PDA

View Full Version : Officer training/duty?



Todd Prosser
2nd July 2002, 09:00
I wanted to continue the discussion on the previous thread, but wanted to separate them from the post on the loss of Deputy Herzog.

My initial post wandered a bit. What I see as the real problem in training LEO's today in FOF use,to the point of being efficient,is not so much as attitude and commitment, but the diversity that now exists.

Bare bones, LEO's are supposed to be peace keepers and law enforcers. Today LEO's are expected to be that and everything else from social workers to babysitters. There really isn't enought time in the day, week or month to be properly trained in all skills the public now requires. Therefore which skills do officers focus on? The ones they use everyday and those aren't fighting or firearms skills! But you better be perfect in all those possible skills when the s**t hits the fan, or else! If you only get into one or two physical encounters a year(a rough average) do you think that your response will be effective and efficient or might you panic a bit?

Now if officers had clearly and realistically defined training parameters there could also be required levels of training efficiency. Of course that can only occur if LEO's have a limited responsibility of expertise, but everyday the general public adds requirements or duties to LEO's.

Case in point. My department has between 900-975 sworn positions. Less than half are assigned to patrol. Besides detectives, Lt's, Captains and Deputy Chiefs there are countless social service positions that could be better staffed by other agencies.

All of this takes away from the overall high level of training that is expected to exist. Ideally everyone would be required to be efficient in some sort of 'fighting' art. Personally I think that should be the case for all patrol LEO's regardless of dept. politics. It would make citizens and fellow LEO's safer and move the LEO's that cannot 'qualify' into those nice 'warm and fuzzy' social service positions where they belong.

Todd Prosser

Ken Good
4th July 2002, 09:56
My heart truly goes out to the family and friends of the officer. As trainers it is incumbent upon us to make the training programs we present as useful as humanly possible in order to avoid any needless suffering.

This post is not meant to be a criticism of the officer who lost his life in the line of duty, in service to others around him. I have no idea what actually happened not would I be so arrogant as to speculate. My comments are speaking to the overall state of affairs.

I was speaking to a good friend of mine this evening about force-on-force training. He was one of they guys that invented the training pistol we are currently using.

He is also attempting to roll out a new technology that I am not at liberty to talk about at this point. He is extremely well read and has an amazingly accurate view of the combative world although he is a writer by trade.

Anyway, we were talking about pain, and the benefits of pain.

I told him absent pain, people really don’t learn how to fight, plain and simple.

He responded by telling me about a book written by a medical doctor entitled “Pain, the Gift nobody wants”. In this book he outlined why leprosy ends up destroying it’s host.
It removes the sensation of pain. The leprosy in and of itself is not degenerative. What really takes place, is the person ends up damaging his/her own body to the point of death.

i.e. A healthy person can walk a mile barefoot and be perfectly sound after the stroll.
A person inflicted with leprosy can attempt the same thing and end up with completely thrashed feet.

It turns out that when you are walking your body is constantly slightly changing the pressures, angles, and impact velocities so that one part of you foot does not get abused and damaged.

You cannot tell a person that has leprosy to stop damaging his/her body when doing X activity. The brain needs the pain as reference point. TALKING DOES NO GOOD. TELLLING THEM DOES NO GOOD. Without the pain indicated something is amiss the person simply does things like breaking their own wrist while wrenching on an engine, burning the flesh in fire, deeply cutting, constantly scraping etc. Pain is a critical, ever present, real-time feedback loop.

Unfortunately groups, organizations, civilians apparently mirror this individual physical reality. No pain, no change.

It is a common “joke” in the military, that nothing will change until somebody dies.

I remember addressing a decision-making group in Washington D.C. as to the security of U.S. Navy ships in general. The head of Naval Physical Security told me basically absolutely nothing was wrong or needed to be improved upon. Why? Because nothing significant had happened for the last decade. Tell this to the sailors on the U.S.S. Cole.

I remember wanting to come out of my chair and rip his throat out….in love of course.

I now accept this for what it is. I am completely uninterested in working with those that are not serious about their craft or their profession.

In the Law Enforcement and Military business, train, train with pain, train some more or die, it’s a choice.



Kit – It is Strategos International now.
See: http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=87538

Neil, George - Hello and hope all is well.

