Nine Things Firearms Instructors Must Train
by Sgt. Paul Wood
While the courts have remained somewhat vague through the years on how much firearms training is necessary for a police officer, several cases have pointed out deficiencies that must be addressed. The following court decisions, while years apart, have identified the same required training topics necessary to produce a well-trained police officer. The information below provides you, the firearms instructor, with nine topics that you should strongly consider as part of an on-going training program, along with the court cases supporting them and some tips on incorporating the topics into training.
This article will focus on three cases in which the courts identified specific subject areas upon which agencies should focus when training police officers. The first case is Popow v. City of Margate, 476 F. Supp 1237 (D.N.J. 1979). This case, while not a Supreme Court case, has been referred to numerous times during similar litigation and, therefore, is worth our attention. Two Margate officers pursuing a kidnapping suspect inadvertently shot Popow as he stepped out of his house to see what was going on. During deposition of the involved officer, he indicated he had received training on the use of deadly force 10 years prior in the state police academy. Additionally, he testified that the city conducted firearms training twice per year but it did not include training on shooting in low light, at moving targets, or in residential areas. Further, no training was provided regarding how to apply state law or policy to actual shooting situations. The court found the city’s training grossly inadequate and said training must be “regular” and “realistic”; however, the court failed to elaborate on what frequency would be considered adequate.
The second case identifying police training deficiencies occurred in Oklahoma City, OK in 1985. In this case an officer shot a man named Tuttle outside a bar while investigating the report of a robbery. Upon arrival, the officer had been told that no robbery occurred, but while continuing to investigate the officer contacted Tuttle. Tuttle reached into his boot and was shot by the officer. A toy gun was later discovered in Tuttle’s boot but the officer had not seen it. Tuttle’s widow sued the police for excessive force and negligent training in a 1983 action. The officer was cleared but the case was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985), which found in favor of the City for the issue being argued; however, their ruling identified that the police department was deficient in its training program and in holding officers accountable for poor performance. The Court identified a number of areas that are required for a department’s firearms training to be adequate.
While the Margate court identified five training topics and several training deficiencies, the Tuttle court expanded and refined this list to the following nine training topics:
- Stress and attitude
- Knowledge of law, policy, use of force principles, etc.
- Skill (marksmanship accountability)
- Moving targets
- Officers required to move during exercises
- Low light or adverse light conditions
- “Regular” in-service training
- Shotgun training (training on all weapons used by officer)
- Decision making – shoot or no-shoot decisions
The Margate decision also cited the need to train officers for the environment in which they work. In popular firearms training vernacular, the court said to bring the street to the range in training. Another important distinction that the Tuttle decision made clear is that qualifications DO NOT equate to training.
The third case providing guidance for training to the professional firearms instructor is Zuchel v. City and County of Denver, 997 F.2d 730 (10th Cir. 1993). In this case, two officers responded to a disturbance in the street outside a fast food restaurant. Several witnesses told officers that Zuchel had a knife. As the officers contacted Zuchel, one of the officers shot him four times despite the evidence that he approached them in a non-violent manner and had his empty hands raised and clearly visible. Zuchel’s family sued and the 10th Circuit Court found that the City and County of Denver was deliberately indifferent due to its woefully inadequate training regarding deadly force decision making. The officers involved had been shown a video during their initial academy training, but had received no practical skills training in shoot vs. no-shoot situations. All three of these cases clearly state that departments have a duty to train officers in use-or-force decision making. Many of us have attended firearms training in which every target on the range is a threat target and every silhouette is shot during training regardless of what is displayed on it. This is simply not acceptable and it is up to you, the professional firearms instructor, to change it.
So now what? How do I incorporate all of these training topics with my small training budget or within the training time constraints of my agency? Many of the solutions are right in front of us and do not have to be expensive or time consuming. The following are some suggestions to incorporate these topics into your regular training without revamping your entire program.
Stress and attitude: You can induce two kinds of stress, physical and adrenaline. Physical stress can be induced by any type of physical exertion. In order to require officers to perform such exertion, you only need show that it directly relates to their job function. For example, a rifle drill that requires officers to run a short distance, adopt an alternate position such as prone and fire an accurate shot is easily related to their job as a police officer. Adrenaline stress is a little trickier. That requires that you generate a startle, anxiety or fear response. This can be done easily in simulator training or in force-on-force training if it is available. Often exercises in which the officer performs in front of the group or in competition will generate an adrenaline response as well. The instructor should, however, ensure that any competition type drill adheres to sound tactical principles as well. Too often we allow sacrifices in tactics for the speed of competition. Lastly, officers should have an opportunity to practice verbal commands and de-escalation tactics on the range to impress upon them that not every situation is a shoot situation.
