Marksmanship: Police vs. civilian

[Phil DeGraves]

But... technical shooting ability is only one component in gun fighting.

That's very true, but they rarely teach the other components at the police academy either.

And to be fair, one might well wonder if they should take up some of the rather limited time to do so. It would probably better serve the public if they taught a larger block of report writing.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

But... technical shooting ability is only one component in gun fighting.

Experience is the other. How many cops have actually been in a gun fight?

 

[JImbothefiveth]

believe Massad Ayoob had some anecdotal (or maybe even statistical) info that when departments adopted full capacity semi-autos after revolvers, the hit percentage went down. It might have been the Illinois State Police.

Some guy here has that as his signature, it actually went up.(Probably due to lighter trigger.)

 

[c1ogden]

If you are talking only about hitting the target, I have seen police numbers as low as 50% being considered good. Some places have mentioned numbers as low as 20% and some as high as 80%. This is what I pick up from talking to other firearms instructors, attending seminars, and what I read in the various police magazines. I don't know if anyone has ever compiled a national average.

The "civilian" numbers that I've seen were all above 50% and this holds with what I see when reading things like the Armed Citizen column in the American Rifleman. While I haven't studied it in depth, off the top of my head it appears that most civilian shootings are at significantly shorter ranges than most police shootings.

If you are talking about shooting the wrong person, the numbers I have heard have held steady over the past few decades. Cops seem to shoot the wrong person about 11% of the time and the citizens do so only 2% of the time. These numbers have been attributed to various studies over the past 30 or so years. This seems to make sense as we usually come along after the fight has started and we have no way of knowing who did what until after its over. I have personally broken up hundreds of fights and I've never known who started it and who needed to be locked up until after everybody was in cuffs and we started to interview witnesses.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Up to 40% of police shootings involve "unarmed" offenders. However, many of those "unarmed" are driving cars trying to run over officers, so the police decision to shoot is usually found to be justifiable. Additionally, "furtive" movement by the suspect or the suspect ACTING like he is armed, will generally get him justifiably shot, even if he is not armed. The Hudspeth shooting is a good example, where the suspect went into an isoceles stance with a cell phone and got shot for it. Also, when suspects are equipped with toy guns, it goes down in the stats as "unarmed" as they were not actually capable of delivering a wound. Still makes the shoot justifiable, or at least it should.

 

[TeamPrecisionIT]

I would tend to think that seasoned officers (meaning 10 or more years of service), might have a better way of acting with the stress of a situation that involves pulling out your gun than the better of CCW'ers. For no other reason then they are more susceptible to it happening just due to the nature of their employment. They may not be better marksmen, they just might hold the gun steadier due to not being completely stressed out and shaking. Unfortunately for them, a lot of the private citizens have prior military experience (like me) and we have our own training and have experienced our own type of stress but are now just private citizens.

Damian

 

[Werewolf]

What better word is there for the "untrained, unpredictable, unskilled," than "civilian"? In the sense of "one who is not in our uniform."

How about non-LEO. Or better yet CITIZEN! That might help the cops remember who they're dealing with on a day to day basis.

There. Wasn't that easy...

 

[Smokey Joe]

Words & feelings... and shootings...

Or better yet CITIZEN! That might help the cops remember who they're dealing with on a day to day basis.

OK, I'll give you that that is indeed a better word for what we mean. However, don't expect the English language to change for us just because we think it ought to.

As to "them vs. us" feelings: It happens. It's inevitable. Any group you train with and spend time with will become "us," and everybody else will become "them." The nature of the group, or whether it's right or wrong to feel that way is immaterial--it happens, be "the group" a debating society, football team, rock band, ballet troupe, fire or police department, or the U. S. Marines. If it's never happened to you, if you don't believe me, try as an experiment, joining a community theater and helping to put on a play. After all those rehearsals, all that set painting, all that memorizing, all those hassles, culminating finally in the performance, you will discover that you have become part of an "us," and everybody else, including the chintzy grant granters, the audience, the advertisers, the theater owner, and the community at large, will be "them." Or sing in a church choir--in time, the same thing will happen, guaranteed. Frankly, I'd be worried about a police department whose members did NOT feel like an "us," i.e. a particular, well-trained, and mutually supportive group.

