Is being a cop self defense

[Steve]

Cop? Security guard? Bouncer? ER nurse?

Ballen suggests that the violence a cop encounters is equivalent to self defense. I disagree. Violence encountered as a function of your job is useful for developing some skills that also apply to self defense. But putting yourself in harms way as a function of your job is not self defense, in the same way that being an MMA fighter is not self defense. Comparing the skills and circumstances of a cop with someone who is not a cop is as distinct as the experiences of a guy who trains aikido and a UFC fighter.

To be clear, I'm not saying cops have no insight into self defense. Just as a professional bouncer, professional MMA fighter or professional soldier would have some insight. But violence in combat bears as much resemblance to self defense as a cop taking on a gang of knife wielding pcp tweakers.

I'm curious. Am I the only one who thinks this?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It is similar for LE. In addition to defending their own lives, they have one or more additional duties, such as not letting the bad guy get away, plus some restrictions a non LEO doesn't have.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

FYI, I'm not having a good night here with bad memories, so I'm going to stop talking about this for awhile. No offense.

 

[ballen0351]

Actually that's not what I said at all

 

[ballen0351]

I said the reason and actions leading up to the violence is different. But a punch to a cops head is the same as a punch to a dentist's head. A bullet to a cops chest is the same as a bullet to a crossing guard. A blade in the back is the same it doesn't matter if the cops being stabbed or a drug dealer

 

[ballen0351]

Let me ask you this Steve if being in law enforcement isn't self defense because they choose to put themselves in that position. Is a drug addict that chooses to go into bad areas to buy drugs using self defense of they try to rape her or Rob and kill her?

 

[Steve]

Let me ask you this Steve if being in law enforcement isn't self defense because they choose to put themselves in that position. Is a drug addict that chooses to go into bad areas to buy drugs using self defense of they try to rape her or Rob and kill her?

I'd say that the number one thing a drug addict can do as self defense is to get some help with the drug addiction. Sure, martial arts skills might help in a specific instance of violence, but bang for the buck here is that rehab will be the most effective form of self defense that this person could possibly get. Nothing will improve this person's risk for assault than this.

amd the experiences of a drug addict who chooses to go into bad areas is not at all the same as a person who is not a drug addict... Or even a drug addict who gets his/her drugs from a doctor.

But this is a red herring. Because the experiences of a drug addict aren't at all what most of us here will ever experience. We are t drug addicts and so that kind of risk is just not reality.

In a different way, cops have training, resources and a voluntary, professional exposure to risk that is completely foreign to most people. You took such great pains to detail the horror of fighting off a pcp crazed addict. But what are my chances of running into a pcp crazed addict? Nil.

Here's a question. How often,are you mugged? Raped? Assaulted while minding your own business in civilian clothes and not working? I hope your chances outside of your professional risk are roughly the same as anyone else's... Which is to say exceedingly unlikely.

In the same way. Professional MMA fighters purposely expose the,selves to violence. But outside of work, their risk is a function of risky behaviors and otherwise long odds.

 

[ballen0351]

In a different way, cops have training, resources and a voluntary, professional exposure to risk that is completely foreign to most people. You took such great pains to detail the horror of fighting off a pcp crazed addict. But what are my chances of running into a pcp crazed addict? Nil.

Who do you think calls the police to report these PCP crazed addicts? Regular folks like you that happen to run across them.

Here's a question. How often,are you mugged?

3 times on purpose working UC on robbery suppression details, 5 times buying drugs under cover, 1 attempt in real life

Raped?

Never

Assaulted while minding your own business in civilian clothes and not working? I hope your chances outside of your professional risk are roughly the same as anyone else's... Which is to say exceedingly unlikely.

I agree Ive said that before. Ive said several times chances anyone on MT will need to defend themselves is slim. However there are several people here who have actually done it and sadly I run several calls a night where regular citizens minding their own business did become a victim if not there whould be no need for self defense

In the same way. Professional MMA fighters purposely expose the,selves to violence

Is it violence or is it a sport? Its physical combat but I dont know if Id consider it violence.

. But outside of work, their risk is a function of risky behaviors and otherwise long odds.

