The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 16, 2010, 02:23 PM   #26
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,238
Quote:
We, the taxpayers, should be paying for law enforcement training.
NWCP,

To an extent I disagree. Training is one thing, but what is the line? Practice everyday? 1000 rounds a week? H2H 4 hrs a week? Do we pay for their time while practicing to?

The police get a basic amout. That is picked up by taxpayers, but after that, I feel they have to decide how much is 'enough' and if they feel they need more, it's their dime, just like it's my dime I spend!

You will notice NWCP quite alot of them die in car wrecks. Do we push them into more advanced driving techniques classes? No we don't, do we? And if we did, who picks up the dime? Raise taxes some more?

A large percent of the police force go into it for the job and uniform. Gunfighting is not on their mind. Paying bills is. And that is really why they don't practice. It's a job to them and not a Sparta thing.
__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old May 16, 2010, 02:31 PM   #27
johns7022
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2010
Posts: 94
It might not come as a shock that, RADIOS are what effectively stopped the Bonnie and Clydes in the last era where BGs actualy had running gun fights with LEOs...

These days a LEO pretty much only has to draw on a suspect at 5 yards so his partner can cuff the guy up...it's not about accuracy, it's just about making sure that when they pull the trigger it was the right move...

I think like the Miami FBI thing....agencies will probably wait untill the BGs start engaging LEOs in running gun battles again, and when that happens, all of a sudden, 100 years later, people will start looking again at weapons and proficiencies to invest in...

Spot on comment that officers and soldiers are expendable...most higher ups try to throw money, equipment and bodies at the problem not tactics, strategies, and training....
johns7022 is offline  
Old May 16, 2010, 02:42 PM   #28
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
You do reaslize Bonnie and Clyde were stopped by armed men who shot first and shot best. No radios involved, just a turncoat who let Frank Hammer and his crew know what road they were going down in Louisiana.

Your information regarding what the 'higher ups' think and do is about as accurate. The rest isn't any better.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer
jhenry is offline  
Old May 16, 2010, 05:04 PM   #29
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,238
Yea, I could have sworn it was a couple of BARs and a Remington Model 8 in .35 Remington that stopped them to.

The reason 'higher ups' put more money on equipment is because equipment does not quit and go work for another agency for more $$. That's the nature of employment. Many a person will get OTJ training and then quit for companies that offer more for 'experienced' officers.

So I don't blame the administators for wanting to pay only for hardware.
__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old May 16, 2010, 06:41 PM   #30
TXGunNut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: If you have to ask...
Posts: 2,851
I furnished my own sidearm, patrol rifle and duty ammo for 25 years when I was a LEO. When quals required factory ammo it was paid for by my nickels and dimes as well, otherwise it was often cheap stuff so I always brought some of my reloads along in case I didn't like what was on the menu. Some leather gear was furnished but I preferred my own. On the other hand, I was free to choose the equipment that suited me as long as it met some common-sense requirements.
I was an active PPC shooter most of those years but couldn't recruit a shooting partner, let alone a team, because officers would not shoot without department support.
Most large departments lose as many officers to MVA's as shootings. Both are avoidable but require expensive training to minimize. There aren't any easy answers. OP has identified the problem and I think will have some success in solving it, at least for himself, as long as he's willing to do some training on his own.
I don't think beancounters balance the cost of lost officers against training but sometimes it seems like they do.
__________________
Life Member NRA, TSRA
Smokeless powder is a passing fad! -Steve Garbe
I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it. -Woodrow F. Call Lonesome Dove
My favorite recipes start out with a handful of used wheelweights.
TXGunNut is offline  
Old May 16, 2010, 07:00 PM   #31
johns7022
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2010
Posts: 94
Deaf/Jhenry....your not catching the drift...B/C got killed in an ambush, as the cops knew where they would be...not because of super sniper tactical ninjas skills......gangsters went the same way as the pirates...better communications and the desire to throw lot's of bodies at the problem to surround the bad guys...

It's not tactical rocket science to take out a bankrobber and his wife when you got 20 guys with machine guns laying in wait from a distance of ten yards...
johns7022 is offline  
Old May 16, 2010, 08:04 PM   #32
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,238
johns7022,


Quote:
It's not tactical rocket science to take out a bankrobber and his wife when you got 20 guys with machine guns laying in wait from a distance of ten yards...
B&C were ratted out by a friend. Betraying people goes back to the dawn of man. And there were not 20, but six.

