2010 NYPD Annual OIS review

[Nephrology]

Some interesting data to consider.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/268431-2010-nypd-firearms-discharge-report.html

I am just going through it now but familiar patterns are developing already. "More typically, the greatest percentage of officers fired at a range of six to ten feet..."

[Ed L]

Great find!

I imagine that the fact that the greatest percentage of officers fired at a range of 6 to 10 feet is a reflection of their typical verbal interaction distance.

Other interesting things--lots of one handed shooting, and shooters seem to not be sure whether or not they used their sights.

"SHOOTING TECHNIQUE: Utilizing a two-handed grip, standing, and lining up a target using the firearm's sights is the preferred method of discharging a firearm, but it is not always practical during an adversarial conflict. Of officers reporting their shooting techniques, there was a nearly even split between officers who gripped the firearm with two hands and those who gripped the firearm with one hand.

More than half of officers who reported their stance state that they were standing (58 percent). And although only 40 percent of officers made any report of whether or not they had used their sights, it is notable that only one officer reported in the affirmative. Only 25 percent of reporting officers were able to make use of some type of cover during the incident. Lack of cover can be a factor in the need for a firearms discharge.

DISTANCE-Although officers are trained to fire on a target from as far away as 75 feet, the majority of adversarial conflict discharges occur when the officer is closer than ten feet to the subject. Nevertheless, in 2010, one officer reported firing from a distance of 50 feet. He did not hit the subject. More typically, the greatest percentage of officers fired at a range of six to ten feet [see Figure A.11].

[Nephrology]

Here's 2009's

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/AFDR200920101101.pdf

[David Armstrong]

The SOP 9 findings, while debated by some, have been pretty consistent over the last 20 years. Incidents are usually up close, sights are rarely used, a fast draw rarely is needed, and the incident is solved with a small number of shots.

[jetfire]

The SOP 9 findings, while debated by some, have been pretty consistent over the last 20 years. Incidents are usually up close, sights are rarely used, a fast draw rarely is needed, and the incident is solved with a small number of shots.

A more accurate statement would "officers rarely recall using their sights". That does not indicate that they did or not use their sights, but rather whether or not they remembered using their sights.

[JHC]

How does a gunfight occur on average of 6-10 feet and one not need to draw it quickly? Guns already drawn covering a suspect?

I am all about sighted fire but with a death duel erupting at 6' . . . I don't need sights either.

[Nephrology]

Also interesting to note that more officers used their sights when shooting animals than people.

[GJM]

Interesting that in half of the shootings, an officer fired with just one hand. Reinforces the Rogers School emphasis on one hand shooting proficiency.

[jetfire]

Well, inside that 6-10 foot circle, I'd imagine there was a lot of "oh shiBLAMBLAMBLAM" action.

[167]

Given the typical distance, I don't find the rest surprising. Also keep in mind the level of training of the typical NYPD officer and that these figures are for LE OIS's, so some of the information may be situational specific to LE.

[Tamara]

A more accurate statement would "officers rarely recall using their sights". That does not indicate that they did or not use their sights, but rather whether or not they remembered using their sights.

How often do you use your sights at <7yds in a match, as opposed to in practice? I'm not being a smartass; I'm genuinely curious. I know there are probably as many different viewpoints on this as there are shooters

I'm slowly and hesitantly coming around to the viewpoint that the reason to use the sights religiously in practice is so that when it comes to, as you said "oh shiBLAMBLAMBLAM", you will have developed a good index through habit and repetition.

[ToddG]

Interesting that in half of the shootings, an officer fired with just one hand.

In my experience, the odds that a person will use just one hand on the gun under stress is very directly related to his skill level. Until that 2-handed grip becomes a subconscious habit, lesser trained folks revert to getting one hand on the gun.

Also, at the distances being discussed, there's a good chance that the other hand was occupied (or prepared for making contact with the close range threat).


How often do you use your sights at <7yds in a match, as opposed to in practice?

Depends completely on the situation. I've missed the head of an IDPA target (6x6) stapled to the opposite side of the card table I was sitting at. I've also blazed through stages with absolutely no memory of visual sight awareness but got all my hits.


I'm slowly and hesitantly coming around to the viewpoint that the reason to use the sights religiously in practice is so that when it comes to, as you said "oh shiBLAMBLAMBLAM", you will have developed a good index through habit and repetition.

This, exactly. Practicing sighted fire improves your index; practicing index fire does not improve your sights.

[JHC]

In our local matches, there is usually a lot of movement and not infrequently that movement around obstacles and through doors and you'll run into a few shots where the target is <6-8 feet and since your going fast it's just metal on target center and bam bam. There's been a few of those card table starts where shooter is seated and we've had 5 targets right on the other side of the card table that are headshots only and no sights used there there at all either. Good hits and I'm a pure sighted fire shooter. Only the noob shooters had any trouble getting all A's at that.

[jetfire]

How often do you use your sights at <7yds in a match, as opposed to in practice? I'm not being a smartass; I'm genuinely curious. I know there are probably as many different viewpoints on this as there are shooters.

The honest answer to that is "depends on the shot I'm taking." Wide open target inside 7 yards and I don't really use the sights at all, I shoot with both eyes open and rely primarily on having a good body index. Put a no-shoot on that target, or occlude the target partially with hard-cover and I'm back on my sights.

At a recent IDPA match, there was a stage that started with head shots on a 7 yard target, then move to a position and take body shots on fairly open targets, then move one more time and take head shots on a 7 yard target. For the head boxes, I used my sights, for the close in body work I didn't. I almost always use my sights when I'm shooting at steel regardless of the range - I HATE missing steel plates for any reason, so I tend to take the extra 0.2 seconds to get a decent sight picture even it's a bigass pepper popper at 10 yards.

[Chuck Anderson]

How often do you use your sights at <7yds in a match, as opposed to in practice? I'm not being a smartass; I'm genuinely curious. I know there are probably as many different viewpoints on this as there are shooters

I'm slowly and hesitantly coming around to the viewpoint that the reason to use the sights religiously in practice is so that when it comes to, as you said "oh shiBLAMBLAMBLAM", you will have developed a good index through habit and repetition.

About 99.9% of the time. It's rare when I don't use my sights in competition. I've got enough time behind the gun that it doesn't take that much more time to find the sights than it does to point shoot. It varies how much effort I put into lining the sights up, a fast rough sight picture or a precise focused sight picture, but I'm always seeing them.

[David Armstrong]

A more accurate statement would "officers rarely recall using their sights". That does not indicate that they did or not use their sights, but rather whether or not they remembered using their sights.
Then by the same token would it be accurate to say that those who remember using their sights may or may not have used their sights, since they are operating off of their memory? Perhaps we should also question their stance, or grip, etc sincethata is a result of what they remember? Sorry, but given the dynamics of actual shootings and the science available, I tend to think that when an officer says he did not use his sights he did not use his sights.

[David Armstrong]

How does a gunfight occur on average of 6-10 feet and one not need to draw it quickly? Guns already drawn covering a suspect?
The current SOP 9s are not nearly as detailed as the older ones, but going back to them yes, a lot of incidents develop in a format where the officer has reason to already have his gun out and available. Also a number of incidents will start at a greater distance then the actual shooting will occur as the parties close with each other.

[Tamara]

I've got enough time behind the gun that it doesn't take that much more time to find the sights than it does to point shoot.

I've busted a cap or two myself, even if I'm not all that great of a shooter; I know in my head that getting a sight picture doesn't take all that much longer. I also know that, personally, I'd be lying if I said that every time I was operating under even the artificial constraint of a clock and a bunch of people watching that I was really aware of my sights like I should be.

