# Between Judo and Wrestling for police..



## BJJCop

My police department has asked me to assist in teaching hands-on techniques in the massive mat area we have available to our training HQ..However, I've done so much undecided thinking about two particular applications with colleagues, discussing the two distinctions on approach to reality, and that's between Judo or Wrestling for policing. 

Why do you hear more about police forces gravitating towards Judo, and if you think one transitions best to suiting it's use in the police, why? 

Currently, I'm thinking about the distinction of Judo's more upright posture, and use of lapels, and those factors in consideration to a self defence situation. It does strike my knowledge that US Marines think highly of Judo in their training which is an interesting one! Opinions welcome!


----------



## MAfreak

there was a similar thread here just a few days ago.
we stated that judo and wrestling is pretty much the same. its like judo has gi-techniques as an addition.
even if not allowed in competition, i think judo should have also wristlocks which can be useful for security and police (like its relatives ju jutsu, aikido and hapkido). not sure if wrestling teaches wristlocks too.


----------



## drop bear

MAfreak said:


> there was a similar thread here just a few days ago.
> we stated that judo and wrestling is pretty much the same. its like judo has gi-techniques as an addition.
> even if not allowed in competition, i think judo should have also wristlocks which can be useful for security and police (like its relatives ju jutsu, aikido and hapkido). not sure if wrestling teaches wristlocks too.



Wrestling teaches arm control. Which is 90% of the wrist lock. And quite often the bit wrist lock arts miss.


----------



## jks9199

Is there some reason you need to focus on a particular art in developing this DT curriculum?  Is there a reason you're reinventing the wheel at all?  There are dozens of programs out there, of varying quality.  Steve Jimerfied's One-on-One Control Tactics program has had very good reviews from people whose opinions I trust -- and he's a high ranking martial artist -- judo, jujutsu, more -- as well very experienced police officer, but he's literally only one.  We've got at least one member here who's a PPCT instructor, if he's still active and posting.  Or why focus on a particular art, rather than looking at the underlying concepts and principles.

Who is your audience?  Academy recruits, rookies, experienced officers, tactical operators? Each has different needs and different learning approaches that you'll have to take into account.  Is this a one and done, or part of a comprehensive and ongoing program?  

Honestly, speaking as a DT instructor and tolerably experienced cop, I'm not even sure what you're trying to do when you say "discussing the two distinctions on approach to reality, and that's between Judo or Wrestling for policing".  What I've seen more and more is an emphasis on not linking into one system or approach, but using multiple methods and styles to draw from.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Is there some reason you need to focus on a particular art in developing this DT curriculum?  Is there a reason you're reinventing the wheel at all?  There are dozens of programs out there, of varying quality.  Steve Jimerfied's One-on-One Control Tactics program has had very good reviews from people whose opinions I trust -- and he's a high ranking martial artist -- judo, jujutsu, more -- as well very experienced police officer, but he's literally only one.  We've got at least one member here who's a PPCT instructor, if he's still active and posting.  Or why focus on a particular art, rather than looking at the underlying concepts and principles.
> 
> Who is your audience?  Academy recruits, rookies, experienced officers, tactical operators? Each has different needs and different learning approaches that you'll have to take into account.  Is this a one and done, or part of a comprehensive and ongoing program?
> 
> Honestly, speaking as a DT instructor and tolerably experienced cop, I'm not even sure what you're trying to do when you say "discussing the two distinctions on approach to reality, and that's between Judo or Wrestling for policing".  What I've seen more and more is an emphasis on not linking into one system or approach, but using multiple methods and styles to draw from.




Ppct is freakin atrocious. There is a very good reason why the only people who train in that are the ones who are forced to do it.

And it's basic principles have been making me and other industry guys less safe for years.


They are the numb nuts who think you can combat punches with wristlocks.


----------



## drop bear

Spend the rest of my day just ragging on ppct






I mean come on. This is what enter the dojo uses as their base material.


