PDA

View Full Version : Gungrabs


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Bill Danosky
05-18-2008, 07:34 PM
Sparing us the obligatory posts like like, "Option one is to run away,etc."- But if you absolutely had to...

Check out this and other similar fare available on youtube and google videos. http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=aikido%20vs.%20handgun&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gv

We established in "What is combat?" that Aikido is not traditional Jiu Jitsu but these are aikidoka doing gungrabs pretty convincingly. I usually enjoy hearing what the members have to say about this kind of thing, so.... Ready, set, post!

PS: Also if someone who can translate the Japanese text in the video can say if it identifies what style it is.

Kevin Leavitt
05-18-2008, 07:57 PM
Hate to be negative...but it is all good as long as the guy with the gun stands in a squared off stance within that range. A very limited range and situation.

Sure, good for what it is.

I for one don't hold a gun on someone like that though. Change the stance and distance and this all goes out the window.

Demetrio Cereijo
05-18-2008, 09:11 PM
PS: Also if someone who can translate the Japanese text in the video can say if it identifies what style it is.
The art is Teuk-Gong Moo Sul. It's Korean

Chris Parkerson
05-18-2008, 09:34 PM
Sparing us the obligatory posts like like, "Option one is to run away,etc."- But if you absolutely had to...

Check out this and other similar fare available on youtube and google videos. http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=aikido%20vs.%20handgun&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gv

We established in "What is combat?" that Aikido is not traditional Jiu Jitsu but these are aikidoka doing gungrabs pretty convincingly. I usually enjoy hearing what the members have to say about this kind of thing, so.... Ready, set, post!

PS: Also if someone who can translate the Japanese text in the video can say if it identifies what style it is.

IMO, whatever art or techniques you choose to work with when practicing handgun take-away techniques, I might suggest there are some guiding principles that should be present.

A fight over a gun is just that, it is close quarters, it is as volatile as a Judo, Jujitsu, MMA or Kali match with no rules, and the gun will most likely discharge at least one time.

Thus, here are a few principles to include when developing your tactics and techniques:

1. Contain (grab or trap) the weapon and do not allow the muzzle to point in your direction. Even if you are flipping someone in the air. Never allow the weapon to "cover" you.

2. Instead of the traditional acronym GUN - Grab, Undo, Neutralize) you may include GNU - Grab, Neutralize (koppo), Undo. You may also use this formula: Grab, Point the muzzle toward the opponent and simply Jerk hard enough that the person who has his finger in the trigger guard gets an autonomic reflex in his trigger finger..

3. Autonomic reactions cause the trigger finger flex automatically and will likely discharge the weapon. If you grab the slide of an semi-automatic handgun as part of your containment tactics, the weapon will only fire once. Then it will experience a type 1,2, or 3 malfunction. It will not be able to fire again until the jam" is physically cleared. Nevertheless, the weapon is still an effective club. (There is a myth running about in martial arts circles that the heat and gasses of a discharged weapon will burn your hand if it is holding the slide. This is not true).

4. The direction of force you apply to the weapon hand has a lot to do with flex response in the trigger finger. Techniques that flex the wrist (kote haeshi, etc) will make the trigger finger flex. Upward techniques will likely do the same. Techniques that cause the wrist to extend are less likely to make the trigger finger flex. Downward (verticle with no flex or extension in angle) motions are also safe but rarely practiced.

5. Which side you move the weapon is important for a second reason. In most traditional techniques (again assuming a right handed handgun), if you push the weapon to your left, you have a better chance that the discharged round will not hit you (30%). If you push it to the right as in kote gaeshi, you have a 70-80% change that the discharged round will strike your torso.

These are a few of the principles I subscribe to and am anxious to see if other principles are available from the other readers on this forum.

rob_liberti
05-18-2008, 10:42 PM
Even if it is not a myth and you do get burned that's better than being shot.

So do people with guns practice how to avoid people trying to take their guns? I would think police must right? What do those techniques look like?

Rob

Buck
05-18-2008, 10:58 PM
In the video, the moves taken from Aikido?

I didn't see the first move very well. To me it look as if the guy holding the gun could get a shot off, don't know.

A problem I see with so many demonstrations like this is the two demonstrators are generally equal in size and weight. The moves are not bad, they work. Am saying I would like to see demonstrators not matched up in height and weight, when they are it looks like a prop. It is more interesting and believable when there are mismatched demonstrators.

What the demonstrators show is good. Even though the guy with the guy is in a static squared-off stance in close range of each other. I would not be surprised if that is the majority situation of that would face by someone. I have seen on TV cops facing a gun, it is at the onset the shooter is in a static stance. I believe if the cops where trained in Aikido they would have ended the situation quickly and gained control. There would be no fight or struggle. The moves I think would be effective against a gun. MMA don't have good moves for handling a gun. Opps. I didn't say that.....

Chris Parkerson
05-18-2008, 11:01 PM
Even if it is not a myth and you do get burned that's better than being shot.

So do people with guns practice how to avoid people trying to take their guns? I would think police must right? What do those techniques look like?

Rob

There are many systems of gun retention. From holster design to posture and distancing to jujitsu-style defenses. neOn the Lae Enforcement world, one that needs to be more established in the courts is also my personal preference.

I am a right handed shooter (primary hand). Thus, I carry a left-handed tactical folder sequestered on my left side. Attempting to grab my gun is a "lethal force" action. Thus, I am ready to respond with lethal force by cutting his wrist or main vital points, depending how much I am fearing for my life.

Buck
05-18-2008, 11:02 PM
Even if it is not a myth and you do get burned that's better than being shot.

So do people with guns practice how to avoid people trying to take their guns? I would think police must right? What do those techniques look like?

Rob

I know the bad guys do. What they practice is easy and learned almost instantly compared to learning to take a gun away.

I would be interest too in those techniques police use, MMA don't...opps... not going to say it, but I am thinking it. :p

rob_liberti
05-18-2008, 11:03 PM
so your arm is extended, and someone tries to grab your gun and push it to the left, what do you do? (besides intuit their movement and squeeze the trigger before they get there?!)

Chris Parkerson
05-18-2008, 11:12 PM
so your arm is extended, and someone tries to grab your gun and push it to the left, what do you do? (besides intuit their movement and squeeze the trigger before they get there?!)

if an opponent grand the slide and/or barrel of your gun, he will by definition have superior leverage initially.

Again, why do we think that roy Rogers white hat cowboys should only carry one weapon?

Tenkan, present your second weapon and quickly dispatch the opponent. Yippie Taiyo Kai ye.

Chris Parkerson
05-18-2008, 11:17 PM
regarding the heat of a slide or barrel, I had to prove the myth was wrong to several martial artists by going to the range and doing it with live ammo. It is good practice. Seeing and feeling the results will teach your body what it should do.

senshincenter
05-19-2008, 02:42 AM
Here's one more thing to consider - completely not revealed in dojo training environments... When that first round goes off, and it most likely will, now that you just moved the weapon to this side or that side, you got to ask: Who did you let get shot? If you happen to be walking with your spouse or your child, or if you got one on each side - Did you get them shot with that first round?

Come on - this is real-life violence - what a bunch of junk. Looks like kids playing cowboys to me. No consideration for the real-life consequences that come with a round being fired off.

As for police tactics... It's all the same, from any martial art: You got to know how to make a situation ideal for the weapon you have and/or how to have the ideal weapon for the situation you are in. There are many ways of making this work. If you are good, the ways are nearly infinite. If you are real good, the ways are infinite.

If you are in a range where your firearm can be grabbed like that, you failed at one or both of these elements. In the great scheme of the universe, the simplest way of saying it: you got what's coming, since you played a huge role in making it happen.

Chris Parkerson
05-19-2008, 05:53 AM
Dave

Great post. In the private sector we call that, "what the bullet hits, you buy." cars, glass windows, you name it.

I mentioned downward technique on weapon take sways. That is my favorite and one that Colonel Mark Miles (my jujitsu teacher) swore by. The technique worked in a variety of positions (from the weapon still in the holster to every state of the draw. It had the low probability of the weapon discharging. If discharged,the muzzle was pointed to the ground. Your initial grip on the weapon insured that the weapon would jam on the first round and the grip did not require dexterity. The grip also was a foundation for a variety of techniques thus ensuring continuity and flow in case the original technique failed.

I would post the technique or email a video of it un request via PM

George S. Ledyard
05-19-2008, 09:53 AM
All gun takeaways pre-suppose one thing i.e. the guy with the gun doesn't know what he is doing. It's not helpful to analyze gun takeaways from the standpoint of CQB trained firearms experts. They will not stand where you can touch them. If they had to stand where you could reach them, they would have the gun where you couldn't reach it.

Gun takeaways are strictly for an encounter with the amateur. If that gun is pointed at you and you aren't already shot, then there is another agenda; intimidation, hostage taking, something like that. Intimidation is the big one. If you've ever had a gun stuck in your face or in your belly you know that it works just fine... it's intimidating as hell.

If the guy is dumb enough to touch you, then takeaways are fairly easy. My objection to most retention or takeaway systems is that they do not utilize enough impact technique. If you take a gun away from someone and you haven't struck them, you are almost certainly now grappling for that weapon.

All of the best retention and takeaway systems I have seen involve serious impact and preferably balance breaks thereby giving you the time to bring the firearm to bear on the assailant. Aikido - Aiki jutsu derived techniques are great for this but you need to have major atemi and you should train to shoot the assailant as part of the takeaway. Then, in a real situation you can decide not to shoot but your default setting is to take the gun and use it on the subject in as close to one smooth movement as possible.

Most retention and takeaway training is done with a partner who does not have strong intention. It makes the whole thing appear too easy.

senshincenter
05-19-2008, 09:58 AM
Hi Chris,

Yes, I agree, the downward angle is the best one for the expended round.

Though the best thing, in my opinion, is to deploy your weapon so that the odds of having it successfully grabbed by an opponent are next to nil, one of the easiest ways of getting out of a grabbing situation and back into the former situation I just mentioned is to perform inward or outward spirals (think nikyo or kote gaeshi) with the weapon - moving inside or outside the grab attempt. This has the person miss in the grab attempt and brings the weapon back onto the centerline for a shot - both allowing you to regain your optimal range. Once you get good at it, and it's not that hard (believe me), well, the "grabber" is just reaching for air - in real life, they are shot, and/or wounded, or dead. If they happen to get a grip on the weapon you end up employing a nikyo or a kote-gaeshi to break the grip, bringing your weapon back onto the centerline - and they are shot and/or wounded, or dead.

d

Bill Danosky
05-19-2008, 10:23 AM
When that first round goes off, and it most likely will, now that you just moved the weapon to this side or that side, you got to ask: Who did you let get shot? ... If you are good, the ways are nearly infinite. If you are real good, the ways are infinite.

So true, David. Being aware of this likelihood gives you an opportunity, though. Just as in two and three man jiyu waza when you're throwing your ukes at each other, you could use other opponents as backstops "if you are good". Better get some realistic practice in!

Eric Joyce
05-19-2008, 11:00 AM
[B]
All of the best retention and takeaway systems I have seen involve serious impact and preferably balance breaks thereby giving you the time to bring the firearm to bear on the assailant. Aikido - Aiki jutsu derived techniques are great for this but you need to have major atemi and you should train to shoot the assailant as part of the takeaway. Then, in a real situation you can decide not to shoot but your default setting is to take the gun and use it on the subject in as close to one smooth movement as possible.

Hi George,

I couldn't agree with you more. When I was Krav Maga, a lot of the gun defense included a lot of the striking that is necessary to remove the weapon. Heal palm stikes, punch the face, elbow strikes, goin strikes, etc. The key to all gun takeaways is to remove yourself from the line of fire, neutralize the threat quickly and then remove yourself from the situation.

Chris Parkerson
05-19-2008, 12:07 PM
Hi George,

I couldn't agree with you more. When I was Krav Maga, a lot of the gun defense included a lot of the striking that is necessary to remove the weapon. Heal palm stikes, punch the face, elbow strikes, goin strikes, etc. The key to all gun takeaways is to remove yourself from the line of fire, neutralize the threat quickly and then remove yourself from the situation.

IMO, Great observations from everyone. The best studies (ESI), ILEA, Frontsight, have used the dialectic of gun experts and martial arts experts filtered through the nexus of street experience.

When a gunfight becomes a fight with a gun, the objective of the person holding the gun should be to gain distance, the goal of the man without the gun should be to close or run for cover or concealment. If choosing to close, he must keep the muzzle from pointing at himself. Best practices are to use the gun against the shooter, use a back-up (edged weapon) tool, or make the weapon jam. There are a variety of techniques that aid in understanding how to defeat fingers, wrists, arms and whole-body postures. The principles underlying this techniques will probably be what comes out of you during the struggle.

Most robberies or intimidations with a weapon are powerful aggressive movements that overwhelm the victim's balance and strike fear in their psyche.

Nevertheless, when the game turns into a fight with a gun, the more deliberate man has the better chance of survival.

My training in jujitsu and aikijujitsu has given me excellent skills and a framework for this type of an attack. In the nexus of such an attack, decisions must be instinctive because mistakes are lethal.

Bill Danosky
05-19-2008, 12:34 PM
Once again, you guys that have access to the military and police training are so lucky!

Eric Joyce
05-19-2008, 12:44 PM
Once again, you guys that have access to the military and police training are so lucky!

Hey Bill,

Don't be too discourgaed my friend. If close quarter combatives is something you would like to add to your Yoshinkan training, I recommend picking up some information on WW2 combatives or some information on Krav Maga. Nothing like having more tools :)

Aikibu
05-19-2008, 12:47 PM
Once again, you guys that have access to the military and police training are so lucky!

True Bill but training is just one part of common sense. :)

If it looks stupid it is....

William Hazen

Kevin Leavitt
05-19-2008, 01:17 PM
Eric,

IMO it is more than simply going to a Krav Maga school or picking up old Fairbairn-Sykes stuff. Military has moved away from this methodology for several reasons.

The dynamics of the situation is what is important...that is the movement or fluidity of the enviornment.

The problem with tactics is we try to codify stuff in manuals Fairbairn-Sykes style and much gets lost in the translation.

You end up with "one steps" "two-step" or multiple step drills such as the video that was provided. It assumes certain parameters, while assuming away other parameters.

Not picking on Krav Maga...some very good things in there and depending on instructors, they teach some very good dynamics..

DT or Military Combatives, TTPs or what not are much more complex and involved than picking up a manual or going to a martial arts school...any school...not just K-M.

Eric Joyce
05-19-2008, 02:04 PM
Eric,

IMO it is more than simply going to a Krav Maga school or picking up old Fairbairn-Sykes stuff. Military has moved away from this methodology for several reasons.

The dynamics of the situation is what is important...that is the movement or fluidity of the enviornment.

The problem with tactics is we try to codify stuff in manuals Fairbairn-Sykes style and much gets lost in the translation.

You end up with "one steps" "two-step" or multiple step drills such as the video that was provided. It assumes certain parameters, while assuming away other parameters.

Not picking on Krav Maga...some very good things in there and depending on instructors, they teach some very good dynamics..

DT or Military Combatives, TTPs or what not are much more complex and involved than picking up a manual or going to a martial arts school...any school...not just K-M.

Hi Kevin,

The reading material suggestion given to Bill was more for informational purposes. From his response, it appeared he may have in interest in that DT/Military tactics. No amount of reading material can replace actual training but it gives you a frame of reference.

As for codification of techniques, isn't that done to a certain degree within all martial arts i.e kata? When tori attacks this way, uke responds this way? When learning Yoshinkan aikido, there is a step by step process that is learned to enforce and ingrain basics. But in my experience, my teachers never assumed away anything. In a fight, anything can happen...we just train for the most common types of attack, but we also did some other training to incoporate the other types of scenarios. Can't cover them all, but the intent of the training was to open your mind to other scenarios.

Now back to the topic of gun disarms, could you explain to me a little about the "fluidity of the enviornment" in the context of gun disarms?

ChrisHein
05-19-2008, 02:23 PM
The art is Teuk-Gong Moo Sul. It's Korean

I'm beginning to think there is nothing on the net concerning this subject (Aikido/ Japanese style martial arts)that you are not aware of!!

Very useful person you are...

Bill Danosky
05-19-2008, 02:49 PM
True Bill but training is just one part of common sense. :)

If it looks stupid it is....

William Hazen

I never know what you're going to say, but it's always a gem!

Kevin Leavitt
05-19-2008, 03:14 PM
Eric,

codification is done to a certain degree in all martial arts I believe. You do have to establish common core language and communication to ensure transmission.

The big change we went through in the Army combatives program was moving to a more "alive" model of training. That is teach soldiers positional/situational dominance first and foremost prior to individual techniques such as we did with the "fairbairn/sykes" model.

It does not invalidate the techniques taught in the old manuals and certainly those things are a good reference, but upon what base are they built?

There in lay the problem for us in the Army. Fights tend to be dynamic, moving and flowing...yet we were training in a very controlled and static way.

No you can't train every single scenario or every kind of attack, but you can train a base that recognizes most of the major situations you may be in in an empty handed or short range fight.

that is, stending clinch, your up, your opponent is down. You are down your opponent is up. Both of you are on the ground. One of you is on top, the other on the bottom. Grappling over a weapon of some sort. Your opponent is closing the distance to seize the advantage, you are closing the distance to seize the advantage.

Most of the F-S type techniques removed this from the training environment...the most important aspect of the fight.. control of the fight, or loss of control of the fight.

A gun is essentially a long range weapon, they work best if your bullet can reach your opponent, but your opponent cannot reach your weapon. (Duh, common sense I know).

So you have to ask yourself why are you at the range in which the gun is entering a grappling situation. There are many reasons why.

one, might be that you were forced to deploy it at close range because distance was closed due to suprise, failure of another weapon systems or what not.

Another might be that your assailant is attempting to rob you or force you physically to do something.

At that range it gets interesting. I have no answers, but ask yourself why would someone choose to deploy a weapon in grappling range if they don't have to?

Typically there is something else going on in the equation and the environment is not a static one such as "freeze, puts your hands up and give me your wallet". There is movement and force going on that does not stop at the deployment of the weapon or closing of the distance.

I don't know the answers for every scenario, but think for a minute about the deployment of handguns and the reasons for doing so and the ma'ai involved. (I can reach him, but he can't reach me) and the situations that might be involved at hand reach range and what a priori knowledge was known or assumed to be known at what point.

the F-S model basically assumes away much of the fluidity and dynamic that occurs in situations, and that is huge in my book...essentially everything.

Dave Valadez has posted some very good stuff on this from a DT perspective.

I also agree with what Ledyard Sensei says above.

KIT
05-19-2008, 04:14 PM
Good points, Kevin.

In general this has been a good discussion of the issue with a recognition of its complications, but Kevin gives the best insight into what happens in the uncontrolled environment - that is, reality.

I would only ask the assembled posters to re-examine how you are training and re-frame how you think the problem will occur. Things will be far closer than people think or most martial arts train, and the defender will usually be operating at a positional and initiative deficit.

Yes, people very much do engage at "grappling" distance with weapons. It is not stupid or an amatuer move at all. It only sounds that way because when the context and the fluid dynamics are removed (including the positional and initiative aspects noted above), it doesn't make sense. Add those things back in and most of your weapon defense/retention is shortcircuited.

Everyday intercourse, including police contacts, are far closer and much more relaxed than the "best practice" example of the training mat (academy, martial arts, what have you) provides. Cops typically only to do that kind of stuff in what are "high risk" events. That is often NOT when these things happen, but rather they suddenly explode during "routine" events.

Even in the high risk environment, if you've ever served a dynamic warrant on a trailer home, or a little rat hole location with a dozen people in it, you'll understand how a trained individual running a long gun can routinely be at contact distance with a bad guy.