Sure, it would make me sound all cool like Jim Cirillo to say that I focused hard on every nick and imperfection in the front sight blade (and I'd no doubt be a better shot if I did) but there are plenty of times when, after the BEEEP!, if I'm going to be totally honest, I just brought the gun up in front of my face and let fly because I had a wide-open target inside of seven yards.

[Dr. No]

I would hazard a guess that a lot of the 'one handed shooting' is also due to Officers encountering subjects at night. Flashlights in the off hand tend to stay there, especially when you want to keep an eye on them. Many cops still don't have lights on their pistols.

[HeadHunter]

For those who are interested, the 1997-2006 reports are available from the NYCLU (http://www.nyclu.org/node/1756).

[Nephrology]

Much obliged.

Does anyone know for how much longer NYPD is planning on fielding their 3rd Gen S&W Semi automatics? seems like them being out of production and all they would be looking to replace them...

[ToddG]

Then by the same token would it be accurate to say that those who remember using their sights may or may not have used their sights, since they are operating off of their memory? Perhaps we should also question their stance, or grip, etc sincethata is a result of what they remember?

YES.

I've personally talked with an officer who swore he was in a picture perfect Weaver stance during a gunfight... until he saw the dashcam video and hard evidence that he fell into the same "happen-stance" as everyone else.

Years ago I took a half-day seminar from a head shrinker at an IALEFI conference whose specialty was LEO gunfight survivor PTSD. She went into great detail about how many false memories folks build under stress, how our brains are too preoccupied to record things as well as usual so instead we innocently fill in the blanks afterwards without even realizing. So if you've been told to use your sights you might remember using your sights simply because you know you won and you think you must have done everything right. Did you actually see your sights? Maybe, maybe not. There is literally no way anyone can ever be 100% sure.

[DocGKR]

3rd gen S&W's are not available to the civilian market, but were still built for several recent LE contracts...

[jlw]

My SO's shooting review is pretty simple. The only one that we have had to anyone's memory was this year in February.

The suspect had taken a mother and teenage daughter hostage and was planning to kill them along with the husband/father when he arrived home. The daughter managed to escape and run next door to a neighbor and call 911. In the meantime, the suspect shot the mother in the foot.

The approach to this place was a single lane driveway over a bridge with swamp on either side. There are hedges and trees blocking all visibility from the roadway. There are two houses and a bunch of outbuildings in a clearing once you clear the swamp.

Five deputies went up the driveway and formed a skirmish line as best the good when the terrain allowed. Two of the deputies are SRT veterans, and a third has some military experience. They took cover as best they could.

The perp came out and pointed a .40SW Sigma at one of the deputies. Another deputy fired one shot from an AR at about 55 yards. It went through the suspect's forearm and into his chest. He fell, raised up, and promptly shot himself in the head.

[jlw]

3rd gen S&W's are not available to the civilian market, but were still built for several recent LE contracts...

That led in part to my previous agencies switching from S&W to Glock several years ago. We didn't have the buying power to order enough pistols for them to do a production run. We were worried about being able to get additional pistols in the future if we needed them. At the time all of this transpired, S&W had 22 4006s in inventory, and they were from the run done for the CHP.

[David Armstrong]

YES.

I've personally talked with an officer who swore he was in a picture perfect Weaver stance during a gunfight... until he saw the dashcam video and hard evidence that he fell into the same "happen-stance" as everyone else.

Years ago I took a half-day seminar from a head shrinker at an IALEFI conference whose specialty was LEO gunfight survivor PTSD. She went into great detail about how many false memories folks build under stress, how our brains are too preoccupied to record things as well as usual so instead we innocently fill in the blanks afterwards without even realizing. So if you've been told to use your sights you might remember using your sights simply because you know you won and you think you must have done everything right. Did you actually see your sights? Maybe, maybe not. There is literally no way anyone can ever be 100% sure.
Right. All we have to go on, barring some outside evidence, is what the shooter remembers. Therefore to suggest that seeing or not seeing sights should be isolated from any other factors in the shooting (not saying that is what caleb was doing) is being rather selective about issues. We tend to be selective about what we question without using the same level of scrutiny about other things. IIRC, one of the eye-openers at the first NTI was the number of shooters who remembered shooting from a Weaver Stance who were later shown to have shot from one-handed crouch, iso, etc.

[smithjd]

Many of the variables that (don't) go into these reports have already been listed, i.e. training, low light, gun unholstered, etc. I think that the biggest one is what Tony Blauer calls the "difference between fights WE start and fights THEY start." I think that by nature, the close range "Oh Shit" gun fights are the ones they start, and the longer range, two handed, use cover / sights etc are the ones we start. Just cause the cop had the gun out, doesn't mean its a fight they started...they may have just thought the potential existed, as it has so many times in the past but not panned out.

It helps to disect these by "Stimulus, stimulus, stimulus, response" rather than just "stimulus - response", again Tony Blauer.

And on another note, one of my friends and very experienced trainers said something like "just because somebody does something during a gunfight, doesn't mean we should train people to do that during a gunfight..." alluding to the fact that sometimes natural tendancies are contraindicated in two-way projectile combat.

[ToddG]

He fell, raised up, and promptly shot himself in the head.

So if your 5.56 round causes someone to commit suicide, is that a one shot stop? :cool:


And on another note, one of my friends and very experienced trainers said something like "just because somebody does something during a gunfight, doesn't mean we should train people to do that during a gunfight..." alluding to the fact that sometimes natural tendancies are contraindicated in two-way projectile combat.

Exactly. The one-handed shooting thing from the NYPD review is a great example of that. There are people who've been shot in the strong hand and had to fire a bloody, slippery pistol weak hand only under life-or-death stress... and prevailed! That doesn't mean that before a gunfight we should dunk our pistols in soapy water and only shoot WHO. "It worked" isn't the same as "it's best."

[TCinVA]

Something worth noting about LE shooting data:

I'll be the miserable, unprofessional son-of-a-bitch to throw out there the idea that most police officers are not trained as gunfighters. By that I mean they have not been trained to use their sidearm with a high level of precision and proficiency under stress. The ugly truth of most (certainly not all) LE firearms training is that it is designed to result in a minimally competent individual who it is hoped will not shoot themselves with the sidearm they have to be issued. (Truth be told, many departments wouldn't issue guns if they didn't have to, and many cops wouldn't carry one if not forced to do so by policy.) Furthermore, officers exercising their own initiative to improve their skills are frequently discouraged from doing so. Todd and I both know of a recent example of police officers scheduled to attend a training course who, at the last minute, were denied permission to use ammo or weapons from their department because of liability concerns. That was a deal-breaker.

As a result, when I see data accumulated from LE shootings I'm always inclined to wonder how much of the data is generated by the realities of violent encounters, and how much of the "reality" we see in them is produced by sub-optimal training and other factors like a reluctance to use lethal force even when fully justified by the law and by policy. Now I'm not suggesting that police officers (or anyone else) should be in an all-fired hurry to shoot people, but by the same token damn near every police officer who has been at it for more than a few years has encountered situations in which they would have been completely justified in pulling the trigger but didn't. I even know of a number of examples where officers who didn't use force...which would have been fully justified in the moment according to departmental UOF policy and according to the laws of their state...were commended for their "restraint". It sounds great until you ponder the reality that fractions of seconds and the moral recognizance/pain threshold of violent perpetrators define the difference between a commendation for exercising "restraint" and a dead or severely injured police officer.

