How often do you qualify? How often do you get firearms training?
What do those questions even mean? Should you count the number of times that you go to the range and punch holes in paper? Should you only count the times when you actually shoot for a score of record? Or are the questions broader, encompassing all firearms training, whether or not a score is kept? What about time spent on a simulator? Is that training or is it qualification - even if it's mandatory time?
The question of what actually constitutes firearms training, as opposed to just shooting a score for record, is one that has been batted around amongst firearms instructors for a long time. Back in the day many departments got out to the range once a year, shot for record, and considered that both training and qualification. Of course, things are a little different now, with many more types of training available, and a better understanding of what training actually entails. There's even on-going debate as to how good a measurement of competency many police firearms qualification courses are.
Despite all of the rhetoric, there are still departments out there that do the minimum, and in doing so, leave their officers at greater risk of injury and their departments more exposed to litigation. Even when we know what we should be doing, we often don't have the resources - or sometimes the will - to get it done.
We won't solve that problem here today. Instead I want to pose a different question - one that has a broader scope, and one that we don't talk about a lot. Just how much training is enough? How often should we train, and for how long? This question goes beyond firearms training, and touches many of the different disciplines in which we train. It is particularly problematic when discussing motor skills training, such as defensive tactics, weapons training, and driving.
If you travel across the country, and discuss training with instructors from different agencies, you'll pretty quickly identify that there are some general benchmarks that departments ascribe to. While the frequency of certain training may be fairly standardized around the country, less is said about the length and content of the training.
There is also the question of why certain frequencies of training are observed. Without digging too deeply into the many different disciplines for which we train, pick a subject that your department trains in and think about what training you do.
A good example might be defensive tactics training. It's not uncommon for departments to do an annual recertification or update training. In fact, it's almost a de facto standard in certain parts of the country. The question is why once a year? Where does that come from?
In some states there may be a POST requirement, and in other places the insurance company or insurance pool may require - or highly recommend - annual recert training. Obviously, if those types of requirements are in place, they must be met. But that still doesn't answer the original question. Why an annual standard?
Is it because once a year is an appropriate frequency of training for officers to be able to retain key motor skills? Most trainers would say no. How often is enough? That’s hard to say, especially due to the many variables that can come into play. With an activity that officers do every day - like driving - is annual training enough, or could training frequency actually be lengthened to every other year? For a discipline that officers don't use as much - say OC or TASER use - should training be more frequent, in order to keep skills sharp?
Should we factor in the potential severity of a misstep? Should firearms training be done frequently, despite the fact that we hardly ever shoot anyone, because one mistake can be so catastrophic? Conversely, should handcuff training be done less frequently because - while there are lawsuits - the potential damage that handcuffs can do as a use-or-force implement is relatively minimal? What about the potential for officer injury if something is improperly used?
Should we just generally do more training in all critical disciplines? Or is once a year the best that we think we can do, given all the other pressures placed on the department, i.e. budgets, manpower allocations, and assignment schedules?
Who originally came up with the once a year standard, and why? Was it something put forth by manufacturers of police equipment or training vendors? Did they honestly believe an annual standard met their customers’ needs, or were they - not all of them, or course - trying to assure themselves an on-going revenue stream?
There remains the question of what type of training is best, e.g. meets the needs of officers. Is a day-long class better, say once a year - or should the training be broken up into shorter blocks, and delivered more frequently, say every quarter?
Should training be primarily geared to reduce liability exposure - as so much of it seems to be now - or should it be fundamentally aimed at reduction of officer injuries? To what degree are these two goals one and the same?
A common theme of this column has been that what gets you sued also gets you hurt, so if you work safer, you'll get sued less - and I absolutely believe that to be true. That construct applies here, in that if officers are trained from a core philosophy of officer safety, then reduction of liability risk for both them and their agencies will naturally follow. Officers, and their agencies, incur liability when they hurt someone. Less of that means less litigation.
If officers drive safer, they are less likely to get injured, and are less likely to injure another person, which could lead to litigation. Similarly, if officers work safer, i.e. work smarter, then they will train harder, and prepare more for incidents on the street. If they go into situations better prepared to handle them safely, they are less likely to get hurt - or to have to hurt another person - which would also be likely to lead to litigation.
So, again, the question is what type of training is best? It's common that departments attempt to justify increased frequency of training - with firearms, say - by expressing concern over liability. But, how much does increased motor skill training reduce the threat of litigation?
The part of use-of-force, or motor vehicle pursuit, that usually gets you sued is not the how-to, but the when-to and the who-to. Lawsuits are usually based on an allegation of flawed decision making by officers. In order to address that, officers need cognitive training regarding standards, laws and policies.
The how-to is more relevant to officer safety. The more practice an officer gets, with weapons, techniques or vehicles, the better prepared they will be to use those tools properly - when necessary - in order to keep themselves as safe as possible.
There is, or course, a synergistic effect. By that I mean that the more competent an officer is in handling weapons or techniques, the more confident he or she will be in handling a situation, and that will have an overall effect on liability exposure. And it goes the other way, as well. The more confident an officer is in the standards, laws or policies that apply to a given situation, the more confident he or she will be in the use of weapons and techniques, and that will keep them safer.
So, both types of training - motor skill and cognitive - are necessary, in order to keep officers safer, and to reduce liability for all involved. Is it enough to hit the mat or the range? No. Is it enough to sit in a classroom and listen to a lecture, or view a videotape? Again, no.
There's a lot to think about here, and nobody has the answers - that's why we keep getting hurt and sued. As a copper, I want to be safe, and I don't want to get sued. As a trainer, I want to protect officers and departments. As a risk manager, I know that both things are necessary.
There's nothing wrong with adopting whatever frequency and length of training you deem appropriate for your department or for yourself individually. If you're a trainer, and you know you should be training your people as often as possible, but once or twice a year is all you can squeeze out of the boss, then so be it. Trainers have done that for years. That's what makes you maximize the value of every bit of training that you can do, and find new ways to do more with less.
The key here is to look at what you're doing and to understand why you're doing it. If the only reason you go to the range, or hit the mat, is because the POST council says you must or the manufacturer requires it for your people to remain certified, then it might be time to rethink some things. Look at what your people are doing every day, and reconsider your training programs with that in mind.
Remember that old saying, We have done more and more with less and less for so long, that pretty soon we will be doing everything with nothing? That's what officers, trainers and bosses deal with every day. That's risk management.
Stay safe, and wear your vest!
