Stupid Training

[garryc]

In the last few years my department has gone from training Weaver stance to Col. Applegate point shooting. As anyone that has been in shooting combat over the last 50 years or so knows you are supposed to have the off foot forward and bend the knees. This places the body balance between the feet and is stable. Not in my department. They simply have you squat with the feet in line with each other. It's a weaver with a squat! That places the body's balance on the balls of the feet or even forward of that. So you're trying to balance yourself and shoot.

That's stupid!!!

[Dwight55]

Before going to 'Nam, . . . lotsa guys were "trained" that if their bayonet stuck in the guy they harpooned, . . . pull the trigger, the concurent effects of knockdown and recoil would get your bayonet out and ready for the next VC. :barf:

Those of us who planned on living long enough to see CONUS again answered with their required answer, . . . then shook our heads and agreed that if there were any bullets left in our rifles, . . . there wasn't going to be any of that bayonet crap going on with us, . . . :D

Maybe you need to do the same, . . . give them lip service, . . . but do what you need to do to stay alive. Truly, . . . I doubt that if the bullets start being sprayed around, . . . one of them will come running out from behind his desk to correct your stance. Remember, . . . he's gotta lay down that doughnut first, . . . and what's the chances of that happening????:eek:

May God bless,
Dwight

[garryc]

Ohio Law says this:


109.801 Annual firearms requalification program.
(A)(1) Each year, any of the following persons who are authorized to carry firearms in the course of their official duties shall complete successfully a firearms requalification program approved by the executive director of the Ohio peace officer training commission in accordance with rules adopted by the attorney general pursuant to section 109.743 of the Revised Code: any peace officer, sheriff, chief of police of an organized police department of a municipal corporation or township, chief of police of a township police district police force, superintendent of the state highway patrol, state highway patrol trooper, or chief of police of a university or college police department ; any parole or probation officer who carries a firearm in the course of official duties; the house of representatives sergeant at arms if the house of representatives sergeant at arms has arrest authority pursuant to division (E)(1) of section 101.311 of the Revised Code; any assistant house of representatives sergeant at arms; or any employee of the department of youth services who is designated pursuant to division (A)(2) of section 5139.53 of the Revised Code as being authorized to carry a firearm while on duty as described in that division.

(2) No person listed in division (A)(1) of this section shall carry a firearm during the course of official duties if the person does not comply with division (A)(1) of this section.

(B) The hours that a sheriff spends attending a firearms requalification program required by division (A) of this section are in addition to the sixteen hours of continuing education that are required by division (E) of section 311.01 of the Revised Code.

(C) As used in this section, “firearm” has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 03-19-2003; 09-16-2004; 03-14-2007

And this:

109.743 Administrative rules.
The attorney general shall adopt, in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code or pursuant to section 109.74 of the Revised Code, rules governing firearms requalification programs that are required by section 109.801 of the Revised Code. At a minimum, the rules shall prohibit a firearms requalification program from being used to fulfill the requirements of section 109.801 of the Revised Code until after the program is approved by the executive director of the Ohio peace officer training commission pursuant to section 109.75 of the Revised Code.


So I'm wondering if OPADA is aware of this alteration of the program. Maybe I'll just get that can of gas back out and fire this issue up. A little complaint to OPADA might get some attention.

[Archie]

Garry, you might also consider the geography of some ranges.

One of the reasons range officers want all toes on the line is so no one is behind (or forward of) the person next on the line.

You're right, things ain't always as they should be. However, the reality is, the range people have to get all those officers through the qualification course in this length of time. Probably only running a relay of three or four officers might lend a greater level of authenticity to the course, but it's usually not possible based on scheduling.

I'm not suggesting you forget about it or ignore it, but there are many considerations in this sort of nonsense. Especially with a department and a state oversight agency.

[garryc]

When I went this year we started at about 9am and finished at about 10:45 with 10 shooters. We didn't get off until 2pm. That was both handgun and shotgun with about a 30min break between. Of course we did not clean the weapons and they went to the armory dirty, dirty just like we got them. Filthy to the point of malfuntion.