I mention all of that because in the past I've noted how daft conversations about LE shooting data can get. As an example, on another website a strip-mall blackbelt in something or other decided that he was going to branch out into teaching firearms (because breaking boards and memorizing kata apparently is the path to warrior enlightenment which qualifies one as an expert on all forms of violent interaction) and he threw out an absurdly long treatise about how all the current firearms training was irrelevant and dangerous based largely on conclusions he drew from LE shooting data. Granted he got lots of the numbers wrong because he didn't have any actual access to real LE shooting data and was instead quoting others who also had no access to that data but no shortage of an opinion on its significance, but the general process of forming his conclusions was based on the idea that the information he was quoting was immutable reality without even an acknowledgment that some of what's seen in the data might be a reflection of a number of different variables that, when changed, could produce very different outcomes.

Take officer training as just one example: What percentage of police officers who will go on duty today genuinely regard their sidearm as a problem solving tool? By that I mean what percentage of officers on duty today have knowingly trained themselves to what they believe is a high level of proficiency with their sidearm and as a result have an absolute and complete conviction that if they are forced to reach for that sidearm to solve a problem that some stuff is going to get by-God solved, and in a hurry? Does this lack of confidence have implications for how they approach or handle a situation?

As far as I can determine, mindset is not an insignificant factor in violent conflict and in my informal observation officers who have a mindset to train and strive for improving their ability to resolve violent encounters in their favor tend to have a better outcome. In other words, I've noted that officers who had an expectation that at some point they would encounter someone who insisted on a fight to the death and dealt with that expectation by rigorous preparation and forging the desire to not just survive, but prevail...well...they tended to exceed the average when the moment arrived. Even more notable, that resolve and preparation seemed to impact how they carried themselves and interacted with very bad people to the point where in some instances it apparently convinced violent predators that attempting to make it a life or death contest would be certain doom. The shootings these officers have been in can be turned invisible as all statistical outliers are in aggregate data, and so useful lessons can be lost even though they may contain the prescription for improving any number of statistics that emerge from looking at LE shooting data.

So what am I getting at?

Simply this: When we see reports about LE use of shooting data, I think it's healthy for us to keep in mind that there is often a lot of why underlying the way the numbers look and because of that it's risky to make absolute conclusions about how things go based on those numbers. It's particularly easy for folks to confuse success because of with success in spite of when discussing LE data.

Perhaps wiser men like F2S, Sean M., SouthNarc, or Nyeti can expand a bit on those thoughts.

[Tom Givens]

TCinVA summed it up really well.

The SOP9 report from NYPD outlines the outcomes one can expect with the following in place:
1. Truly minimally trained officers. The last time I checked, NYPD officers shoot once per year for "qualification".
2. A department hierarchy totally opposed to self defense by civilians or by officers.
3. Lack of a "gun culture" in the department or in the general NYC population, from which officers are recruited.

Pointing to this as something the rest of us should emulate indicates a severe lack of understanding.

[jlw]

So if your 5.56 round causes someone to commit suicide, is that a one shot stop? :cool:


I did tell the Deputy not to be worried about murder charges. The worst it would be is aggravated assault. ;)

[HeadHunter]

So if your 5.56 round causes someone to commit suicide, is that a one shot stop? :cool:

It's at least "Combat Accurate."

[David Armstrong]

TCinVA summed it up really well.

The SOP9 report from NYPD outlines the outcomes one can expect with the following in place:
1. Truly minimally trained officers. The last time I checked, NYPD officers shoot once per year for "qualification".
2. A department hierarchy totally opposed to self defense by civilians or by officers.
3. Lack of a "gun culture" in the department or in the general NYC population, from which officers are recruited.

Pointing to this as something the rest of us should emulate indicates a severe lack of understanding.
By the same token, however, ignoring the results of data collected from thousands of shootings because one disagrees with the background that led to those outcomes is problematic. In fact, given those parameters, it could be argued that most of NYPD rather closely reflects the majority of gunowners.....minimally trained, reluctant to use force, and not particularly gun oriented. Actually, one could make a pretty good case that overall the NYPD is probably better trained, more willing to use force in defense, and more gun oriented than the typical gunowner. So looking at probably tells us a lot more than some might think, particularly when we see the same general findings being repeated over and over across decades of time, many different types of incidents, widely varied training, and so on.

TCinVA is right when he said, "....most police officers are not trained as gunfighters. By that I mean they have not been trained to use their sidearm with a high level of precision and proficiency under stress." But most LE are still trained far better and far more often than non-LE in the areas of gunfighting and using the sidearm under stress. Until someone finds a better source of information/data about what happens in actual gunfights we're sort of stuck with what we have.

[JeffJ]

I think it's interesting to look at from the standpoint of: "This is what people revert to under stress, I want to make sure I focus my training/practice so that I will use the better technique under stress"

So my question to all you trainers and more experience folks on the forum is: With the caveat that the lowest common denominator training or lack thereof consists of two-handed sighted fire (I am assuming that those with very little training and very little practice aren't exploring point shooting options or SHO/WHO manipulations) but, those individuals tend to react with one-handed point shooting under stress. What can I do in my training/practice to increase my odds of using proper technique under stress should I need to?

Is it simply a matter of getting the reps in, or is there something more than that?

[JeffJ]

By the way, everybody on the internet knows that a poodle shooter 5.56 won't cause someone to commit suicide - it takes at least a 7.62 ------ gotta go, there's a situation at the Orange Julius :D

[NickA]

By the way, everybody on the internet knows that a poodle shooter 5.56 won't cause someone to commit suicide - it takes at least a 7.62 ------ gotta go, there's a situation at the Orange Julius :D

Don't forget your back armor plates and the break-down 338 Lapua:)

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[jetfire]

But most LE are still trained far better and far more often than non-LE in the areas of gunfighting and using the sidearm under stress.

Citation needed.

[Joe in PNG]

Citation needed.

How many Judges did Taurus sell last year?

[jlw]

Citation needed.

Average LE compared to average gun owner: I would agree with his statement.

Average LE compared to serious shooter that seeks training: Different story.

[JodyH]

Average sworn LE vs. average licensed CCW.
LE get's far more initial training and more refresher/requalification training as well.
I base that on my experience instructing CCW classes since 2004 and the training and qualification shooting I know the area LE agencies conduct.

When it comes to the "serious" students of gun fighting I see far more civilians in training classes than I do LEO's.

[Kevin B.]

So my question to all you trainers and more experience folks on the forum is: With the caveat that the lowest common denominator training or lack thereof consists of two-handed sighted fire (I am assuming that those with very little training and very little practice aren't exploring point shooting options or SHO/WHO manipulations) but, those individuals tend to react with one-handed point shooting under stress. What can I do in my training/practice to increase my odds of using proper technique under stress should I need to?

Is it simply a matter of getting the reps in, or is there something more than that?

There is something more. The operative word in gunfight is "fight." Most other forms of fighting graduate from the practice of component skills into some form of selection/contextual application. That is to say you need to participate in some type of training that places you in a situation where you are required to assess a problem, develop a solution to the problem by selecting relevant skills, then apply those skills to solve the problem. With firearms this can be difficult but not impossible. FoF training, shoothouses, and systems such as FATS all do this to varying degrees. Competition less so.

That is not to say flat range work is bad. Quite the contrary. It is an essential component of any training program. But it is a component.

It is worth noting that initial attempts at skill selection/contextual application may not go well. This is a natural part of the training progression just as a new fighter pilot's first mock air-to-air engagement or a newMMA fighter's first attempt at free sparring typically will not go well. This is where a qualified instructor is absolutely vital. The instructor needs to be able to calibrate the problem to your level of proficiency. He also needs to understand where you failed in the diagnostic/selection process, explain why you failed to achieve the desired/optimal result and then provide you a similar (but preferably not identical) problem to work through later.

ETA: A high degree of skill is a good thing. But the ability to quickly work through a shooting problem and execute the relevant skills at an acceptable level of proficiency is what will allow you to prevail in a gunfight.

