Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
As I type this I just posted an article written by contributor Kevin Davis on the necessity of preparing both the mind and body if we expect to achieve victory in violent encounters during the course of performing our duties. Kevin correctly stressed the need to prepare ourselves mentally, emotionally and physically for such encounters. In one part of the article he makes the statement that
qualification is not training; it's demonstration that an officer can meet certain minimum requirements.
Not only do I agree with Kevin 110% but that voiced thought harkened me back to the first article I ever wrote for a Cygnus publication. It was way back in 2001 and it had to do with what (in my opinion) a complete firearms training program should include. Either because I'm arrogant, or because I don't believe we can stress enough the importance of good and valid training, I'd like to review some of that material now.
When you think about it, a good training program should take a student from an assumption of
no knowledge, no skill to complete or advanced knowledge and second nature skill. Ken Murray, again - back in the day, once taught me that there are four levels of competence:
Unconscious Incompetent: at this level we quite literally don't know what we don't know. We are totally ignorant of a skill and our lack of mastery of it.
Conscious Incompetent: at this level we've been taught about the existance of a skill and how it's performed. However, we still are incapable of performing it. We've just become aware of our lack of that skill.
Conscious Competent: at this level we are able to successfully demonstrate and complete a given skill with concentration and directed thought. The example, applicable to firearms training, that I would use at this level is the student officer who has to think about each step as he draws his weapon: grip, holster manipulation, draw, presentation, sight alignment, sight picture, trigger press, etc.
Unconscious Competent: at this level the person can perform and demonstrate a skill without conscious thought. In other words, he recognizes the need to perform the skill and does so without consciously considering each step. The example would be an officer on a firing line who sees a threat presented (target turning) and without conscious thought the officer moves to cover, draws and engages the target.
So, remembering those four levels of competency, let's consider firearms training programs. In my academy class there were cadets who had never touched or handled a gun. They didn't know anything about metallic cartridges, chambers, slides, cylinders, etc. Although they knew that guns existed and functioned to shoot bullets, they had no direct knowledge of their function or use. They were
unconscious incompetent where firearms were concerned. As such, the first step in firearms training is classroom lecture and demonstration. This is necessary to bring the student up to and through the level of
conscious incompetent.
Since firearms training is partially about getting the cadet / student officer skilled in actually shooting the weapon we have to eventually put a real gun in their hands and help them learn how to master the basic fundamentals of marksmanship. Now, here is where we need to recognize the difference between
conscious competent and
unconscious competent because one is certainly required before additional skills or stressors can be added.
Prior to teaching an officer how to move and shoot, or to make judgment calls, or anything else, he must first have mastered the basic fundamentals of marksmanship to the
unconscious competent level. That means that he can put accurate shots on paper quickly and efficiently without having to think about it.
Now, I can hear some of you thinking / saying: "How are we supposed to look into the shooter's mind and see whether or not they are consciously thinking about their actions." You're not. We both know it. BUT... any veteran firearms instructor will tell you that you can observe a shooter and tell whether or not they are giving conscious thought to their actions or if the actions are "second nature" (
unconsciouis competent). Only after the basic shooting skill have been mastered to the
unconscious competent level should additional skills be added on.
How is this accomplished? By pushing the students and spending training dollars. Yes, I said
spending training dollarsand I said
by pushing the students. Both are anathema to police administration; one because of budget restrictions and the other because of perceived liability concerns. Let's put those two things in the correct perspective.
Spending training dollars is what agencies are supposed to do. Everyone and their brother (and every lawyer and court) knows that police officers have to be trained. The mistake many agencies make is that they train only to the minimum level required by the state. I'll make this suggestion to you here and now: take the state minimums and, at a bear minimum,
double them.
The second item, pushing the students, is often perceived as a potential liability issue. Consider this: if the student can't do the correct thing - display the proper judgment and skills on a square range with paper threats - what the heck are they going to do when a real live breathing screaming violent person is charging them on the street? Failing to properly train officers is a huge potential liability issue. If you're an administrator and you want to save money down the road in liability losses, increase your training budgets now.
So, getting back to the training... to successfully train these student officers we need to:
Start in the classroom.
Move on to the square range on paper targets.
Graduate to reactionary targets and integrate competitive shooting.
Move to projected simulations to evaluate and improve judgment.
Finalize in force-on-force training scenarios that integrate all levels of use of force.
Yes, I know: it sounds like a training nightmare, but ONLY because this isn't how we've done it for the past five decades. If we can start doing this nationwide NOW then when we get to two generations of cops from now this will be traditional and common practice.
What do you thinK?