Below is an interesting vid from the weapon retention perspective. Now, before you second guess, ask yourself what you would really do, not what you would do KNOWING the guy was about to go for your gun.

http://www.wwmt.com/video/index.php?bcpid=1111405973&bclid=1137706675&bctid=1551055723

Eric Joyce
05-19-2008, 04:37 PM
Eric,

codification is done to a certain degree in all martial arts I believe. You do have to establish common core language and communication to ensure transmission.

The big change we went through in the Army combatives program was moving to a more "alive" model of training. That is teach soldiers positional/situational dominance first and foremost prior to individual techniques such as we did with the "fairbairn/sykes" model.

It does not invalidate the techniques taught in the old manuals and certainly those things are a good reference, but upon what base are they built?

There in lay the problem for us in the Army. Fights tend to be dynamic, moving and flowing...yet we were training in a very controlled and static way.

No you can't train every single scenario or every kind of attack, but you can train a base that recognizes most of the major situations you may be in in an empty handed or short range fight.

that is, stending clinch, your up, your opponent is down. You are down your opponent is up. Both of you are on the ground. One of you is on top, the other on the bottom. Grappling over a weapon of some sort. Your opponent is closing the distance to seize the advantage, you are closing the distance to seize the advantage.

Most of the F-S type techniques removed this from the training environment...the most important aspect of the fight.. control of the fight, or loss of control of the fight.

A gun is essentially a long range weapon, they work best if your bullet can reach your opponent, but your opponent cannot reach your weapon. (Duh, common sense I know).

So you have to ask yourself why are you at the range in which the gun is entering a grappling situation. There are many reasons why.

one, might be that you were forced to deploy it at close range because distance was closed due to suprise, failure of another weapon systems or what not.

Another might be that your assailant is attempting to rob you or force you physically to do something.

At that range it gets interesting. I have no answers, but ask yourself why would someone choose to deploy a weapon in grappling range if they don't have to?

Typically there is something else going on in the equation and the environment is not a static one such as "freeze, puts your hands up and give me your wallet". There is movement and force going on that does not stop at the deployment of the weapon or closing of the distance.

I don't know the answers for every scenario, but think for a minute about the deployment of handguns and the reasons for doing so and the ma'ai involved. (I can reach him, but he can't reach me) and the situations that might be involved at hand reach range and what a priori knowledge was known or assumed to be known at what point.

the F-S model basically assumes away much of the fluidity and dynamic that occurs in situations, and that is huge in my book...essentially everything.

Dave Valadez has posted some very good stuff on this from a DT perspective.

I also agree with what Ledyard Sensei says above.

I understand now. Thanks Kevin. When I was in Krav, that was one of the things they did teach us that even though these DT are step by step defenses against attacks, they were designed to defend against the most common attacks in the worst situations possible. However, when we did "live training", our instructors would show us how things don't always work in static attacks. There are those other things like movement, noise, adrenaline dump, etc., that come into play. Good thread going here.

So, what are your thoughts on the Army teaching BJJ?

Aikibu
05-19-2008, 04:50 PM
I never know what you're going to say, but it's always a gem!

I think I heard that back when I was a Ranger Private...Granted I have not done any live fire DA & CQB training since the early 90's but I will bet the "tire" house :D with all the real world experiance most of the guys have now... Common Sense is the be all end all principle. :)

William Hazen

senshincenter
05-19-2008, 04:51 PM
Great video!

In principle, things remain the same (weapon/situation/appropriate distance). That range in the video is not ideal for "weapon-out" and it strongly makes the case for high level retention holsters (which still are not as popular as they should be, in my opinion). There's still a lot of folks looking for the "fast" draw instead of training to make a draw smooth from high retention level holsters. So, I'm not so sure it addresses the point of gun grab counters...

For me, this video brings up a better point than "weapons can be grabbed because you can't always get the distance you'd like." For me, this video speaks to a very common thing in combat, a thing that generals have always known about and a thing that traditional martial arts, in my opinion, knows about as well and has attempted to deal with through the maintenance of "zanshin" at the end of a waza. That is: There is a point in an engagement where the "off-guarded" will incorrectly believe there to be a lull in the engagement. This mistake in perception usually places the "lull" at the "conclusion" of something. In reality, this is not when one is the most safe but actually when one is the most in danger - partly because one things him/herself to be the most safe.

The untrained/undisciplined mind wants there to be a lull, wants there to be an "off," and it does this because it is fatiguing and/or leaving a state of wellness. It wants the "on" of combat to be over, and it thus looks for an "end," which is why this lull usually is associated with points of transition (e.g. the sentencing of a court case).

However, the reality of real-life combat is that there is no off. There is only on. Again, most folks want, need, the off because that's how they keep their sanity. Traditional systems of combat have dealt with the mind's wellness through other means, without violating the principle that there is no "off" to combat. They have done this through breathing exercises, sleep discipline, meditation, and honor codes. This is one reason why current training risks a lot whenever it takes these things out (e.g. "Easy to learn" systems of application that look to require a minimum of time and self investment).

Again, thanks for the video link.
d

KIT
05-19-2008, 05:34 PM
For me, this video brings up a better point than "weapons can be grabbed because you can't always get the distance you'd like." For me, this video speaks to a very common thing in combat, a thing that generals have always known about and a thing that traditional martial arts, in my opinion, knows about as well and has attempted to deal with through the maintenance of "zanshin" at the end of a waza. That is: There is a point in an engagement where the "off-guarded" will incorrectly believe there to be a lull in the engagement. This mistake in perception usually places the "lull" at the "conclusion" of something. In reality, this is not when one is the most safe but actually when one is the most in danger - partly because one things him/herself to be the most safe.

The untrained/undisciplined mind wants there to be a lull, wants there to be an "off," and it does this because it is fatiguing and/or leaving a state of wellness. It wants the "on" of combat to be over, and it thus looks for an "end," which is why this lull usually is associated with points of transition (e.g. the sentencing of a court case).

However, the reality of real-life combat is that there is no off. There is only on. Again, most folks want, need, the off because that's how they keep their sanity. Traditional systems of combat have dealt with the mind's wellness through other means, without violating the principle that there is no "off" to combat. They have done this through breathing exercises, sleep discipline, meditation, and honor codes. This is one reason why current training risks a lot whenever it takes these things out (e.g. "Easy to learn" systems of application that look to require a minimum of time and self investment).

Again, thanks for the video link.
d

I agree in part. You make a good point about the "lulls." Many very serious close range encounters for LEOs begin with a suspect "submittting" to authority, allowing the officer to get close to make an arrest, and ambushing him from there. It is, in fact, commonly practiced among gang members and prisoners. Officers presume the encounter is "over" because the guy seems compliant, and it is all just a way to get him close. It works because the vast majority of the time, when the gives up, he actually gives up!

However, I simply don't believe there is no "off." There is "off" all the time, and has to be. The opposite of that is called hypervigilance. See how well that works for you under highly stressful circumstances.

No one can be "on" all the time. No one maintains complete zanshin, or complete anticipation, at all times. Part of it is complacency (which affects EVERYONE), and part of it is simply attention, or paying attention to the wrong things.

One is the ideal, which of course, many martial and DT systems are based on - the ideal situation, not the worst situation. The other is the reality.

Kevin Leavitt
05-19-2008, 05:45 PM
Eric,

Yes Army Combatives has alot to do with BJJ, it really becomes the base of what we do, and frankly most of us that study MACP are associated with BJJ in some way.

That said, it is NOT BJJ and when we teach it in the Army formally any more than say Aikido is Hapkido or Daito Ryu!

The base line sustainment piece is grappling as all hand to hand fights are essentially grappling fights and most involve weapons.

BJJ as well as Sambo, Greco Roman wrestling, Judo, and any other grappling type sports provide good skills to base training in MACP. You simply have to keep the context in mind and learn/relearn some new strategies when you consider things from an Army situation.

One of the challenges we have in the army is increasing the "band of excellence" within the combatives program to get it past the BJJ baseline ground grappling and refining other areas of training. With over 1 million soldiers most of which won't spend much time developing base skills, you are going to spend alot of time on the basic, grappling.

Bill Danosky
05-19-2008, 06:11 PM
There seems to be an extremely high incidence of gunfights that take place within 7 feet. And there's a bodyguard rule of thumb to the effect that if it's within two arm's lengths, you take care of it with your hands. These are probably more relevant to police/civilian encounters than military, but I wonder why we're not training more for this kind of situation.

Someone taught me that even if you shoot someone straight through the heart, they have about seven seconds of conciousness to kill you back. So I'm thinking that controlling your opponent's weapon is the best way to increase your survival chances, especially if it's a firearm.

Kit was right (again!) that you can't maintain a state of hypervigilance all the time, and bad things happen if you try. So probably the best you can do is work out the smartest plan B's ahead of time you can. And practice, practice, practice.

Walter Martindale
05-19-2008, 07:46 PM
Even if it is not a myth and you do get burned that's better than being shot.

So do people with guns practice how to avoid people trying to take their guns? I would think police must right? What do those techniques look like?

Rob
Izumi sensei's video on the DVD advertised elsewhere on this site has a short supplemental section on pistol retention.
W

Chris Parkerson
05-19-2008, 07:56 PM
There seems to be an extremely high incidence of gunfights that take place within 7 feet. And there's a bodyguard rule of thumb to the effect that if it's within two arm's lengths, you take care of it with your hands. These are probably more relevant to police/civilian encounters than military, but I wonder why we're not training more for this kind of situation.

Someone taught me that even if you shoot someone straight through the heart, they have about seven seconds of conciousness to kill you back. So I'm thinking that controlling your opponent's weapon is the best way to increase your survival chances, especially if it's a firearm.

Kit was right (again!) that you can't maintain a state of hypervigilance all the time, and bad things happen if you try. So probably the best you can do is work out the smartest plan B's ahead of time you can. And practice, practice, practice.

Private sector Bodyguard Training:
We do train those scenarios. The problem in going to a commercial bodyguard school is that they do not have the logistical ability to train one-on-one or one-on-two scenarios. There is just not enough time or manpower when you are pumping 30 agents through a one or two week class. But that is the real world sans government support.

The bad guys will know you weaknesses if they have done their homework so you need to strategize in the following terms:


They will out gun you
They will create diversionary (lethal) attacks to neutralize the bodyguards
They will have several evacuation plans


The best answer for mitigating this threat is to catch it in their surveillance phase and avoid it all together. But lacking that, in the reactive phase of an assault on principle, the bodyguard needs to use overwhelming momentum, efficient motion and lethal technique while constantly scanning for the next attack. At the same time, he needs to know where his client is. Two-on-one is obviously a lot easier than one-on-one. You can divide the jobs. The first bodyguard to be attacked becomes the Point man. He also by definition becomes the counter-attacker. The other guy is finds an avenue of escape for the client.

Controlling the Opponent's weapon is a major tactic for me. It is simply part of the "no-sword style". Your sword is my sword, your knife is my knife, your pistol is my pistol, your body is my ballistic armor. Beware the bodyguard who is passionate about his job. He will take several rounds before going down if he has trained his mind and spirit with the proper devotion.

Hypervigilance

I am not sure why we are not using the tried and true Color Code of mental Awareness when talking about this...
I do not think I am in the color white very often. Yet my conscious mind is relaxed and I am not stressed. My atavistic mind is simply aware of risks and threats. There is no burn-out going on here. Yes, you still need to turn off after a good adrenal dump, but best to do that after you are in a totally secure location where others can provide the vigilance.

senshincenter
05-19-2008, 09:36 PM
I am not sure why we are not using the tried and true Color Code of mental Awareness when talking about this...
I do not think I am in the color white very often. Yet my conscious mind is relaxed and I am not stressed. My atavistic mind is simply aware of risks and threats. There is no burn-out going on here. Yes, you still need to turn off after a good adrenal dump, but best to do that after you are in a totally secure location where others can provide the vigilance.

I'm with Chris here.

I think one has to speak for himself - if you need an "off" and you are prone to take it where others might not, that's your business and no reason to believe that there are not others that don't need the off that you do and/or need it when you do. It's something you have to figure out for yourself, how to keep the mind healthy and aware at all times. Some would even say that the mind can only be healthy when it is aware all of the time, that "off" is a kind of dis-ease all of its own nature, not at all related to wellness.

It's not about going out and thinking everyone is going to attack you all of the time, being paranoid, suffering adrenalin dumps to the point of fatigue, one after the other, etc. - all of this is part of the unaware mind that requires lulls, offs, etc. Total awareness, that which is sought in the more traditional martial arts is, in my opinion, a completely different way of relating to the combative experience, as it is a totally different way of relating to the world/universe. One is looking for a calmness, a relaxation, a non-attachment, an acceptance, one that brings about true clarity, a "vision" that is not plagued by the entrapments of the ego (e.g. fear, pride, and ignorance) and thus not burdened by reaction and/or habit and/or the diseases of the mind.

If you hear this, and you say, "Impossible!" - then surely it will be. If you hear this, and you say, "Possible" - then surely you will seek it out. If you seek it out, you have a chance of obtaining it. You got to start there, in my opinion - making it possible.

When I train law enforcement officers, when I'm on the job, etc., I not only judge the outcome of a given encounter, but also the wellness of my mind, how little or how much it is plagued by the diseases of the ego as it is being asked to perform along side my body. For example, it's not enough to just do the technique - one has to maintain control, one has to maintain his breath, one has to keep his environmental awareness, one has to not loose his fine motor skills, etc. When you work with us, if you do the technique, and you "freak" out while doing it, if you show any of the signs of ego-reaction, poor stress management, etc., you did it wrong - period.

For example, look at these techniques:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsPGv1WHIbw

- I'm not judging the author architecturally, and I'm sure this guy can easily pull these moves off on the job, but for us, the way we train, he's failing at their application - made evident in his inability to reconcile the stresses of the attached mind. Here I am talking about holding his breath, shoulder's raising, balance breaking, quick rapid movements - hurried, etc. For us, when we train, these are signs that the technique is not being performed right because the technician is not right in his heart/mind (i.e. unwell).

Now, please note, I'm not just singling out this last video - this critique is on anyone that trains for combat without training in the other things I mentioned earlier. I just got the video from doing a search on youtube.com. Here are more - they are everywhere, it's what's the norm for the most part - the end-result of quick and easy:

Note the stress and tension, and, more importantly, the way it is addressed (or not at all):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWQ5Pbuys2I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOauIiUGtdw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nToJV7_shp8

Compare the mind as it is expressed through the body as it moves when confronting the human universal fear of human-on-human violence in these videos (above) with the mind as it is expressed through this body here (below):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVaT32b3uN0

For me, it is no coincidence that the author in this last video trains in traditional martial arts and looks to demonstrate this level of relaxed/calm/awareness - not just get the move done and over with. (Note: Folks can see the inward/outward spiral counters I mentioned done on this video clip - look closely). The author in this last video can do this stuff all day long. He's trained to be able to - it's obvious. Not so with the authors in the former videos - they need rest, off time, lulls, they are drawn toward complacency, etc. There's a real difference between these two types of training, even though they are seeking the same field of application. There's not just one way of being, of training, of doing the job - with everything else denounced as impossible. There is simply what is common and what is not. Being uncommon, however, is not a sign that something is impractical, it's only a sign that it has nothing to do with mediocrity (which is always marked by the masses, by what is common). What I'm trying to say here is that folks should make room for this type of experience of the combative situation, not outright write it off as "impossible."

Either way, there's more stuff in these videos if folks want to keep talking about gun techniques.

thanks,
dmv

KIT
05-19-2008, 10:12 PM
Thanks for that David, it tells me a lot.

But if you are touting the "System of Strategy," we are on two different wavelengths, and have very different understandings.

Chris Parkerson
05-19-2008, 10:22 PM
I'm with Chris here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVaT32b3uN0

For me, it is no coincidence that the author in this last video trains in traditional martial arts and looks to demonstrate this level of relaxed/calm/awareness - not just get the move done and over with. (Note: Folks can see the inward/outward spiral counters I mentioned done on this video clip - look closely). The author in this last video can do this stuff all day long. ....... What I'm trying to say here is that folks should make room for this type of experience of the combative situation, not outright write it off as "impossible."

Either way, there's more stuff in these videos if folks want to keep talking about gun techniques.

thanks,
dmv

Well do tell...
The same end game that I arrived at.
Yanagi / Nami Ryu / Systema
James Williams is definitely smooth.

senshincenter
05-19-2008, 10:54 PM
I'm not trying to tout anyone or any system in particular - just trying to find examples of this different mind, but in examples of this mind as it is being applied to modern combat experiences. There's lots of examples of this mind from other types of experience.

However, for modern police work, I think anyone that has been exposed to the "unfettered mind" understands its direct relevance to combat. Yet, this is occurring at the same time that more and more folks are trying to shortcut their training. This, in my opinion, by default means this type of mind is not going to be cultivated - solely because this type of mind cannot be cultivated via a shortcut. What is happening then is that fewer and fewer folks are understanding how this mind relates not only to combative awareness but to overall wellness for the combatant him/herself.

I thought this to be very relevant to a bailiff that gets himself in a gun-retention battle for his life while in a courtroom with about four other bailiffs present - more relevant than counters to gun take-aways. Hence, why I brought it up.

d

KIT
05-20-2008, 12:23 AM
David

Certainly. I have my own thoughts and experiences on how that kind of "mind" applies.

We just apparently think differently about it.

Bronson
05-20-2008, 12:56 AM
Below is an interesting vid from the weapon retention perspective. Now, before you second guess, ask yourself what you would really do, not what you would do KNOWING the guy was about to go for your gun.

http://www.wwmt.com/video/index.php?bcpid=1111405973&bclid=1137706675&bctid=1551055723

HOLY $()!T!! That's were I live :(

Bronson

senshincenter
05-20-2008, 01:26 AM
How about these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_XaCJE55hs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuf71RhRNXc

This is the best:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dNNKjhj0t4

Josh Lerner
05-20-2008, 01:30 AM
A question for Kit, Kevin, Chris, and anyone else with experience -

To what extent does the question of being aware/being "off" determine how you train? Do you assume that you will always be "on" because you need to be, or do you assume that there are going to be "off" gaps? Does this assumption, one way or the other, affect how you approach your training excercises, either in their design or how you approach them psychologically?

Josh

senshincenter
05-20-2008, 01:33 AM
David

Certainly. I have my own thoughts and experiences on how that kind of "mind" applies.

We just apparently think differently about it.

Fair enough. But you got me know - I'd still like to know how you hold that "mind" to apply. If you feel like sharing, I'd be very appreciative.

Thanks,
d

senshincenter
05-20-2008, 01:58 AM
A question for Kit, Kevin, Chris, and anyone else with experience -

To what extent does the question of being aware/being "off" determine how you train? Do you assume that you will always be "on" because you need to be, or do you assume that there are going to be "off" gaps? Does this assumption, one way or the other, affect how you approach your training excercises, either in their design or how you approach them psychologically?

Josh

For us, everything, EVERYTHING, comes down to awareness.

d

KIT
05-20-2008, 10:19 AM
A question for Kit, Kevin, Chris, and anyone else with experience -

To what extent does the question of being aware/being "off" determine how you train? Do you assume that you will always be "on" because you need to be, or do you assume that there are going to be "off" gaps? Does this assumption, one way or the other, affect how you approach your training excercises, either in their design or how you approach them psychologically?

Josh

Good question Josh, but probably another thread altogether since this one is gun grabs. Maybe a mod can split it off?

The only thing I assume is that the potential of my being in the wrong part of the OODA cycle is always present, and that I may be fighting at an extreme deficit in terms of initiative, position, skill set, numbers, etc. That affects how I tailor (and train) drills in the force on force component of training. That in turn informs what I feel are baseline touchstones for technical drills, and mindset.

The real test of mindset is when things are not working out, go bad, you are caught unawares, what have you. When everything is going your way its easy to be a "ninja master."

