LE Sniper Question....again!

[Tflhnd1]

I had posted the question to the board soem onths ago about selling a personal weapon to be used on the team, but my scenario has potentially changed in my favor, as my Chief left to another agency...HEHEHEHEHEHEHE!. So...my TL and I are preparing another memo for using personal weapons on the team, (this case my GAP M40A3). Several members had advised that they used pers. weapons on swat, (Sniper), or were given the option to. NEED>>>>If anyone is willing, I need to get copies of POLIICIES and/or Procedures doc.s for your agencies to attach to out letter. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. If you can, and are willing advise how is the best way to handle. I can always be reached by email. ([email protected]). Thank you again! Jeff

 

[TLong]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

I can see your point, but have you thought about what happens if you do have to use "your" weapon? It is taken from you and sent to have forensics performed, even though there may be no argument that the round came from your weapon. This may take anywhere from 1-12 months to complete. I have personally seen weapons stay at forensics for over a year, usually depending on their current case load and/or incoming cases. They (DFS) are also usually required to stamp a case number on the weapon somewhere. I know it won't bother some, but others may not want someone engraving a number on their personal weapon. Other than that, I can see the advantages to using a weapon you are more or equally familiar with.

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Our policy has really been, there is no policy.

I am still attempting to find any litigation where the weapon or it's origin was a turning point in the case.

If it is treated just as every other department owned weapon is (regarding training, qualifications and inspections) then I don't see how who "owns" it is material.

Instead of comparing Sniper Rifle policies, I think you would do better to look at the very standard practice of departments requiring their officers to personally purchase their own service weapons, shotguns or patrol rifles. There is nothing different in the administrative requirements for a patrol rifle as there is for a sniper rifle.

As for the evidence hold....it can happen. It depends on your jurisdiction and how apparently "clean" the shoot is. I know we have had weapons returned in days. If there is any question on the legality of your shoot I am betting you will not be on active service where you would require the use of the rifle.

Nevertheless my view is having to use my very expensive rifle to protect the lives of my fellow officers and my community is a fitting purpose. I am not about to use a cheaper tool for fear of loosing use of the expensive one for awhile.

 

[Tflhnd1]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

That's my mindset as well LW. We have been advised by our DOJ that special or weapons that are not high in number inventory-wise, will be processed swiftly a few days to week.

I will look at that other angle as well. Jeff

 

[desertrat1979]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

The last agency I was with offered a particular sidearm with two caliber options of .40 or .45. However, personally owned weapons were allowed for "normal duty use" that ranged from 9mm to 44mag. Patrol rifles were authorized, but not furnished to us. As far as a SWAT/SRT/HRT capacity, the department has/had no policy allowing, or restricting personal weapons. There has not been anyone asking that as far as I know. But sidearms, shotguns, or patrol rifles, as long as it fits the departments criteria, and you qualify with it, GTG.

The current agency I am with issues one type of pistol, shotgun and rifle and those only. Off duty is personal choice, but it pays to be versitile.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Two thoughts on this:

1. It doesn't hurt to have in policy a short section that describes minimum specifications and training requirements for a particular weapons system adopted (like a bolt action rifle), nor for a formal approval process and qualification standard for personally-owned weapons.

2. If you use the rifle for matches, reload for it, and/or if your logbook documentation process is extensive and/or extreme the rifle may not be an appropriate weapon for duty use.

 

[Zebra644]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Our Chief allows us to use personal weapons for duty use. At one point all officers were issued the Glock .40. This weapon was too big for for some of our smaller officers. So the Chief changed the policy and as long as its a Glock in 9 mm .40 or .45 your good to go, but the ammo is all issued by the dept. and you are to use nothing else for duty rounds.No modifications are allowed to the Glocks either except a rubber grip, or 3 dot sights, or adding a light or laser light. Our newbies get issued the .40's and when they go full time and get a uniform allowance they can go to the local Cop Shop with Dept. Letter Head and get a new Glock and its yours not the Departments. On our rifle policy, it has to be a M-16 / AR-15/ M-4 or Mini-14, if its a peronally owned weapon .Again they issue the rounds and if its used in a use of force situation its subject to the same evidence procedures as a dept. issued weapon. On the regional SWAT Team I use my own M-4 and .308 As long as we qualify with it and its been inspected by our armorer and if needed, its worked on by our armorer were good to go. Same as our off duty it has to be no less than a .380 acp and made by a well made company i.e. no High Points ect. lol. and has to be a revolver or semi-auto and you have to have it inspected by the armorer and qualify with it and get issued the rounds. And again subject to the same evidence procedures as a dept. weapon. My Chief is awesome

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Jeff,

PM me an agency FAX number and I will send out our policy, a form we use for requesting use of personal owned weapons and a copy of the authorization letter regarding the use of the firearm.

