Bates, the gun and training - Tulsa

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've been thinking about the incident enough to start a new thread. Hope that is ok.

These are my thoughts:

1. The gun. I've done research on jury opinions on gun types, so that interests me. The gun seems to be a snubby SW 357 with a laser. That seems not a standard carry gun for a police person. Was it a personal gun? That seems strange. Do reserve officers carry personal guns in some areas? Might he have carried a gun not vetted by the department. Might they not even know he was carrying such (perhaps0?

Bates says he was confused as the gun had a red laser like his taser and that contributed to his mistake. That's an interesting defense - doesn't mean you should have been more careful as compared to a mitigating circumstance. It adds in the confusion?

It was a light weight 357 and it was dropped. I've heard at first that he was surprised by the recoil and later he was just shocked by his actions. Snubby guns aren't that easy to master and shooting them with powerful loads is not that much fun. I took Claude's course as I wanted some more training than the square range. I doubt Bates put a significant number of high power rounds through this gun.

2. Training - the chief says he went to the range to qualify. Is a static range sufficient in today's environment? The gold standard is well scripted FOF or simulators and if he had no such - can he been said to be qualified? Given the literature on stress inoculation and it use in critical incident training, is that a defense or a weakness in the case?

3. Age - as I said elsewhere, Older folk (and I am 67) have slower decision processing times and more confusion errors. Is there a standard age where officers don't get put into situations that are more likely to go critical? Without Bates being tested under such, was it responsible to have him at such a possibility?

4. His statements that it could have happened to anyone. There have been 9 cases. One news channel played a similar case where the officer claimed he was reaching for his taser but shot the guy. He got 2 years. Why is this a reasonable defense? Since it happens to others, having a reserve, old man - would increase the probability of such and so poor judgment for Bates to want to go out (he seemed to request it) and for the department to allow it.

[BehindBlueI's]

1) Reserves are often a run what you brung affair. There will be a list of approved guns, or approved characteristics, and the officer brings a gun that matches that. Our Reserves are issued a Glock, but we're a large department. In contrast, in plain clothes I can carry a wide variety of guns. .380 to .45, revolver or semiauto, 5" barrel or less, must have a slide lock if a semiauto, no SAO. I'm qualified on: LCR, 3" GP100, 4" GP100, Sig P220, Glock 22. We aren't allowed lasers.

2) That's set by the states. Some departments do the minimums, some go much further.

3) No. Reaction time is only part of the equation. The ability to see trouble coming and "start the timer" is more important than physical reaction times in most instances. Obviously there's a point, but that's going to vary person to person.

4) Everyone who screws up says that. We are all the star in our own narrative, and our brain is wired to support us and minimize our screw ups. It can't happen to me. When I'm back in uniform for a detail I carry my Taser on my left side set up for left handed draw. My gun is on my right side set up for right hand draw. There is ZERO chance of confusion.

[Chuck Haggard]

Looking at the training records that were released, this man was clearly in no way trained to even a minimum standard.

If I had been brought in on the BART shooting where the officer was convicted I'm pretty sure I could have made a strong case for the department being liable in what was clearly faulty policy and a failure to train correctly. In this case it would be even easier.

Qualification is in no way training. Firearms training is not Taser training.

[Chance]

More details on his training from CNN. I am curious about question 3 as well: age is just a number, but Helio Gracie this guy was not.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The details are interesting. It looks like he qualified with a Glock 21 or 21C. Next to that it says LMR291 - what's that?

So if he had a 21, why the snubby?

Also, when there were forms evaluating stress under field conditions, he's only noted at minimal acceptable standards. That's passing but not a strong recommendation, I would think.

Last, Bates and his lawyer are talking about slip and capture. Other commentators said that was junk science. So, I grabbed my engineering psych and human factors books plus a data base search. It's not a made up term and in the literature back to 1981 with reviews from very respected folks in very respected journals.

Now using that as a defense, doesn't make sense to me as since it is well know - we see no attempts through training (the usual solution) or human factors design - using the other hand for instance - to prevent such in his case.

[Chance]

The details are interesting. It looks like he qualified with a Glock 21 or 21C. Next to that it says LMR291 - what's that?

The serial of his Glock, maybe. Three letters, and three numbers.

[HCM]

Re: Bates dropping the gun, this may support Bates claim the shooting was unintentional.
While an air weight 357 snub is certainly a handful, it's common for people involved in negligent / accidental / unintentional shootings to drop or even throw the firearm.

Also I'm not sure what the policy of the Tulsa County SO is, but it's common for agencies to allow personally owned duty and/or back up guns. They are normally specified either by caliber and type or as in my agency, specific makes and models. There are normally qualification and training requirements associated with personal owned agency approved weapons as well.

Regarding age, this varies by state and by agency, Most Federal LEO positions have mandatory retirement at age 57, though there has been a push to raise this to age 60.

[Chuck Haggard]

I have every confidence that he didn't know he was shooting a "real" gun until he did. This guy appears to be a walking case of unconscious incompetence.

[LittleLebowski]

This really seems like a terrible incident that might do some good with regards to fixing training at that dept.

[HCM]

That department may offer excellent training, however I think the issue is more of a leadership issue in that they do not maintain standards for everyone. They have special people who are exempt and it has come back to bite them. Some of the articles mentioned that Bates was a major campaign donor and the campaign manager for the current sheriffs election. Also Bates appears to have only been working with the task force because he was their "sugar daddy". It was mentioned that Bates had bought several UC vehicles and other equipment for the task force and had purchased the body camera on which the incident was recorded.

I think the core issue here is not necessarily Bates age, but the fact that he was a cop groupie, playing the part without the requisite training and testing/stress inoculation that reserve officers normally receive.

As behindbluei's stated an officer with 30 or 40 years of street experience is going to have good situational awareness and will see things coming a lot sooner than a Rookie, and in most instances, this will more than make up for any delay in reflexes/reaction time.

As I stated in the shooting incidents in the news thread , I worked on a task force with a cop in his mid 60s who was mentally sharp and very physically fit. He had been a cop since I was two years old and it showed on the street in a positive way. NOT the same thing as a sixtysomething insurance executive playing at being the police