[Threefeathers]

Gary, get a dozen copies of Stressfire by Ayoob and send them to your union leaders. I know he has taught LFI in Ohio and you will have many compatriots.

[Brit]

I fell afoul of every Firearms Instructor in all the Police Dept's, for 100 miles around.

I ran my own training facility for 23 years, never was trained to teach.

I started by examining every shooting in the past ten years, measured what kind of training was required to win those actual encounters, and built a program to suit that. In submitting the lesson plan to the Police Training Authority the criteria was all from the holster, or the odd time, from the ready position.

The stance was whatever you came with if it worked! If not we changed it, Pistol, Rifle or Shotgun, same fight developed stance, aggressive, tight.

The one you are describing sounds like the old FBI stance, the problem with that stance, you are not in a ready to go position! You want to fly forward, or to either side! You are stuck. One extra split second, you are dead.

[garryc]

Yeah, how do I go to cover if I first must regain my ballance?

[David Armstrong]

They simply have you squat with the feet in line with each other. It's a weaver with a squat! That places the body's balance on the balls of the feet or even forward of that. So you're trying to balance yourself and shoot.
First, a feet-in-line squat should not place you off-balance if done right. Try thinking of a martial arts "horse stance" position instead of a weight-forward ball of feet position. Second, IMO you shouldn't practice a single static position anyway, which might be the more important point, one to make with your superiors.

[Deaf Smith]

and agreed that if there were any bullets left in our rifles, . . . there wasn't going to be any of that bayonet crap going on with us, .

That is the way the SEALs think. While they do train in some H2H, they are all for blasting the enemy first and last. They will get down and dirty once the bullets run out.

you shouldn't practice a single static position anyway, which might be the more important point, one to make with your superiors.

Stances are to lean to shoot with. One HOPEs they can get into a 'stance' when the fur flys, but no doubt they will have to adapt their 'stance' to the situation. Still one does learn the stance, just like a karate 'horse' stance. You have to crawl before you can walk.

[fierocdsp]

IF you're being required to shoot with both feet in line (assuming any tactical thought), why teach a Weaver hold?

In such a position, an Isosceles hold can provide better control over larger (40 is large?) calibers, faster shot times, and allow for cross-dominance of the shooter.

I'm not trying to start a "prefered method" war, but I think the point holds that if you're being trained to stand square to a target, which will train you to be a wider target under fire, you might as well have a grip that will perform best with that stance.

Granted, I'm no expert, but I do shoot competitvely locally. Under stress (from the clock ;) ) I sometimes find my Iso slipping more towards a Weaver, but I invariable lose the control (I shoot 40) and eye-dominance benefits I get from Iso.

[woodland]

I'm not trying to start a "prefered method" war, but I think the point holds that if you're being trained to stand square to a target, which will train you to be a wider target under fire,

Well, if you are wearing body armor, then you are taking the most advantage of it in a squared stance. The more you turn, the more you expose the weak part of your armor, the side. Many many officers have been killed by taking a round in the side while turning from the threat.

[Double Naught Spy]

Personally, I train to shoot with my feet in all sorts of stances, my body in and out of balance, leaning, bent over, etc. I also train shooting on the move. Why? Because I probably won't get to be in my ideal position during a crisis. I need to be able to shoot well regardless of where my feet are when I start shooting. I really doubt that I will be able to shoot well in an "off balance" stance if I don't train for it.

The same goes for weaver, isoc., strong hand, and weak hand.

[jcoiii]

we, too, received academy training to square up, mostly due to the body armor. but we also received a little nugget for real gunfights. If you're stance is good, you're not moving and finding cover.

[fierocdsp]

Point taken, Woodland. :o

[David Armstrong]

Stances are to lean to shoot with.
Agreed, but my point is that one should not learn a single stance during training, but instead should learn to utilize different stances.

[Wuchak]

I suggest grabbing a copy of Col. Applegate's book Bullseye's Don't Shoot Back. You'll find out from the Col himself why the stance is like it is and the research he did as part of OSS that led him to it.