-Andrew

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2. If you use the rifle for matches, reload for it, and/or if your logbook documentation process is extensive and/or extreme the rifle may not be an appropriate weapon for duty use. </div></div>

Graham, not sure if I agree with you on this. Would you like to expand upon your reasoning?

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2. If you use the rifle for matches, reload for it, and/or if your logbook documentation process is extensive and/or extreme the rifle may not be an appropriate weapon for duty use. </div></div>

Graham, not sure if I agree with you on this. Would you like to expand upon your reasoning? </div></div>

I don't agree either.

Matches are training opportunities.

Reloading is just a cheaper way to train.

Logbook comment.... as long as the documentation makes sense it should not matter.

Though I would really like to hear your reasoning on this Graham

 

[inspcalahan]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Interesting to always see the differences across the Country on how things are handled. At my last agency (very large SoCal team), you could use personal weapons if you chose, as long as they were inspected and you qualified with it. If it was used in a shooting, the lab would usually have it returned to you in a few days, with two weeks being the longest I've heard of. No markings, stampings, damage done.

At my current agency, you can only use personally owned handguns, but not long guns. If your personal gun is used in a shooting, you get it back within a week and no markings, stampings, damage done. In past years, the crime lab would engrave a case number inside on the slide/frame/etc, but that isn't being done anymore here.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2. If you use the rifle for matches, reload for it, and/or if your logbook documentation process is extensive and/or extreme the rifle may not be an appropriate weapon for duty use. </div></div>Graham, not sure if I agree with you on this. Would you like to expand upon your reasoning? </div></div>I don't agree either. Matches are training opportunities. Reloading is just a cheaper way to train. Logbook comment.... as long as the documentation makes sense it should not matter. Though I would really like to hear your reasoning on this Graham.</div></div>I know what you guys are getting at, and for the record I don't disagree with what either of you mean: I'm not saying don't shoot matches, don't train with the rifle or don't reload for it - of course training is good and use of reloads on the rount count page doesn't matter.

What I am saying is don't over-document in the official book that goes with the rifle. This is generally not a problem with a departmental logbooks: A record of shots fired, when scopes and things were mounted/changed, and monthly qual/cold bores is fine.

But I have seen personal logbooks crammed with loading data, personal notes and photos, all of which will get subpoena'd. One such book had a photo of a rifle case with stickers that said "I don't call 9-11" and "Long Distance - when you want to reach out and touch someone." I could cross-examine an officer for ten solid minutes on those two gems alone.

I am saying that an enthusiastic professional who to the defense appears to be a well-trained officer can also appear to a prosecutor or plainitffs' attorney as a tightly-wound maniac who keeps pictures of his exploits in A-stan and the specs of the next rifle he wants because of its 'superior killing capabilities'. Don't laugh. I've seen it, and it's discoverable.

I know, I know, if it's a good shoot it shouldn't matter, and in the end it may not, but remember that an unsubstantiated claim of failure to train closely resembles a fishing expedition.

Look up <span style="text-decoration: underline">Long v City and County of Honolulu et al </span>(it's a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29530) and ask yourself what would make you feel most confident when taking the stand as the training officer of a SWAT sniper.

 

[desertrat1979]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

When it comes to the issue of being used for SWAT you would be better off having your department choose the weapon and approving it. LEOs get scrutanized enough in a shooting, and shootings involving SWAT are placed under an even bigger microsope. One reason that the Admin may not like about a personal weapon is just that. It is a custom built weapon they know nothing about and sometimes all the documentation in the world is not going to satisfy them. However, instead of presenting your own weapon as an option, why not see if they would be willing to purchase a rifle from one of the many reputable custom rifle makers, but using your knowledge on what to ask for. Sort of what the Marines did for the M40 where the McM stock has evolved around their ideas.