----------



## JowGaWolf

BJJCop said:


> My police department has asked me to assist in teaching hands-on techniques in the massive mat area we have available to our training HQ..However, I've done so much undecided thinking about two particular applications with colleagues, discussing the two distinctions on approach to reality, and that's between Judo or Wrestling for policing.
> 
> Why do you hear more about police forces gravitating towards Judo, and if you think one transitions best to suiting it's use in the police, why?
> 
> Currently, I'm thinking about the distinction of Judo's more upright posture, and use of lapels, and those factors in consideration to a self defence situation. It does strike my knowledge that US Marines think highly of Judo in their training which is an interesting one! Opinions welcome!


You need to pick the techniques that will best allow the police officer to use the tools of their trade.  Things like gun, stun gun, baton, sheild, mace, and taser should be factored in to what you teach.  If you teach the wrong technique then you'll end up putting the police officer in a situation where the tools of his trade no longer becomes and option.


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> Spend the rest of my day just ragging on ppct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean come on. This is what enter the dojo uses as their base material.



For the record, that crap was NOT ppct.

If you were taught to try a wrist lock for someone trying to punch you, then your instructor was an idiot and you were not taught PPCT properly.  As an instructor in 3 different PPCT modules, I would say that 90% of the complaints are on how their particular instructor taught them and not how the system was designed.  That being said, is it the "end all, be all" system?  Nope, things that could be improved on it.  But, most of what other systems do even if they don't admit it was taken from how PPCT was structured and addressed use of force levels etc.


----------



## DarkConflict

Are you incorporating GJJ/BJJ into your training? I say a mixture of both Judo/wrestling as both are beneficial. 

Too many officers have a "Ill just shoot" mentality, I've heard it so many times.

"If a suspect does this or that ill just shoot"

There is also an over reliance on the Taser, baton and OC spray. Truthfully many officers can't fight or never been in a fight. 

I see it all too often and you can tell when the recruits are in the academy.


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> For the record, that crap was NOT ppct.
> 
> If you were taught to try a wrist lock for someone trying to punch you, then your instructor was an idiot and you were not taught PPCT properly.  As an instructor in 3 different PPCT modules, I would say that 90% of the complaints are on how their particular instructor taught them and not how the system was designed.  That being said, is it the "end all, be all" system?  Nope, things that could be improved on it.  But, most of what other systems do even if they don't admit it was taken from how PPCT was structured and addressed use of force levels etc.



Is the system designed to churn out crap instructors due to week long instructional courses?

That then function as a money making franchise because you have to do their course to be qualified to do the job.

Which relies on the disposable staff being more likley to be hurt because it is cheaper for the company to replace a broken guard rather than face a law suit.

And yes my instructors were idiots.

But look if there is a decent version of ppct out there i would be interested to see it

But in my experience it has been one of the most damaging things to have happened to people who use force for a living.


Looks like it has been shaved down to a day. 

PPCT Defensive Tactics Instructor Course


----------



## marques

I feel wrestling easier to learn, and more suitable for beginners with natural instinct to use force or for heavy polices. How much time do you/they have to train?
Anyway, I don't have deep understanding of any of them...


----------



## MAfreak

DarkConflict said:


> Are you incorporating GJJ/BJJ into your training?
> There is also an over reliance on the Taser, baton and OC spray. Truthfully many officers can't fight or never been in a fight.



gjj? to me its german ju jutsu, do you mean that? its a hybrid system mainly based on jjj and its what police officers here train.

to the baton (tonfa) i often see officers even holding them wrong. even in a reportage about a german special police force. there should be more kobudo lessons for them...


----------



## drop bear

MAfreak said:


> gjj? to me its german ju jutsu, do you mean that? its a hybrid system mainly based on jjj and its what police officers here train.
> 
> to the baton (tonfa) i often see officers even holding them wrong. even in a reportage about a german special police force. there should be more kobudo lessons for them...



Gracie ju jitsu.


----------



## DarkConflict

MAfreak said:


> gjj? to me its german ju jutsu, do you mean that? its a hybrid system mainly based on jjj and its what police officers here train.
> 
> to the baton (tonfa) i often see officers even holding them wrong. even in a reportage about a german special police force. there should be more kobudo lessons for them...


Like Dropbear said Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, basically BJJ tailored for street confrontations. 

Then again the OP name is BJJCop so he most likely is teaching some BJJ. 

Here in the states I haven't seen officers hold a baton wrong. Yet I've seen some swing them with no real intent. 

