Bruen, D/S/C preferred victim groups, Defund the police, Dorner Case, Ferguson Effect, Glock, Gunsite, Kentucky Windage, LAPD, low light, NYC, officer hit potential, Police firearm training, Police Policy Studies Council, S&W, shoot/don't shoot, shooting to wound
It was October, 2017, when I last wrote on the topic of police firearm training and general marksmanship under pressure. Much has changed in that time. Many American cities, D/S/C ruled for decades, are still suffering the consequences of the “defund the police” movement. Throughout the nation, police officers are enmeshed in the Ferguson Effect, the realization their politicians and police administrators do not have their backs, and are as likely to prosecute them for doing their jobs properly and lawfully as they are to prosecute the violent criminals they are charged with arresting. For self-protection, they tend to do as little as possible, and particularly avoid arresting members of D/S/C preferred victim groups.
As a result, many highly competent and professional officers have retired early, transferred to police agencies that still retain some vestige of sanity, or have left the profession entirely. Many city agencies are grossly understaffed, and are having enormous trouble recruiting. Unsurprisingly, the few candidates they are getting define “bottom of the barrel.” Even worse, many agencies are actually lowering their hiring standards, and because they’re getting substandard recruits, are lowing their training standards as well.
Through all this, the Biden Meat Puppet Administration, and not a few state governments, continue to try to disarm law-abiding Americans, despite the Supreme Court, in Bruen (2022), strengthening Second Amendment jurisprudence, making it ever clearer the Second Amendment does recognize—not grant—an individual right to keep and bear arms, even in public. It’s rather harder these days for corrupt politicians to argue Normal Americans don’t need to be armed because the police will protect them. After all, they’ve spent the last two years vilifying the police.
So read on, gentle readers, this updated article, where we learn yet again the police have no legal obligation to protect anyone, we really are on our own and far too many politicians want it that way. We begin with a police shooting in Denver, Colorado 0n-07-17-22:
Denver police on Tuesday released surveillance video and body camera footage of three officers shooting an armed man and injuring six innocent bystanders outside busy downtown bars on July 17.
Does this sound shocking? Unusual? Read on:
The videos show several officers walking north on Larimer Street paralleling the armed man, Jordan Waddy, as he moved through the crowd on the sidewalk. Officers followed Waddy because they saw him punch another man during a fight, which was captured on a city surveillance video.
As officers followed Waddy, he stepped between two parked cars and onto the street and raised his hands when he saw police.
Waddy turned his back to the officers and walked back between the two cars and onto the sidewalk, the videos show. Waddy then turned to face the officers and grabbed a gun from his clothing as officers yelled ‘stop’ and ‘get down.’
Body camera footage shows Waddy throwing the gun to the ground as officers opened fire.
As the photo shows, Waddy clearly had the weapon in a shooting grip. The Denver Post, like so many other leftist news outlets, is apparently trying to convict the officers in the court of public opinion.
Denver police previously said Waddy was holding the gun by the slide on the top when the officers fired. It’s not clear if Waddy could have fired the gun while holding it that way, Cmdr. Matt Clark said at a July 20 news conference. He said the officers believed the muzzle of the gun pointed at them as Waddy pulled it out.
And so the photos shows.
Two officers shot a combined five rounds while facing Waddy with the front wall of Larimer Beer Hall behind him. A third officer fired one round from Waddy’s right side and a crowd of people is visible behind Waddy in the officer’s body camera footage.
They shot six bystanders. At least each shot apparently hit someone.
As I’ve previously noted, D/S/Cs expect Americans to disarm, and when their lives are in danger, call someone with a gun—you know, the people they’ve chased out of the job–and hope they arrive in time (prayer isn’t acknowledged or allowed). Part of the fallout of much under staffed police forces is much longer response times–when the police can respond at all.
Most people assume the police are expertly trained in the use of firearms. TV and movie cops are capable of dropping bad guys with a single well-placed shot from any distance. Often good guys shoot to wound, which invariably instantly incapacitates bad guys, because it’s in the script. Of course, in fiction, the good guys don’t suffer any anxiety from shooting another human being, and they’re never suspended for months on end, subjected to hostile investigations, and even prosecuted for doing their jobs. The unfortunate Denver Cops are in real trouble, probably regardless of the facts.