Request:
1 rifle
Caliber: .308 winchester
Stock: Mcmillan A-whatever
Action: Remington 700 Short action
Barrel: Pick the appropriate one
Optics/mounts: same as barrel
Bipod: same as above
Specifications: maintain 1/2 moa accuracy to 100 yds with factory loaded ammo.

If they entertain the idea and it is in the departments budget take the opportunity to recommend a rifle builder like GAP to contract the build. Either way your team is going to need the addition of a precision rifle and they are going to need to fill that void and may not be aware of what their options are. Good luck.

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Graham I agree to a point.

We have three different records. A round count book that stays with the rifle. A databook that belongs to the shooter and a binder with shot targets. I didn't want to take part in the target binder thing, but I was out-voted on that because it was something they were doing before I came on the team.

All of us know that any of those records along with pictures we take at training are discoverable. As such they are kept in a professional manner.

It is wise to do a cost/benefit analysis of everything we do. However if I was worried about justifying my actions in court I would never make another arrest. I limit the number of items that can be called into question as best I can, but in the end I am still going to use the best tools I legally can.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Someone show me case law or the attempt to take anything to court regarding logbooks.

To my knowledge it has not happened. What has is training and proper equipment and proper use of force.

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Cowboy I am actually attempting such a search, but since I don't want to pay for a Lexis Nexis account it's a bit of a slow search.

I am still trying to find any cases where (properly functioning) equipment was the deciding factor on the verdict. At this point I have come up dry.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Lonewolf,

I have also searched this topic to include a dozen or so searches on Lexis Nexis. I have yet to turn up anything regarding logbooks or personally owned duty weapons. However there are a shit load of cases regarding equipment and weapons that were not functioning correctly.

My post was more of a challenge for proof to be shown rather than just saying the same old BS about logbooks and personal weapons being locked down in evidence for years.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Someone show me case law or the attempt to take anything to court regarding logbooks. To my knowledge it has not happened. What has is training and proper equipment and proper use of force. </div></div>Plaintiffs are permitted to make unsupported claims of failure to train. <span style="font-style: italic">Leatherman v Tarrant County Narcotics and Intelligence Coordination Unit</span>, 507 US 63, 1993. The training records of the officer involved are subject to the pre-trial discovery process. Logbooks are a preliminary part of the inquiry in every case, both civil and criminal, regarding proper equipment, proper use of force, and whether the training met the test required by <span style="font-style: italic">Walker v City of New York</span>, 972 F.2d 293 (2nd Cir) 1993.

I sometimes describe it this way: the logbook isn't the legal issue, but it is an important evidentiary step in establishing the credibility of the officer/weapon system at issue when allegations are made.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Leatherman v Tarrant County Narcotics and ICU is a big stretch. Canton v Harris is a better argument but both fail to prove the point concerning logbooks or personally owned weapons used on duty.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Neither case is about personal weapons or logbooks, as there is no logbook law. But Leatherman isn't a stretch: Like Harris, it's binding precedent.

<span style="font-style: italic">City of Canton v Harris</span> was the 1989 Supreme Court decision which held that inadequate training may serve for the basis for liability under 42 USC 1983 when failure to train amounts to 'deliberate indifference' to the persons with whom the police come into contact. Harris changed what had been the rule on 'deliberate indifference' since 1977.

The Harris court explained that deliberate indifference is only evident when "...the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely as to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policy makers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need."

Because Harris provided little practical guidance one must look to <span style="font-style: italic">Board of County Commissioners v Brown</span> (1997) for how to apply the new rule: That police departments may be held liable for failing to train a single officer.

The relevant three part inquiry is found in <span style="font-style: italic">Walker v City of New York</span> which, although a Second Circuit case, provides the test: A department is required to provide specific training in an area of officer activity when 1) it has knowledge equvalent to a moral certainty that officers will be confronted with a particular situation; 2) the situation either presents the officer with a difficult decision or there is a history of particular officers improperly handling the siuation; and 3) should an officer make an improper decision a deprivation of someone's constitutional rights will frequently result.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Graham,

I am very familiar with Canton v Harris.... Again, you are not explaining how it or any other case law has anything to do with personally owned weapons used on duty or log books.

Logbooks are essentially a shooters diary. I like them but they are not a necessity for LE Snipers. Documentation of training however is essential and necessary. The agencies ability to conduct appropriate training and document the training and the progress of the shooter is what is important. The logbook legal theory has been getting blown out of proportion for years. The bottom line is if you keep a log book make sure it is consistent, if it isn't it will just paint a picture of you being unorganized.

