Between Judo and Wrestling for police..

[Juany118]

And why do a lot of cop fights look like wrestling, because the training in Police Combatives cost money and so most cops just do "whatever" and it sucks. It's cheaper to buy the cop a point and shoot taser and OC spray. The OP was asking about setting up a real combatives training course, and the real courses avoid what looks like wrestling, because for cops in terms of tool retention and access it sucks.

There is even debate now if there is too much equipment being issued to police in order to make up for the training deficit. When you have to be considering 3 different "less lethal" options, with possibly different policy or legal mandated "triggers" during an encounter in addition to lethal force it creates confusion and hesitation which leads to an escalation of the encounter which leads to an escalation in force.

Also I find it funny. You are more than accepting that the lack of 2 man cars is finance driven but fail to acknowledge that bad combatives in those videos you posted of "police in action" may be equally the result of poor funding.

 

[drop bear]

You called the two man car "science fiction" which infers at best that the one man car is the exception rather than the rule. Regardless of the reasons as to why it's that way (and I agree it's financial and sucks) the fact the one man car is the rule has to be accounted for in training.

You said that the police can't put two people in a car which is wrong.

Regardless 90% of the Police departments in the US can't have more than one per car. It is not like TV which, if I understand from your other posts would be your only experience with US Law Enforcement (u used kilometers a few times elsewhere).


They can they just don't want to. Because it costs money or requires effort. That is entirely two different things. And an example of the care a department is placing on officer saftey.

Even you admitted that in Australia they are moving to vests and secondly I did Google for photos and I failed to find one where an officer, even one as slim as I, lacked open real estate on the front of their belt. Does this mean that there isn't someone there like me who lacks real estate? No but that really isn't the point, the point is your ignorance of the effects of the belt on LE Combatives..

The point is you are wrong again here.

The vest.

The belt.

My point is my ignorance on fighting guys with a belt on is made up by you and has no basis in fact.

I have fought guys with belt kit on.

I have shown videos of police fighting with belt kit on.

So you have provided nothing to support your method here. You complain only have one way and yet you don't have method to your madness other than "it really works" and "we have always done it this way so It can't be wrong"

They do not stand up to scrutiny

 

[drop bear]

And why do a lot of cop fights look like wrestling, because the training in Police Combatives cost money and so most cops just do "whatever" and it sucks. It's cheaper to buy the cop a point and shoot taser and OC spray. The OP was asking about setting up a real combatives training course, and the real courses avoid what looks like wrestling, because for cops in terms of tool retention and access it sucks.

There is even debate now if there is too much equipment being issued to police in order to make up for the training deficit. When you have to be considering 3 different "less lethal" options, with possibly different policy or legal mandated "triggers" during an encounter in addition to lethal force it creates confusion and hesitation which leads to an escalation of the encounter which leads to an escalation in force.

Also I find it funny. You are more than accepting that the lack of 2 man cars is finance driven but fail to acknowledge that bad combatives in those videos you posted of "police in action" may be equally the result of poor funding.

It is the result of poor funding and beurocracy interfering with effectivness. Trainers have no requirement to stand by their methods so a D.T. training contract goes to the guy who can do the best sales pitch.



You used the quote fight how you train and yet nobody fights like this.

All around the world police (and bouncers for that matter) fight in a pretty uniform way. This is the same whether it is one in a car like you have or two in a car like we do.

Real Combatives courses look like they do because the trainers generally lack the understanding it takes to put a guy on the deck who is fighting back. Because a trainer is the least likley person to deal with that scenario. He is also the most ikey person to assure you it works. Because hundreds of satisfied customers can't be wrong.

Retaining belt kit. And this seems to be what you don't understand basically does not occur if you are winning the fight. If you are fighting from a guys back. From their side. Have control of a decent clinch or at on top of them they don't really get to your gear.

Now I can assure you this works or show you how it works on YouTube.

This is a gun retention incident and he still wrestled him to the ground and a bunch of guys pinned him.

Same in essence to what the other videos of police wrestling people to the ground showed.

So logically you need to refine the method that works not redefine it to suit an imaginary scenario.

Or I can assure you that it works and that it retains belt kit.

 

[jks9199]

My experience is what I have seen works and what doesn't in Australia. Two people in a car works. One person is a failure waiting to happen.

So why can't they put two people in a car?