[KeeFus]

Average sworn LE vs. average licensed CCW.
LE get's far more initial training and more refresher/requalification training as well.
I base that on my experience instructing CCW classes since 2004 and the training and qualification shooting I know the area LE agencies conduct.

When it comes to the "serious" students of gun fighting I see far more civilians in training classes than I do LEO's.

I would say this is the best statement that fits LEO's in general. We qualify once a calendar year and IMHO I think thats a crock. I have taken exactly one "gunfighting" class as a LEO and that was in the late 90's. Three days of shooting close contact drills etc...best training class I have ever taken. The kicker was...we had to supply our own ammo which at the time was 9mm. If we didnt we would have had to withdraw from the class.

I think that the negative connotation of the word 'gunfighting' or anything that would tend to enhance those skills relating to LEO's/firearms is what turns admin off to the classes. I don't agree with that mindset but the staff in my area are very stand-offish when it comes to these necessary skills/classes. Including me we have 3 guys at my agency that have used (fired) our weapons on duty. The common mindset among us three is that we need more firearms training every year but qualifying once a year is what the budget is for us at the moment.

[ToddG]

We shouldn't lump all LEAs together, either, though.

NYPD, in fact, has a pretty decent initial/cadet training program from what I've seen of it. If they fall down as an agency it's in lack of ongoing training.

I taught a class in Montana a few years back (hosted by SLG) and the local Sheriff was so insistent that his guys show up that he actually spent the weekend out on patrol himself so there'd be one more deputy free of normal duties who could take the class.

I'm in TX next week doing a class for an agency that's bringing me in to help develop a shooting on the move in-service block of training.

FBI and other big federal agencies regularly bring in outside instructors, particularly for advanced training with their SWAT-esque teams.

I can also see this from the standpoint of the LEA administrator. How many officers are going to accept a cut in pay so the department has money in the budget for an extra $1,000/man worth of firearms training each year? Many who lament the poor training practices of their local PDs and SOs wouldn't want to see their taxes raised to pay for better training.

[David Armstrong]

Citation needed.
Items of general knowledge do not require citations in general discussions. It is sort of like saying give me a citation for "the Sun rises in the East" or "most children attend school."

[TCinVA]

By the same token, however, ignoring the results of data collected from thousands of shootings because one disagrees with the background that led to those outcomes is problematic.

I'm not suggesting we ignore it...merely that we keep in mind that the results seen are not necessarily because of immutable truths of gunfighting. Frequently in discussions about data like this people walk away thinking that certain facts about fights are immutable truth because that's what the averages say. The averages leave out a whole lot of things and don't consider a whole lot of information that would prove enlightening.

No department that I'm aware of formally tracks the performance of their best performers against the performance of their run-of-the-mill performers in terms of gunfights. That would be incredibly interesting information to all of us here, but by even mentioning the notion publicly I'm sure that somewhere a police administrator felt a disturbance in the Force.

The information in reports like this certainly has some predictive value, but it's also crucial to know why some of the numbers look like they do to keep from wandering into error because of misapplying the numbers.


I think it's interesting to look at from the standpoint of: "This is what people revert to under stress, I want to make sure I focus my training/practice so that I will use the better technique under stress"


A good way to look at it.


Average sworn LE vs. average licensed CCW.
LE get's far more initial training and more refresher/requalification training as well.
I base that on my experience instructing CCW classes since 2004 and the training and qualification shooting I know the area LE agencies conduct.

When it comes to the "serious" students of gun fighting I see far more civilians in training classes than I do LEO's.

In Virginia a CCW permit has no training requirement. Out of the permit holders I know in my area that I don't know through outlets like Pistol-Forum or because I met them in a training class, I'm the only one with any formal training under their belt. A couple had prior military experience, but never more than basic quals and fam-fire with sidearms.

In that respect, the police officers are much better "trained" than the CCW holderson the whole because most CCW holders in Virginia and other places probably do the bare minimum in terms of training. The bare minimum for police officers is usually higher than the bare minimum for CCW holders, so that creates a win by default. Unfortunately the "training" that happens at around qual time often involves an "instructor" showing the same powerpoint presentation they've used for the last 5 years and then running the qual course on B27's...with some officers multiple times because they fail the first couple of attempts. Very little real instruction goes on in a lot of ongoing training/qual days.

As I said earlier: There are certainly some very good programs out there which do a hell of a lot better. There are academy programs that are fantastic, but the departments the officers end up in often don't have ongoing firearms programs that are anywhere near the same level.


I think that the negative connotation of the word 'gunfighting' or anything that would tend to enhance those skills relating to LEO's/firearms is what turns admin off to the classes.

That's another biggie. Police officers respond to scenes where people have been shot, stabbed, and bludgeoned to death...and yet the administration of those departments (and society in general) is often extremely uncomfortable any suggestion that violence may be the only answer when it comes to dealing with the people who perpetrate those crimes. The very mention of teaching cops to be gunfighters is enough to cause sphincters to tighten across the land...yet that doesn't change the capacity of criminals to do violence. There's a massive disconnect at work there.

In the general public this is to be expected since they don't directly deal with it on a daily basis. It mystifies me, however, to see that mindset at work in a police department (or even a Commonwealth's attorney's office) where they deal day in and day out with the ugliest aspects of human nature.

[jetfire]

Items of general knowledge do not require citations in general discussions. It is sort of like saying give me a citation for "the Sun rises in the East" or "most children attend school."

They do when they're not actually accepted as "general knowledge" as the rest of the replies to this thread clearly indicate.

[jlw]

We shouldn't lump all LEAs together, either, though.

NYPD, in fact, has a pretty decent initial/cadet training program from what I've seen of it. If they fall down as an agency it's in lack of ongoing training.

I taught a class in Montana a few years back (hosted by SLG) and the local Sheriff was so insistent that his guys show up that he actually spent the weekend out on patrol himself so there'd be one more deputy free of normal duties who could take the class.

I'm in TX next week doing a class for an agency that's bringing me in to help develop a shooting on the move in-service block of training.

FBI and other big federal agencies regularly bring in outside instructors, particularly for advanced training with their SWAT-esque teams.

I can also see this from the standpoint of the LEA administrator. How many officers are going to accept a cut in pay so the department has money in the budget for an extra $1,000/man worth of firearms training each year? Many who lament the poor training practices of their local PDs and SOs wouldn't want to see their taxes raised to pay for better training.


To echo some of the issues in this post:

We took a $300,000 budget cut this year and had to eliminate a lot of things; one being routine overtime. Now if a deputy works over on a report, they have to adjust that time out at some other point during that pay period, and this further stretches manpower.

Ammo costs money. Take what you spend on ammo and training to get proficient and then multiply that across the number of peace officers working in your local agency. Also consider that the money for that training would come out of your pocket via tax dollars, but also consider that your local agency has to convince the local politicos to allocate said tax dollars. Also remember that the agency is having to convince the politicos to allocate the money for ammo and training instead of on pet projects for the politicos.

It's easy to lament the lack of training. It's another to make all the pieces of the puzzle fit into place to make it happen.

[peterb]

Deleted

[David Armstrong]

from TCinVA:
I'm not suggesting we ignore it...merely that we keep in mind that the results seen are not necessarily because of immutable truths of gunfighting. Frequently in discussions about data like this people walk away thinking that certain facts about fights are immutable truth because that's what the averages say.
Agreed, and I don't think anyone has suggested the results are because of immutable truths about gunfighting. Data is data, and the averages reflect the facts as we know them based on the data. That folks would base immutable truths on averages says far more about the state of understanding and reason on the part of many than it says anything about the data itself.

