Thinking Man's Corner

Article By: Leo H.

The Canton v. Harris decision (1989) determined that a municipality can be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations stemming from a failure to adequately train employees. Furthermore, it created a standard by establishing the failure must be in “deliberate indifference” to the existing constitutional rights of the injured party.  Deliberate indifference is identified as a need for training being so obvious that the lack of this training poses a severe risk of constitutional violations. It is generally felt training must be recent, relevant, and realistic to combat this standard of indifference.

I would suggest there are many training programs currently in place that mirror only the training received by the providing instructor. By that I mean, the lesson plans, PowerPoints, lectures, drill sheets and range exercises are based either upon material provided to the student instructor at the time of their initial certification training, obtained through a network of material sharing sources, stolen from YouTube video interpretations, or simply a drill they shot once and thought it to be cool. Oftentimes, very little time or effort is spent on the continued development of knowledge and abilities which reflect the actual need for a specific skillset beyond the acknowledgment of the drill or tactic reflecting the image of being “tacticool.”

Data from the FBI’s Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) reports suggest that 44% of officer fatalities occur at 0–5 feet, 21% at 6–10 feet, and 35% beyond 10 feet. These deadly encounters, having a duration of 3–10 seconds, require rapid, instinctive, or reflexive responses. Statistics indicate officers fire an average of 2–4 rounds in a single-officer incident, with hit ratios anywhere from 51% to 9%. While most OIS incidents involve a single adversary, recent information indicate officers encounter multiple adversaries 40 to 70% of the time. In addition, recent years have shown the number of officers injured or killed in ambush to be on the rise. It is obvious law enforcement firearms training must go well beyond an understanding of safe firearms handling and a demonstration of shooting capability to expressed standard.

If we agree most officer-involved shootings (OIS) occur at close range, last mere seconds, and involve one adversary, with officers firing 2–4 rounds… we should also agree these facts necessitate training that leverages neuroscience to optimize performance under stress. Insights from Dustin Salomon’s Neuro: The New Science of Unconscious Performance provide a framework for building unconscious competence to prepare officers for those types of high-stakes encounters. I would go so far as to suggest adopting his identified training principles will put your program at the cutting edge when the intent is to provide training that is recent, relevant, and realistic.

Neuro emphasizes training the brain’s unconscious systems to handle high-pressure scenarios. He advocates for repetitive, realistic drills to build “automaticity,” enabling officers to execute skills like close-quarters shooting without conscious deliberation. For close-range OIS (0–10 feet), training should include retention shooting and defensive tactics to counter weapon grabs, as suspects within 5 feet pose a high risk (LEOKA data). Salomon’s concept of “preconscious processing” suggests officers practice visual scanning drills to quickly identify threats, aligning with the 3–10-second OIS duration. Drills which introduce stress inoculation by the use of dynamic, force-on-force scenarios with airsoft ammunition, paintball munitions, or marking cartridges to simulate real-world stimulation, ingraining responses into the subconscious mind to generate rapid recall under stress. Mistakes that bring pain stimulate the learning process in a positive fashion.

To address low hit ratios in multi-officer shootings, Salomon’s principle of context-specific training calls for practicing fire discipline and team coordination in scenarios mimicking crowded, chaotic environments. Officers should train with variable stimuli (e.g., moving targets, low light) to enhance adaptability. For single-adversary dominance, shoot/no-shoot drills should be repeated to strengthen unconscious decision-making, thereby reducing hesitation during lethal encounters. High-intensity scenarios utilizing noise or time pressure to desensitize officers to the anxiety experienced during an OIS will improve performance in armed encounters and is extremely beneficial when building a tactical skillset.

However, training must extend beyond just tactics. A focus on mental conditioning supports psychological resilience training to manage post-incident trauma, critical given the emotional toll of OIS. Agencies should integrate comprehensive after-action reviews to reinforce learning by analyzing unconscious errors in simulated shootings. For multi-adversary scenarios, officers should practice 360-degree awareness drills to detect secondary threats, leveraging emphasis on training the brain’s attention networks.

Nationwide OIS data collection limitations and underreported non-fatal shootings, highlight the need for agencies to analyze local OIS trends. Data-driven training adjustments, to align drills with observed patterns, should be the cornerstone of a viable firearms program. Legal and ethical use-of-force training remains essential to ensure compliance with established standards, existing case and statutory law, agency policy and procedure, and the identification and elimination/management of conscious and unconscious biases which influence decisions under stress.

Using neuroscience-based methods—repetitive, context-specific, stress-integrated training—generated by relevant OIS data, permits agencies to better prepare officers for close-range, rapid, and often solitary lethal encounters. Look hard at your training… Does it meet the 3-R Test?

While this article is written predominantly from a law enforcement perspective, a study by Tom Givens (Rangemaster) suggests civilian encounters meets similar parameters. There is no reason competent civilian training should not duplicate that of law enforcement with regard to neuroscience based drills and tactics. Do not rely on my interpretations… Read the BOOK.

Associated Notes:

• Recent: Training must be up-to-date with current legal standards and techniques to avoid appearing deliberately indifferent.
• Relevant: Training should address specific duties and likely scenarios officers will face, covering critical areas like use of force and de-escalation.
• Realistic: Training should prepare officers for real-life, high-stress situations. The objective reasonableness standard from Graham v. Connor supports the need for training that prepares officers for the realities of the field.
• Automaticity: Emphasis on repetitive training to build unconscious competence directly addresses the need for officers to react instinctively in 3–10-second OIS, especially at close range.
• Preconscious Processing: Visual scanning and threat identification drills align with the need to assess threats rapidly, as most OIS involve one adversary but require vigilance for secondary threats.
• Stress Inoculation: High-intensity, chaotic scenarios (e.g., with training munitions, noise) prepare officers for the adrenaline-driven reality of OIS, reducing the cognitive overload noted in multi-officer shootings.
• Mental Conditioning: Focus on psychological resilience complements the need to manage stress and trauma, critical for officers facing frequent close-range threats.

“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.” — Yogi Berra

Semper Optimum!