Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Why don't all cops learn how to shoot? They pepperspray the target with multiple bullets. Seriously. What's wrong with the training?
RosieG

Why don't all cops learn how to shoot? They pepperspray the target with multiple bullets. Seriously. What's wrong with the training?

Something is lacking. They don't stop at one or two or three. There is a consistent MULTIPLICITY OVERKILL PANIC REACTION every time all the time no exceptions.

I am not a gun person. Bet I wouldn't have to shoot 14 times. PUmp 14 bullets into a person running away. Why do they? Why do they? Why do they? Why? Why do they?

In fact why shoot anyone who is running away? There is NO THREAT? Crazy ain't it?

Posted - May 19, 2021
Tags : None

Responses


  • 33821
    They do practice. 

    I think just at gun ranges with a still target...
    Need to practice in real life type situations. Moving taget, awkward positions etc.   
    I know if an officer is a good shot they get put of the SWAT team. 

    You would be surprised how hard it is to hit a moving target. It someone was shot 14 times, there were likely 60 or more shots fired. 

    I do not agree with shooting at a runner unless they have shot at someone else. 
      May 19, 2021 5:18 AM MDT
    1

  • 6023
    First let me say that I believe police should be held to the same standards as "average Joe/Jane citizen", when it comes to the use of deadly force.
    EG: In a state that requires the citizen to retreat, the police should be held to the same standard.

    Second, M2C is correct regarding practice.
    Police are required to get a certain amount of "range time" in every year.
    But most departments can't afford the target ranges that simulate live environments.

    Third, police are trained to fire until the target is down.
    Getting shot in real life is not like modern movies portray it.  Unless it is an instant kill (head, heart), the person stays up for a while.
    Consider how long it takes a person to fall, and how fast you can pull a trigger to fire a bullet with a semi-automatic handgun ... it's not surprising that an officer can empty the gun before the person hits the ground.

    Fourth, police are not trained marksmen.
    They are trained to shoot for the largest target - the torso.
    Even if they are good shots, there are other factors (physical, and especially mental) that determine if they are invited to join a SWAT unit.
      May 19, 2021 8:18 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply Walt. "Police are not trained marksmen". WHY AREN'T THEY? They have the legal authority to kill people. Doesn't that carry with it some kind of obligation to make sure they are equipped to do the job? I think it's a buncha crap all this devotion to cops. Justifying...rationalizing..qualifying..supporting. Bull crap and horrendously creepy. This one category or profession gets off the hook. Don't you
    DARE criticize or require them to be responsible for what they do. They all get a PASS. Sheesh. SIGH. I could cry. I have. I probably will still. Cops get a pass. Cops get a pass. Cops get a pass. And so it goes. This post was edited by RosieG at May 19, 2021 11:20 AM MDT
      May 19, 2021 11:07 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    As far as I know, the only branch of government that focuses on marksmanship ... is the Marines.
    And even they focus on rifles rather than handguns.

    Why don't they focus on marksmanship? 
    Because trying to hit a specific target area requires time. 
    Time you usually don't have, at handgun combat range. (within 25 feet, according to the last FBI statistics I saw.  years ago.)

    My ex-father-in-law was a range officer for the Oregon State Patrol, and took us out to the range a couple times.
    Try this exercise he used as a demonstration.

    Give someone a toy knife, or something to represent a knife.  Give another person a toy gun (the cop).
    Have them stand about 25 feet apart.  This is the average distance most encounters start.
    With the cop's gun holstered, have the criminal run to attack them with the knife.
    Try it a couple times.  With the cop aiming for "center mass" (torso) vs trying to "wound" by aiming at a leg.
    (It's an even better demonstration if you use a paintball gun to see where the shots actually hit.)
    Naturally, it takes longer to aim when trying to wound, rather than just shooting the largest mass in front of you.

    The average walking speed is 3 mph ... that's 4.40 feet/second.
    So to walk 25 feet would be around 5 seconds.
    Cut that in half, due to the person running.  (Though it would probably be even faster than that.)
    That gives the cop 2.5 seconds to realize they are under attack, pull their firearm, decide on a target, aim, and shoot.
    By taking the "decide on a target, aim" out of the equation, the officer has slightly more time ... which is why they are not taught to aim.

      May 19, 2021 12:59 PM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    Once again Walt I thank you for taking the time to explain it so clearly to me. I was visualizing it step by step and I cringed. It's just too fast to aim. I mean in my head. The only time I ever held a gun was at the age of 10 when my dad took one out of the closet and wanted to show me how to use it. He worked nights. I had a baby sister. My mom was not the kind of woman who'd want to shoot a gun. But I started crying and shaking and didn't want any part of it. I mean guns kill living things. So my dad put the gun back in the closet and we never spoke of it again. My one and only experience with and memory of a gun. To this day I would probably react in the same way. I just don't have the right stuff. But I'm full of criticism. I guess there is nothing like ignorance that criticizes. Mea culpa. I'm gonna ask a question about it. Still the world would be a better place without weapons I think. :) This post was edited by RosieG at May 20, 2021 4:54 AM MDT
      May 20, 2021 4:53 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    There's a saying along the lines of "God made all men.  Sam Colt made them all equal."

