Where do trainers come from?

[mercop]

Something our own Dave Williams talks about got me thinking about this again. Where do our trainers come from?

I will talk about all tactical trainers, open hand, stick, knife and gun.

I have found they are military, police, or civilians.

Especially these days there is a lot of talk about what the military does or uses from weapons to tactics. Much of this is gobbled up by civilians without realizing that seldom do troops work alone like they will need to. If a trainers background is all military how can he teach civilian use of force?

Then you have the police. Closer to working alone like the civlian except for a radio and the fact that most of their confrontations are a result of them contacting bad guys. They spend a lot of time watching bad guys and how they act and respond. One problem is that they too often concentrate on control over survival. A pro is that they usually have a good understanding of use of force.

Civilans, the biggest problem is that they lack the chance to vailidate their tactics and equipment under stress. Being a great competition shooter is a plus but not everything.

Just some thoughts to get the coversation started.

[Guantes]

OK, a few thoughts that come to mind.

Without trying to be facetious, other than military, LE and civilians, who else is there?

If you take military background trainers, I would say they are teaching techniques, not tactics. I can see no point in teaching an individual, squad tactics, unless that person were in turn going to teach others that they would be working in conjunction with.

LE and civilian trainers could run from those just teaching techniques, to those embedding the techniques within tatics, all the way to those who incorporate all from a strategic level downward. I think that control relates directly to survival. What threatens survival is failed attempts, for whatever reason, at control.

As far as civilian trainers and tactics, it depends on if the tactics they are teaching are of their own innovation, or some that have been previously proven. Personally I consider being a good shooter a technique, not a tactic. How one implements that shooting ability is the tactic.

[mercop]

I agree, just wanted opinions.

[David Williams]

This is one of the reasons context is so important when we start talking tactics/techniques.

I agree somewhat with Guantes, since my background is military I'm not going to teach patrol tactics to a police officer...I just don't have the frame of reference necessary. However, that doesn't mean that I can't teach him/her room clearing, weapons handling, escalation/de-escalation of force, combatives, or a plethora of other techniques that transfer over from my world to theirs.

The same goes for an LEO trying to teach a .mil guy. Cop isn't going to teach a trigger-puller how to pull off dynamic entry with an 84mm rocket, and a support, security, and assault team; nor is he going to teach us how to serve a high-risk warrant. However, a cop can show us how to handcuff someone without tripping over ourselves, how to clear a building with a hostile target surrounded by non-combatants, or how to take down certain types of vehicles.

The civilian instructor with neither a military nor LE background - who may not be able to effectively teach CQB to a LE/Mil audience - may be able to offer some reaction drills, aiming/sighting techniques, or maybe even techniques focused on engaging from concealed carry.

Now, the paradox is that while most civilian instructors with no mil/LE background won't have much to offer a mil/LE guy in terms of teaching TTP's specific to either profession, an instructor with a military or LE background has exponentially more to offer a civilian instructor.
In fact, I tend to believe that there is a linear relationship in the transfer of skills; where knowledge most naturally flows in one direction. For example, many skills gained in the military will transfer - albeit not always seamlessly - to the LEO, where as very few skills transfer from the LE world to the military. Likewise, skillsets from an LEO as well as certain techniques from the military are transferable to the civilian, but rarely does it go the other way.

Now, before anyone gets their feathers ruffled, I'm not suggesting that there is some sort of hierarchy in which the military is somehow superior to law enforcement...rather, I am suggesting that the transfer of skills is decidedly one-direction. It is this model that supports that an instructor with a heavy military or LE background can indeed teach concepts and techniques that are applicable to a civilian.

When we talk tactics and techniques here at TFF, one of the things that I like to keep straight is exactly who the intended audience is because of the very points that mercop brought up. A cop is going to react very differently than John Q. Public in almost any situation...or at least they should. They have different responsibilities, different legal requirements, and very different concerns with respect to liability. Consequently, we need to take that into account when we teach a technique.

Drawing on Guantes' distinction between techniques and tactics, it is critical that we - as instructors - be 100% cognizant of which one of the two we are teaching. We might be able to teach a technique effectively, but how the student employs that technique within the context of his ROE's and environment may very well be beyond our ability to teach.

[Guantes]

Well put, DW.

I, as one from the LE community see nothing in what you said that should ruffle feathers. Generally speaking, it seems only logical when considered within the spheres of normal operation that the mandated skills for successful operation are on a descending scale from the military to LE to the civilian.

What that illustrates to me is that a quality intructor is able to descern what things he teaches will be transferrable in application to either or both of the groups other than his own, should he have students from those other groups.

[JMusic]

I would agree with Gloves on his assessment. I would add some of the best LE trainers I ever had were both Military/LE experienced. Mostly from SF groups, they added a great perspective IMO from their mix of both experiences.


Jim

[Dave James]

Interesting

[7677]

Something our own Dave Williams talks about got me thinking about this again. Where do our trainers come from?

I thought most of them came from the good old boy training tree where they were cloned because one you've seen one you've seen them all!

Btw, good post DW...I agree with your points...the truth hurts for some!

[mercop]

Too many do and the tree is dead but somehow keeps producing.

