The falsehood of offensive prowess

[mercop]

Because a baseball player was an excellent hitter would you assume that he was a great fielder? One skill really has little to do with the other, right? Then why do so many people that are good offensively with a stick, knife or pistol assume somehow that equates to having skills for defending against those tools?

Especially when it comes to edged weapons we find that an actual edged weapon attack does not resemble what is often seen in edged weapon defense training scenarios. I know at least in the police world when the subject of edged weapon defense comes up the go to person is the one that likes knives. It seems that practicing offensive skills with edged weapons gives people a warm fuzzy feeling but relates to and actual edged weapon assault as much as batting does to fielding.

The three stages of an edged weapon assault are accessing, deploying and attacking. It is interesting to note that the majority of defensive training is done against the deployed and attacking stages. Ordinarily the training begins with the defender observing his training partner with a knife in his hand. This in spite of numerous studies that revealed the fact that seldom do people attacked with edged weapon realize they are being cut/stabbed and in fact report they believed they were being punched.

For you to build the nuero pathways necessary for responding to a specific action you must have stimuli. Muscle recruitment more commonly known as muscle memory as it relates to defensive skills are learned as a specific set of movements in response to certain stimuli. If that stimuli is actually seeing the edged weapon in stead of observing the preparatory movement necessary to draw a weapon you will do the same thing in the street, thus waiting to see the weapon in the attackers hand by which time it is too late.

We have also evidenced that that majority of the time individuals’ primary weapons are carried between the nipple line and top of pants pockets. We were also unable to come up with any reason for furtive movement to this location during an altercation for anything other that accessing a weapon.

If you are within distance as is usually the case with the escalation of a verbal argument the best place to defend against any weapon attack is during the accessing stage. Punching a bag, swinging a stick or deploying a knife or firearm does nothing to stifle the attack at this distance. Your attacked needs space to access a weapon just as you do. Whether he steps back or you do to provide this distance the outcome will likely be the same. Again after awareness and avoidance we are back to the basics of open hand skills.

If a weapon other than a firearm is deployed and visible but the person is not actively attacking it would be wise to attempt to gain distance and access a physical barriers. Since at the stage of deployment the attacker is not giving you anything to work with it is usually best not to reach in.

In the attacking stage we know that the hand, connected to the arm and the arm to the body, holds the stick or knife. The mechanics of the attack are the same. Again if during training every effort is made to control the area between the elbow and wrist the movement of any attack, weapon or not is severely limited.

Realistically the cost of bringing your own offensives skills into play is going to be the effective suppression of your opponents initial attack.

[Brownie]

Observational skills to understand whats about to happen as they appear to be accessing [ the furtive movement ], understanding of how to trap/control the hand/wrist/arm to foul their drawing of any "tool", and physical skills to take the offensive/initiative back from them are at least as important as being able to defend with a chosen/issued/familiar tool yourself.

Realistically the cost of bringing your own offensives skills into play is going to be the effective suppression of your opponents initial attack.

That suppression takes the forms of first observing/orienting on their movement/posture, not allowing them to finish their "draw" if close enough or within range where you can close effectively to foul their intentions, and understanding how to accomplish this physically.

So, lets look at

1. visually observing a pending event, and understanding what you are seeing

2. knowing the strengths of different distances/ranges, and keeping the distances between combatants to your advantage at all times if posible [ tying them up. closing on them or moving away/creating distance ].

3. understanding how the body's mechanisms [ hands/arms ] work and training to foul an attempted attack in it's early stages if possible.

4. If presented with a scenario where the weapon is already accessed and precludes you're not able to move to safety, etc having physical skills to minimze or negate taking damage from the contact weapon.

5. if all the above options fail to be viable for whatever reason, working within the context and dynamics of the attack to protect your core from damage during this "startle response" phase if taken off guard http://www.threatfocused.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172 until you can take back the initiative, get to safety, access your own weapons, etc.