Essentially the entire point shooting stance he taught is based on your body's natural response to a threat. You will automatically stand square to the threat. From this position it is also easier to move laterally either right or left. Putting your off foot forward makes quickly moving laterally in that direction almost impossible. It might work for shooting at the range but is not a good idea in a SD situation.

You can get the book for less than $20 at half.com, Amazon.com, etc. It's worth reading.

[Don Gwinn]

If you're fighting from "Horse Stance" you're doing it wrong. Even karateka do not fight from horse stance unless they've been trained badly.

If there's a logical reason to spend effort on keeping your feet lined up, that's fine, but "because it's like Horse Stance" is not it.

[Deaf Smith]

Agreed, but my point is that one should not learn a single stance during training, but instead should learn to utilize different stances.

And hence I said 'stances', as in plural. Long time ago Ayoob showed in his book how you could go from a Weaver to a Iso to a Chapman just by swinging your arms around. That was a very good thought he had.

If you're fighting from "Horse Stance" you're doing it wrong. Even karateka do not fight from horse stance unless they've been trained badly.

Don, while I'm not a fancier of the Israeli method of shooting, they do use a horse stance (rather deep one to.) And I can't say the Israelites don't know a thing or two about combat shooting.

And martial artest do use the horse stance. They may kick or punch from a boxing stance but when they land they may very well be in a horse stance so as to deliver a very wicked step-through side kick, back kick, or shuffling kick. Even a spinning backfist can be delivered from the horse stance. They transition from one stance to another as the situation dictates. The stances may not be picture perfect, but they do flow from one to another.

[matthew temkin]

In his book KOGK Applegate warns against the "straddle stance" for combat shooting.
I must disagree slightly.
Be it aimed or point shooting I teach from the straddle stance position since I find that the student has an easier understanding of the concepts from this position.
I do, however, lead them into having one foot forward ASAP--usually when they are getting good hits.

[Shawn Dodson]

I suggest airsoft pistols (or Simunitions) and some realistic, force-on-force gunfight training to expose weaknesses.

Scenarios should include unstable footing (gravel, mud) and uneven footing (hillside, staircase).

[David Armstrong]

If there's a logical reason to spend effort on keeping your feet lined up, that's fine, but "because it's like Horse Stance" is not it.
Don't think that was ever suggested as a reason. What was suggested is that lining the feet up can be stable and balanced. But to your other point, sorry, but the horse stance can be used as a fighting position and can be used quite well, based on need. As deaf rightly points out, a deep horse stance is fundamental to a significant part of the Israeli technique, as well as in martial arts.

[James K]

"As anyone that has been in shooting combat over the last 50 years or so knows you are supposed to have the off foot forward and bend the knees."

First off, let me be clear. I have been a LEO, but never fired a shot in anger, so I cannot and will not claim to be an expert in real combat shooting (as when the target is shooting at me).

But reading this thread, one thought occurs:

How in Hell do you get the bad guy to hold off shooting until you can assume those perfect stances the gurus teach on those nice ranges with no one shooting back? I can think of a hundred situations where you could die while getting your feet in the "proper" position. And the "time out" signal probably won't work.

Jim

[pax]

How in Hell do you get the bad guy to hold off shooting until you can assume those perfect stances the gurus teach on those nice ranges with no one shooting back? I can think of a hundred situations where you could die while getting your feet in the "proper" position. And the "time out" signal probably won't work.

Jim, you have to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run.

A solid shooting stance -- whichever your preferred stance, whether it has a name or not -- helps the beginning shooter learn the basic principles that absolutely must be mastered if the newcomer will ever reach his full potential as a shooter. As a beginner, you stand on the range in a static stance, and you learn to shoot quickly and accurately and reliably, gripping the gun the same way every time, presenting it smoothly and efficiently every time, pressing the trigger smoothly every time.

If your instructor is smart, that beginning stance (whatever name you choose to give it) will be one that can easily segue into more advanced techniques, including shooting while moving, shooting in low light, shooting moving targets, shooting one handed... the list goes on. All of those skills will build upon your original understanding of the fundamentals, and performing these advanced skills well really requires you to have internalized the basic principles the fundamentals are intended to teach.