This is yet another facet of life where understanding human nature and the truth can save lives. In this case, reality could not be more clear: few police officers are expert shots. Most are mediocre, at best, with firearms.
Most police officers are not gun girls and guys. In the homes of many police officers may be found only a single gun: their issued handgun. Many have no experience with firearms, and what small experience they may have is largely irrelevant to police work. Such officers rarely, if ever, carry off duty. Others—a relatively small number–recognizing the necessity of basic firearm competence, take the responsibility seriously. Rare is the officer that spends their own time and money to buy firearms, ammunition, and undergo the practice and training necessary to develop a high level of skill.
In some places, police officers are significantly hampered by the very bad political choices of their agencies. New York City is a prime example. As I noted in a September, 2013 article—New York City Police Shoot Up the Citizenry Again–where I wrote about one of several shootings where the police, in legitimately (mostly) trying to shoot bad guys, accidently shot citizens instead, in one case, shooting not only the single bad guy at very close range, but nine innocent bystanders.
A primary reason for those debacles was the NYPD’s requirement of 12-pound triggers on their officer’s handguns. Glocks available to any purchaser come with standard 5.5 pound triggers. Twelve-pound triggers greatly complicate accurate shooting. The heavier and longer the trigger pull, the more difficult it is to obtain consistent shot to shot accuracy. Heavy triggers predictably cause officers to miss—badly–as the incidents linked in that article chronicle. Combine this with the mediocre training all too common in police work, and it’s a miracle the police are able to hit anything—other than innocent bystanders.
Why would any law enforcement organization (LEO) mandate triggers that all but ensure their officers will miss and shoot innocents? They are inherently anti-gun, particularly in D/S/C controlled cities, and they do not trust their officers. In many cases, such LEOs are more worried about their officers having a negligent discharge (ND) than any other potential danger. They think their officers of sub normal intelligence, and actually avoid hiring officers of above average intelligence.
There are LEOs that provide good and regular training and qualifications, but that is not true for most. Agency-wide qualifications are expensive, not only in ammunition costs, but in manpower costs. Officers must be taken off the street, normally for an entire shift, which requires multiple trainings over multiple days. This requires assigning other officers, usually at overtime rates, to replace missing street officers, as well as the officers administering the training/qualification.
Often, the officers assigned to train others in firearm skills are not, themselves, skilled, and they are rarely competent teachers. Police officers are no different than most Americans that believe someone skilled in a given task is capable of teaching others to be skilled in that task. Competent teachers know better. Firearm training positions—and other perks–are often awarded for political reasons, or reasons of favoritism. Such people tend not to be fond of officers that are actually good shots and tactically competent, because that tends to make them look less then competent.
Most people undertake a police career with relatively little firearm experience. They are introduced to their duty handguns at some point during either their basic agency academy or basic state academy. Many states require a common basic academy for all certified officers, and virtually all agencies require their own in-house academy and a field-training program. In most cases, officers won’t be driving a patrol car solo for nearly a year from their hire date—in professional agencies. Until then, they provide relatively few direct benefits for their agency or community.
Whether their first handgun experience takes place at their agency or at a state or private academy, it will normally consist of basic handgun safety, marksmanship and rudimentary, brief maintenance. They may be exposed to some sort of shoot/don’t shoot training, but it is uncommon for anyone to shoot more than 300 rounds in initial training. That’s not nearly enough to build even basic handgun competence. Usually, they fire training ammunition, which is much less expensive than duty ammo. This saves money, but is unrealistic as the report, recoil and accuracy of training ammo differs–sometimes dramatically–from duty ammo.
During their first year, an officer will usually have shot for score–qualified–no more than twice. Such qualifications will normally consist of shooting only standard, stationary silhouette targets out to 25 yards on a range. If an indoor range, fifteen yards may be the outer limit. It’s a virtual certainty all shooting will be at known distances, distances that never change. No more than 50 rounds will normally be fired, and passing scores are generous, as low as 70%, but all allow reshooting as many times as necessary to pass, otherwise many would not qualify, and these days they need every body on the street they can find.
