I would agree that we need to train to meet those deadly real world encounters. Much like understanding we don't take a bean bag to a gun fight. However, everyone has a starting point and that starts with fundamentals. Problem is people stay in the fundamental phase because going beyond fundamentals involves discomfort which most are unwilling to endure. They say repetition is the mother of skill, but if the skill set never goes beyond academy fundamentals then you will never be prepared to meet those deadly encounters. Decision making, intuition, recognition are skills that cant be taught in fundamentals and can only be experienced through real world encounters. If training real world encounters are the focus, the only outcome I would think is a better prepared individual. great stuff, thank you
Jerry - Your comment could be taken (or mistaken) to mean people need to move beyond the fundamentals, i.e. that fundamentals are fundamental to everything. The best are committed to training the fundamentals and that's what they emphasize. The best still do the fundamentals. They just do them better.
If by moving beyond "academy fundamentals", you mean adding decision making, real life scenarios, low light situations, etc. into our training, but still solving these problems with the fundamentals, I'm 100% in agreement. Sometimes people see the best guys in action and it looks so surreal, that they assume they are using some different skill set when in reality the basis of what they are doing is just applying the same fundamentals, but combining them and doing them better.
Hey Mike, yes I'm referring to the person that goes to the range and fires his or her 50 rds to check the box of the yearly qualification. That's not moving beyond academy fundamentals. Moving beyond academy fundamental is training beyond the 50 rds in perfect conditions by adding those real life scenarios, low light conditions etc. consistently sharpening skills. Your exactly right. thank you for the comment
PCSL competition is a great way to move beyond the basic fundamental approach and incorporate decision-making skills in a fun and competitive manner. There is no dedicated route or engagement strategy, such as those used in USPSA or IPSC. For example, 2-gun PCSL uses white targets for rifle, and brown/Blue steel to indicate pistol targets. You decide as the shooter which targets to engage first, second, etc, with no pre-designated order. You are not given the stage design until you show up to the stage, which adds an element of surprise and eliminates preplanning your shoot. There are no shoot targets set up in either isolated locations or co-located with engagement targets. There are also targets with simulated hard cover (indicated by black) to force you to consider shot placement over just shooting the silhouette. Targets and course routes range from close encounters to long distance shoots using barricades, platforms and vehicles as cover, some as far as 400 yards. I highly recommend looking into PCSL as a method of getting shooters out of the fog of static drills and learning how to truly run the gun.
The Law Enforcement Need For Plain Clothes Training
There are 168 hours in a week. What is often not considered is that for a majority of these hours all law enforcement officers, even those who work uniform, are in plain clothes a majority of the time. The industry standard, concerning firearms training, seems to be “one size fits all” and with little regard to the perishable nature of training in both firearms and tactics.
It seems that everyday something is occurring in law enforcement response, which brings a negative (sometimes deserved) reaction from the public. It is evident to me the elephant in the room is lack of proper training. Law enforcement officers don’t rise to the level of public expectation. They either rise or fall to the level of their training. The “inadequate training” issue should be addressed in an open public forum. What many in law enforcement and the public don’t realize, is validated plain clothes and tactical training concerning use of force, critical thinking in reference to intervention (when to get involved vs. when not to get involved), ergonomics, and post engagement considerations (preventing blue on blue incidents) is still not an industry standard in law enforcement training. During litigation, prosecution won’t mention the training issue for fear of liability. The defense won’t mention the training issue either for fear of having to say better choices could have been made. Subsequently, the training issue is ignored and officers are left with a sword figuratively tied above their head affixed by a thread.
Police work is a difficult business and bad things happen. Given the level of public sentiment over law enforcement actions recently, the public does care about appropriate law enforcement training. Failure to properly and adequately train officers is costing lives in addition to costing taxpayers millions of dollars in civil repercussions. The money paid to address civil liability could more appropriately be used to hire and properly train more officers.
