Marksmanship: Police vs. civilian

Perhaps you'd like to look at a few line item budgets and see what service you'd cut in order to train?

Click to expand...

It gets tricky. I wonder if there's a way to work an incentive via the private sector.

I'm thinking tax credits for range owners who provide discounted/free ammunition for LEO's, as well as for instructors willing to train them.

Writing off the cost of ammo provided to LEO's against property/sales taxes would be a boon for a great many small businessmen.

Some small departments may have been cut back but even some in small/rural towns their funding has been INCREASED across this nation.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, even if budgets were increased, our expenses just took a HUGE increase this year. My department has effectively canceled all training for the rest of the year except for minimum qualifications. Why? Because gas has almost doubled in price. We used our budget for the whole year in the first five months, even though we've cut back on the amount of patrolling, not idling while on the sided of the road running radar, doubling up in patrol units, etc. As so often happens, when push comes to shove it's the optional training budget that takes a hit. Couple that with a cutback in overtime and the huge increases in ammo prices and you can see how even off-duty practice is going to take a hit.

I get paid a good bit more than the average cop around here in my "day" job as an IT manager and I gotta confess, I couldn't make it on what these guys are getting paid. Other than mandatory qualifications and certifications, the bulk of our budget is going to keeping units on the road.

In years past, we had qualifications and tactical training at least quarterly and sometimes on a monthly basis. Not now and not for the foreseeable future. The real crunch is gonna hit next year when sales tax collections for the year take a nosedive. People just aren't buying as much this year. Plunging tax revenues mean optional items get cut, and extra training beyond state mandated minimums has always been considered optional. Sucks, but that's the way it is, Homeland Security or not.

Rexster writes:

Police will always shoot the "wrong" person a higher percentage of the time, because LEOs are dispatched, sent, or otherwise prompted to go into unknown situations.

Click to expand...

Strictly opinion. Absolutes should never be used. Please post some facts.

OK, so it is my opinion that police will always shoot the "wrong" person a higher percentage of the time. If we only post scientific facts, this place will become boring right quickly.

I base my opinion on simple logical reasoning. How many private citizens are sent to the scenes of crimes in progress, and then have to figure out what is happening? Of course, some private citizens will ride to the sound of the guns, but it is a rare event.
Of course, I should add the disclaimer that this is all my personal perception of things, not a scientific study.

I do AGREE that HIGH fuel costs have been a huge and negative factor in small towns, rural communities, suburbs and the cities. Especially this last year. It has been a factor in snow plowing and in ALL other county, state and federally funded programs and safety measures from A to Z! Taxpayer funds, grants, etc.

It has been noticeable in all states. It will come home to roost in many more areas this coming year and in the future. Some, not all, grants and other programs have been cut back in OTHER programs too.

I used to attend my township and county meetings. I even used to attend some of the small town council meetings but I lived in the township.

Some small towns, NOT all of them, have been FORTUNATE to have had surpluses. Others have not, some have withered up and died - same as in some CITIES not only in the RUST BELT. Every community, county and STATE is different than the next one. I never said that they were ALL alike - far from it! You see it in farm/ranch towns especially and that goes from the east coast to the west coast - north and south! NOT only in the rust belt areas!

The rural area that I used to live in for over 30 years, my late husband's home state not mine, ALWAYS had a SURPLUS. That small TOWN always had a surplus. They had high property taxes compared to some other counties and the community was always held in HIGH regard. The town had an income tax on TOP of the other taxes. The township had NO income tax but if you worked anywhere - you got taxed there and you could not bring or transfer your taxes paid in the 'city' or in another county back to YOUR home county, town or township. Boo hiss.

Where that town USED to have one policeman who worked various other jobs from way back when, before and after the 1950's and EARLY 1970's when I moved there after his USN time... they had one main "Chief" and later on added part timers to fill the other 24/7 time slots. Two of my close friends were part time men, one went on to the county sheriff's department, later on after his deputy and detective work HE became Chief Deputy, right under the County Sheriff, and the other man worked more hours at his non government job. Two others who went to the same HS, not his college, also became deputies and detectives for the county. Another one worked in the nearby small city that had the UNIVERSITY. Some of these retired and active men... now have their KIDS in the department along with some in FD/EMT work - paid not Volunteer. ALL of those guys were also in the Volunteer FD/EMT squads way back when to current times. During some of those old times... they did not even have 911 on the telephones. That was in the 1970's and early 80's some too. It was very old fashioned but nice in how those rural towns were compared to how some other states changed or became more modern MUCH sooner. They have 911 now and all of the rural houses and farms including my former acre and house had to have county 'house numbers' put on or made up by the county. No more RR2 at or close to such and such intersection. I know that there is a better term for that now but I can't think of it now. Apologies to all of you.