What this means is that as you become more accomplished, the minor details that loomed so large in your early training become less significant -- NOT because the fundamentals are no longer important, but because by this point you will have internalized and mastered the principles that the basic fundamentals are designed to help you master.

So we study the minutae of the static stance, especially at the beginning, but nobody really believes that the static stance is the end game. Nobody thinks that or teaches it, not even the guys who are most insistent on mastering the basics. Rather, the end game is that you'll be able to do whatever you need to do with the gun, at whatever speed you need to do it, in any situation where you might reasonably find yourself needing a gun.

But you have to learn how to walk before you can run...

pax

[Double Naught Spy]

In combat, most people run, whether they have learned to crawl or walk or not.

Jim's comments address two points. First, the minutae of the static stance apparently is the end of education for a lot of folks such that they believe the only way to fight is from a static stance and a particular one at that. When that fails or cannot be attained because the bad guy does not offer the generous opportunity of time, they are left with running, which they don't know how to do (using your analogy).

garryc's dept appears to be teaching one method that he particularly does not like, and he didn't give much indication of the dept. covering all the subtle nuances of various stances in learning to run nor did his belief in a singular method seem to indicate he had covered such territory either, hence Jim's comments.

[pax]

DNS,

Understood. Too many people believe that learning the basics means they don't need to learn advanced techniques.

But for every person making that mistake, there are literally hundreds who think they'll somehow master advanced techniques without ever learning a single basic and without learning any fundamentals.

Maybe the second group of people is right. I dunno. I do know that an awful lot of little boys in my house grew up running around and pointing fake guns at each other (squirt guns, dart guns, Airsoft guns, you name it, they pointed it at each other). Somehow those kids, each and every one of them, still couldn't hit squat on a moving target when they grew up enough that I could take them to the range and put a real gun in their hands. We still had to start with the fundamentals.

There's a balance somewhere.

pax

[garryc]

garryc's dept appears to be teaching one method that he particularly does not like, and he didn't give much indication of the dept. covering all the subtle nuances of various stances in learning to run nor did his belief in a singular method seem to indicate he had covered such territory either, hence Jim's comments.



I'll have you know that I have fired in anger, it was many years ago. Now the fact is if I was to design a course of training it would equal or exceed OPADA's police training. It would also take weeks. As it stands, we have one 8hr course in a year. Sad ain't it.

The fact is that they teach one technique, they should teach it as it was designed. And no, a static firing line is not a good teacher for combat. To tell someone the difference in cover and concealment and then tell them to use it, without drilling it, is a waste.

The problem is that our department is saturated with social workers that have assumed control of custody issues. They neither know or care to know about this subject. This is why we still carry M10's and M64's that are in dismal repair overall. They declined issuing autos even when S+W offered them a sweet deal. They also decline to send the current revolvers to S+W for inspection and rebuild. It's just not worth the money to them.

As far as my abilities, I'll hold my own against anyone. I do train, and I do shoot combat competition. Hopefully that competition is as close to the real thing as I ever get to again.

I guess I'll just suck it up. I can shoot in any position, including this position that is more useful for taking a dump than shooting . I guess when I go on a transport I will simply have to keep in my mind the fact that, with few exceptions, no one competent has my back. That's just life. Hey, at least I have someone there storing extra ammo for me because we don't teach stress fire and they will likely freeze.

As for those on this thread who thought to be condescending or insulting, you can kiss my.........boot.

[pax]

It would also take weeks. As it stands, we have one 8hr course in a year. Sad ain't it. ....

garryc ~

That really sucks. It's not an unusual situation, but it really sucks.

Some departments (I'm thinking of one specific one down the road from me) have a department culture where learning how to shoot is "bad" in some poorly-defined way -- as if learning how to shoot means you're a bloodthirsty neanderthal with a penchant for violence. They sure don't want any of their guys to show any enthusiasm for learning to shoot, or be into firearms in any significant way.