[Bryn Reynolds]

Just my 2 cents, and I'll let you know where my perspective comes from first, (as I've found you really can't evaluate one's posts without such background info:)

I work in law enforcement full time ( a SGT. with my Dept. and commander of our 16-man tactical team) and have been in the Army (active, National guard, MOS 19D, Cavalry Scout) for almost 20 years and have done a couple of tours in Iraq, During Desert Shield/Storm and from 2004-2006 for OIF.

I guess I am "lucky" enough through these experiences as a trainer to be able to work with and train all three groups:
LEOs from mine and other teams in the C.A.R. System (Center Axis Relock) and other tactical training
Military from being a Platoon Sergeant and getting to have some imput on the direction our Cav Troop's training takes
Civillian from being associated with the training of IPDSystems

I hope my students in any particualr topic feel I bring a ballanced approach and am able to tailor the training to their particular needs.

I am also fortunate to be able to receive a lot of good training through my full time employment and the military.

That being said, there are a couple things I have noticed from a lot of the "tactical" forums and from real-world experience that concerns me:

Something I have found from being both an instructor and a student is that straight mil guys sometimes don't think a LEO or Civ. instructor has much to offer them. The same can be said about the attitudes LEOs have about the other two groups. This is usually incorrect and by any one group having preconceived notions about the others creates the situation where they are tuning out some possibly great training. Any additional skill-sets one can have in their kit may come in handy one day. Lose the egos, as many times civilian and military missions are more closely related than one thinks, and that ties in with my second point:

I often read postings to the effect that "the military has a totally different set of ROE than civ. law enforcement has so therefore their tactics will be completely different." An example is some talk in a thread on this subforum about "not orienting your weapon toward the direction of a threat until it has been positively identified & and is ready to be engaged." In MY opinion please tell me Why Not? That additional .-whatever-of-a-second that is gained by not having to aquire the threat is just as important to me when executing a search warrant in Albany, NY as it is when clearing a house in Ramadi. If it is not a threat I won't engage, but if it is I will and will be in a better position to do so. And please don't tell me your whole arguement center on the threat of an AD.....

Often the tactics overlap. While I may toss in a Def-Tec in the US as due notice that we are there to visit, as opposed to a frag overseas, the methods we breach and make entry (insert your favorite flow-and-fill technique here) are often similar and both groups can certainly learn from each other. I have been seeing more and more military CQB techniques being sprinkled into training programs that have been long-standard LEO techniques (and I am sure you guys can point out to me vice-vera examples.)

Regarding Rules of Engagement, I can assure you that depending on the sector, or mission, they are often as restrictive overseas as they are in civ. L.E. so the arguement that the "tactics' must be completely different certainly do not mesh with my experiences.

That is just a tiny bit of what I think about the "military vs. LE regarding tactics & techniques" discussions I see posted. All may have something to offer the others.

Regarding our training to civilians, I completely agree that we should tailor our training to them as they do not need to learn team/squad movement, explosive breaching techniques, machine gun engagement techniques, etc. We need to make the individual, as I like to say, "harder to hurt" on a personal, individual basis in the areas where they may enounter trouble: their residence, their vehicles, and their workplace.
Regarding receiving training from them: pay attention as many have a lot to offer.

My comments seem to mirror many of those already here, but I am posting in the hopes that this will spur further interest and postings as I would like to see the activity level here increase. It seems like a great place!

Bryn

[JMusic]

Amen :D

Jim

[Brownie]

I've always been a sponge for training experiences and skills, as long as the trainer or group [ whether mil/le/ or civilian ] was determined to be capable of imparting skills I may require one day as a civilian. I'm not always going to be a Mil, or LE, so any good training from any sector should be something that might be applicable later in life as well.

I'll reserve my thoughts otherwise until later but I will state this now,

I agree with the idea of extending the weapon on anything deemed a possible threat [ unless like G, doing so puts me at risk of a gun grab attempt ], and will NOT wait to extend/orient the muzzle until such time as I'm going to fire. The time you save may just mean the difference of your arse going home at the end of the day.

Reading it another way, the muzzle is oriented on the possible threat as soon as possible and in a ready to fire position. That could be very close retention positions, EU/ED, compressed ready, half extended one or two handed [ situationally dependant ] or fully extended.

Muzzle on threat as soon as possible is a good thing, if it goes south, fire for effect:D As Dave mentions, the difference between 1.0 and 1.25 seconds is a lifetime. Some just don't understand the difference, never having experienced it.

[Bryn Reynolds]

The time you save may just mean the difference of your arse going home at the end of the day.



what Jim said.........

[David Williams]

Good points, Bryn.

You're right, the ROE's are sometimes as restrictive in a combat environment as they are for LE, with a few caveats. ROE's in combat are, ironically, not meant to be restrictive - meaning that in a tie the decision often goes to the troop kicking in the door. I have not found that to always be the case in the LE world... your ROE's are indeed sometimes restrictive and meant for nothing more than to mitigate liability from the administration's point of view. They'd rather have a dead cop on their hands than a visit from Al Sharpton.

That said, and you and I have had these very same conversations in person, clearing a house in Fallujah is the same as clearing a house in Schenectady, NY. The techniques or individual tactics are often more similar between Mil and LE than people think...it is the application of those TTP's that differ.

I liken it to a difference in mindset, not mission.

Also, good call on the techniques around banging a doorway. The LE guys were doing this on a daily basis long before we were.