As to shootings, citizen or LEO, and statistics, may I respectfully suggest that each and every such incident is unique unto itself. Too many variables to try to compose meaningful statistics, except perhaps simple totals. Now, that doesn't mean that someone is not going to try to come up with some comparisons. I'm merely offering that those numbers, concerning something as unique and personal as being involved in a shooting, would be essentially meaningless.

As Winston Churchill observed, "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." (The Malakand Field Force, 1898)

 

[tpaw]

It would seem to me that the question should be how many shootings are licensed hand gun owners involved in, and how many shootings are the police involved it. Logically speaking, the group (non-LEO as opposed to LEO) who were involved in the most shooting incidents, would statically have the most mishaps involved. JMO

 

[Werewolf]

As to shootings, citizen or LEO, and statistics, may I respectfully suggest that each and every such incident is unique unto itself.

Very true and like others have mentioned the battles cops get into are of a significantly different nature than those citizens get into. Cops go into battle not always knowing who the bad guy is. That alone makes it inevetible that they will sometimes shoot the wrong people.

Stuff happens as the saying goes. AND that's never gonna change.

 

[jonmerritt]

Sheesh.. no wonder it is us or them...us or we, don't gives a rats ^%#@ what you call us, we just do our best to get the job done.

 

[Werewolf]

Sheesh.. no wonder it is us or them...us or we, don't gives a rats ^%#@ what you call us, we just do our best to get the job done.

IF you honestly believe it is that simple you may just be in the wrong profession.

 

[Catherine]

I recall those comments made by JEFF COOPER too. Thank you lady.

Most of the people that I know shoot better than policemen. They actually practice MORE! Some even 'compete' or used to compete but can't anymore due to their work schedule or a physical injury. Even my CLOSE retired and active police FRIENDS, back east, admit this. I know people who officially 'teach' CCW and compete out here. They say that most people shoot better than the police and KNOW their guns better too.

The only time that I have been swept by a muzzle was by a highway patrolman who was showing a lady how to shoot in an indoor range back east. I saw them do this twice - I spoke UP! NO clue what they did before I came on to the range. Between a county deputy, not my county, another person and I - we NIPPED that in the bud because the HP/teacher was VERY LAX in teaching this 'chick' how to shoot along with HER not listening/learning because what she needed was a REAL teacher or a freaking DRILL instructor. I have seen KIDS do better with safety measures when they were out here at our events. Children of our close Veteran friends of ALL ages along with the rest of our gun nut group. I have taught, I am NO official teacher, ladies who barely knew guns or only used them while in the USN - their qualification in boot camp. Those ladies did a LOT better than the HP man and his lady friend. I taught my friends ONE ON ONE and I was FIRM on safety rules/measures. I gave them my NRA book, other gun literature, showed them, was nice but firm, etc. They shot my 22LR and 357Magnum using 38Special Plus P S/A and D/A revolvers. My late husband was present along with the Mother of one of the ladies. YOU have to be firm on safety rules and NIP it in the bud in my NOT so humble opinion. You can still be NICE but if you don't get this straight from the gitgo on the direction of your muzzle among all of the other safety measures... you and the novice will be SCREWED or shot or someone else may get shot!

It is not complicated to call all of us citizens.

Military = military.

Civilian = NON military and ANYONE who is NOT in the military.

Firemen and EMTS are just that PLUS being civilians.

Police = police PLUS being civilians.

My late husband who would be 63 years old if still alive was a Veteran = military and he was in the Volunteer FD/EMT squad for almost his entire life in his home state. He taught, he was a Captain, he was secretary/treasurer and tons more. He taught other departments along with his regular NON government job. Our township assisted many other townships because we had a LARGE area to cover in FD/EMT volunteer work if needed. Rural, farm area with small towns, country roads, RR tracks, BIG highways and larger county roads in some places. (I was NOT on the squad. I along with other ladies helped in other ways at the FD/EMT station and out to the fires - coffee, food, etc.) He served in the military - USN and Air NG Fighter Wing for over 20 years. MOST military people including Veterans of ALL ages... do NOT appreciate anyone who is NOT military calling other people civilians. That is wrong - police people and any other group ARE civilians.

