So you're an instructor, hm?

[FotoTomas]

One point not mentioned yet... student animosity.

I am an inhouse firearms instructor for a police agency. Over the years I have had many opportunities to impart wisdom and sage advice to those I have been entrusted to train. Unfortunatly many of those individuals are quite displeased that they have to spend THEIR time off learning about STUPID tactics and wasting valuable sleep/beer drinking time with punching holes in cardboard AND then having to CLEAN the pistol. By god they will show up and simply bang the rounds down range to get it over with as fast as possible.

Sad but true.

Another point, the approved lesson plan (LP). My job REQUIRES me to teach to the standards based on approved agency LPs. Even when such LPs have some flaws. Flaws that can be corrected BUT must first go through a multi level approval process. Until it is changed the standard LP must still be taught. Did I mention that our big wig training gurus often rewrite the LPs so that we have to make sure what we teach is the most current info. As well as check it for flaws that might have slipped through.

Last but not least is the liability issue. My employers have a terrible fear of liability and have based all such training standards and LPs on minimizing such exposure. I for example, when running officers through the "official" qualification course, can NOT count any hits on target past the minimum. We fire 50 rounds "at" the target but I have to stop counting when I find 40 hits (80%). They then get a "P" (pass) and I am off to the next target to score. It does not matter if we have a rathole in the middle of the target or a pattern that covers the entire sillohouette. We teach to a level of mediocracy and actively avoid trying to get people to a higher standard to keep the in house lawyers happy.

Many officers try to get as much out of the training as possible. Looking for opportunities to improve so they might be better prepared for what might happen. They make showing up for class a blessing and keep me enthusiastic about my collateral duty. On the other hand we have some that truly do ONLY the minimum required and complain about that as well.

I hope those instructors that teach for profit appreciate the fact that people paying for training will most likely want to be there which is a great way to start to a class.

[ToddG]

I hope those instructors that teach for profit appreciate the fact that people paying for training will most likely want to be there which is a great way to start to a class.

I've had a number of small agencies inquire about having me do classes for the whole department. Usually this happens after an FI or two from the department have been through AFHF. My question to them is always pretty straightforward: how many of your patrol guys will actually benefit from two intense days of shooting 1,000-1,500 rounds versus how many will complain to the Chief about being forced to spend two long days on the range shooting until their hands bleed?

Every year I see quite a few agency FIs come through class in addition to doing dedicated LE/agency classes. I don't think I've met an FI yet who hasn't lamented the general level of disinterest among his officers, deputies, agents, whatever when it comes to firearms training.

[jlw]

One point not mentioned yet... student animosity.

I am an inhouse firearms instructor for a police agency. Over the years I have had many opportunities to impart wisdom and sage advice to those I have been entrusted to train. Unfortunatly many of those individuals are quite displeased that they have to spend THEIR time off learning about STUPID tactics and wasting valuable sleep/beer drinking time with punching holes in cardboard AND then having to CLEAN the pistol. By god they will show up and simply bang the rounds down range to get it over with as fast as possible.

Sad but true.

Another point, the approved lesson plan (LP). My job REQUIRES me to teach to the standards based on approved agency LPs. Even when such LPs have some flaws. Flaws that can be corrected BUT must first go through a multi level approval process. Until it is changed the standard LP must still be taught. Did I mention that our big wig training gurus often rewrite the LPs so that we have to make sure what we teach is the most current info. As well as check it for flaws that might have slipped through.

Last but not least is the liability issue. My employers have a terrible fear of liability and have based all such training standards and LPs on minimizing such exposure. I for example, when running officers through the "official" qualification course, can NOT count any hits on target past the minimum. We fire 50 rounds "at" the target but I have to stop counting when I find 40 hits (80%). They then get a "P" (pass) and I am off to the next target to score. It does not matter if we have a rathole in the middle of the target or a pattern that covers the entire sillohouette. We teach to a level of mediocracy and actively avoid trying to get people to a higher standard to keep the in house lawyers happy.

Many officers try to get as much out of the training as possible. Looking for opportunities to improve so they might be better prepared for what might happen. They make showing up for class a blessing and keep me enthusiastic about my collateral duty. On the other hand we have some that truly do ONLY the minimum required and complain about that as well.

I hope those instructors that teach for profit appreciate the fact that people paying for training will most likely want to be there which is a great way to start to a class.

I've had a number of small agencies inquire about having me do classes for the whole department. Usually this happens after an FI or two from the department have been through AFHF. My question to them is always pretty straightforward: how many of your patrol guys will actually benefit from two intense days of shooting 1,000-1,500 rounds versus how many will complain to the Chief about being forced to spend two long days on the range shooting until their hands bleed?