 

[GCMxVeGeTa]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Our policy is we can carry any person firearm, only if we qualify with it first with approved ammunition. This includes pistol, shotgun, AR15, etc.

 

[Tflhnd1]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

GCM...is that an understood policy or in written format. If written would it be posible to get a copy. I do have credentials to support. Thanks, Jeff

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...you are not explaining how it or any other case law has anything to do with personally owned weapons used on duty or log books.</div></div>The logbook is a record of your training and proficiency with the firearm and it speaks to your credibility.

I have no argument with CB on this one: I don't have a problem with personally-owned weapons and no one ever said that logbooks are the key to the magic kingdom. But I did more than imply that if you use your personal weapon for work your logbook might as well be a public document and should be treated as such, with the proviso that more documentation is not always better documentation.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

A log book is not an accurate record of your training. How do you record in your logbook a 3/4 mile run and gun where you engage a dozen different sized targets at numerous distances, light and wind conditions that vary? You don't. The run and gun is recorded as part of the training and the shooter may be scored as pass or fail or record the number of hits. Every round fired can not be logged in a manner to accurately reflect training.

A log book is a great way to track rounds at various distances under a variety of environmental conditions. It also aids the shooter in identifying trends, good or bad.

Actual documentation of the training needs to go a bit more in depth than a log book. Training also needs to be documented by another party. How do you have any credibility by documenting your own training as a LEO? That is like signing off on your own qualification record or giving yourself a yearly review.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

It's not the only record of training, nor should it be, but it should be an accurate one. Recording your own training is not the same thing as approving it: we do it all the time when we fill out time cards and call logs.

 

[rkgsmith]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Jeff, just curious as to what is the "issued rifle" by the dept.

 

[Tflhnd1]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

We have twop shooters and one new one just added, but no rifle, and NO MONEY, that's why I can't jsut spec one to have them purchase. #1 is a Rock barreled 700 PSS in an HS prcision stock. #2, (My current), is an older remmy 700 varmint in a Mac A-5.

 

[sierra2]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Our department policy has evolved over the past 7 years. Our first incarnation for a personally owned rifles policy allowed us to carry Remington 700 rifles only, with optics that met or exceeded the department's scopes (the old Leupold Vari-X Tactical 1" package scopes) in quality. We were allowed the option of a custom stock.

In a nutshell, our most recent re-write has been expanded to included any bolt action or semi-auto, of a reputable manufacturer, in .308. The optics still have to meet or exceed the department's, which isn't much now-a-days.

100% qualification, on a 10 round course, from 25 yards to 100 yards.

Eric

 

[Tflhnd1]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

SIERRA...that is exactly what I'm looking for as well. If this is written, is it possible to get a copy. Jeff.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not the only record of training, nor should it be, but it should be an accurate one. Recording your own training is not the same thing as approving it: we do it all the time when we fill out time cards and call logs.

</div></div>

Who said anything about "approving"?

Time cards and call logs? You are talking apples and oranges and failing to explain your point. Is it your goal to log every round fired, hit or miss, training or on duty?

Graham, Please answer how you would document in a logbook a run and gun or stress shoot like I described in my previous post.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who said anything about "approving"?</div></div>You did:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is like signing off on your own qualification record or giving yourself a yearly review.</div></div>'Signing off' is an approval by another, as is the point of a yearly review.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Time cards and call logs? You are talking apples and oranges and failing to explain your point.</div></div>My point is that in other areas (apples) we document ourselves as a mater of routine, so doing it with our training (oranges) is not out of the ordinary.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham, Please answer how you would document in a logbook a run and gun or stress shoot like I described in my previous post.</div></div>You don't; but of course you know that

. One doesn't document a field course because that is a category of training that is supervised and implemented by the department and recorded as such in an officer training file. It serves a different purpose: recording formal instruction and/or qualification with regard to specific tasks. But I have seen some officers who documents their stress fire practice/training on individual targets and note it as such in the comments section of their logbook page for the day.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Is it your goal to log every round fired, hit or miss, training or on duty? </div></div> Every training round: No. Every duty round: Yes; with the proviso that all are to be accounted for but each may not be able to be logged as an individual shot.

 

[mouse07410]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

I was taught (though I'm not an LE) that <span style="text-decoration: underline">every</span> round should be logged: for the logbook purposes there are no "training rounds".