Knowledge of policy & law: Brief reviews of policy and use-of-force law can be done in the classroom prior to range training. Alternatively, quizzing students on the range about their legal and policy justification for the use of deadly force (or refraining from the use of force) following a drill is an easy way to implement this training piece.
Skill (marksmanship accountability): Simply put, hits have to matter on ALL drills. Placing no-shoot “bystander” silhouettes in front of, behind or around threat targets can be a good way to reinforce this with no extra time or money. Some paper targets incorporate bystanders in the background which can be effective at emphasizing round accountability.
Moving targets: This is perhaps one of the more challenging topics to implement if you are not fortunate enough to have a running-man system or something similar. Get creative. A few pulleys, some rope, and a couple of posts can turn into a human-powered lateral moving target system with a little effort and planning by instructors. If you work on an outdoor range, consider a single cardboard threat target with one stick attached to a flexible base that can move with the wind. This can make for some challenging shooting for students. Similar target bases are available for purchase.
Officers required to move: Enough said. You should be doing this now. Shooting while moving can also help refine similar skills if moving targets are not available.
Low-light: This can be dependent upon range availability, training schedules, and other factors outside of your control. Do the best you can to get officers to the range for dim-light training at least once per year and work through as many variables as you can such as using weapon mounted light, hand-held light use, patrol car overheads, ambient light, etc. If you have an indoor range, flip the switch – the more often, the better.
“Regular” in-service training: This may also be out of your control as the firearms instructor. Arm yourself with the knowledge of these and other court decisions, standard recommended practices from other agencies, POST organizations and groups like NLEFIA. Make valid AND reasonable proposals for increased training frequency (especially if you are training twice per year or less). Be patient. Organizational change takes time and effort. Keep records of your proposals and the results over time – you will likely be able to see great progress over several years.
Train on all weapons: Most agencies have handguns and some type of long-gun at a minimum. Sufficient time must be allotted to all weapon systems. If you have more systems than this and find yourself lacking in training time, perhaps some hard decisions need to be made about the necessity for multiple firearm options. Our agency faced such a dilemma and opted for a strong rifle and handgun program and gave up the use of shotguns. Your choices need to fit your agency, environment and circumstances; however, if your officers carry a system, they MUST be regularly trained on it.
Decision making – shoot or no-shoot decisions: You do not have to have a $100,000 simulator or thousands of dollars of force-on-force training gear; although, you shouldn’t turn it down if someone offers to buy it for you. Start by replacing blank silhouettes with photo targets depicting a threat or non-threat. If that’s not in the budget, photocopy some drawings or pictures of guns, knives, faces, and hands and staple them onto your qualification targets. An inexpensive digital video camera, some willing role players, a projector, and a roll of seamless background paper from your local photography supplier and you are in business with a “home-made”, live fire, video simulator. If you prefer the force-on-force option, some airsoft firearms and proper protective gear may fit the bill until the budget allows for an upgrade. For both, keep scenarios simple, short, winnable, and repeatable with clear, desirable outcomes. This allows all instructors to critique less-than-adequate performance and repeat the scenario, so every student is successful in the end and demonstrates correct performance. If you find your instructors arguing over whether a situation is a shoot or no-shoot, the scenario probably needs some revision. Lastly, make absolutely certain that ANY force-on-force training strictly follows proper safety protocols to prevent any live firearms being introduced to the training environment. All instructors must be properly certified to conduct such training and understand the absolute necessity of adhering to safety protocols without compromise.
As firearms instructors, we are responsible to prepare our officers properly for deadly force encounters as well as how to diffuse and de-escalate situations where possible. The nine topics listed above are not optional for our programs; they have been identified by case law as required. However, they don’t have to be complicated or expensive to implement. If you are struggling with how to get one or more of these topics off the ground or how to advance your program to the next level, remember that you have a network of professional instructors within organizations such as NLEFIA, many of whom have plowed this ground already.
This article was originally published in the The Rangemaster online magazine, Issue #5 at NLEFIA.org in the member resources section.
Paul Wood is a sergeant with Fort Collins Police Services in Colorado. He has 30 years of law enforcement experience, 28 years of experience as a police firearms instructor and has served as the Rangemaster in his agency since 2006. Sgt. Wood is a certified instructor in handgun, rifle and shotgun and holds certifications as a tactical shooting instructor, live fire shoot-house instructor and rangemaster. He is currently a Colorado POST full skills instructor for firearms and teaches POST approved instructor level classes. Sgt. Wood has been an NRA Law Enforcement certified instructor in various disciplines since 2000 and is a Charter Member of NLEFIA. He has served on sixteen use-of-force review boards as a subject matter expert in firearms for officer involved shootings. He currently teaches a variety of classes as an adjunct instructor for NLEFIA and is co-author of Law Enforcement Rangemaster: A Foundational Guide.