+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 235
 
  1. #161
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    "While eliminating the 25 yard qualification does make it somewhat easier to qualify, it does not make a significant difference."

    Actually it made all the difference. Over 90% of the misses were from the 25 yard line. They got rid of it and now practically everyone qualifies on the first try. Let's face it, most deputies have lousy marksmanship because they don't practice.
    The elimination of the 25 yard stage of qualification eliminated only six rounds. This is hardly critical to qualification. While it did make it easier to qualify, that was not the primary reason for eliminating that stage. It was liability. LEAs have greater liability if they train an employee to do something or "qualify them" operate efficiently in a certain task. So, when the state dropped the 25 yard qualification stage, individual LEAs were then able to say that their personnel were neither trained nor qualified to shoot perpetrators beyond a distance of 15 yards [45 ft]. So, they were not responsible for any errant shots taken at subjects beyond that distance.It limits their liability.

  2. #162
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    The elimination of the 25 yard stage of qualification eliminated only six rounds. This is hardly critical to qualification. While it did make it easier to qualify, that was not the primary reason for eliminating that stage. It was liability. LEAs have greater liability if they train an employee to do something or "qualify them" operate efficiently in a certain task. So, when the state dropped the 25 yard qualification stage, individual LEAs were then able to say that their personnel were neither trained nor qualified to shoot perpetrators beyond a distance of 15 yards [45 ft]. So, they were not responsible for any errant shots taken at subjects beyond that distance.It limits their liability.
    That's BS.

    So in a critical situation LEOs are not allowed to shoot past 15 yards because they are not qualified to do so with a handgun? If they choose to do so the agency whom they work for cannot be held liable in a lawsuit?

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

  3. #163
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    That's BS.

    So in a critical situation LEOs are not allowed to shoot past 15 yards because they are not qualified to do so with a handgun? If they choose to do so the agency whom they work for cannot be held liable in a lawsuit?

    This makes no sense whatsoever.
    Yeah there is an idiot trying to continue his BS. We had a deputy hit someone at 80 yards with a pistol. Qualification just shows proficiency. It’s not a combat course. Average shootings are at less than 7 yards but you never know.

  4. #164
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Yeah there is an idiot trying to continue his BS. We had a deputy hit someone at 80 yards with a pistol. Qualification just shows proficiency. It’s not a combat course. Average shootings are at less than 7 yards but you never know.
    Wrong again. It was a long time ago, but at one time qualification scores were numerical, not simply pass-fail. The scoring rings were numbered and you were graded on the points in the scoring ring. The state changed the procedure to pass-fail in order to reduce liability for LEAs. It made it harder for attorneys to make it sound as though a LEO who passed but did not score 295-300 points was somehow lacking in the necessary skill to be allowed to handle a gun. In fact, the number of rounds which actually land in the qualification area of the target do not get recorded. It is scored strictly pass or fail, However, that did not address the attorney's argument that the LEO took a shot he was not to really qualified to make, accurately. Of course, eliminating the 25 yard stage did not automatically remove this liability, but it allowed the LEA to argue that they did not expect LEOs to take shots beyond 15 yards [you noted that most police involved shootings occur at 7 yards or less]. Remember this, grasshopper, the agency is mostly, if not only, concerned with its liability, not your wellbeing.

    Now, of course a LEO can make a telling shot at 80-100 yards. However, you have to ask yourself if there was any luck in landing that shot and if so how much? You also have to ask yourself if it was decisive, or only a hit?

    So, thank you for allowing me to educate you on the history of State mandated LE qualification courses in Florida

  5. #165
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    That's BS.

    So in a critical situation LEOs are not allowed to shoot past 15 yards because they are not qualified to do so with a handgun? If they choose to do so the agency whom they work for cannot be held liable in a lawsuit?

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    Of course it effects the liability applied to the agency. Look, there are three ways that a agency is held usually liable for the actions of its employees. One is if the employee knowingly violates P&P. The second is if the commits an act for which he is supposedly qualified by the agency but which he does not adequately perform. The third is when he commits an act, normally expected by the profession, but for which he was not trained effectively by the department.