I agree so when some makes the argument that well I can fight in the ring so Im good on the street well you MAY be good in the street but one does not guarantee the other

 

[Buka]

My friend, Bobby, was in Law Enforcement for forty years. As a rookie, in his first year on the job, he was pounding a beat in the city of Boston on the midnight to eight shift in the dead of winter. Walking by an alley, he heard a noise. He went down the alley, following his flashlight beam at four o'clock in the morning. He found the source of the noise. A baby, less than an hour old, had been discarded in a trashcan with the cover on. Bobby radioed for help but realized it was quicker to run the twelve blocks to the ER than wait for an ambulance. He tucked the infant under his uniform shirt and ran like hell. The ER doc later said that if he had been a few minutes later the baby would have died.

Bob and his wife, Katie, adopted that baby. It's one of his four children, who is now in his late forties. I know that has nothing what-so-ever to do with self defense, but it might have something to do with being a cop. It's a really difficult job, especially to those that haven't experienced it.

 

[ballen0351]

I'd say that the number one thing a drug addict can do as self defense is to get some help with the drug addiction.

I agree but that's of little comfort when she's in the middle of an attack. Is it self defense when she fights them off or is it not because she put herself in the situation?

Sure, martial arts skills might help in a specific instance of violence

The specific instance of violence is what Im discussing
{quote]
, but bang for the buck here is that rehab will be the most effective form of self defense that this person could possibly get. Nothing will improve this person's risk for assault than this.{/quote]
Right but is it self defense when she defends herself? If your argument is its not for Cops because they put themselves in that situation what about her?

amd the experiences of a drug addict who chooses to go into bad areas is not at all the same as a person who is not a drug addict... Or even a drug addict who gets his/her drugs from a doctor.

AND? that hs nothing to do with the question I asked

But this is a red herring. Because the experiences of a drug addict aren't at all what most of us here will ever experience. We are t drug addicts and so that kind of risk is just not reality.

Again irrelevant to my question

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Cop? Security guard? Bouncer? ER nurse?

Ballen suggests that the violence a cop encounters is equivalent to self defense. I disagree. Violence encountered as a function of your job is useful for developing some skills that also apply to self defense. But putting yourself in harms way as a function of your job is not self defense, in the same way that being an MMA fighter is not self defense. Comparing the skills and circumstances of a cop with someone who is not a cop is as distinct as the experiences of a guy who trains aikido and a UFC fighter.

To be clear, I'm not saying cops have no insight into self defense. Just as a professional bouncer, professional MMA fighter or professional soldier would have some insight. But violence in combat bears as much resemblance to self defense as a cop taking on a gang of knife wielding pcp tweakers.

I'm curious. Am I the only one who thinks this?

The situations a cop faces often are, in fact, self-defense. When a cop is attacked by a guy with a weapon, he defends himself. That, by definition, is self-defense. That he is a cop (or bouncer, or whatever) doesn't change the fact.

Now, do they end up in situations most of us could (and probably would) avoid? Yes, so we don't have to include that in our general self-defense training curriculum (like house clearing). And they do thinks most of us don't, like cuffing a suspect, but even those things are analogous to general self-defense, since some common cuffing techniques include a lock maintained with one hand, which can be useful for anyone.

So, there are differences between what cops face and self-defense, but cops do, in fact, defend themselves from attackers, and when the situation is something a normal person might face, it is a perfect place for effective self-defense techniques.

 

[ballen0351]

Bob and his wife, Katie, adopted that baby. It's one of his four children, who is now in his late forties.

Thats awesome

 

[Paul_D]

Cop? Security guard? Bouncer? ER nurse?

Ballen suggests that the violence a cop encounters is equivalent to self defense. I disagree.

Why don't you agree? You have stated you don't agree, but haven't explained why it's different.

Given that most of the highly regarded self defence experts in the UK have worked as bouncers, and the ones I am am ware of form the US have worked as cops or bouncers, it would suggest that whilst it is not 100% the same, it is close enough to me at least, that they are similar enough that it makes little or no difference.