Others (I'm thinking of a different department down the road in the other direction) have a culture that's exactly the opposite. With a good and enthusiastic trainer, it's surprising how far the budget can be stretched and how much more willing the student/cops are to learn what needs to be learned. Someone who comes out of a healthy department culture like that is more likely to do what you're doing, and get the training whether forced to do so or not.

Budgets are tight everywhere, and budgeting both the time and the money for ordinary cops to learn to shoot well just isn't an easy sell at the best of times. After all, you use your wits, your car keys, your baton, your verbal judo, your handcuffs, your radio ... everything else that goes with the job ... a million times more often than you'll ever need that gun. Lotsa guys go through an entire career without ever firing a shot away from the range. So what's the big deal? That's the reasoning.

Sometimes it's just hard to convince a bean counter that a human life -- YOURS! -- is more important than a pile of beans.

(No suggested solutions. Just admiring the problem.)

pax

[garryc]

After all, you use your wits, your car keys, your baton, your verbal judo, your handcuffs, your radio ... everything else that goes with the job ... a million times more often than you'll ever need that gun.


The thing is that our social workers don't value that training either. You see, I've been on the job for 16 years, before the social workers took over, so I'm old school. I try to impart the things I know to these young officers but they neither respect or value experience.

For example, I used to work our sallyport during off hours when we had to send out a transport. More times than I can count they would bring an inmate for transport that is not properly restrained. By God, when an inmate leaves my house his steel will be on book right! I'd make them fix it or do it myself. They usually just called me some colorful name.

Now let me say this, which will anger some. Many many times I've seen cops come into the institution after doing 20 years on the street. Many times I've seen them quit because they can't handle being locked up alone, and unarmed, with 140 inmates. I don't think it's cowardness as much as it's the realization that they have no real control of their environment. Any officer who thinks he has more control of a lock than the inmates allow him to have, or want him to have, is fooling himself. Usually the inmates want you to have that control, even though they resist it, because they don't want to live in total chaos anymore than you do.

[Scattergun Bob]

Lets spend a minute here and have a little discussion about training. I try not to get involved with training issues on this forum, there seem to be so many training GODs here and I have sworn off the training belt, being an old dog, and with all the new tricks about!

What concerns me is the almost RELIGIOUS attitude when Peace officers standards and training and departmental firearms training is discussed. Training is what it is, and its effectiveness is determined by the quality/diligence of the instructors and the commitment of the brass. I have seen very GOOD firearms training and very BAD firearms training coming from LE departments.

The good news for you Gary, is that once you have your qualifier in hand, you can load up with your street ammo and RETURN to what you think works!!!!

Here are my thoughts, though they are from the old days of revolvers in law enforcement they still may have some gravity.

1st - There are no correct combat stances with pistols on the street.
In the half dozen scrapes I was in everybody used the stance that allowed them to shoot. One handed, laying in the gutter, sprawled out behind a car tire, half knelling half standing against a dumpster, and even bolt upright shooting on the advance. The point is that none of those positions would have been accepted in our PPC style of qualifications for my agency.

2nd - As I have said in previous posts and others have said before me firing positions should NEVER be mutually exclusive things. If that is being told to you remember point #1. Learn and train with them all, decisively move to what will work best, AND WIN.

3rd - A personal note, I was never happy training to a minimum standard, I was willing to spend my own $$ to get more. I can not honestly say the Gunsite, Yavapai, International Training Consultants, or the Wild Bunch helped me survive on the street. They did open my eyes to other way to look at defensive firearms, I brought that back to my guys. I was alway in trouble with this attitude, I was very respectful to the brass, but I was very forthright about my thoughts.

Good luck in you endeavor sir.

Good Luck & Be Safe

[garryc]

Scatter, I'm getting into the mind set now that I will just ride out the next 14 years. Careing about this department is simply a waste of time. I need to decide on my priorities in this situation.

1st, I survive.

2nd, my partner survives

Everything else is just dribble. Before my department looks at custody conserns another Lucasville riot will have to happen, of course it won't be them getting raped and killed.
The kicker is, other than these irritations, I like being a C/O.