Every year I see quite a few agency FIs come through class in addition to doing dedicated LE/agency classes. I don't think I've met an FI yet who hasn't lamented the general level of disinterest among his officers, deputies, agents, whatever when it comes to firearms training.

I changed our policy so that there is no remedial training. We scheduled more than a dozen training sessions. I see no need to remediate anyone when there are ample training opportunities.

Beginning next year, the minimum agency standard will be higher than the state's minimum standard. The way I see it, we aren't a "minimum agency"; so, we aren't going to perform minimally.

[KeeFus]

I changed our policy so that there is no remedial training. We scheduled more than a dozen training sessions. I see no need to remediate anyone when there are ample training opportunities.

Beginning next year, the minimum agency standard will be higher than the state's minimum standard. The way I see it, we aren't a "minimum agency"; so, we aren't going to perform minimally.

Hey...I know a town (in NC) where there's a Chiefs opening...just sayin'...

I wish our admin saw it that way.

[David Armstrong]

One point not mentioned yet... student animosity.

I am an inhouse firearms instructor for a police agency. Over the years I have had many opportunities to impart wisdom and sage advice to those I have been entrusted to train. Unfortunatly many of those individuals are quite displeased that they have to spend THEIR time off learning about STUPID tactics and wasting valuable sleep/beer drinking time with punching holes in cardboard AND then having to CLEAN the pistol. By god they will show up and simply bang the rounds down range to get it over with as fast as possible.

Perhaps that is part of the problem...and I'd question whether it is even allowed under labor laws. If you mandate the training I don't think you can mandate it be done on their own time. Perhaps a scheduled paid day at the range might change some attitudes? What other type of training do you expect the officers to do on their time off and not get paid for it?

Last but not least is the liability issue. My employers have a terrible fear of liability and have based all such training standards and LPs on minimizing such exposure. I for example, when running officers through the "official" qualification course, can NOT count any hits on target past the minimum. We fire 50 rounds "at" the target but I have to stop counting when I find 40 hits (80%). They then get a "P" (pass) and I am off to the next target to score. It does not matter if we have a rathole in the middle of the target or a pattern that covers the entire sillohouette.

That is not that uncommon. I disagree with the concept but lots of places use it.

[jlw]

Perhaps that is part of the problem...and I'd question whether it is even allowed under labor laws. If you mandate the training I don't think you can mandate it be done on their own time. Perhaps a scheduled paid day at the range might change some attitudes? What other type of training do you expect the officers to do on their time off and not get paid for it?

Fair Labor Standards Act

[jlw]

Hey...I know a town (in NC) where there's a Chiefs opening...just sayin'...

I wish our admin saw it that way.

You could come to GA... just sayin'...

Did I mention all the ammo that you will actually shoot and that we have been known to send folks to shoot matches?

[KeeFus]

You could come to GA... just sayin'...

Did I mention all the ammo that you will actually shoot and that we have been known to send folks to shoot matches?

With less than 8 to go i will ride this train til it wrecks. But GA sounds like a nice place to look at a second retirement!!!

[FotoTomas]

I changed our policy so that there is no remedial training. We scheduled more than a dozen training sessions. I see no need to remediate anyone when there are ample training opportunities.

Beginning next year, the minimum agency standard will be higher than the state's minimum standard. The way I see it, we aren't a "minimum agency"; so, we aren't going to perform minimally.

I wish my agency felt that way. Instead we are the red headed step children sucking valuable time and money from more important pursuits.

On the other hand there is a local Sheriff's Office that has a weekly optional training period open to in house deputies and area LE for free. Outside agencies or officers provide their own ammo. Show up, shoot, socialize. Great option for networking, fundamentals or some advanced tactics with the cost of some time. Out of the current 40 plus members in my station I alone have made the trip more than twice. For me it was a weekly pilgrimmage until I was transferred south. Heading back upstate in the summer and looking forward to renewing my practice time. I so wish more of us would strive to do the same.

On another point as asked in the original post I too carry at home. I mentioned it in an earlier post. I am one of, if not the best shooters in my station and I feel comfortable with my options and choices. I also like to shoot in local matches. I am a very small fish in the local gun club matches. So many (with very few in LE) totally outshoot me there. Many of them do the gun thing for fun and do not carry at all be it at home or on the street. It amazes me that the best shots often do not carry and those disinterested cops I train often do and I am sincerely scared that I am in more potential danger from them.

[David Armstrong]

Fair Labor Standards Act

That's what I would assume, FLSA guidelines on the issue seem pretty clear.