Thereafter, officers will usually shoot for score no more than once a year. Some agencies will combine some sort of training with qualification shooting. This training may involve practice at clearing a building, but that normally requires modified weapons and ammunition. Few agencies can afford facilities of that kind where live ammunition can be safely used. Some training may involve moving targets, or perhaps shooting multiple targets, or targets rigged to simulate someone hiding behind a hostage.
If they carry shotguns–many agencies still do–qualification will normally be done no more than once a year. The shotguns used will not be those carried by officers in their cars, but a few spare armory guns. Courses of fire usually consist of firing a few rounds of buckshot at a silhouette target. If most of the pattern is more or less centered at 15 yards or so, and if an officer can put a few rounds of slugs on the paper at 25 yards, that’s normally considered sufficient. This means officers have no idea where the shotguns they may someday have to use will pattern.
The agencies that carry carbines–usually AR-15 pattern rifles–will also usually qualify no more than once a year. Courses of fire commonly use stationary silhouette targets at known distances, usually no greater than 100 yards and often no more than 50 yards, and usually require no more than 50 rounds, though often no more than 30, which is standard, single magazine capacity. Rifle ammunition is more expensive then handgun ammo.
Some agencies provide cleaning equipment and require cleaning after qualification, but most do not. Some officers rarely, if ever, clean their weapons. A good number don’t own cleaning equipment and don’t know how to properly clean or maintain their handguns.
Apart from agency-mandated training/qualification, most officers will not fire their weapons. Relatively few will take the time and spend the money necessary to regularly practice. Fewer still will actually attend schools like Gunsite to improve their skills.
The agency where I last served may be illustrative. I was given my handgun, a S&W Model 686 in .357 magnum, at my basic state academy. Training consisted of a single day of very basic instruction—“this is where you put the bullets in; this is where they come out”– and qualification. I was told my weapon was “sighted in,” but the sights were badly misaligned for me—all weapons must be adjusted for the individual–and I qualified–barely–by employing the kind of Kentucky windage normally associated with artillery, having to hold the sights a foot high and about 8” to the right to hit the bullseye. The instructors wouldn’t allow me the time or tools necessary to properly align the sights. Apparently I wasn’t qualified. People unfamiliar with handguns would have had no idea why they couldn’t hit anything.
I didn’t see the gun again until I returned home and did a qualification shoot. There, I had the time and tools to sight in the weapon and managed a 100% score. I learned handgun shooting with revolvers, and by then, was an expert shot, but most of my fellow officers had no such experience and were far from confident and capable with their 686s, which are excellent, expensive and heavy revolvers. Both of my experiences with the weapon to that point consisted only of light-loaded .38 special wadcutter ammunition. I noticed that I was one of only perhaps five people in a 100-person agency capable of 100% shooting. At least 10-15 struggled to make a minimally passing score whenever they qualified. About 50 were average and the rest somewhat better or worse. By the time I drove my first solo shift, I had, merely by luck, qualified three times. Most officers do less.
Thereafter, we qualified twice a year. Most agencies qualify only once a year. Once a year we fired the duty ammo we were given, and replaced it with fresh ammunition. When we used duty ammo, a much larger number of officers, due to recoil and muzzle blast, had trouble qualifying. The 100% shooters didn’t. They, like me, spent the time and money to regularly practice. One hundred percent shooters are 100% shooters for a reason.
Shotgun qualifications were more or less once a year and consisted of shooting a few skeet, a few rounds of buckshot and a few slugs. Other training occurred infrequently: a bit of low light shooting here, a bit of multiple target shooting there, and only once in a decade, a shoot/don’t shoot experience with video and a laser system for recording hits/misses.
We eventually transitioned to Glocks. Officer’s qualification scores increased and fewer had to continually reshoot, but that problem never went away. That agency was above average in the training and number of qualifications required of officers.
What does this mean for citizens? The less familiar officers are with their handguns and ammunition, the less often they train, the less often they shoot, the more likely they are to be dangerous to everyone. Consider these statistics from the NYPD.