5. Training to react instinctively to being startled while unarmed to negate an attack before it is fully launched/in full swing against us, understanding that unarmed is the initial phase we work from defensively most of the time [ we are not carrying weapons/tools around in our hands 24/7 ] which requires us to know/understand the strengths and weaknesses of the various ranges and where we are in that cycle [ time/space/distance equations ] instinctively, and being able to gain the initiative/take control of the scneario as soon as possible which may result in accessing and using our own weapons defensively to survive/go home.

Those who seek how to defend have to be able to work from unarmed very well instinctively before they should get weapons training. In the classes I've put on in the past, the vast majority of the time we have available is spent in unarmed against weapons. Most students want the weapons training and are always anxious to start with the tools as soon as possible. They have to understand that there is a fight to our own weapons that occurs first, and that involves the understanding of the above 5 in unarmed skills to be have a good chance to being able to deploy and defensively use our own tools.

Good thought process Mercop. If it's not an instinctive reaction based on the understanding and training in the above, you are going to be behind the curve more than you would otherwise.

[David Williams]

Good article - I can appreciate the distinction between offensive and defensive skills and how people often assume that proficiency in one implies competence in the other.

I do have a couple of questions, though. They may seem small but in the end impacted my ability to process what you were trying to say. I do not know if you are looking for feedback as well, so I'll just stick with questions rather than comments.

1. I think you make a strong point about failing to train to recognize the preparatory movements during the *accessing* stage; that we instead teach ourselves that recognition begins once the weapon can be seen. However, what is the solution? You provide a description of a problem but no alternatives which the reader can consider. What are the risks of those options as weighed against what is normally being taught?


If a weapon other than a firearm is deployed and visible but the person is not actively attacking it would be wise to attempt to gain distance and access a physical barriers. Since at the stage of deployment the attacker is not giving you anything to work with it is usually best not to reach in.


Would it not be more reasonable to deploy your own weapon in this situation, either in conjunction with retreat/seek cover or as a standalone action? If the enemy's weapon is already deployed but not committed in attack, my thought is that your best chance of survival is to react immediately by getting your firearm into play. Of course, if you don't have one then you might consider seeking cover first... maybe that's what you were trying to say.

All in all, it's a thought-provoking article and definitely adds to the collective wisdom here!

[mercop]

David, it is not intended to be pontification and but to provoke discussion:)

As far as response to the preperatory movement. In a the MCS course this weekend in VA Beach I told every student to take a training folder and handgun and conceal them on themselves where ever they wanted to. I knew the outcome ahead of time. All weapons were concealed between the nipple line and pants pockets.

Something that I have been working on in the street and asking other officers to take note of was where offenders are carrying weapons. They are always the same for at least primary weapons, between the nipple line and pockets.

90% of the population are right handed. During street contacts we have found that right handed attackers will always break low left to run and their right hand up to the right for an open hand assault. Any furtive movement between the nipple line and pockets is to access a weapon and is immediately smothered. You need to be just within arms reach to accomplish this or most people stay flat footed and just reach in accomplishing nothing.

Yes of course if you have a firearm that would be the appropriate response to a deployed edged weapon. Barring that, distance, physical barrier are the next best thing.

Hope this helps.

[Guantes]

No doubt that smothering the access, preventing deployment is in some cases the best strategy. For cops during an interview or arrest it is extremely effective. I have prevented access to guns and knives using it.

For an existing altercation where the deployment of a weapon may be expected it can work equally as well, sometimes. Jumping on someone going into their pocket for something other than a weapon might pose problems.

For a situation that is not at the time an altercation, but puts you in close poximity to someone else, the same holds true. Jumping on someone who goes in their pocket, with no other obvious aggressive move can be problematic, if no weapon exists.

[JMusic]

Sounds to me mercop that you have something you are trying to establish. Many of the points you bring out such as the training and awareness have some valid points. Lets take awareness first.