• You have experience of, and need to learn to deal with, the inevitable adrenalin dump.

• You are dealing with people who are “in your face” arguing/shouting and are close enough to sucker punch you.

• You need the skills to protect the immediate space in front of you to prevent the aforementioned sucker punch.

• You are dealing with multiple assailants.

• You are in position where you will have to protect others.

• You will be attached with the same sort of attacks (HAOV) you would in self defence.

• You are dealing with weapons (knives, guns, bottles)

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just curios as to why you think it's different as you haven't really explained the differences.

 

[Mephisto]

I think Steve makes some good points. Some detractors of MMA and sports combat point out that the fighter is prepared for the fight and knows what the rules are, they point out how different this is to self defense, and I agree that self defense and sport are very different. Cops, military, bouncers ect., fall into the same vein; they know when they are more likely to face a threat and they have backup and utilities to ensure they are safe. Both cops and sport fighters are able to prepare and have resources to prepare them for the inevitable. The sport fighter doesn't have backup and weapons but he does have a highly developed empty hand skill set against an aggressive, athletic, skilled attacker. The cop may not have the same empty hand skillset but he does have more experience with street attacks and violence, but the cops also has weapons and backup. Neither scenario is a perfect fit for civilian self defense, but it is difficult for a civilian to get the same training and experience as a cop, which is why sport combat may be the next best thing and in some cases it gives better empty hand skills but lacks other skills. In short, not everyone is a cop, but cops do get some great real world exposure to street violence, but due to their resources they may not have or need the best empty hand skill set. What works and is good for cops is not necessarily good for civilians.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

OK, let's break it down.

An average citizen does not typically seek out situations where he or she is likely to have to defend themselves.
A police officer's job is to engage in intervention activities with perceived law-breakers, which are likely to end up with the officer having to defend themselves.

An average citizen is not required to arrest or apprehend anyone.
A police officer is generally obliged to perform arrests or apprehensions when circumstances dictate.

An average citizen typically does not have a range of lethal and non-lethal weapons available on their person.
A police officer typically does have a range of lethal and non-lethal weapons available on their person.

An average citizen does not have to prevent a criminal from escaping.
A police officer is typically required to try to prevent a criminal from escaping.

An average citizen is allowed to defend themselves from assault.
A police officer is allowed to defend themselves from assault.

An average citizen is generally not held to a 'least amount of force necessary' requirement when legally defending themselves.
A police officer may be held to a 'least amount of force necessary' requirement when legally defending themselves.

Although a police officer and an average citizen have very different percentages of confrontations that end in physical violence, both have the same legal right to defend themselves. Where things get different are when we observe the requirements of the job of law enforcement. For example, that they don't just have to defend themselves, they are expected to make an arrest when assaulted (rather than run away, which is often the 'best' result for the average citizen). They don't have the option of letting the 'bad guy' get away; an average citizen has no requirement to pursue a fleeing bad guy.

The average citizen, on the other hand, is typically not held to the same standard when it comes to defending themselves. Despite lurid headlines to the contrary, many if not most departments require that officers use the least amount of force possible to effect an arrest; a citizen may get away with clubbing an attacker into a bloody pulp, while an officer in the same circumstances would be expected to stop beating the bad guy when the bad guy stops resisting arrest. Please don't get into a political "I hate cops" diatribe about this; I'll withdraw from the conversation if it comes to that. My statements are factual based on my own employment history.

In summary: The violence that a cop typically encounters is equivalent to self-defense in that both the cop and the citizen have the absolute right to defend themselves from attack. It is different in that cops have jobs that often require them to put themselves in situations where a violent encounter is likely, that cops have a wider range of weapons to use to defend themselves with, and that cops are (again, despite recent headlines) required to restrain their response upon making an arrest, whereas the average citizen is generally not expected to use the 'least amount of force necessary'. There are always exceptions, but these are the basic similarities and differences that I am aware of.

Bottom line: Whether I am wearing a badge or not, if some joker throws a haymaker at me, I am allowed to defend myself. That's self defense, whether I end up putting handcuffs on the guy and hauling him off to the pokey, or whether I just curbstomp his punkin head and call 911. Full disclosure, I haven't worked in law enforcement since the late 1980s.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What works and is good for cops is not necessarily good for civilians.