Our instructor demanded of us the ability to tell (and log) where every round impacted (prior to looking into a spotting scope or getting to the target

) and why (i.e. what action of ours caused it to impact where it did) - as an irreplaceable way to improve performance.

Sorry that this doesn't add much to the main topic of the discussion - what paperwork and/or logs are required to document/demonstrate adequate training of an LE sniper, and based on what regulation/written policy/etc.

 

[brickbd]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

I appears that I am extremly late in this discussion but I would like to add my 2cents.

1. Our dept does supply our long guns for our team and we are all running remington 700 tac rifles and specs specific to our departments ideas of whatthey do and dont want in their city. Though out equipment is issued once on the team, we are not allowed to make any adjustments to those guns. Besides zeroing the gun, and adding a cheek pouch there is nothing we can add or take off of the gun.

I say all of that to say this. They have told us what we will and wont do with the gun and the ideas are hammered home by the team supervisors <span style="font-weight: bold">BUT</span> there is no dept policy on any of it. just one of those unwritten deals that no one has managed to fight. It is my own opinion that once a policy is in place you are limitied to what you can and can't do with absolutely no recoourse if and when you violate that policy. YES, i did say what we aren't able to do but again no one has bucked the system in god knows how long our SWAT teamhas been around.

They give us the rifle and the rounds to shoot along with an area to shoot at no cost to us so I doubt anyone will be playing "big cock, small cock" anytime soon.

2. As for using our personal rifles. This is something we have chatted about in the past. I really don't want the county to take my rifle after I plug a guy for god knows how long. Having been in a shoot on the street and having the dept issued gun gone for 1.5 years.... yes, 1.5 years..... I do not want them to hve my tricked out long rifle taken LIke all of you I also have a dept issued rifle and of course my own. SSSSSOOOO, the gist of all this blah, blah is that something to remember about your personal rifle is that if you have to use it, it may be gone for quite a while and dont think you crime anaylst will care for your baby like you do!

3. Here in the Cold White North, our log books our public property and subject to subpoena if needed. That is why we our mandated to zero our rifles at least once a month and sketch all that down in our handy dandy log books. I know not everyone has the same recs and specs but thats the microscope we are under. Yes, when we run a course or fire no matter how crazy, we are required to sketch and explain!


Just my 2cents and I know I am late in the game!

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brickbd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...It is my own opinion that once a policy is in place you are limitied to what you can and can't do with absolutely no recoourse if and when you violate that policy.</div></div>The written policies I have seen have a clause in them that says something to the effect that the onus is on the officer to justify any wilful violation. Policies are/should be written that way because officers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders.

That said, from the standpoint of civil liability an unwritten policy is Policy if promulgated by supervisors.

Violation of a policy can be evidence of negligence or indifference, but not always. Unfortunately I know many officers who did everything correctly under the law, but were then disciplined internally for policy violations that if they had not committed would probably have made the situation worse. Departments that chafe at permitting their officers the freedom to use their judgment are often the worst offenders in this regard.

 

[sierra2]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Jeff,

PM me an email address and I'll see what I can do.



Eric

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who said anything about "approving"?</div></div>You did:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is like signing off on your own qualification record or giving yourself a yearly review.</div></div>'Signing off' is an approval by another, as is the point of a yearly review.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Time cards and call logs? You are talking apples and oranges and failing to explain your point.</div></div>My point is that in other areas (apples) we document ourselves as a mater of routine, so doing it with our training (oranges) is not out of the ordinary.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham, Please answer how you would document in a logbook a run and gun or stress shoot like I described in my previous post.</div></div>You don't; but of course you know that

. One doesn't document a field course because that is a category of training that is supervised and implemented by the department and recorded as such in an officer training file. It serves a different purpose: recording formal instruction and/or qualification with regard to specific tasks. But I have seen some officers who documents their stress fire practice/training on individual targets and note it as such in the comments section of their logbook page for the day.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Is it your goal to log every round fired, hit or miss, training or on duty? </div></div> Every training round: No. Every duty round: Yes; with the proviso that all are to be accounted for but each may not be able to be logged as an individual shot. </div></div>

Graham,

Can you possibly twist my words and butcher my statements any more?