[David Armstrong]

They do when they're not actually accepted as "general knowledge" as the rest of the replies to this thread clearly indicate.
I don't see anywhere in the thread where anyone has suggested that gunowners in general are as well trained as LE in general when it comes to gunfighting and using the firearm under stress is not general knowledge. In fact replies from jlweems and JodyH and TCinVA reflect that general knowledge also. Perhaps I'm missing a post, but I don't see where anyone has questioned the idea that LE in general is trained better and more often than non-LE in re gunfighting. FWIW, I would suggest anyone who does think that non-LE gunowners on average get anywhere near the level of firearms training that LE gets on average simply does not have a good understanding of the basics of the issue. I'm certainly not saying that all LE is well trained, but when if one had to randomly select a partner for a gunfight from either the pool of all LE or all non-LE gunowners, the smart move is to go with the draw from the LE pool. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that the least-trained LEO probably has had more training than the non-LE average.

[jar]

Average LE compared to average gun owner: I would agree with his statement.

Average LE compared to serious shooter that seeks training: Different story.

Yup.

Serious student of the pistol, civilian or LE Alike >>>>>>>>>>> average LEO > average gun owner.

FACT!

[jthhapkido]

[snip]
I taught a class in Montana a few years back (hosted by SLG) and the local Sheriff was so insistent that his guys show up that he actually spent the weekend out on patrol himself so there'd be one more deputy free of normal duties who could take the class.

I'm in TX next week doing a class for an agency that's bringing me in to help develop a shooting on the move in-service block of training.


...and locally, I've offered to take any set of deputies/officers they want to send me and run them through my Fundamentals class free of charge. (And believe me, our some of our local deputies and police officers _really_ need it.) They just need to show up for the class and bring ammo. No other charges.

They weren't interested. At all. [sigh] Even though I included a video showing how a student of mine (college-age female, with no prior firearms experience) passed the Nebraska LEO Firearms Qualification with a perfect score. (In 2/3 of the par time allowed.) They have people who have difficulty passing the test (which is simplistic, and you only need a 75% to pass), but they won't come out to learn to shoot better.

Some departments really do support their people with training. (A small town locally does a lot of it--I have a friend who is an LEO down there, and the Assistant chief is an FFL, and they break off people here and there to go to all sorts of training.) But many, unfortunately, don't.



By the same token, however, ignoring the results of data collected from thousands of shootings because one disagrees with the background that led to those outcomes is problematic.

The problem lies in exactly what conclusions you are attempting to draw. If your conclusions are about how "all people react this way under stress" then you have a problem, in that a number of people don't do anything of the sort. Specifically, that we know certain types of training (such as adrenal-stress training and FOF training) can make a huge difference in response types (and effectiveness). And that the people that the data is based upon are very different from the general run of person.

If your conclusions instead say that "people with X type of training react in Y fashion under stress" then that is much more specific. (Where "X" is normally a little bullseye training with a yearly qualification, and Y is one-handed work without reference to sights, apparently, in the NY example.) And much more true.

Now, if only they actually had significant amounts of data regarding LEO shootings from people who had participated in FOF/adrenal-stress training and those who hadn't for comparison, now THAT would be a useful thing. (Actually, if I recall correctly, someone has done precisely this in a solid, careful experiment. The results are---significant. Drat. I don't recall the author. I'll have to go look that up now...)

Point is, however, that the circumstances of the NY data differ significantly from circumstances of the general CCW person. (I make no comment about what the "general CCW person" is like, as I don't know of any actual non-anecdotal data collecting information about background, gun knowledge, marksmanship ability, and training levels.)

The other problem is that characteristics of police shootings don't necessarily correspond to characteristics of non-police shootings. As a non-firearms example, in the martial arts world there is a significant proportion of people (who don't understand numbers) who continually parrot comments along the line of "90% of fights go to the ground". Normally promulgated by teachers of groundfighting and Brazilian Jiujitsu, unsurprisingly.

This is nonsense, however. That statistic originally came from a very limited study of law enforcement actions in which any sort of adversarial contact between the LEO and the idiot was labeled a "fight" and any person falling down in any way was labeled "went to the ground." Including any situation in which a law enforcement officer sat on a guy to cuff them.

Considering the limits of the study, the poor definitions of things, and the fact that LEOs will always be trying to close the distance and get the person in cuffs----it meant that this study had pretty much nothing to do with any standard type of self-defense situation. And yet, people have latched on to it, and still parrot it without understanding.

So---the NY data is interesting. However, its relevance to shooting in general, and self-defense shooting by non-LEOs, is not necessarily a strong one. We can get some interesting conclusions from it---but most of them will be relevant to training issues, and stress responses based on that training. Plus some interesting information regarding attack distances and accuracy for LEO encounters. (Which will not necessarily be relevant for non-LEO folks.)

[NickA]

ETA: A high degree of skill is a good thing. But the ability to quickly work through a shooting problem and execute the relevant skills at an acceptable level of proficiency is what will allow you to prevail in a gunfight.
That's very good advice I think.


Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[jetfire]

non-LE average.

And what, exactly is the average gun owner?

[JDM]

And what, exactly is the average gun owner?

Mr. Surplus, or some variation thereof.

[Tamara]

Citation needed.

See Unbelievable Shit I've Seen At The Range, by Tamara Keel, Frustration Press, 2011, pp. 31-417 inclusive.

Seriously, what you see at an IDPA match or at Gun School is a tiny fraction of the actual gun-owning population. The guy in your last class who was That Guy? (Or That Girl, if I was in it...) They're like a rock star ninja jedi at their home range.

[Joe in PNG]

The average gun owner... the sample includes:
-Every Judge owner...
-Every Taurus and High Point fanboi...
-Everyone who thinks that a $400 1911 is "just as good"
-That guy who put a .22cal hole in my target from 4 lanes away.
-The idiots who put the holes into the celing of an indoor range
-Everyone making youtube gun videos...

[jetfire]

See Unbelievable Shit I've Seen At The Range, by Tamara Keel, Frustration Press, 2011, pp. 31-417 inclusive.

Seriously, what you see at an IDPA match or at Gun School is a tiny fraction of the actual gun-owning population. The guy in your last class who was That Guy? (Or That Girl, if I was in it...) They're like a rock star ninja jedi at their home range.

Shooting an indoor range has really opened my eyes to the scary things people do with guns. I'm more picking nits with statements that are painted with a really broad brush. "Average gun owner" vs "Average LEO" is one that really bugs me, because what it really means "what I perceive to be the average gun owner vs what I perceive to be the average LEO".

[Gadfly]

One factor not addressed in the study is an officer’s “command presence”, or an officer’s ability to control a situation. The info is not listed in the report, but an officer who better controls a situation might not have to resort to deadly force as often as an officer who fails to control a suspect’s action. An officer who can dominate the situation, control the suspect, and stop trouble before it escalates COULD also be the same type of officer who trains hard at the range. The type of officer who is just coasting along, not aware of his surroundings, allows the suspect to dictate the encounter, COULD be the type of officer who does not train hard or practice with their firearm on their own.

I have no proof one way or the other. But in my observations as a LEO trainer, officers who train hard typically seem to have the mindset to dominate the encounters with suspects and SEEM less likely to allow the situation to deteriorate into deadly force, simply by their command presence. I have seen other officers not pay attention in class, stand around talking to suspects with their hands in their pockets, etc… This type of officer seems to send out a non-verbal signal that they would not be that hard to overcome in a fight.

Some officers dominate the situation, other officers are dominated by the situation.

It is just a GUESS ON MY PART (so do not take this as hard fact)… but could some of the data be skewed by the well trained officers avoiding deadly force, and the less trained officers being attacked by suspects who feel able to overcome the officer??? I realize there are MANY other factors that contribute to a situation turning into a deadly force incident, the main one being the mindset/desperation/mental stability/intoxication/etc. of the suspect.

