Seriously? Does local law enforcement maintain marksmanship proficiency?

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 08:39:14 -0400

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-officer-fatally-shoots-man-in-st-louis/ar-BB8fYZs

Officer fires 17 rounds in this tragic incident. That's a magazine with a change, depending on the handgun used. Is this excessive or par for the course?

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Oct 9 at 2014 9:26 AM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 09:26:53 -0400

I think Cops need bigger clips. "Assault Clips" as it were. 17 rounds wasn't enough by any means!

In all seriousness though, they should be required to have marksmenship proficiency at least every 6 months. In my opinion they should be required to shoot once every six months on a scheduled time period and if they do not qualify they must continue to attempt to qualify on their own (unpaid) time until they can qualify.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 10:58 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 10:58:06 -0400

According to FBI statistics, LEOs miss 70-80% of the shots they fire in a gunfight. There are probably numerous reasons for this. Both the shooter and the target are typically moving rapidly in different directions, the LEO is often being shot at from close to medium range, a chase or physical altercation of varying duration often occurs just prior to shots being fired; this is just what I can think of off the top of my head and all of it increases stress and reduces accuracy in a gunfight. I can understand 17 shots being fired. A hit to an arm or leg won't stop a threat right away and many suspects have been known to continue resisting (fighting or fleeing) even after being shot in the torso. I know in the military we are trained to shoot and keep shooting until we stop the threat. I'm not a police officer, but I'm sure LEOs are probably trained in a similar way.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 9 at 2014 11:44 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:44:00 -0400

My issue with 17 shots and SGT Rick Nyberg you are absolutely correct, none of us were there, is collateral damage. Hopefully these are controlled shots and not the police officer shooting into a crowded area.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 11:47 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:47:46 -0400

Not having a video to see the chase and assess the scenario it's hard to second guess anyone. Being shot at from rather close distance is enough to put anyone's adrenaline in hyperdrive, which only makes the shooter's control more erratic. Then we add a possibly erratically moving target and a probably erratically moving shooter and I can see lots of possibilities where misses would be the norm. It's definitely not like the range at all. Most of us, military or cop, never achieve the sniper standard of "one shot, one kill" or even approach that mantra.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Oct 9 at 2014 12:40 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 12:40:38 -0400

It may seem excessive, but let's keep a couple of things in mind:

1) combat shooting is not the same as target shooting. In combat shooting not only is your adrenaline pumping like crazy, but you may be winded from running, shaky from fear or not getting into a good firing stance because or getting a good sight picture because the other guy is trying to kill you! So yeah, it's VERY easy to miss under these circumstances.....even by experienced and skilled marksmen.

2) even if you get solid center-of-mass hits, real life is not like the movies. In real life, pistols (and guns in general) are not death rays, where the target is blown back 20ft and dies instantly from a single hit. In real life, assailants can absorb multiple hits before they go down, if they go down at all. And unless you hit the CNS (brain or brainstem), they are not going to be incapacitated instantly. In most cases incapacitation comes from exsanguination...but that takes time. Even a hit to the heart will still allow the assailant about 5-10 seconds of consciousness before they lose enough blood to no longer be able to perfuse the brain.

3) Cops are taught to shoot until th threat stops. Factoring in the above two caveats, it is entirely possible for a cop to expend a full magazine of 9mm (which with 17 rounds sounds like they are using Glock 17s) before the assailant is no longer a threat.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 9 at 2014 2:17 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:17:39 -0400

MSN is now reporting that the mother of the slain boy was unarmed and carrying a sandwich when he was shot. This is the lunacy of the press that stirs up shit. Really, he shot at the police officer with a sandwhich?? Was it a .50 caliber hoagie or a 40MM torpedo roll?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 6:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 18:30:23 -0400

As far as I can tell you, most departments do have range requirements. However, I wouldn't say that they are necessarily as strict as those found in the military.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 3 at 2015 11:37 AM

SGT William Howell — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:37:34 -0400

So hear is my take. 9mm is a bullshit round and with 17 rounds that what it was (Either SW M+P or Glock). You can show me all the data and tell me it is all about shot placement and how good ammo is now. The truth is the bigger the hole the more blood pours out. You may have to shoot somebody multiple times with a 9mm to get the threat to stop. If the threat is still real, keep shooting. A well trained person can shoot accurately as fast as 5 rounds a second so that is 3.5 seconds of firing. Not a lot of time when a guy is shooting at you.