I never said anything about "approving". Your statements lead me to believe you are not a trainer. My point about the training issues is that someone runs the training with clear cut learning objectives. That person needs to have the ability to observe and document the good and the bad. Using your logbook as a training record will only get you into trouble. I guarantee the training record (done by a training officer) will read different than the shooters log book therefore making it appear as though someone is not being honest.

I have been instructing LE snipers for 6 years and been instructing LE sniper instructors for the past 3 years. I have never come across anyone in LE that uses a logbook in the manner you describe.

The logbook needs to serve one purpose. To aid the shooter in gathering accurate dope in a variety of conditions so that the shooter can look back at that logbook as a reference. You are making the logbook into something it is not and should never be.

This topic is morphing into a Coriolis-Spin-Driftism... I am coining that term by the way.... Jacob Bynum at Rifles Only will tell you he hit targets in the early 90's at and beyond 1000 yards and he never doped for spin drift or coriolis but now all of the sudden everyone talks about it and acts like you need to dope for it or you will miss the target... What I will tell you is it is a way for people to make things sound more complicated and more important than it really is. This logbook thing is hitting the same level. It is a way for people to cast another level of importance and complexity on the title of "Sniper".

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Graham, Can you possibly twist my words and butcher my statements any more?</div></div>That's a cheap shot: I wasn't paraphrasing, those are quotes from what you wrote. You challenged me to justify what I said and now you criticize the result.

An old instructor once told me that as a trainer it will always be my responsibility to communicate in a way that allows the audience to understand what I am saying. The complete discussion is available above for all to read, so let's agree that any misunderstanding between us is due to lapses in reading comprehension - both yours and mine.

CB, I don't doubt you, and I hear that you are an excellent instructor. I have been trying to get to an OPOTA course for a few years now and have been holding off for various reasons we discussed via PM. I would welcome being a student in one of your classes and I will agree (in writing if necessary

) to listen more than talk. I appreciate the offer, and if I can get time next year I will take you up on it for an instructor class.

But have a look back at my posts: I am not 'making' the logbook into anything. I said at the beginning that its use and the data it contains should be <span style="text-decoration: underline">limited</span> for a personal rifle being used in the LE context; that because the logbook is a training record (whether we like it or not), for LE purposes one should make sure that its use be <span style="text-decoration: underline">narrowed</span> to limit its conflict with the officer's credibility.

We are saying the same thing: I argued for logging <span style="text-decoration: underline">less</span> in an LE rifle book, not more; that because a logbook is a record of rifle/shooter the data kept in a personal book could cause a conflict between training records for an officer; that a logbook serves a <span style="text-decoration: underline">different</span> purpose than a departmental training record; and that rounds fired on duty must be accounted for but that each shot does not have to be individually logged.

Is any of that flat-out wrong or am I missing something that I should have mentioned?

 

[RGraff]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

With respect, I have to disagree with you (Graham) on one specific issue. Perhaps this is where you and cb diverge a bit.

You mentioned a logbook being a record of rifle and shooter. It is not (at least in our department). The logbook is reference material used as base line information for a multitude of scenarios. Shooter performance or training is not a consideration, line item or topic of discussion. Ever.

We look to our log books for information pertaining to a set of circumstances or scenarios. This rifle/bullet combination performs in this manner given these lighting conditions, weather conditions, elevation, etc.. Nothing more, although we do use another section in the same book for maintaining a round count.

I see no justification or reason for using l.e. log book data as some sort of training record other than being able to say "...this rifle was here on this day.". Just because defense attorneys and the courts have decided to MAKE them a record of training doesn't make it so.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

RGraff, Yup. I see what you mean. I agree that a logbook is not intended to be <span style="text-decoration: underline">the</span> training record. I didn't say that it should be, just that it can be and is <span style="text-decoration: underline">a</span> record of training, so for LE purposes the book on a personal rifle should be limited in scope to avoid potential problems.

 

[brickbd]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RGraff</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I see no justification or reason for using l.e. log book data as some sort of training record other than being able to say "...this rifle was here on this day.". Just because defense attorneys and the courts have decided to MAKE them a record of training doesn't make it so. </div></div>

When the hostage in an apartment is being held at gun point 176 yards away (using a range finder)and you have zeroed your rifle consistanly for the past six months and your called upon to take that shot and you smoke the hostage instead of the Sh*tbag. AND you knew your rife was on, you took the shot from a prone position from a home down the street with no one else in the house... therefore no reason to have missed that shot becuase your seasoned and you just know you were dialed in. THATS WHEN YOUR LOG BECOMES A RECORD OF TRAINING! According to our douche bag city attorney's, our log books can and will come into play when something bad happens. That log book shows a consistent level of training. That way if something bad does happen, you have proof that you did not just pick up that rifle and start sending rounds down range.