As an ex LEO I can tell you that hands anywhere close to pockets were a point of intrest. That was not trained but learned in day to day activity. Question that I have is what audience are you directing your training to? Please don't take any of this as critisism I think you are on to something here. You have to agree though your tactics to combat the deployment of a weapon would be different between LEO or Civilian class, the point Gloves made above.

Training: Having the benefit of both LEO and Civilian defensive training I have come to one conclusion. Defensive training sucks. It is taught for the sole purpose to keep people with poor judgement from going to jail and or getting the administration they work for from getting sued. Take knife training for example. How many times were you in a class that taught you how to disarm a knife attack to where the attacker held the knife small finger out and knife deployed in a chopping motion overhead. Think Pshcho 1. How about the knife held underhand blade toward the thumb and the attack pushed straight ahead toward you. In this drill you are faced off with your partner and your defense is to sidestep, trap and then utilising a hand control technique you disarm? Result of both attacks were to disarm.

I could go on but those who have had this style training know what I am talking about. They are virtually worthless. One I have never been attacked that way. Two if I am carrying a gun,flashlight or billyclub guess what I'm using. Training may have changed some over the years but walking by some dojo's lately and talking with some LEO guys it is still knife "Defense" 101.

In my opinion LEO training needs to go more weapon, disable assailant type techniques and civilian needs more awareness, go to guns, avoidence type tactics.

Jim

[mercop]

When we started looking at when I civilian was likely to be attacked it seemed the most likely scenario was during escalation during a verbal arguement. That is the primary focus of the theory. Picture yourself face to face with someone during and arguement. Furtive movement may or may not be telegraphed by verbalization. What other reason besides accessing a weapon would furtive movement indicate to a reasonable person?

I appreciate the kind words and post this stuff not for affirmation but to evidence my theories to people who take everything with a grain of salt. Thanks in advance- George

[JMusic]

Exactly, I and think a civilian has to realize they can't have their cake and eat it too. As you know with a CCW permitt its one strike and your out. I don't see a verbal aurgument as an option for a responcible civilian. But IS THAT TAUGHT? Don't take me wrong I'm no angel but as instructors I think reality has to be brought to the front. There will be times when you do everything right and still end up on the short end but civilian training really needs to bring some street sense and the responcibility of weapons carry to the front. Right now skill sets is what everyone wants and pays for when in reality brains is what needs to be applied. Take care.

Jim

[mercop]

No we don't teach it. We teach awareness and avoidance. We try to give people options for every postion. I think we can agree that keeping the snake in the cage is easier that catching it once it is out. As far as CCW goes that is the idea, to give gun toters some open hand skills.

[David Williams]

Jim brought up a good question, one that I think still needs to be answered.
You need to clarify who this article is targeting because the threshold for violence and the options open to the different groups are very different.

If we are talking about police training, then I agree that training needs to focus more on the Accessing and Deploying stages because that's where your going to make your money. Recognizing the threat for what it is at exactly the right moment is an LEO's bread and butter.

However as a civilian I would argue that learning how to foul a drawstroke comes secondary to learning that you should have never been in that argument in the first place. As a civilian - especially a civilian licensed to carry a firearm - there exists an obligation to recognize a situation's potential to escalate and remove ourselves from it if possible. Only when this is not feasible, reasonable, or able to be safely accomplished should we find ourselves anywhere near an escalating physical confrontation.
Teaching civilians what to look for when in an argument is somewhat valuable...I just think it's the wrong place to start. In my opinion, a civilian should focus their training on how to go from 0-100 in the blink of an eye...from avoidance and peaceful resolution to deadly force without the work up of a verbal argument. Getting bogged down in an argument prior to the fight is a sure way to end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit or criminal trial.

Which is why it's important to a couple of us that you clarify exactly who your target audience is.

