Share and speak up for justice, law & order...
I’ve been training police officers with firearms for more than 30 years. The changes that have occurred over these three decades have been nothing short of inspirational. When I first started, the Practical Pistol Course (PPC) was considered the gold standard for determining whether a young officer was ready for street work. Then came the Tactical Revolver Course (TRC), which was thought to be the epitome of tactical firearms preparedness. If you shot at master level on the TRC, you were considered a true “gunslinger.”
Fortunately, we now realize that these courses were far from what they promised. Punching holes in paper is valuable, but it doesn’t prepare officers to interact with armed hostiles. Isn’t that the end goal of the exercise? Aren’t we trying to prepare officers to protect their own lives as they go into harm’s way? Remember: The primary goal of the street cop is to seek out lawbreakers and arrest them. So, isn’t violent confrontation inevitable?
Limits of Simulation Training
Regardless of what you call it—simulation, or interaction, or force-on-force or scenario-based training—it’s an activity that attempts to simulate a crisis event, such as armed conflict. It’s an essential part of combative firearms training. But no matter how much effort goes into the activity, it will never truly rise to the level of armed conflict because there’s no expectation of injury or death. Every trainee knows in the back of their mind they’ll probably come out unharmed (accidents happen though, so pay attention!) at the end of the session. This doesn’t mean, however, that blood pressures won’t rise, hands won’t shake, voices won’t quiver and performance won’t go down the tube.
As a matter of fact, looking bad in front of other officers can be a hindrance to interactive training. In the mid-1980s, my former agency attempted to incorporate cotton ball training into our in-service program. The projectiles were cotton wads coated in talcum powder and loaded into a primed revolver case. The guns were controlled by the range officer and only loaded by him, so safety was a high priority. After several veteran officers came out of the scenarios looking bad, they filed a grievance stating “the training was unsafe” and that they “didn’t like having real guns pointed at them.” The training was stopped due to ego—nothing more, nothing less.
The deterioration of performance is one of the primary learning points of simulation and should be seen as a learning opportunity, but it often isn’t. The real feedback of Simunitions and Airsoft is the pain that accompanies “getting shot,” but some police unions have put a stop to this practice, requiring so much protection and padding that officers no longer feel the strike, which is unfortunate.
Some experts also believe that officers should never lose in training because it establishes feelings of doubt and lowers their self-esteem. BS! Never losing in simulation training leads to overconfidence in their skills and results in officers attempting techniques in the street for which they’re unprepared.
This is why I’ve never felt that spraying cops with OC was a good idea. It has nothing to do with discomfort (come on, man up!), but with the concern they’re left with an unrealistic expectation of its capabilities. Think about it: Cops being trained are lectured on the millions of Scoville Heat Units that are contained in the spray and how much it will sting. Then they’re lined up to be sprayed (“slaughtered”) after a dramatic buildup to the event. Once they feel the burn, many growl and grab their face and seek water immediately to remove the chemical. Now you tell me, what do they expect when they spray a suspect? Maybe if we left it a mystery, the officer would be better prepared with a contingency plan after spraying a suspect who would then become enraged instead of acting like the officers did during training.
The bottom line: The beauty of interactive training isn’t that it places the student in a gunfight—it’s that it places them in a critical situation in which they must make rapid decisions based on their training in order to prevail. Doing so gives them the confidence that their skills will work when needed and this confidence is the single biggest factor in overcoming fear.
Simulation training should be scripted for this purpose. Sure, accuracy of fire is important, but if the officer can’t overcome their fear to take action, then their shooting skills will be of no use. After-action briefings must emphasize correct decisions and how the student felt and thought during the scenarios. This material must be discussed and analyzed so that officers can learn from their mistakes and repeat correct decisions. Far too often, students leave interactive training a bit confused about what happened, what they saw and felt, but very aware of where their rounds hit and if the suspect was incapacitated.
Training Simulation Programs
There are several different ways to introduce simulation training into your in-service program. All will take effort, ingenuity, time and money; however, some are less costly than others.
Red gun training: The easiest is red (or blue) gun training, in which plastic guns are substituted for real guns and simulation scenarios are acted out. The instructor must be innovative to make these scenarios work because students will start to quickly feel silly. At the moment of conflict, it’s much like playing cowboys and Indians as a child, with “Bang! Bang! You’re dead!” being shouted as shots are fired. In reality, tactics are best emphasized in red gun training such as building searches or car stops.
Safe, live-fire training: The next level is “safe” live-fire interaction with Simuntions or Airsoft guns being used. Simunitions are the most realistic, but out of the price range of many agencies and programs. Airsoft is less expensive and, due to the light 6 mm projectile, can be used in most locations as long as breakables, such as glass lamps and mirrors, are removed from the venue. Some walls can be pockmarked when struck, so be cognizant of what’s going on as training progresses. Walls that need protection can usually be covered by a sheet of plastic or tarp, which is then removed at the end of training.
Electronic simulation training: Electronic computerized simulation units might very well be the epitome of interactive training. My agency was one of the first in the state of Ohio to get a FATS (Firearms Training System) machine and it certainly had a profound impact on the officers who underwent training in this unit. I had 10 officers from 1993 to 2003 who went through FATS training tell me it saved their lives. They all had said the realistic scenarios they faced with FATS helped them prevail in their gunfights. The fast-action situation that unfolded in front of them was much like the FATS video training.
The FATS training of almost a decade ago is nothing like the computerized gunfight simulators of today. Units like the VirTra System that actually surround the student in a 360-degree environment are light years ahead of the FATS simulator I used to train street cops. Every year when I travel to the ILEETA Conference, I try to get into each of the systems on display and I stand in awe of their capabilities. Although these units may be out of the budgetary reach of many agencies, they wouldn’t be if smaller agencies banded together and purchased a unit jointly and shared the expense and upkeep of the system.
Conclusion
Fact: Interactive simulation training is essential if trainers are going to prepare law enforcement officers for the stress, duress, pandemonium and heartbreak of armed conflict. Any proper firearms training program must have three tiers of training: fundamental skills, combative skills and interactive simulation. Simulation training takes time, effort, ingenuity, thought, funding and dedicated trainers. You can’t do it half-assed, and it’s not about making the trainer look good—it’s about protecting the lives of cops. Anything less is just unacceptable.
Share and speak up for justice, law & order...