Glock Talk banner

LEOs can't shoot.

16K views 356 replies 97 participants last post by  Jake Starr 
#1 ·
I've spent several months researching the results of gun battles. It seems to me that if LEOs had the skills of the average GT member, they would adequately survive with a G26, two ten round magazines but with a G26 BUG.

So, anybody disagree?
 
  • Like
Reactions: palehorse58
#258 ·


Officers miss 80% of the time, they are committing suicide at gun ranges everywhere after witnessing the awesome gunfighting skills of non leo's.
 
#260 ·
I'm inclined to leave it as long as ideas are being discussed and information provided. Even if participants are talking past each other, it's okay if bystanders can pick some things up. I'll close it if it devolves, coming from either direction.

(Like my blue moderator font? Russ taught me that.) :2gun:
 
  • Like
Reactions: RussP
#267 ·
  • Like
Reactions: msu_grad_121
#276 ·
yeah, I do....and yrs ago when active shooters were really popping up (2008-2010) and "bail out bags" were being considered in departments, where I was I worked closely w/ the street cops who were funding them themselves. Bags to be tossed to a cop pinned down that they couldn't get to yet that had pre loaded mags and med supplies...so, not a cop- but close to them...
 
#278 ·
blah blah blah...despite your self professed training.

Hopefully, you're just a troll.
I'm not a troll, and I've said nothing about my training, nor about my ability. The only thing I've had to say about that is that you and any other poster here has no idea what others online can or cannot do. You have no idea about my training, and I don't really care about yours, either. I've said nothing about my ability, skill, or otherwise.

What I have said, and correctly so, is that a shooter who can't make better than 20% of his rounds land on target, whether on paper or under stress in a shooting, needs to get retrained. We're not talking suppressive fire. We're talking about police who miss four out of five times in a gunfight.

The majority of those participating here, if not all of those participating here, are the officers who do take an active interest in firearms, in training, etc. Those here aren't the ones missing four out of five shots. Those here don't account for but a fraction of law enforcement in the United States. There's no question that there are law enforcement officers who will be very effective in an encounter, given the chance. There's also no question that there are a lot of officers out there who have no firearms experience, minimal training, and who do nothing more than shoot quarterly or semi-annually, and who take no more thought or effort to seek more training, develop proficiency, or to learn. There are a lot of them.

It's unfortunate that your feelings are hurt by the truth, or that you're emotionally invested at all. A hit ratio of one out of five is pathetic, dangerous, and unacceptable, and there are a LOT who accept it. It seems that you're a leading apologist, and that's very unfortunate. If you happen to be one who shoots that badly under pressure, or if you happen to believe that doing any better represents some higher level of skill, then god help you and the public at large. It's not an acceptable level of performance by any standard.

Nobody expects you or me or anyone else to enter a gunfight and put every round in a one inch circle. It is expected that you are fully accountable for every shot you fire. Perhaps you're comfortable with four out of every five going somewhere other than where you intended to shoot. If so, seek more training.

I doubt you're that person. You probably wouldn't be here if you were. If you're an apologist for that person, however, you're no different. If you think that level of performance is acceptable, then you're no better, regardless of how you shoot, or how you fight.

I'm a long time martial artist. I understand as well as anyone that even in an unarmed conflict, there's always a high potential to get hurt. In a knife fight, one is going to get cut, quite likely badly. A gunfight, there's a good potential to get shot. The recent law enforcement seminar that I attended, referenced earlier, emphasized the poor level of training and performance of officers, and the need to seek training on one's own. Case after case was presented, many of them using video, officers dying due to lack of proficiency. Video after video was shown of officers doing magazine dumps into a subject, in a few cases unarmed subjects, and a lot of discussion was had about the mental state and the reasons. Some officers present seemed surprised. They shouldn't have been, but they were. The only thing that can get messier than a gunfight is a knife fight. I bear scars from knives that have gone all the way through, stitches in and out, and can attest to the potential and the results. It happens, no matter how much you train, no matter how prepared you think you might be.

If you think you're trained enough, then you're not. If you feel ready, then you need to go back and train. There will never come a point when training is over. There will always be a lot to learn. Accepting 4 out of 5 wild shots as the norm is unacceptable. It will always be unacceptable. Those who accept it, who see it as the status quo and an acceptable one, are the core of the problem. Do you see four out of five missed shots as acceptable?
 