I assume the factors are someone wants to save a buck and someone else is lying about the job a single person can reasonably do.

Lots of reasons -- but it's really not part of the discussion here, so I'll be brief.

Some of it is budgetary. Staffing ideally reflects calls for service and the nature of the calls. Policing is primarily reactive, and we're often called to the scene long after the event is over. Lots of the time, one person can collect the info, document the case, even do the investigation. So... we can either double the officers all the time, and have one standing around on lots of those calls, or double the coverage for many of those calls with single officer units, who respond and back each other up on appropriate calls. There are LOTS of places in the US that don't have 2 officers on duty within a jurisdiction at any time. There are more than a few that only have 2 on during day times, when the chief/town sergeant is on along with an officer. (Most departments are less than 20, and I think -- without looking up -- that many are less than 10.)

Some of it is tradition and mindset. We don't want lots of cops around. Hell, the Texas Rangers have an unofficial motto of "One riot, one ranger." The basic idea is that, rather than policing by force of numbers, we police by some level of consent. The Brits do this better, I think, but Sir Robert Peel's ideas heavily influenced US policing, too.

We back each other up; two or more officers often respond, and are dispatched as appropriate. In some places, they do double up routinely -- but that's primarily large cities. Most smaller areas don't double up outside of training.

I don't play this card often -- but rather than telling us from another country, with no experience in the job in either place, how to do our job... maybe you can actually accept that experienced officers, instructors, and trainers actually might know what they're doing, and that MMA training isn't the be-all/end-all?

Do you get that there's a difference between trying to control and arrest someone and trying to survive in a life and death attack? Just like there's a difference between self defense and escorting someone out of a bar or otherwise dealing with violence from a bouncer's position...

 

[jks9199]

My opinion is departments are too cheap to do it. How does yours differ?

You wanna pony up the tax money to do it? Most of us fight every year for raises to match the cost of living and insurance increases. For some reason, the residents of the municipality where I work don't want to have their tax bills go up just so I can have someone in the car with me... Figure you'd have to double the department size, and we're one of the largest portions of the budget each year, so let's SWAG it to a 30% increase in the tax bill... Would you be up for that?

 

[drop bear]

You wanna pony up the tax money to do it? Most of us fight every year for raises to match the cost of living and insurance increases. For some reason, the residents of the municipality where I work don't want to have their tax bills go up just so I can have someone in the car with me... Figure you'd have to double the department size, and we're one of the largest portions of the budget each year, so let's SWAG it to a 30% increase in the tax bill... Would you be up for that?

Ok. Apart from the imaginary 30% number. Yes I am fine with more spending towards police numbers.

And two at least in a car is normal here. so I assume I am paying for it.

If they may really have to fight people they will go four up.

 

[drop bear]

Do you get that there's a difference between trying to control and arrest someone and trying to survive in a life and death attack? Just like there's a difference between self defense and escorting someone out of a bar or otherwise dealing with violence from a bouncer's position...

Ok. What is the difference between an arrest i do and one you do. That applies here?

 

[drop bear]

I don't play this card often -- but rather than telling us from another country, with no experience in the job in either place, how to do our job... maybe you can actually accept that experienced officers, instructors, and trainers actually might know what they're doing, and that MMA training isn't the be-all/end-all?

No. I don't think i will. Now there is a reason for this. And a reason why you shouldn't really play that card.

People who dont know what they are doing are the first people to play that based on an inability to explain from a position of knowledge.

It is one of the major issues with dt training. Is that it can only be questioned by the inner circle of dt instructors. Who all say it is amazing. And all jake money off it being amazing.

Everything is open to scrutiny by every one. That is how you have an honest discussion.

 

[Juany118]

No. I don't think i will. Now there is a reason for this. And a reason why you shouldn't really play that card.

People who dont know what they are doing are the first people to play that based on an inability to explain from a position of knowledge.

It is one of the major issues with dt training. Is that it can only be questioned by the inner circle of dt instructors. Who all say it is amazing. And all jake money off it being amazing.

Everything is open to scrutiny by every one. That is how you have an honest discussion.

A few things then I am done because there is no point arguing with someone who bases their entire premise on "I am right and you are wrong, even though I lack any experience in that environment, well...just because."