[mercop]

The theory turned into practice came from working as a ghetto cop. When teaching civlians after covering awarness and avoidance above all else I teach it in case they are ever in a situation where they have the need to use it, or at least recognize the preperatory movements before the weapon is introduced. There are times even a civilian is between a rock and a hard place. I will give you and example.

You are are on a short road trip by yourself and pull into a gas station to fuel up at 0 dark thirty in the morning. You use your ATM card to pay at the pump and begin fueling and are standing next to you car. Just about that time a domestic on wheels opens up at the pump just across from you. At some point the guy on the other side of the island punches his girlfriend right in the face. You say something, anything or just stare at them. All of a sudden he turns and fixates on you whether you replied to him about "having a ****ing problem" or not. As he steps across the island he goes towards his waistband. Where are you going to go? You usually CCW but are in a state that does not honor yours. Your thougths?

[JMusic]

My thought is I would be hesitant to engage unless it was life threatening. I would dial 911 and report the incident immediately. If he came across the island from me simply observing I always carry a 4 cell mag light in my back pocket when in those situations. I would wear his ass out with it. If he went for his belt he would be hit in the eyes with the light while I attacked. If he was too far away I would keep the car between him and I and shoot him from the gun in my council permit or not.

Forgot to add Mag Light now makes an LED bulb for some of their lights. I don't know about the rest of you guys but if you broke the front bulb the rear usually is gone too. With the LED's you won't have that problem. Ain't technolgy wonderful!?:D

Jim

[mercop]

You are involved, he is coming at you. I am interested in more opinions from people who are viewing the thread and had no comments so far.

[David Williams]

Remember, my point was that training for this type of scenario as a civilian was secondary to learning that avoidance is key; not that there was no need.

If your intended audience is indeed the civilian student, then my suggestion is that your article would be better served by a healthy dose of recognition of avoidance as a strategy rather than jumping right in to what to watch for in the middle of a heated argument.

In terms of your scenario, there's really no right answer. One decision path will obviously validate the need for defensive skills; but another decision path could lead to you simply making a police statement after discreetly calling 911 from inside your vehicle.

Again, my point isn't that defensive skills aren't necessary, or even less of a priority than offensive skills. My point is that defense/offense is a last resort, and it is our responsibility to continually drive that point home.

[mercop]

David, I understand. Just wanted to give a scenario where a civilian could use the concept. Since my post was an exit off 95 with lots of gas stations I saw this situation a lot.

[Guantes]

As another ex-ghetto cop, I'll answer. My baliwick was East LA.

As others have stated, its not my problem. At least until it gets life threatening. As a former ghetto cop you know how fast these things turn around with the victim jumping on your back when you try to arrest "hubby".

Just like a traffic stop, draw to the side of my leg. If I see a weapon coming out he gets shot. If no weapon, hard to say, play it by ear.

If it is a good shoot, you may get a weapons charge, but not for the shooting. Even in NYC with its draconian laws, Goetzs (sp) got charged for the weapon, not the shooting.

[David Williams]

David, I understand. Just wanted to give a scenario where a civilian could use the concept. Since my post was an exit off 95 with lots of gas stations I saw this situation a lot.

The main point I'm trying to make is that I the article as written is extremely applicable to LE. I think you're in the black with your observations.
However, to make the message just as applicable to civilians certain caveats should be addressed.

For the sake of the thread, I wanted to set the context of your discussion before we got bogged down in technical specifics. Your article set a certain tone, and while I agree with that tone I also believe that it must be tempered just a bit for civilian consumption. Context is important in a discussion such as this, doubly so when that discussion occurs on an online forum - it allows us to set the ground rules, helps keep the thread on track, and limits the number of assumptions people will make while debating.

As evidenced here, people are offering different opinions on what is acceptable to an LEO as opposed to a civilian. Better to keep the discussion as focused as possible.

Keep it up. This is a good discussion.

[mercop]

As another ex-ghetto cop, I'll answer. My baliwick was East LA.