My old username password would not let me post anything....Mysterious....maybe the moderator is tyring to tell me something...so this is my first post as a free man.

George Ledyard
4th July 2002, 21:06
The real problem with today's training environment is that in most cases the Firearms Instructor community is separated from the Defensive Tactics Instructor community. There simply aren't enough instructors like the ones that post on this forum who are instructor qualified in every aspect of applixcation of force.

In Washington State Firearms intructors teach shooting only. Gun retention is taught by the DT instructors. Often what the DT instructors are teaching is not compatible what the Firearms Intructors are teaching. What the DT instructors are doing in terms of spacing, movement patterns etc. are not necessarily the same as what the shooters are teaching.

Bob Bragg of the Washington State Criminal Justice Traiing Center has been trying to establish a FOF Instructor certification but this is being heavily resisted by the Firearms Instructors who have no interest in developing skill in DT. They see this new emphasis in integrating training as a threat to their own comfortable domains as the Kings of the range.

Look at the experiment that Peyton Quinn did in comparing the performace between a small group of non-shooters and a group of shooters in a high pressure scenario requiring the use of a firearm he found that the non-shooters out performed the so-called trained shooters. Their (the non-shooters) preparation was simply to have done some empty hand scenario training with the bulletmanso they were used to performing under pressure.

Force on Force Instruction requires a level of expertise on the part of the instructors which exceeds what most DT or Forearms intructors have. It would require a commitment to developing this expertise on the part of the academies and departments which many are reluctant to amke. Many departments aren't even doing a good job with the current system. I don't really know what would change this attitude.

matt little
5th July 2002, 03:09
Originally posted by George Ledyard
The real problem with today's training environment is that in most cases the Firearms Instructor community is separated from the Defensive Tactics Instructor community.

As long as people see these two sets of skills as separate and distinct entities instead of positions along a continuum, this sad state of affairs will continue. what we as armed professionals need is a system of training involving the same operating sysytem (to quote the esteemed gentlemen of Yanagi Ryu) for all use of force situations up to and including deadly force.

In other words, not the mental switching of gears involved in DT as opposed to impact weapons as opposed to firearms, etc, etc, but one system with one mindset allowing operators to dial up or down the use of force continuum seamlessly as need be utilizing compatible mindset, biomechanics, and tactics. This is something I believe strongly in as the necessary direction for the future of tactical training. Indeed, I think the more progressive trainers, such as Mssrs. Good and Ledyard above, have already set the stage for this sort of training.

Wouldn't it be great if a "new breed" of tactical trainer begins to emerge with a more comprehensive philosophy of training? I would love to see the time come when a Firearms Trainer is required to be a DT instructor, and vice versa. This probably is not a realistic expectation across the board, but wouldn't it do wonders for training?

At the very least, I hope for some sort of doctrinal acknowledgement in training for the fact that both a fistfight and a firefight, and everything inbetween, are fights. They can change form drastically and suddenly, requiring not only adaptation on the part of the operator, but proactive action. This is only possible with a high level of training involving all aspects of the use of force in an integrated fashion.

Todd Prosser
6th July 2002, 09:15
[i]

I told him absent pain, people really don’t learn how to fight, plain and simple.[/B]

I couldn't agree more, but I think before such intensive learning can begin there has to be the availability and time to learn and retain the knowledge.
As far as obtaining instructors who engage in both physical and firearm training... I think that is coming to law enforcement, but is still a few years away. Ken and Surefire conduct such training, from what I have read, but they are not the national model(maybe they should be?).
I believe most depts are still split in these aspects. I know mine is. Firearms guys who are great shooters but horribly out of shape and DT intructors who are only marginal with a firearm seem to be the norm.
But my real question is how can the public get a police department to have highly efficient officers/deputies that can engage in all types of FOF encounters while at the same time providing all the other social services? My department has actively been doing the specialization thing for years and it ain't working!
The current national police corp also has not solved the problem. Believe me :rolleyes:
I think depts that early on target officers/deputies for parol or investigation work may have the right idea. Those who want a career in patrol receive the more intensive training in the FOF while those in investigations train more in the 'social' aspects of law enforcement.
Might work, but then I'm disregarding politics in all of this.
All I know is if an officer wants a higher level of FOF experience he/she has to seek most of that training on their own time and it is very hard to find such training that applies to what LEO's do.

Todd Prosser