I don't think anyone disputes that point. It does not, however, follow that nothing that works for a cop (or bouncer, or anyone else in harm's way on a regular basis) is good for civilians. Options are different, situations are different, but the attacker will do some of the same things in each scenario. Since these people have the most experience with being attacked "on the street", we should learn from that, figure out what parts would/should be different for a civilian, and train appropriately.

I don't think competitions give a better test or proving ground for competition than powerful, committed, realistic attacks in a dojo. When I visited another instructor's school and gave him an all-out attack someone might deliver in a bar (grabbing his jacket and shoving back hard, as if to knock him down or pin him to a wall, etc.), he dealt with it effectively. I gave him no warning of what was coming, though he knew something was coming (as, of course, also happens in competition). We try our best to simulate likely attacks in a variety of likely manners (uncoordinated, overcommitted, highly restrained, out-of-your mind angry, resisting, undercommitted, etc.). If I had the time and inclination to also compete, that would probably also help my self-defense skills. I just don't think it's a "this not that" question.

 

[ballen0351]

I think Steve makes some good points. Some detractors of MMA and sports combat point out that the fighter is prepared for the fight and knows what the rules are, they point out how different this is to self defense, and I agree that self defense and sport are very different. Cops, military, bouncers ect., fall into the same vein; they know when they are more likely to face a threat and they have backup and utilities to ensure they are safe. Both cops and sport fighters are able to prepare and have resources to prepare them for the inevitable. The sport fighter doesn't have backup and weapons but he does have a highly developed empty hand skill set against an aggressive, athletic, skilled attacker. The cop may not have the same empty hand skillset but he does have more experience with street attacks and violence, but the cops also has weapons and backup. Neither scenario is a perfect fit for civilian self defense, but it is difficult for a civilian to get the same training and experience as a cop, which is why sport combat may be the next best thing and in some cases it gives better empty hand skills but lacks other skills. In short, not everyone is a cop, but cops do get some great real world exposure to street violence, but due to their resources they may not have or need the best empty hand skill set. What works and is good for cops is not necessarily good for civilians.

I agree to a point but that's not always the case. I have been attacked out of the blue with no warning. I've been attacked alone with no back up. When my wife was a deputy there where nights her closet backup was 45 min away if available at all. And I don't ride 2 to a,car so if I call for help it can take 5 to 10 min for them to arrive. Not unlike the response time if anyone else,was attacked And call 911.
And every tool I carry gun, taser, baton, peppery spray, and my vest is legal and available to anyone else to carry.
My comments on the topic however were not really made about the physical act of defending myself although It's moved that direction. I was speaking about the emotional, and mental aspects of self defense. Mentally there is a big difference between worrying about loosing a match and worrying about loosing your life.

 

[Mephisto]

I don't think anyone disputes that point. It does not, however, follow that nothing that works for a cop (or bouncer, or anyone else in harm's way on a regular basis) is good for civilians. Options are different, situations are different, but the attacker will do some of the same things in each scenario. Since these people have the most experience with being attacked "on the street", we should learn from that, figure out what parts would/should be different for a civilian, and train appropriately.

I don't think competitions give a better test or proving ground for competition than powerful, committed, realistic attacks in a dojo. When I visited another instructor's school and gave him an all-out attack someone might deliver in a bar (grabbing his jacket and shoving back hard, as if to knock him down or pin him to a wall, etc.), he dealt with it effectively. I gave him no warning of what was coming, though he knew something was coming (as, of course, also happens in competition). We try our best to simulate likely attacks in a variety of likely manners (uncoordinated, overcommitted, highly restrained, out-of-your mind angry, resisting, undercommitted, etc.). If I had the time and inclination to also compete, that would probably also help my self-defense skills. I just don't think it's a "this not that" question.

