PPCT observations

[Hudson69]

Well I have finally completed my PPCT Instructor Course and am now a certified instructor:headbangin:. I have my opinions listed below but could you tell me what you feel about PPCT and the results of using it in a situation (and the details of the situation)?

I went in with the attitude of this is a poor system designed for administrations that are more worried about lawsuits against the department than for the safety of their officers.

This is what I myself got out of it and is personal opinion only:
-The pressure point instruction was better than I thought and useful to passive persons you just need to understand that trying pain compliance in a fight is the wrong thing to do in most situations (possibly as a distraction) as in a real fight.
-The handcuffing was awkward and went against the concept of easy to learn and retain; FBI and Krav are simpler, faster and just as solid (i.e. better).
-The mechanics of the striking techniques are solid but the lack of use, practice, emphasis and range (types of hand striking) made them feel like "when all else fails, you might try this."
-Their version of the elbow strike makes the elbow strike less useful... but at least they have it.
-Their takedowns and arm locks are like the striking; at least they have something. They dont even teach a seperate wristlock, which was a let down.
-Their angle kick is solid and they teach the common peroneal and the femoral as target points so plus one for this (simpler to use the way it is taught and has an extra target area taught over FBI Arrest Control).
-Their thrust kick is weak and targets a small area (superficial peroneal). This could easily be a low front snap kick (which it "kind of" is) and taught simpler..... but its there.
-There is no back kick and we were told not to try anything like that since there is no power to any type of back kick - that was just lame.
-They have hard outter blocks and decent inside parries... If I could say one thing about this it would be that the hard outside blocks were not taught against low (kick) attacks.
-Movement skills were not taught per se, kind of mentioned as an after thought; like getting off the line of attack, step drags, slide steps and the likes.
-There were no break falls taught or rolling either... this was a disappointment.
-Their stunning techniques were solid and better taught than anything else I have learned from either a LEO school or MA school.
-They have a side choke. I have never seen or used anything like it so it was a technique I will store but probably never use. The FBI AC has the RNC so now I have two options (though both are against policy...:sadsong.
-There is no ground fighting, no kip-ups or anything similar but I did learn that the company behind PPCT teachs a separate system called GAGE and looks like it would be worth trying to get into but I doubt I can swing that (with my agency paying for it).
-Combos are emphasized and self generating those combos are expected... this is good.
-Mental & physical aspects on combat are taught, this is good.
-Their stuns are good but overemphasized.
-Distraction techniques are covered but, like the foot movement and wrist lock, almost like an afterthought.
-Weapon retention was average but their disarms were a little overly technical.
-It teaches an impact weapon, a baton, just like every other LEO DT program.

The end result was the belief that "this was better than I thought it was going to be."
It has basic punches, knees, elbows (kind of), kicks, blocks and parries. It teaches some of the physcial and mental aspects to high stress (combat) situations and how to alleviate or deal with some of them (stress response) which was really good. Their pain compliance techniques are the best I have seen/used. PPCT just seems like an incomplete system that has emphasis in the wrong areas (at least for police work).

This is my .02 only and I look forward to hearing what others have to say about it and especially people who have used it.

 

[jks9199]

Honestly -- I don't know enough about PPCT to have a good opinion. It seems like there is a strong emphasis on the nerve points; I've got mixed feelings on that, since my personal experience is that so many nerve points are less than fully reliable. My perception is about where you started: that it's a system developed from the liability side first, rather than officer survival first.

 

[punisher73]

Remember what it is based upon. The most common types of assaults that an officer faces based on UCR and use of force reports from across the country. It tells you right off, that they don't try to cover everything that you might need to know.

It also tells you why the techniques are selected

1) Easy to learn, easy to perform and easy to retain

That tells you right there that there are other techniques out there that may be more effective, but take more time to learn and or keep the skills up for. In your example, no back kick. That doesn't mean that you couldn't use one to a valid target, just that for the average officer with 25 lbs of gear on with the uniform, it might not be the best technique to try and make officers learn. Think about techniques that you can pull off in the dojo and then try to strap on the gear, and now be conscious of which side you presented due to having your gun in easy reach. The system is designed around the lowest common denominators for use and skill to apply it.

2) Low risk of injury to suspect

There are techniques out there that are effective, but if things go wrong or not applied correctly can result in injury to the suspect. So they are not included in the system. When I first learned PPCT, the front thrust kick was to the hip of the suspect (Muay Thai teep). Based on feedback from officers across the nation they found that for many with their duty belt on, they didn't have faith in the technique. Also, they were getting alot of reports that officers were just kicking the suspect in the nuts and trying to justify it as the thrust kick. The superficial peroneal gives the officer a good lower body weapon when in close.

Also, some of the things you mentioned are covered in the "add on" PPCT programs like their GAGE--Ground Avoidance and Ground Escape (breakfalls, not really going to be able to roll too well with a duty belt on) and their SKD--Spontaneous Knife Defense (different reponses for empty hand striking and blocking tied into takedowns).

I think PPCT's biggest strength is the fact that it gives basic tools to officers as a starting point, I don't think it is the be all out there. Remember, many people don't have any type of MA background and resort to the old "punch em in the nose" doctrine. This gives them some other tools to build on. Look at how the system works and what targets you can use, now look at your MA and see how you can apply techniques you already know that are in the use of force continuum and you will have greatly expanded your usage.