Chris Parkerson
05-20-2008, 10:24 AM
A question for Kit, Kevin, Chris, and anyone else with experience -

To what extent does the question of being aware/being "off" determine how you train? Do you assume that you will always be "on" because you need to be, or do you assume that there are going to be "off" gaps? Does this assumption, one way or the other, affect how you approach your training excercises, either in their design or how you approach them psychologically?

Josh

Training is the first step for police, military and private security. Immersion comes next. Thus the ancient symbol of the "quest".

There is both a proactive and a reactive side to dealing with aggression and its resulting environmental chaos. Training needs to teach us how to relax under the pressure of what might happen as well as if something does happen.

Training is constantly improving because often, the agent is still not ready for the immersion. Still, and Kevin can speak best to this if he is willing, some of today's trained soldiers have a tough time coping with the stress levels that accompany being in Iraq. While some learn to relax and go with the flow (Zen) some get overloaded with their reality and end up with post traumatic stress.
In government and for "for-hire" high risk security, there is a sink-or-swim bottom line.

But for the normal person who has a normal job and a family, I might suggest that training can take you to some pretty high level experiences in managing stress without having to immerse yourself by taking your vacations in Tijuana, Sinaloa or some other dangerous place.

Building Mental Muscle:

Scenario training is imperative. Many shooting schools and martial arts camps are valuable because they have well developed scenarios you can test yourself with. REMCAT is/was (I do not know if they are still around) a great weekend seminar. Their aggression scenarios will seriously challenge the style-conscious martial artist. When confronted with a full contact uke that is padded up in their special costume, you often cannot do what your art has trained you to do. many folks experience an overload because of this. Then, they rebuild your confidence and trust in skills that work under such pressure.

Reactive training

Training must have the feel, sights and sounds of reality.

1. training bats can be bought cheaply. The children's bats that are made of PVD and foam really hurt when you get hit with them. You can still potentially break an arm if you wield it well. You learn to respect the strike and know what kind of sacrifice you are making if you decide to take a hit.

2. Training knives can be the dull aluminum type that bruise you when you get cut or slashed. You can find them with felt attached to the rim so that you can put lipstick on the edges. You will also see where the cuts are made this way. Study where the "triggers" and "switches" are in the body. See if you can cut the opponent's triggers and switches and defend yours. In time, you may develop flow patters that efficiently work these spots in combination for the best results.

If you want to train more aggressively, you can use dowling with pvc insullation placed over it. Cover it with tape so it does not get destroyed. This provides a full bore stabbing tool that does not bend.

3. Ju Jutsu Randori, IMO, should not begin with a bow and face to face confrontation. Try this: Stand erect. The fight begins when your opponent tackles you from the rear.

4. Guns can be airsoft or paintball. But make sure to use eye/face protection.

5. You get the picture. Now raise the bar until your heart rate shows you are near the edge of shutting down. Back it off a tad and keep going. But keep visiting that edge until you are comfortable with it. Oddly enough, it will be harder to hit that heart rate over time.

Guys like Joe Ariola use real knives in their training and they do it at speed. This is an ultimate goal in reality scenario training for me as well. But it takes a mastery of the weapon to keep control of it. When cutting, you lay the side of the knife on the area to be cut. When stabbing, you turn the knife and punch with your knuckles or just let the tip brush the person's clothing.

Here is a simple set of objectives for practicing scenario training:

1. Get rid of the butter flies
2. Trust your weapons
3. Danger - go! means immediately close with the adversary or create a safe distance.
4. Be deliberate and do not back off.
5. Give more than you are taking
6. Use after-action drills that scan for other threatsx after the encounter is over.
7. Find an avenue of escape as you are scanning.
8. Locate a place of safety and call authorities
9. Do not talk about the incident until you are calm enough to think clearly
10. Call your lawyer so he can initiate your pre-aranged crisis management plan.

Most of us will never have to encounter serious aggression. But this kind of training is not just about that. It is about building the processes that help you relax when the "fear of chaos" starts to reveal itself. Over time, you get used to it. The DT instructors in the above scenarios are "in process" as well. Often, they have chosen to work in that field to become better themselves. We all get better over time. James Williams has many years of devoted practice under his belt. I would be willing to bet he does not believe that practice makes perfect. Neither do I. I believe that "perfect practice" makes perfect. That is where his smoothness comes from: time in and perfect practice under escalating stress under a controlled environment.

On the proactive side,

Watch how a young mother learns to protect her newborn child. There is the perfect paradigm for learning to avoid problems. They may begin with a level of stress and worry. In time, they learn to filter out the minor stuff and place their energies in the major stuff.

Finally, here is a simple mantra: I see my fear. I acknowledge it. I will watch it come toward me and pass through me. It will keep going in spite of my doubts.

senshincenter
05-20-2008, 01:07 PM
I see my fear. I acknowledge it. I will watch it come toward me and pass through me. It will keep going in spite of my doubts.

Beautiful.

Thanks,
d

Kevin Leavitt
05-20-2008, 04:55 PM
A question for Kit, Kevin, Chris, and anyone else with experience -

To what extent does the question of being aware/being "off" determine how you train? Do you assume that you will always be "on" because you need to be, or do you assume that there are going to be "off" gaps? Does this assumption, one way or the other, affect how you approach your training excercises, either in their design or how you approach them psychologically?

Josh

It comes with training. It is nothing you don't experience in other aspects of your life.

Think back to when you first began to drive a car how difficult it was to worry about the whole process. You have to steer, clutch, brake, watch 360, check you mirrors, judge distance etc.

Lots of stuff going on and very scarey.

Martial training works the same way I think you begin to learn the process and the signs. OODA is very applicable.

To me, you are always "On", you just learn how to filter the information and respond appropriately based on experience. If you have less experience, then there is more you have to deal with and you are dealing with more stress and being hypervigilant.

You do have to consider complacency too.

senshincenter
05-20-2008, 06:28 PM
If folks don't mind, I'd like to tie the thread back together - as I am experiencing it...

You have these set of gun defenses/counters... They are quite common to every system and field of application. They tend to just focus on the "in-range" conditions, and as a result, they make what is hard look easy or foolish (depending upon your level of experience). Additionally, they tend to make what is necessary look irrelevant.

In particular:

You get the technique, kote gaeshi, for example, against a gun. In these combative sequences, you just find yourself standing there and this guy is right in front of you pointing a gun at you. You don't know how you got there or how this person got there - you are both just there. As a result, it appears all you have to work on to survive an attack against a gun is getting off the line of attack quickly and fully and then perform kote-gaeshi in a powerful enough manner.

I say, "bull." I say if you train with this kind of "all you need to do" attitude, your odds are so low in terms of gaining victory that you've left everything pretty much up to chance, and, by default, made your chosen tactics, "last ditch" efforts.

Rather, all the stuff that is left out of these types of training drills is what is really involved with whether or not you can survive this type of encounter or not. The same goes for empty-hand fighting, which one should never assume on the street. It's all this other stuff, stuff like awareness, relating weapons to conditions and conditions to weapons, not needing off times, etc., that first make it so that you probably won't get stuck in these situations, and, second, if you do, don't have your efforts be last ditch efforts.

In other words, you keep the odds in your favor - which is all you can hope for and all you can ever achieve. Doesn't mean you won't get killed/lose, but you got the better chance that you won't.

Thus, in my mind, when you talk about any type of self-defense or urban combat situation, you are by default always going to have to talk about much more than what technique you opted to use. Why? Because the success of the technique opted for is entirely supported by how viable your system of strategy is and how well you are at operating at high levels of awareness.

So, a viable gun defense, for me looks something like this:

1. You are "on" - because you are always "on" - because you have learned how to achieve an "on" that is based in relaxation and groundedness (both physically and spiritually).

2. You sense someone up the road, in front of you. You observe they are walking on a line that is on the same line as yours, "Strange" - you think. You make a choice, based upon a myriad of subjective things (is your family with you, are you armed, are you injured, how far away is your home/car, are the numbers against you in terms of opponents, etc.): Do you just leave - opting to default the "strange" feeling as "not good"? or, Do you test your "strange" feeling - seeing if you are right in your initial assessment?

3. Okay, let's say you wish to assess further - you don't leave. You move your line of travel, slowly, subtly, to observe what the person does in response - as response means "relationship". Whoops - they adjust relevant to your adjustment. That guy is trying to, wishing to, relate to you. There's your confirmation. Something IS amiss and you are being made involved.

4. You start assessing your environment further: where's the sun, where's the grade, where's cover, where's concealment, who else looks to be with this person, where's the escape/retreat route, what is reflecting what (windows, mirrors, cars, etc.), do you see a weapon or a likely place of concealment on the person, is he/she right or left handed, can you sense training in the person - what kind? Etc. Additionally, you start measuring the distance, time, and necessary rhythm it takes to reach that point where your next confirmation is likely to occur (this point, the one I just referred to, is most often the point aikido waza starts from). And you do this all the while you are fully ready to disengage, because the person my be an old friend you don't recognize or someone that just wants to tell you your fly is down - etc.

5. You reach that spot, you've set the time and space up as best you can, according all your previous assessments and observations, and you have decided how you have to adapt according to them. You observe: the guy is reaching for something on his person - you sense "yin" energy - you are getting more clues he's not an old friend, not going to tell you your fly is down, you enter on the yin and pin his arm against his body, he manages still to bring the weapon out of its location - you got a grip on it/hand/wrist.

6a. you do kote-gaeshi - it will probably work - the odds are it will. You disarm him, secure his weapon, seek distance, draw your own weapon, re-assess your environment, try and intimidate the guy into staying prone with you covering him. If he runs away, you let him go. If he comes at you, you shoot him till he drops. You reassess your environment. You can do all this because your “on” stems from a relaxed/non-attached mind.

6b. You lose your grip - do your best to keep a pin - keep him in yin energy, draw your own weapon, take the shot, establish a spiral toward his rear in your path of travel, shoot till he falls, reassess your environment. You can do all this because your “on” stems from a relaxed/non-attached mind.

On this “on” stemming from a relaxed/non-attached mind – look what you can do, and what, out of fear, pride, or ignorance, you “have” to do (i.e. what you cannot do).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9_Xcs0Tho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_Hl4bcQNc

dmv

mwible
05-20-2008, 08:17 PM
That video was great! And damn, that was an amazing koshi-nage!
Haha, just my 2 cents.

KIT
05-20-2008, 10:22 PM
David

Are you actually a police officer?

senshincenter
05-20-2008, 10:44 PM
Deputy Sheriff - Santa Barbara County. :-) How about you? Where are you out of? Stay safe. d

Feel free to PM me if you'd like.

KIT
05-20-2008, 10:47 PM
Well, since we don't seem to be developing another thread but staying with this one, I'll stay here too. I hope to answer Josh's question here, and demonstrate why I think David is making a fundamental mistaken assumption.

Let me preface by saying that I am not anti-traditional Budo-as-combative-LE practice. I am not an aikido practitioner, spending my time in Judo, modern grappling, and koryu methods. I have found BOTH to have a great deal of contextual relevance in life and death circumstances, indeed, in one instance it was a combination of conditioning and mindset that literally saved my life in allowing me to walk away from an incident with a critical injury. I used no "techniques" that day, but mindset - and I came to the understanding that you cannot "set things up in your favor," and to think that you can do so is supremely complacent. Instead, you must rely on your training and mindset to carry you through when things are very much NOT in your favor.

Folks not prepared to do so, who presuppose even unconsciously that they will always be smooth, always be in control, always dominate, and always have things in their favor tend to panic and falter the first time things don't cooperate with them.



You get the technique, kote gaeshi, for example, against a gun. In these combative sequences, you just find yourself standing there and this guy is right in front of you pointing a gun at you. You don't know how you got there or how this person got there - you are both just there. As a result, it appears all you have to work on to survive an attack against a gun is getting off the line of attack quickly and fully and then perform kote-gaeshi in a powerful enough manner.

I say, "bull."

I find this incredible. While I understand what you are trying to say, to believe that you will not come across such a situation is incredible complacency.



Rather, all the stuff that is left out of these types of training drills is what is really involved with whether or not you can survive this type of encounter or not. The same goes for empty-hand fighting, which one should never assume on the street.

Yet you are making an equally dangerous assumption. You appear to have half the coin - a problem typical of police defensive tactics - everything is done from a position of foreknowledge, fore-warnedness, and preparedness - you maintain reactionary gap and control the encounter. All standard police teaching, and what occurs in the vast majority of encounters police face - only further cementing the mistaken assumption that this is what will "be."

Cops don't get killed in these kinds of incidents. Please tell me you are familiar with studies such as Violent Encounters and the circumstances under which officers are seriously injured or murdered. Please tell me that you don't think you are immune to such things because you are a "martial artist."

Martial arts gives you an extra edge, that is all.



It's all this other stuff, stuff like awareness, relating weapons to conditions and conditions to weapons, not needing off times, etc., that first make it so that you probably won't get stuck in these situations, and, second, if you do, don't have your efforts be last ditch efforts.

In other words, you keep the odds in your favor - which is all you can hope for and all you can ever achieve. Doesn't mean you won't get killed/lose, but you got the better chance that you won't.

Thus, in my mind, when you talk about any type of self-defense or urban combat situation, you are by default always going to have to talk about much more than what technique you opted to use. Why? Because the success of the technique opted for is entirely supported by how viable your system of strategy is and how well you are at operating at high levels of awareness.

Again, huge assumptions. If you are actually a working officer, I would recommend a re-evaluation of your approach. You are partly right, but I would argue that you don't know why.

How well does your "system of strategy" (again, a red flag in my point of view) when your awareness ISN'T at such a high level?


So, a viable gun defense, for me looks something like this:

1. You are "on" - because you are always "on" - because you have learned how to achieve an "on" that is based in relaxation and groundedness (both physically and spiritually).

2. You sense someone up the road, in front of you. You observe they are walking on a line that is on the same line as yours, "Strange" - you think. You make a choice, based upon a myriad of subjective things (is your family with you, are you armed, are you injured, how far away is your home/car, are the numbers against you in terms of opponents, etc.): Do you just leave - opting to default the "strange" feeling as "not good"? or, Do you test your "strange" feeling - seeing if you are right in your initial assessment?

,,,,and so on



I could beat the complacency and lack of self-awareness horse to death. In short, and so no one misinterprets this - you are basing all of this on the assumption that you will "always" be on, you will not be working from an initiative or positional deficit, etc. etc.

And that could be fatal. Hopefully it won't be, for you, but especially for your students.

KIT
05-20-2008, 10:49 PM
Deputy Sheriff - Santa Barbara County. :-) How about you? Where are you out of? Stay safe. d

Feel free to PM me if you'd like.

Pacific NW, Vancouver, just outside of Portland.

Nah, this is a useful debate in public. As you can see, we are on relatively opposite ends of the spectrum.

And you stay safe as well, we are still brothers, even if we don't agree. Plenty of guys I respect hardly train at all, at least in any kind of DT/martial arts stuff. Any training is better than none. There are just layers that need to be addressed that aren't in martial arts training.

clwk
05-20-2008, 11:14 PM
Deputy Sheriff - Santa Barbara County.
David, I remember when you were applying for that position (by chance -- because it happened to interrupt our discussion at the time). As I recall, it happened quite recently (less than two years ago, if memory serves). Were you a law enforcement officer previously?

Please do not read anything into this other than the factual question. I find the topic you are discussing with Kit to be an interesting one, and since you are arguing the perspective of law enforcement, the question of your tenure is relevant. In particular, since you are arguing for an 'always on' state of mind, it is important to know whether and for how long you have tested this philosophy in practice. Again, I recognize that this question could be interpreted as argumentative or as a personal attack -- so please simply accept at face value my explanation of its bearing on my (and others') evaluation of the discussion at hand.

Regards,
Chhi'mčd

senshincenter
05-21-2008, 12:11 AM
David, I remember when you were applying for that position (by chance -- because it happened to interrupt our discussion at the time). As I recall, it happened quite recently (less than two years ago, if memory serves). Were you a law enforcement officer previously?

Please do not read anything into this other than the factual question. I find the topic you are discussing with Kit to be an interesting one, and since you are arguing the perspective of law enforcement, the question of your tenure is relevant. In particular, since you are arguing for an 'always on' state of mind, it is important to know whether and for how long you have tested this philosophy in practice. Again, I recognize that this question could be interpreted as argumentative or as a personal attack -- so please simply accept at face value my explanation of its bearing on my (and others') evaluation of the discussion at hand.

Regards,
Chhi'mčd

No worries. I have been an officer for under a year.

But, please, don't get me wrong, I am not trying to speak from the perspective of law enforcement as much as how this mindset is possible and very relevant to law enforcement - something Robert rightly addressed. There's a difference for me between what I am saying and what you feel I'm saying. For that reason, I think Chris, and Kevin, etc., who have also talked about being "on" always, have some very important things to say, etc., though they are not currently in law enforcement. It's not a new concept, this being "on" and it is hardly monopolized by professional combatants.

As for how long I have employed this mindset, I have sought to develop it over the length of my training - over 20 years. I do not look to employ it only in combative situations, but because it is based in awareness it is more often than not employed in more constructive forms of intimacy - with friends, family, strangers, etc. - on the job, off the job, in the dojo, out of the dojo, etc. As for how it has faired, it has tested very well.

If I didn't answer your questions, let me know.
thanks,
d

clwk
05-21-2008, 12:37 AM
Thanks for the clarification, David.

There's a difference for me between what I am saying and what you feel I'm saying.

<snip>

As for how long I have employed this mindset, I have sought to develop it over the length of my training - over 20 years.

No problem. I am specifically not voicing an opinion. I think I do actually understand what you are saying, and I didn't mean to mischaracterize your position by glossing it in my question. My point was only that there is a component to the discussion which hinges on specific experience. That is one reason I am not voicing an opinion.

You may not feel that your occupation is relevant to the position you espouse, but somehow (perhaps accidentally?) the two have become associated in the discussion here. It is therefore helpful that you have cleared up where you are coming from. Thank you for your response.

Regards,
Chhi'mčd

senshincenter
05-21-2008, 12:55 AM
Kit wrote: “I used no "techniques" that day, but mindset - and I came to the understanding that you cannot "set things up in your favor," and to think that you can do so is supremely complacent. Instead, you must rely on your training and mindset to carry you through when things are very much NOT in your favor.”

I am not trying to draw a distinction between setting things up in one’s favor and not being able to. For me, you do the best you can to set things up in your favor. That is basic to any kind of self-defense situation, in my opinion – whether that be in law enforcement, military application, or civilian life. Are you saying it’s not basic? Of course, if you can’t, you can’t, but attempting to do so, knowing how to, being skilled at returning things toward your favor should they not be, etc., all of that is very relevant to how much the odds are in one’s favor and thus to survivability. This is what I am saying. If you are saying anything akin to that – I don’t see the disagreement. If you are saying one can never set things up in one’s favor – then you are right: we do not agree.

If, however, you are saying, that there are still times when no matter what you do, things are against you, then I can agree with that. For me though, this does not mean that the value of understanding strategy, for example, is irrelevant or a moot point. Additionally, it does not mean that strategy is not relevant to the viability of one’s tactical applications. If you are saying anything akin to this – again, I don’t see the disagreement. If, however, you are saying that strategy plays no part in the viability of tactics, then you are right – we disagree.

Trying to have things in one’s favor, understanding how things are or are not in one’s favor, and being able to move and do what you got to do when they are not, does not at all presuppose that one only looks to smooth applications existing or that one can only survive smooth applications. In fact, the very reason you’d even want to participate in things like strategy is because things like ambushes, for example, exist. Strategy is not a denial of things like ambush but a testament to things like ambush. Strategy does not assume cooperation, it assumes conflict. I wouldn’t say we disagree on this point as much as you have not understood mine.