First the number for additional money being a "made up" 30% was actually generous. The article I linked showed that the San Diego PD went to one man squad cars because the 2 man patrol system cost 80% more. An 80% budget increase on a Municipalities biggest budget expense? Never going to happen. You may be cool with having your taxes go up by that amount but most people wouldn't be, especially since most people go through their lives with little to no police contact. We would LOVE it if the tax payers would have it so we had 2 man cars. We would also love it that we didn't have to agree to a pay freeze to avoid lay offs, so that they would actually shop around for the best deal in health insurance rather than stick with the same, more expensive, broker who has worked with the bureaucrats for years so has it locked in and, most importantly, didnt want to screw around with our pensions because while we always contributed they repeatedly passed resolutions to "forgive" their contributions and so now the pension is in danger of having an unfunded liability (their fault but make us fix it.) Thing is we, not you, have to deal with those realities. We can't train in a manner that fits having 2 men per car and when it fails say "hey if we had two men per car it would have worked, it's your fault I got my *** kicked!!!!" anymore than I can spend more money than they want to pay me and say "hey you should have paid me more, it's your fault I had to declare bankruptcy!!!!"

As for your bit about DT trainers, that is the same crap that is infecting every corner of life atm. Some refer to it as "The State of Idiocracy." This "State" is largely defined by people saying that expertise in a field, backed by facts doesn't matter. The Doctor who says "not vaccinating your child" doesn't know what he is talking about, then a measles epidemic starts in a school because of that stupid parent. 97% of the world's scientists saying Climate Change is real don't know what they are talking about, while island nations in the Pacific are watching their countries sink. It was summed up best IMO by one of the pro- Brexit Politicians when they said "we are tired of listening to the experts." Yeah you are, because the experts are saying something that contradicts an opinion you have that isn't based on appropriate facts.

The same applies with your view of LE DT instruction. You have little applicable knowledge or experience in terms of the specific circumstances of LE DT needs, zero.
-You don't understand the dynamics or importance of tool access and retention.
-You don't understand the actual limitations that the load carrying apparatus itself places on a combatant.
-You don't understand the situational (environment, pursuits, ambushes, mental health issues etc) dynamics of a hostile encounter in the course of policing.
-you don't understand, or accept, the realities of manpower deployment in policing.
-You don't understand the Use of Force Continuum, what is a green, yellow or red zone etc.
-you don't understand what happens to your brain and your body when you honestly say to yourself "this person intends not to just kick my *** but to kill me."

The LE DT programs whether PPCT, Gracie, LOCKUP etc were designed by people or groups of people with decades upon decades of knowledge and experience in both the facts you are ignorant of and the martial arts. But you know better? I am honestly sitting here right now praying to God that you are just trolling because the utter ridiculousness of your argument, if we can even call it that because arguments require facts and experience, is the new "flat earth" movement

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[jks9199]

Ok. What is the difference between an arrest i do and one you do. That applies here?

Re-read it. I was equating your arrest or removals with a LEO's. Both have comparable goals of containing and arresting/removing the subject with no more force than necessary. I don't know about Australian law; in the US we are permitted to use only the force necessary to safely arrest the subject. Anything more is a violation of state law, federal law (look up 42 USC 1983), and makes the officer individually and personally liable.

And both are different from either self defense or an outright fight for your life, whether in uniform, on the job, or just walking down the street.

 

[drop bear]

Re-read it. I was equating your arrest or removals with a LEO's. Both have comparable goals of containing and arresting/removing the subject with no more force than necessary. I don't know about Australian law; in the US we are permitted to use only the force necessary to safely arrest the subject. Anything more is a violation of state law, federal law (look up 42 USC 1983), and makes the officer individually and personally liable.

And both are different from either self defense or an outright fight for your life, whether in uniform, on the job, or just walking down the street.

Ok fair enough.

 

[drop bear]

The same applies with your view of LE DT instruction. You have little applicable knowledge or experience in terms of the specific circumstances of LE DT needs, zero.
-You don't understand the dynamics or importance of tool access and retention.
-You don't understand the actual limitations that the load carrying apparatus itself places on a combatant.
-You don't understand the situational (environment, pursuits, ambushes, mental health issues etc) dynamics of a hostile encounter in the course of policing.
-you don't understand, or accept, the realities of manpower deployment in policing.
-You don't understand the Use of Force Continuum, what is a green, yellow or red zone etc.
-you don't understand what happens to your brain and your body when you honestly say to yourself "this person intends not to just kick my *** but to kill me."