The fire, emt and/or deputy calls including the rural not INSIDE some small towns used to say something like this: Such and such house on OLD route something because the new names were not well known. Cross roads of such and such or the 'Fill in the blank name' for the homestead! Later on the Volunteers (FD/EMT) got 'pagers' along with our old scanners and telephone call for a 'run'. If you dialed a fire number... it rang in ALL of the homes for the FD/EMT people. One was at the home base or former old FD station. Whoever got to the station first - usually a town dweller! They did build a NICE new FD station where you could fit more trucks, an ambulance, a tanker that the GUYS built, etc. I remembered the old station because it was in USE when I first moved out there. If you called the station and did not dial the 'other line' which they finally put in until they had the fancy/modern NEW system... you dialed and it rang to Everyone on the line... volunteer's homes. They even had some telephone numbers with only 4 digits with an operator and that was up to the 1960's from what I was told. NO kidding!

A lot of good changes were made with our tax dollars and the outlying areas grew up some in population.

I did hear that one major industry will be shutting down in that town in 2 years. The 'vegetable factory' or plant is still functioning. Several small businesses in the 1 block area are still functioning - 2 sides of the 'Main Street' area. They still have the grain elevator, a general store but no old hardware store or lumber company. They still have to deal with 2 telephone companies that divide 2 townships on a country road - those company names have changed too. No old fashioned barber shop but a salon and the 'meat market/freezer'. The TAX revenue is still coming in, high property taxes compared to some other places but they are VERY concerned on what will happen to that town when that one big company closes up. It may employ about 150 to 200 people at it's peak. They will move the company's work back to WI, down south perhaps and to MEXICO from what I heard. I have a friend whose husband works there and it is in the LOCAL papers which I can get on the internet. They don't have the small town paper anymore. It came out once a week too.

That farm area was very well known, clean, kept up and known for it's great school system. Community work and VOLUNTEERS galore including a great community FAIR too - not including the county one! People took PRIDE in their community - the way that I was raised in the 1950's and on - only on the east coast. The way that my forefathers were raised with pride and clean properties. Hardly any LITTER or junk.

Sorry about the ramble.

I did hear that they had some more crime problems that moved to the 'country'. What you see on the news NOW. Farm, rural homes and other bad STUFF is happening more and not only to the NEWLY built homes. Been there - done that when we built back in the early 1970's. People said that those things NEVER happened out THERE but they did only not so much until they had a string or rash of break ins and thefts - 1970's and on.

Anyway... with the increase of costs in all areas not just in FUEL... you will see the writing on the wall along with more business failures and CLOSINGS due to the bad economy in many parts of this country. All states unfortunately.

Some companies make DONATIONS of ammunition, etc. to the shooting sports industry including the Scouts. I think that some used to make this towards some, not all, police departments in some states when ammunition was LESS expensive or give their usual discount for peace officers. Discounts to the county for bulk purchases from what I was told by J. and I heard the township discuss this @ meetings when they gave out the reports, budget, bills to be paid, bids, etc. They use the county sheriff's department too.

Everything is more expensive in production costs, fuel, basic ingredients to make x, y or z, benefit costs including medical insurance if your company provides it, tons more plus the HUGE devaluation of the U.S. dollar. This will come home to roost for ALL of us including our tax dollar funded hired help from deputies, fire departments, emt squads including volunteers!

Catherine

I do AGREE that HIGH fuel costs have been a huge and negative factor in small towns, rural communities, suburbs and the cities.

Click to expand...

Catherine:

I didn't mean to single out and focus on fuel costs as being the reason for the lack of emphasis on firearms training for LEO, but as an example of the reality: in most departments today, ongoing firearms training is considered an "optional" line item in the budget.

The same thing can happen when budgets are being drawn up under "normal" circumstances. For example, a town needs new patrol cars because the old ones are worn out, the officers need new body armor, they need to hire and equip additional officers, etc. Budgets and needs are not static. Unfortunately, neither are tax revenues. They both go up and down based on a host of circumstances. 5 years ago my department had the money to send several officers to Gun Site. Since then, no one has gone back, two of those officers have retired, one left for another department, and the one who is left is now a detective who is too involved in his case load to continue training on a regular basis.

Even at that, the training they received at Gun Site 5 years ago is "stale" and could certainly stand to be refreshed, yet we don't have enough money to send even one instructor. Jeff's point is entirely valid. It's an oxymoron to complain about the level of firearms training of LEO's when it's not a budgetary priority. Like all good things, it costs money, but it's the first thing to get axed when the budget crunches inevitably come. That's just the way it is.