I believe the core concepts and principles of appropriate plain clothes training are as follows:
1) Equipment and Ergonomics: Firearms should be located on the officer in an area that is appropriately concealed (if concealment is necessary), easily accessible ergonomically, and under stress - in that specific location the officer will naturally respond to with muscle memory. The holster must be of quality and design that securely retains the firearm under all dynamic circumstances and allow for the firearm to be re-holstered with one hand. Simply put, don’t buy an $800 pistol and a $5 holster. Appropriate plain clothes training allows for the officer to not only draw the concealed firearm with one hand, but also allows for the officer to re-holster with one hand. With appropriate training, it matters not if you are wearing a long un-tucked shirt with or without a jacket.
2) Critical Thinking Concerning Levels of Intervention While In Plain Clothes: Being in plain clothes presents a whole set of engagement issues particularly related to the officer and civilians safety. Appropriate training provides considerations, which should set a cognitive standard from which the officer would appropriately respond. Sometimes it is best to simply be a good witness and elicit uniform response while in plain clothes. Unfortunately, most law enforcement training is in reference to responding to emergencies while in uniform with all the accompanying equipment and backup. It is often overlooked that while in uniform we respond to emergencies. While in plain clothes, emergencies often come to us.
3) How Do We Respond Under Stress: Both cognitive and physical stress will raise the officer’s lactate threshold. The resulting factors are: tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, time dilation and loss of fine motor skills. The officer, often described as delusional, is simply very tired. Most officers go through their entire career never experiencing or knowing how they will react in such a situation. Appropriate firearms training allows for this process and sets a base line for the officer from which they can begin to improve if necessary. Simply put, in a critical incident officers will not rise to the level of public expectation. They will either rise or fall to the level of their training! And lastly, firearms, tactics, and critical thinking are all perishable skills. An officer with twenty years on the force does not necessary represent a well-trained officer.
In conclusion:
Departmental agencies often are quoted as being committed to a culture of strict officer accountability and of building more community partnerships. How proactively does your Department prepare its officers for plain clothes encounters and solo officer response?
1) Failure to do so will cost lives, both figuratively and literally.
2) Failure to do so will cost your agency millions of dollars in civil litigation.
I would agree that we need to train to meet those deadly real world encounters. Much like understanding we don't take a bean bag to a gun fight. However, everyone has a starting point and that starts with fundamentals. Problem is people stay in the fundamental phase because going beyond fundamentals involves discomfort which most are unwilling to endure. They say repetition is the mother of skill, but if the skill set never goes beyond academy fundamentals then you will never be prepared to meet those deadly encounters. Decision making, intuition, recognition are skills that cant be taught in fundamentals and can only be experienced through real world encounters. If training real world encounters are the focus, the only outcome I would think is a better prepared individual. great stuff, thank you
Jerry - Your comment could be taken (or mistaken) to mean people need to move beyond the fundamentals, i.e. that fundamentals are fundamental to everything. The best are committed to training the fundamentals and that's what they emphasize. The best still do the fundamentals. They just do them better.
If by moving beyond "academy fundamentals", you mean adding decision making, real life scenarios, low light situations, etc. into our training, but still solving these problems with the fundamentals, I'm 100% in agreement. Sometimes people see the best guys in action and it looks so surreal, that they assume they are using some different skill set when in reality the basis of what they are doing is just applying the same fundamentals, but combining them and doing them better.
Stay safe.
Hey Mike, yes I'm referring to the person that goes to the range and fires his or her 50 rds to check the box of the yearly qualification. That's not moving beyond academy fundamentals. Moving beyond academy fundamental is training beyond the 50 rds in perfect conditions by adding those real life scenarios, low light conditions etc. consistently sharpening skills. Your exactly right. thank you for the comment
You might enjoy this guest post on Greg Ellifritz's blog by a friend of mine: https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/le-firearms-training
The guest author is extremely well read, broadly trained, and understands the issues.
Thankyou
PCSL competition is a great way to move beyond the basic fundamental approach and incorporate decision-making skills in a fun and competitive manner. There is no dedicated route or engagement strategy, such as those used in USPSA or IPSC. For example, 2-gun PCSL uses white targets for rifle, and brown/Blue steel to indicate pistol targets. You decide as the shooter which targets to engage first, second, etc, with no pre-designated order. You are not given the stage design until you show up to the stage, which adds an element of surprise and eliminates preplanning your shoot. There are no shoot targets set up in either isolated locations or co-located with engagement targets. There are also targets with simulated hard cover (indicated by black) to force you to consider shot placement over just shooting the silhouette. Targets and course routes range from close encounters to long distance shoots using barricades, platforms and vehicles as cover, some as far as 400 yards. I highly recommend looking into PCSL as a method of getting shooters out of the fog of static drills and learning how to truly run the gun.