 

[RGraff]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

I'm with you when you're talking about a log book showing history or familiarity with a weapon. No, I didn't just pick this rifle up off the street. I'll also concede that bit of information would be useful in a defense.

You lose me when you say it indicates, tracks or somehow details "training". That's what trainers records and the F6 that goes to the academy are for.

 

[caustic]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

I personally think that what Graham was getting in his original post is using your pers weapon and keeping all the info about is exploits is fuel for a defense lawyer (depending on what side of the room your on) and hence a bad Idea. I’d have to agree with that on most levels. There is no way to ensure that a team member is not keeping this info on there pers weapon or simply on their personality (ie. facebook ect…)_ leaving a defense lawyer a means of defacing the member.

 

[RGraff]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

I completely agree and maybe I was stating my position poorly.

My logbook tells me where my bullet will impact given a particular set of circumstances and how many rounds I have down the pipe. Nothing else.

To learn how I did in training you'll have to contact my instructors.

 

[Andrew Blubaugh]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Graham,

That wasn't a "cheap shot", you were quoting me and saying it meant something else, such as... Signing off on a qual is not "approving" anything. Qual is a test of the minimum standard. The instructor is administrating the test and then signing off on a pass or fail. When we write a course of fire or a qualification I must submit it to the state for approval.

I am criticizing your responses because you have made comments based on personal theories and not based on actual practices or methods that are being instructed or endorsed by ILEETA, IALEFI or any school that I am familiar with.

I am not going to continue this back and forth on an open forum, it is clear you have your mind made up. Good luck with that.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

When I ask you directly:<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is any of that flat-out wrong or am I missing something that I should have mentioned? </div></div>And you respond with:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowboy_bravo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...it is clear you have your mind made up. Good luck with that. </div></div> It doesn't look to anyone else like I am the one acting as if my mind is made up.

Either you are purposely being rigid or I offended you in some way. If I offended you I apologize; I respect your knowledge and experience.

You are looking at the issue of logbooks strictly as a trainer. I do not disagree with what you are saying from the point of view of an LE trainer and yes, what you are saying is what one would teach. But I am looking at it with the additional perspective of a prosecutor, both civil and criminal.

I confess to being confused by your response: I stated not one personal theory and nothing I said is contradicted by anything taught by ILEETA or IALEFI, the latter of which has published my work.

 

[keithtb1]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

If I could add my 02 cents. We used to use our own rifles back in the early 1990's. My choice of rifle back then was an LTR with Leupold scope. The reason we opted to use our own rifles was we were actually using rifles confiscated from different arrests prior! We convinced the chief back then that using rifles with no known history would come back to haunt us liability wise if we were called upon to take a shot. We opted for remington 700's using leupold scopes and 168 FGMM ammo. Several years later the use of the Word LIABILITY seem to roll off the tongue of every department administrator and they opted to purchase us each a new weapon system built for each sniper and all uniform to each other.
The first sniper involved shooting was a real eye opener to us all. We had a subject on our beach fire over 400 rounds at us from a balcony several stories up on a high rise. We had one patrol car out front (parked prior to the start of shooting) that looked like a porcupine with all the sticks showing angle of fire after! One of our guys was able to get in a building across the street and take the shooter out with one well placed shot in the dark (no Night vision, that was purchased after).
Now you would think, I can't get a better scenario than this. Hundreds of rounds fired by the suspect, grave danger to us and the public at large, Commander (major) yelling on scene we have a green light as soon as we get on scene (don't ask) and every sniper trying to get there first to take the shot! Well R..... gets there first and takes him out. Well, he was out for 4 months waiting on a grand jury to clear him. They went through our training logs with a fine tooth comb. and spoke to several snipers individually on training, equipment, etc. Its probably what set the stage for how we document our training and logging what needs to be logged. Having documentation on what training will take place months in advance, and documenting the who what and where of the training.
Now I know its different in every location, and I also agree I would much rather use a rifle that I chose for myself and had built for myself rather than a rifle system that the department picked and then purchased by the lowest bid of three.
But this definately comes with added liability. Why you chose that rifle, what you paid, what work went into it, who did the work, the rifle builders certification, care and upkeep of the rifle, Testing of the rifle by the defenses expert. Is it better than the department issued rifle, says who? Now we all know there are dozens of rifles better than a stock remmy 700, but what is the most widely used rifle across the country by snipers? Probably the remmy 700. Believe me from experience they will bring in a so called "expert" that will tear up all your decisions and good intentions and open you up to personal litigation because you chose to use a personal rifle. And thats on a good shoot! Forget the liability you will encounter on a questionable shoot!
I just believe you would be better off trying to get the best weapon system your department will accept and train to be the best you can with that weapon system. The ASA has a training conference/sniper shoot every year, and speaking with guys who have taken the shot and what they go through afterwards will surely make you want to have your ducks in a row and prepare for the aftermath of a sniper involved shooting.

