FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!
Brian Willis

Brian Willis

Brian Willis is a retired officer, trainer and author who now serves as deputy executive director for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA).

Doug  Wyllie

Doug Wyllie

Doug Wyllie has authored more than 1,000 articles and tactical tips aimed at ensuring that police officers are safer and more successful on the streets. Doug is a Western Publishing Association “Maggie Award” winner for Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column. He is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and a member of the Public Safety Writers Association (PSWA).

William Harvey

William Harvey

William "Bill" Harvey is currently serving as chief of police in south central Pennsylvania. He retired from the Savannah (Ga.) Police Department where he worked assignments in training, patrol, and CID. Harvey has more than 25 years of experience working with recruits, rookies, and FTOs.

Keep Your Officers' Firearms Scores

Throwing away shooting scores to prevent them from falling into the hands of plaintiffs’ attorneys makes no sense legally, and it deprives you of a valuable training tool.

May 31, 2007  |  by Steve Ashley - Also by this author

Most departments do not keep firearms "qualification" scores, opting instead for a pass/fail system. They reason that it's better if plaintiffs don't have access to the written history of marginal performers for possible use in a lawsuit.

This sounds like good risk management advice, but it's not. Here's why.

Trainers have an obligation to help manage the risk faced by officers in their department, as well as the risk faced by the department itself. The two primary types of risk faced by officers and departments are risk to officer safety and risk of litigation. Decisions made regarding what type of training to do and what records to keep are often geared toward the negative motivator of liability avoidance, when they should be focused on the positive motivator of enhanced officer safety.

However, assuming for a moment that we want to reduce liability, does failing to keep scores really do this? Probably not.

When we shoot someone, it's either intentional or its not. If it is intentional, we could be looking at a federal lawsuit for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If it's not, then we're probably looking at a claim in state court for something akin to gross negligence. Gross negligence is a very high standard for a plaintiff to reach; they have to essentially show that you were so reckless that you took virtually no care in trying to avoid the inadvertent injury.

Your officers' scores on the firing range are all about whether they can hit what they aim at. If we shoot at a bad guy, and miss—hitting an uninvolved person—that wasn't intentional.

Most liability stemming from a use-of-force incident will arise from the decision making that goes into the use of force, i.e. when to shoot and who to shoot, not how to shoot. How we scored on a paper target has little relevance to that.

So the scores that we keep in order to measure an officer's mechanical ability to function a weapon will have little relevance in a plaintiff's case regarding an officer's decision to shoot. If you ask attorneys that you know if they've ever heard of a case where officers' scores were really relevant to their proofs, they will tell you that they have not. Again, it sounds like good risk management advice when someone says that you should throw away the scores, but it's not.

And this misguided policy might be creating problems for ourselves in our effort to reduce liability. Departments have an obligation to properly manage activities that could give rise to constitutional violations and part of that management obligation is to train and then supervise the use of force. This probably means that there should be an effort in place to improve the performance of those officers who struggle to meet a standard. So when we have officers who barely meet the pass/fail standard, and we either do not have a program in place to assist them with the improvement of their skills, or we don't have good documentation of that improvement effort, we could easily face a federal claim of deliberate indifference under the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause.

In this discussion of liability reduction efforts, we have not talked about officer safety very much. Improving officers' skills with weapons goes directly to the obligation we have as trainers to enhance our officers' abilities to manage conflict in a safe manner. We need to provide performance improvement plans for them; otherwise we're not fulfilling our obligations as trainers. In order to do that, we probably need to keep scores so that we can track performance.

The whole idea that we will be able to, somehow, keep information from plaintiff's regarding how poorly an officer did in training is unlikely anyway. Although it may rarely happen, if a plaintiff's attorney wants the information, he or she will get it.

And consider how few incidents we're talking about. First, we're only talking about a few of your officers. Then, only a miniscule percentage of them will actually shoot someone. Now, consider that only a few of those incidents will be of the type where the officer hits an innocent party. And even more goes into this equation. The injured party has to decide to sue (which is likely), and then his or her suit has to survive a Motion for Summary Judgment, which is difficult. Finally, the case has to make its way through a lengthy pre-trial process. Eventually, a very small number of these cases will end up in court, and that's where—maybe—the data on shooting scores could be used.

Why would we pass up the much-needed opportunity to help our officers who have performance problems and to enhance the overall safety of our departments in order to defend against something that is so unlikely to happen?

As a former risk manager, I strongly believe that we should be tracking scores and developing sound performance improvement programs for our officers. That will keep them safer. And the safer they work, the less liability our departments will face.

Isn't that what being a trainer is all about?


Comments (3)

Displaying 1 - 3 of 3

Matt087 @ 6/1/2007 12:05 PM

I agree we would do a disservice to officers by not maintaining their range scores so their performance can be tracked. I also think we do not pay close enough attention to the marginal shooter and give the necessary remedial training to help improve technique and performance. We get so wrapped up around getting them through a qualifying course of fire that we don't recognize the ones who struggle just to pass. In many states, such as Virginia, officers must qualify with a minimum score. If we don't record those scores and maintain those records, how can we prove an officer qualified? Besides, while I don't know about all the details of many officer involved law suits, I would be willing to bet that most of them have less to do with the officer's range scores than the circumstances and decision making process used in the shooting. Many departments don't have money budgeted for the extra time and ammunition needed to give officers enough practice. However, every officer must make it a priority to figure out how they can get more shooting time, preferably with a partner who can help prevent bad habits from getting worse.

razzieo1 @ 10/6/2007 7:48 AM

very good, i also agree that every department should be keeping scores on all firearms training.

Tyrus Moulder @ 3/26/2016 5:08 PM

Qualification is not (by definition) a training event. Officers are expected to come to their scheduled qualification session and demonstrate the Deprtment's minimum standard of proficiency. Whether this is a aggregate score determined by adding points together for impacting different areas of the target (center mass v. outside of center mass) or a course of fire where the officer is required to demonstrate 100% proficiency (all rounds inside the established center mass), the officer is expected to perform this task cold on demand.

Liability issues are not generated from the qualification system scoring procedures (regardless of the method). Problems arise when officers fail to show up for qualification and are still allowed to deploy with their firearms. When the agency knows this is occurring and ignore it, you have a solid case for negligent entrustment.

Regardless of the training methodology / scoring procedures, officers should not be allowed take the test numerous times until he/she passes. If an officer fails the course two or three times in a row it's time for remediation training to fix the problem the officer is experiencing. Remediation is documented just as failure rates for each officer. You don't succeed by hiding your training methodologies in vague processes that give little, if any useable information to the trainers and the officer's supervisors.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Blog Posts

How the Bond between Cops and Kids Might Help Solve the Police Recruitment Crisis
Many police departments have a pop-up tent, a folding table, and a bunch of knick-knacks...
How the Threat of Terrorism has Changed Since 9/11
Now that law enforcement — particularly the FBI — has placed such an emphasis on...

Police Magazine