Firearms Scores REcords: keep the raw, or just put in pass/fail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GJM

Isn't pass/fail a bit harsh for those that fail, especially those who didn't grow up with firearms or who are smaller in stature. Maybe just go with a "marksperson participation" badge based on attendance, and allocate the real dollars and recognition to programs that teach techniques on how not to shoot.

---

You joke....but California POST has a $5 million grant available for someone who can come up with a training technology or methodology to reduce officer involved shootings. And anything "less-lethal" is getting all of the attention and focus at my own agency. This is absolutely the way big urban departments are going.

On topic, we record pass/fail....and passing is 75%. We will be changing everything about our qualification in 2019, though. New target (a two sided threat/no threatstyle), penalties for misses, and no real set course of fire for in service (you'll need to get the required number of hits.... without so many misses it cuts your score). We have started writing the score on the target, so the student sees it, but only record pass fail. For Basic Academy POST quals, though...we record raw data, including from practices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlw

We record failures by taking away the failed party's badge and gun right there on the range, and they have to get a ride home from someone as we also take the keys to their patrol car.

---

That is what we did but it became softened. We used to get a ride for them. Then it became, just inform them that they are not certified LEO until they pass. They would drive the patrol car back to the station and keep their gun.

Not only should we take the gun and get them a ride for liability reasons but I advocated for pulling their ability to work off duty/volunteer overtime for a year until they pass on the first try. Yeah fat chance was the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMJayman

So my questions...
1. Does your agency use raw scores or pass/fail? Do you know the rationale?
2. Do any of you know of any actual court cases where the officer's raw scores were brought up? If so, was there any negative to it?

---

We use raw scores, in percentage form.

We last kicked this around in ’09. A then new instructor had come back from school with the belief that you’d get destroyed in court if a 100% shooter missed anything during an OIS, etc and that we needed to change to Pass / Fail. It was perceived that P/F would be easier to defend in court.

The program supervisor, the other lead instructor, and I had a discussion about this. They were agnostic, I wasn’t. I ended up researching it and writing a lengthy memo outlining my position based on input from several people.

Back then I could not find a single case that addressed qualification, qual scores. Still can't. However, I found several cases that addressed the need to train and the sorts of things we should be training on. They included: Judgmental / Shoot vs. Don’t Shoot; Use of barricade/cover; Low light shooting (with and without flashlight); Shooting at moving targets; Shooting at multiple targets; Transition to and shooting with the support hand; and Distance shooting (marksmanship). (Back then I hadn’t gone back to academia so I wasn’t citing references like I would now.)

1st thought, documented and appropriate training is far more important than qualification.

Then I reached out to several people on various email lists and heard back from or called: Scott Reitz, attorney Missy O’Linn, Chief Jeff Chudwin, John Converse, Marty Hayes, and more. None favored P/F. One of my favorite responses - “When the pass/fail system is in use, shooters tend to "aim for mediocrity" as opposed to max score since they "only" have to pass.”

In essence, O’Linn said it’d go either way based on what expert was arguing for who.

Hayes offered qual courses were bogus and the issue will always be on the training.

Reitz reiterated the significant and serious disparity between any qualification course of fire (let alone how it is scored) and an actual gunfight. We talked at length about the importance of the actual training – moving targets, shooting on the move, low-light, one hand – both strong & support sides - shooting, use of cover, unconventional positions and judgmental issues.
He could explain why the great shooter missed the threat in spite of high scores. The justification for the use of deadly physical force, legitimacy of the shooting, quality of the training received was far more important than a qualification and how it was scored.

In the end, my written opinion was:
“Given the above, I believe we should retain a scored qualification. I offer the following additional reasons to retain a scored qualification, which shifting to a pass / fail cannot do:
“- Measuring stick for the program. Are our shooters improving, remaining static or slipping? What is our average passing score?
“- What about individual shooters, especially as age kicks in? For example, is there eyesight issue with Deputy Y? He or she is in their Mid 40s and over a year or two their scores have gone from mid / high 90s to low 80s, is it a fundamentals issue or a need for glasses?
“- Motivation. We can and should encourage the deputies to improve their shooting. This can be done with someone who is scoring 81 or 82%, how is it done with someone always scores Pass?
“So, on to the more significant issue: Are we meeting the tests laid on in case law standards?
“In the past eighteen to twenty-four months, our range training has included:
- Moving targets,
- Shooting on the move,
- Low-light,
- One hand – both strong & support sides,
- Use of cover,
- Use of force policies and case law.

We’ve had a few events since then with civil action. Regardless of whatever else happened, we have prevailed on every Monell claim about our deadly force training.

Pass/fail really benefit high level admin types that don't want to be embarrassed by bad scores, but aren't willing to address the underlying issue either.

If there's one thing about cops and the word "liability" it's that the majority of cops don't have clue about what it means. There's no difference in court between pass/fail and a score. The main issue will be whether the officer acting within the scope of his official duties or under the color of law. If it's an question about qualifications, the only issue is if the officer was qualified according to policy. All the hypothetical crap about what the plaintiff's attorney might do, doesn't make sense since there's more potential to move liability away from the agency that has lots of money, and to the officer that has little to no money.

An officer missing and hitting a bystander is not a seizure under the 4th amendment. It's not all that different than an auto injury claim, the lawyers will get together and hash out a number. There's very little chance that will end up in a court room.

We record scores and 80% is passing. I have also been told by head instructors at this agency that for court purposes an officer should shoot for 82%. I don't use this rationale.

