GA Qualification Changes

[jlw]

GA POST just announced new qualification rules. The new rules are a big departure from “the way we’ve always done it’s.

Previously, the state would adopt a standard course (current course adopted in 2021). Agencies were free to deviate so long as they met or exceeded the standard set by the state course.

The new rules are simply a list of minimum requirements, and agencies are free to add other things.

There is some griping, but I personally think the new rules allow for a lot more room to be creative.

Here are the rules:

https://gapost.org/georgia-post-annu...-requirements/

[DDTSGM]

Those guidelines certainly read as if there was a lot of contention on the committee and everyone finally just decided to get very general and let agencies do what they want.

The problem is that some agencies will default to the lowest level - especially if they have to report failures to the State and the State then lifts the officers certification until they qualify.

It's always seemed to me when folks design a qual course they often start with the number of rounds to be fired. In your States case I'd guess that someone on the committee has an agency carrying 10 round mags and 'by golly that's all they'll have with them so thirty rounds is all they should shoot. Back in the day when we were doing percentage quals and scoring by 5 ring 4 ring 3 ring (eg.) fifty rounds seemed to be popular because the math was easier and it was a box of ammo.

Then it seems that it is often broken down from there kind of figuring out by hit and miss on the distances, as is indicated by this:

Rounds fired from the 15-, 7-, and 3-yard lines (round should be spread somewhat evenly)

At the present we have about a fifty year data bank/history of officers killed in the LEOKA's. Here is a breakdown from the Officer Survival lesson guide I was working on when I retired.



Based on that info ( which isn't current, I know) I would have pushed for something like this:

Between 40 to 50% of the rounds fired must be fired from ranges within 5 yards of the target. No more than 50% of the rounds fired can be within this range.

At least 20% of the rounds fired must be fired at or beyond 20 yards.

At each yard line used there must be at least one string of fire which begins with shooter initiated movement. That movement can be to a barricade or other simulated cover, laterally left or right on the firing line, or, with proper safety precautions, diagonally forward or back.

That leaves between 30 to 40 percent of the rounds (maximum) to be used at ranges between 5 and 20 yards. I put 20% of the rounds fired from beyond 20 yards because most hit/miss scoring quals mandate 80% to pass and you can pass if hit none of the 20% fired beyond 20 yards.

Just some thoughts.

[Hambo]

"Somewhat evenly" leaves room for creativity alright. There will be agencies leaning hard on the 3 yard line to get them qualified. On the other hand, [MENTION=136]jlw[/MENTION] can have a single stage, three gun, move and shoot assault course.

[revchuck38]

I followed the link and googled that target. The target has two scoring zones, 10 and 5. The rules state, "Using the approved SQT-A1 target (8 and 10 ring scoring required)". Am I inferring correctly that they want the 5 ring hits to be scored as 8s? That'd make it a lot easier to get up to the required 80%.

[RevolverJIM]

Interesting info........reflects what I have thought to be the case regarding Police armed encounters with criminals.

Thanks for posting.

[fatdog]

"Our department's qualification standard exceeds the state's requirements" just add a couple of shots at the 5 yard line. Not saying anybody would do that just to improve their standing with respect to liability, trying to do one more thing to cover their ass, but what departments do relative to that whole subject will be interesting to watch I think. Could be that GA has given departments an incentive to stop constantly dumbing things down and start to turn things back in the other direction?

[jlw]

I followed the link and googled that target. The target has two scoring zones, 10 and 5. The rules state, "Using the approved SQT-A1 target (8 and 10 ring scoring required)". Am I inferring correctly that they want the 5 ring hits to be scored as 8s? That'd make it a lot easier to get up to the required 80%.

The minimum standard would be to score the 5s as 8s.

[jlw]

I’m no longer an agency shot caller, but my now former SO was shooting a course that exceeded the state standard. I don’t know which route they will take.

I don’t know what course will be used by the basic academies.

[DDTSGM]

"Our department's qualification standard exceeds the state's requirements" just add a couple of shots at the 5 yard line. Not saying anybody would do that just to improve their standing with respect to liability, trying to do one more thing to cover their ass, but what departments do relative to that whole subject will be interesting to watch I think. Could be that GA has given departments an incentive to stop constantly dumbing things down and start to turn things back in the other direction?

From the standpoint of limiting liability their are several court cases which talk about the need for agencies to give their officers relevant training to meet the situations they are likely to face. An hoary old chestnut of a case such as 'Popow v City of Margate' ( https://law.justia.com/cases/federal.../1237/1379073/ ) spurred agencies to start doing low light training and engaging moving target training in the late 70's early 80's.

Going along with the relevant training to meet the situations they are likely to face thing, it seems that if your training/SOP asserts you should set up in a high-risk vehicle with the units 60 foot to the rear, you probably ought to be making sure your officers demonstrate the ability to engage targets successfully at 60 to 70 feet.

At different times over my career I was program manger over al our use-of-force, firearms, EVOC and survival training. One of the things I kept in mind and preached was that the tactics we taught should be backed up by some component of practical training and documented. I looked at everything we did with the aspect of 'how can this come back on us.'

My biggest concerns were 1) not documenting substandard performance; 2) the appearance of hiding substandard performance; and 3) putting us in the position of an agency being able to say 'they never told us.'

A plaintiff's attorney is always going to be able to find an expert witness who can testify about current best practices. Sometimes they are not really cognizant of current training trends having been the Chief of the Fuckknuckle Junction Police Department and that is actually good for the agency. You get a legit SME as a plaintiff's expert and the havoc they could reek on an agency's training process could easily result in a huge settlement.

I always thought it best to prepare for the latter circumstance in training development and documentation.

[HCountyGuy]

Departments were already allowed to have their own CoF that exceeded the state minimum. The departments that were already doing this I suspect will continue to do so.

Which departments elect to go the absolute minimum will be interesting to see, yet I can still guarantee there will be folks failing and needing multiple attempts.