Training Standards-Citizen vs Law Enforcement

[raven818]

When I went to the academy, we had a film called Shoot-Don't shoot. The object was to put the trainee in a situation that demanded an instant decision. The film was shown on a white piece of paper. The projectiles were plastic. We fired inside the classroom, two officers side by side.

The plastic went thru the paper into an academy built large steel box.
Several scenarios were presented, I only died once . I was inside a bar looking for a felon I had a warrant for. The BG was spotted, and as I approached him, a female sitting at a bar stool, shot me twice. I wasn't looking for her....so, lesson learned.

Great training tool. Old stuff today, I guess. Wonder if any copies are still out there?

Next to the real thing, I though it was the best I'd seen.

 

[cmort666]

Were I in a position of appropriate authority, I would abolish all of the firearms related mandatory training for an Ohio CHL.

I would replace it with a requirement for a similar amount of training in applicable law related to owning and carrying a firearm, self-defense and use of deadly force.

I have yet to see a case in Ohio where somebody with an Ohio CHL got in trouble because he didn't know firearms or his firearm. I've seen PLENTY of cases where either:

1. The CHL holder didn't know the law and violated it.
2. The police didn't know the law and harassed or falsely arrested the CHL holder (or open carrier) for something which is NOT a crime, or stated personal preference or prejudice as law, whether acted upon or not.

It doesn't take much to be able to adequately use a firearm to defend yourself.

It's MUCH harder to both stay within the law and to ensure that LEOs do likewise.

 

[cmort666]

When I went to the academy, we had a film called Shoot-Don't shoot. The object was to put the trainee in a situation that demanded an instant decision. The film was shown on a white piece of paper. The projectiles were plastic. We fired inside the classroom, two officers side by side.

The plastic went thru the paper into an academy built large steel box.
Several scenarios were presented, I only died once . I was inside a bar looking for a felon I had a warrant for. The BG was spotted, and as I approached him, a female sitting at a bar stool, shot me twice. I wasn't looking for her....so, lesson learned.

Great training tool. Old stuff today, I guess. Wonder if any copies are still out there?

Next to the real thing, I though it was the best I'd seen.

It was being used by NASA contract security both in Cleveland and Plum Brook in the early '90s.

 

[exSun]

When I went to the academy, we had a film called Shoot-Don't shoot. The object was to put the trainee in a situation that demanded an instant decision. The film was shown on a white piece of paper. The projectiles were plastic. We fired inside the classroom, two officers side by side.

The plastic went thru the paper into an academy built large steel box.
Several scenarios were presented, I only died once . I was inside a bar looking for a felon I had a warrant for. The BG was spotted, and as I approached him, a female sitting at a bar stool, shot me twice. I wasn't looking for her....so, lesson learned.

Great training tool. Old stuff today, I guess. Wonder if any copies are still out there?

Next to the real thing, I though it was the best I'd seen.

That sounds great! Put it on a large flatscreen TV, and use an airsoft pistol for some interesting in-home training.

 

[raven818]

It was paid for by the feds through a program called Law Enforcement Assistance Association ( LEAA ) when we used it.

 

[MaximumLawman]

You don't really know if you're "qualified" to carry a gun until the time comes for you to shoot someone who is trying to hurt or kill you. You may be able to reach some level of proficiency in holding the gun steady enough to put the bullets where you want them to go but that doesn't mean you're qualified to carry a gun. "Qualification" is just some arbitrary number ratio or level of proficiency dreamed up by someone to cover their asses when it comes to civil liability.

The reason many cops are more qualified to carry a gun than many of those range rats who can out shoot the fat, donut-eating cops any day of the week is because of the judgment that comes over time from dealing with street cop stuff all day long for weeks after weeks after weeks. You don't get that punching holes in paper or reading "The Armed Citizen" or bench racing on gun forums.

As a citizen, if I screw up, either technically, tactically, or legally, I've got no union or prosecutor behind me. I'm totally alone. If I shoot the wrong person, I'm not indemnified for squat.

The prosecutor is not on the side of the police after a shooting, or any time really. The prosecutor is just another lawyer.

 

[cmort666]

The prosecutor is not on the side of the police after a shooting, or any time really. The prosecutor is just another lawyer.

That may or may not be true, depending upon the jurisdiction and the individual parties concerned. The name "Lon Horiuchi" might ring a bell, as might "Alvin Weems". Both killed people in unjustified shootings and neither served a day in jail.

I DO know that if _I_ shoot the wrong person, or the right person under the wrong circumstances, I've got NOBODY to go to bat for me that I don't pay for out of pocket. Nor will there be ANYBODY to make excuses for any lack of skill or judgment on my part. I GUARANTEE you that if I get caught LYING about what happened, there will be FAR greater consequences than those that accompanied Weem's unjustified shooting and the fairytale around it which he spun.