Those who complain about the "militarization" of the police have a valid point also. We have complete sets of raid type body armor, ballistic shields, etc., hanging up and acquiring a nice coat of dust. The funding came a few years ago when Homeland Security was all the rage, and the money had to be spent or lost. Now we don't have the money to go out and train with all that great tacticool gear, which makes it worse than useless. Additionally, we have no current SWAT qualified officers(which is a yearly certification) so we'd be on shaky legal ground if we hauled it out and used it for its intended purpose anyway.

(Sigh) All that money would have been better spent on quality training, but hindsight really is 20/20.

Everything is more expensive in production costs, fuel, basic ingredients to make x, y or z, benefit costs including medical insurance if your company provides it, tons more plus the HUGE devaluation of the U.S. dollar. This will come home to roost for ALL of us including our tax dollar funded hired help from deputies, fire departments, emt squads including volunteers!

Click to expand...

All the more reason to be prepared to defend yourself when the need arises. Thus my support for civilian gun ownership and concealed and/or open carry by law abiding citizens.

Rexster writes:

Of course, I should add the disclaimer that this is all my personal perception of things, not a scientific study.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty. Happy shooting.

Not having enough in the budget to earmark some for firearms training is doing a grave disservice to the officers and the community. Shouldn't that be near the top of the budget?

I am embarrassed to say that I don't know how the officers in my small town are faring regarding training but I'm going to find out. If they are being shortchanged by politicians sitting behind a desk that is unacceptable. :banghead:

FWIW, I am provided with 60 rounds a year, for the annual qual with the primary duty pistol. If I am lucky enough to get into one of the few classes offered, ammo is usually provided for that class. Practice ammo is $5 for 60 rounds, but must be used on the police range, to fire the qual course, which is held several times a day. A public works project devoured our 25-yard range, so we now shoot at distances from 2 to 15 yards.

Duty ammo, and practice ammo while off the police range, is on us, the individual officers. Thankfully, my S&W K-frame .22 sixgun points and shoots (trigger stroke, anyway) just like my SIG P229 DAK duty pistol.

At qual time, my co-workers' shooting ranges from dismal to quite good. I tend to shoot in the low to mid-90's, on a scoring scale of 0-100. This is not bragging; I am sure many private citizens could smoke me on the qual course, if they can stand being in a line of other shooters, being bombarded with hot brass from the left, and not get flustered by the turning targets. Tune out the distractions, and our qual course is easy.

I have paid for private training, and paid hundreds of dollars and traveled hundreds of miles, each way, to get there. I sorely miss being able to drive a few miles to shoot at a cop-friendly sand company, where they bull-dozed a huge U-shaped berm for us, and we could set up our own targets and scenarios. That was the 1980's; this is the 21st Century, with urban/suburban/exurban sprawl taking away our places to shoot. Deputies in this county used to be able to drive to remote areas and shoot while on duty. Oops, starting to ramble. Y'all be safe out there.

Duty ammo, and practice ammo while off the police range, is on us, the individual officers.

Click to expand...

I can't believe you have to buy your own duty ammo! Does it have to be a certain brand, caliber or weight? Is that the case in most dept's nationwide?

I can't believe you have to buy your own duty ammo! Does it have to be a certain brand, caliber or weight? Is that the case in most dept's nationwide?

Click to expand...

We're not quite to that point yet, but we used to shoot our duty ammo for qualifications once a year so we could get issued new ammo. Now we only shoot the cheapest the department can get on the state contract, and I would've had the same duty ammo in my pistol for 3 years if I hadn't gone out and bought some myself. It does have to be on the approved list, which for us is Remington Golden Sabre LE ammo, 180 gr. for .40 cal. I don't remember what it is for 9mm and .45 since I don't carry a duty weapon in those calibers.

I train on my own dime and teach CCW classes, so I get more practice than some of the other officers.

I am sure many private citizens could smoke me on the qual course, if they can stand being in a line of other shooters, being bombarded with hot brass from the left, and not get flustered by the turning targets. Tune out the distractions, and our qual course is easy.

Click to expand...

And let's not forget the other big distractions: peer pressure and keeping your job. Everyone wants to feel good and have bragging rights coming off the range, it's only natural. Add to that the fact that failure to qualify means suspension or loss of pay and possibly your job, and yeah, you got pressure.