I hope you understand that my “bull” comment was referring to my position – explained later in the post – stating there is more to surviving these situations than technique. If you are saying you are disagreeing with me on that, are you saying, “All you need to survive these things is technique.” I don’t think you are, since you already mentioned the benefit you gained from a mindset. So, again, I’m not sure what you are disagreeing with – if you can explain further, please do so.

I believe you may come across the type of situation in the video, but where I differ is in the position that I do not believe that you got there on accident (i.e. that one was part of all that went into manifesting that situation). No matter how much that setup has one believing you just got there, you in fact didn’t. There was a whole lot of things you did and did not do, and that’s how you got there. If you want to say, “Well, sometimes, no matter what you do, you just get ambushed,” I want to say, “Sometimes you do and/or don’t do things that just get you ambushed.” From there, I’m interested in those things I did or didn’t do that led to an ambush. I don’t myself as saying ambushes do not exist. I see myself saying one should be as interested in techniques as much as in the strategies or failures at strategies that make any technique viable or not in its given situation.

To me, acknowledging that one always contributes (consciously or unconsciously, by ignorance or by some sort of butterfly effect, etc.) to his own ambush, no matter what, is the exact opposite of complacency. Complacency holds no room for responsibility and what I’m saying is the exact opposite of that.

To sum it up: I gather that you hold your position opposite to mine, but I’m not sure why, in that I do not understand your position beyond this statement you make. I see that you call this “assumption” or that as well, but I’m not sure what your own position is or is not outside of that. I feel I will have to leave it to others to explain better what you are trying to say – or you.

Right now, all I’m understanding is that you hold that there are situations where you just end up in, no matter what you do. By that then, you go on to suggest that there is nothing you can do – so trying to is complacent. If I’m missing something, again, please let me know.

If I’m not, then we may have to disagree to disagree.

Thanks for the post,
d

Kevin Leavitt
05-21-2008, 05:27 AM
To me the concept of "always On" is sort of like flying a plane on a transatlantic flight. You have a certain amount of appropriate super vigiliance and awareness at take off...then a long period of monitoring..your not "off" but you are also not as "on" when you were taking off. If something comes up that doesn't look quite right, you go back to "on" again. Once you are on final for landing, well your zero'd back in on that process.

Chris Parkerson
05-21-2008, 07:44 AM
To me the concept of "always On" is sort of like flying a plane on a transatlantic flight. You have a certain amount of appropriate super vigiliance and awareness at take off...then a long period of monitoring..your not "off" but you are also not as "on" when you were taking off. If something comes up that doesn't look quite right, you go back to "on" again. Once you are on final for landing, well your zero'd back in on that process.

I have to admit that I learned to relax while being "on" most all of the time when I was in law enforcement. I was stationed in a small town in South Texas where "smuggling" for many people was a way of life and went back many generations. I ended up putting a lot of my neighbors and/or their relatives in jail. I ended up with 150 felony arrests in 5 years.

At orientation, I was warned that my wife would be the only blond in town. They were right and the first week I was there, some local smugglers played a cat-and-mouse game that ended up with my wife running into the post office while my car faced theirs nose-to- nose and my Smith and Wesson Model 60 on the dash board.... a stare down contest. They knew who I was before I even graduated from the Border Patrol Academy.

After making a reputation for catching dope smugglers I ended up becoming a narcotics dog handler. I was in the news a lot as well as Criminal investigator Magazine and Calibre Press' book on Drug Tactics. The dogs had a $35,000 bounty on them and two had been killed in the first two years of the program in Texas alone. My dog was quartered at my house. I had to take it for walks every day without back-up. Just going to the store for groceries made me think about tactics and strategy.... about protecting my wife and dog.

Upon leaving the Fed, my first bodyguard job was a 2 year contract protecting a businessman whose had just survived an attempted car bombing. Again, always "on", as the bomber was a member of a hostile group and my client would not back down from them.

For several years, I managed bodyguard teams employed by Japanese Corporations who had production plants in in Tijuana, N. Laredo, Mexicali, Mexico City, and Juarez. We had no sidearms. Our threats were kidnap, robbery, carjack, intentional vehicle accidents designed to extort money, and extortions designed to steal large quantities of product. If anyone remembers the Mamuro Kono (Sanyo Plant President) kidnapping outfit had placed two key individuals inside the company. It was an inside job.

If you believed in pro-active avoidance, you were always "on" looking for the initial bad guys that were assigned to learn about your client's movements, operations and vulnerabilities.

I believe that learning and deploying "strategy" is the real win in martial arts training. The second win is obtaining a knowledge of "the principles of movement" and "how the body works". Techniques flow from these studies when you are in the crucible of a hostile encounter.

KIT
05-21-2008, 10:50 AM
David

Ah, much more clear now. For me, that wasn't coming across. The videos distracted me.

We are in agreement.

I think we would all agree that one can be perfectly well adjusted and spend their waking life in "Condition Yellow," to use the Color Codes someone mentioned before. For some people that work in LE and similar professions where the expectation of violence exists (certainly not all), this becomes much more finely tuned.

If this is what you and Chris (and Kevin) mean by "always on" then again, agreed. That is a baseline level of functioning for any professional. Your description regarding doing ones best to set oneself up to prevail, even against the odds is a good one that includes not only awareness, but tactical skills, weapons skills, and physical conditioning all rolled into one.

I was reading what you were saying as always on meant you could always prevent things like the Courtroom video example, you could always avoid those mistakes or lapses in awareness that lead to such things.

Are they preventable? Yes. Were mistakes made? Most certainly. Were they avoidable? Maybe...

Anyone is capable of making those mistakes or having those lapses in awareness, no matter how finely tuned the mind and the mechanisms are to avoid it.

And, many criminals and combatants are also finely tuned to take advantage of those lapses when they see an opening, creating those deficits that mean the difference between life and death, or serious injury and death.

Some people do think they are "always on" in this sense, that they make no mistakes and no one will be able to get the drop on them, and in so thinking are dangerously complacent, because when it happens they face an additional shock, and more dangerous a lack of preparedness, for someone having capitalized on their mistakes and gotten the drop on them. Cops die in that gap.

If I lumped you in with that mindset, my apologies.

It would be interesting hearing your take on things once you get a little more time on the job. I think very differently now than I did with one or two years on. The basic framework is the same, but other shades of meaning and understanding developed. Shades that no training in the dojo offers.

KIT
05-21-2008, 11:04 AM
To continue,

This is why there also needs to be a recognition in training that things can go horribly wrong. Often in LE training, the vast majority of work done is in "ideal" circumstances, where the officer is the pre-determined "winner" if he does things exactly as his instructors teach. Training is with cooperative bad guys who tank for him, while ideal initiative, position, distance, etc. are ingrained.

That isn't reality. Now at least, officer survival schools are recognizing that we need to teach cops to fight, say, from their backs, against multiple opponents, while one guy is grabbing their gun. Because that stuff happens, and the ideal, arrest and control based training fails miserably in that realm.

We could train weapon retention at distance, with the officer aware of and challenging the threat, able to maintain distance on an unobstructed mat, and the bad guy may never even get to touch his gun.

Is that really good training?

A mental technique that has helped me a great deal over the years, and one I try to remember to do after every contact, is to think:

"How Could He Have Had Me?'

I critique what I did not based on the outcome, but what could have happened. Done correctly, this can be a humbling practice, because you have to admit that you make sometimes pretty rookie mistakes in leaving gaps or taking paths that could have been very dangerous. Having this in mind is also a great practice to avoid the same mistakes the "next" time, where it might actually make a difference.

That, to me is zanshin. Not being impervious, but having a constant awareness that you are NOT impervious, you are NOT incapable of having moments of Condition White, because you are after all, human. A highly trained human that has hopefully minimized those gaps, but human nonetheless.

Chris Parkerson
05-21-2008, 11:35 AM
Kit Leblanc wrote:

Some people do think they are "always on" in this sense, that they make no mistakes and no one will be able to get the drop on them, and in so thinking are dangerously complacent, because when it happens they face an additional shock, and more dangerous a lack of preparedness, for someone having capitalized on their mistakes and gotten the drop on them. Cops die in that gap.

Wow, supermen I guess. IMO complacency also visits the officer around year 4-5.

This is why there also needs to be a recognition in training that things can go horribly wrong. Often in LE training, the vast majority of work done is in "ideal" circumstances, where the officer is the pre-determined "winner" if he does things exactly as his instructors teach. Training is with cooperative bad guys who tank for him, while ideal initiative, position, distance, etc. are ingrained.

Boy isn't that the truth. And if you are working for an agency that is paying for the instruction, you better keep your mouth shut.

I continued to attend DT courses at the highest "instructor level" after I left LE. I paid for it myself. It has been a while and tactics and teaching style might have changed but here was my experience.

I decided to ask tough questions. Often the top dogs did not have vconvincing answers.

For instance, if you try a handcuff wrist clamp take down, what happens if the guy doesn't go down? If you let go of the cuff, you have given him a "slung" to use against you. If you have to close, what do you do with the grip on the cuff? Why cuff in a standing position in the first place (unless you have command of stability and balance)?

Similarly, if you use a come-along using the traditional left side of your body in order to keep your gun side away from the perpetrator, when he closes, won't he be in the perfect gun-grab position? Why not do come-alongs with your gun side close to the technique? Isn't that the safer place? It is his other arm that is not controlled.

Similarly, why place intermediate tools (capsicum and baton) on the same primary (gun) side? When you escalate force, you have to secure each tool to move to the next. Is there an opportunity to do that in real-time encounters that escalate quickly? Why not train capsicum and baton on the support side?

I was asking these question in theearly 1990's at ISLET.

Keith Larman
05-21-2008, 11:36 AM
Just as a gigantic FWIW...

I had long been very uncomfortable with how we had been doing tanjutori in our dojo. I came from a family that hunted and since my grandfather had homesteaded out in the boonies of Alaska guns were around. My dad was a marksman in the military and my brother and i were taught early on about gun safety. So when I saw big swirling movements with guns basically pointing them at every unfortunate innocent bystander, I'd cringe.

Anyway, a very good friend of mine was given the task of reworking the gun takeaway techniques taught to a few of the local PD's. Gabe was a long time policeman, trainer, and martial artist and had a lot of years under his belt both on the street and in training officers.

There were a couple problems he faced on a practical level. One was that not all officers train as much as they probably should. Police officers often have grueling schedules and if they're lucky they also have a family life to deal with. So finding time for training, let alone extra training, is sometimes near impossible.

The second problem was one that has been discussed here. By definition if someone is in a gun takeaway scenario a situation has gone very bad indeed. *Why* it went bad is an important discussion, but as they say, poop happens. Sometimes it is just complacency. But sometimes it is a "domino effect" of tiny things that suddenly become a very large, bad scenario. Just as an extreme example, years ago I was in North Hollywood running an errand in the morning. I had just gotten out of my car and heard loud "popping". I turned and voila, about a block away that big North Hollywood Bank shootout was starting. Why was I there? How did I get into this mess? Luckily I was far enough away where after crouching behind my car for a while I decided I'd better slide back into my car and got the heck out of Dodge... Sometimes you just find yourself knee deep. All that awareness is great, but sometimes trouble finds you whether you like it or not.

So, obviously, I think the whole notion of how or why a scenario goes bad is an interesting topic. The reality is that it happens. And it can happen to anyone. Certain mental states can certainly help someone *not* get into a bad situation, but none of us are in total control of circumstance. To quote chaos theory, sometimes the flutter of a butterfly's wings in australia can start the ball rolling for a hurricane in Texas...

So back to the topic of the gun takeaway itself. Gabe decided the priority would be on developing something that would be as simple as possible with as few "moves" as possible. And something where there is no need to think "do I go right or left" "which hand is holding the gun" "Oh, this is a two-handed grab so I have to...". Etc. So he wanted them to have something that didn't require decision making in a moment of high stress apart from deciding to act. And hopefully it would be something easy enough to remember even if they didn't get a lot of hours on the mat training in it.

Anyway, I took the technique to my dojo and showed our chief instructor at our headquarters the technique. We worked on it for a while and he made a few changes to make things fit into our "way" of doing things to make it more "natural" for those of us who train the way we do. Then he started teaching it and stopped much of what we had been doing.

Interestingly we had one fella stop training with us due to the technique. He thought it was too violent and not "aiki" enough for a variety of reasons. But that's another issue I suppose... Strikes me as odd in the extreme, however.

Chris Parkerson
05-21-2008, 11:48 AM
Keith Larman wrote:

Gabe decided the priority would be on developing something that would be as simple as possible with as few "moves" as possible. And something where there is no need to think "do I go right or left" "which hand is holding the gun" "Oh, this is a two-handed grab so I have to...". Etc. So he wanted them to have something that didn't require decision making in a moment of high stress apart from deciding to act. And hopefully it would be something easy enough to remember even if they didn't get a lot of hours on the mat training in it.

Anyway, I took the technique to my dojo and showed our chief instructor at our headquarters the technique. We worked on it for a while and he made a few changes to make things fit into our "way" of doing things to make it more "natural" for those of us who train the way we do. Then he started teaching it and stopped much of what we had been doing.

Interestingly we had one fella stop training with us due to the technique. He thought it was too violent and not "aiki" enough for a variety of reasons. But that's another issue I suppose... Strikes me as odd in the extreme, however.

Can you PM me a video of it. I will show you Colonel Mile's approach by PM in exchange. I love those kind of approaches.

The military, I am told, use a thing called the "combat efficiency value (CEV)". In essence, you teach a technique to say 100 people and test them on it under duress. You end up with a percentage of successful actions. That is the CEV.

IMO, we would all do well to look at DT instruction similarly.

senshincenter
05-21-2008, 05:35 PM
I think it may be warranted to start another thread on this latest stuff - as I have run into very similar problems to those mentioned by Kit and Chris and I would love to hear more and share more on the topic(s). It would be cool if we could get that other thread going with videos included - again, I always think it is way better to have a discussion where you can refer to visually shared topics/elements.

But, on with this topic...

Stating up front that sometimes you just end up in the crapper, while stating up front that one's overall strategies and awareness levels are relevant to the odds of your overall tactical viability, here's my problem with the teaching of these techniques:

When they are taught, when they were taught to me, they never came with any disclaimers - especially not originally. They were lumped in with other empty-handed scenarios. As such, you didn't hear things about awareness, the warrior mindset, and/or the relationship between strategies and tactics as these things pertain to firearms, and as a result, you almost never studied these things (i.e. not much time was dedicated to them).

For example, these techniques were never accompanied by statements like, "Here's something you can do when against your best intentions everything just went wrong - now you are in a situation where you are probably going to get shot, and depending upon where you get shot, how many times you got shot, and/or how far away you are from a medical attention when you got shot, you will probably die - Okay, let's practice!"

I think if instructors passed on this disclaimer, some of the more experienced practitioners, the ones that have stopped romanticizing violence a long time ago, are going to ask: "Hey, wouldn't it be easier to just give the guy my wallet?" "When should I run?" "What do I do about my family if they are present?" etc. How many instructors that teach these techniques know the answers to these questions? In my experience, none of them ever knew, or they just didn't bother to answer them.

What I was trying to say, without discounting the possibility that sometimes everything goes wrong, is these techniques, the way they are most often taught across the globe, are in most cases being passed down from teacher to student from what has to be called either a romantic or an ignorant point of view - because of how much is going unsaid, untaught, etc., when you are just shown the technique and you just do it.

In our dojo, we do not practice these techniques, nor do we do tanto dori. For me, what they teach and what they seek to apply can be better transmitted through empty handed applications - ones that are not so based in an unsaid romanticism. I would feel it a huge disservice to even hint to my students that this is one way to survive a gun/knife attack. Since I can only say, "This is one way to not go down without a fight when you are attacked by a gun, and you've tried to satisfy the perp materially, and you are willing to risk your present family members getting shot," I feel much more inclined to work on strategy, awareness, family plans, countering weapons with weapons, etc.

Again, don't get me wrong, one might very well end up in this type of situation, but since the odds are better with training in things like strategy, awareness, family plans, countering weapons with weapons, etc., I'd rather spend my training time there and leave the training in the surviving of these situations to things like drills aimed at observing oneself within non-victorious scenarios. (which is important training, to be sure)

For me, we don't teach techniques when you are being covered by two machine guns - this is the same thing in principle from where I'm standing, even if the occurrence is different in terms of rarity. We do not have classes or seminars dedicated to serpentining. Again, it's that we don't teach this because it's impossible to end up in this type of situation, but rather we don't teach serpentining because the best way of actually dealing with the problem of being covered by two machine guns (and by "best" I mean "increasing your odds of surviving") is to put your effort into learning how not to have two machine guns leveled at you.

I feel when nothing accompanies these techniques, now is the time for voices to be very loud against the long held silence that only echoes Hollywood's understandings of violence (e.g. that second set of videos I posted from Experience Village). This is why I am where I am, though I can concede that some sort of balance is definitely in order.

dmv

KIT
05-21-2008, 06:52 PM
Hmmm.

I think thats a little extreme. Your "covered by two machine guns/serpentining" example is kind of odd, and it is not at all the same thing as having a gun screwed into your jaw, feeling you are about to be shot, and acting upon that.

Your point regarding dojo martial arts and martial arts teachers teaching what they have no idea of is well taken.

But certainly for police officers and soldiers, such weapons based training is critical. If only because their own weapons may be taken from them and the weapon they are defending against is theirs!

They are ill prepared without such practice, and unfortunately, ill served by the martial arts-cum-combatives/defensive tactics methods which are often taught by the very same dojo martial artists who don't know what they don't know - including some current and former professionals who should know better!

Countering weapons with weapons does begin with strategy and tactics, but at close range, empty hand skills. Indeed the empty hand counter may make more sense than attempting to deploy a weapon without the initiative or position to do so.

There are critical differences as well, that make it imperative that you do not simply believe you can transfer empty hand skills and principles over, (or the Way of the Sword to the Way of the Gun), you must learn to function with/operate the specific weapons system you are addressing in order to fully integrate the skills.

The latter area is where the dojo-ists tend to fall down.

Chris Parkerson
05-21-2008, 08:12 PM
Kit,

Oddly enough, I have come to the conclusion that everything in modern as well as traditional self defense is truly based on Riai. But such a thing is much to deep and involved to attempt to teach police or in a civilian DT seminar.

Kevin Leavitt
05-21-2008, 08:15 PM
Kit Wrote:

Countering weapons with weapons does begin with strategy and tactics, but at close range, empty hand skills. Indeed the empty hand counter may make more sense than attempting to deploy a weapon without the initiative or position to do so.

Yes, which is why we spend so much time on teaching positional dominance. Pulling a weapon without positional dominance typically compounds the problem for you, especially handguns.

What was a struggle to gain dominance now becomes a struggle to gain control over the weapon.

Chris Parkerson
05-21-2008, 09:58 PM
Just out of interest,

If you were in a two-way shooting range (say for instance 15 yards apart) with no cover or concealment, where would positional dominance be?

Kevin Leavitt
05-21-2008, 10:51 PM
The guy that is the fastest draw or is the best shot wins.

at 15 Yards in the open, with no Cover, (concealment doesn't matter at that point) I would be drawing, shooting, and continuing to move forward...closing distance until he down.

What you also have to dissect, is what led to the 15 yard showdown?

If I were assaulting or conducting a room clearing, weapon drawn, I am not going to slow down but continue to press into the fight until I achieve dominance.

Stopping allows him to have time to gain Cover or to fix me, then I or my guys have to "start over" and regain what we started. Translated, "more guys hurt just to get back to where you were!"

I am trying to think of a situation in which I would be in a "high noon" situation in which we both had equal knowledge of what the other was about to do. I can't.

If he had the jump on me, well I may be SOL and dead, or I may be back pedaling and looking for a way to regain dominance. I like some of the things that David showed a few months ago in his videos...it depends.

