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

[Mas]

@Mas would be a good resource for that question.

We record pass/fail. I don't know the why of it.

A pet peeve. Ask anyone who has to work with pass/fail why it is there, and they'll tell you, "Liability." Press the issue,and they'll say, "So plaintiff's counsel can't claim a bad shooting because we kept a poor shooter on."

A false theory, IMHO. It would be destroyed in 30 seconds of cross. "Mr. Instructor, is it not true that your agency went to pass/fail to hide the less competent shooters?" Only possible answer: "Yes." Plaintiff's lawyer: "No further questions." Overall, would probably hurt more than help.

I haven't personally seen it debated in court as related to an officer-involved shooting. Fortunately.

[rsa-otc]

A pet peeve. Ask anyone who has to work with pass/fail why it is there, and they'll tell you, "Liability." Press the issue,and they'll say, "So plaintiff's counsel can't claim a bad shooting because we kept a poor shooter on."

A false theory, IMHO. It would be destroyed in 30 seconds of cross. "Mr. Instructor, is it not true that your agency went to pass/fail to hide the less competent shooters?" Only possible answer: "Yes." Plaintiff's lawyer: "No further questions." Overall, would probably hurt more than help.

I haven't personally seen it debated in court as related to an officer-involved shooting. Fortunately.

Besides Mas's thoughts above, one only has to listen to Emanuel Kapelsohn's comments on the subject to realize the futility of such policies. Unfortunately pass/fail has become embedded in state training standards and policy. Fortunately I listened to Manny way back when and being a private entity never had to surcome to such thinking.

[psalms144.1]

We only keep pass/fail, I think that's wisest...

[jondoe297]

I've worked for three agencies. One federal, one municipal, one county. The federal agency recorded raw score, the municipal recorded pass/fail, and the county records raw score.
The county (my current agency) requires us to qualify with a passing score twice, and both scores are recorded.

[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.

[cheby]

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.

That program should be called "Trigger warning program"
Seriously speaking, I am pretty sure it is going to happen very soon judging by the direction where American colleges are going now

[JustOneGun]

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.

LOL!

Well for most agencies it's only a fail until they pass. I can't remember when fail led to firing or discipline. In the end, everyone is a pass (it's an acronym standing for Participation award for suckie shooters). It shouldn't be that way but for most agencies it is. It certainly was for mine despite the protest of the coordinator and staff. Even good training staffs sometimes succeed in spite of the command staff and not because of them. Just one of many problems in modern day policing. ):

[John Hearne]

Well for most agencies it's only a fail until they pass. I can't remember when fail led to firing or discipline.

I am aware of one of the nation's largest academy's that has a no fail policy on firearms. The recruit will continue to shoot the course until they pass, no matter how long it takes. Once they pass they are sent out into the world to be problem shooter for the remainder of their time with the agency.

[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.

[Hideeho]

IIRC, historically, the trend in law enforcement to record P/F vs. raw scores began in in late 80's-early 90's. Rationale was to not expose officers to unnecessary questioning regarding their firearms capabilities in civil trials involving use of force. Advocates of P/F argued it better to state, "I meet department requirements" vs. testifying regarding their most recent qualifications score.

Advocates of P/F argued the system gets good and bad shooters off the hook. A high scorer could be asked why they didn't target a non-vital area? Or, why shot the subject in the groin? Which can get twisted to being accused of intentionally maiming the subject. A low scoring shooter could be asked what have they done improve their shooting skills? The most important skill in the profession is applying deadly use of force. Ask a poor shooter on the stand what they did to get better? Majority of the time, you own them after that question.

Departments that use P/F scores should stop counting a shooter's target once passing is achieved. Critical to P/F scoring is a high passing score, remediation for poor shooters, and restricted duty and ultimately termination for those that cannot pass qualifications. Shooters should be in the blind regarding actual scores. There is no need to continue scoring once the passing score is reached. Targets should be marked P or F. Not scored.

An extension of that thinking is marksmanship badges in law enforcement. Officers should not wear Expert, Sharpshooter, and Marksman badges on their uniforms. In a trial, those badges can be used to confuse jurors and discredit officers wearing them on their uniforms.