we can help LE's and find the right balance of civilian oversight. And, as Area Coordinator for IDPA, communicate the current best practices for self-defense, and develop support systems for LEO's while balancing our 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights regarding firearms.

I am very thankful for the time professional LEO's are willing to put into this, and timely. The better we understand what LEO's are faced with, the better understanding and support we can provide.

I do have my Supervisors' ear...it may be too late, but as my girlfriend tells me....You can always ask.

Cody

[deputyG23]

This is a very timely thread for me. Our bosses have given the OK to review and rewrite our firearms policy after multiple issues of NDs, and thefts of issued handguns when improperly stored. My agency is primarily local corrections, court security, and civil enforcement in mission. I am one of a too few number of FA instructors and we could definitely use guidance to ensure that the best possible policy is written.

[Dagga Boy]

This is a very timely thread for me. Our bosses have given the OK to review and rewrite our firearms policy after multiple issues of NDs, and thefts of issued handguns when improperly stored. My agency is primarily local corrections, court security, and civil enforcement in mission. I am one of a too few number of FA instructors and we could definitely use guidance to ensure that the best possible policy is written.

Biggest thing I would recommend is to fix problems, real or perceived, through heavily documented and retained training. Save policy for very general guidelines that correspond with current case law. If the goal is to have better performance, less law suits and liability, and actually taken seriously by officers.