Too many variables I think.

But typically I am of the school of thought of "if your in the fight, get into the fight and always move forward, never backwards"

Forward may not me straight...it could be spiraling on a decreasing radius like Dave's videos, or it could be clinching, or it could be irimi.

KIT
05-21-2008, 11:11 PM
Just out of interest,

If you were in a two-way shooting range (say for instance 15 yards apart) with no cover or concealment, where would positional dominance be?

Well, at three feet, the best place to be is behind the hostage....:mad:

Not SOL and dead Kev. Maybe SOL, but never, ever dead.

RE: Riai.

Depends. Some people think that is all you need. Stand by, another sacred cow about to be skewered here:

Principles mean nothing without technique. I have watched respected practitioners of "principle based" methods flounder when caught in a place they had no technique with which to solve the problem. They know what to do, but not how to do it. Technique is principle applied. Without technique, all you have is theory.

By the same token, plenty of folks out there with technique and no principles. That is I am sure what Chris is referring to regarding teaching many(most) officers.

Then there are the "body" guys - physical attributes is all they have, no technical skill to speak of - they rely on brute force or a high level of conditioning to get by. Or a low level of body fat to convince themselves they are "combat conditioned."

It is shin-gi-tai. A balance of these things.

The Mind - including principles, heiho, tactics, awareness, study, knowledge of relevant patterns, intuition, etc.,

Technique - the physical expression of principle through effective fighting technique and having a base to work from across the armed and unarmed spectrum (for our purposes here - long gun, hand gun, contact weapon, empty hand striking, clinch, and ground - integrated for seamless transition);

and the Body - physical conditioning that allows one to train hard in force on force on a regular basis, that is inured to pain and can accept injury and continue fighting, that has the appropriate body weight to height ratio and strength ratio (for effective functioning wearing typical kit of body armor, weapons, ammo, etc.), ability to withstand repeat adrenal dumps without debilitating physical effects, and so on.

Far too many folks put all their eggs in one basket - or too much in one and not enough in the others.

philippe willaume
05-22-2008, 04:54 AM
Kit,

Oddly enough, I have come to the conclusion that everything in modern as well as traditional self defense is truly based on Riai. But such a thing is much to deep and involved to attempt to teach police or in a civilian DT seminar.

I agree with you on both accounts there.
as for you 15 yard question
my answer would be droping to one knee to the left or the right if possible forward as I deploy the weapon.
and as soon as i can, shoot with both eyes open (ie into the brown) and hoping for the best and for the gun I have to be autimatic (or at least semi auto) with a large clip.
and swearing to myself that i will not let that happen to me again should I survice that one?

phil

philippe willaume
05-22-2008, 05:19 AM
I agree with you on both accounts there.
as for you 15 yard question
my answer would be droping to one knee to the left or the right if possible forward as I deploy the weapon.
and as soon as i can, shoot with both eyes open (ie into the brown) and hoping for the best and for the gun I have to be autimatic (or at least semi auto) with a large clip.
and swearing to myself that i will not let that happen to me again should I survice that one?

phil
phil

I forgot to had that I am assuming that we both have ranged weapons and they are holstered or to the port.
buy shooting with both eyes open, i mean with both eyes and a shouldred weapon (tir au jeté as it is called in the french military)

If the opposition has a bladed weapon in hand (machete combat knife, messer smatchet), I would say that 13 metres is possibly too close for comfort
If the guy is already in motion and our weapons is holstered I would go for open hand
If our weapon is at the port and he is standing still, I would stay standing and have a pop (shooting into the brown without shouldering) and go for to hand to hand.
phil

Chris Parkerson
05-22-2008, 05:22 AM
I agree with you on both accounts there.
as for you 15 yard question
my answer would be droping to one knee to the left or the right if possible forward as I deploy the weapon.
and as soon as i can, shoot with both eyes open (ie into the brown) and hoping for the best and for the gun I have to be autimatic (or at least semi auto) with a large clip.
and swearing to myself that i will not let that happen to me again should I survice that one?

phil

At the S/O training center in Orange County they use this scenario as your first evolution before the real scenarios just to get the desire to "trade bullets" out of you.

For years I traineda "drop and draw" ending up in a low kneel as my first shot was executed. Not real smart but it felt cool. A linear change of plane put my head right where most people are trained to aim, center mass.

When Iattended the Orange County S/O training, I broke to the right causing my opponent to twist left off his modified weaver. I did not get hit even though he used his whole magazine. I hit 80%.

I am still trying to evaluate the experience.

Kevin Leavitt
05-22-2008, 06:20 AM
Chris, I don't think there are many good solutions or an ideal one.

philippe willaume
05-22-2008, 06:44 AM
Hello
@ Chris
Not being hit at all that is as good as it is going to be…

I think it really depend of the weapon that you are facing.
Personally I link shooting from a holstered position to a thrust.
So you need to get away from the front of your opponent.
I associate using weapons from port more like a rising cut, so one side is usually preferable to the other and it is worth making your self a smaller target (do to the inherent raising nature of moving from port position)
As well some weapons tend to be shouldered and some tend to be use from the hips or a drop position,
Some other tend to cover an area (shotgun or smg/ high cycle AR)
In such case dropping laying down may not be a bad idea (as going over the top style of not bad idea, I.e. get you of immediate trouble but put you in trouble for what ever comes immediately next.)
Basically I think moving away and reducing the target area is not bad default behaviour.

@kevin
I think Chris is talking about situation like being dragged to the ground type or facing an armed oppoenet or several opponent
It not so much how to make it good but more how to make it less worse..

senshincenter
05-22-2008, 09:20 AM
At the S/O training center in Orange County they use this scenario as your first evolution before the real scenarios just to get the desire to "trade bullets" out of you.

For years I traineda "drop and draw" ending up in a low kneel as my first shot was executed. Not real smart but it felt cool. A linear change of plane put my head right where most people are trained to aim, center mass.

When Iattended the Orange County S/O training, I broke to the right causing my opponent to twist left off his modified weaver. I did not get hit even though he used his whole magazine. I hit 80%.

I am still trying to evaluate the experience.

I'm in this camp as well - move and shoot - preferably utilizing a spiral , which has you being the worst kind of target (moving laterally) and the opponent being the best kind of target (relatively still or moving in a linear fashion toward you).

Here's that video Kevin mentioned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_ynRjlMyw

d

KIT
05-22-2008, 11:02 AM
I'm in this camp as well - move and shoot - preferably utilizing a spiral , which has you being the worst kind of target (moving laterally) and the opponent being the best kind of target (relatively still or moving in a linear fashion toward you).



Yes. Folks that have been doing a lot of work in this area with Simunition rounds are finding that under the conditions Chris laid out, "positional dominance" means initially not taking a position at all. Lateral movement coupled with abrupt directional changes are what keeps the rounds from finding a home. Great for an open area, inside cluttered locations its a bit more problematic.

I have agree with Chris, taking a knee at 15 yards not only places your head where many people fire (in force on force (FoF) non lethal training ammunition (NLTA) training you will see even average-officer-trained shooters consistently shoot low - groin and leg hits are common), it limits your mobility.

Another common problem is people taking a knee to reload. This has been the prelude to so many "executions" I have seen or perpetrated in FoF training that I consider it a learning point. If you are mobile, moving off line of his weapon, and keep your head up while shooting and reloading your chances of avoiding taking hits are much better. When you capture an angle that he cannot engage from, or his weapon goes down, you can then transition to a direct "positional dominance" approach.

Bill Danosky
05-22-2008, 12:27 PM
That was a cool and illuminating video. Even though I have practiced several martial arts in my adult life I am finding myself to be more and more Aiki-centric.

Do you guys have anything like ushiro nage in your style? I noticed several times as the officer passes to the left and has the perpetrator's back to him, he could snatch his sholders, collar, etc. and pull him right to the ground. I use it all the time in jiyu waza and nobody sees it coming.

senshincenter
05-22-2008, 03:43 PM
I think in a fighting style you got to have a sense of having whatever works, as long as you find "what ever works" relative to what you are doing or needing at any given time. This is particularly true when you are training. So, if for a given situation a throw from the rear is what is needed, etc., then go for it.

One thing we do, however, is to place priority on utilizing our weapons. Under the conditions set up in the video, we would not look to throw, as we are looking to engage with our weapons.

In short, the main reason is because weapons are the great equalizer and provide much better "leverage" than any kind of armbar might - if you get my point. This priority sets up different issues, issues that one has to deal with tactically. Specifically, one has to know how to set his/her weapon to the conditions at hand, and one has to know how to set or reset those conditions at hand for one's weapon(s).

As an extension to that, when it comes to empty hand fighting, we sort of, generally, understand it in two ways: 1) your option to use empty hand fighting is relative to your decision that it will suffice fully. This most often has us choosing empty hand fighting when we outnumber the person, and/or when we know them not to be armed (after a search), and/or when we are somewhat controlling our environment, and/or when they are not aggressively resisting, etc., and 2) we utilize empty hand fighting as an element to achieve setting or reseting those conditions at hand for one's weapon(s). This is what one is seeing in the video. As a result, we would opt not for the throw, possibly risking a ground-fight, a weapons retention issues, or some other element of the usual quid-pro-quo stuff that comes up when you engage at close range, etc., to control the attacker. We are, under these conditions, looking to arrest the person by putting him in a tactical disadvantage in terms of position before we commit to engaging him at close range with empty hands (e.g. arrest). We are opting to use weapons to achieve that. Once that is achieve, we have satisfied our first understanding of empty hand fighting.

Chris Parkerson
05-22-2008, 07:45 PM
Chris, I don't think there are many good solutions or an ideal one.

I agree. That is why they use it. To teach that trading bullets is not what police should do if at all possible.

But for bodyguards, this is also the normal scenario but make it 3-7 yards.

In fact, one executive protection school uses the following test as part of their shooting test.

The drill is the 1 on 3 and if you do everything right, ie get all your hits, no misses, change plane somewhere between shooting target 1 and 3(kneel) scan, reload, scan then it is an 80% score and the additional 20% comes from potential time. 4.2 seconds or less increases the bonus percentage. 3.00 seconds or less is a full 20% bonus or a 100% score if all other elements fall into place. Distance is 8 yards for the 1st two targets and the last one at 180-200 degrees is 10 yards. Target is the standard blue steel upper torso..

You can pass the school without passing the test, but you will not get an A1 rating.

Chris Parkerson
05-22-2008, 07:57 PM
I'm in this camp as well - move and shoot - preferably utilizing a spiral , which has you being the worst kind of target (moving laterally) and the opponent being the best kind of target (relatively still or moving in a linear fashion toward you).

Here's that video Kevin mentioned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_ynRjlMyw

d

I saw this tape and responded to it when you first put it up on the thread a few months ago.

I think globally, Kevin's approach is right on for military and for certain high risk EP venues. The Israelis are reall buggers for this approach. In fact, Mexican teams also tend to love the idea of attacking the attacker and often hire Israelis to come and teach the skill sets.

In the U.S., we tend to follow the "cover and evacuate" model".

It is my opinion that the State Department in 2004 had a real eye opener in Iraq. Windows up and tight formations on the freeway was not aggressive enough. Windows cracked down with guns pointed out covering anyone who eyeballed you was the better bet in a war zone. A QRF vehicle that attacked the attacker was best practices.

Of course, the S. Africans were the most aggressive and mobile. Forget 360 coveraqge. All guns forward, the back seat shooter shootinf over the front seat shooter and "attack the attacker" with full force in one direction and let the others try and catch up.

Aikibu
05-22-2008, 09:26 PM
You mean some combo of shoot move communicate? Gee who'd da thunk! LOL

The feedback I got from some of the NGSF guys who went to OEF is that the police officers on the teams had to go through some remedial CQB because the tactical scenarios they were engaged in did not fit the training they recieved in L.E.

WIlliam Hazen

Chris Parkerson
05-22-2008, 10:14 PM
You mean some combo of shoot move communicate? Gee who'd da thunk! LOL

The feedback I got from some of the NGSF guys who went to OEF is that the police officers on the teams had to go through some remedial CQB because the tactical scenarios they were engaged in did not fit the training they recieved in L.E.

WIlliam Hazen

as someone said before, you do seem to hit the nail on the heady with pithy accuracy.

For me, my martial training tells me to split the opponent's mind. By stepping to the right, his structure is compromised as he tries to track me by twisting his shooting platform in contention with his "left lead" modified weaver.

Try shooting an "el presidente" from right to left as a right handed shooter. Your time will be slower and your hits on the 3rd target will be less accurate than if you shoot left to right.

IMO, the big win in traditional martial training is in learning strategy.

Chris Parkerson
05-22-2008, 10:26 PM
Mr. Hazen,

Police and SF, IMO are very different missions and require different strategy, tactics and techniques.
in fact, most police have never been trained in Executive Protection, but they get assigned to it all the time.

How many police have been trained to shoot 3 people (1shot, 1kill) on a 200 degree range in under 4.2 seconds.
how many are trained not to chase the perp?
Bill gates' pie in the face was a great example. Three pie attackers. No one secured the site before arrival. The BG takes out one pie perp pushing him toward a uniformed motorcycle cop. Gates was left exposed to the other attackers.

We do what we are trained to do.

Brion Toss
05-22-2008, 10:35 PM
Several things:
First, thanks to all of you for the fascinating details comprising the Way of the Gun. Next, I'm particularly surprised/pleased to see what a vivid energy metaphor guns provide, with the exaggerated linear power amplifying the significance of the subtler (i.e. slower, more complex) empty-hand strategies.
In a dojo context, I have found that, to paraphrase Dr. Johnson, the prospect of being shot focuses the mind wonderfully. I believe this is important inasmuch as any weapons practice can provide the participants the opportunity to learn to be centered in stressful situations. Tantos and bokkens are somehow not as psychologically compelling in this regard, even though they are meant to represent deadly weapons; perhaps it is an acculturated phenomenom, but people tend to have much stronger emotional reactions to having a pistol pointed at them, even if it is a bright blue one, made of rubber. Maybe it's a matter of too many movies, but it makes a difference. So if we hope to help people polish their spirits, in addition to teaching them some, well, fairly-unlikely-to-succeed techniques, guns can provide a way.
Granted, one can all too easily become complacent, lose the sense of reality, of immediate, mortal danger that the practice gun represents. To prevent that, I find it helpful to treat our rubber guns with the same exaggerated care with which one would treat a real gun, starting with which way they are pointing when you bow in, whether or not your finger is on the trigger, whether the safety is off, etc. The idea is to help bring the student and the instructor to a state that at least vaguely approximates the real thing.
Which brings up the question of what the real thing feels like. I had a gun pointed at me, briefly, by a very drunk, angry person, a long time ago, and I hold on to that memory, and how it felt. But I don't think that someone needs an experience like that in order to teach or train effectively. It seems far less important, for instance, than having a working knowledge of the mechanics of actual guns. Helps to have fired some, and to have seen their effects. What do you all think?
Finally, as I think many of the posts above make abundantly clear, the thread title is a serious misnomer; the last thing you want to do is to grab at a gun.
Yours,
Brion

Chris Parkerson
05-22-2008, 10:59 PM
Mr. Toss,

Traditional Budo included horses, archery, shuriken and shaken as well as tanto, katana, hojo, and naginata.

IMO modern budo should include tactical driving, pistol, rifle, shotgun, knives, clubs and long blades; as well as empty hand.

The more realistic you make it, the better.

Aikibu
05-22-2008, 11:11 PM
We do what we are trained to do.

Preaching to the choir ma man Chris...Unless you train specfically in gun take away scenarios really bad things may happen if you try to "wing" it...

I spent years doing EP and Military Stuff. It is a perishible skillset and I think for most of the folks here the "Please do not try this at home or the Dojo without the benefit of an experianced and skilled instructor." caveat may apply... With the exception of James Williams ( Who has worked with some legendary Real Deals) and a few Systema Guys (All Spetsnatz Vets) I know of no Aikido Instructor worth his salt in gun take aways including me.

It be foolish of me to think that I can "grow" this skillset without inviting outside real expertise...:)

William Hazen

KIT
05-23-2008, 08:02 AM
The guy that is the fastest draw or is the best shot wins.

at 15 Yards in the open, with no Cover, (concealment doesn't matter at that point) I would be drawing, shooting, and continuing to move forward...closing distance until he down.

What you also have to dissect, is what led to the 15 yard showdown?

If I were assaulting or conducting a room clearing, weapon drawn, I am not going to slow down but continue to press into the fight until I achieve dominance.

Stopping allows him to have time to gain Cover or to fix me, then I or my guys have to "start over" and regain what we started. Translated, "more guys hurt just to get back to where you were!"

I am trying to think of a situation in which I would be in a "high noon" situation in which we both had equal knowledge of what the other was about to do. I can't.



Here's one I use as a teaching aid. I was going to post it before, but forgot:

http://www2.indystar.com/articles/9/171806-8689-228.html

KIT
05-23-2008, 08:07 AM
Here is another very good one, with post incident photos. Warning, if you are weak of stomach this isn't for you:

http://www.masscops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43551

KIT
05-23-2008, 08:29 AM
Which brings me to my last point. One that refers to polishing the mind, training the body, preparing yourself for the point when, yes, you have reached the point of "the last thing you want to do" and you believe he will shoot you, your family, or someone else if you do not act...

Don't assume you will die. In so doing, you are training yourself to do just that. Recognize the potential for death is certainly there, but do not go into such a fight thinking "I hope I don't get shot and die," go in with a sense of righteous indignation that someone would threaten you with a gun!

As many of you know, in July of last year I was shot through the chest with a .45. It is, miraculously, the only bullet of the many that were fired directly at me and some others through walls, a door and face to face at a distance of a few feet. I cannot go into details of the incident as the case has not been tried, but I feel safe in telling you about my injury and the aftermath.

The round missed the majorly important vitals (to include a full tac vest!:mad: ) by an inch or two. If those had been hit, I might be dead. Instead, I got a shattered rib, a collapsed lung, and a bullet go almost all the way through and lodged in my back.

My experience of this hit was that it was on the vest. I continued with the mission for a few moments longer, stepped out of the room in which the firefight happened, and then had the impression that the wind was knocked out of me. I felt that I needed a moment to catch my breath, and I even told the medics to leave me there as I just needed a second to rest. They of course pulled me out, and pulled off my gear, and I started spitting blood which made me realize I was not, in fact, hit on the vest.

Of course I considered the possibility that I might not "make it." But I never dwelled on it or took it seriously because I knew I would. Not knowing the extent of my injury, I based that on my training, the "polishing of spirit" that occurs and the transcendance of, not acceptance of, the thought of death.

Accepting death is never okay. Accepting the thought of it and moving beyond it to matters at hand, is.

I say this because, in the officer survival and tactical studies that I have made central to my career, people with far worse injuries than mine have stayed in the fight, prevailed, rehabbed, and returned to work. Their rehab is often much more rapid that expected (as mine was), I think because of their mindset from the beginning.

Then again, there are people with much less serious injuries that have died. People with minor or even superficial injuries that have "given themselves up for dead," or reacted with such a state of sheer fear and panic that the only reason their assailants did not finish them off was because the assailants chose not to, not because of any action on the part of the victim.

Handgun rounds are notoriously weak. Many, many people survive multiple hits and keep right on trucking. If the bad guys can do that - SO CAN YOU!

I do not mean to minimize the potential for death in facing a gun or even being shot. By all means if you think all he wants is your money, give it to him and don't risk it. Some of us work in professions where there is the possibility we may have to run down the barrel of gun, we accept that responsibility (or should) and prepare for it (or should.)

But if you have to act, don't assume that because you may get shot that its "game over." Don't give up and go fetal and say "Okay, this is it." If you can think "That bastard just shot me!" then you are still able to stay in the fight, and that is the mindset that will carry you back to your loved ones.