State regs require two attempts made at quals prior to mandatory remedial training. I have had a lot of success with allowing a third attempt prior to remedial but after a visit to the eye doctor. I am now catching flack for this in-house, as documenting a medical issues that may or may not have anything to do with scores and potential HIPPA issues. I think that reasoning is crap, and finding the reason that someone is failing, and correcting it is the most important issue. Giving someone X number of hours of remedial training, when they are still not able to see what they need to see to get hits, is a waste of time, money, and ammunition. Since we hire almost exclusively officers retired from other agencies age related vision problems are on the rise. As I age I have failed my first quals ever, based on visual acuity. I suddenly figured out during dry fire that I now had two clear, distinct front sights, and my brain was inconsistently choosing from two clear images when it used to have one sharp distinct image, and one slightly nonfocused image to choose from while firing both eyes open.
And I have learned to make sure my visual Rx is updated the month before qualifications. My last Firearms Instructor Update I did my short 10 minute presentation on MRDS as a potential solution to age related visual issues, and a lot of the older guys were taking notes and asking questions, while the head of advanced training for the state (and several people from my own agency) accused me of trying to buy skill. I don't even argue it any more. You can also buy skill by investing in instructional time and ammunition. Very few people can develop high levels of skill by themselves without spending money.

Now when we record scores, the instructor staff are taking cell phone photos of the scores on the target, and using the photos to enter information into the state mandated score tracking sheets.

pat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNM1136

We record scores and 80% is passing. I have also been told by head instructors at this agency that for court purposes an officer should shoot for 82%. I don't use this rationale.

State regs require two attempts made at quals prior to mandatory remedial training. I have had a lot of success with allowing a third attempt prior to remedial but after a visit to the eye doctor. I am now catching flack for this in-house, as documenting a medical issues that may or may not have anything to do with scores and potential HIPPA issues. I think that reasoning is crap, and finding the reason that someone is failing, and correcting it is the most important issue. Giving someone X number of hours of remedial training, when they are still not able to see what they need to see to get hits, is a waste of time, money, and ammunition. Since we hire almost exclusively officers retired from other agencies age related vision problems are on the rise. As I age I have failed my first quals ever, based on visual acuity. I suddenly figured out during dry fire that I now had two clear, distinct front sights, and my brain was inconsistently choosing from two clear images when it used to have one sharp distinct image, and one slightly nonfocused image to choose from while firing both eyes open.
And I have learned to make sure my visual Rx is updated the month before qualifications. My last Firearms Instructor Update I did my short 10 minute presentation on MRDS as a potential solution to age related visual issues, and a lot of the older guys were taking notes and asking questions, while the head of advanced training for the state (and several people from my own agency) accused me of trying to buy skill. I don't even argue it any more. You can also buy skill by investing in instructional time and ammunition. Very few people can develop high levels of skill by themselves without spending money.

Now when we record scores, the instructor staff are taking cell phone photos of the scores on the target, and using the photos to enter information into the state mandated score tracking sheets.

pat

---

FWIW, I have learned that some people who are in high places and dictate training are usually just full of shit. Keep thinking outside the box and upping your game and everyone that matters will listen.

I usually take photos of low scores so when they fail we have something to fall back on. We also score low shooters twice to alleviate any ‘bias’ issues that may come up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNM1136

We record scores and 80% is passing. I have also been told by head instructors at this agency that for court purposes an officer should shoot for 82%. I don't use this rationale.

---

Guessing that they think it's best to do better than minimum, but not too well so that they can rationalize their misses later.

Quote:

---

I am now catching flack for this in-house, as documenting a medical issues that may or may not have anything to do with scores and potential HIPPA issues. I think that reasoning is crap, and finding the reason that someone is failing, and correcting it is the most important issue.

---

More BS. BUT, do you have provisions in policy for visual acuity, usually part of "fitness for duty"? Having troop examined is perfectly permissible. If troop can't drive because he can't see, he doesn't work. Same basic problem, different scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeeFus

FWIW, I have learned that some people who are in high places and dictate training are usually just full of shit. Keep thinking outside the box and upping your game and everyone that matters will listen.

I usually take photos of low scores so when they fail we have something to fall back on. We also score low shooters twice to alleviate any ‘bias’ issues that may come up.

---

We also have all failing targets re-scored by a second instructor.

I retired from a PD that awarded an actual score for primary duty pistols, and pass/fail for “off-duty” handguns, back-up handguns, and shotguns. To be able to carry shotgun slugs, it was necessary to pass a mandated select-select slug course, which was scored. We occasionally heard rumors of pass-fail being instituted for duty pistols.

I had voluntarily aged-myself-out of the patrol rifle program well before I retired, but it was scored while I was still qualifying with a rifle, and I never heard of that being changed. A miss was a total DQ/fail. (There was no actual age limit, but the front sights grew too fuzzy, and my knees objected to getting to my feet quickly from the mandated prone/sitting/kneeling parts quickly enough to meet the overall time cut. The shotgun qual worked better for me, being fired while on my hind legs, and I worked straight nights shift, anyway, when I would rather have a shotgun for most scenarios, plus, I could carry my shotgun up front, whereas the patrol rifle had to be kept cased*, in the trunk, at that time. By the time I switched from an 870 to a Benelli M2, with its boldly-squared-off, old-eye-friendly rifle sights on the barrel, there was no question which long gun was my preferred choice.)

*Very late in my career, it was OK’ed to carry the patrol rifles up front, in the vehicles with the proper, newest-version locking racks, but even then, the rifles could only be unracked in specific circumstances, with the ever-seeing cameras watching for compliance, while shotguns could be in-hand at our individual discretion.