Military = military.

NON military = civilians.

It bothers me when people can't get this straight especially policemen and/or policemen who never even served in the military. If you served in the military and later on became a PEACE OFFICER... you are a CIVILIAN like the rest of us and I PREFER to be called a citizen or a lady... NOT a civilian UNLESS a military person is talking about all of us as citizens!

Catherine

 

[TheGrim86]

When a civilian fires upon an intruder, they "can't" really be wrong about the target. But an Officer isn't standing in the shadows observing a felonious act, preparing their action. They are sticking their heads in car windows at night when someone grabbing for a cellphone and is repeatedly told to stop keeps grabbing and pulls it out too quickly...well...you can use your imagination. Plus, the average citizen (or any citizen i know for that matter) probably doesn't pull a concealed weapon off of someone once a week, and isn't as "paranoid" about things. Not saying right or wrong, just stating why statistics are the way the are.

 

[TAB]

Lets just say, I know some officers that practice as if thier life depends on it. I know others that only fire ANY weapon in qualifing.

 

[TheGrim86]

For the "are police civilians?" conversation. If you can legally run away from an incident and go home and forget about it...I'd call you a civilian. Anyone else, your duties are different than that of a civilian. As an Officer, you are expected to act differently at the movie theatre when someone starts shooting. It's not saying a civilian can't act, it's that it's the DUTY of a police officer to act. And the idea of a cop off-duty is a civilian, isn't a reason. Every cop will tell you, even in their own policy, its 24/7 job.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Bravo, Catherine!

Dittos!

I usually get deleted when I say it. But then, my sarcasm shows (sometimes).

God bless you, Catherine!

Grim, civilian policemen are NOT active duty military. They are CIVILIAN police officers.

Back on the original subject, most police that I know are not shooters. Their duty weapon is just another tool on their batman belt. I said most...some Peace Officers shoot recreationally, but they are in the great minority.

 

[Shung]

Knew someone would come up with this one ... Yep, but how many of your "unskilled civilian" acquaintances are responding in the middle of the night to situations where people are shooting back at them?

They don't get paid for that.. everyone has a task out there, and this is not theirs.. But I am pretty confident that most of them would act as they should if they had no choice..

But I must admit ONE thing.. Your cops are facing much more "bad guys" than ours.. ours make their day taking our money for parking 5 minutes late..

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

I can only imagine the tongue-lashing Catherine would have laid upon the poor kid at the video store who was helping me and said, "Sorry about all the drama, we hate when civilians see that" in regards to a woman who had left her ID the day before (and subsequently had it placed in the safe) chastising the manager because she didn't want to wait for the time lock to expire.

 

[VegasOPM]

How did a marksmanship posting turn into this?

I was hoping to get some input about LEO marksmanship versus non-LEO's. In my experience, just being a sworn officer has no positive effect on ability to shoot quickly, accurately and under stress. Training, practice and competition tend to make both LEOs and non-LEOs into more proficient marksmen.

 

[Catherine]

Quote:

