National Standards for Firearms/Use of Force Instructors

[MLEFIAA]

MLEFIAA TO SPEARHEAD NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FIREARMS / USE OF FORCE INSTRUCTORS


The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors' & Armorers' Association is promoting national standards for law enforcement firearms and other use of force instructors. The purposes of this project are to:
1. reduce the number of mistaken fact shootings;
2. reduce the number of excessive force complaints;
3. reduce the number of officer and arrestee injuries;
4. reduce the expenditures towards use of force litigation; and
5. improve the perceptions of citizens regarding law enforcement officers' use of force.


A DACUM (Developing a Cirriculum) committee will be established that will include representatives from a wide range of law enforcement agencies and organizations. Once established, the DACUM committee will determine measurable criteria for program goals and criteria for instructor standards, among other issues.


This ambitious effort will be funded through grants obtained from interested foundations and other organizations.


Persons and organizations interested in participating in the program should contact:


Bert DuVernay, President
M.L.E.F.I.A.A.
P.O. Box 484
Ware, MA 01082-0484
or
MLEFIAA@aol.com

[Niteshift]

I have to tell you, my first reaction to the term "national standards" is to cringe.

I've been a cop in more than one state and, within the same state in 2 drasticly different types of jurisdictions. What I found along the way is what works for me isn't always the best answer for everyone and vice versa.

An officers reaction to a given situation in South Central L.A., where a being present on a traffic stop is an immediate signal for target acquisition is not going to be the same as a rural Florida deputy where seeing a full gun rack in a pick-up is as common as seeing a brown car. And where if you don't have a leather sheath with a folding knife on your belt, you probably don't live nearby.

And so should the instruction given to the officers on some level.

Also, public perception varies widely depending on location. I changed departments a mere 60 miles apart. In one, if a person got out of the car contrary to your warning to stay in, it was seen as agressive and often a gun was drawn. In the other, it was seen as the driver being somewhat courteous and coming back to you (not making you walk up there).

Not to mention that you and I both know that the "public perception" will often change based on the races of the participants etc.

I think trying to make better, more realistic policies is a noble thing, but the idea of saying that what is best in Philadelphia, PA and what is best in Philadelphia, MS are going to be the same just doesn't make sense to me.

What does all of this have to do with instructors standards? Simple, the needs, capabilities and budgets vary greatly too, all for the same reasons.

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: Niteshift ]

[Watchman]

Ditto that Niteshift.

The thought of national standards coming from the peoples republic of Massachussetts, one of the most ANTI GUN (if not the MOST antigun) state scares me to death.

And correct me if if Im wrong ,but the problems addressed here;
1. reduce the number of mistaken fact shootings;
2. reduce the number of excessive force complaints;
3. reduce the number of officer and arrestee injuries;
4. reduce the expenditures towards use of force litigation; and
5. improve the perceptions of citizens regarding law enforcement

seems to be more of a problem in the big citys of the north more so than anywhere else...

I do not think that we need people in any other state other than the one we live in telling us what to do and how to do it.

[Niteshift]

My other "fear" is once you start establishing a "national standard", any agency that doesn't fall in line with it now has an additional hurdle to jump in court. This is already starting to happen with CALEA. Depts. being asked why they're not accredited through CALEA, when they are nothing more than a private company making recommendations and passing out certificates to well-funded agencies.

Further, it's a 2 edged sword. Say a dept. not only follows the guidelines, but makes them stronger. When a cop gets hurt, you can be damn sure his attorney will point to the "national standards" and ask why they were surpassed to the side of public perception etc.

Maybe I'm missing your goal........and if I am, please explain it to me. But if we can't standardize the instruction for radar operation in the US, despite the fact that a US govt. agency (NHTSA) authored a comprehensive lesson plan, how can we even hope to standardize use of force?

[NTEA]

I'm curious how you plan to attain the stated goals? How will a national standard reduce accidental shootings or change public perception?