    It refers to the fact that, by putting weapons in the hands of everyone, everybody has an equality of violence.
    It no longer matters if a 200-pound weight lifter attacks a 90-pound "weakling" - if that "weakling" has a gun.  (or any weapon they are familiar with, really)

    Sure, the "weakling" could study unarmed combat and has a higher chance to be able to take down a stronger opponent who hasn't.
    But most martial arts classes are geared for tournament fighting, rather than real-life scenarios.
    And if the "thug" also knew a martial art, the victim's chances of fighting back are again reduced.

    So, yes, I believe weapons are necessary. 
    I'm not even going to call them a "necessary evil", as they are inanimate objects and not "evil" or "good".

    And yes, I have also long espoused that "street fighting" unarmed combat should be taught in schools.
    I firmly believe that would go further towards ending bullying and harassment, than any policies that have been enacted so far.
      May 20, 2021 7:28 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    First of all apologies for being late giving you ASKER'S Pick on your prior response Walt.Thank you for bringing up martial arts. I should have thought of that. I worked with a petite young woman named Crystal who took AIKIDO. Not sure of the spelling. Her husband took Karate and I think so too did her 2 sons. Anyway she was about 4' 11 and weighed 95 or 100 lbs. Me? 5'6" and then I weighed 130. One day at lunch in our conference room she gently showed me a maneuver. Very slow she was until I made a noise from discomfort and then she stopped. I think martial arts may be something we could all learn as defense. The goal is to render harmless if someone attacks you not kill them. She also explained to me that martial arts involves the ENTIRE BODY mind heart spirit. It is also a philosophy and not just a bunch of defensive moves. I was really impressed and when younger I'd have probably enjoyed learning how. I'm not sure how good I would have been at it but having that ability I think would be awesome. I mean I can't do the gun thing and now you know why. But martial arts? Gosh you can do that at any age if you are healthy and don't have any physical impairment. Thank you for your reply m'dear! :)
      May 20, 2021 7:42 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023

    That's the difference I was talking about, between "tournament" and "street" martial arts.
    The whole "mind heart spirit" thing is for "tournament" martial arts.
    "Street" martial arts are only concerned with self-defense.

    I doubt the peasants who invented karate, for example, cared about anything other than being able to defend themselves from bandits and warlords.  I know for sure the Israelis who invented Krav Maga didn't care about anything other than it's practicality in combat.  

    Wrestling and Boxing are good examples of martial arts that have almost completely gotten away from "street" use, to "tournaments".  

    One problem with focusing on a single style of martial art, is few of them teach to counter anything than someone either not trained in martial arts - or someone trained in the same style.  EG: Karate doesn't train to counter Escrima.  Part of this is that the original forms were taught in different regions, and didn't have much interaction between practitioners.  IE: A peasant from Japan wasn't likely to interact with a peasant from the Philippines, so they didn't have any use to train against each other's styles.

     

      May 20, 2021 8:42 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I have to take your word for it Walt. You know a lot more about it than I do. I just was thinking wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend oneself. Of course if how you are being attacked doesn't lend itself to a martial arts self-defense where are you? Escrima and Krav Maga? Oy vey! Thank you for your reply. Do you indulge? Did you ever take any martial arts? :) This post was edited by RosieG at May 20, 2021 12:50 PM MDT
      May 20, 2021 10:58 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    I never officially studied, but I read a lot about various forms in high school.
    I probably checked out every book the local library had, on the subject of unarmed combat.

    True story:  I must have absorbed some of the knowledge of the moves.
    I got detention for accidentally using one of the "throws" in gym class.
    We were playing football, and I was supposed to be a blocker - but I wound up "tossing" the charging lineman.  whoops.
    The first time was forgivable, but I kept doing it.  I honestly wasn't trying to, but reflexes kicked in before I could stop them.
      May 20, 2021 12:33 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I'm a bad girl. I giggled when you said "tossing". I would have liked to have seen it. I would. Now that's undoubtedly bad rosie because well nice ladies don't laugh at things like that. So you were self-taught then? I always admire folks who can do that. Reads books and absorb and remember and then just do. I am much better if I am in HANDS ON mode being instructed by others and also seeing examples. I guess we all learn differently. Self-taught I think is the very highest level. I don't remember ever teaching me anything. Sheesh. Yikes! Thank you for your reply! :) This post was edited by RosieG at May 20, 2021 12:54 PM MDT
      May 20, 2021 12:53 PM MDT
    0