As others have stated, its not my problem. At least until it gets life threatening. As a former ghetto cop you know how fast these things turn around with the victim jumping on your back when you try to arrest "hubby".

Just like a traffic stop, draw to the side of my leg. If I see a weapon coming out he gets shot. If no weapon, hard to say, play it by ear.

If it is a good shoot, you may get a weapons charge, but not for the shooting. Even in NYC with its draconian laws, Goetzs (sp) got charged for the weapon, not the shooting.


One of my MCS instructors is a full time NYPD Firearms and Tactics Instructor and is researching whether or not the gun from behind the let is faster that from the holster. So far it is from the holster. The gun at an extended arm is a pendulum and creates centrifigul force and causes overswing up on the target which must be compensated for. Just an interesting point. I really appreciate all the feedback.

[Guantes]

Are you talking about an open carry holster or concealed carry holster that most civilians would be dealing with. With an open carry holster of the right kind I would agree. With a concealed carry holster, I would have to see it to be convinced.

I am assuming by over swing you mean vertical, because if you are facing the target there would be no horizontal swing. As to the arm, two choices. With the extended arm, zipper. Or bring it up close and push out.

[mercop]

Duty holster

[Guantes]

I thought we were talking about the application to civilians?

[David Williams]

Have we figured out whether this thread is applicable to civilians or LE?
Or if both, then in what context?

That needs to be hammered out before this continues... this constant shifting back and forth is only going to confuse the casual reader.

[mercop]

For the policeman everyday. For the citizen within arms distance.

[KenpoTex]

let me make sure I'm following you on this one...

The scenario is that we are in a confrontation with someone (that for some reason we were unable to avoid) and they make a move consistent with accessing a weapon?

I would agree that in this type of situation there is no logical reason for him to be making that movement other than to access a weapon. This being the case, I think that our best bet is to preempt his actual deployment or attack with action of our own by either attacking or running (depending on the specific variables in play. ie. range, presence of family members, etc.)
At close range (4-6 feet), it seems to me that it would better to move into him using one of our hands to trap/check his weapon arm (whichever one reached into his waistband or under his shirt) and the other to deliver strikes.
If you're too far away to get to him before he deploys his weapon, I would say that the preferred option would be to "get off the X" and find some cover while drawing your own weapon.

I can see where this might seem a little excessive. OTOH, let's consider a situation like the one mentioned a few posts back (gas pump...domestic...etc.). The guy just beat up his wife/gf and then turned toward you with an aggressive verbal challenge accompanied by a motion consistent with accessing a weapon. At this point, I feel that it's reasonable to assume that he's not reaching for a stick of gum and I believe that going on the offensive would be justified.

I guess a simple way of stating my feelings on this would be to say that if I have reason to believe that the guy is about to use a weapon, I'd rather take care of him before he draws it rather than after.

[Brownie]

I'm probably going to err on the side of caution [ always a good thing;) ], and be able to reasonably articulate why I trapped the hand [ made physical contact ] if close enough.

It's going to be situationally dependant like most everything, but I'm going with my gut feeling based on how the furtive movement on their part appears to me. If they were reaching for a stick of gum, I'm sure that movement would be less furtive and with less haste than if they were reaching for a gun/knife/etc. because I was more than abrasive.

Speaking of which, when I get abrasive in an argument, I expect the other party may attempt to get physical at any time. I'm likely set to strike at the first sign of potential physical escalation on their part [ there's that articulation I spoke of a few moments ago :D ]

[KenpoTex]

It's going to be situationally dependant like most everything, but I'm going with my gut feeling based on how the furtive movement on their part appears to me.

Exactly.

Maybe I didn't communicate as clearly as I meant to. I wasn't saying that any movement on their part would be grounds for openin' up the ole can of whoop-ass. What I mean is that given the confrontational nature of the situation, if they make a movement that I can reasonably associate with accessing a weapon, I feel that it's acceptable to strike preemptively.

