Excessive Force 2 Force On Force

Force on force training changed how I think about police work. Not the classroom stuff — the part where you're standing in a darkened hallway, heart pounding, a role player screaming at you with a knife, and you have seconds to decide: shoot, don't shoot, Taser, hands on, back up, talk.

Most people think "excessive force" is a legal term. It is. But in training, it's a feeling. It's the knot in your stomach when you realize you fired three rounds and the threat was already dropping. It's the silence in the debrief room when the instructor plays back your body cam and asks, "Why did you press the trigger that third time?

The official docs gloss over this. That's a mistake Worth keeping that in mind. Simple as that..

This article isn't legal advice. It's a breakdown of how force on force training exposes the gap between policy and reality — and why that gap is where excessive force lives.

What Is Force on Force Training

Force on force (FoF) is scenario-based training using role players, marking cartridges (Simunition, UTM), or non-lethal training ammunition (NLTA). Officers face live, thinking humans who react, resist, comply, or escalate — not paper targets that stand still.

It's Not "Scenario Training"

Agencies love the phrase "scenario-based training.If the officer gives a verbal command, the role player complies. If the officer draws, the role player drops the weapon. In real terms, that's not force on force. Role players follow a flowchart. " But a lot of what passes for scenarios is scripted. That's compliance theater.

Real FoF has three non-negotiables:

1. Unscripted decision-making — the role player has objectives, not a script
2. Consequence — hits hurt (marking rounds sting, leave welts), misses have tactical costs
3. Time pressure — decisions happen in seconds, not minutes

The "Excessive Force 2" Label

You'll see "Excessive Force 2: Force on Force" used as a course title by several training outfits — notably Force Science Institute, Calibre Press, and various state POST-certified programs. The "2" usually signals an advanced curriculum: not "shoot/don't shoot" basics, but articulation, legal articulation, post-force decision-making, and supervisory review.

Most guides skip this. Don't.

The name is deliberate. Now, it forces the conversation: **you will use force. The question is whether you can explain why it wasn't excessive.

Why It Matters — And Why Most Agencies Get It Wrong

The Policy-Reality Gap

Every department has a use of force policy. On top of that, most are 15–30 pages. Worth adding: graham v. Think about it: connor. Tennessee v. Think about it: garner. Consider this: objective reasonableness. And totality of circumstances. Officers can recite the standards.

Then they step into a FoF house and freeze when a 16-year-old with a airsoft gun raises it sideways — "gangster style" — and they fire twice center mass. The role player drops. The instructor asks: "What did you see?

"I saw a gun."

"Was it real?"

"I didn't know."

"Then why'd you shoot?"

"Because he raised it at me."

That exchange — repeated thousands of times across the country — is where excessive force happens. Not in the policy manual. In the perception-decision-action loop under stress Small thing, real impact..

The Training Scar Problem

Officers train on static ranges. And draw, acquire sights, press trigger, reset. Thousands of reps. Think about it: then they hit FoF and the same fundamentals collapse. Why?

Because range training builds motor programs without context. FoF adds context — and context breaks motor programs.

Common training scars exposed in FoF:

• Trigger finger on the frame until sights on target — fails when the threat is at contact distance and you're fighting for weapon retention
• Verbal commands before action — fails when the threat is already moving and commands would delay response
• Two to center mass, assess — fails when the threat drops after one round and the second is already traveling

These aren't "mistakes.In practice, " They're conditioned responses from thousands of reps in a sterile environment. FoF is where they surface Most people skip this — try not to..

How Force on Force Actually Works

The Equipment

Real talk: Simunition and UTM hurt. That's a feature. Pain creates urgency. Airsoft doesn't replicate the flinch response. If your agency only runs airsoft FoF, you're not stress-testing decision-making — you're playing tag Easy to understand, harder to ignore..

The Role Players

This is where most programs fail. Good role players are actors with tactical knowledge. They:

• Know the legal boundaries of the scenario
• Can escalate/de-escalate based on officer behavior
• Don't "die" instantly unless the hit is fight-stopping
• Give consistent, repeatable performances for multiple students

Bad role players:

• "Die" the moment they're hit (teaches officers to stop shooting too early)
• Ignore commands to make the scenario "harder"
• Break character to coach the officer
• Have no idea what Graham factors apply

The Debrief — Where Learning Actually Happens

The scenario lasts 30–90 seconds. On top of that, the debrief lasts 20–40 minutes. That ratio is intentional Easy to understand, harder to ignore. That's the whole idea..

A proper FoF debrief follows this structure:

1. Officer narrative first — "Walk me through what you saw, thought, decided." No interruption.
2. Video review — Body cam, helmet cam, overhead. Pause. Rewind. "Right here — what did you see?"
3. Instructor articulation — "Here's how this maps to Graham. Here's where your articulation holds. Here's where it doesn't."
4. Role player perspective — "When you shouted 'drop it,' I heard 'drop it' but I was already moving. Here's why."
5. Alternative options — Not "what should you have done" — "what could you have done, and what would the trade-offs be?"

The goal isn't a grade. It's a mental model update.

