In part one we discussed why qualifications should not be considered training. You only have so much time and resources to teach officers how to defend themselves against a violent suspect. It’s up to you and the trainer to convince your administrators to allow more training and less qualifications.
This contradiction is not limited to firearms courses
Defensive tactics courses have the same issues. First, the most defensive tactics training you will receive, unless you seek out your own training, will be in the basic academy. In the academy, you were taught between 40 and 100 control techniques on non resistant subjects. This is usually done so you can learn the mechanics of the techniques and to limit injuries. When the students leave the academy, how many techniques do they remember? How many could they perform on violent subjects? Since there was no resistance in training, they didn’t learn how to make the techniques work out on the streets. Many of your students revert back to street brawling if they have ever been in a fight.
This isn’t what you just taught them. Why? The main reason is because the students didn’t learn or practice the techniques you taught under the same stress they will encounter on the street when in a real fight. We need to start training with more resistance and more stress. There are several companies that make equipment that will allow us to increase the resistance but still be safe. Wait a minute, more equipment, doesn’t that mean more expense? Unfortunately yes, but it is an expense that we must incur to keep our officers safe in real encounters. Ask yourself this question, Can we afford not to provide our officers will relevant and realistic training?
The second issue we need to change in defensive tactics, as in firearms, is saying one thing but teaching another. For example, how many times have you taught weapon retention? I have seen and trained probably 15 different techniques over the last 15 years. Every instructor makes the same statement to start the class, If someone attempts to disarm you, then it is deadly force. I agree. If they get your gun away from you, it may be too late to escalate.
The instructor usually will then teach a non deadly force technique to retain the weapon. Whether you clamp your hand down on the gun and strike to the arm, torso or head, these are non deadly force response to a deadly force encounter. Would you teach to pull a baton or Taser if someone pulled a gun on you? I hope not. What’s wrong with teaching to pull your knife and stab the suspect in the chest or neck when he grabs your gun? Why not grab to the throat with both hands to crush the larynx. Many gun grabs occur as a result of a tackle. In those cases, I teach to first try to redirect. If that fails, attempt a front choke (martial arts guillotine). If neither of those techniques work, go to the ground, deploy a knife and disable the suspect. I have students use multiple strikes to vital areas so they understand what to do when this occurs on the street.
What we say, as well as what we do, will impact what and how much the student learns. When I started in law enforcement, we had the weak side leg and weak side hand. Then I was told that saying weak side was giving the student a negative image so most instructors stopped using that term. I’m not saying that weak side doesn’t have a negative impact on students, but I think there a lot of other things we say that are more important to focus on.
Here’s some more food for thought. Every system teaches handgun disarming techniques. From a front assault, there are two scenarios you could face. First the suspect has your handgun, and you don’t have a second gun readily available. The second is the suspect has his own handgun and you still have yours. In the first scenario, you probably teach or were taught to step off line, control the weapon and do some technique to take the gun away from the suspect. How you do this is up to you, as long as you get your weapon back.
The second scenario is usually taught just like the first. Step off line, secure the weapon, perform a disarm technique. My question is why? If someone is pointing a gun at you, isn’t that deadly force? In either case, why respond with less than deadly force? In the first scenario you could teach to secure the gun, while drawing your knife. As you control the weapon, thrust the knife into the chest or slash the throat or secure the weapon and thrust your thumb into his eye.
In the second scenario, I teach that if you have your gun in the holster, get off line, secure the suspect’s weapon, draw your weapon and shoot the suspect. (Preferably in the head, neck, side of the chest, or the pelvic girdle.) This is a deadly force situation, and it must be treated that way. If we teach to respond with less than deadly force, but say we could use deadly force, the student will be confused. This confusion can lead to hesitation or worse. The officer may respond with too little force to defeat the subject.
As previously mentioned, I think we are far better at teaching officers to survive than ever before. With some modifications in teaching style and changes in the philosophies in our administration, we can elevate our training to the next level. Every time I read articles or attend courses where instructors are genuinely trying to challenge some of these long held traditions, I commend everyone trying to help our officers save themselves. As instructors, we are the experts and its up to us to keep pushing the limits and remove as many training scars as we can.