In 1990, NYPD officer hit potential was only 19%. That means 81% of the rounds they fired at criminals missed. At less than three yards, they hit only 38% of the time. From 3-7 yards, 11.5% and from 7-15 yards, only 9.4%
These statistics comport well with my personal experience, but not necessarily with other studies. Statistics from the Metro-Dade Police Department from 1988-1994 published in a Police Policy Studies Council report show officers fired app. 1300 rounds at suspects, missing more than 1,100 times, hitting about 15.4% of their shots, most of these from near-touching distance. During that period, using revolvers, they missed 65% of the time, but 75% of the time with semiautomatic handguns.
These figures are the opposite of my personal experience and from a variety of other studies I’ve seen that indicate revolvers are much harder to shoot accurately under stress—they are–and officers equipped with semiautomatic handguns tend to substantially increase their hit rates.
More data from the same report for the NYPD during 1994-2000 when the NYPD was far more semiautomatic heavy, are interesting, if frightening. At 0-2 yards, the officer hit rate was 69%, but from 3-7 yards, only 19%. The hit rate dropped precipitously from there, with only 2% from 16-25 yards and 1% at 25 yards and greater distance. This explains how two officers, shooting from only 6-15 feet–2-5 yards–could shoot nine innocents behind their target.
Adding low light conditions only lowers hit probability.
Whether one relies on personal experience or studies, the lessons are clear:
1) Shooting accurately at any distance with a handgun takes regular, correct, training and practice.
2) Police training/qualification often does not adequately improve officer’s hit potential.
3) Hit probabilities of most police officers, not just the NYPD with 12-pound triggers, are mediocre at best, even at inside-a-tanning-booth ranges.
4) Officers are, generally, much more likely to miss than hit their targets.
5) Anyone near a police officer in a deadly force situation would be wise to seek solid cover rather than try to film the action.
6) The more officers involved in a shooting the more likely a greater number of rounds will be fired and the higher the probability of misses. In such cases, we see “me too!” shooting. One officer shoots, so every other officer tries to get in on the fun. The Dorner case, where eight LAPD officers–including a supervisor–unleashed 103 rounds at two innocent women doing nothing more threatening than delivering newspapers, is a case in point. Fortunately, they only wounded both women, but managed to shoot seven nearby homes and nine parked cars. The LAPD paid millions for that one, but none of the officers were disciplined.
7) The greater the distance, the lower the police hit probability. The lower the ambient lighting, the lower the hit probability.
8) Police officers cannot be relied upon to be accurate shots, particularly with handguns.
Final Thoughts: More recent studies, while benefiting slightly from easier to shoot semiautos—Glock has about 70% of the American police market—do not indicate the police are becoming better shots. With lowered standards, which means lower intelligence, we can expect more unjustified police shootings, and less accuracy. Many citizens are more proficient than police officers. Even if they are not, their shootings tend to take place at very close range, where hit probability is highest, and they tend to have no question about who to shoot and why. Police officers are often forced to rush into ambiguous situations.
Those that would disarm us are either woefully uninformed, or care nothing for the lives of those about who they claim to care so deeply. We can’t, legally or practically, rely on the police to protect us. We are, and always have been, on our own.
“Such officers rarely, if ever, carry off duty. Others—a relatively small number–recognizing the necessity of basic firearm competence, take the responsibility seriously. Rare is the officer that spends their own time and money to buy firearms, ammunition, and undergo the practice and training necessary to develop a high level of skill.”
Why is that you think? Seems to me if I were concerned about being a target on duty, much less be expected to respond to any situation, I might want to enhance my skills if nothing more than it being an edge to survive to the end of the day. And how does that compare with the average guy on the street feeling safer if he is conceal & carry 24/7? Interesting psychological paradox. I would guess that a cop sees himself being a cop.. at work… only the hours he wears a uniform. Beyond that he’s like off work like anyone else at the end of their work day. It’s one way to adapt or go crazy with the feeling of responsibility… the uniform and the gun being the icons representing the job.
Mike McDaniel said:
Most new officers are young and inexperienced in life. A large part of the job is learning as much about human nature as quickly as possible. During my days as a field training officer, I would eventually tell my charges they were now police officers, not civilians. I know the term is incorrect in the military sense, but police officers tend to call non-cops civilians–when they’re being polite. Eventually because they needed to spend some time in the blue suit in order for some concepts to have any meaning to them. I also wanted to see how fast they learned the most important things.