Could an officer who trains less be more likely to get into a shooting to begin with????

No way of knowing, just speculating.

[JodyH]

Could an officer who trains less be more likely to get into a shooting to begin with????
Good observation.
I know that when I'm out and about I always "size people up".
From my perspective as a good guy I'm looking for the alpha badass badguy, so I know who to shoot first.
I'm sure the bad guys size up potential victims from the opposite perspective, "who looks like the softest target".
Training increases confidence which translates into the "command presence" you talk about.

[David Armstrong]

The problem lies in exactly what conclusions you are attempting to draw. If your conclusions are about how "all people react this way under stress" then you have a problem, in that a number of people don't do anything of the sort.
I would suggest that anytime one tries to expand "this data shows that this usually happens" to "all people always do this" then you have a problem.

And that the people that the data is based upon are very different from the general run of person.
Right. In this case they are better trained and have more experience than the general run of person, which is why seeing what happens to/with them is so informative. Unless one wishes to argue that a better trained officer will react worse than a poorer trained person??

Let's face it, folks, like it or not SOP 9 is THE best source of information we have available regarding gunfights. Just because it is not a perfect set of data for all things doesn't mean it is not any good for any thing. If someone can explain why a non-LEO is more likely to use sights, or why they would use more or less rounds in a fight, or similar differences I'm open to the discussion. If there is anyplace with data on over 10,000 shootings that we can look at, I'd love to look at it. I don't think anyone is saying SOP 9 information is perfect or that it tells us everything we would like to know. But again, anytime you have a data base of over 10,000 gunfights over decades and the data remains fairly consistent across different encounters, different training, different equipment, and so on, I'd suggest that data is fairly informative about gunfights.

[David Armstrong]

And what, exactly is the average gun owner?
I believe a few others have addressed that, but again I would suggest when one has to ask something like that there is a distinct gap in awareness that should be fixed. When discussing issues that can fall on a continuum one needs to understand what the usual or ordinary is in order to figure out what is unusual or an outlier.

[Tamara]

I believe a few others have addressed that, but again I would suggest when one has to ask something like that there is a distinct gap in awareness that should be fixed. When discussing issues that can fall on a continuum one needs to understand what the usual or ordinary is in order to figure out what is unusual or an outlier.

This entire forum is composed of outliers. That I should predicate my expected performance, and thus modify my training, on the performance of someone who has busted fewer caps in their life than I have in the last six months simply because "the average LEO has more training than the average non-LEO" is a proposition as fallacious as anything you're trying to shoot down here.

The header at the top of this page reads "for Teachers and Students of the Pistol", a descriptor that fits neither the average LEO nor the average non-sworn CCW carrier. If I wanted to be the average civilian gun owner, I would not be here, but rather at some web site recommending the best load for my Brazilian-made revolving shot-pistol.

[ToddG]

I think Tam hit the nail on the head.

SOP 9 gives information that is interesting but shows what happens to a specific subset of people (sworn LEOs) operating under a particular set of policies (NYPD). It covers people who are not similar to the typical PF reader, and situations which are not comparable to what I as a private citizen can do when out and about. As such, the primary value SOP 9 has to me is showing what the typical cop may do. It may have a certain limited value in telling me what a typical basic-level trained individual might do.

The problem as others have stated is that so many people read SOP 9 and similar reports then immediately decide they represent "what is going to happen" to people who aren't operating under those policies, who have substantially more training, and -- this is important -- have substantially less experience dealing with violent criminals.

[TCinVA]

This entire forum is composed of outliers.

Aww, shucks....I bet you say that to all the people on gun forums.

[Al T.]

Call me simple, but my impression is that the report is more of an indictment or indication of a poor training program than anything else. :eek:

[jthhapkido]

I think Tam hit the nail on the head.

SOP 9 gives information that is interesting but shows what happens to a specific subset of people (sworn LEOs) operating under a particular set of policies (NYPD). It covers people who are not similar to the typical PF reader, and situations which are not comparable to what I as a private citizen can do when out and about. As such, the primary value SOP 9 has to me is showing what the typical cop may do. It may have a certain limited value in telling me what a typical basic-level trained individual might do.

Exactly. (Though _very_ limited, in the last sentence's case.)



The problem as others have stated is that so many people read SOP 9 and similar reports then immediately decide they represent "what is going to happen" to people who aren't operating under those policies, who have substantially more training, and -- this is important -- have substantially less experience dealing with violent criminals.

Yep. As such, while there are useful things to get out of it, it wouldn't be a good idea (for example) to use the results of this as the basis for any sort of advanced CCW course. Or to use it when talking about "typical situations" for an introductory CCW course.

Doesn't mean it is useless---among other things, other LEO groups _should_ take a solid look at this and see how their own training applies or doesn't apply. (And whether or not their training styles/amounts would result in different outcomes.) However, the applicability to the "general CCW" person is actually quite small (given, if nothing else, the difference in altercation requirements---LEOs need to close the distance to arrest, and citizens should be moving away to safety, and that gives you different situations from the beginning) and the applicability to CCW people with serious training ("outliers" if you will) is even less.

Edited to add: (I think I should use parentheticals more. What do you think?)

[David Armstrong]

This entire forum is composed of outliers. That I should predicate my expected performance, and thus modify my training, on the performance of someone who has busted fewer caps in their life than I have in the last six months simply because "the average LEO has more training than the average non-LEO" is a proposition as fallacious as anything you're trying to shoot down here.
I would agree, but I don't think anyone has suggestedthata. I know I certainly haven't, and if that is what came across I failed to communicate the issue correctly. My position with data of any kind isthata it provides information, period. What one should do with that information, or how one should usethata information, is as varied as the individuals looking at the data.

The header at the top of this page reads "for Teachers and Students of the Pistol", a descriptor that fits neither the average LEO nor the average non-sworn CCW carrier. If I wanted to be the average civilian gun owner, I would not be here, but rather at some web site recommending the best load for my Brazilian-made revolving shot-pistol.
You may not want to be the average civilian gun owner, but trainers need to recognize what/who that average gun owner is as part of teaching the pistol. It would be nice if all students of the pistol were high speed low drag enthusiasts who would shoot hundreds of rounds a week, but that is the exception rather than the norm.

[Mr_White]

You may not want to be the average civilian gun owner, but trainers need to recognize what/who that average gun owner is as part of teaching the pistol. It would be nice if all students of the pistol were high speed low drag enthusiasts who would shoot hundreds of rounds a week, but that is the exception rather than the norm.

I'd agree that the 'average' should be recognized as such, but it need not necessarily be catered to, and it's not where expectations should necessarily be set.

People often rise or fall to the level of expectations of them. Raise the bar. Lead by example (a statement of general philosophy, not directed at David or anyone else here) and illustrate to students not just the possible poor performance of the casual and the marginally trained, but also the performance possibilities of people who do the work to cultivate the skills to own the technical aspects of the fight.

As an example of generally excellent performance, look at the Rangemaster data set (Tom Givens' students.) It's worlds apart from the SOP9 data. I know it's not as robust as SOP9 with 10,000 + shootings. But I do think it is meaningful, especially for the "trained" private citizen.

There are plenty of trainers and training companies that specifically choose to cater to "the average." We don't need to be among them. There is room for excellence too. Do more, do better, show students the magnificent possibilities of the trained and dedicated practitioner. Even if they do not or cannot reach those same heights, at least they will better understand the range of performance possibilities, and I think will be better off for it.

David, I know you didn't say that we should only expect students to perform poorly or marginally, or to set low standards. Your statement inspired me to make my own statement of training philosophy. I rail against a philosophy that does not see beyond mediocrity, which I recognize that you did not advocate.

[NickA]

Training increases confidence which translates into the "command presence" you talk about.