 

[The Big D]

Must your anti-LEO bias appear in every single one of your posts? Has a LEO ever done anything that meets your personal approval?

That may or may not be true, depending upon the jurisdiction and the individual parties concerned. The name "Lon Horiuchi" might ring a bell, as might "Alvin Weems". Both killed people in unjustified shootings and neither served a day in jail.

I DO know that if _I_ shoot the wrong person, or the right person under the wrong circumstances, I've got NOBODY to go to bat for me that I don't pay for out of pocket. Nor will there be ANYBODY to make excuses for any lack of skill or judgment on my part. I GUARANTEE you that if I get caught LYING about what happened, there will be FAR greater consequences than those that accompanied Weem's unjustified shooting and the fairytale around it which he spun.

 

[cmort666]

Must your anti-LEO bias appear in every single one of your posts?

What part of what I said is NOT true?

Does ANYONE imagine that a citizen could shoot an unarmed man in the face for no reason, LIE about it, get caught on videotape and not even interact with the criminal justice system?

Or are you saying not that it didn't happen, but that you APPROVE of it?

 

[feralmerril]

I havent taken the time to read every post here but here is how it went for me when I started out as a guard in california at several companys in california in 1964. At first I was turned loose to pack with NO training.
Now I was gun savy and trained by dad etc at a very early age, but that is beside the point. Universal studio in burbank hired me to take the place of a guard that had shot someone he shouldnt have. I went from there to lockheed aircraft company in burbank. We had our own inhouse training from a good gun savy ex marine team shooter etc. Sometimes our then self imposed training was good, sometimes it was "indifferent".
` I think it was around the early 1970s that the state of california`s bureau of consumers affairs initiated guard cards and gun cards that we had to be schooled to the states standards for the first time. I was one of the very first to have to jump through the hoops in the first class set up. In later years a instructor seen my low number on my permit and commented I had the earliest low number he had ever seen.
Seems to me we at first had to qualify once a year and later it was six months. So in over 35 years I had a lot of requals. Sometimes I did it at the sheriffs range, sometimes at a AF base, other times at gun shop ranges with state instructors. Some were very through and others very mediocre. After I retired and moved here to utah I took the state ccw class. It didnt start to compare to any of my old requals. I couldnt belive it, it wasnt nothing but a 4 or 5 hour filibuster with no range time.

 

[wharvey]

OLDMAN45:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My plan after getting my Texas CWP was to go to the gunrange every two months to practice. Last time I fired my S&W scoring 237 out of 250. I am anxious for this weekend when I practice with my CA 44 Spl Bulldog 3" handgun. I have not fired a simulated range test with it yet so I don't know if it will shoot as well, but the barrel is longer. I do believe that if anyone is going to keep a CWP and be armed with a handgun that they should pratice regularly as possible. It is expensive to pratice without going to a smaller calibre, but I believe in praticing with the guns I carry. And I use no hand loaded rounds, only factory ammo.

I agree with practicing with the gun you carry but as to not using reloaded ammo, that is your call and your money. I can't afford a dollar+ a pop so I reload. As long as my loads duplicate what I carry I don't see a problem.

In fact due to carrying an auto, to be certain that my gun would function - always, after shooting a couple of boxes of factory loads I duplicated the load down to using the same bullet. Can shoot more in practice and since I already reloaded I've saved $$$.

 

[dcludwig]

Frankly, some people I run across every day probably shouldn't be allowed to breed, much less carry a gun. But I don't want the government telling me I can or can't do either.

I dunno... I'd have to think over the breeding part...

 

[dcludwig]

Were I in a position of appropriate authority, I would abolish all of the firearms related mandatory training for an Ohio CHL.

I would replace it with a requirement for a similar amount of training in applicable law related to owning and carrying a firearm, self-defense and use of deadly force.

I have yet to see a case in Ohio where somebody with an Ohio CHL got in trouble because he didn't know firearms or his firearm. I've seen PLENTY of cases where either:

1. The CHL holder didn't know the law and violated it.
2. The police didn't know the law and harassed or falsely arrested the CHL holder (or open carrier) for something which is NOT a crime, or stated personal preference or prejudice as law, whether acted upon or not.

It doesn't take much to be able to adequately use a firearm to defend yourself.

It's MUCH harder to both stay within the law and to ensure that LEOs do likewise.

Yeah, like this which happened to me last month in Ohio: Dayton Cop Flunks test - YouTube My brother is retired LEO and I respect the vast majority of those who risk their lives every day so this was not a slam on LEOs as a whole; but the more power given to them by more government regulations just begs for more misinterpretations and like scenarios.

