Thinking Man's Corner

Article By: Leo H.

Recently, Sam H. and I had one of our phone conversations that usually begins with the call originating from one or the other with a specific purpose in mind. Sometimes we remember why we called in the first place… In others, the conversation runs all over the place as we make effort at solving all the world’s problems. I am sure all of you have at least one friend who fits that bill.

In this conversation we entered the “Why is training done now… the way it always has been… even though we know folks do not really learn to an acceptable level when trained in that fashion,” rabbit hole. We were talking about law enforcement firearms training and the fact that, while providing a valuable skill set, square range drills do not reflect the real-world environment most officers will find themselves in when the need for a firearm reveals itself. Sam, who has a strong military background, suggests law enforcement should look at the asymmetrical warfare training concepts currently governing most military battlefield operation preparations. We talked about how easy it is for folks to trash the street performance of officer interactions in society today as those interactions are viewed almost simultaneously with their occurrence on some form of social media. What can be done to change officer performance so it generates a more favorable outcome?

One of the things we often talk about is officer response to an “Active Shooter” event. With the advent of bodycams, we have greater opportunity to view officer action in these types of events… often with the hypercritical use of hindsight. At times, you see officers who “get it” and the situation is quickly resolved in an acceptable fashion. In others, you see officers who have “run to the gun” and then seem to have no idea what needs to be done once they get there. Finally, you see instances where the respondents seem to have no idea what is required to quickly resolve the situation. When you have tactical officers (SWAT) who are provided special equipment and generous training opportunity intended to prepare them to successfully prevail in high-risk arrests and known armed encounters… it seems odd to expect the average street officer to adequately resolve a chaotic event, perpetrated by a committed individual, who has taken an entire building hostage, based upon a single training event enhanced by minimal ongoing training… if additional training is conducted at all.

Operational concept and administrative policy which has been written and adopted by folks who will never be the first responder to such a situation truly does little to solve the problem at hand. It is very easy to say this or that should have been done… but, does the training budget reflect a sincere desire to adequately prepare the officer for the chaos which surrounds any deadly force occurrence… much less that where the offender has displayed the means and intent to kill many at will? It has been my observation that most agencies spend less than $20.00 per month on the ammunition required for square range live-fire training. Most civilians who are serious about developing firearms skills spend well beyond that.

Budget has always been a serious limitation when it comes to any law enforcement training. The salary of attending officers and instructors must be considered beyond the logistical expenses related to the training occurrence. Other issues of consideration involve a lack of street or investigative coverage for the duration of the event itself; the expense and time involved to adequately train personnel to provide instruction to personnel; costs associated with providing ongoing skill development rather than a singular training opportunity, and the complexity of convincing non-law enforcement personnel attached to the budgetary process of the need to provide training resources for an event which may never occur. Much of the training is done where the expense has been bartered to the lowest possible level, multiple departments have pooled resources to generate relevant training, or the involved instructors have paid for equipment or other related training materials out of their own pocket to pass along skills they firmly believe necessary to enhance the capabilities of their brother and sister officers. Training expenses must become a priority rather than an afterthought. Most civilians who believe they may need a weapon to defend themselves buy quality gear, seek professional training, and practice their survival skills on a continuous basis. Law enforcement administrators should look into that mirror often.

That said, law enforcement has been extremely innovative in the task of creating, identifying, or otherwise providing, some degree of reactionary training in the field of use of force for quite some time. Back in the 70’s, it was a 16mm film (Shoot Don’t Shoot) which depicted several common scenarios in which the film was then stopped and each incident discussed as to appropriate use of force. Instructors who thought outside of the box created wax bullets and then projected the film on a large sheet of white butcher paper. Once the student fired (or did not) the film was rewound to indicate bullet impact and influence discussion of whether the use of deadly force was justified. Training sessions moved slowly and, over time, student familiarity with the film’s scenarios, and the order they fell during the presentation, often negated the value of the training at hand.