The Deputy Dinkeller(?) video seems like a good example of this. The poor guy died (horribly) largely because he seemed to have no idea what to do. Granted he may not have been able to control the BG since he was apparently bat-shit crazy, but maybe he would have known when it was time to try something different.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[ToddG]

Before everyone hops on the bus to plow through David's house, let's keep something in mind.

Not every student wants to be an OrigamiAK, DocGKR, or Prdator. Some want to take a few hours on the range and be done. Forever. Now I rarely teach students like that but they make up the biggest part of the training market by orders of magnitude. Should the person taking money from them be any less serious or sincere? The reality is that what (and how) you teach a one-time student is different than how you teach a life long student.

I'm certainly not opposed to high expectations and high standards. There's a reason we shoot the F.A.S.T. at the beginning and end of class each day. There's a reason the instructor steps up and shoots it right there with the students. But the F.A.S.T. is an evaluation and there's little point to evaluating someone who never touched a gun before today. If that person is never going to touch it again after today, and I've nonetheless taken that person on as a student, my responsibility is to give him what he needs, not what I want.

[HeadHunter]

The problem as others have stated is that so many people read SOP 9 and similar reports then immediately decide they represent "what is going to happen" to people who aren't operating under those policies, who have substantially more training, and -- this is important -- have substantially less experience dealing with violent criminals.

Much like the many who take Table 36 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/tables/table36leok-feloniously-with-firearms-distance-victim-offender-01-10.xls) of LEOKA: Officers Feloniously Killed - Distance Between Victim Officer and Offender and try to extrapolate those few anecdotes onto Table 70 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/tables/table70-leo-assaulted-type-weapon-percent-injured-01-10.xls): Officers Assaulted - Type of Weapon and Percent Injured. It's just not the same thing.

I would add to Todd's criteria above: "who have substantially better information about who is the criminal and who is not." If someone breaks into my house at 3AM, there's no doubt in my mind who's the criminal and who's not. The officer arriving 7 minutes later cannot have that same sense of clarity unless he knows me and my address personally, which is unlikely. Even then he has to identify and evaluate me.

[jlw]

I'll take a crack at defining a couple of terms:

Average gun owner equals just that: somebody who owns a gun. They go to a gun shop and buy a gun and then put it in the nightstand or glove compartment and get the majority of their gun knowledge from the media. This category would also include traditional hunters who might be good at shooting a deer or bird hunting, but they have little to no training in when it comes to defensive shooting.

Sadly, it also includes that guy that comes to the indoor range or hangs around the sale counter at a gun shop trying to impress people with such tids and bits like "a 9mm won't do nothing, but a .45 to the shoulder will instantly put the bad guy down for good."

It's shocking the number of people who own a gun but don't know how to load or unload it or even what ammo their gun uses.

Average cop is going to have at least gone through the firearms and use of force training at the basic academy level and has to least "qualify" with their weapon on a continuing basis.

---

Even as minimal as basic academy training and standards can be, it is still light years ahead of no training whatsoever.

[Joe in PNG]

If I may add an observation or two regarding a few average gun owners I've known:

-When it comes to training, many are put off by the cost, both in terms of time and money. They would avoid classes entirely if they didn't need it to CCW, and even then they try to find the cheapest training available. Once they get their permits, that's it, they're done.

-Most really like shooting, but are really not as fond of practicing. They'll grab a box of 50 and blast holes in paper every couple of months or so, but actual practicing with goals, no.

-Almost none of them want to try any kind of competition.

[David Armstrong]

I'd agree that the 'average' should be recognized as such, but it need not necessarily be catered to, and it's not where expectations should necessarily be set.
Agreed. I think one should always push a student to excel, but a trainer should also recognize that relatively few want to excel, they want to get by. And that, to me, is why the data from SOP 9 and similar sources is worth looking at. It gives us a picture of the average/normal/usual/typical/whatevere word you want to use gunfight and what goes on in it. It gives a baseline of "this is what you are likely going to encounter and what you are going to need to get through the fight." It is not "everybody will always see this exact stuff every time." But without an understanding of the average/normal one cannot get any idea about where the outliers are. And there is nothing wrong with being better than average, but there is a problem in expecting everyone to be at that outlier level.


There are plenty of trainers and training companies that specifically choose to cater to "the average." We don't need to be among them. There is room for excellence too.
Again no disagreementment except that one cannot know what is excellence without understanding what is typical. And I am among those who specifically choose to cater to "the average." I spent quite a while teaching dedicated persons, like SWAT folks, and teaching those folks who thought nothing of paying a thousand dollars for a course that took a week of their time and thousands of rounds of ammo. But now I teach CCW classes and NRA basic classes. It is a completely different audience, and it took me a while to catch on to that, at which point lots of things I had seen done by trainers in the past began to make a lot more sense. For lots of folks those are the only classes they are ever going to take, no matter how much I would like them to take an advanced course. So, as a trainer, I feel it is important to give that person what they are most likely to need and what is most likely to work for them, not demand they get to a level of expertise and training that I think they should have.

David, I know you didn't say that we should only expect students to perform poorly or marginally, or to set low standards. Your statement inspired me to make my own statement of training philosophy. I rail against a philosophy that does not see beyond mediocrity, which I recognize that you did not advocate.
Thank you, it seems some missed that. My training philosophy is simple....do whatever works. As Todd and I have discussed, I teach a fair number of folks along the lines of the Israeli method. It's not my preferred method, I don't recommend it, but A LOT of folks out there that is what fits their lifestyle better than something else and that is what they want. Folks like that probably won't do well at a FAST program. Similarly shooters who can benefit from FAST training probably are better served with something other than the Israeli view. But both deserve the best training that fits their needs. I don't think that is mediocre, it is accepting the world as it is instead of the way would like it to be.

[David Armstrong]

Before everyone hops on the bus to plow through David's house, let's keep something in mind.

Not every student wants to be an OrigamiAK, DocGKR, or Prdator. Some want to take a few hours on the range and be done. Forever. Now I rarely teach students like that but they make up the biggest part of the training market by orders of magnitude. Should the person taking money from them be any less serious or sincere? The reality is that what (and how) you teach a one-time student is different than how you teach a life long student.

I'm certainly not opposed to high expectations and high standards. There's a reason we shoot the F.A.S.T. at the beginning and end of class each day. There's a reason the instructor steps up and shoots it right there with the students. But the F.A.S.T. is an evaluation and there's little point to evaluating someone who never touched a gun before today. If that person is never going to touch it again after today, and I've nonetheless taken that person on as a student, my responsibility is to give him what he needs, not what I want.
AAKKK! Should have read your post before writing mine!:p

[HeadHunter]

It's shocking the number of people who own a gun but don't know how to load or unload it or even what ammo their gun uses.

Or where it is or even have ammunition for it. "I own a Glock but I'm not quite sure where it is."

In one case of no ammo, the woman expressed a logical reason, to wit: She didn't want to have a loaded gun in the house without knowing how to use it and waited until she took a class from me. But in another case, the woman had owned a brand new 3" Model 36 Square Butt (wish I owned that now) for years but never had any ammo. My roommate called me up after the woman's house had been broken into and asked if I had any "spare bullets." ;) Expensive rabbit's foot, I guess.

[Tamara]

But in another case, the woman had owned a brand new 3" Model 36 Square Butt (wish I owned that now) for years but never had any ammo. My roommate called me up after the woman's house had been broken into and asked if I had any "spare bullets." ;) Expensive rabbit's foot, I guess.
Having cut my teeth in a small-town Georgia gun store, the tales I heard of the not-so-distant days where some dowager or another would tool up with her High Standard Sentinel or H&R 999 and request a "fill-up" boggled my mind.