I can only imagine the tongue-lashing Catherine would have laid upon the poor kid at the video store who was helping me and said, "Sorry about all the drama, we hate when civilians see that" in regards to a woman who had left her ID the day before (and subsequently had it placed in the safe) chastising the manager because she didn't want to wait for the time lock to expire.
~~~~~

Jorg,

I might correct the young man on his IMPROPER USE of the English language using the word 'civilian'. I would not be RUDE or give him a tongue lashing. Most of the time I am a VERY nice lady but you don't know me. Some other people on this board know me from before and after 1998 from back east and some know me HERE in Montana after my late husband died. Direct contact, not only email, from a telephone call or from the 'boards'. I might not even correct the young man directly if I was NOT in the mood or 'let it go'. I let go of many things in this life of mine.

I will tell you one thing. My GREAT Grandfather who was a NY policeman killed in the line of duty who left a widow and several children would not call CITIZENS 'civilians'. My late Grandfather who was in the military (Army - Cavalry.) who later on became a lawyer while supporting his widow Mother and helping his siblings would NOT be the 'type of person' to call CITIZENS 'civilians'. MOST of the peace officers that I knew as a kid growing up (1950 baby here.) did not call people those names. They did not call them law enforcement and correctional officers for police/peace officers and JAILERS either! Grin.

This is a relatively new expression from what I gather in X amount of years. It is like they used to call something x, y or z and NOW they have to give it some other name. Geesh.

WE are ALL citizens or legal immigrants. If you are not in that group - you are a criminal = illegal alien. Yes, that is the correct word for that NAME too. Look it up and it is the Politically Correct crowd that wants to call it something else.

It is the same deal for WANNABE military people because they NEVER volunteered for the military or were in the draft era. My late husband along with my family members were Volunteers not drafted folks and that included the Vietnam era. This word civilian has been misused in this day and age because:
A. People don't know their history.
B. People refuse to understand or speak the ENGLISH language.
C. It is a term for wannabes in any JOB profession including those who have NEVER SERVED in the MILITARY but want to dress up in their 'uniforms' that look para military - throw in those Blackwater, other mercenaries, contractors, etc.!
D. Just because someone wants to call me a civilian instead of a lady or a CITIZEN when they are NO more special than I am and a 'civilian' too --- that does not EXCUSE them being wrong or ignorant in this matter.
E. People who want to call us civilians when they are civilians in any JOB profession just want to make themselves Appear superior or special in my NOT so humble opinion. Guess what?! They put on their pants and skirts just like the rest of us! Grin.

Press 1 for English - NOT! English first!

Have a lovely evening, citizen.

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

P.R.,

Thank you. I want to ask you about a rifle sling. I will give you a call.

Catherine

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Yet the proper use of the quote function still eludes you.

I doubt the clerk at the video was trying to assert his superiority.

It was a joke. Lighten up.

 

[JoeSlomo]

1. I have nothing but respect for law enforcement officers because they are doing a job that most of us are unwilling or incapable of doing. I do NOT have the patience or the temperament to put up with the lowest common denominators in our society on a daily basis. They do, and do a fine job to boot. Respect.

2. As with every publicly funded service, the goal of the administration is to complete the task using the least amount of funds possible. Hence, law enforcement will not get the training budget they SHOULD get because the public will NOT fund it. This applies just as well to our military where only "elite" units get a budget that comes even close to PROPERLY preparing the troops for the task at hand.

The Army marksmanship standard calls for a soldier to hit just over HALF of the targets presented for qualification.... HALF. That is NOT what I would call a "professional" standard, and soldiers ONLY have to meet this standard twice a year.

Our law enforcement brothers are caught in the same fiscal trap.

3. Standards have been LOWERED over the years due to "political correctness" and the admission of females into roles they were normally not in. I can't speak for law enforcement, but in the military millions of dollars are wasted creating infrastructure and programs to accommodate this political correct nonsense. That is money that could be used for further training those that actually meet the standards. I am sure this additional fiscal burden has effected our law enforcement community as well.

4. Your typical citizen, on average, probably has the luxury of positively identifying the threat more often than the LEO. IE, someone is breaking into the house, the car, or is in ones face. The LEO will often times be sent to the scene of trouble with a modicum of information and a vague description of the key players. This would make threat ID much more challenging and would increase the chance of misidentification.

As far as actual marksmanship when shots are fired? Our law enforcement, and every other public service agency, will only be as good as we the people are willing to make them. If we want highly trained professionals, than we need to be willing to pay for that training. Many supplement their professional training with personal funds, but those folks are special and truly committed. Many simply choose to meet the standard set forth in their profession, and these standards are a direct reflection of what the people are willing and capable of paying in taxes to fund a particular service.

When was the last time you saw a protest demanding higher taxes to fund law enforcement, or fire service, or EMT's?

 

[MT GUNNY]

Citizen vs Civilian

Citizen: Citizenship is membership in a society, community, (originally that of a city or town but now usually for a country) and carries with it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is a citizen.

Civilian: A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.