Intune: I've talked w/ guys south of the Mason-Dixon where not just duty ammo, but duty weapons and even body armor have to be provided by the officer. I know up here in NJ these things are usually provided by the departments, but it is hit and miss on them providing training ammo. PLACES to train are the bigger issue by us--in rural Montana you could set up a tire shoot house in your backyard and not bother anyone but, in densely populated NJ, many indoor ranges are facing pressure from local municipalities over noise issues and outdoor ranges are either in the remote corners of the state or are facing issues of encroaching development. I'm losing a nearby indoor pistol range and will soon be forced to travel over an hour--one way--to the next nearest range (50 yd rifle and pistol but outdoor only, making winter training less likely) or pony up over $200 per year, per shooter to join a smaller private club with it's own indoor range ($400+ total for me and the boss, before we even get ammo).

"Not having enough in the budget to earmark some for firearms training is doing a grave disservice to the officers and the community. Shouldn't that be near the top of the budget?"

Click to expand...

No. As others have said, firearms qualifications are often the extent of the training budget. This is because these "standards" are what limit a town's liability in the event of a shooting--they "prove" that an officer can hit a target at the lowest threshold of accuracy to avoid a finding of negligence. Most so-called "qualifications" or "certifications" for weapons (firearms, batons, OC, et. al.) are to limit liability, NOT for officer safety or actual proficiency. LUCKY officers have departments that budget for more than minimum competency, but that money has to come from somewhere and it rarely comes from an increase in taxes.

Since MOST officers will go their entire careers w/o firing a weapon off the range, MOST training budgets are spent dealing with things that officers are far more likely to deal with on a day-to-day basis--domestic violence, drug interdiction, legal updates, etc. With limited resources, a training officer needs to choose: A) an officer who can only shoot at the minimum standard (but who will most likely never NEED to do so), or B) an officer who searches cars and people illegally because he doesn't know that the laws/rules have changed.

I've seen some posts that criticize low firearms training budgets and even you say "If they are being shortchanged by politicians sitting behind a desk that is unacceptable", but how many of you on this forum would equally protest (even more vehemently) a 2% tax increase to fund that training? How many of you will try running for your town council on a platform to increase taxes to train your officers above your State's minimum standard? Especially in your town where "nothing ever happens" and "they've never had to shoot anyone anyway". :banghead:

Oh well, guess I'm shelling out that $400 after all...

sacp81170a: I'll also add in the stress of competition--we each chip in $5, then run a competition round of fire during quals. The squad with the highest combined score (or the most Xs in a tie) gets the pot. Usually works out to an extra $30 for each guy on the winning squad--still trying to figure out a good natured negative penalty for the lowest scoring team!

Just look at the police in NYC 52 shots with only 2 or 3 hits. Thats just sad. In my opinion when they need that many shots at a suspect, and only hit him 3 times they shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. For the safety of the public.

I don't want to sound like I'm justifying that hit ratio, but how many times have you shot at someone moving in the dark while scrambling for cover because you're being shot at? I know that my accuracy drops off significantly in those situations in training. And that's just using simunitions which will (at worst) leave a nice blood blister--forget about facing real bullets and real death. Until you've done some training putting yourself in a realistic shoot/no shoot position under serious stress, be careful how hastily you jump all over people.

Just look at the police in NYC 52 shots with only 2 or 3 hits. Thats just sad. In my opinion when they need that many shots at a suspect, and only hit him 3 times they shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. For the safety of the public.

Click to expand...

You say that, and yet I've seen countless posts on this very forum deriding the British police for not having every one of their officers carry a gun.

I'm sure the British politicians are heartily in support of your sentiments.

As an illustration, the recent FBI analysis of deadly force encounters records a higher first shot hit percentage for the bad guys vs. the cops. They go on to say that the average starting distance when a criminal begins shooting is about 7 feet, whereas the average distance for the first shots fired by police is 15 feet or greater. This is a consequence of the bad guys having the initiative: they know when they're going to be in a deadly force encounter because they're the ones who initiate it.

Add in what Scoutsout2645 pointed out plus the fact that in the real world you're probably trying to shoot through things like car doors and what look like very poor hit ratios turn out to be about what you could expect.

The real world ain't a square, well lit range with no one shooting back. If you've never been on a "two-way range"(I have, they suck) don't presume to judge those who have.

use of force stats. . .

A bit of interesting data from the DOJ on use of force for officers.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ndcopuof.pdf

Reported incidents of police use of force per 1,000
sworn officers during 1991 in city departments

Type of force officers Rate per
1,000
sworn
Handcuff/leg restraint 490.4
Bodily force (arm, foot, or leg) 272.2
Come-alongs 226.8
Unholstering weapon 129.9
Swarm 126.7
Twist locks/wrist locks 80.9
Firm grip 57.7
Chemical agents (Mace or Cap-Stun) 36.2
Batons 36.0
Flashlights 21.7
Dog attacks or bites 6.5
Electrical devices (TASER) 5.4
Civilians shot at but not hit 3.0
Other impact devices 2.4
Neck restraints/unconsciousness-rendering
holds 1.4
Vehicle rammings 1.0
Civilians shot and killed 0.9
Civilians shot and wounded but not killed 0.2

Click to expand...

