Pistol Retention Case Study

[BehindBlueI's]

I've met a few officers who have expressed their concerns about being labeled as "too aggressive".

And often for good reason. You respond appropriately and you're a dinosaur that needs to be investigated. Get the brass nervous about you being a liability and you're either off the streets or out of a job at many places.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

And often for good reason. You respond appropriately and you're a dinosaur that needs to be investigated. Get the brass nervous about you being a liability and you're either off the streets or out of a job at many places.

I've had similar concerns stated by others...

Certainly not a supporter of actual JBTs, but I'm even less a supporter of Thugs and Bullies. Neither group should believe they're untouchable...

 

[jkdbjj]

Interesting points in both links.

If you get in a scrap, it is better to have some training on how to handle yourself than to not have that training. Does it guarantee that you will win the fight? Of course not. Death and taxes are about the only guarantees in life.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So I can think of several cases I've worked where gun retention skills may have changed the outcome, but you can't say for sure. I'd say you are increasing your odds if you know how to fight, though, particularly if faced with the not-yet-lethal-force encounter you can't evade. The technical skills gained aren't the only benefits, though. Training aggression, gaining confidence/reducing fear, learning to deal with the adrenaline dump, all those things can matter.

Sure, there's always someone bigger and better. Same thing for gun fighting. Someone's better than you and anyone can be luckier than you.

 

[Coach]

Bring gender into the mix and fighting skills matter even less.

 

[rhino]

Bring gender into the mix and fighting skills matter even less.

Which genders? One and two, or one through seventy-one?

 

[Sigblitz]

Martial arts is effective. Part of it is forcing the reaction you want. They twist your hand up, reaction is to push back. You bring your arm in and snap their wrist when they're trying to catch up. Every action has a reaction. You react in a way that uses their momentum against them. There are many other useful mechanics such as how to land a knockout punch, how to swing your hips and where and how to land your hand. It's trickery and knowledge. Just my

 

[Sigblitz]

.

 

[Coach]

Which genders? One and two, or one through seventy-one?

Does not matter. Real or make believe.

 

[Denny347]

I've met a few officers who have expressed their concerns about being labeled as "too aggressive". My opinion is that when someone brings stupidity to them, it is their job to stop / quell said stupidity. Once stupidity has stopped, reduce levels of force as needed...

Yes. I think the police are at a disadvantage and are training to be reserved in their responses. It gets officers hurt and killed at times and that is wrong.

I agree with your position. But not everyone agrees with us.

As a UoF trainer I know that Nick Pollaro at ILEA doesn't teach to be reserved to the PD officers from around the state he's responsible to train. Neither do we. I don't know about ISP, I know their UoF trainers but not their curriculum. UoF uncertainty many times from a lack of confidence in one's own skill level. Most officers do no fight training own their own outside of what they were taught in the academy. With that comes uncertainty in their own skill and that translates to trepidation when dealing with the Admin. Because many times it's NOT the actual force being used that is the issue (regardless of the optics) it's the lack of clear explanation on WHY it was used in the reports. Confident use of force as well as clear explanation on why the force was necessary protect the officer from undue discipline. However, our biggest problem I see with UoF is our lack of articulation when it comes to documenting the WHY. That gets officers in trouble and that also leads to uncertainty.

 

[dudley0]

As a UoF trainer I know that Nick Pollaro at ILEA doesn't teach to be reserved to the PD officers from around the state he's responsible to train. Neither do we. I don't know about ISP, I know their UoF trainers but not their curriculum. UoF uncertainty many times from a lack of confidence in one's own skill level. Most officers do no fight training own their own outside of what they were taught in the academy. With that comes uncertainty in their own skill and that translates to trepidation when dealing with the Admin. Because many times it's NOT the actual force being used that is the issue (regardless of the optics) it's the lack of clear explanation on WHY it was used in the reports. Confident use of force as well as clear explanation on why the force was necessary protect the officer from undue discipline. However, our biggest problem I see with UoF is our lack of articulation when it comes to documenting the WHY. That gets officers in trouble and that also leads to uncertainty.