I believe mindset plays a big role in the defensive tactics portion of the academy or yearly training. 

Some officers train in the arts, but a whole lot more don't. The training in the acadamies isn't sufficient in the long run. 

I haven't got the criminal vibe from students in the bjj schools I've been to. Yet most criminals have a lot of experience in just fighting period. 

You figure many start as teens or preteens as criminals. They move up from juvenile hall, to county, to prison. They are fighting at each level and that alone gives them experience.  

Experience that many cops don't have in fighting.


----------



## MAfreak

god damn shortcuts...

well in us-films and such one can see them holding tonfas wrong all the time. but sure this doesn't mean, real cops do so too. 

and at least not everyone here does it wrong 
File:Rostock G8 police arrest.jpg - Wikimedia Commons


----------



## drop bear

I have used an asp.  And played around with the tonfa.  And for me from a practical level as soon as you move away from holding one end and hitting them with the other you get into trouble. 

So the tonfa handle becomes a bit more trouble than it is worth. 

Especially if you are trying to swing on a guy while holding the little handle thing.


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> Wrestling teaches arm control. Which is 90% of the wrist lock. And quite often the bit wrist lock arts miss.



Not necessarily. Depends on the instructor more than the art. In Aikido (at least my dojo) we are constantly stressing the importance of extension. For example, Shihonage, if you do it soft, and let uke keep the arm in a flexed position near his/her center, it becomes ineffective, because you have allowed them to have it back, we keep the arm under significant tension in an extended position, which keeps the arm under control, and also disrupts their balance. The same is with nikyo, sankyo, or any of the others. That being said, I have also seen some Aikido places that don't stress that maintenance of control, and their techniques seem soft because of it.


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> *Is the system designed to churn out crap instructors due to week long instructional courses?
> 
> That then function as a money making franchise because you have to do their course to be qualified to do the job.*
> 
> Which relies on the disposable staff being more likley to be hurt because it is cheaper for the company to replace a broken guard rather than face a law suit.
> 
> And yes my instructors were idiots.
> 
> But look if there is a decent version of ppct out there i would be interested to see it
> 
> But in my experience it has been one of the most damaging things to have happened to people who use force for a living.
> 
> 
> Looks like it has been shaved down to a day.
> 
> PPCT Defensive Tactics Instructor Course



Can't answer that part of it.  I can only speak to the training I have been too (and it has included other training in defensive tactics as well for comparision)  The people who taught PPCT were competent in teaching the system.  They also took pride in their name being attached to it and made sure that those there for the instructor program knew how to apply and teach the techniques.

Also, EVERY SINGLE INSTRUCTOR said that the program for "new certs" was to introduce them to the basic idea of the system and it was up to them to get in the reps to make it a habit.  That is the issue that most people have when it comes to defensive tactics.  Officers take the class and learn the basic movements, but then never practice them or train them and then blame the system on why it won't work.  It won't matter if it is PPCT or the "Gracie Survival Tactics" that they are teaching to LEO.  They can show you the technique and you can become proficient in applying the technique in a limited capacity to teach it to others, but anyone who thinks that it's the system that protects the officers if they don't train on their own is mislead.

As to the link you showed, the course is listed as a week long course for certification (40 hours).  Just like the Gracie program that is supposed to be highly regarded in LEO circles.

Here is the second question that I usually ask people.  What specific technique in PPCT doesn't work?  I have not found a person that can actually answer that part other than them trying to misapply a technique for what it was designed for.


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> Can't answer that part of it.  I can only speak to the training I have been too (and it has included other training in defensive tactics as well for comparision)  The people who taught PPCT were competent in teaching the system.  They also took pride in their name being attached to it and made sure that those there for the instructor program knew how to apply and teach the techniques.
> 
> Also, EVERY SINGLE INSTRUCTOR said that the program for "new certs" was to introduce them to the basic idea of the system and it was up to them to get in the reps to make it a habit.  That is the issue that most people have when it comes to defensive tactics.  Officers take the class and learn the basic movements, but then never practice them or train them and then blame the system on why it won't work.  It won't matter if it is PPCT or the "Gracie Survival Tactics" that they are teaching to LEO.  They can show you the technique and you can become proficient in applying the technique in a limited capacity to teach it to others, but anyone who thinks that it's the system that protects the officers if they don't train on their own is mislead.
> 
> As to the link you showed, the course is listed as a week long course for certification (40 hours).  Just like the Gracie program that is supposed to be highly regarded in LEO circles.
> 
> Here is the second question that I usually ask people.  What specific technique in PPCT doesn't work?  I have not found a person that can actually answer that part other than them trying to misapply a technique for what it was designed for.