KIT
05-23-2008, 08:37 AM
Another story:

I spoke with another officer recently shot in the line of duty. He was struck with two rounds from a completely concealed suspect during a track with a dog.

The first round tore through his right bicep and exited the elbow, in this case incapacitating his right arm. He did not have his weapon out, and was thus now unable to draw it.

The second entered his right hip, went up through his liver, diaphragm, lung, and broke some ribs on its way out, where it lodged between his chest and his protective vest.

This officer went down. A second officer ended the threat, but since they could not see the suspect, did not know it and still had to treat the situation tactically.

This officer told me that as he lay on the ground, looking up at a gray and overcast sky, he told himself "This is it. This is how I am going to die, this is where." He said that as he looked up into nothing but a featureless expanse of light gray, the world started to collapse in on him, his vision clouded over and began to come to a pin point. He started to pray.....

And then he stopped himself. He said to himself "WTF am I doing? People that are dying pray. I am not dying here!"

He then was able to assist in some way with his own rescue.

If any of you ever get hit, never give up. Do not be willing to die and odds are strong that you won't.

Ron Tisdale
05-23-2008, 08:58 AM
Inspiring Kit. Thanks for those posts.

Best,
Ron

Chris Parkerson
05-23-2008, 11:01 AM
Kit ,

Thanks

Kevin Leavitt
05-23-2008, 11:58 AM
Here's one I use as a teaching aid. I was going to post it before, but forgot:

http://www2.indystar.com/articles/9/171806-8689-228.html

Good article Kit,

This sums it up:

The 41-year-old SWAT team member, in his first public comments since the shootings, declined to detail the last moment except to say: "I closed the distance and assaulted his position and terminated the incident."

Kevin Leavitt
05-23-2008, 12:06 PM
Thanks for sharing your story with us Kit.

One of my soldiers a year ago was hit by a 7.62 that went underneath his vest. He lost half a lung and it perforated his heart. He drove on and actually was doing first aid to another that didn't make it. His mentality parallelled yours, he never thought about the fact that he might die, he did what he was supposed to do and just kept going.

Thanks again for sharing this.

KIT
05-23-2008, 02:15 PM
Thanks for sharing your story with us Kit.

One of my soldiers a year ago was hit by a 7.62 that went underneath his vest. He lost half a lung and it perforated his heart. He drove on and actually was doing first aid to another that didn't make it. His mentality parallelled yours, he never thought about the fact that he might die, he did what he was supposed to do and just kept going.

Thanks again for sharing this.

Its a double-edged sword, though.

We need to always be prepared for our assailants having the same mindset and capabilities.

It further puts the lie to some of what martial arts has codified in its practice, or the mentality of its practitioners, as "fight ending" moves, and refutes ideas about "pressure point fighting" and "bio-mechanical cutting."

Good one, Kevin, thanks for sharing it.

I always sought out examples like those above to inspire me, meditate upon, inform my training, and pass along to others - and now I know that kind of mental training - in conjunction with proper physical "combat conditioning," works!

Aikibu
05-23-2008, 03:13 PM
Its a double-edged sword, though.

We need to always be prepared for our assailants having the same mindset and capabilities.

It further puts the lie to some of what martial arts has codified in its practice, or the mentality of its practitioners, as "fight ending" moves, and refutes ideas about "pressure point fighting" and "bio-mechanical cutting."

Good one, Kevin, thanks for sharing it.

I always sought out examples like those above to inspire me, meditate upon, inform my training, and pass along to others - and now I know that kind of mental training - in conjunction with proper physical "combat conditioning," works!

North Hollywood 1998

What a day that was...Reminds me why your words ring so true. I had a buddy there his mindset was the same as your post, and I think it's one of the reasons he survived. God Bless him and all the L.A.P.D. folks there that day.

William Hazen

gregg block
05-23-2008, 05:23 PM
George L wrote -My objection to most retention or takeaway systems is that they do not utilize enough impact technique. If you take a gun away from someone and you haven't struck them, you are almost certainly now grappling for that weapon.

All of the best retention and takeaway systems I have seen involve serious impact and preferably balance breaks thereby giving you the time to bring the firearm to bear on the assailant. Aikido - Aiki jutsu derived techniques are great for this but you need to have major atemi and you should train to shoot the assailant as part of the takeaway

Thank you George. You are right on here. Krav Maga stresses these very points in gun take aways (in fact in all aspects of their self defence system)

Bill Danosky
05-24-2008, 04:44 PM
IMO modern budo should include tactical driving, pistol, rifle, shotgun, knives, clubs and long blades; as well as empty hand.

The more realistic you make it, the better.

Don't forget "spot the loony"!

KIT
05-26-2008, 10:52 AM
Appropos this subject, both tactically and mindset-wise:

from PoliceOne.com

Officer's Fight for Life Yields 9 Crucial Survival Lessons

Charles Remsberg

The 25-year-old gangbanger was a significant player in the life of Chicago P.D. Officer Candace Milovich-Fitzsimmons for less than two minutes. In that flicker of time she says he changed her approach to policing forever.

He wanted to kill her, she believes, but instead he was the one who died, leaving a legacy of lessons that she's convinced will help her survive for the remainder of her career-and can help other officers better face the mean streets as well.

"I didn't go looking for this," she told PoliceOne in an exclusive interview recently. "It found me."

If her sergeant had been a bit indulgent, she wouldn't have confronted those watershed moments at all.

At about 10:45 one chilly Monday night last November, having just transported a prisoner for a tac team, Milovich-Fitzsimmons and her young partner, Matt Blomstrand, were hanging around their district station on Chicago's Northwest Side, hoping to get cut loose from duty since only 15 minutes remained of their shift. "Too early to check off," their sergeant said. "Get back out there." So they did, Milovich-Fitzsimmons driving.

As they approached an intersection a few blocks away, a black Ford Explorer caught their eye up a side street. "It was going about 5 or 10 miles an hour," Milovich-Fitzsimmons recalls, "jerking back and forth like someone was jiggling the steering, and the horn was blowing like a maniac."

A domestic, they figured…and kept going. "Then our conscience got the best of us, and we went looking for that car." They quickly found it on a dimly lit street in a neighborhood predominately of small, single-family houses.

As they swung in behind, a male jumped out of the rear passenger-side seat, ran a few yards, then apparently changed his mind and ran back, trying to climb back in as the SUV stuttered forward in a jerky series of stops and lurches.

No brake lights signaled the stops, and the third time the vehicle abruptly halted the squad car rear-ended it.

What the officers had interrupted would be revealed only after Milovich-Fitzsimmons endured the most violent encounter of her 10 years as a Chicago cop. According to what police later pieced together, the male who'd been trying to reenter the vehicle and two cholos inside were members of the vicious Spanish Cobras street gang. The other occupant was a 33-year-old man who a few minutes earlier had been walking up to his front door from work, carrying a jug of milk for his family.

He was hailed by a young male pedestrian with a cane who insistently asked him for a ride somewhere. The mark had a "bad feeling" about the guy, so rather than risk the safety of his family he decided to "sacrifice" himself, and agreed. As the two approached his Ford Explorer, two more individuals leaped from the shadows, pushed the victim into the SUV and took off with him. Their original plan apparently was to hold him for ransom.

Inside the car, the assailants reportedly took $350 and a cell phone from the victim, then started taking turns beating him with their fists and the cane. Investigators believe they changed their mind about their crime plan and instead decided to drive to a desolate industrial area in the district and there murder the man.

The herky-jerky movement of the SUV was caused by the desperate victim grabbing the gear-shift lever and jamming it in and out of PARK.

Immediately upon the collision with the squad car, the gangbanger outside the Explorer and the one who'd been driving bolted. Milovich-Fitzsimmons radioed in a foot pursuit and beat feet after the driver. Blomstrand was delayed in exiting their unit because the crash had jammed his door. By the time he crawled out through his window, Milovich-Fitzsimmons had disappeared into the darkness. Blomstrand, with less than three years on the job, focused his attention on the two running vehicles, the beating victim who tumbled out of the SUV in a bloody heap, and the cholo inside who was trying to climb out through a rear door.

Milovich-Fitzsimmons, meanwhile, was sucked into a worsening series of clashes with the driver.

First she caught up with him on a parkway along the street and shoved him to his hands and knees. She had hold of his coat but before she could get a body grip, he pushed up, easily pulled out of the jacket and took off again. "That's why gangbangers never wear their coats closed," she told PoliceOne. "And they tend to wear a couple, so if they wiggle out of one they still have an outer garment."

The foot chase continued down an "extremely dark" gangway between two bungalows. Milovich-Fitzsimmons caught the driver again in an alley behind some garages and pushed him against a wrought-iron fence. "Get down on the ground!" she yelled.

Instead, "he whips around and starts fighting." During the tussle, her shoulder mike popped off, swinging around her legs out of reach for calling for help.

Milovich-Fitzsimmons felt no panic. Through a decade's experience, the 39-year-old, trim, blond officer with a tough-but-fair reputation was accustomed to scrapping with suspects and had never encountered a situation she couldn't control. "I was thinking very clearly, giving basic commands to myself to stay in the fight," she recalls. "I couldn't understand why he was so violent, though." Unaware of the kidnapping, she thought she was dealing just with a run-of-the-mill hot car.

At a point when Milovich-Fitzsimmons grabbed her adversary by the shirt, he tripped and fell to the ground. "Stay down!" she yelled. He raised his hands for a moment, "teetering on his ass" and looking beyond her, evidently checking for her partner. Then he lunged toward her, grabbed the butt of her holstered S&W 9mm and used it as leverage to pull himself up.

"I could feel the top strap unsnap and the holster open," Milovich-Fitzsimmons says. "It was the first time my weapon had ever been threatened. I thought, 'I'm in big trouble here.'"

What she calls "Neanderthal thoughts" guided her-Reach here! Do this! "Very loud, very basic, like someone yelling at me in my head." She fought to keep her gun in her Level II holster while the 'banger continued to yank at it with one hand while trying to smash her in the face with his other.

Finally she managed to break away from him and pull her gun. "Get on the ground!" she screamed. He lunged for her again. She squeezed the trigger and fired a round, "the first time I'd ever shot my weapon on duty. As soon as I pulled the trigger, I knew it was a good shoot."

Yes and no. The round went through the suspect's left hand and through his sleeve-then, incredibly, ricocheted off his forehead and ended up in the doorframe of a nearby garage.

Blood streaming down his face, the attacker grabbed again at Milovich-Fitzsimmons' semiauto. She beat him with it, directly on his wound, but he was unfazed. He shoved her against a row of garbage cans and fled across the alley into a vacant field, which soon became the third-and worst-scene of the progressive fight.

Milovich-Fitzsimmons holstered and secured her S&W, took out her cuffs and went after him. When she caught up to him, he'd fallen to his hands and knees. "I thought, 'Game over' and I moved in to take him into custody. Color me wrong.

"All I could see were his wrists-major tunnel vision. I heard that voice in my head, Wrist…cuff." But when she got close, the suspect tackled her and although she beat him with the handcuffs, he took her to the ground. The cuffs flew from her hand.

"We grappled all over the place," she says. "I was punching him, kicking him in the face and chest, twisting his balls for all I was worth. He never flinched…just got angrier." She drew her gun but couldn't get a shot. Seven inches taller and outweighing her by nearly 90 pounds, the suspect pinned her, smashed her in the face and fought again for control of her weapon.

"His hands were like hams," she says. "He was able to bend my wrist so the gun was pointing right against my throat. I got scratches from the muzzle." A weight trainer-"I'm stronger than I look"-Milovich-Fitzsimmons first managed to push the gun off target, then turn it toward him. She pulled the trigger, but nothing happened. The suspect was clamping the slide so it couldn't move.

The muzzle twisted back and forth as the officer fought desperately to save her life and the suspect fought to take it. "It seemed like an eternity. I fought with everything I had but I couldn't stop him. I was physically spent. I knew I couldn't hang on much longer."

Then the voice in her head came back. "Loud as day," three names echoed in her skull: Jake…Alex…Eddie. Her three sons.

"I can't give up!" she told herself. Despite her exhaustion, she continued to keep the muzzle away from her head and body until she glimpsed "my angel"-a man in a blue uniform shirt-running toward them from the alley. He was a responding officer whom her partner had sent in the direction he'd last seen her run as she pursued the suspect fleeing from the collision.

"Shoot this motherfucker!" she screamed. "He's got my gun!"

Almost at contact distance, the officer fired four fast rounds. One grazed Milovich-Fitzsimmons' right hand. Three hit the suspect. He collapsed, dead, on top of her.

"By then," Milovich-Fitzsimmons says, "I think I was slipping into shock. I could hear voices but I couldn't respond to them or move or even open my eyes. And I couldn't stop shaking. I was vibrating from head to toe."

From the moment she radioed in the foot pursuit until the backup officer called in the fatal shooting, only 1 minute 45 seconds elapsed. What happened during that brief time "changed me tremendously," says Milovich-Fitzsimmons, whose husband and sister are Chicago P.D. sergeants. She enumerates the mistakes she believes she made and the lessons she learned:

"When we were fighting in the alley and I shot, I should have kept shooting. When I had firearms training in the academy, we shot once, holstered and waited for the next instruction. We talked about two to the chest and one to the head, but we didn't do it. You perform like you train. My greatest regret is that I didn't light him up in the alley when I had the chance. I won't stop short like that again. If I'm justified in shooting, I'll shoot and keep shooting and not look so much to other avenues."
"When I reholstered my weapon, I deescalated prematurely, going for my cuffs. I should have made a greater effort to grab my radio and get help. I should have anticipated that the fight might not be over yet."
"When we were fighting, I used constant verbal commands. Yelling at him took a lot of energy, exhausted me. We're required to give verbal commands, but I would limit them more and concentrate on physically overcoming my adversary."
"Would I carry an extra gun? Absolutely not. I was in the fight of my life to retain just one. What if I'd had a backup gun in an ankle holster when I kicked him and he'd grabbed it? It's hard enough to hold onto one gun without having to keep track of two."
"The first thing I said when I finally went off duty that night was, 'I want a different gun, a .45.' I went to the range and tried several weapons. I ended up selecting a Sig-Sauer 9mm. It's light, with an easy trigger pull. I shot a tight group the first time I fired it. I'm going to the range more often now. I want to feel more comfortable with a gun. It wasn't second nature to me when I needed to use it."
"I find myself less tolerant to resistance from suspects now. If someone gets jumpy, I throw the cuffs on them. I'm not going to play anymore. I find myself analyzing people and situations a lot more closely. I will never, ever allow myself to be put in that situation again."
"After I had some time off and then went back on duty, I felt like I was coming down with the flu one night. I asked myself, 'If I have to get into something tonight, can I defend myself?' I decided to stay home. Before, I would have brushed it off and gone in, full of bravado. Now I know I need to be on top of my game when I'm working. I can't imagine going through the kind of fight I had feeling sick."
"At the station, some cops were talking about my incident, and one of the females said, 'If that had been me, I'd be dead.' Others nodded in agreement. I went off on them. 'Never give up!' I said. 'The minute you think that way, you've lost! If you're thinking you can't survive, you won't, and you'll be just another officer on a mass card.' I try to talk to other officers about what happened, because I want them to see what can be learned from it."
"I've become more involved with fitness. Sometimes I work out 10 times a week now. Before the incident, I could bench press 110 on a good day. Now I've set a goal of 238, the weight of the guy who attacked me. I'm already up to 160."
Officer Milovich-Fitzsimmons teaches a psychology workshop for recruits at the Chicago Police Academy. She knows something about motivation. She keeps a Polaroid of her assailant's body, decorated with gang tattoos, at her gym.

"He was in my life such a short time, but he altered so much of me," she says. "I look at that picture, and it gets me very angry. It pushes me to work harder."

Chris Parkerson
05-26-2008, 07:44 PM
great testimony
did she have a revolver?
now changing to a Sig Sauer?
dated when? 1990's
great self analysis.

Walter Martindale
05-26-2008, 10:11 PM
Do modern US police use anything but semi-auto as a duty sidearm?
Do S&W 9mm come in anything but semi-auto?
Somewhere in there she said something about the "The suspect was clamping the slide so it couldn't move." (but I wonder if it had been jammed from the previous shot, not properly cycled, so there would be a spent case in the chamber?)
Nevertheless - good story.
Izumi's DVD has a couple of "keep your gun" moves. He's still using the wooden one I made in 1994, patterned after my (then) CZ75.
W

Chris Parkerson
05-26-2008, 10:19 PM
Do modern US police use anything but semi-auto as a duty sidearm?
Do S&W 9mm come in anything but semi-auto?
Somewhere in there she said something about the "The suspect was clamping the slide so it couldn't move." (but I wonder if it had been jammed from the previous shot, not properly cycled, so there would be a spent case in the chamber?)
Nevertheless - good story.
Izumi's DVD has a couple of "keep your gun" moves. He's still using the wooden one I made in 1994, patterned after my (then) CZ75.
W

Walter,

You are seeing what I am seeing in the text, thus it must have been a "wheel gun" i.e. a revolver. You can prevent the actgion of a revolver by grabbing tightly on the cylander. But a semi-auto will still fire the chambered round no matter how tightly you hold the slide.

By the way, Saturday, we performed and filmed the semi-auto demostration I discussed for the guys at the Mojo (Just This Aikido) with Sensei Moe Stevens. I will post it as soon as I get it up on Youtube.

KIT
05-26-2008, 10:28 PM
Unless, as Walter noted, the slide failed to cycle ejecting the spent casing.

I have no further details on what was posted, so I am unclear on the same things you guys are.

senshincenter
05-27-2008, 03:04 PM
I'm thinking she kicked the safety on and didn't remember to take it off.

Walter Martindale
05-27-2008, 03:20 PM
Walter,

You are seeing what I am seeing in the text, thus it must have been a "wheel gun" i.e. a revolver. You can prevent the actgion of a revolver by grabbing tightly on the cylander. But a semi-auto will still fire the chambered round no matter how tightly you hold the slide.

By the way, Saturday, we performed and filmed the semi-auto demostration I discussed for the guys at the Mojo (Just This Aikido) with Sensei Moe Stevens. I will post it as soon as I get it up on Youtube.
Well... I went to S&W's website - all of their 9mms are semi-auto.
You can prevent a semi-auto from firing if you have the slide pushed slightly back "out of battery", which is why it's not a good idea to jam the muzzle of many slide-guns against the target - pushes the slide back to the point where the disconnector (in a 1911) or other safety mechanisms prevent firing. Or, the hammer hits the back of the slide on an angle and doesn't reach the firing pin because the slide is back - if the slide then closes, you've got a trigger in a "fired" condition on an uncocked gun, with the hammer having followed the slide down and not hit the pin hard enough to fire - Firing pins are slightly short so that they're held away from the primer when the slide closes, and need to be struck by the 'whammer' to have enough momentum to fire the primer. (in another life I'm a target shooter who's done some customizing work on a 1911 and replaced lots of bits and pieces of a non-functioning CZ85 to bring it back to (safe) life) If the frame extends all the way to the muzzle this is less a problem.
Or, the previous round didn't properly eject due to close contact interfering with slide action.
Or she didn't kick off the safety the second time (can't recall if she said that, not going back through the file)

Oops - gotta go to work...
W

Chris Parkerson
05-27-2008, 03:26 PM
walter

That makes slot of sense.

Chris Parkerson
05-27-2008, 03:28 PM
walter

That makes a lot of sense.

Bill Danosky
05-27-2008, 04:14 PM
So much for pain based control, huh? She's twisting his soft bits, he's shot through the hand and with a bullet dent in his forehead and the guy's still playing hard.

IMO, if she's going to be a street cop she'd better add a good dojo to her range and gym regimen. She's a tough chick, but she needs a third level of game to resort to.

