“The struggle to be “good enough” to win a violent encounter for your life is based on a lifetime commitment to learning and practice. It is not achieved quickly or easily and is attended to with diligence and dedication. It is not “easy” and is not based on passing minimum qualification standards. It takes work and is promulgated and sustained by an intense will and drive. Head in the game, focused, intent, deliberate, competent and confident. Those of us, who understand, struggle each day with the question, “Am I good enough?” The thunderous answer rings in our ears, “No yet!” But motivates us forward…" - Kevin Davis
I wrote those words one day in frustration with both student’s and instructor’s attitudes toward training and competency levels. Here is why…
The Trainer’s Mission
Training is the lifeblood of law enforcement. The quality, content and frequency of the training we give our officers directly relates to their ability to win the day on the street, in a fight for their life, vehicle pursuit or violent suspect encounter. This is not accomplished by training to “minimum performance levels” and we do our officers and trainees a disservice by doing so. Listen to these words – we do not properly prepare our officers for deadly force street encounters or dynamic situations such as suspect control, emergency response or pursuit driving, building searches on and on – by training to the minimums, nor do we protect the agency from civil litigation. And yet, there are still those delusional trainers and academy commanders in basic training programs who only train their students to pass the state mandated SPO’s (student performance objectives), or administrators and agencies that believe that all they have to do is conduct state required minimum firearm qualification courses once a year or police officer standards and training (POST) dictated in-service programs and they are good to go. Think I’m exaggerating? In a recent conversation I had with an instructor/proponent of an open enrollment state minimum basic academy program, he defended as relevant and realistic the driving program his potential officer/students went through. Even though this training is conducted at low speeds with rental vehicles like PT Cruisers he defended this program. When several of these types of students were recently hired by an active mid-size agency they were given proper training. Most were unable to even parallel park the vehicle. This realistic training included high speed emergency response and pursuit events that better prepared them for the conditions they might actually drive in. This was the first time these officers had driven a police vehicle. Fortunately this relevant and realistic skill training was given to them prior to their first pursuit.
In the firearms, tactics and defensive tactics realms, are the students in these academies or in-service programs truly getting enough repetitions to learn the skills? Or, are they taught just enough to pass the SPO’s? Which may lead to, just enough to get them hurt on the streets? After all, if the instructor makes the program physically demanding there might be injuries and injuries of paying customers doesn’t look good and isn’t good for business. Maximizing profits means filling the class with the max number of students. How many students can run a drill at one time? How much standing around and twiddling their thumbs is there? What is the student/instructor ratio? Enough to ensure that the students get the proper attention they deserve or an accepted, “That’s good enough; you’ve passed the SPO’s.”
The illusion for the students in these programs is that there are properly prepared, the delusion this instructor operates on, and oftentimes when he knows better, is that he’s giving street relevant training.