Beyond the Bullseye: Why “Good Enough” Firearms Qualification Isn’t Good Enough for Law Enforcement

As law enforcement professionals, we all know the drill. It’s qualification day. We line up, we shoot our prescribed rounds, we hopefully hit the required scores, and we breathe a sigh of relief. Checklist checked, box ticked, another year of being “qualified” under our belt. But what if I told you that this approach, while necessary for compliance, often falls far short of what our officers truly need to be effective and, perhaps more importantly, legally defensible in a use-of-force incident?

The truth is, many of us, from the boots on the ground to the administrators making budgetary decisions, view qualification as a hurdle to clear. We want to get through it, get it over with successfully, and use as few precious rounds as possible so we can quickly move on. And in a world of limited resources, that impulse is understandable. However, this mindset can inadvertently shortchange our officers and expose departments to significant liability.

The core of the issue lies in a fundamental misunderstanding: qualification is not training.

The Legal Landscape: Why Qualification Alone Won’t Cut It

The legal principles governing police use of force, particularly firearms, are not set by the number of rounds fired at a static target on a sunny range. They are shaped by critical case law, and these landmark decisions paint a clear picture of what constitutes adequate training.

• Graham v. Connor established the “objective reasonableness” standard. This isn’t about perfect hindsight; it’s about whether an officer’s actions were reasonable given the chaotic, often life-or-death circumstances they faced. This means training must prepare officers for the realities of a deadly force encounter, not just for hitting the ten-ring.
• Popow v. City of Margate delivered a powerful message: training must be realistic. Low-light conditions, moving targets, and the agonizing “shoot/don’t shoot” decisions officers must make – these are the scenarios our training needs to replicate. The courts have explicitly stated that annual or semi-annual qualifications, while fine for basic marksmanship, are woefully insufficient for preparing officers to make these critical deadly force decisions and, crucially, for protecting departments from liability.
• Zuchel v. City and County of Denver drove this point home even further, emphasizing the absolute necessity of decision-making training, especially through “live-fire shoot/no-shoot drills.” A department’s training program that merely consists of a lecture and a movie simply won’t cut it when it comes to demonstrating “deliberate indifference” to an officer’s training needs.

These cases don’t mandate specific “courses of fire” (you won’t find a Supreme Court ruling dictating how many rounds at what distance). What they do is establish the legal framework that demands realistic, decision-making-based firearms training. While state statutes and departmental policies will outline your specific shooting drills, remember that these are informed by these profound legal principles.

A Crucial Distinction: Qualification is a Test, Not Training Time

Here’s a point that cannot be stressed enough, especially to administrators and those responsible for documenting training hours: the time spent on qualification cannot and should not be counted as documented training time. Why? Because qualification is the test of what was taught. It’s the assessment of proficiency, not the instruction itself. Imagine a student taking a final exam and the time spent taking the exam being counted as part of their classroom instruction. It simply doesn’t make sense. We need to fight to ensure that our precious, dedicated firearms training hours are truly spent on instruction, skill development, and realistic scenarios, not just on the administrative act of qualification. This distinction is vital for accurate record-keeping and, more importantly, for demonstrating a genuine commitment to comprehensive training.

Beyond the Qualification Line: What Effective Firearms Training Looks Like

So, if qualification is just the baseline, what does true, impactful firearms training entail? It requires a paradigm shift in how we approach our training programs. We need to move away from simply testing marksmanship and towards cultivating critical decision-making skills under pressure.

Here are some key areas that modern, legally sound firearms training programs need to consider:

