
26 | June 2019 | Real Hero Report
News Flash: Men and Women
Are Different
Yes, I know it’s a shock, but it’s true. Take a moment and leave political
correctness, with its limiting thinking and fear of retaliation, behind. Men
and women are different in many ways, yet as use of force instructors,
we often lump all students into the same learning profile. Our goal is to give
every officer/student the skills necessary to win a gunfight, but in order to
accomplish that, we must be free to teach.
Female officers are usually at a disadvantage when they show up at the
firing range for training. They get lumped in with the men and are expected to
learn critical life-saving skills in the manly fashion. “Make it work” is often the
special instruction they receive from instructors, but that is easier said than
done. Women are as capable, usually more so, than their male co-workers, and
often are better shots, but sometimes getting to that end seems extraordinarily
difficult. The “why” question has a simple answer–men and women have
different learning profiles. Here are some thoughts to serving those profiles.
Equipment
Female officers are issued a one-size-fits-all type of gear without any
consideration to specific needs. When issued a holster designed for a man,
the result is often a pistol that rides too high and is canted at awkward angles,
making an efficient draw very difficult. Most major manufacturers of police duty
gear make products designed specifically for female officers. Off-set holsters and
other gender specific equipment should never be overlooked when purchasing
life-saving gear. And many issued handguns are simply too big to comfortably
grip for any shooter with a smaller hand. Firearms manufacturers have wisely
started making pistols with interchangeable grip panels to accommodate a
broader spectrum of end-users. Improperly sized firearms can create userinduced
malfunctions and accuracy errors. This is an easy fix and should be
addressed immediately for use of force instructors.
Say What?
Women are strong verbal learners. They hear in a literal sense more clearly
than men. Remember in high school how many times the teacher had to
repeat instructions to the guys? Multiple instructors giving the same direction
in different ways can come across as two different things. Review range
terminology with those instructing with you to assure uniformity, and have
a struggling female officer repeat the firing sequence as she is learning it to
reinforce the lesson. If you’re having to reteach the same points every session,
then shame on you for not adjusting your teaching methods. The one struggling
may actually be you. (Female instructors are gems to the training environment.
Recruit them.)
Peas in a Pod
Sometimes teaching firearms requires working in intimate spaces. Watch a
male instructor work a firing line and you’ll see him touching male students,
making physical adjustments to shooting fundamentals or skill sets. But when he
reaches a female student, he’ll talk to her but skip the physical methods. We all
know why–fear of a complaint. This is easy. Simply ask permission and explain
your purpose. The female officer deserves as much attention to winning her
gunfight as the other officers. Be professional and get it done.
It is our moral obligation to bring each student to a favorable learning point.
That means that no two people are the same and neither should my teaching
methods be. Firearms instructors should work extra hard to ensure that every
student under instruction receive our very best. Overcome our differences and
win the fight.
Growing Crisis in Law
Enforcement
The single greatest crisis American law enforcement agencies are
facing is the mass exodus of sworn officers. Over the past 20 years,
the number of sworn officers per capita has decreased by more than
10 percent, while the population has increased by nearly 30 percent. Since
2013, the number of sworn police officers has fallen by nearly 25,000,
according to a 2018 Washington Post article written by Tom Jackman. If this
trend continues, we will be facing an unprecedented threat to public safety
across the country. We are in the midst of a challenge so serious, it has the
potential to negatively impact the quality of life for all citizens, not only today,
but for years to come.
I have been directly involved in the hiring process for 17 years and
interviewed more than 850 candidates. I have noticed a steady decline in the
number of applications over those years and unless circumstances change, I
see no immediate relief. Many agencies are currently unable to fill vacancies
due to a number of contributing factors, which may lead to higher crime
rates and a lower quality of life for citizens.
Departments across the nation are feeling the impact of this trend. For
example, the Nashville Police Department received 4,700 applications
in 2017, and only 1,900 in 2018. Seattle saw a 50 percent decrease in
applications, despite a starting salary of $79,000, Jackman reported.
Agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the needs of the public
while employing officers who possess the ability to pass the rigorous hiring
process.
Agencies are in competition with one another and many are able to lure
qualified candidates with attractive incentives, including signing bonuses.
While this may “plug the hole” temporarily, this practice may not attract
the right candidates. The best officers are called into this profession for the
sense of fulfillment in it and rarely for the financial rewards.
In order to provide unparalleled law enforcement service to the
community, departments have strict hiring standards. Maintaining these high
standards may seem difficult for agencies that are facing shortages, but
we cannot afford to lower standards without jeopardizing both our officers’
legitimacy, as well as our community’s trust. There is a certain expectation
the public has regarding the officers working the streets, and the rigorous
hiring process serves a very specific and required purpose. We thoroughly
must vet all candidates before giving them the trust of the community.
Leaders in the law enforcement community must address this growing
issue now. The profession must continue to employ people who are above
reproach and willing to put their community first. This is an admirable
profession, and we cannot afford to lower the hiring standards to fill
vacancies. From my experience, it is far better to have open positions than
to hastily hire individuals who do not meet standards. The stakes are simply
too high.