The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

BillCA · May 15, 2010, 10:31 PM

Between the lawyers and the accountants we are being nibbled away to nothing.

I live in a large metro city in California. One of the officers I know just came out of their training division - by request - because no one would listen and they kept telling him not to make waves.

Current qualification procedure has just gone from twice a year to once per year. Officers are issued a firearm and 100 rounds. They get 50 rounds per quarter to rotate their ammo. Annual qualification with pistol consists of shooting exactly 31 rounds at 7 & 15 yards, static facing targets, on green B-27 Silhouttes in 35% lighting (i.e. equiv. to sodium vapor night street lighting). Patrol officers are given 8 rounds of #00 buck to qualify with at 25 yards and 35 yards. Rifle qualifications consist of only 10 rounds out of the M4/AR-15 rifle, semi-auto only.

Scoring is done on a pass/fail basis. Range officers are not allowed to score targets by points. Only torso & head hits count towards a percentage of hits vs. shots fired. Qualification for patrol is 75% and 70% for administrative duty personnel (desk officers, command officers, detectives, etc.)

Why? Lawyers. If a lawyer can get an officer to admit that his shooting skills are "below average" it really opens the door to large cash awards. Hence, point scoring is not allowed. Nor is scoring percentage hits above the qualification score. If the range officer calculates your score as 88% he just tells you "you passed", but not the hits. Officers are not allowed to score their own targets or take them as memento/trophy/bragging rights.

This way, in court, an officer can say he and his partner were both qualified, even though he shot a 95% and his partner barely made 75%.

The accountants have even been reluctant to continue the 200 rounds per year "free" ammo for officers due to the "excessive cost" of ammo. There was a suggestion from city finance to limit officers to 10-round magazines. I don't need to tell you what the POA said in reply. It just didn't happen.

Not too long ago, a new chief came in and policy changed regarding firearms. Officers were required to report any discharge of the firearm at all and each report required an Internal Affairs investigation. When 5 officers reported their personal shooting at a public range with duty guns, I/A was required to investigate. Rather than exempt on-range shooting, the chief prohibited using a duty weapon outside of the PD's own range (which required a range officer present). Truly, my friends, the inmates are running the asylum.

The next officer-involved shooting where some innocent is hit is going to be a financial disaster for the city.

May 15, 2010, 10:31 PM	#18
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	Between the lawyers and the accountants we are being nibbled away to nothing. I live in a large metro city in California. One of the officers I know just came out of their training division - by request - because no one would listen and they kept telling him not to make waves. Current qualification procedure has just gone from twice a year to once per year. Officers are issued a firearm and 100 rounds. They get 50 rounds per quarter to rotate their ammo. Annual qualification with pistol consists of shooting exactly 31 rounds at 7 & 15 yards, static facing targets, on green B-27 Silhouttes in 35% lighting (i.e. equiv. to sodium vapor night street lighting). Patrol officers are given 8 rounds of #00 buck to qualify with at 25 yards and 35 yards. Rifle qualifications consist of only 10 rounds out of the M4/AR-15 rifle, semi-auto only. Scoring is done on a pass/fail basis. Range officers are not allowed to score targets by points. Only torso & head hits count towards a percentage of hits vs. shots fired. Qualification for patrol is 75% and 70% for administrative duty personnel (desk officers, command officers, detectives, etc.) Why? Lawyers. If a lawyer can get an officer to admit that his shooting skills are "below average" it really opens the door to large cash awards. Hence, point scoring is not allowed. Nor is scoring percentage hits above the qualification score. If the range officer calculates your score as 88% he just tells you "you passed", but not the hits. Officers are not allowed to score their own targets or take them as memento/trophy/bragging rights. This way, in court, an officer can say he and his partner were both qualified, even though he shot a 95% and his partner barely made 75%. The accountants have even been reluctant to continue the 200 rounds per year "free" ammo for officers due to the "excessive cost" of ammo. There was a suggestion from city finance to limit officers to 10-round magazines. I don't need to tell you what the POA said in reply. It just didn't happen. Not too long ago, a new chief came in and policy changed regarding firearms. Officers were required to report any discharge of the firearm at all and each report required an Internal Affairs investigation. When 5 officers reported their personal shooting at a public range with duty guns, I/A was required to investigate. Rather than exempt on-range shooting, the chief prohibited using a duty weapon outside of the PD's own range (which required a range officer present). Truly, my friends, the inmates are running the asylum. The next officer-involved shooting where some innocent is hit is going to be a financial disaster for the city. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)