It dawned on me recently that as trainers we fail a large pool of officers in the area of 360-degree live-fire training. There are a number of reasons why it’s not done. Foremost, officers or agencies often aren’t ready for it. Some don’t have access to such facilities. Some don’t have the funding to support the building block training required to get officers to this progressive level of training. But there are a number of agencies in the country that could be offering this type of training and choose not to. Why? Do we not work in a 360-degree environment outside of the range? Are we afraid of the risk potential to officers and trainers?
Over the past couple of months, I’ve been afforded the opportunity to provide this type of training to officers on my department. Not just the specialized tactical teams, but to the entire rank and file of our organization, from the greenest rookie to the most veteran street officer. This has generated discussion and disagreement among officers as to whether this type of training is too risky or unsafe.
So are we pushing the envelope of benefit vs. risk in trying to create realistic and relevant training for our officers? I don’t think so. As firearms instructors, it’s incumbent upon us to explore ideas that make our officers grow and expand and therefore make them better prepared to survive a deadly force encounter. We are doing them a disservice if all we do is stand on a static line and shoot paper or steel targets. If that’s all they ever know, how are we to expect them to react properly when facing a threat in a dynamic 360-degree environment?
Example: In a contact/cover role, two officers might have to draw and shoot. Is it not reasonable to expect that they may be close to each other and in potentially awkward angles when they fire their weapons? How about if they are searching a building and encounter a suspect as they enter a room? Do we not want them to be able to place themselves in mutually supportive positions, whereby they both can address the threat while reducing the risk to each other? I think so. So how do we achieve this as trainers given the traditional online shooting mentality that we have grown accustomed to? Unless you have an open range area with sufficient berms and impact zones that go in all directions, this is nearly impossible. You’re stuck by the limits of a traditional shooting range.
Now enter the shoot-house environment. No longer are you restricted by the limitations of a single “down range” area. A whole realm of directions now becomes available to you! Gone are the days that the shoot house is the exclusive territory of special tactical teams only. This is a training facility available to all officers.
The trick is creating a safe learning environment and laying the building blocks for your officers to make this very cutting edge transition. Make no mistake about it: This is not a training evolution that can be taken lightly or that can be jumped into without sufficient preparation.
First, you need a properly constructed shoot house designed for this type of training. Second, you need a staff that is properly trained to function as instructors in this environment. Finally, you must have built the core skills of muzzle discipline, straight trigger finger, team tactics and communication among your officers. Beginning a live-fire shoot house evolution without doing so is a recipe for disaster.
Develop a written lesson plan that establishes the goals and parameters of the training. Keep the evolution simple when first starting. Don’t try to do too much at first. Remember: We aren’t trying to create SWAT officers out of the average street officer. If the situation is too complicated, they should be establishing a perimeter and calling for a tactical team in the first place.
What we’re trying to do is better prepare our officers for the shock of shooting their weapons in a dynamic environment where they must be cognizant of each other, friendlies and foes. Explain the specific safety protocols of a shoot house training environment before even going down range and explain the basic tactics that you expect them to employ. Once they are down range, re-explain it within the shoot house while providing them dry fire demonstrations of what’s expected of them. After this has been done, have them go through the evolution in a Simunition or marking cartridge capacity while engaging paper targets.
This is where, as instructors, you’ll be able to correct mistakes and identify officers who might have problems in a live-fire environment. Make sure to fully debrief the officers after they go through their evolutions room by room, identifying the bad and the good that they did. This reinforces the positive skills they demonstrated and corrects the mistakes they made.
Make sure each officer understands what you are explaining. Don’t assume that just because they’re nodding their head in the affirmative that they truly get it! Use shoot/don’t-shoot targets because this will require the officers to assess their targets and not just shoot at everything. Also, require your officers to turn all of their targets away as they will have to handle their subjects in a real environment.
Too often we end our drill as soon as the shots are fired and don’t require the officers to complete the next step, thereby building a training scar. This will also require them to think and communicate as they problem solve the situation before them.
One of the biggest problems I’ve seen is officers failing to communicate with each other while in a stressful environment. Emphasize that they should move slowly and deliberately and talk to each other before taking action or moving on. Officers are so used to functioning on their own that they have a hard time letting go and trusting other officers to help them and do their part to resolve a situation.
Once you’re comfortable that your officers understand what to do and have demonstrated the ability to do so safely, only then you can move on to the live-fire portion of the training. Note: Getting to go live with this training is not a “right” for every officer. They have to earn that right by demonstrating that they’re capable. You might have to deny an officer the opportunity to go through the live portion of the training if he or she is not ready. This might be uncomfortable because you will be in effect calling out a student, but it is your duty as an instructor to ensure your students will be working in a safe training environment.
But be careful not to automatically exclude someone just because they made a couple of mistakes. If they understand what they did and show a willingness and ability to correct their mistakes, consider allowing them to go through the entire training. You’ll find that once the first live round is fired, the seriousness and focus of most officers increases exponentially.
When you go live, again, keep your evolution simple. The stress of live-fire alone will make the training difficult enough. Your instructors must be able to anticipate what the officers might do and not just what they should do. This way, they’re ready to step in and keep the evolution safe. I’d suggest you keep the evolution pretty much the same as you did when they were doing it dry and with Simunitions. Let the officers know that what they did during the first evolutions is what they will be doing when they go live. The only difference is that they will be doing it with real ammunition. You’ll see apprehension in some officers, but as they progress in the training, their confidence and skill improves!
The naysayers will argue that this training is too unsafe; that the risk of injury or death outweighs the benefit of the training. Some will say that this same training can be more safely accomplished with only Simunition or marking cartridges rather than live ammunition. After all, it’s only training.
My argument is that officers work in a 360-degree environment and very often have their weapons out. Is it that far out to think that they’ll never fire their weapons in environments where the gunfire only happens to their direct left or right? Might they not have other officers engaging a threat behind them or adjacent to them? If so, shouldn’t we be training them to do this safely?
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t take this level of training lightly. Simunitions has its place in training and is extremely effective. However, after having used these tools for a number of years, many officers have grown complacent or nonchalant with it and realize that they won’t truly get hurt during this training: embarrassed yes, but hurt, no.
Live fire adds an element of seriousness that cannot be duplicated. Does it also add an increased element of danger? Definitely! This must be accounted for and considered when deciding whether to conduct this type of training. It is an absolute mistake if you don’t. However, if it’s done safely and in a controlled environment, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be done. Are we not obligated as instructors to provide our officers with the most relevant and realistic training if it can be done safely? Absolutely!
However you decide to package your training—contact/cover, building search, etc.—is fine. The goal is to expose them to a 360 degree live-fire environment like they will be faced with during a real encounter on the street. The more training exposures we can provide officers with, the better. If they have some small point of reference in their mind to draw upon during a real situation, the better off they’ll be. They won’t be caught like a deer in headlights. I realize that this is “out-of-the-box” thinking, but so were turning targets, reactive steel and moving and shooting when they were introduced. Stay safe, but be creative!
Chris Tull is a Sergeant with the Virginia Beach Police Department. His assignments over the past 22 years have included patrol, vice/narcotics, internal affairs, community policing, and currently as the range supervisor in the training division. He has been a firearms instructor for the past 6 years and last year his unit implemented a mandatory live fire shoot house evolution for the entire 800+ sworn member department, which they plan to continue building upon every year as part of thier progressive individual and team tactics firearms training approach.