I pointed out they were mostly invisible on duty. Most people tend to see only the blue suit, not the individual wearing it, but some do, and some are vindictive. I also asked if they really wanted to be out in public, see someone in trouble, perhaps even deadly trouble, and have no means to respond? Most decided they needed to carry off duty thereafter.
Why not become as good with a gun as possible? For the same reason not everyone is interested in the same things that compel others. It’s expensive to train to that level, time consuming, it requires intense concentration and self-reflection and even most police aren’t competent tactical thinkers. Just as in every profession, some are lazy.
What you are saying is that cops are human. Amazing. Yet we always ask of them to be better than that… and expect it.
Mike McDaniel said:
Indeed. I’ve said it before. We expect them to make 100% correct decisions in split seconds under unimaginable stress. What’s truly extraordinary is how often they succeed.
My father was a deputy sheriff from 1964 to 1989. My mother for about 12 years within that time frame. They went to yearly qualification as well. But both had grown up around guns in very rural settings. My dad was USAF AP 1957-1963 so had that training as well.
I learned firearms basics from both of them. I also spent my own time and money to become proficient with my firearms. I also spent time and money to learn the relevant law in both North Carolina when I lived there and Virginia after I moved there.
In the very specific area of firearms and the relevant law the average citizen is far more knowledgeable and proficient than the average cop. That is not to take anything away from cops. It is just a simple statement of fact.
The back ground my parents had and that i had is the exception today. Most especially in urban areas ruled by Democrat/Socialist/Communist’s.
Phil Strawn said:
I grew up with firearms. Starting with a Daisy BB rifle, then a 22, then a 20 gauge shotgun, then a revolver. My cousins and most people in my family did the same. We were taught safety with the gun and common sense. 30 years ago, I could say most Texans grew up that way, not these days. My wife and I both have handguns, and most of our friends and neighbors do also. Nothing against the police, but they are reactionary and by the time they get here, the perp, not me will be dust. They do their job with the best they are handed. We need to do our part to supplement that.
All staff in the typical hospital are required to get training in CPR-Advanced Cardiac Life Support on a regular basis. Simple research has shown that it takes only a short time before they forget it all, or at least lose confidence in what they can recall when the chips are down.
The exception are the ones who work in acute care areas such as the ER/OR/ICU who know it by muscle memory and can literally do it in their sleep.
Things are what they are.
Elmer Fudd said:
This reminds me of members of the Vancouver Washington SWAT unit mistaking a security guard for the bad guy. They opened fire from a range of 113 yards. They fired dozens of rounds but scored only one marginal hit.
Far worse was the performance of the Portland Police Bureau in the Nathan Thomas tragedy. Officers pursuing a burglary suspect followed him into a home. They confronted the perpetrator holding a young boy hostage at knife point. Multiple officers opened fire at such close range that they could see clothing billowing from the muzzle blast. The police succeeded in shooting the bad guy as well as killing the hostage.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Elmer Fudd:
Precisely what Mrs. Manor is talking about.
Fiesta Resistance said:
Accurately shooting a pistol under the stress of a pet gal force confrontation is also much harder than expected based on human physiology. Evolution has engineered us to be target fixated in dangerous situations. That means people often stare directly at their threat to the exclusion of everything else around them, including the sights on the weapons. A very common error most shooters make under stress is to look directly over their weapon resulting in shots that are sent high – often significantly so.
Traditional pistol sights require a hard front sight focus to achieve accuracy. That is asking for a lot from anyone when you have a violent attacker only a few feet away. This is one reason why I have started assisting red dots to my pistols. They are inherently more precise than iron sights and they require target focus. You get more precision and it works better with human physiology.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Fiesta Resistance:
Quite so. It’s also a reason some people involved in shooting incidents hit the hands of their attackers. They try to shoot the threat–the handgun.
Pingback: Shooting To Incapacitate, 2022 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Self-Defense In A Nation On The Brink | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: School Attacks: The High Cost Of Virtue Signaling | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty 2023, Part 2 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2023: Part 4 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Destroy Merit, Destroy Lives | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2023: Part 11 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: A Revolver Primer, 2023 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: A Semiautomatic Pistol Primer, 2023 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Self-Defense 2023: When The Presumption Of Innocence Is Racist | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Policing 2023: America Is Losing | Stately McDaniel Manor