TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:

Jaguar wrote:

texanjoker wrote: I think that is a problem in a lot of places. In my former life we qualified quarterly and were issued ammo if we wanted each month to practice... in certain units we shot even more then that. Here in TX they only require a yearly qual...many smaller depts. only go by that with no practice ammo, ect. That makes it up to the individual to see if they want to maintain proficiency... As far as the "union" position I find that absurd. Many would go practice if afforded the opportunity. If not at least have a quarterly qual shoot forcing them to get range time. But then that takes $$$ and as it is here in TX many won't pay it.

Why wouldn't a police officer wish to maintain proficiency for their current occupation. There are aspects pertaining to my job I don’t like but I devote time to them even while “off the clock”. It makes me better at my job, my boss appreciates the effort, and it may save someone’s life. And still I have time to go to a private range using a membership I purchased, ammo I purchased and a gun I purchased - usually a couple times a month to keep proficient with my pistol which has no bearing on my current occupation.

These excuses don’t pass the sniff test. If people don't want to do their job proficiently then they need to find a job where if they screw up it won't cost taxpayers money at best or kill people at worst. I work for a private company and if someone is injured or killed and the company and I were found liable I would not have qualified immunity, I would not keep my job, and I would not be suspended with pay. I would be unemployed, destitute and looking for a job with my culpability hanging over my head. Just because I am not required to put in the time and effort on my own dime doesn’t exempt me from consequences if I don't.

My father used to say, "You may not have the best job in the world, but you should strive to be your best at it."

Not sure where you get anybody especially myself is making an excuse . I pointing out the reality of the situation. Many places will not budget ammo and the only legal requirement is for the leo to pass the yearly qual shoot. If the leo passed that shoot, then they have met the requirement so there is no more liability whether they go practice on their own or not. In the real world with moving real human targets people miss. Not saying it is good or condoning it, but it is a fact of life. Pray you are never in that position where you have to take the shot and miss.

texanjoker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

JustMe wrote:If they would quit nearly tripling the trigger pull on those glocks, maybe this wouldn't happen as often

This is a significant part of the problem, but not the only one.

In NYC, most police officers handle a handgun for the first time on the police academy range. They have no lifetime of training and usage behind them. This isn't a fault, it's just a fact.

New York City has one training range for it's 35,000+ officers. Although the instructors are top notch, getting all the troops there at all each year is a major logistical challenge, let alone getting them there enough for frequent enough training to be effective.

Many officers pride themselves on not liking guns (it's fashionable up there) and take a "union" position that they won't do any training they're not being paid for.

Add all that up, and the wonder isn't that these things happen, it's that they don't happen much more often than they do with this background, the activity level, and the extremely crowded environment.

This is the real problem in New York. If you don't train regularly, how are you supposed to hit a moving target in a high stress situation? New York administrators should be ashamed of themselves.

I think that is a problem in a lot of places. In my former life we qualified quarterly and were issued ammo if we wanted each month to practice... in certain units we shot even more then that. Here in TX they only require a yearly qual...many smaller depts. only go by that with no practice ammo, ect. That makes it up to the individual to see if they want to maintain proficiency... As far as the "union" position I find that absurd. Many would go practice if afforded the opportunity. If not at least have a quarterly qual shoot forcing them to get range time. But then that takes $$$ and as it is here in TX many won't pay it.

ELB wrote:

...
And an answer might be:
Because they were hired to do that job, you the CHL'er volunteered. The LEO is required under the terms of their employment to go out each day and purposely place them self in those difficult situations, making life and death decisions... You the CHL'er volunteered to do the same.
...

Another possible answer is that CHLs didn't volunteer for anything. A CHL is required in Texas to legally exercise a constitutional right to defend oneself; having one doesn't mean you volunteered, it means you paid the fee and took the course. Altho there are no doubt exceptions, the vast majority of non-LEO people who end up in gun battles generally didn't have the choice -- as did the NYC police officers -- about whether or how or why they were going to engage in a confrontation, and they generally do not have partners, back up, body armor, publicly funded-training-and-liability protection, or any of the other enhancements that a police officer has. So I would certainly cut a citizen more slack about missed shots than a police officer.

While it is true that one can be accurate with a heavy trigger, with practice, I think it speaks to the mindset of the NYPD and NYC in general to examine the actual purpose of the NY trigger. It is a mechanical substitute for trigger discipline - an attempt to avoid "accidental" discharges by people with sloppy trigger fingers. You may recall a couple years ago that the NYPD banned the use of Kahr pistols (which were very popular in the NYPD) as backup and off-duty guns, because Kahr could not or would not make the trigger heavy enough to please the NYPD decision makers.

The point above about the training range and the scant likelihood of any patrol officer receiving a decent amount of refresher (or even initial) training is probably dead-on. I know I have talked to police trainers from various departments who bemoan how far behind in re-quals their departments get; I'll bet if you could pull the data on that out of the NYPD you would find a large number of requalifications that are overdue, even if it is just a yearly requirement.

NYPD used to publish their "SOP 9" report, which was a yearly report on firearm discharges, and included how many boo-boos, how many confrontations, how many shots fired/shots hit opponent/shots missed etc. I think they have stopped publishing it to the public, but for a number of years the percentage of rounds that hit the guy they were shooting at pretty solidly hovered around 20%, quite often less. The report did not show, but I always suspected, that the hits were probably concentrated in a few well-trained individual police officers who hit their opponents several times, among a sea of others that did not (like the incident in the OP).

In any case, the incident in the OP reinforces my belief to immediately vacate the vicinity of any police activity I see going down. I love all the youtube videos that people put up showing public confrontations, I think they are a good learning tool, but I also think someone standing their videoing a potentially violent confrontation is taking on an unnecessary risk. But on the other hand perhaps they will serve as my cover as I boogie out of the area.