The Law Enforcement Need For Plain Clothes Training
There are 168 hours in a week. What is often not considered is that for a majority of these hours all law enforcement officers, even those who work uniform, are in plain clothes a majority of the time. The industry standard, concerning firearms training, seems to be “one size fits all” and with little regard to the perishable nature of training in both firearms and tactics.
It seems that everyday something is occurring in law enforcement response, which brings a negative (sometimes deserved) reaction from the public. It is evident to me the elephant in the room is lack of proper training. Law enforcement officers don’t rise to the level of public expectation. They either rise or fall to the level of their training. The “inadequate training” issue should be addressed in an open public forum. What many in law enforcement and the public don’t realize, is validated plain clothes and tactical training concerning use of force, critical thinking in reference to intervention (when to get involved vs. when not to get involved), ergonomics, and post engagement considerations (preventing blue on blue incidents) is still not an industry standard in law enforcement training. During litigation, prosecution won’t mention the training issue for fear of liability. The defense won’t mention the training issue either for fear of having to say better choices could have been made. Subsequently, the training issue is ignored and officers are left with a sword figuratively tied above their head affixed by a thread.
Police work is a difficult business and bad things happen. Given the level of public sentiment over law enforcement actions recently, the public does care about appropriate law enforcement training. Failure to properly and adequately train officers is costing lives in addition to costing taxpayers millions of dollars in civil repercussions. The money paid to address civil liability could more appropriately be used to hire and properly train more officers.
I believe the core concepts and principles of appropriate plain clothes training are as follows:
1) Equipment and Ergonomics: Firearms should be located on the officer in an area that is appropriately concealed (if concealment is necessary), easily accessible ergonomically, and under stress - in that specific location the officer will naturally respond to with muscle memory. The holster must be of quality and design that securely retains the firearm under all dynamic circumstances and allow for the firearm to be re-holstered with one hand. Simply put, don’t buy an $800 pistol and a $5 holster. Appropriate plain clothes training allows for the officer to not only draw the concealed firearm with one hand, but also allows for the officer to re-holster with one hand. With appropriate training, it matters not if you are wearing a long un-tucked shirt with or without a jacket.
2) Critical Thinking Concerning Levels of Intervention While In Plain Clothes: Being in plain clothes presents a whole set of engagement issues particularly related to the officer and civilians safety. Appropriate training provides considerations, which should set a cognitive standard from which the officer would appropriately respond. Sometimes it is best to simply be a good witness and elicit uniform response while in plain clothes. Unfortunately, most law enforcement training is in reference to responding to emergencies while in uniform with all the accompanying equipment and backup. It is often overlooked that while in uniform we respond to emergencies. While in plain clothes, emergencies often come to us.
3) How Do We Respond Under Stress: Both cognitive and physical stress will raise the officer’s lactate threshold. The resulting factors are: tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, time dilation and loss of fine motor skills. The officer, often described as delusional, is simply very tired. Most officers go through their entire career never experiencing or knowing how they will react in such a situation. Appropriate firearms training allows for this process and sets a base line for the officer from which they can begin to improve if necessary. Simply put, in a critical incident officers will not rise to the level of public expectation. They will either rise or fall to the level of their training! And lastly, firearms, tactics, and critical thinking are all perishable skills. An officer with twenty years on the force does not necessary represent a well-trained officer.
In conclusion:
Departmental agencies often are quoted as being committed to a culture of strict officer accountability and of building more community partnerships. How proactively does your Department prepare its officers for plain clothes encounters and solo officer response?
1) Failure to do so will cost lives, both figuratively and literally.
2) Failure to do so will cost your agency millions of dollars in civil litigation.
Randall Milstead
Austin Police Department (Honorably Retired)