One more thing to muddy the mind while in the heat of a confrontation. No envy here at all.

Since it almost seems that the AARs for the event are political maybe it would be beneficial to the officers involved if they had access to someone who knows their way around the system and could assist with the report writing. Not to make stuff up, but to help direct them toward the proper wording.

Kind of like when you have someone look over a book report before you submit it to the teacher for a grade.

 

[Coach]

As a UoF trainer I know that Nick Pollaro at ILEA doesn't teach to be reserved to the PD officers from around the state he's responsible to train. Neither do we. I don't know about ISP, I know their UoF trainers but not their curriculum. UoF uncertainty many times from a lack of confidence in one's own skill level. Most officers do no fight training own their own outside of what they were taught in the academy. With that comes uncertainty in their own skill and that translates to trepidation when dealing with the Admin. Because many times it's NOT the actual force being used that is the issue (regardless of the optics) it's the lack of clear explanation on WHY it was used in the reports. Confident use of force as well as clear explanation on why the force was necessary protect the officer from undue discipline. However, our biggest problem I see with UoF is our lack of articulation when it comes to documenting the WHY. That gets officers in trouble and that also leads to uncertainty.

Interesting. Very believeable. In my line of work why is a tough question to answer for most.

 

[jkdbjj]

Bring gender into the mix and fighting skills matter even less.

If we think of a "fight" in the classic sense...I agree. Take any of the world champ females in mixed martial arts (UFC, Bellator, etc) and put them in with Henry Cejudo (current 135 pound champ) and it will be a sickening fight to watch that will end only when the ref or Henry says he is done. If we think of "fight" as having some skills to help survive (use of a knife, finding the eyes, balls, etc., of the attacker) I don't agree. In fact, I would argue that when gender enters the picture fighting skills are even more important---with the understanding that nature still has its rules and those rules usually don't bend.

 

[rhino]

If we think of a "fight" in the classic sense...I agree. Take any of the world champ females in mixed martial arts (UFC, Bellator, etc) and put them in with Henry Cejudo (current 135 pound champ) and it will be a sickening fight to watch that will end only when the ref or Henry says he is done. If we think of "fight" as having some skills to help survive (use of a knife, finding the eyes, balls, etc., of the attacker) I don't agree. In fact, I would argue that when gender enters the picture fighting skills are even more important---with the understanding that nature still has its rules and those rules usually don't bend.

My non-expert opinion is that I think the level of commitment to do harm by the assailant plays a huge role in how effective fighting skills are going to be for woman vs. a male assailant. The more determined the male is to causing harm or death, the less it's going to matter what a woman can do. Conversely, if the attacker is seeking an easy mark, some effective resistance could make all of the difference in the world. It's similar to pain compliance (including stun guns). Pain compliance can work well on people who are not that intent on hurting someone because their brain recalibrates the cost/benefit ratio and concludes that it's too high. When someone is determined to hurt, maim, or kill, pain is not typically effective and I would expect some otherwise effective resistance by someone who is overwhelmed physically would be similarly limited in end result.

On the bright side, most of the time a stranger accosts or attacks someone, the cost/benefit ratio is in play. Making it obvious that it will cost too much to gain the benefit can be very helpful.

 

[Coach]

If we think of a "fight" in the classic sense...I agree. Take any of the world champ females in mixed martial arts (UFC, Bellator, etc) and put them in with Henry Cejudo (current 135 pound champ) and it will be a sickening fight to watch that will end only when the ref or Henry says he is done. If we think of "fight" as having some skills to help survive (use of a knife, finding the eyes, balls, etc., of the attacker) I don't agree. In fact, I would argue that when gender enters the picture fighting skills are even more important---with the understanding that nature still has its rules and those rules usually don't bend.

That is as close to agreement as you and I have ever been. Maybe someday it will happen. But that may be a cause for concern.

If a male is determined to attack and hurt a female natures rules that don't bend will not come into play. Any half decent attacker will have the strength and ability to protect his nuts and eyes. Anyone face down in a hammerlock is not much of a threat to anyone.

 

[cedartop]

The girl in the video looks great on Instagram. Lets face it, that is what is important.