[Scattergun Bob]

It would have been difficult for me to do your job! I spent a little time interacting with C/O's at one of our prisons. I could never get use to the constant scrunity by con's in the yard looking for any chink in your armor.

The GOOD news is that prison systems do change, and on occasion they get better.

My best to you, an please be safe

Bob

[threegun]

Making a stable shooting platform is a must for pinpoint precision not for achieving good combat hits.

I'm confident that dropping into a deep "horse" stance to engage a bad guy in the process of trying to kill me is not going to help me as much as getting lead into them ASAP from whatever angle/stance/hand I'm holding the gun in at the time. Better yet is for me to get lead into them while I move.

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay garryc, you have complained to us quite a bit about your department. Since you know so well what is wrong, what are YOU doing about it?

How many times have you and your partner gone to the range to work on drills together? How many times have you taken other officers to the range to work on drills?

I ask this because you have apparently admitted total defeat with dealing with the department. Since your #1 and #2 priorities are survival of you and your partner, what are you doing to expand your limited knowledge and training?

From the sounds of it, I get more training than y'all do and I am not in a department.

[Deaf Smith]

Do you guys ever wonder why the U.S. miliary teaches 'stances' for rifle shooting? Prone, kneeling, etc... Yes the 'stance' may not be textbook perfect, and in facy may be improvised to a huge degree, but the military does know a thing or two about combat.

[garryc]

How many times have you and your partner gone to the range to work on drills together?

Actually I don't have "A" partner, It's who ever they assign on that day.

How many times have you taken other officers to the range to work on drills?



With the exception of a few guys, not often. Just like in most police forces, most people aren't shooters. They only go when told to and only learn what they are told to. Stricktly minimal.


I ask this because you have apparently admitted total defeat with dealing with the department.

Admittedly, I lack the political finesse to effect change in a huge bureaucracy. I'm more a bull in the china shop kind of personality. It's been said that I'm kind of a rigid thinker, that doesn't get you far in a political organization. But it does work well with inmates, you're consistent.


Since your #1 and #2 priorities are survival of you and your partner, what are you doing to expand your limited knowledge and training?



MY training is not limited as you seem to imply, Sir. I train hard and varied the course. Doing the same stuff the same way is boring. I find rough spots and polish them. Like shooting multiple targets from under a car, behind its tire, that was a tough one for me to get down for some reason. I shot that position with hundreds of rounds until it was smooth.

[Brit]

Correction Officers do not carry at work, right? so as it is still not right, but training is just a waste of time and money according to the bosses.

I could give you a 100 round training program that would be fun, and teach your group what they need to know to feel comfortable with their weapons in holsters, re escort duty for instance.

The minute a riot situation pops up, Shot guns and Rifles become the hand held weapons? Correct me if I am wrong Garryc

[garryc]

Correction Officers do not carry at work, right?

We do not carry inside the wire. Our armed positions are perimeters, security patrol and transports. If I had to figure the one who is most likely to face an armed foe it would be security patrol. That is a patrol officer on the roads and grounds outside the institution. Checking stopped vehicles and such. Second would be transports to hospitals, and believe it or not you are almost as likely to be protecting the inmate from a victim than preventing an escape.

I could give you a 100 round training program that would be fun, and teach your group what they need to know to feel comfortable with their weapons in holsters, re escort duty for instance.



That would be great. But really it would only be effective if we shot quarterly rather than once a year. We have 40hrs a year training, it would be nice to have two days firearms and two UASD split by 6 months. That would leave one day for the PC bullcrap.

The minute a riot situation pops up, Shot guns and Rifles become the hand held weapons? Correct me if I am wrong Garryc

You'd be hard pressed to ever see weapons inside the wire. If the did they would be used by our SRT or TRT or STAR teams. I used to be on those teams, but at 49 I'm a little past that.

[Brit]

Garryc

Thank you for the indepth reply.