As you can see, the use of deadly force is a microscopic percentage of all force usage.

Another point was made in the DOJ publication:

The single best predictor of police use of force is
whether the suspect used force. Other predictors of
police use of force are these: the suspect is involved
with a gang; the suspect is impaired by alcohol; the
suspect is known to be resistive, assaultive, or armed
with a weapon; both the suspect and police officer are
male; and the offense suspected is violent.

Click to expand...

As cited by and earlier poster, police often have to respond with deadly force as a reactive measure. Where as a homeowner in the midle of the night has every right to haul out a shotgun when checking out a suspicous noise arond the house, I'd be suspended and sitting at the house for like displays of force without credible threat. LEO's have to work on the back side of the decision loop, where as the criminal has the choice of where an when to initiate his deadly force.

It's like the old line: "You cops all drive to fast past my house." . . . "Why didn't you get here to my house faster?" The anti LEO ravings of certain factions of this board are one of the reasons I have mostly stopped posting and reading.

ravenwolf71
New Member



Join Date: 04-13-08
Location: Bergen Co., NJ
Posts: 19 Just look at the police in NYC 52 shots with only 2 or 3 hits. Thats just sad. In my opinion when they need that many shots at a suspect, and only hit him 3 times they shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. For the safety of the public.

Click to expand...

Can you be more specific and provide documentation supporting your statement.

Hi Jeff White,

Everyone here who is complaining about police marksmanship needs to start circulating a petition to raise their taxes to pay for more training. If you are too cheap to pay for adequate training for your employees, you have no right to complain about their proficiency.

Click to expand...

Interesting, then if we do not like welds on our automobiles we should pay more for training of the welders. If we do not like the skill level of over the road truck drivers we should pay for their additional driving lessons.

Bottom line- it is the employees' duty to develop their skill set not the customers. A person is either committed to their occupation enough to invest in their skills or they find a different occupation.

Selena

Interesting, then if we do not like welds on our automobiles we should pay more for training of the welders. If we do not like the skill level of over the road truck drivers we should pay for their additional driving lessons.

Click to expand...

Huge difference. Welders weld all day, day in and day out as part of their job. Truck drivers drive all day, day in and day out. You expect someone to remain not just expert, but infallible in a skill that they may actually need on the job once or twice in an entire career.

Which would you rather have, a police officer who is cognizant of all the changes in laws concerning traffic violations, searches and seizures, constitutional basis for a search, or one who shoots really, really well?

Bottom line- it is the employees' duty to develop their skill set not the customers. A person is either committed to their occupation enough to invest in their skills or they find a different occupation.

Click to expand...

If a company hires a welder and then switches to new equipment requiring new techniques, do they fire all their welders and go hire new ones? Nope, wouldn't be profitable, would it? That's the difference. The private corporation has a profit motive in keeping its workers up to date. If they fail to spend the money required to do so, they lose business and therefore profits. Those welders would have a legitimate beef if they were required to practice a new welding skill on their own dime and their own time.

The local and state governments who pay the vast majority of police in this country are extremely susceptible to budget cuts. Again, which would you rather have, an officer out searching vehicles unaware of changes in the laws on search and seizure but who was an uber-competent tactical operator, or one who knows the law but isn't as uber-competent?

You put on a disingenuous act, making it seem that the main job of a police officer is to shoot people. As has been pointed out, that's a vanishingly small percentage of the job.

One consequence of making excuses (as teachers do) is that it leads to a confession of fraud. If one knowlingly takes money for a job they know they cannot do, that's fraud.

Where I used to live ( In Ma.) ;the old CLEO was a decent sort.The town had a range behind the highway dept. that allowed usage by the (licensed) town residents.
Sufficient to say ; that was the OLD CLEO;the replacement/current (among other changes) put a stop to that.Yes ;he was/is an anti(as well as ethically challenged);and YES the current crop of his favorites annnot shoot worth a dam.This has been confirmed to me by an old friend who is still a police officer(and counting off the days until he can escaspe Massachusetts!).

One consequence of making excuses (as teachers do) is that it leads to a confession of fraud. If one knowlingly takes money for a job they know they cannot do, that's fraud.

Click to expand...

????