Yes, I agree - as much as you can have in your bag, the better. One doesn't have to use everything. When I'm critical, I'm critical from a theoretical point of view. I'm appreciative of anyone training on a regular basis - no matter what it is.
So, back to theoretical issues...
Here's the video - got it filmed and up today.
It's all on one tape - sorry for the long load times. This was easier for me. Apologies.
Before I say anything, let me say we go through many repetitive and redundant safety procedures that guarantee that there is not only no ammo in our weapons but no ammo in the entire building. I do not advocate this type of training but under some very set-in-stone protocols regarding the danger of training with actual firearms. We, our group, rather be bothered to hell by long safety procedures that we have to repeat over and over through the training , as long as we get to point our duty weapon at a human target and practice pulling the trigger under conditions that call for such responses. That's the choice we make. It's not for everyone - but it is for us.
Additionally, let me say that this type of training is principle-based - not scenario based. That is to say, we are purposefully ambiguous regarding the descriptions under which we are performing a given tactic. If we end up discussing such things as scenario, we do it off the mat, in a group of our peers, while sharing incidents and using multimedia to setup our contexts. When we do that, we still look not to say what is impossible or possible regarding scenarios but rather to develop familiarity and consistency regarding our actions and our reasons for them.
Now the video: In the first section, I have us demonstrating the the 21 foot rule experiment. Again, my take is that pistol rounds do not stop an attacker from moving forward. Additionally, my position holds that it is more likely that you will NOT see your shots hit than you will. That said, in my mind, I'm looking at a situation where it is likely my shots will not stop the forward progress of an attacker. This in turn means, because I cannot see the shots hit their mark, my attacker will respond the same way whether they are hit or not by my rounds. This means I won't know what's what and therefore should train for not knowing what's what.
Note: For some reference... It should be said that Michael is using a level III holster and mine is a level IV.
In the next section, you see part of what we are thinking. We use angles and movement - basic Aikido stuff: using spirals and circles against more linear shapes. We look to move off the line first before we draw, as this forces the attacker to lose his/her initiative, as they now have to react to our movement, vs. us just waiting there for them. When we move, we are looking to put the attacker to our rear on a spiral. This has them appearing close to us from a third point of view - the way roller coasters might appear close to each other when the go by side-by-side. But like that, the cars are actually quite far from each other because they are one behind the other, not one side by side with the other. I've done some slow motions captures of this moment in the video. This is what allows very small movements to make for big misses on the part of the knife-wielder. Additionally, by putting them to the rear, we create distance for us to use our weapons without raising retention issues, and without us being open to other weapons (from man-made to god-man) the attacker might have (each type being diminished according to their advantages - to differing degrees). We are always going to assume an attacking suspect is armed, and armed with more than we see - so this is important to us. The obvious point of this drill is to show that with this tactic, 21 feet is plenty of space to draw down on a knife wielding suspect.
In the third section, we try and put our money where our mouth is: If we don't need so much distance with this tactic, can we do it from normal interviewing distances? Our answer is yes. We get our "yes" by combining Aikido angle of deviations with it's angles of deflections. When we do this, again, we are looking to bring our superior weapon to bear without raising retention issues or exposing us to other weapons the suspect has (e.g. fists, kicks, guns, knives, takedowns). Additionally, we look to combine angle of deflection and angle of deviation to generate an angle of disturbance in the suspect. This in turn makes them reactionary (i.e. lose the initiative).
Note: We do not know what attack the suspect is coming with when they attack with the knife.
In next section, I'm demonstrating two of our gun retention techniques. Here, we are again looking to generate the same things: use movement first to put the attacker behind you on a spiral, combine angle of deviation and angle of deflection to generate an angle of disturbance in the attacker, create distance to bring your superior weapon to bear without raising retention issues and without opening you up to more attacks from more weapons. We are doing these two techniques from a homolateral attack and a cross-lateral attack.
In the next section, you see the gun retention technique I mentioned earlier - the one from the ground. I'm sorry, but we forgot to film the Kimura (standard) version that I rejected as impractical. You only get our version. Here, again, same principle: use movement first, etc., etc...
In the last section, we have the same principles but we are opting to use the yang versions. Same thing: move first, angle of deviation/deflection, create distance, draw weapon, etc....
A final note: In our opinion, one only has to resort to these tactics because one screwed up big-time some place else - such as in talking with the suspect, control the space of the engagement, deploying one's partners, etc. A whole lot of stuff has to go wrong for these kinds of things to come to fruition. But, we still feel it's important to train in them - because of the irreversibility of things when these types of mistakes might happen.