And the BAR was state of the art for it's day, and the Remington 8 even had a LEO only 15 round mag.

And, ugh, gangsters are still very much with us. From La Cosa Nostra to the Banditos to La Eme, to Yakuza and the Crips..
__________________
"The government has confiscated all of our rights and is selling them back to us in the form of permits."
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old May 16, 2010, 08:12 PM   #33
johns7022
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2010
Posts: 94
Well back on thread....I am not dredging up alot of sympthy for LEOs that don't want to work out, practice shooting, martial arts, etc when it's their jobs, when many of us train at this stuff, and we just do it for sake of...
johns7022 is offline  
Old May 16, 2010, 08:23 PM   #34
Matt19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 1999
Posts: 315
I can understand some of this...up to a point. My own agency changed its qualifications in the face of ammo shortage. So to make up for it, they bought simunitions so that we could actually train.

In the face of limited/reduced budgets, you have to improvise in order to stay sharp.
__________________
In life, you'll have your back up against the wall many times. You might as well get used to it.-Bear Bryant.
Matt19 is offline  
Old May 17, 2010, 12:00 AM   #35
R1145
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 343
I'm proud of my department. We have a sensible and effective firearms program.

Our officers shoot a standard qual course quarterly, along with at least one additional course that the instructors use to drill other skills (low light, point shooting, movement, etc.). The courses are fairly easy, but are a pretty good drill for mechanical proficiency and hitting a silhouette out to 25 yards.

Additionally, those who carry it must qual on long gun in at least two quarters per year.

We don't have our own facility here, but use the local sheriff's department range, which makes scheduling problematic. We usually manage to run at least one range per month.

We've changed our record keeping to Pass/Fail, also, which is lame but shooting isn't really a contest but a skill, so I don't have a problem with it. Any officer who is having problems is tactfully taken aside, and an instructor works with them to bring up the skill level.
R1145 is offline  
Old May 17, 2010, 03:16 AM   #36
Nnobby45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,148
Quote:
Its not just the PD, its the Military, even infantry units. Look at how much time they spend on the range vs. PT. I understand being in shape is a good ideal BUT, Everyday vs. how often they spend on the range.
Sad, but true. If you want the sad, sad story with re: to the military's attitude towards training and firearms, not to mention their policy regarding soldiers being armed, then go to John Farnum's site and read his quips. He's constantly in touch with with members of the military who keep him well informed. Same for people in the LE community. When gas bag bureaucrats run the show------ well, you get the picture.
Nnobby45 is offline  
Old May 17, 2010, 03:47 PM   #37
m&p45acp10+1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,307
The two local departments here qualify once a year, with hand gun, and long gun. I frequent the range. I am there at least 3 days a week. In the year I have been going there I have seen 4 cops, that were not there when off duty. Two of them are there every weekend. The other two came out once. Both were sighting in deer rifles, for deer season.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.
m&p45acp10+1 is offline  
Old May 18, 2010, 07:55 AM   #38
ClayInTx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,066
I worked in heavy industry all of my professional life for various companies. Every one of those companies were heavy on training and maintaining proficiency and every one of those companies paid for the time and materials required to do so. No one was required to train on their own time nor spend a nickel from their own pocket for this.

Anyone needing extra help was helped on company time with company materials.

Why should LEOs be treated differently?
ClayInTx is offline  
Old May 18, 2010, 08:27 AM   #39
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
In heavy equipment, there's not much difference in the amount of training required to maintain currency and the amount of training required to achieve proficiency. In other words, once you've shown that you understand the operation of the equipment and can operate it safely, there's not much else left to learn, or much need for further training (beyond periodic re-demonstrations).

But with firearms, there's a big difference between shooting 20-40 rounds a year to show that you understand the safe operation of the gun (mere currency) and the amount of training required to truly become proficient.

The question is, to what level should the taxpayer fund the officers' training, and for which officers? Should Marvin the radio dispatcher be getting forcible-entry training and burning though 1000 rounds a month at the range on the taxpayers' dime?

