An issue here is thinking that every single thing has to have an LE “Scenario” has to apply to it. It’s a shooting skills building exercise. Trying to get cops to think of it as scenario or build a story to it, is why cops look at other practical things and think it doesn’t apply. It’s shooting skill fundementals. That’s all. Not a drill based on a HRTS where a guy pops out. Just shooting. And then apply your fundamental skills to whatever your use of force is or isn’t some day. Local cop. USPSA master.
Yeah I completely agree, I even mention that during the discussion that contextualizing isn't the move. It's purely a hard skill based exercise. Now on the flip side, painting a picture of how that skill translates into a situation isn't harmful.
@@jacrispy9603I disagree and think it can be harmful. Because the ridiculous scenarios they are making to try and frame this as “realistic to cops”, will get the guys who already don’t want to be there just bitch about how ridiculous and unrealistic this scenario is. Do bad, then blame it on “well the scenario is never going to happen like that anyways”. It’s a shooting skills building exercise. Every part of shooting can apply to any single shooting. Playing fantasy land on the range doesn’t make shooting skills apply. Applying shooting skills does.
@@jamesthrun3211 yeah we agree dude, what I'm saying is, alot of the push back from LE I've personally encountered is how does that skill translate. I firmly agree with you on the scenario thing. Infact the video above states that. You don't need a fantasy storyline, I totally agree. But explaining what hard skills will allow you to possibly do, isnt a fantasy scenario. It's simply stating that the skills obviously translate, it's just putting into terms an LEO may understand.
@@jamesthrun3211 also it's not just cops you have to convince, it's their leadership. So if this provides some ammunition for them to push for better training from GMs and the like then good. It's another thing I have personally seen.
@@jacrispy9603 yeah I guess agree to disagree. I’ve seen much greater levels of improvement by leaving cop talk out of it. Cops are dumb, but they can think of whatever application themselves if they need it. Command wise as well. Fast and accurate is fast and accurate. Obviously all depts are different. Just what I’ve seen in a short 9 years. YMMV.
It’s good to see officer cake learn from that live. That’s where I just came from. Got curious who the officer was and landed on your channel. Keep at it man!
A year ago I was an RO for Top Cop and I was surprised that the law enforcement people that showed up were very good shooters. They came from all over as far down as the Valley.
27:21 No. Stop trying to create scenarios to justify why a drill applies to cops. Ffs. It applies because it’s a demonstration of shooting skill. Period. If a cop sucks at that drill then it gives them things to work on (leading with the eyes, precise transitions, trigger control at speed). You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. Shooting is shooting. That’s it.
That's not really what was said in the video, it was more of a conversational discussion on how it could. In fact I say shooting is shooting more than one time in the video. Also those conversations were questions I had recieved from cops on applicability so it seemed that at least some people learn that way and that's fine. Thinking a one size fits all approach works for how some folks learn isn't super helpful, data shows that. I agree you don't need scenarios or that they can be harmful in some cases, but providing context is never a bad thing if someone needs it. The "cops are dumb" argument shouldn't apply as well.
@@jacrispy9603 You guys did say that cops shouldn’t be trying to justify drills by creating applicable scenarios, but then (at the timestamp I provided) Cake gave a comparable scenario. Like I said, it’s talking out of both sides of the mouth. The reason some people continue to think that every drill has to apply to a real world situation is because of situations like this where “authoritative figures” give a scenario. We need to stop doing it. This isn’t about people learning a certain way, it’s about changing the paradigm and we can’t do that by continuing to follow the status quo. In my original comment, I gave the start of the answer you should give to cops (or armed citizens) when they ask you how a certain drill applies. You explain to them the SHOOTING SKILLS that are being tested/developed. There’s literally zero reason to give a scenario. If they ask for a scenario, you pause and take the time to explain why that type of thinking is flawed. This is another instance of getting people to become process focused instead of outcome focused. The “outcome” would be the scenario, the “process” is explaining what shooting skills the drill is working on.
@@Officercake It’s extremely telling that even after having your ass handed to you in the discussion with Pranka, Palmer, and Young that you still haven’t learned humility. You still won’t accept that you don’t know what you don’t know. People are trying to explain it to you but you’re not listening.
![เปิดใจ “ต้นหอม ศกุนตลา” หลังโดนพาดพิงธุรกิจที่เคยทำ และผลกระทบทำถูกปลดฟ้าผ่า! | แฉ 24 ต.ค.67 [2/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vCi5OIqlxaE/mqdefault.jpg)
An issue here is thinking that every single thing has to have an LE “Scenario” has to apply to it.