The LE DT programs whether PPCT, Gracie, LOCKUP etc were designed by people or groups of people with decades upon decades of knowledge and experience in both the facts you are ignorant of and the martial arts. But you know better? I am honestly sitting here right now praying to God that you are just trolling because the utter ridiculousness of your argument, if we can even call it that because arguments require facts and experience, is the new "flat earth" movement

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Ok. So are we done and dusted with the made up idea that you are the only person who fights a guy with a belt kit on though?

And now you are making up just random stuff hoping some of it sticks.

Ok. So as far as understanding goes. I have not fought with the aparent restrictions of a thousand tools designed to make fighting easier. I did not have the same support and the law does not protect me in anywhere near as comprehensive a manner.

I have fought with handcuff baton on a belt kit.

So as far as load bearing that is rubbish.

I have pursued people in the dark. In the rain. In the mud. And so on you don't understand that it makes no real difference in the setting you are trying to suggest.

You are right I don't accept the realities of manpower. I have fought guys on my own and it was always more stupid that fighting as a team. If you think fighting guys on your own is a good idea. Then go get em turbo.

And single man restraints factored in as part of DT is a cop out.

Whatever use of foce continuum you have.(has that even come up yet?)
Anyway this one.i s what we use. Now if I was quizzed on what is a red zone would not be able to help you. Reasonable and proportionate I have a fair bit of experience with.

And because nobody has ever tried to kill me you think?

And all of this nonsense about how there is some sort of secret sauce to manhandling people is why I don't trust these "experts"

You don't see secrets in a fight. And you don't train secret for DT

You train simple,sensible and basic. And that is what you understand.

I mean flat earth would be a person who suggests. Bunch of tactics work. And yet are the least tactics you ever actually see.

 

[drop bear]

One up police arrests. people try that arm drag stuff. And it just doesn't really work.

 

[Juany118]

Ok. So are we done and dusted with the made up idea that you are the only person who fights a guy with a belt kit on though?

And now you are making up just random stuff hoping some of it sticks.

Ok. So as far as understanding goes. I have not fought with the aparent restrictions of a thousand tools designed to make fighting easier. I did not have the same support and the law does not protect me in anywhere near as comprehensive a manner.

I have fought with handcuff baton on a belt kit.

So as far as load bearing that is rubbish.

I have pursued people in the dark. In the rain. In the mud. And so on you don't understand that it makes no real difference in the setting you are trying to suggest.

You are right I don't accept the realities of manpower. I have fought guys on my own and it was always more stupid that fighting as a team. If you think fighting guys on your own is a good idea. Then go get em turbo.

And single man restraints factored in as part of DT is a cop out.

Whatever use of foce continuum you have.(has that even come up yet?)
Anyway this one.i s what we use. Now if I was quizzed on what is a red zone would not be able to help you. Reasonable and proportionate I have a fair bit of experience with.

And because nobody has ever tried to kill me you think?

And all of this nonsense about how there is some sort of secret sauce to manhandling people is why I don't trust these "experts"

You don't see secrets in a fight. And you don't train secret for DT

You train simple,sensible and basic. And that is what you understand.

I mean flat earth would be a person who suggests. Bunch of tactics work. And yet are the least tactics you ever actually see.

Okay you fought with a baton and cuffs on. Where are they. A typical officer can have 2 weapons that will disable them, 1 that can kill them, perhaps 2 that can kill accessible from the front as a retention issue. Second if you use the techniques you note it also, again, makes it hard to disengage if necessary and difficult to access the tool. You keep avoiding these issues.

As a police officer the last place you ever want to go is into a ground fight. I know you MMA. I know you think that is the end all be all. It has its place, it has good techniques but what works in a bar fight or the ring doesn't necessarily work everywhere and this is a simple fact.

Also as I said, and you keep ignoring, you need to train like you fight, this includes accounting for manpower deployment. Training for the real circumstances you will encounter is vital if you wish to be combat effective.

As for use of force...

This shows not only what weapons can be used but also what they are used against in greater detail. Also, if you can articulate it properly, you can use one level above the force used against you. Another thing a chart doesn't show you is that the size and training of your opponent allows you to upgrade your level of force.