    What LEAs, and corporate America, has done, is to limit the range of activities in which they train their employees. This allows them to reduce liability by claiming that they did not expect the employee to perform such an action to begin with and, therefor did not train or qualify the employee to perform such an action. On the other hand, they may not actually prohibit the act, because someone, someday may need to perform the action. If it works out, then there is really a problem. It only becomes a liability issue if it goes awry. And, yes, if a LEO chooses to perform an action which the agency has not trained him to perform and bad things happen, then it most likely that the agency will not back-up his choice.

  6. #166
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Wrong again. It was a long time ago, but at one time qualification scores were numerical, not simply pass-fail. The scoring rings were numbered and you were graded on the points in the scoring ring. The state changed the procedure to pass-fail in order to reduce liability for LEAs. It made it harder for attorneys to make it sound as though a LEO who passed but did not score 295-300 points was somehow lacking in the necessary skill to be allowed to handle a gun. In fact, the number of rounds which actually land in the qualification area of the target do not get recorded. It is scored strictly pass or fail, However, that did not address the attorney's argument that the LEO took a shot he was not to really qualified to make, accurately. Of course, eliminating the 25 yard stage did not automatically remove this liability, but it allowed the LEA to argue that they did not expect LEOs to take shots beyond 15 yards [you noted that most police involved shootings occur at 7 yards or less]. Remember this, grasshopper, the agency is mostly, if not only, concerned with its liability, not your wellbeing.

    Now, of course a LEO can make a telling shot at 80-100 yards. However, you have to ask yourself if there was any luck in landing that shot and if so how much? You also have to ask yourself if it was decisive, or only a hit?

    So, thank you for allowing me to educate you on the history of State mandated LE qualification courses in Florida
    I think you are alone and bored and just like the discussion. I think you have an inflated sense of self worth and knowledge. Agencies that care do more than what the State requires. The only thing you’re right about is that Florida is satisfied with 15 yards and in. Rule 11B-27.00212(14). They allow for 80% accuracy. PCSO takes that higher.

  7. #167
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Yeah there is an idiot trying to continue his BS. We had a deputy hit someone at 80 yards with a pistol. Qualification just shows proficiency. It’s not a combat course. Average shootings are at less than 7 yards but you never know.
    Unless you practice long range pistol shooting weekly, a hit at 80 yards with the G21 is pure luck for cops with average marksmanship.

  8. #168
    Unregistered
    Guest
    When I was in the Marines the DI would drill into our heads that the maximum useful range of the M1911 pistol was 50 yards. If the target was any farther you'd be wasting ammo if you fired.

  9. #169
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    I think you are alone and bored and just like the discussion. I think you have an inflated sense of self worth and knowledge. Agencies that care do more than what the State requires. The only thing you’re right about is that Florida is satisfied with 15 yards and in. Rule 11B-27.00212(14). They allow for 80% accuracy. PCSO takes that higher.
    Of course I enjoy the discussion. That is the whole point of public forums, for people to discuss things.

    Now, the first thing that you have to learn about LEAs is that they are far more concerned with their own protection than protecting their employees. Increasing the requirements for firearms qualification does not protect the employee in anyway. It actually works against the employee, because it creates a higher standard for competence and, therefor lowers the bar to prove incompetence. It is all on YOU to make a decision which will get the job done [protect the populace by enforcing the laws] without placing yourself in a position which you can not defend.

    The second thing is that public agencies will throw you under the bus in order to protect themselves. This is especially true in agencies headed by elected officials. The administration is not your friend. It is responsibility is to the agency, not individual employees. Remember that and you will have a long, and relatively smooth career.

  10. #170
    Unregistered
    Guest
    We can debate ballistics, stopping power, ergonomics, etc to no end but nothing beats practical field application.

    Here's what I found works with me and others when comparing G21 and G17:

    - we shoot the G17 faster and more accurately.

    - G17 weighs less than G21

    - G17 is more ergonomic and offers better control

    - due to the above, we also have better trigger control which in turn increases accuracy

    - G17 has less recoil than G21

    - G17 has higher mag capacity


    There are other factors but these are what matter to me on the job.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •