Do As I Say, Not As I Do

I want to thank John fpr this article. He stated, in very graphic and professional terms, the responsibility that all Firearms Instructors carry. The next time any of you qualify remember this. Firearms folks are the ones who write ,and have to testify to, ANY AND ALL USE OF FORCE question's in either criminal or civil trials. That includes any IAD Review Panel or CCRB Hearing's. Now, anyone wanna' blow off qualification now ?

But more importantly is the core issue that John raises. How can we, as professional law enforcement officers (that does include you ballif's and correctional folk's as well) operate using the authority and powers granted us without remaining professionaly proficient ? This boils down to a simple matter of integrity and personal responsibility.

We as officers of the law should hold ourselves to a much higher standard when it comes to remaining proficient in the job skills we need and use. We all know that training budgets are usually either the first to get 'restricted' around the last fiscal quarter of the year due to short funds availablity or are used as a reward system by Chief's and Sheriff's more interested in boosting their own 'palace guard' position. But that being said, do we, as professional's, have the right to let our skills and obligations 'rust away' simply because we decide that the 'minimum standards' are all we have to live up to ? By using the 'minimum standards' rationalization as a guide we cheat ourselves, and the profession, out of what is both needed most by those we are sworn to protect and ourselves. That is the obligation to do and be the very best officer you can be. Any officer, deputy, agent or other law enforcement official that settles for merely being the best that their agency wants them to be is perfectly welcome to, and should get, the living snot kicked out of them due to their lack of responsible training. And rightfuly so. LAPD has a sign, last time I looked, at the entrance to the Academy. It says VERY CLEARLY', "The more you sweat here in training, the less you bleed out on the streets.". I strongly suspect that John has seen a similar sign at Quantico.

We as professionals have the public's expectation (and the obligation that goes with it) to be the best possible cops we can be. Society's safety is, in large part, dependent on how well we do our jobs. We can't do the job without on-going training, even if we have to do it ourselves. In 28 years of Federal Uniform I can count on 1 hand the number of responsibe and applicable Agency training opportunities that were afforded me. Weapons qualification was only once a year and that was a 'quickie' 30 minute session. But I know that the training I did, on my own, made me a better cop. Did it piss off the Chief and the Command Staff ? You bet it did. But you know what ? I didn't, and still don't, care one damm bit. The training I got on my own, and frequently had to pay for, was a lot better than the you-know-what-floats stuff the agency provided. It also made me a better cop, a better human being and, professionaly, damm near impervious to defense counsels tactics and a 'favorite' with the State and Federal District Court Judges. And it also made me a PITA to the local USA's Office when I was able to save their case on the stand in front of the judge. You don't want to be professionaly embarassed (DA's and other prosecutors plese take note) then you do your homework before court. It's called Pre-Trial Preperation.

Prosecutor's also take note; get the training records of your officers involved. Training can be used to qualify someone as Expert and knock down the defense's chances of impeachment or incompotence. It also gives you greater lattitude in getting evidence admitted under difficult circumstances. Who gives a damm if the defense gets the training record under discovery. You are the one who gets to call the Officer first and set the tone for their training qualifications and how they related to the issue under trial.