 

[punisher73]

Honestly -- I don't know enough about PPCT to have a good opinion. It seems like there is a strong emphasis on the nerve points; I've got mixed feelings on that, since my personal experience is that so many nerve points are less than fully reliable. My perception is about where you started: that it's a system developed from the liability side first, rather than officer survival first.

Common misconception about the system and one I constantly have to try and train out of our deputies. Pressure points--Pain Compliance fall within only the lower levels in the application of force. The way it is taught it should be used for verbal non-compliance and passive resistance (think someone just going dead weight on you, but not trying to fight you). When you get to defensive resistance (someone trying to pull away from you, but not trying to actually hurt you) you introduce knee strikes to the common peroneal as a distraction technique for wrist locks and takedowns. It is also set up if you can articulate why lower methods did not work, or why you had to use a higher level of force you are able to do so. In this case, if you have a large male subject who is obviously drunk or high on drugs and pulls away from you, and you can articulate why you went straight to striking to control because of his size and being under the influence then you do so, you dont' start at the lower level of trying to apply pressure points.

 

[jks9199]

Common misconception about the system and one I constantly have to try and train out of our deputies. Pressure points--Pain Compliance fall within only the lower levels in the application of force. The way it is taught it should be used for verbal non-compliance and passive resistance (think someone just going dead weight on you, but not trying to fight you). When you get to defensive resistance (someone trying to pull away from you, but not trying to actually hurt you) you introduce knee strikes to the common peroneal as a distraction technique for wrist locks and takedowns. It is also set up if you can articulate why lower methods did not work, or why you had to use a higher level of force you are able to do so. In this case, if you have a large male subject who is obviously drunk or high on drugs and pulls away from you, and you can articulate why you went straight to striking to control because of his size and being under the influence then you do so, you dont' start at the lower level of trying to apply pressure points.

Thanks for the clarifications. Honestly -- I figure it's got something going for it, since it's been around for a few years.

You hit the real challenges of DT instruction today: Very limited time, trying to get some useful skills across to recruits who have little real experience going in -- and increasing liability concerns.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

It is an okay system to teach in one day but not really effective unless practiced regularly. There is some depth to it but in your average one day class you are not going to get much or be able to retain much. However, it is better than nothing but not by much! Personally, I think all LEO's, Correction Officers, DNR, etc, etc. should have a regular class (weekly) that they have to train in. Constant training in a decent system is way more important than most Chief of Police, Commanders, etc. are willing to commit too!

 

[jks9199]

It is an okay system to teach in one day but not really effective unless practiced regularly. There is some depth to it but in your average one day class you are not going to get much or be able to retain much. However, it is better than nothing but not by much! Personally, I think all LEO's, Correction Officers, DNR, etc, etc. should have a regular class (weekly) that they have to train in. Constant training in a decent system is way more important than most Chief of Police, Commanders, etc. are willing to commit too!

I'd even settle for an actually available opportunity. But it ain't going to happen. More guys practice with guns than practice DT... and my agency has a policy in place where anyone who wants to shoot can use our range simply by arranging the time with a range instructor and providing their own ammo. Know how many people have taken advantage of it? I'll give you a hint... The policy is more than a year old. The first page in the log book isn't a quarter full...

 

[punisher73]

It is an okay system to teach in one day but not really effective unless practiced regularly. There is some depth to it but in your average one day class you are not going to get much or be able to retain much. However, it is better than nothing but not by much! Personally, I think all LEO's, Correction Officers, DNR, etc, etc. should have a regular class (weekly) that they have to train in. Constant training in a decent system is way more important than most Chief of Police, Commanders, etc. are willing to commit too!

Wouldn't that be true of any system?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Wouldn't that be true of any system?

Absolutley! The issue with Law Enforcement, Corrections, Security, Military (though they are getting better), etc. is the vast majority of them practice a couple of times a year and that is it. You simply cannot hone these skills in a weekend class a few times a year. Not gonnna work at all! Or even worse learn a system in a weekend and then go out and teach it. That usually ensures that the instructor and his/her students in the future have limited skil sets with limited knowledge. No in order to have good personal protection skills you need to train regularly and often, you need to understand what you are doing and how it is done, you need to have faith in the system because of your training and understanding and finally you just have to let go and let the training take over. Unfortunately, most people in charge do not make Defensive Tactics a priority or commit the necessary resources to it. Which is interesting because more LEO's, Corrections Officers, etc. are going to be involved in some form of hand to hand arresting scenario than they will be a firearm shoot out. Both are important but across this country the priorities are kind've screwed up!

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

What about roll call / briefing training on particular aspects through out the year. For instance (and mind you, I don't know what you may call your techniques), but you could do low-profile cuffing one week, position of advantage to a rear wrist lock another, prone cuffing the next week, and so on.

Now, you're not going full bore obviously, but I have found that this type of refresher training is useful for memory retention.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

What about roll call / briefing training on particular aspects through out the year. For instance (and mind you, I don't know what you may call your techniques), but you could do low-profile cuffing one week, position of advantage to a rear wrist lock another, prone cuffing the next week, and so on.

Now, you're not going full bore obviously, but I have found that this type of refresher training is useful for memory retention.

I think that is an excellent idea!