As technology advanced, laser disc recordings run by firearms training simulators replaced film and their computers allowed the instructor to “branch” to other possible outcomes based upon observation of the participant. The interaction with “offenders” on the screen became more realistic as the instructor verbally provided appropriate response while playing the part of one or more of the participants as seen on the screen. Immediate tallies of ability were reflected as hits or misses. Reactions on the part of the officer were scored based upon program parameters which had been established by subject matter “experts” and built into the diagnostics of each disc. Multiple discs made it easy to “mix up” the environment experienced by program attendees. It was a great step forward. However, equipment and discs proved to be costly and many departments did not possess the funding to purchase a unit themselves, thereby limiting training opportunity.

As the computer market grew, so did the concept of computer enhanced firearms training. Initially, the intended focus was the law enforcement community. However, the real advancements came as the military saw the advantage of video-based training. Military funding widely impacted the market with great strides being made to generate training models that permitted training from a single participant up to squad size operations. Today, rather than participating in a simulator session limited by a single screen view of approximately ninety degrees; officers can find themselves in an environment requiring peripheral views out to one-hundred eighty degrees making the video-based environment much more realistic. Manufacturers have even developed special self-healing screens which permit live fire scenarios; thus, allowing participants to use their duty weapons during training events. Enhancements in system capability allow the officer to choose between multiple equipment options to resolve the viewed situation rather than always resorting to a firearm or doing nothing. As many of the systems that can be purchased today function with “off the shelf,” rather than proprietary components, the cost has diminished considerably making it easier for even a small agency to provide in-house simulator training.

A recent development in the digital world is that of Virtual Reality (VR) training. Though costly, VR devices allow trainees to utilize any large open area as a potential training site. A plethora of possibilities exist at the hands of the instructor who controls the environment and a wide variety of situations and complications intended to make training as close to realistic as possible. Today, VR training and other technology-based options are available to law enforcement, the military, hunters, interested civilians, and other commercial ventures at affordable prices.

Perhaps the best method of training for the real world is through participation in force-on-force simulations. Here, participants interaction in a three-hundred-and-sixty-degree environment. When scripted training plans are in place, and the “actors” have been properly briefed and trained, stress and critical decision-making skills can reach an extremely realistic level. Getting “shot” where mistakes have been made is a real motivation when identifying training need and student attention.

In the day of the 16mm, where wax bullets were used against paper, it is said there were those who took training a step further finding opportunity to train anywhere there was an open door and wax ammunition was available. Of course, where there are no real guidelines and “training” is not instructor driven, the possibility of injury is very real and getting “shot” with a wax bullet without safety equipment or supervision can lead to serious injury. It was thought that using BB’s instead of primer driven projectiles might be a better option. Here, mistakes hurt and soon it became evident a market existed for realistic training in a three-dimensional environment so long as someone developed training protocol, safety equipment, and munitions that generally would not cause permanent or lasting injury if used properly. Along came marking cartridges, paintball projectiles, and airsoft munitions. Possessing the ability to move through an area while searching for potential aggressors (who possessed the ability to cause pain as an indicator of your mistakes) proved to be an excellent form of training. The cost of equipment and other related training materials is minimal when compared to the benefit. The only limiting factors being the need for properly trained role-players, sufficient oversight to prevent damage to property/persons, and the time to train. There are venues which can provide this type of training to law enforcement and civilians alike.

So… as we consider all the options available to teach appropriate response to life threatening events available beyond the square range; I, again, must ask why there is so much effort made to ensure an officer can fire a “qualifying” score each year and so little time is spent reinforcing the tactics and skills required to correctly assess the need, or perfect the ability to effectively resolve, the situation. Very little, if any, training is focused on the development of situational awareness skills by law enforcement and civilians alike. Wearing the newest tactical pants or having the latest and greatest piece of equipment does very little to prepare one to prevail if involved in a life-or-death encounter. In fact, without appropriate initial training, which has been aggressively augmented with an ongoing and structured training regime… they are no more than an elaborate façade made entirely of smoke and mirrors.

“It is more important to outthink your enemy, than to outfight him.” – Sun Tzu

Semper Optimum!