In short, given the likelihood of an officer-involved shooting, how much training is sufficient and prudent? You can't just say "fund it all - you can never have enough training!" That's as silly as all these people saying "if this law saves just one life, then it's justified".

Last edited by ScottRiqui; May 18, 2010 at 08:39 AM.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old May 18, 2010, 09:38 AM   #40
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
I agree there has to be a limit, but I don't think anyone here would argue that a 20 round qualification once or twice a year should be the limit.

If that's it, the gun's just for show. I'd say keep the gun unloaded and one round in the shirt pocket, but it would probably find it's way into the gun at some point.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old May 18, 2010, 09:54 PM   #41
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
If that's it, the gun's just for show. I'd say keep the gun unloaded and one round in the shirt pocket, but it would probably find it's way into the gun at some point.
Oh, heaven forbid!


Remember the reason that police don't receive a lot of training is that the taxpayer won't pay for it. ...Well, they would if individual programs were voted on. But administrators play games with money to get more money next year.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 06:32 AM   #42
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Hoo-ray for the Bean Counters....

In my metro area, a new county manager who was hired because of his well known "skill" of budget cuts, streamline, reductions and management was just removed from his post after his great plans caused or were a part of many fraud/waste/abuse incidents & misconduct by county corrections, county staff and middle mgmt/supervisors.
Around 28 county employees were sacked or faced formal HR actions. The local county residents were POed too. With good reason!
The now former county manager also got a $300,000.00 parachute and somehow the county commissioners(as if by magic, ) found $4,000,000.00 to improve the county jail and public safety programs.

Sad but true in 2010 America....
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 08:27 AM   #43
booker_t
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2009
Posts: 797
I doubt local Departments fund it, but several Federal Agencies fund (at least in part) operators attending formal training schools like Front Sight/Blackwater. It's part of their training budget, just as they reimburse tuition for engineers going for advanced degrees or technicians learning new skills.

So there's been quite a bit of discussion about "what" and "why," with some finger pointing and some good arguments about possible effects of lack of training, changing culture, etc.

So what is there to be done about it?

I think that if at a local department a group of Officers generate a need statement for training, they could submit that to their Sergeant or CO and work it up the chain. With endorsement from a Captain, a petition could be sent to the Police Commish for supplemental funding to support formal training, additional training rounds, or even to invite a professional shooting instructor for a 2-day short course at their local range.

The bean counters do their analysis and write their documents. There's nothing stopping Officers and Operators from doing the same. Work with your chain of command to get your operational needs voiced. It might not work this year, but perhaps it'll come up at the next budget planning session, and over time the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Also, get creative. See if you can find alternate ways to fund training, or raise funds for practice ammunition. Raffles, family day picnics, community-day events, etc. Many local ranges provide discounts for LE and Military. Work with your XO, legal, and budget office folks to see what you can and can't do.

As a Department, see if you can get a "group buy" deal. What I mean is if you contract to buy 10,000-20,000 rounds from a manufacturer, they're going to be a lot less expensive than if each officer buys 50 round boxes on their own here and there. You can likely put the contract out for bid to multiple sources, and get an excellent per-round price. Create an escrow account that everybody puts say $20/paycheck into.

Doing quick math, if your Department has 15 officers, getting 26 paychecks a year, $20/check will yield $7800/yr (not counting any interest accrued). That buys 22 500rd cases of DoubleTap 9mm+P 147gr FMJ Flat Point. That's 11,000 rounds of the good stuff (733 per officer). You could probably get 15,000 rounds of cheaper practice ammo.
booker_t is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 09:00 AM   #44
FreakGasolineFight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Ohio.
Posts: 634
Quote:
We, the taxpayers, should be paying for law enforcement training.
We should be paying for minimal (and I mean minimal) law enforcement training. Nothing more.

You want to give more money to the government?

You go right ahead.
__________________
"The CZ75 is made of win and longcats."--anonymous youtube comment
FreakGasolineFight is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 11:35 AM   #45
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
FreakGasolineFight, Thank you for making my point in my previous post.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 01:00 PM   #46
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Had my guys get 22's, I didn't care if they were pistols or revolvers. I had the range open for 2 hours every Wednesday night. I didn't let them fire their duty weapons till the two sessions before qualifications. Our targets were scored and passing was 360 out of 480 at 8 yards. Nobody scored less than 380 and one man just missed an ace.