Common Mistakes — What Most People Get Wrong

Mistake 1: Treating FoF as a Test

"If I shoot the role player, I fail."

That mindset makes officers hesitate in training — and hesitate on the street. Which means foF is a laboratory, not an exam. Worth adding: you want officers to try things that might fail. You want them to shoot when they shouldn't, then unpack why in the debrief.

Agencies that score FoF scenarios create risk-averse officers who freeze when the script changes.

Mistake 2: "Winning" the Scenario

Offic

Mistake 2: “Winning” the Scenario

When officers approach a FoF evolution as a competition to “win” — by neutralizing the role player first, by avoiding any hits, or by racking up the highest score — they begin to prioritize outcomes over process. This mindset produces several counter‑productive habits:

• Premature escalation. Shooters may fire at the first sign of movement, interpreting any ambiguous cue as a threat, because they believe hesitation equals loss.
• Artificial restraint. Conversely, some officers hold fire even when a clear, imminent danger is present, fearing that a hit will be counted against them.
• Script‑driven behavior. Participants start to anticipate the role player’s scripted actions rather than reacting to the evolving dynamics, eroding the spontaneity that FoF is meant to cultivate.

The remedy is to reframe success. Instructors should make clear that a “good” run is one where the officer’s decision‑making, communication, and use‑of‑force rationale are transparent and defensible, regardless of whether the role player is hit or not. So scoring sheets, if used at all, should capture decision points (e. Worth adding: g. , “identified threat,” “issued verbal command,” “assessed backstop”) rather than a simple hit/miss tally.

Mistake 3: Neglecting Safety Protocols

FoF introduces kinetic elements that can cause injury if safety is treated as an afterthought. Common lapses include:

• Inadequate protective gear. Using only eye protection while neglecting throat, groin, or chest protection when higher‑fidelity marking rounds are employed.
• Poor muzzle discipline. Allowing weapons to be pointed at non‑participants during reloads or weapon transitions.
• Insufficient range clearance. Failing to establish clear safety zones, leading to stray rounds striking observers or instructors.

A solid safety program begins with a mandatory briefing that covers weapon status, marking‑round specifics, and emergency procedures. Each evolution should start with a “cold‑check” (weapon unloaded, magazine removed, chamber inspected) and end with a hot‑check to confirm no live ammunition remains. Safety officers — independent of the scenario staff — must have the authority to halt any evolution instantly for a breach Not complicated — just consistent..

Mistake 4: Overlooking Environmental Fidelity

Even the best role players and debriefs can be undermined if the training environment does not resemble the contexts officers encounter on patrol. Training in a sterile, empty warehouse fails to stimulate the perceptual load of a crowded hallway, low‑light conditions, or ambient noise. When the setting is too predictable, officers rely on rote patterns rather than adaptive problem‑solving.

To increase fidelity:

• Introduce distractions. Background chatter, flashing lights, or moving props simulate real‑world sensory competition.
• Vary lighting. Use dimmable fixtures or tactical flashlights to force officers to rely on weapon‑mounted lights or night‑vision devices.
• Alter terrain. Incorporate furniture, vehicles, or simulated doorways that require movement, cover, and concealment decisions.

The goal is to create enough uncertainty that officers must continually update their situational awareness, mirroring the cognitive demands of a street encounter.

Mistake 5: Skipping the “What If” Exploration

A debrief that only revisits what happened misses a critical learning lever: the exploration of alternative courses of action. Plus, when instructors ask, “What could you have done differently? ” they open the door to mental rehearsal — a proven method for strengthening neural pathways associated with decision‑making under stress.

Effective “what if” questions include:

• “If the role player had complied after the first verbal command, how would your use‑of‑force justification change?”
• “What if a bystander had entered the line of fire at T+5 seconds? How would you adjust your positioning or weapon orientation?”
• “Suppose your primary weapon malfunctioned after the first shot; what would your transition plan look like?”

By walking through these branches, officers build a library of response options that can be accessed quickly when the real situation deviates from the script.

Conclusion

Force‑on‑Force training remains one of the most potent tools for bridging the gap between static range practice and the chaotic reality of law‑enforcement encounters. Its value hinges not on the realism of the marking round or the toughness of the role player, but on the integrity of the entire training cycle: clear safety standards, immersive environments, skilled role

...players, and rigorous debriefing protocols. When these elements work in concert, they transform a simple reenactment into a dynamic, high-stakes rehearsal that sharpens reflexes, reinforces procedural discipline, and cultivates the calm under pressure that defines effective policing That alone is useful..

The true measure of a training program’s success is not how well officers perform when the script is followed, but how thoughtfully they adapt when it isn’t. By eliminating the pitfalls outlined above—neglecting safety authority, diluting realism, or truncating reflection—departments can confirm that every Force-on-Force exercise becomes a cumulative step toward mastery rather than a checkbox exercise The details matter here..

In the end, the goal is not merely to prepare officers for the encounters they anticipate, but to forge the judgment and resilience needed for the ones they never expect. When training mirrors the complexity, unpredictability, and moral weight of real-world policing, it does more than teach tactics; it shapes the character of those who serve.