I can't agree with you here but you're welcome to your opinion. I do think it would be beneficial for someone concerned about self defense to have some street specific environmental or scenario training but i also think some competitive resistant training is more important. A dojo or martial arts class will never perfectly simulate reality, you've still prepared yourself for the class and you probably have a fair idea of what to expect. Grabbing a guy by the shirt and roughing him up is an okay simulation of a street altercation, but where you wearing head gear? Mouth guard? Could the defender punch you full force to respond? Defending against crappy attacks is not. The best way to train self defense. Some people are better naturally at attacks. It's my experience that if you can handle a skilled grappler you can very easily handle a sloppy takedown, or in striking you can easily defend a wide haymaker. Train to defend against a competant attack and an untrained attack will be easy. Problems arise when you don't see an attack coming, and other than a sense of awareness you can't train to defend a surprise attack. Even in random drills you still know you're doing a drill.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can't agree with you here but you're welcome to your opinion. I do think it would be beneficial for someone concerned about self defense to have some street specific environmental or scenario training but i also think some competitive resistant training is more important. A dojo or martial arts class will never perfectly simulate reality, you've still prepared yourself for the class and you probably have a fair idea of what to expect. Grabbing a guy by the shirt and roughing him up is an okay simulation of a street altercation, but where you wearing head gear? Mouth guard? Could the defender punch you full force to respond? Defending against crappy attacks is not. The best way to train self defense. Some people are better naturally at attacks. It's my experience that if you can handle a skilled grappler you can very easily handle a sloppy takedown, or in striking you can easily defend a wide haymaker. Train to defend against a competant attack and an untrained attack will be easy. Problems arise when you don't see an attack coming, and other than a sense of awareness you can't train to defend a surprise attack. Even in random drills you still know you're doing a drill.

Here's my issue: I don't disagree that competition helps. However, every time I state that, someone takes the opportunity to state that competition is better than SD training. There's zero reliable proof in either direction. All we can do is interpolate. In my experience, if someone is well-trained for self-defense, then defending against an untrained attacker is easy, except when it isn't. I've heard the same from folks who trained for competition.

Let's be clear, all competition is not equal. I won't for a moment accept that training in kicks-only competition is anything close to as useful for self-defense as either boxing, MMA, Judo, or self-defense training. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not going to prepare someone for street defense nearly as well. Still, it's better than no training, and I've seen videos of those folks using it on the street.

It's about HOW people train, and I can train with resistance without competing, and have done so. That's part of self-defense training. If it's not, then it's not really self-defense training.

 

[Mephisto]

I agree to a point but that's not always the case. I have been attacked out of the blue with no warning. I've been attacked alone with no back up. When my wife was a deputy there where nights her closet backup was 45 min away if available at all. And I don't ride 2 to a,car so if I call for help it can take 5 to 10 min for them to arrive. Not unlike the response time if anyone else,was attacked And call 911.
And every tool I carry gun, taser, baton, peppery spray, and my vest is legal and available to anyone else to carry.
My comments on the topic however were not really made about the physical act of defending myself although It's moved that direction. I was speaking about the emotional, and mental aspects of self defense. Mentally there is a big difference between worrying about loosing a match and worrying about loosing your life.

I realize not every cop always has back up, but the officer does have other tools at his or her disposal as you point out. I'm not downplaying the dangers cops face at work. I'm just saying the experience cops have doesn't apply to most people and its not something you can replicate outside of law enforcement and security. Additionally, cops aren't better at martial arts than anyone else, I've trained along side cops and they're regular people. But I do appreciate the perspective they can add to training.
There may be a difference between fear of death and fear of losing a fight. However, our coach still teaches us that things can go wrong in a ring and you might not walk out, there are rules but you must protect yourself and take the fight seriously, freak accidents can happen, so maybe it depends. I'd say my limited competition experience and the adrenaline felt was comparable to steer altercations I've been in, but they didn't involve weapons.

All I can say is the experience cops have from events on the job are in a similiar vein to the experience competitive fighters have. It's something you have to experience yourself and it can't be passed on. A cop can teach someone what to watch out for, but until you've had a weapon pulled on you or a guy flip out on you out of know where you haven't had the experience to deal with that. Same for a fighter, you can teach someone to fight but until they've been in competition they're not an experienced fighter.