1. Scenario-Based Training: This is where the rubber meets the road. Officers need to be put in situations that mimic real-world encounters. This includes:
   • Low-Light/No-Light Engagements: A significant percentage of actual police shootings occur in diminished light. Training must incorporate various lighting conditions, including the use of flashlights and weapon-mounted lights.
   • Moving Targets: Suspects rarely stand still. Officers must train to engage moving threats, both laterally and towards/away from them.
   • Shoot/Don’t Shoot Scenarios: This is paramount. Training must force officers to discriminate between threats and non-threats, often under immense stress and with incomplete information. This can be done through judgmental shooting simulators, force-on-force training, and live-fire drills that incorporate visual cues and decision points.
   • Unconventional Shooting Positions: Officers may find themselves shooting from cover, around obstacles, or from compromised positions. Training should move beyond the static firing line.
   • Engaging Multiple Threats: Real-world encounters often involve more than one adversary. Training should incorporate scenarios where officers must prioritize and engage multiple targets.
2. Force-on-Force Training: Using simunitions or airsoft in realistic scenarios allows officers to experience the dynamic nature of an encounter without lethal consequences. This is invaluable for practicing tactical movement, communication, de-escalation attempts, and ultimately, use-of-force decisions. It also allows for immediate feedback and learning from mistakes in a safe environment.
3. Stress Inoculation: The physiological effects of stress (tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, fine motor skill degradation) are significant in a use-of-force incident. Training should progressively introduce stressors to help officers perform under pressure. This could involve physical exertion before shooting drills, unexpected scenarios, or time constraints.
4. Verbal De-escalation and Command Presence Integration: Firearms training shouldn’t be siloed from other aspects of police work. Officers need to practice integrating verbal commands and de-escalation techniques into their response, recognizing that sometimes, the most effective “shot” is the one that’s never fired.
5. Post-Incident Procedures: What happens after the shots are fired? Training should include basic post-incident protocols, such as securing the scene, rendering aid, and initial officer statements. While not directly about shooting, it’s a critical component of a comprehensive response.

Crucial Point: Supplements, Not Substitutes!

Let’s be absolutely clear on this: scenario-based training, force-on-force training, and video training are all excellent and absolutely essential tools. However, they must supplement our core firearms training program, not take away from or be in place of dedicated range time and live-fire instruction. We already fight for every training hour we get. It’s imperative that we preserve and, ideally, increase the time committed specifically to developing and maintaining firearms proficiency. These supplemental methods enhance decision-making and tactical application, but they do not replace the fundamental need for hands-on, live-fire practice to build and sustain marksmanship and weapon manipulation skills.

Structuring for Success: Time and Resources Well Spent

Yes, effective training takes time and resources. But consider the cost of inadequate training: legal battles, significant financial settlements, reputational damage, and, most importantly, the loss of public trust and the potential for tragic outcomes for officers and citizens alike. Investing in realistic, decision-based training is an investment in officer safety, community trust, and departmental solvency.

Here’s how we might consider structuring our training to maximize impact:

• Move Beyond the Annual Checkbox: Consider breaking up training into shorter, more frequent sessions throughout the year. This helps with retention and allows for more focused skill development.
• Dedicated Scenario-Based Days: Set aside specific training days purely for force-on-force or live-fire scenario drills, separate from basic qualification.
• Leverage Technology: Simulators can be incredibly valuable for decision-making training, allowing for a high volume of repetitions without the cost of live ammunition.
• Invest in Instructor Development: Our instructors are the backbone of our training programs. They need continuous training in advanced teaching methodologies, scenario design, and legal updates. The better our instructors, the better our officers will be.

Elevating Our Instructors: The NLEFIA Advantage

This commitment to advanced instructor development is precisely where organizations like the National Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor’s Association (NLEFIA) become indispensable. For those instructors struggling with officers who consistently fail qualifications, or who need to provide highly individualized training, the NLEFIA Remedial Training and Coaching Specialist class offers specialized techniques and approaches to identify root causes and effectively guide officers to proficiency. It’s about more than just shooting; it’s about understanding learning styles, diagnosing issues, and building confidence.

Furthermore, as our training programs become more sophisticated and integrate complex scenario designs and advanced live-fire drills, our instructors need to be at the forefront of this evolution. The NLEFIA Advanced Firearms Instructor course provides the in-depth knowledge and skills necessary to design, implement, and manage these more intricate training programs. It’s about moving beyond simply running drills to truly understanding the “why” and “how” of advanced firearms instruction.

Join the Conversation, Elevate Your Training

This isn’t just about avoiding liability; it’s about building a more professional, effective, and safer law enforcement community. The conversation about firearms training needs to evolve beyond the minimum requirements.

For those committed to excellence in firearms instruction and a deep understanding of these critical issues, I strongly encourage you to join the National Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor’s Association (NLEFIA) at www.nlefia.org. NLEFIA provides invaluable resources, networking opportunities, and a platform for instructors to share best practices and stay abreast of the latest legal and tactical developments. Their advanced courses are game-changers for any instructor truly dedicated to their craft.

And when you’re ready to take your instructor skills, or your department’s end-user training, to the next level, I invite you to consider Willapa Firearms Training. We specialize in providing the kind of realistic, decision-making-focused firearms training that meets and exceeds the legal and ethical demands placed upon today’s law enforcement officers. Let’s move beyond the bullseye together and truly prepare our officers for the complex realities of their profession.