[fourrobert13]

Ohio Law says this:


109.801 Annual firearms requalification program.
(A)(1) Each year, any of the following persons who are authorized to carry firearms in the course of their official duties shall complete successfully a firearms requalification program approved by the executive director of the Ohio peace officer training commission in accordance with rules adopted by the attorney general pursuant to section 109.743 of the Revised Code: any peace officer, sheriff, chief of police of an organized police department of a municipal corporation or township, chief of police of a township police district police force, superintendent of the state highway patrol, state highway patrol trooper, or chief of police of a university or college police department ; any parole or probation officer who carries a firearm in the course of official duties; the house of representatives sergeant at arms if the house of representatives sergeant at arms has arrest authority pursuant to division (E)(1) of section 101.311 of the Revised Code; any assistant house of representatives sergeant at arms; or any employee of the department of youth services who is designated pursuant to division (A)(2) of section 5139.53 of the Revised Code as being authorized to carry a firearm while on duty as described in that division.

(2) No person listed in division (A)(1) of this section shall carry a firearm during the course of official duties if the person does not comply with division (A)(1) of this section.

(B) The hours that a sheriff spends attending a firearms requalification program required by division (A) of this section are in addition to the sixteen hours of continuing education that are required by division (E) of section 311.01 of the Revised Code.

(C) As used in this section, “firearm” has the same meaning as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 03-19-2003; 09-16-2004; 03-14-2007

And this:

109.743 Administrative rules.
The attorney general shall adopt, in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code or pursuant to section 109.74 of the Revised Code, rules governing firearms requalification programs that are required by section 109.801 of the Revised Code. At a minimum, the rules shall prohibit a firearms requalification program from being used to fulfill the requirements of section 109.801 of the Revised Code until after the program is approved by the executive director of the Ohio peace officer training commission pursuant to section 109.75 of the Revised Code.


So I'm wondering if OPADA is aware of this alteration of the program. Maybe I'll just get that can of gas back out and fire this issue up. A little complaint to OPADA might get some attention.

Garry I have to ask you a question about this for me to understand your concern. I am an OPOTC firearms instructor. I am allowed to teach whatever I want. Only when it come to requalifications, am I to follow the OPOTC requalification program because it's a test that officers are required to do once a year. This requalifiction program can be the OPOTC program or a course that an instructor would design and then approved by OPOTC.

With what I said above, are you still shooting the 7 stage OPOTC requalification? Or is your Instructor just teaching you a new technique for shooting? I am curious to know, and if he is making you shoot an unapproved course of fire, you should contact OPOTC because you and other officers that would have shot would not be qualified on your weapon. But from your original post, it sounds like your instructor is trying to teach you a shooting stance, and if that's the case, there is nothing wrong with that. Did you ask the instructor about this and give your input to him/her? Please don't take my post out of context, I just want to understand your issue, wether it was just a new technique, or new course of fire.

adam

[garryc]

It's the same stance in 5 stages. Just squat. 1 stage is a holster draw and hip shot at near point blank range. 1 other is single action slow fire weaver stance.
Apparently some instructors went to Hocking Collage and learned the Applegate method, when they brought it back to the department they changed it.

Perhaps OPOTC should observe some training at local institutions.

[Scattergun Bob]

Well, looks like weather you like it or not, you shook the tree a little. Perhaps the previous poster will give it a look. Good For You, Remember, to be nice and smile for the brass!!! :)


In great regard, Bob

[garryc]

I like it! Yeah, it could pizz them off, it ain't like I haven't done that before. Then they could say, "bringing discredit to the employer" That's ok because I tell the truth, state my opinion as opinion and stand squarly behind the first amendment. Remember, it's a public employer and the first amendment applies to public employers directly. I surrender no constitutional rights to them. Another thing you should consider is the fact that as an Ohio employee my job is my property, just like my house, and they can't take it without due process. That would be an administrative hearing, which as an act of law is subject to higher court overview. So say they disipline me, ok, now they face a civil rights law suit.

[Double Naught Spy]

You can tell them what you want, but insubordination isn't protected by the Constitution. Neither is failure to follow orders.

They are not afraid of petty employee civil suits. It is part of what they deal with as a government entity.