It’s a shooting skills building exercise. Trying to get cops to think of it as scenario or build a story to it, is why cops look at other practical things and think it doesn’t apply. It’s shooting skill fundementals. That’s all. Not a drill based on a HRTS where a guy pops out. Just shooting. And then apply your fundamental skills to whatever your use of force is or isn’t some day.
Local cop. USPSA master.
Yeah I completely agree, I even mention that during the discussion that contextualizing isn't the move. It's purely a hard skill based exercise. Now on the flip side, painting a picture of how that skill translates into a situation isn't harmful.
@@jacrispy9603I disagree and think it can be harmful. Because the ridiculous scenarios they are making to try and frame this as “realistic to cops”, will get the guys who already don’t want to be there just bitch about how ridiculous and unrealistic this scenario is. Do bad, then blame it on “well the scenario is never going to happen like that anyways”.
It’s a shooting skills building exercise. Every part of shooting can apply to any single shooting. Playing fantasy land on the range doesn’t make shooting skills apply. Applying shooting skills does.
@@jamesthrun3211 yeah we agree dude, what I'm saying is, alot of the push back from LE I've personally encountered is how does that skill translate. I firmly agree with you on the scenario thing. Infact the video above states that. You don't need a fantasy storyline, I totally agree. But explaining what hard skills will allow you to possibly do, isnt a fantasy scenario. It's simply stating that the skills obviously translate, it's just putting into terms an LEO may understand.
@@jamesthrun3211 also it's not just cops you have to convince, it's their leadership. So if this provides some ammunition for them to push for better training from GMs and the like then good. It's another thing I have personally seen.
@@jacrispy9603 yeah I guess agree to disagree. I’ve seen much greater levels of improvement by leaving cop talk out of it. Cops are dumb, but they can think of whatever application themselves if they need it. Command wise as well. Fast and accurate is fast and accurate.
Obviously all depts are different. Just what I’ve seen in a short 9 years. YMMV.
It’s good to see officer cake learn from that live. That’s where I just came from. Got curious who the officer was and landed on your channel. Keep at it man!
🤟
A year ago I was an RO for Top Cop and I was surprised that the law enforcement people that showed up were very good shooters. They came from all over as far down as the Valley.
27:21 No. Stop trying to create scenarios to justify why a drill applies to cops. Ffs.
It applies because it’s a demonstration of shooting skill. Period. If a cop sucks at that drill then it gives them things to work on (leading with the eyes, precise transitions, trigger control at speed). You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. Shooting is shooting. That’s it.
I’ll just direct you to read the other comments.
That's not really what was said in the video, it was more of a conversational discussion on how it could. In fact I say shooting is shooting more than one time in the video. Also those conversations were questions I had recieved from cops on applicability so it seemed that at least some people learn that way and that's fine. Thinking a one size fits all approach works for how some folks learn isn't super helpful, data shows that. I agree you don't need scenarios or that they can be harmful in some cases, but providing context is never a bad thing if someone needs it. The "cops are dumb" argument shouldn't apply as well.
@@jacrispy9603 this🙌
@@jacrispy9603 You guys did say that cops shouldn’t be trying to justify drills by creating applicable scenarios, but then (at the timestamp I provided) Cake gave a comparable scenario. Like I said, it’s talking out of both sides of the mouth.
The reason some people continue to think that every drill has to apply to a real world situation is because of situations like this where “authoritative figures” give a scenario. We need to stop doing it. This isn’t about people learning a certain way, it’s about changing the paradigm and we can’t do that by continuing to follow the status quo.
In my original comment, I gave the start of the answer you should give to cops (or armed citizens) when they ask you how a certain drill applies. You explain to them the SHOOTING SKILLS that are being tested/developed. There’s literally zero reason to give a scenario. If they ask for a scenario, you pause and take the time to explain why that type of thinking is flawed.
This is another instance of getting people to become process focused instead of outcome focused. The “outcome” would be the scenario, the “process” is explaining what shooting skills the drill is working on.
@@Officercake It’s extremely telling that even after having your ass handed to you in the discussion with Pranka, Palmer, and Young that you still haven’t learned humility. You still won’t accept that you don’t know what you don’t know. People are trying to explain it to you but you’re not listening.