#279 ·
Those who accept it, who see it as the status quo and an acceptable one, are the core of the problem. Do you see four out of five missed shots as acceptable?
I see anything out of anything as an utterly irrelevant metric. Ammo is cheap, life is precious. As long as my guys go home to the family, I don't care if they burn through two magazines and frighten the bad guy into surrender without a scratch on him. If they shoot someone who shouldn't be shot, that's very bad, but as you seem to acknowledge, it isn't a major issue at this point. If they shoot holes in someone's stuff, we can buy him new stuff. If they merely shoot holes in the air, well, those are self-sealing.

You're focused on the means. I'm focused on the ends. If we present a determined posture, and he surrenders rather than fights, it's a win. If we fire one shot and center punch him to end the fight, that's a win. If we miss (thus scoring 0% on your scale) and he still gives up, then I'll take that too. But even if we go 5 for 5 (and get the magical 100% on the opponent), if my guy ends up dead, it's a loss.

From the cop's view here, you're focusing on bogus numbers and don't seem willing to grasp what's actually important. Please explain why, and while you're at it, please provide an exact figure that will make you think everything is hunky-dory.
 
#335 ·
I focus on both, but the ends do not justify the means, else one would gun down every subject rather than wasting time with talk.
If that's the apology for an 80% failure rate to hit the target, or the need to fire five rounds for every hit, so be it. Certainly going home at the end of the day (or night or shift as the case may be) is the important thing. The ends, however, do not justify the means. There are means, and there are means.

There's a very good litany of reasons why high speed pursuit is not the policy in many jurisdictions or agencies, departments, offices, etc. There's a reason that warning shots are old practice, not current doctrine in most cases. Not all means are worth the cost or the risk or the hazard.

Are you going to suggest that if one wins the fight, then one out of five shots is good enough, or that there's no need to seek to improve on that?

NYPD's SOP-9 was heavily drawn on for the article "Officer-Involved Shootings: What We Didn't Know Has Hurt Us" (Aveni, Police Policy Studies Counsel, 2003, http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf). It points to a NYPD mean hit probability of 15%, with a low in 2000 of 9%, and a high in 1998 of 25%. That's the best offering: 1 out of four. It gets worse.

Bear in mind that an officer who hits one out of five times may not survive long enough to make it to shot number five, if that happens to be his lucky hit.

One out of five is not good enough.
You needn't reply. My points are based in fact, not conjecture, and any questions directed to you don't require your participation. They're rhetorical.

Your position is that the ends justify the means, and an apologist view of dismal officer-involved shooting statistics. If you choose to applaud or accept or apologize for such poor performance on the basis of the "ends justify the means," then you're right, there's nothing to discuss.

I very much doubt you'd settle for that level of personal performance. It's a mystery why one wouldn't advocate for better. That's not the party line here, though. Just apology. Very unfortunate.
I said nothing of the kind. I said nothing of "shooting paper," nor did I make any comparison between target shooting and high stress shooting. Moreover, we're not talking about police or anyone else shooting paper, nor is it particularly relevant to the ratio of officer hits to misses in a gunfight. Others introduced this concept; go talk to them about "shooting paper." I said nothing about it. You did, though.

Don't put words in my mouth. Speak for yourself, if think yourself able.
It makes no difference. I said nothing about a 20% hit ratio on paper. It's irrelevant.

If one can't hit a target but one out of five times, then one shouldn't press the trigger. Move, engage, but engage with a higher hit ratio.

It's entirely possible that under fire that's all one gets; one out of five and that one out of five is a life saver for the officer. To accept that as the norm, to apologize shamelessly as if it's perfectly okay, is a poor attitude. It's not okay. Better, more frequent training can improve on that. To accept is a **** attitude. It's complacency. I doubt most here would do that poorly, even under stress. If you happen to be one that does, then bench yourself until you can be more responsible, because someone who can't hit 80% of the time is irresponsible and dangerous.

If you can shoot better than that, you'd do far better to shut your trap, stop apologizing for the pathetically low hit ratio, and work to help others elevate their skills and abilities.

If doing better than 20% is considered exceptional, the person who considers it so is in desperate need of a wake-up call and some remedial training.

If you shoot one out of five, you had better hope it's not the first shot you fire instead of the fifth. That kind of guesswork could cost your life.
It's not beyond your control. If your department authorizes funding for two shoots a year, then get off your lazy ass, go buy some ammunition like anyone else, and train. Beyond your control? Really?

Good god.
I already did. It's only of value to those who can read, who will read, and most importantly, are able to understand what they read.

Questionable source? Hardly.
Okay...
 
#283 ·
I was referring to the amount of free time to which you believe Don has.

As far as cops and guns - I'm a firearms instructor for my department. Some people can shoot, some are "meh", some are horrible. Big deal.