You also miss something else. If you noted earlier in the thread, LE DT are actually not taught a lot. It costs money and Governments have had a history of instead just buying the latest and greatest tool, first it was chemical agents, then OC spray, now tasers because those are one off expenses that have simple in-service training. SLOWLY this seems to be changing due to pressures generated by notorious incidents. Because this is largely a new phenomenon however, most of the YouTube videos your will find of incidents involving LE UoF will be "ugly" in terms of technique. That however only shows the need for LE DT training.

Now I get it, you think those techniques you showed work, I assure you they are dangerous. While executing them they invite you to have to transition to not taking a suspect into custody but weapon retention. If you manage to get them wrapped up you are now not in a position to cuff them, and if they have friends you invite them to attack you when you are vulnerable to them and since you are on the ground and wrapped up with another suspect disengagement is greatly hindered. I am sorry these are facts, pure and simple. I also get you don't like the existence of these realities, you don't think they should be realities. In regards to manpower and the like I agree, however neither I nor my brothers or sisters have control over that. We don't have the luxury of ignoring the reality, we have to work under its rules.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Buka]

If someone who never worked as a bouncer told you how you should do your job......

 

[jks9199]

You are right I don't accept the realities of manpower. I have fought guys on my own and it was always more stupid that fighting as a team. If you think fighting guys on your own is a good idea. Then go get em turbo.

And single man restraints factored in as part of DT is a cop out.

At least here in the US, there is one very significant difference between a LEO and a security officer/bouncer: duty to act. A LEO has a duty to act and cannot always wait for backup. Absolutely, whenever possible and practical, we encourage officers to wait for backup when they make an arrest, but even in a geographically small jurisdiction with a relatively large number of officers on duty, officers in my agency don't always have the option to wait.

As to use of force models.... there are several different ones around that all strive to produce structure and guidance for the principles in several US cases (notably Graham v Connor and Tennessee v Garner and their progeny). Here is one: The Use of Force Model and an example from Chicago's published General Orders of how it gets implemented.

 

[jks9199]

One up police arrests. people try that arm drag stuff. And it just doesn't really work.

It does -- because I've done it. Unfortunately, I failed to plan ahead and have a camera crew running around with me so you'll have to take my word for it.

 

[drop bear]

It does -- because I've done it. Unfortunately, I failed to plan ahead and have a camera crew running around with me so you'll have to take my word for it.

Yeah funny about that. There is never one around when this stuff works.

Actually it depends on a lot of other factors. Like the type of web bar how you set it up and who you do it to.

Arm bars can be defended if the other guy knows the secret to it.

(The secret is bending your arm back in by the way)

At which point you need a transition or you generally just wind up hanging off an arm looking silly. Fine if there is two of you because you both hang of an arm each and at the very least he cant punch stab or shoot anyone.

Of course you are not two up.

Now I have put guys down from hammerlocks.

But there is a trick to fighting that on one. Which is back to this idea.

 

[drop bear]

At least here in the US, there is one very significant difference between a LEO and a security officer/bouncer: duty to act. A LEO has a duty to act and cannot always wait for backup. Absolutely, whenever possible and practical, we encourage officers to wait for backup when they make an arrest, but even in a geographically small jurisdiction with a relatively large number of officers on duty, officers in my agency don't always have the option to wait.

As to use of force models.... there are several different ones around that all strive to produce structure and guidance for the principles in several US cases (notably Graham v Connor and Tennessee v Garner and their progeny). Here is one: The Use of Force Model and an example from Chicago's published General Orders of how it gets implemented.

By the way you don't really keep your job as a bouncer if you do nothing either.

Yeah forced to act one up because somebody somewhere is saving a buck is the norm. I get it. But don't think anyone has your best interests at heart when they set that up. And they are the same guys who set up these DT,s


I would not be drinking the coolaid regarding their assurances.

Use of force in a practical level just sort of changes a few dynamics. Like you can't neck restrain people easily. But dosent account for positional asphyxia and throwing people on their face via arm bar.

But I am not a fan of chart that tells me the blatantly obvious. And am pretty sure that nobody read that thing and was surprised by the set up. Or could not have gotten pretty close on their own.

 

[drop bear]

If someone who never worked as a bouncer told you how you should do your job......

You mean juany who so far has said i have never fought with a belt kit on. Or with disorienting conditions. Or under stress. Or with use of force. And has obviously no idea what my job contained. But will invent stuff anyway?

I would cry like an emo and tell them they don't understand me.

Or as I have always done try to explain in a manner that does not rely on me being amazing and more a logical process.