 

[keithtb1]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

After reading this post once again something has definitely come to my attention that would be a good argument for the work we do as LE snipers. You have two differences of opinion by two well respected members of the hide who know the job backed up by years of experience and training. Graham and Cowboy Bravo will discuss and/or argue their points and we will make decisions on what they argue and either agree or disagree with both. Now take one of these guys and put them on the side of the defense and have them tear you a new one in front of a jury who has no idea the job we do and decide on our fate. Makes you definitely want to have your shit together prior to that shot. If your not sure who is right or wrong and we are in the business, imagine a jury of your peers deciding your fate!
2 Disclaimers:
1) In no way am I saying that these two gentlemen would ever side against law enforcement for some scumbag attorney! But believe me the defense will find someone.
2) They were correct in most of their arguments pertaining to past information/experiences, but there is no cut and dry way to look at this subject. Geographical location and law will never make it the same everywhere.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Sniper Question....again!

Keith,

CB is literally correct: logbooks are never the legal issue so you won't find any specific legal case that deals with logbooks.

What I was pointing out is that in civil rights litigation whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity is the issue. Therefore (setting aside for the moment any unrelated state law claims) the officer's lawful use of force will be the main inquiry, the issue being whether the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect was an immediate threat to others. But the argument against qualified immunity, a claim of municipal liability, is brought on a theory of failure to train (or discipline). Not until I learned how to bring this kind of suit, how to prosecute it and how to defend it, did I better understand the potential role(s) for the logbook and training record(s) as evidence.

Therefore I posted in my response to the OP that in my opinion the logbook that goes with a personal rifle to be used on duty should be limited in scope. My (admittedly simplistic) point was that criteria that don't apply to sport-shooter logbook do apply to LE records.

I also said that although not the training record, the logbook was a record of training. Maybe that's where I drew fire. It wasn't meant to sound like circular reasoning. What I mean is that while the rifle logbook is not <span style="text-decoration: underline">the</span> training record for purposes of state-mandated or department-mandated qualification it is nevertheless <span style="text-decoration: underline">an</span> admissible record of what the rifle did and can do with that shooter.
I never said and never meant to imply that the logbook kept with the rifle was intended to be used as the equivalent of the state-mandated training record - that wouldn't make any sense. I was giving an opinion that I am not sure the rifle data can be legally separated from the shooter that made it, so I wouldn't go so far as CB did to say that such a logbook is strictly data.

But I did intend to point out that there appears to be no national consensus on how to log and what to log. When our department team started it kept no logbooks with the rifle (which would still be OK, in my opinion, if other data was properly kept). Since that time I have seen departments that keep three logbooks (rifle round count wih rifle, rifle/shooter data with shooter, training log at the department); two logbooks (round count with rifle and officer training file); one logbook (of widely varying content and location), and no book at all.

Under these circumstances the intent of my first post was only to encourage the OP to think about whether and under what constraints his personal rifle would be suitable for duty use and to have him think about whether he really wants to use his personal rifle for duty.

In my opinion, unlike a personal rifle, a duty rifle is only a tool. There are various financial and emotional dangers to being too invested in a personally-owned rifle used for duty. That said, I see absolutely no problem with competent professional officers choosing to use their personal rifles for duty as there is no (overwhelming legal) reason not to use them provided a few common sense rules are followed.

Unfortunately, having debated the point several times I understand all too well why some administrators are against using personal rifles and will not permit them to be used. Most of their objections are based on critria other than those a training officer would consider valid, but more often than not those with the power to decide these things have also outranked me.