They didn't want a whole box of ammo, nor did they know how to reload their dead husband's revolver, they just wanted somebody to top it off after the couple rounds they'd loosed into the darkness of the front yard after whatever imagined opossum or black bear or bogeyman they'd seen out there.

[Joseph B.]

I think it’s very important for all trainers (and individuals) to know how to use statistical data such as SOP9 when using it as a reference material for lesson plans, training standards and source material to confirm purpose of the training given. I feel that statistical data is somewhat a double edged sword, in that it can help you prepare a program of instruction (POI) to incorporate what statistically is most likely to happen. However, it also can work against you if you do not use all of the data in the report.

Example: The SOP9 shows that most shootings happened within 6 to 10 feet, where the LEO used one hand and did not remember using the pistol sights. A trainer uses this data to prepare a POI to teach one handed un-aimed fire of distances of 6 to 10 feet. However, did not incorporate two handed, aimed fire from distance of 50 feet (that is also part of the statistical data). The POI is now inadequate and introduces civil liability to the POI author and trainer, as well as the trained LEO. If an LEO is trained based off of this statistical data, the POI must incorporate all of the data in its instructional/teaching points and or standards.

I prefer to use statistical data as an “instructor talking point” but choose to not use the data to adjust training standards, or justifications for standards within the POI. I also do not like to use statistical data to prove skill levels possessed or needed of individuals and or agencies. Out of the 35,000 LEO’s who work for NYPD, the 52 who were involved in shootings do not adequately represent all the other 35,000 LEO’s and or their skill level. Looking at more of the national level statistical reports and or the FBI reports, you can make better assumptions as to “across the board skill level” but again it doesn’t clearly represent all LEO’s. I think it is important to remember this when making “blanketing remarks” on all LEO’s or Soldiers, or CCW holders, or Gun owners, etc (i.e. most XXXX do not have good skills).

[HeadHunter]

Having cut my teeth in a small-town Georgia gun store, the tales I heard of the not-so-distant days where some dowager or another would tool up with her High Standard Sentinel or H&R 999 and request a "fill-up" boggled my mind.

A friend of mine was relating at a Glock match that his deceased grandmother had owned a Sentinel for at least 30 years without ever firing it. He finally convinced her to let him take her out and at least shoot a box of ammo through it. I don't know how it turned out shooting wise, although he and she did both survive, but at least the ammo got rotated. Unfortunately, she was probably closer to the "average gun owner" than anyone members of this forum consciously associate with.

[David Armstrong]

I also do not like to use statistical data to prove skill levels possessed or needed of individuals and or agencies. Out of the 35,000 LEO’s who work for NYPD, the 52 who were involved in shootings do not adequately represent all the other 35,000 LEO’s and or their skill level.
Good point. Any snapshot type of data (one agency, one year, one sector, etc.) is by nature rather limited in how it can be applied outside of that snapshot. When we get data from numerous snapshots, such as decades of time, many different sources, etc. then it becomes more accurate across the board. To me that is one of the strengths of the SOP9 material. Not only do we see it repeated over and over year after year, it seems that most of the key findings are supported by most all other sources and studies.

[jthhapkido]

Good point. Any snapshot type of data (one agency, one year, one sector, etc.) is by nature rather limited in how it can be applied outside of that snapshot. When we get data from numerous snapshots, such as decades of time, many different sources, etc. then it becomes more accurate across the board. To me that is one of the strengths of the SOP9 material. Not only do we see it repeated over and over year after year, it seems that most of the key findings are supported by most all other sources and studies.

...for police-officer involved shootings.

With that caveat, I completely agree with that statement. I think that the SOP 9 data is actually an excellent source of information regarding typical situations, reactions, and outcomes for officer-involved shootings. As David said, the fact that the results haven't changed much over time is significant.

(Of course, I'd like to know if the training has changed, and if so, why hasn't the results...but that is a different question entirely.)

My earlier problem was simple---without effective data showing that the LEO situations in this data set are comparable to the expected situations for non-LEO self-defense situations, then drawing conclusions from this is fraught with peril for non-LEOs.

(I always wanted to use that phrase when talking about experiments.)

LEOs, in my opinion, _should_ take a careful look at this data, and compare their training and preparedness level to the standard NY LEO. Non-LEOs----may find some interesting facts, but shouldn't necessarily draw the same conclusions. (It could be that they should draw conclusions that they would be in worse shape. :) )

But most likely, at the very least, they would be in _different_ shape. (Simple example: How many officer-involved shootings occurred because the Bad Guy attempted to get the police officer's gun from them when the officer tried to cuff them, and was shot in the struggle? How many occurred when the officer tried to restrain the bad guy, and the guy suddenly pulled a knife at that distance? What does this do to the data? This wouldn't be a standard problem for non-LEOs...)

[David Armstrong]

...for police-officer involved shootings.
While not as detailed we do have some studies out there looking at non-LE shootings, and they seem to coincide rather closely with lots of the LE data we have. But that is still a good point. If nothing else the goal, and thus the tactics, of many LE shootings can lead down a different path than non-LE shootings.

(Of course, I'd like to know if the training has changed, and if so, why hasn't the results...but that is a different question entirely.)
Yes, the training has changed. How significant that change is may be debated. But when SOP9 started the usual NYPD training was very traditional static "ready on the left, ready on the right" line training. Now it is much more dynamic and many of the changes are the result of studying the SOP9 findings.

[jthhapkido]

I said:

(Of course, I'd like to know if the training has changed, and if so, why hasn't the results...but that is a different question entirely.)

And David replied:


Yes, the training has changed. How significant that change is may be debated. But when SOP9 started the usual NYPD training was very traditional static "ready on the left, ready on the right" line training. Now it is much more dynamic and many of the changes are the result of studying the SOP9 findings.

...so that makes me wonder if/how the results changed over time. (You did say that the results had a strong commonality throughout time, which I realize is not the same thing as saying they didn't change.) Have the success rates (success begin defined as threat stopped quickly/officer survives) changed over time after the training changes? Have there been fewer shooting-required situations due to training that allowed the officer to deal with the incipient problem before it occurred? (I realize we can't show something "didn't happen but would have otherwise".)

Main point, really---when the training changed, was there a subsequent change in results?

I know that the trainers want their people to have better chances, so given "better" training (the word has quotes because until the data shows it we don't really know, though we can hope) did they see any changes in the general statistics? In the after-action reports, was there any commentary by officers regarding how their training applied?

[rsa-otc]

I have often asked that question myself.

[Kevin B.]

Some relevant reading here (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf).

[jthhapkido]

Some relevant reading here (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf).

Well, that gives me some light reading for today. :)

[Joseph B.]

Some relevant reading here (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf).

Now this report is interesting, good find!

[David Armstrong]

Main point, really---when the training changed, was there a subsequent change in results?
If only we knew. That is why I phrased it, as you noticed, along the lines of the results had a strong commonality throughout time. Things like distance of the fight, reported use of sights, rounds fired, environmental conditions, and so on seem to have stayed pretty close, but due to a change in the way they report the data a big problem comes up. In 1999 they changed the definitions of some things, and they also changed the format for the report which really confuses the issue. They also used to report some things that they don't release to the public any more, the actual hit rate of the shots fired being one of the most noticeable. Another issue is that there has been a training change based in part on weapon change (revolver to autoloader) that occurred in the 1990s so it is really hard to figure out what is significant and what isn't and what it is based on. Hard to figure out is something a reporting change, or a training change, or a definition change, or an equipment change, etc.

The life of a researcher isn't nearly as easy and fun as some folks think!:p

[JM Campbell]

Great thread gents and insights. Thanks.

[Nephrology]

Great thread gents and insights. Thanks.

Glad I could provide everyone a little reading and food for thought.