Department allowed 50 rounds a year per man and anything additional had to come out of their own pocket. They were buying reloads that were so bad that sometimes the bullets were hitting the floor before they went 50' and every night I swept up an ungodly amount of unburnt powder. That is when I insisted they buy a 22. They could all afford 22's, we would shoot at least 100 rounds a night, sometimes more. The skills transferred to the duty weapons obviously.

There is always a way to bypass the stringent restrictions if you have the will and even though some refuse to believe shooting a mouse gun has any appreciable benefit my experience says they are full of it. My shooters were country people. Most of them small game, deer and bird hunters but not handgun shooters. Most reported their rifle shooting improved along with their handgun skills so it was a double benefit.

If you cannot shoot a decent score, (not hits but score), then you should be riding a desk not a patrol car. Call me a dinosaur but that is the way I feel. If you have to use a tool to defend your life then the amount of time you spend on learning to use that tool is a good indicator of how much you value your life and those of the people you are trying to serve. I never let some political pleasing desk jockey determine what my shooting skills should be because it isn't them in the line of fire.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--
Old Grump is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 01:52 PM   #47
GLK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2000
Location: Brandon FL USA
Posts: 442
FreakGasoleneFight and Johns7022 I could not agree with you more. Good to see that I am not alone. Additionally if they want to be warriors and dress the part complete with all the accessories and equipment let them pay for it themselves. We already have four branches of federally funded military to choose from, join one.
__________________
Married to my hero and best friend and the proud father of two beautiful adult children
GLK is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 02:32 PM   #48
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
Quote:
Remember the reason that police don't receive a lot of training is that the taxpayer won't pay for it. ...Well, they would if individual programs were voted on. But administrators play games with money to get more money next year.
True. And the reason I don't receive a lot of training is because my employer/customer won't pay for it. Still, the work has to get done, and has to get done right. Therefore, if I want to keep my job, I go home and open up a book or open up my computer.

If it works in the private sector it can work in the government sector. Put out a realistic qualification requirement, and make officers adhere to it. If they can't, it should be up to them to acquire the skills to pass.

Until then, cops who can't shoot shouldn't have guns. The attitude is often that they hardly ever need their guns, so they don't need to be able to use them well. Okay... if an administrator doesn't think they need guns, send the non-qualifying officers out with a radio, so they can call a real cop when the SHTF. I'd rather have an unarmed officer responding to the call next door than someone who's going to lob an errant round into my backyard where my kids are playing.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 02:42 PM   #49
FreakGasolineFight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Ohio.
Posts: 634
Quote:
FreakGasolineFight, Thank you for making my point in my previous post.
You're welcome.
__________________
"The CZ75 is made of win and longcats."--anonymous youtube comment
FreakGasolineFight is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 03:40 PM   #50
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 4,911
At least some of the problem here is just human nature. People generally follow the path of least resistance, regardless of their profession or place in the food chain. Political entities are no different. We tend to invest time & effort in the things that matter to us.

I've occupied every slot from boot patrolman to acting chief. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who like to shoot anymore than I do and given my background as a LE firearms trainer, I doubt you'll find anyone who deems any skill an officer possesses, as more crucial.

You know what? I still don't have the magic beans. I train others when resources and time permit. There are too few of both. I shove training ammo at the troops between training cycles and I have yet to have anyone refuse it.

I shoot with my folks in a casual environment pretty regular, and I enjoy those times immensely. I can assure you they're not only competent- but they understand the need to improve and they have the personal drive to do it. I'll give you an example. I was checking the sights on one officers G22 a few weeks ago, using a 2x3 post-it in the middle of a B27, at 25 yards. I had a good run and poked 3 holes in it, one notching the edge, another barely off it. A couple of them said "Let me try that!" and they were soon lined up three deep, shooting at 25 yard post-it notes. They were getting hits, too. Crime Dawg do not want these boys shooting at him.

Every herd has a few stragglers, of course, but we're working on those. All of them can qualify with lots of room to spare. If they can't, I won't put 'em on the street.
__________________
I'm inclined to think if a man hasn't gotten his point across in 4912 attempts, 4913 probably isn't going to do it.
Sarge is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13076 seconds with 7 queries