[Brownie]

KenpoTex,

You were perfectly clear in your thoughts on the subject as far as I'm concerned. I understood exactly where you were going with the thought process.:D

And I agree with your thoughts where you state, it's already a confrontation, they "bust a move" and depending on how that occurs, it could be the last thing they remember for some time.;)

[KenpoTex]

cool...glad it made sense to someone other than me :D

[mercop]

I had no problem picking up what you were putting down. All I need to flip the switch is a preperatory movement.

[David Williams]

So - within the context of the original post we've identified shortcomings in both mindset and training as they relate to our abilities to react to an impending/immediate attack.

Now, what's the solution?

For those not familiar with the work Dog Brothers has done in this area, I think there are some extremely valuable lessons to be learned from their efforts.

Video Trailer: Die Less Often 2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5509519122993094395&q=die+less+often&total=174&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Pay more attention to what the overall message is, and less to who the guest participants are. ;)

[mercop]

I will watch that when the kids leave me a lone for a few.

I have been doing a lot with preperatory movements and movements of excecution. Showing students examples of both and teaching them to recognize them has done wonders.

[BLACK LION]

I feel that the variables are too vast...especially when dealing with women, children, handicapped or elderly.... they dont have the the time to soak in all the variables and statistical info.... they need results...immediately
only violence will get results.... guaranteed.... when ambushed or held at knife point what ever the case.... penetrating and getting the injury is what will ensure results.... always in the cause state....
if they are trained correctly in the beginning... all the inherent things will fall into place.... they will develop a cause state wherever they are so the element of surprise is lessened, they can ignore thier fear and get in thier and injure so they can go home....

there are tons of tell tell signs people are packin something and there are plenty of statistics to boot.... there is no way to train every hypothetical scenario.... the reality is what cant be put in a scenario.... and that is surprise - fear- adrenal dump-tunnel vision-seemingly slow motor functions etc.....this is where it starts....its what happens here that will put you on the couch in front of your t.v. or in a plastic bag....

forget what hes packin....gun- bat- crow bar- steak knife all tools and all extensions of the....all inanimate without an operator.... take out the operator(weapon) there is no tool

violence is the only answer to a knife-gun-impact encounter/attack

[Brownie]

Welcome to the forum BLACK LION

[David Williams]

forget what hes packin....gun- bat- crow bar- steak knife all tools and all extensions of the....all inanimate without an operator.... take out the operator(weapon) there is no tool

violence is the only answer to a knife-gun-impact encounter/attack

At an academic level this answer works just fine. If one exists in a lawless vacuum and doesn't have to consider things such as 'justifiable response' and use of deadly force, then theoretically this answer is great. And...if one is talking pure, outright survival by any means necessary...then you're right on.

However, most here - and there is a decent cross-section of death dealers and skull breakers on this forum - have to form their responses to impending violence within certain frameworks; and the framework varies greatly depending on whether you are a civilian, police, or military.

Although I agree with your point that "without the operator, there is no tool", to suggest that the nature of the tool being wielded against you doesn't matter is somewhat shortsighted.

Within the context of this specific thread, I would suggest that violence is most certainly not the only option available, and it may (or may not be) necessarily even the most preferred option. Will an outright violent response help ensure that you walk away from the confrontation and the other guy doesn't? Absolutely - there's no arguing that, and if that is one's sole concern then this question has a very easy answer.

Most - if not all - of those involved in this discussion bring to the table a very personal understanding of life-threatening situations and the psychosomatic and physiological effects of life-threatening stress. Please do not mistake explicit mention of these things from this discussion as our failure to recognize them. Quite the contrary, there are regular and extensive discussions here that cover exactly those topics.

Lastly, you make a valid point about an individual remaining always "in the cause state" and the effect that has on their being able to respond to developing situations. However, it all hinges on your qualifying statement: "If they are trained correctly in the beginning...".

It is that very question of training correctly in the first place that this discussion is attempting to explore.

Finally - welcome to the forum.