Mark Kruger
05-27-2008, 05:04 PM
ell... I went to S&W's website - all of their 9mms are semi-auto.
Currently they aren't producing 9mm revolvers. They have in the past: the model 547 and the model 940. Ruger and Taurus have also made 9mm revolvers.

Having said that, the odds are that she was using a semi-auto.

senshincenter
05-27-2008, 05:50 PM
In the article, it says it's a semi-auto. If I am remembering correctly.

Chris Parkerson
05-27-2008, 11:43 PM
George L wrote -My objection to most retention or takeaway systems is that they do not utilize enough impact technique. If you take a gun away from someone and you haven't struck them, you are almost certainly now grappling for that weapon.

All of the best retention and takeaway systems I have seen involve serious impact and preferably balance breaks thereby giving you the time to bring the firearm to bear on the assailant. Aikido - Aiki jutsu derived techniques are great for this but you need to have major atemi and you should train to shoot the assailant as part of the takeaway

Thank you George. You are right on here. Krav Maga stresses these very points in gun take aways (in fact in all aspects of their self defence system)

I personally would not choose the Krav tactic of striking the opponent who is trying to point my or his gun at me. Wouldn't striking the bad guy suggest that you are trying to control the gun with one hand?

If we are in a fight over a gun, I would prefer to have both hands on the weapon and both feet on the ground. I might "nutt" him or bite his thumbs, but I would really prefer to control the weapon.... at least until I know it cannot fire.

I have attached, as promised, a video of how to cause the first round to fire and thus create a malfunction in a semi-auto weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklVq_AWBY4

Once the weapon is inoperable, I would try to reap or otherwise throw the attacker to the ground. This would give me time to present my own firearm or my knife. If I have a firearm and have not ended on the ground myself, I would create distance and revert to my it as my primary defense.

Just an aside, has anyone ever trained in clearing malfunctions from a prone position? I bet it is a rare bad guys who has trained it.

KIT
05-27-2008, 11:46 PM
On a semi-auto with a safety, its also not unusual for it to be engaged simply during the struggle over the gun, or for double feeds to occur.

Lots of sim gun grappling make this kind of stuff pretty readily diagnosed, though fighting with a fully resistive attacker while clearing a double feed can be - challenging.

Mark Kruger
05-28-2008, 12:34 PM
When Kit talks about a fully resistive attacker, I suspect he means something like:

http://totalprotectioninteractive.com/video/Portland02.wmv

and

http://www.vimeo.com/1072283

The later scenarios are set up so that there is an initiative deficit on the part of the student. Also the combination of simunitions and padded helmets allows for strong strikes and lots of resistance with minimal threat of permanent injury. (I did get my bell rung by several strikes during the evolutions I participated in, and the bruises from simunitions lasted for several days after the class.) The end result is very different from work with attackers who aren't fully engaged and/or scripted endings.

Mark Kruger
05-28-2008, 03:52 PM
By fully resistive attacker, I think Kit has something like the following in mind:

http://totalprotectioninteractive.com/video/ECQC_01.wmv
http://totalprotectioninteractive.com/video/Portland02.wmv

The simunitions guns and the helmets allow for much stronger strikes and resistance to be used in the scenario while minimizing the chance of serious injury. I did get my bell rung several times from strikes during my participation in various evolutions and a simunitions round leaves quite the bruise. This increases the stress placed on the participants and quickly reveals the plethora of techniques that work under low pressure but fail under high pressure.

gregg block
05-28-2008, 08:24 PM
[QUOTE=Chris Parkerson;207432]I[ personally would not choose the Krav tactic of striking the opponent who is trying to point my or his gun at me. Wouldn't striking the bad guy suggest that you are trying to control the gun with one hand?

If we are in a fight over a gun, I would prefer to have both hands on the weapon and both feet on the ground. I might "nutt" him or bite his thumbs, but I would really prefer to control the weapon.... at least until I know it cannot fire]



I do respect your opinion and desire to keep both hands on the weapon. You take your life in your hands when dealing with a gun and the advantage is definitely his. I dont want to wrestle with a guy with a gun . Without stunning him with some type of strike it will be a wrestling match. Krav techniques are pretty well tested by the Israeli army against guns and other weapons. They tend to get a lot of practice in their neck of the woods.

Chris Parkerson
05-28-2008, 09:17 PM
[QUOTE=Chris Parkerson;207432]I[ personally would not choose the Krav tactic of striking the opponent who is trying to point my or his gun at me. Wouldn't striking the bad guy suggest that you are trying to control the gun with one hand?

If we are in a fight over a gun, I would prefer to have both hands on the weapon and both feet on the ground. I might "nutt" him or bite his thumbs, but I would really prefer to control the weapon.... at least until I know it cannot fire]

I do respect your opinion and desire to keep both hands on the weapon. You take your life in your hands when dealing with a gun and the advantage is definitely his. I dont want to wrestle with a guy with a gun . Without stunning him with some type of strike it will be a wrestling match. Krav techniques are pretty well tested by the Israeli army against guns and other weapons. They tend to get a lot of practice in their neck of the woods.

I have no doubt they are within the mission they are tasked with.
As for my personal mission (bodyguard), I am most likely to encounter aggression while protecting a third party. The shooter will be focussed on getting his rounds off under the duress of time.

A mafia hitman once described his reality as the perpetrator like this, "Once you're in, you are like an egg in a frying pan. You get two seconds to get in, see him and pop him. You stand still more than a second, you heat up and fry."

Or as Sara Jane Moore formed her mantra while training to shoot President Ford, "Hold-Hold still my hand. Steady my eye, chill my heart, and let my gun sing for the people."

My initial task will be to close the gap and control the arm (between the elbow and deltoid) with one hand while attaching to the forearm with the other. The perpetrator will probably execute all of his or her rounds but I intend to give direction to as many of them as possible. It is my hope to have the rounds go down and away from my protectee or myself.

If I can cause the weapon to jam, so much the better.

To make things simple in my mind, I have adopted this drill for all gun grab defenses (my gun or his gun). This way, I do not get confused when the chaos begins.

KIT
05-28-2008, 10:47 PM
Good video Chris, that should hopefully clear things up for folks.

And I'm a two hands on guy myself. Plenty of other ways to hit a guy.

Bronson
05-29-2008, 01:53 AM
Good video. Would have liked to see hearing and eye protection.

Bronson

Chris Parkerson
05-29-2008, 10:30 AM
Good video. Would have liked to see hearing and eye protection.

Bronson

Sorry Mom. I will remember next time.

philippe willaume
05-30-2008, 05:34 AM
Hello Chris & Greg

I do not think that both hands on the gun and one hand on and strike are really mutually exclusive.
Like open hand, knife, sword or spear. Sometimes you need to grab & strike sometime a grab from both hands is better.

I mean striking the head do isolate the shoulders form the spine so controlling the arm is made much easier.
Some aikido dojos have atemi integrated in most in not all the technique. That being said, atemis are delivered in such way they lead to the technique. (So you will end up in a two hands control.)

I think that what Greg is talking about and not necessarily the chain punch that you sometime see in some Krav demonstration.

Phil

Chris Parkerson
05-30-2008, 08:17 AM
Hello Chris & Greg

I do not think that both hands on the gun and one hand on and strike are really mutually exclusive.
Like open hand, knife, sword or spear. Sometimes you need to grab & strike sometime a grab from both hands is better.

I mean striking the head do isolate the shoulders form the spine so controlling the arm is made much easier.
Some aikido dojos have atemi integrated in most in not all the technique. That being said, atemis are delivered in such way they lead to the technique. (So you will end up in a two hands control.)

I think that what Greg is talking about and not necessarily the chain punch that you sometime see in some Krav demonstration.

Phil

It has been my position for several years that suppression tumps attrition in most street fights. That bias being said, I do hold a 6th degree in Kenpo and a teacher's certificate in Cinco Mano Escrima.
I do transition between "both hands on" and "one hand on/one hand striking" in the corto (Close cutting) and medio (medium) ranges. But when things get belly to belly, that is where the opponent's strength lies and that is where the blade cuts best. It is also where the pistol is most dangerous. Now the fight is truly one man's center dominating the other man's center. This is where the Judo/Jujitsu match lies. It is here that two hands becomes instinctive (like the power of a Tai Chi "ball", "Press", "ward off", or an Aikido "Sankyo". When two hands come together, there is better structure and leverage.

Try this tactic, there is a lot of discussion on another thread right now about making Kote gaesi work with resistance. What happens when uke's arm regresses (shrinks) so that his wrist and hand are near his ribs? Can you make a one handed Kote gaeshi work from there?

Conclusion, punching works as cover fire, distration, and minor damage (rarely a knock-out) when entering from the Largo (long) range through the medio and corto ranges. But once you grab a pistol, the gunman shrinks his arms ans will you do the same. You are now in a Judo fight and will need both hands on the weapon system.

Weapon system defined: any weapon that is held in a hand is part of a weapons system. The muzzle, the front sight, the butt of the pistol, the hand's backfist, the forearm, elbow and shoulder can be used as weapons.
Now the issue with a firearm is that this is how most trained gunmen will react. They will shrink their arm and gun. It is different from the knife that shrinks. It is a firearm and can reach out and touch you with the pull of the trigger.

Peter Ralls
05-30-2008, 03:58 PM
The thing that separates dojo training and real life is that training in a dojo, ones partner rarely wants to get hit, and is going to feel pain when hit, so therefore striking techniques appear to be very effective. But in a real life violent conflict, the adrenaline levels of both parties are going to make it unlikely that either person is going to feel any pain. Strength is going to be increased, and fine motor skills are going to be diminished.

For that reason, I am a proponent of getting both hands on that gun too. First of all, my experience is that unless you knock the other person down, striking may not have much or any effect on your opponent. On a couple of occasions I have struck persons repeatedly with an impact weapon during a violent struggle and they have not even had a flinch reaction. Also, with fine motor skills reduced, your chance of missing grabbing the gun is increased if you are using one hand as opposed to two. If you can execute a technique correctly, using both hands to use you entire body's force against your opponents wrist, with the gun providing extra leverage, then it doesn't become a wrestling match, it becomes a successful gun takeaway or retention. Having said that, there are situations where you are probably will want to use a strike, especially if your opponent hasn't got a firm grip on the gun.

Last of all, while I think Krav Maga is quite a good system, being very simple and practical, I think making the argument that it is the last word in self defense because of the violent military situation in Israel is a flawed argument. I seriously doubt that they have any more incidents of gun retention or gun takeaways than law enforcement in the United States. Actually, due to the fact that because of the terrorist situation in Israel requiring them to start shooting far earlier in a potential lethal force situation than in the United States, they probably have less incidents of gun retention or gun takeaway type situations.

Chris Parkerson
05-30-2008, 11:37 PM
by the way, I will be doing some filming of a couple of related issues tomorrow in class:

1. The gun take away I promised last week

And

2. A nice fail-safe soft throw when both combatants (4) hands are on a pistol in a Judo-style grapple.

I will make them available privately upon request.

gregg block
05-31-2008, 10:02 AM
Hi chris,
Good stuff. I have no doubt your techniques and philosopy are very effective. Philosophy on how to deal with situations often come from where your comfort level is . Before I started Aikido. I trained for 20 years in a striking martial art. I do have grappling skills and feel I am quite well rounded as a martial artist. My instinct and reflex however is to start with a strike.

Chris Parkerson
05-31-2008, 02:37 PM
Hi chris,
Good stuff. I have no doubt your techniques and philosopy are very effective. Philosophy on how to deal with situations often come from where your comfort level is . Before I started Aikido. I trained for 20 years in a striking martial art. I do have grappling skills and feel I am quite well rounded as a martial artist. My instinct and reflex however is to start with a strike.

Greg,

I do love a good Kenpo barage. My best timing with karame is 8 well places strikes in 1 second. I am much slower these days but much more accurate as well. Eyeballs will be hanging down someone's cheek, the larynx will be all but destroyed as will clavicles, ear drums and perhaps a blood vessel will be collapsed..

But on a gun grab and grapple note, I offer the following.
(whether I poked his eye out or not while "crashing his line" and getting my hands on his gun, it is Judo time.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wuweimonks

Best wishes from an aging bodyguard that cannot go toe-to-toe with the strong ones without a bit of the soft stuff (Mifune Judo and Aikijujitsu) to back me up. For those who are enfluenced by Sensei ledyard's stuff, I have to admit that finding the Ikkyo curve does make things softer.... even in Jujitsu technique.

senshincenter
05-31-2008, 10:20 PM
if she's going to be a street cop she'd better add a good dojo...

I finally got some time to add to the thread. First, thanks to everyone for all the comments and all the videos – very grateful. They are all fantastic additions to a great conversation. I hope to get some stuff on film this weekend as well.

I’d like to address things in the order they were brought up in the thread – please excuse my several posts.

I’d like to start with the PoliceOne article…

I’m not one for Monday-morning quarterbacking, but here’s where I’m coming from...

1) The thread has debated the issue regarding the balance between tactics and strategies. I feel that issue can be further clarified by commenting upon the strategies the officer in the article used and/or did not use.

2) The officer in the article is herself engaging in the practice of reviewing her situation in hindsight. Thus, we would not be doing anything she is not doing herself.

3) The officer began her briefing with the phrase, “It found me,” which I find to be problematic whenever you are supposed to be engaging in the practice of figuring out what effects our actions and thoughts played in what finally occurred. It will be my position that things did not “find her.” In other words, she did not play so passive a role in what occurred. Granted this is a touchy area, because I’m not out to “blame the victim.” However, debriefing situations that are reflective in nature are no good if they begin and end with the phrase, “It found me.” This is my opinion.

In the end, I hold that the officer has what it takes to carry on the fight – she proved that, easily. Where I found room discussion is not so much in what martial art she should train in, or how, or with whom, etc. Where I found room for discussion is in regards to her policing strategies.

As I stated earlier, it is my opinion that the given success rate of one’s employed tactics is as equally based upon the talent, chosen architectures, conditioning, etc., of the officer (or person within a self-defense situation) as it is based upon the wisdom of one’s strategies.

A word on police strategies: I’d like to point out that this discussion is not restricted to law enforcement personnel, as I’m just using this situation to talk about the interrelationship between strategy and tactics. This interrelationship, I feel, is relevant to anyone aiming at employing tactics within real life experiences. (e.g. self-defense)

Secondly, as is often said, “Police work ain’t rock science.” Meaning, strategies are based ultimately in common sense. Meaning, the understanding of strategy is open to everyone, as common sense implies everyone’s understanding.

Here’s what I (we) did: I brought this exercise to our law enforcement training group. Some background: Our group meets four days a week and we engage in training relevant to our experience as law enforcement officers. We are made up of members from County Sheriff, Harbor Patrol, City PD, University PD, and Forest Service. We have members with nearly three decades of experience, some with less than one year, members that are senior deputies, senior officers, SWAT officers, ARCON instructors, Field Training Officers, Awardees of Valor, etc. We are a diverse group.

As part of our continuing training, we participate in shared debriefings weekly. This week, rather than have folks share their own experience, I asked folks to look at the article and state what things they felt the officer in question could or should have done or done differently. Everyone that has participated in this exercise by the time of this post came up with the same exact things.

Now, it may be a product of us all training together regularly, or it may be a product of California police academies, but I think we all came up with the same elements because we are dealing here with things that are common sense. I think you will agree with that position once you read what follows – because I don’t think anyone is going to see these elements and say anything but, “Oh yeah, that makes sense.” – law enforcement or not.

Additionally, it was our group’s position that had the officer tried even one of these strategies her success tactical success rate would have been greatly increase – which is my main position here: Strategies and tactics support and/or negate each other.

Here is what we came up with:
(Note, when I write “She wrote,” I’m referring to what was stated in the article. I’m trying to keep things simple here and not trying to raise issues of who said what, what's accurately expressed, etc. Again, this is not about blaming the officer, or judging her, etc., this is about demonstrating the interrelationship between strategies and tactics.)

-She wrote: A domestic, they figured…and kept going.

Strategy: Seek self-discipline and professionalism over complacency. Domestics are some of the more likely calls where officers get injured – as they are usually emotionally charged. Additionally, domestics are calls where victims are more often injured as well. The call should have been handled with more awareness to the dangers involved – e.g. it would have been wise to provide Dispatch (and others) with information regarding what they had, location, etc. Know the dangers of what you may be facing (as best you can) and act accordingly. If you are "asleep," or "asleep-like," for whatever reasons, by whatever means, no matter what you do, it's probably not going to work too well. If your Ikkyo kicks butt, but your awareness is slop, your Ikkyo will most likely range from being inefficient to being non-existent.

- She wrote: "It was going about 5 or 10 miles an hour," Milovich-Fitzsimmons recalls, "jerking back and forth like someone was jiggling the steering, and the horn was blowing like a maniac."…No brake lights signaled the stops, and the third time the vehicle abruptly halted the squad car rear-ended it.

Strategy: Utilize distance and note room for escape and for engagement and/or tactics relevant to ambush elements. They were following too closely in the incident; not prepared for the stop or the rear-ending attempt to set off the airbags in the patrol car, etc. He/she who controls the distance, like timing, has the higher chance of tactical success. Know what a given distance can and cannot do for you, and act accordingly. Maai!

- She wrote: Immediately upon the collision with the squad car, the gangbanger outside the Explorer and the one who'd been driving bolted. Milovich-Fitzsimmons radioed in a foot pursuit and beat feet after the driver. Blomstrand was delayed in exiting their unit because the crash had jammed his door.

Strategy: Apply oneself in light of the considerations that are present, and, if with another, be sure to communicate one’s intentions and/or one's understanding of the considerations that are present. At the point of the collision with the suspect vehicle, (a) Milovich-Fitzsimmons either assumed there were four suspects in/at the car, or (b) three suspects and one victim, or (c) two suspects and two victims, or (d) she didn’t assume anything and just out of habit ran after the driver that was running away. Out of these options, Milovich-Fitzsimmons either (a) Left her partner facing up to three suspects, if she expected him to stay behind with the suspect vehicle, (b) left up to two victims at the scene without checking with or providing for their welfare, if she expected her partner to follow her and back her in the foot pursuit, and/or (c) expected to go on a foot pursuit by herself, after a suspect that had 90 lbs on her. The short of it: Milovich-Fitzsimmons put herself, her partner, and the victim(s), at this point, at the least, in further danger. The better course of action here would have been: (a) Stay with the vehicle, then (b) radio for additional units – having “x” number arrive at your scene and “x” number be provided with description and direction of travel information regarding the two fleeing suspects, then (c) perform a high risk stop on the remaining suspects/victims in the vehicle, being aware of the fleeing suspects possibly doubling back. This works to secure the scene, which in turn would more immediately allow her to see to the medical needs of the possible victim(s). In self-defense situations, self-preservation is the only victory that counts. Everything beyond this is romanticism.

-She wrote: First she caught up with him on a parkway along the street and shoved him to his hands and knees. She had hold of his coat but before she could get a body grip, he pushed up, easily pulled out of the jacket and took off again. "That's why gangbangers never wear their coats closed," she told PoliceOne. "And they tend to wear a couple, so if they wiggle out of one they still have an outer garment." The foot chase continued down an "extremely dark" gangway between two bungalows. Milovich-Fitzsimmons caught the driver again in an alley behind some garages and pushed him against a wrought-iron fence. "Get down on the ground!" she yelled. Instead, "he whips around and starts fighting." During the tussle, her shoulder mike popped off, swinging around her legs out of reach for calling for help.