The public thinks, that you shoot a guy a couple times and he falls over dead, just like in TV. That is not how it works. These guys were both firing so there is an adrenalin dump, your using a wimpy round, I am sure both of them are shooting on the move so there are some misses for sure, and your pulling the trigger till the treat stops (at 5 shots a second). 17 rounds is not that much. Now are they going to cry in St Louis about the poor kid that was trying to kill a police officer. You bet your ass they are, because...hell, I don't know why they are crying...You shoot at the police and you get killed...sounds right to me.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2015 1:36 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 13:36:11 -0400

Disclaimer: I wasn't there.

If I had to guess, as most people who have been in a close-in gun fight would likely attest, you shoot until the threat is defeated (or stops moving, fighting, running, shooting...etc). Since most shots in these scenarios are missed anyway, the number shots fired doesn't surprise me. Given the rush, adrenaline, movement, fear...etc etc, I would say that most anyone would agree "If someone is shooting at us, we are going to do EVERYTHING necessary to come home tonight". That means exhausting any and all resources.

In my opinion, the public and media have no say in judging these actions. If someone shoots at you/police/bystanders...etc, not much is "too excessive" in the course of staying alive.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2020 4:44 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 16:44:45 -0400

I was with the police department, 1977 to 2001. No, most law enforcement officers don't maintain marksmanship proficiency.

The officers are only required to qualify once a year with the department. It's up to the officer to maintain their marksmanship proficiency, in which most officer didn't, and only shooting their side arm only during yearly required qualification.

With that said, there are some, like myself that are proficient, and have good marksmanship, even if not to shoot to often.

If I do shoot at a target, it takes only one or two rounds to be on target. Shooting 2 rounds or 50 rounds at a target, still, has the same outcome of the target.

Now, as of the other rounds that didn't hit the target, that'll be another story, as well as the situation of the incident.

So, where do we go from here, the sky is the limit, subject is endless, until someone lets go of the other side of the rope.

Response by SGT Herbert Bollum made Jun 22 at 2020 6:00 PM

SGT Herbert Bollum — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:00:20 -0400

Many times they are so hyped up they can't begin to hit the target, stress does that. Try it yourself when you think the other guy might shoot you.

Response by Maj John Bell made Jun 23 at 2020 4:20 AM

Maj John Bell — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 04:20:05 -0400

During WWII and Korea it is estimated that somewhere between 8K-9K rounds of rifle or pistol ammunition was fired for every casualty caused by small arms fire. During Vietnam 11K-13K

Response by LCDR Joshua Gillespie made Jun 23 at 2020 8:44 AM

LCDR Joshua Gillespie — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 08:44:37 -0400

I'm not a police officer. Neither am I a current or former member of a "direct action" oriented unit. Therefore, take my opinion for what it is... my opinion. Up until recently, I've been shooting 100-200+ rounds a week, routinely, for a couple years... I consider myself an "average" shooter. If I'm carrying less than two full magazines-I feel unprepared. I'll leave it at that.

"Marksmanship" is one thing; the ability to overcome the effects of adrenaline and fear to draw, present, and make critical defensive shots in "the Box" (especially against multiple threats)... is something altogether different. Neither has anything whatsoever to do with knowing when NOT to shoot, or how to manage liability of those shots once they leave the chamber. My sense of it is that both are impossible skills to maintain if you train very rarely or infrequently.