As has been mentioned over and over again in this thread - gunfights are not necessarily about putting rounds on a paper target. They're about having the will to get in, and stay in, the fight. Sure, it helps if you know how to accurately put rounds down range. But, if you're too shaken up to actually get in the fight IMMEDIATELY, and carry that fight to the enemy, then you're useless and will likely die.

I've competed a few times over the years. Trying to find time to start again. None of the competitions I've been, can compare to real world, "I'm gonna die" situations...and, thankfully, I've not had all that many of those - and none involving a gun


Gillom Rogers: [Books has just given Gillom a shooting lesson] But how could you get into so many fights and always come out on top? I nearly tied you shooting.

John Bernard Books: Friend, there's nobody up there shooting back at you. It isn't always being fast or even accurate that counts. It's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger. I won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dragoon44
#285 ·
You needn't reply. My points are based in fact, not conjecture, and any questions directed to you don't require your participation. They're rhetorical.

Your position is that the ends justify the means, and an apologist view of dismal officer-involved shooting statistics. If you choose to applaud or accept or apologize for such poor performance on the basis of the "ends justify the means," then you're right, there's nothing to discuss.

I very much doubt you'd settle for that level of personal performance. It's a mystery why one wouldn't advocate for better. That's not the party line here, though. Just apology. Very unfortunate.
 
#290 ·
I disagree with the 20% hit ratio. At least around here, it is much higher. I have studied OIS incidents in this county throughout my career (1988-now) and we are seeing more like 80% of shots fired hitting the suspect. The last two or three were 100% hits, fight over, suspect DRT.
 
#291 ·
I would say the 20% figure is highly suspect and if accurate, it is only because it includes shots striking barriers suspects are in or behind as "misses".

For instance officers firing on a suspect in a vehicle, all rounds that strike the vehicle but do not penetrate or do not strike the suspect being counted as "misses".
 
  • Like
Reactions: TBO and dpadams6
#292 ·
The percentage of shots fired to hits is low because of the stress involved, the timing, surprise of the situation, and some of these low hits are when the officer is actually wrestling( being hit by the suspect) . It is not paper targets and many of these officers involved were prior military and do "qualify" with near perfect scores when against paper targets.

Each shooting has to be judged on its own because each one may have unique circumstances.

Before we can say "police can't shoot", we should look at the non -LEO rate of shots fired to hits ratio in the real world
 
#293 ·
You guys are seriously falling too far into this trap.

You will never, ever, be able to explain to the target shooter how different things get when it becomes a 2-way range. They can distinctly remember how steady they lined up the sights on the bullseye as they slowly squeezed off each shot on their best target shooting experience, put them in a real world scenario and they probably won't remember the physical act of aiming or tell you how many rounds were fired. The inexperienced person just cannot comprehend that.
 
#302 ·
put them in a real world scenario and they probably won't remember the physical act of aiming or tell you how many rounds were fired. The inexperienced person just cannot comprehend that.
If the target-shhooter fired 5 rounds and only one hit the adversary, was it the first, third or fifth round that hit? If the first, why shoot more? If the third, what happened to the first two? Why shoot 4 & 5? If the fifth, where did the first 4 go?
 
#300 ·
This is a bold topic to put forth in coptalk.
As Dragoon said, this has remained open not so much to argue with posters as to present credible real world facts and experiences to those reading but not participating.
I don't rebutt trolls for the benefit of the trolls. I post for the benefit of those who like the trolls don't know the real answers. But unlike the trolls are open to learning the truth.
 
#295 ·
Please see my video , many of the shots were at the SUV to keep the shooter from advancing. These would be considered misses by the gup but were intended to keep the suspect pinned down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TBO and Dragoon44
#309 ·
You gotta admit sn3guppy has a unique self defense plan.

Defend yourself by shooting the threat attacking you, then forfeit your freedom/life by then murdering another guy that was trying to defend himself as well.

Reckon he thought that one up all by himself?

[emoji41] [emoji1]
 
#310 ·
Hey we all as police survived over our careers whether 20 25 30 or 40. We all took the training we were mandated each and every year. Many of us were able to shoot more some of us not so much. I think I shoot pretty good well I always quill expert. Quall.
I am guessing u were in that navy seem to remember sn3 as some kind of rate
Anyway I assuming all of we police try to do our best and real world shooting ,well it aint TV not even close.
Don't bust our chops for things beyond our control. Shootings b÷n there done that war same thing.try having your transmission shot out while driving a hey.shooting. huey. Not hey. Shooting is one thing shooting under stress a whole other issue. Trying to control stress while shooting or flying or a bunch of things whole other issue. Hey try wearing a gas mask running a half mile then shooting a quall course fun worse if yousmoke
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top