Strategy: Weapons, not “martial arts,” are the great equalizer. Martial arts provide leverage - at the most. Leverage only guarantees an efficient mechanical design, not sufficiency and thus not equality, in terms of workload. She knew she was out weighed here, felt he was a gang-banger (e.g possibly armed, possibly skilled at street fighting, etc.), and still felt she could out-wrestle/grapple him. Additionally, this seems to be the problem of using past experiences to determine future experiences – which is a type of complacency in where you never ask or relate to the “what if,” particularly, “What if it doesn’t go like all the other times?” She should have taken his balance, or left him against the fence, regained the appropriate distance, drawn down on the guy, (draw her taser too, if she had one), ordered him into the prone position (or taser him prone), radioed in her location and request more officers, waiting for their arrival before putting the suspect into cuffs.

- She wrote: Through a decade's experience, the 39-year-old, trim, blond officer with a tough-but-fair reputation was accustomed to scrapping with suspects and had never encountered a situation she couldn't control.

Strategy: Know your limitations and the limitations of your resources and act accordingly. Scrapping out of your weight class, by choice, and because “you’ve never encountered a situation you couldn’t handle before,” speaks of a false confidence, which always speaks of unnecessary risk and being a danger to others and yourself. There is no place for bravado - Tombstone Courage - in self-defense. There is only violence and its simplistic purity of "either/or."

- She wrote: "I was thinking very clearly, giving basic commands to myself to stay in the fight," she recalls. "I couldn't understand why he was so violent, though."

Strategy: Do not analyze your adversary’s state of mind. Leave his/her psychological issues to when the scene is secured – after the violence - if you "have to" think upon such things. Leave violence to its “mathematical” purity. She should not need to know or want to know the reason why a suspect would be so violent before she prepped herself for the possibility. Such considerations, in light of the purity of violence, is preoccupation.

-She wrote: Unaware of the kidnapping, she thought she was dealing just with a run-of-the-mill hot car.

Strategy: Know what you know. “Run of the mill” - ? She should have treated felony stops, like felony stops; should have chased felons like she was chasing a felon; should have chased gang members like she was chasing a gang member.

-She wrote: At a point when Milovich-Fitzsimmons grabbed her adversary by the shirt, he tripped and fell to the ground. "Stay down!" she yelled. He raised his hands for a moment, "teetering on his ass" and looking beyond her, evidently checking for her partner. Then he lunged toward her, grabbed the butt of her holstered S&W 9mm and used it as leverage to pull himself up.

Strategy: Utilize distance and room for escape and engagement routes and/or tactics relevant to ambush elements. She is too close if I guy can be sitting and lunge forward and touch her. Additionally: It’s easier to disengage than to engage, easier to come down than go up. Why is her weapon holstered? Didn’t he run away already? Did she know what he was running for? Not really. So, should she not be prepped to defend herself as well as to perhaps address the fleeing felon rule should more information come her way? Answer: Yes. If she didn’t want to draw her firearm, why not her baton? Pepper spray? Taser (if she had one)? Why not get your radio back into place/operation. Why stand there unarmed?

- She wrote: "I could feel the top strap unsnap and the holster open,"

Strategy: Fight in light of your equipment/resources and have your equipment/resources exist in light of how you fight. Wearing a level II holster (which really only has one level of retention, because no one should ever count that retention screw as a real retention level) on duty, and, worse, wearing a level II holster on duty while not acting according to the tactical limitations of that mechanical design (i.e. grappling and/or placing oneself in grappling range while wearing a level II holster) equals BIG MISTAKE. If you are going to grapple, get a higher retention holster, or just get a higher retention level holster.

- She wrote: Finally she managed to break away from him and pull her gun….Blood streaming down his face, the attacker grabbed again at Milovich-Fitzsimmons' semiauto.

Strategy: Again: Make your weapon appropriate to its range of operation and/or make your range of operation appropriate to your weapon. . She was too close when she drew the weapon. If she got away, she should have sought distance along the spiral formation – taken the shot (i.e. kept shooting till he dropped) while on that path of action.

- She said: Milovich-Fitzsimmons holstered and secured her S&W, took out her cuffs and went after him. When she caught up to him, he'd fallen to his hands and knees. "I thought, 'Game over' and I moved in to take him into custody. Color me wrong.

Strategy: Why re-holster? Didn’t she (in her head) just face a gun retention attack and have justification for employing lethal force? Additionally, if you are going to run after someone, why run with your cuffs in your hands? Finally, if you are going to cuff someone, you shouldn’t pull out your cuffs till you have established control over the suspect. Be skilled at weapon selection and the logic behind selection.

- She said: "We grappled all over the place," she says. "I was punching him, kicking him in the face and chest, twisting his balls for all I was worth. He never flinched…just got angrier." She drew her gun but couldn't get a shot. Seven inches taller and outweighing her by nearly 90 pounds, the suspect pinned her, smashed her in the face and fought again for control of her weapon.

Strategy: If you are attempting to kick the crap out of him, and nothing is happening from your best efforts, what makes one think you can win a gun retention battle under those same conditions? Again, she drew her weapon only to put herself in more danger. Look to sweep and/or reverse your position in a ground-fight prior to drawing your weapon. Distance, weapon selection, range, etc.

FYI: Here's what an approximate 90 lbs. weight difference looks like:

senshincenter
05-31-2008, 10:25 PM
George L wrote -My objection to most retention or takeaway systems is that they do not utilize enough impact technique. If you take a gun away from someone and you haven't struck them, you are almost certainly now grappling for that weapon.

All of the best retention and takeaway systems I have seen involve serious impact and preferably balance breaks thereby giving you the time to bring the firearm to bear on the assailant. Aikido - Aiki jutsu derived techniques are great for this but you need to have major atemi and you should train to shoot the assailant as part of the takeaway

Thank you George. You are right on here. Krav Maga stresses these very points in gun take aways (in fact in all aspects of their self defence system)

I'm not one to say "never" about anything relevant to life/death situations (e.g. self-defense, gun grabs, etc.), but I'm prone to looking to control the weapon over striking. A little bit more: I'm prone to controlling the weapon through movement over wrestling for it. This is where I often tend to depart from the striking camp - because they often employ little movement when striking. Most of it prescribes just standing in front of someone, hitting them, they always being affected by your strikes, never forcing a ground-fight, etc. Can't say that has matched with my experience.

senshincenter
05-31-2008, 10:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklVq_AWBY4



This is so freak'n cool of you! I can't wait for all threads to be of this kind of posting. thanks!

senshincenter
05-31-2008, 10:27 PM
http://totalprotectioninteractive.com/video/Portland02.wmv

and

http://www.vimeo.com/1072283



Same thing! So cool of you - many thanks!

senshincenter
05-31-2008, 10:30 PM
But in a real life violent conflict, the adrenaline levels of both parties are going to make it unlikely that either person is going to feel any pain...my experience is that unless you knock the other person down, striking may not have much or any effect on your opponent.

This is a very good point - and it's also demonstrated in the PoliceOne article.

Chris Parkerson
06-01-2008, 11:50 AM
by the way, I will be doing some filming of a couple of related issues tomorrow in class:

1. The gun take away I promised last week

And

2. A nice fail-safe soft throw when both combatants (4) hands are on a pistol in a Judo-style grapple.

I will make them available privately upon request.

Failsafe Gun Takeaway that has gross movement, strong control postures, maximum combat efficiency value, and a built-in continuity plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgSy5n07rbo

Failsafe Throw with 4 hands on the gun and the assailant has recessed his elbow. Recouping Kote Gaeshi when the arm shrinks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS9ghzkz9Lg

Belly to Belly Gun Grab

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWomz2l6guM

gregg block
06-01-2008, 08:14 PM
David,

Actually any good striking art (eg Krav,) preaches making a defensive body movement to get yourself out of harms way prior to striking. Also when did I say controlling the weapon wasn't important? Its Priority number one. The idea is hit him with a crushing blow so he doesnt get a second chance to use the weapon asuming you have thwarted the inital attack/situation.
The idea that it is "unlikely that either person is going to feel any pain" is a little over the top for me. I've had to clear the "cobwebs" from my head more than once from a well placed strike to the nose and I know what to expect when being hit. How much more unraveling would It be for someone not hit before?
We could argue this til we are blue in the face but again It comes down to a deference of Philosophy. I respect you opinion It just doesnt happen to be mine because of where my comfort level lies. You have to know your strengths, weaknesses and limitations.

philippe willaume
06-02-2008, 05:52 AM
I finally got some time to add to the thread. <snip>

FYI: Here's what an approximate 90 lbs. weight difference looks like:

Hello David
I hope you are not going to take that the wrong way.

Having been at the receiving end of a freeze profanator of mother whilst I was walking back from a pizza place after 10 in Austin Texas, by two police cars with two officers each, all that on the ground that a geezer that did not even remotely looked like me had robbed a dinner at gun point for a grand total of something over 100 $.
Which I find quite hilarious on its own because, save my underwear, I did not wear a single item of clothing under 100$.
That being said things are expensive in the UK


Don’t get me wrong there was moments I still remember fondly like
-“It is a fake passport it is not blue”.
-“Where does all that money come from?
As the back and the recipe says from Heathrow airport.
Or when after being cuffed and driven to crime scene for a on the spot identification, the tiller said "no that ain’t the dude”.

Or when one of the guys in charge asked me if I wanted to lodge a complaint against the officer that semi arrested me. (I say semi because the book him Dano never happened, so technically I suspect that I was never arrested)

Obviously after I replied to said freeze with a I beg your pardon in an inimitable French accent. It was quite clear that being shot becoming a more remote possibility, though getting a Rodney was still a distinct options, with a night in a cell with Austin finest to boot.

(It was just before the current president won his first election so being for being from a country that almost made it to the axis of evil, getting a night flight to Egypt or a holiday in Cuba was not on the table at the time).

Basically I am quite happy that some officer still see thing as a run of the mill and do not always assume that I was the Phil “froggy” the drive-in terror, funding member of the madfrogs gang in Fayetteville. espcially since i was about 30 kg heavier than the said officer.

phil

senshincenter
06-02-2008, 03:41 PM
Basically I am quite happy that some officer still see thing as a run of the mill and do not always assume that I was the Phil “froggy” the drive-in terror, funding member of the madfrogs gang in Fayetteville. espcially since i was about 30 kg heavier than the said officer.

phil

Well, I hope it's not coming across that I'm advocating "over kill." I'm not. I'm suggesting things be treated as they are: domestics as domestics, carjackings as carjackings, felonies as felonies, etc. I felt the officer in the debriefing did not list this as one of the contributing factors that led to where she found herself, though she herself mentioned she had such things in mind.

d

senshincenter
06-02-2008, 03:51 PM
David,

Actually any good striking art (eg Krav,) preaches making a defensive body movement to get yourself out of harms way prior to striking. Also when did I say controlling the weapon wasn't important? Its Priority number one. The idea is hit him with a crushing blow so he doesnt get a second chance to use the weapon asuming you have thwarted the inital attack/situation.
The idea that it is "unlikely that either person is going to feel any pain" is a little over the top for me. I've had to clear the "cobwebs" from my head more than once from a well placed strike to the nose and I know what to expect when being hit. How much more unraveling would It be for someone not hit before?
We could argue this til we are blue in the face but again It comes down to a deference of Philosophy. I respect you opinion It just doesnt happen to be mine because of where my comfort level lies. You have to know your strengths, weaknesses and limitations.

Again, I'm not against striking, or knowing and practicing whatever you can for self-defense, etc. What I tend to disagree with is not that first defensive/crushing blow and the first foot maneuver taken for reasons of deviation/defense, it's what I often see that happens afterwards: little to know movement with the only prevention against things like a ground-fight/takedown are the ability of the strikes to promote unconsciousness/deterrence. I'll try and do a search on youtbue.com to find an example of this. I think it is a very common understanding/application of striking in self-defense situations, etc.

For me, I think that's a lot to ask for from strikes, period. Moreover, I really think it's a lot to ask for from strikes when the person defending themselves is a lot smaller than the aggressor, etc. - yet, such striking arts that adopt such an understanding of striking never announce themselves as "arts for when you are the same size or bigger than your attacker."

Again, I'm all from striking, but I like to see movement throughout it's application and/or if one does adopt a semi-stable platform, it should be so from the rear of the opponent and/or when their base of support and thus their rate of travel has been negatively affected. Here's what I think that looks like, as I understand it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgF623TxWSI

Ron Tisdale
06-02-2008, 04:03 PM
I know didley about this field, but David, that was a spot on analysis as far as I could tell, and I really appreciated how much of it fits into an aikido terminology/paradigm.

Best,
Ron

Mark Kruger
06-02-2008, 06:55 PM
Same thing! So cool of you - many thanks!
Your welcome. I think most of folks see too many of the techniques demonstrated under ideal conditions and not under pressure with a resistive attacker. Things change quite a bit when "losing" means pain (simunitions leave wonderful bruises) in training and serious injury or death in real life.

I don't count on my strikes having that much of an effect on my opponent. After taking the ECQC course, similar to the links I posted, and watching the MMA guys go at it, I get the feeling that very few people can pull off a single crushing blow with a high probability of success. While the occasional hit puts the other guy down, it just doesn't happen often enough to be a reliable tactic. The strikes may hurt and degrade the other guy's performance, but it unlikely to be a show stopper.

On the other hand, I can't rule out that one of the hits the other guy gets on me won't be the one that puts me down.

The best strategy, in my opinion, is to seek a superior position, one where you can deploy your tools (arms, hands, feet, elbows, knees, knives, saps, firearms) more easily than the other person can deploy theirs. Aiki principles and techniques are one way of achieving this positional superiority.

Respectfully,

senshincenter
06-02-2008, 09:08 PM
Your welcome. I think most of folks see too many of the techniques demonstrated under ideal conditions and not under pressure with a resistive attacker. Things change quite a bit when "losing" means pain (simunitions leave wonderful bruises) in training and serious injury or death in real life.

I don't count on my strikes having that much of an effect on my opponent. After taking the ECQC course, similar to the links I posted, and watching the MMA guys go at it, I get the feeling that very few people can pull off a single crushing blow with a high probability of success. While the occasional hit puts the other guy down, it just doesn't happen often enough to be a reliable tactic. The strikes may hurt and degrade the other guy's performance, but it unlikely to be a show stopper.

On the other hand, I can't rule out that one of the hits the other guy gets on me won't be the one that puts me down.

The best strategy, in my opinion, is to seek a superior position, one where you can deploy your tools (arms, hands, feet, elbows, knees, knives, saps, firearms) more easily than the other person can deploy theirs. Aiki principles and techniques are one way of achieving this positional superiority.

Respectfully,

Couldn't possibly agree more.

senshincenter
06-02-2008, 09:32 PM
I'm not really talking about ARTS here - it's more about tactics, which no art monopolizes and no art is captured by.

Again, my thing is not liking strikes that overly rely upon their desired effect for one's overall success. I'm with Mark here: I like to count for things not working, so I like lots of redundancy and the one I like to add the most to everything is simply not being on the line of the attack, EVER.

When I see most striking tactics that overly rely upon their desired effect for one's overall success, I always see a permanent or temporary absence of moving off the line of the attack.

Additionally, as a result of this assumption, a lack of true penetration is often choreographed into the training (i.e. the attacker never really looks to occupy the defender's space - attacks are lobbed in from the outside).

The ironic part is that the reverse of this is often the chief criticism of Aikido training (i.e. the attacker "over penetrates"). For me, in my experience, having done both training regimes, training for a lack of penetration is further away from what one sees in true aggression. In matters of true aggression, over penetration is not only common, it's the rule.

I like the Krav Maga, or any art, that works this redundancy of a continuous angle of deviation with it's striking into its training, but I do not like the Krav Maga, or any other, that does not. So, I can't say I'm a fan of this video (see below), as folks here are demonstrating what I call an over-dependence on the affects of one's strikes, while they, at the same time, have the attacker not seeking to occupy the defender's space (which in my experience is uncommon in matters of real aggression). If you have the strikes not achieve their desired effect, all you are left with is one guy standing on the line of attack. If you put back in the over-penetration one is likely to see in matters of true aggression, you got a ground-fight.

I experienced this long ago when we used to used blitz tactics against TKD/Karate folks, but the Gracie's proved it to the world in the UFC.

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg8Dfzr5vpY

d

senshincenter
06-03-2008, 01:22 AM
Sorry for the typos in the last post - haven't had much time for writing and editing...

Here's what I'm referring to in the last post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hAbOMEn25o

Chris Parkerson
06-03-2008, 06:02 AM
Sorry for the typos in the last post - haven't had much time for writing and editing...

Here's what I'm referring to in the last post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hAbOMEn25o

Under penetration and over penetration has been an issue since techniques were used to define and demonstrate martial arts.

If scrimmage solely defined martial arts, we would either not have many lethal techniques or we would have players with very short careers.

While the early UFCs were an excellent study in free for all fighting, there were still rules. No fighter really wanted to do the really nasty stuff, i.e. Eye gouging, fish hooking, standing and flying knee breaks. But, as you say, they sure test one's angling, zoning and penetration (crashing the line) skills.

My issue with karate demonstration distance in technique demonstrations is that the techniques have been "do-ized" and thus are not the real nasty stuff. Thus, the kicks and punches probably have a low "fight stopping" probability.

I hear there is a form of Krav Maga that strictly uses lethal stuff.
now that is probably worth looking in to, but not for police work.

Chris Parkerson
06-03-2008, 09:40 AM
Fast and nasty. Two examples of Kenpo striking with fast barages into vitals, soft tissue, floating ribs, nerve points, blood vessels and joints.

Paul Mills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDd9YD5vFZs&feature=related

Larry Tatum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU1CZ_CfxUw&feature=related

philippe willaume
06-04-2008, 05:08 AM
Well, I hope it's not coming across that I'm advocating "over kill." I'm not. I'm suggesting things be treated as they are: domestics as domestics, carjackings as carjackings, felonies as felonies, etc. I felt the officer in the debriefing did not list this as one of the contributing factors that led to where she found herself, though she herself mentioned she had such things in mind.

d

No I do not think you are advocating overkill.
I can see where you are coming from, but there is a massive flip coin to that.
What I was trying to say is that all the point of what you say is to set you level of alertness and expectation according to the situation and use you training to respond accordingly.

And that is where the bug bear is I could very well ended up like Mister Stanley here, Bacillary armed police was called to stop a man with a shotgun.
Unfortunately the guy they shot had a table leg in plastic bag.
The officers went in with the information that the guy had a shotgun and re-acted accordingly.
They dealt with a felony like a felony; the problem is that there was no felony to start with.

(http://cms.met.police.uk/news/policy_organisational_news_and_general_information/assistant_commissioner_central_operations/henry_stanley_cps_decision).

phil

phil

senshincenter
06-04-2008, 09:41 AM
Unfortunately, I'm unable to read the story - the site isn't letting me.

From what I'm gathering, however, the difference for me is that in this case the officer herself saw what she considered to be felonies. She wasn't responding to a "be on the lookout".

I would like to read the story - is there anyway you can gain access to it or allow me too? I had a BOL response that sounds a bit similar, and I'd like to know what happened in the article to see if it will allow me to make these points a bit clearer by sharing more.

KIT
06-04-2008, 10:08 AM
.....What I was trying to say is that all the point of what you say is to set you level of alertness and expectation according to the situation and use you training to respond accordingly.

And that is where the bug bear is I could very well ended up like Mister Stanley here, Bacillary armed police was called to stop a man with a shotgun.
Unfortunately the guy they shot had a table leg in plastic bag.
The officers went in with the information that the guy had a shotgun and re-acted accordingly.
They dealt with a felony like a felony; the problem is that there was no felony to start with.

...

And your solution to this problem would be?

Bill Danosky
06-05-2008, 01:10 PM
When I see techniques demonstrated with a lot of striking I often think it's like a hockey fight- They stand there and brawl. Why do these guys not want to evade or get control of an arm so they can stop getting punched?

My question's relation to the thread, by the way, is this: When there's a weapon involved, you need the most decisive waza in your repertoire. IMHO, Mark is right- the stunning power of strikes is too unreliable for this kind of situation.