The Firearms Instructor Issue 50 23 I t dawned on me recently that as trainers we fail a large pool of officers in the area of 360 degree live fire training. There are a number of reasons why it’s not done. Some are not ready, officers or agencies. Some don’t have access to such facilities. Some don’t have the funding to support the building block training required to get officers to this progressive level of training. However, there are a number of agencies in the country that could be offering this type of train- ing, but choose not to. Why? Do we not work in a 360 degree environment outside of the range? Are we afraid of the risk potential to officers and trainers? Over the past couple of months, I have been afforded the opportunity to provide this type of training to officers on my department. Not just the specialized tactical teams, but to the entire rank and file of our organization from the greenest rookie to the most veteran street officer. This has generated discussion and disagreement among officers as to whether this type of train- ing is too risky or unsafe. So are we pushing the envelope of benefit versus risk in trying to create realistic and relevant training for our officers? I do not think so. I think as firearms instructors it is incumbent upon us to explore ideas that make our officers grow and expand and therefore make them better prepared to survive a deadly force encounter. We are doing them a disservice if all we do is stand on a static line and shoot paper or steel targets. If that is all they ever know, how are we to expect them to react properly when facing a threat in a dynamic 360 degree environment? In a contact/cover role, two officers might have to draw and shoot. Is it not reasonable to expect that they may be close to each other and in potentially awkward angles when they fire their weapons? How about if they are searching a building and encounter a suspect as they enter a room? Do we not want them to be able to place themselves in a mutually supportive position whereby they