Anyone who carries should not only be well informed about the mechanics and drawing and firing, but also the mind-set that is required to do this safely and effectively. No list of 100 rules by a state agency is going to guarantee this. My CHL class in Dayton was very thorough (as it could be in the time allotted), but in a Walmart parking lot at 1:30 am with adrenaline running through my body, well a whole different matter.

I do agree with other posters, though: if you practice, practice, practice at the range; dry fire a lot using various imagined scenarios, and most importantly, be acutely aware of your surroundings when you are out and about with a handgun in your belt/pocket.

 

[scooter123]

Bit of thread drift here.

Without a doubt that Dayton Cop certainly flunked that test. However, there is a rather easy solution to avoiding these unfounded accusations. Since the permits in many states are linked to vehicle registrations or drivers licenses you simply inform the officer that you have a permit to carry and whether you are armed or unarmed. Yeah, I know, if you aren't carrying it's not required, and you might think it's none of his business. However, put yourself in that officers shoes for just a moment, he's just turned his back on what he thought was an "average citizen" and found out that citizen could have been armed when he called in the license and registration. While simple logic dictates that he could have done the same with a person carrying without a permit, the simple fact is that officer is going to return to you a bit irritated. Personally, I've always found it most beneficial to make sure that I do NOT irritate a police officer who has stopped me for a minor traffic infraction and doing that has resulted in a lot of warnings instead of citations. Yeah, going a bit further than required by law is "gaming" the system a bit, I just don't care, my last citation of record was in 1987 and as a result I get every good driver discount on my insurance that is offered.

As for the original proposition, fortunately civilians are a much lower risk of needing their guns than the police. In addition I suspect that civilian uses usually take place at near contact ranges instead of at longer distances. As a result, there probably isn't as much need for accuracy as there is for the police.

Now, that doesn't excuse anyone who carries from making sure they are proficient. However, it does mean that shooting at paper may be just enough to do what it needs to. I'm also a big believer that those who carry chose just one gun and shoot it frequently enough that it becomes a natural extension of their arm. Quite simply, become that old man with just one gun who shoots it very very well.

 

[6mmman]

We all can lower our risk factor by making good decisions about where and when we go certain places. Such as "do I really need to go to the corner market at 11:00pm." Active thought process will help keep us out of trouble more than carrying a weapon. Range time is great and needed but if I avoid places where trouble may be I will be better off. If anyone thinks this line of thought is restrictive of their freedom try explaining to the prosecuting attorney after a shooting that they have a right to go anywhere because they are legally armed. Just my rant for the day!

 

[cmort666]

We all can lower our risk factor by making good decisions about where and when we go certain places. Such as "do I really need to go to the corner market at 11:00pm."

Some of us have very limited options in that regard.

I work second shift. Most times, if I have to go to the store, it's going to be after midnight, on the way home from work.

 

[Silversmok3]

We all can lower our risk factor by making good decisions about where and when we go certain places. Such as "do I really need to go to the corner market at 11:00pm." Active thought process will help keep us out of trouble more than carrying a weapon. Range time is great and needed but if I avoid places where trouble may be I will be better off. If anyone thinks this line of thought is restrictive of their freedom try explaining to the prosecuting attorney after a shooting that they have a right to go anywhere because they are legally armed. Just my rant for the day!

There is no location marker for crime.

One can walk through the dark corners in the ghetto daily for years and never be robbed, only to be accosted by a carjacker driving though Moneybagsville. Just because the neighbors drive Benzes instead of Fords doesn't mean the crime rate is any lower.

 

[6mmman]

I too have worked all the shifts and understand what you are saying. I used to be required to go into downtown Richmond. Va. during "off hours" while doing my job. Don't have to anymore and don't.

 

[CelticSire]

No excuse at all for a 3 out of 10 score.

It's not a "score". It's a ratio of hits during police involved shootings. Everyone is a pistol expert until the targets start shooting back.

 

[MaximumLawman]

Originally Posted by raven818 View Post
No excuse at all for a 3 out of 10 score.

The plastic went thru the paper into an academy built large steel box.
Several scenarios were presented, I only died once . I was inside a bar looking for a felon I had a warrant for. The BG was spotted, and as I approached him, a female sitting at a bar stool, shot me twice. I wasn't looking for her....so, lesson learned.

I absolutely, positively guarantee you that if your shoot/don't shoot scenario were real life, you would have been quite happy to hit the bad guy with 3 out of ten shots as opposed to your performance on the range trying to put holes in paper. And if anyone asked you what your "excuse" was for not hitting the target more, I'm sure the last thing on your mind would be coming up with a valid "excuse".