I haven't done the Gracie one. It could be craptastic as well.

Trying to think what we were taught now. From memory it was all badly applied wristlocks that were meant to bring every offender under control due to the magic of pain compliance.
Then you put a red man suit on and throw the training out the door and wrestle.





One person goosenecks were always pretty silly.

Straight arm bar takedowns are silly.

Arm bar hold down don't work.

Grinding the neck mostly dosent work

Holding a bat (and this was one of the weirder things)off the shoulder with two fingers dosent work.

Training instructors for a week dosent work.

It all seems to work on the principle that nobody is going to fight back. Which might be what you mean by misapply a technique. So yeah it could work on a guy who is standing there but is not suitable for a guy who is attacking you or resisting.

I would put it the other way. What in that system do you think actually works?


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> I haven't done the Gracie one. It could be craptastic as well.
> 
> Trying to think what we were taught now. From memory it was all badly applied wristlocks that were meant to bring every offender under control due to the magic of pain compliance.
> Then you put a red man suit on and throw the training out the door and wrestle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One person goosenecks were always pretty silly.
> 
> Straight arm bar takedowns are silly.
> 
> Arm bar hold down don't work.
> 
> Grinding the neck mostly dosent work
> 
> Holding a bat (and this was one of the weirder things)off the shoulder with two fingers dosent work.
> 
> Training instructors for a week dosent work.
> 
> It all seems to work on the principle that nobody is going to fight back. Which might be what you mean by misapply a technique. So yeah it could work on a guy who is standing there but is not suitable for a guy who is attacking you or resisting.
> 
> I would put it the other way. What in that system do you think actually works?



Ok, I can kind of see where your training probably went (please correct me if I am wrong) and it is what I talked about "misapplying" the techniques.  Wrist locks etc. are for LOW LEVELS of force (same as the pressure points), think of a non-violent sit in, or a come along where the other person isn't listening to what you are saying, but they are fighting with you.  If you are trying to apply a joint lock to someone actively resisting you (punching/kicking/fighting etc) than you should NOT be trying a joint lock at that time.  If someone takes up a fighting stance, you should be responding with punches/kicks at a MINIMUM and according to the system if they are trying to punch you, you deploy your baton to strike them (+1 theory).

Biggest complaint, pressure points.  Again, they are designed for low levels of force.  It SHOULD BE taught that if you don't gain compliance in a couple of seconds that you try another point and if nothing still, you escalate the force.  Trying to apply pressure points to someone actively wrestling/fighting with you is NOT what the system teaches or suggests.

Straight arm bar takedowns:  I have personally used them on about a half dozen different situations while working in the jail.  Again, understanding positioning and the takedown I haven't had issues with it..  I am not sure what you mean by the "arm bar hold down".  Are you referring to applying an armbar to a prone compliant subject while applying a wristlock for handcuffing purposes?  If so, again it is meant to maintain control of a subject and NOT meant to magically disable someone trying to fight with to handcuff.  Handcuffing is NOT done until the subject is brought under control.

"Goosenecks" (transport wrist locks): Again, I have personally used them several times to escort a semi-cooperative person to where I needed them to go.  Not sure what you didn't like.

Again, to reiterate if a subject is trying to fight with you, then you should be responding with a straight punch (solar plexus/face) knee strikes, muay thai style roundhouse kicks, or low straight kicks to the lower legs, or heel palms (face/torso).  Taking care of punches in PPCT is very similar to other MA's or boxing, you parry straight shots and for looping punches you strike into the arm or where the shoulder/arm meet to stop the rotation.  Takedowns vary, if the person is more aggressive you use an inside takedown (muay thai style neck clinch and then snap down) or use the neck restraint takedown (which if held, chokes out the person to gain compliance).

Everything in PPCT is found in almost all martial arts styles.  The individual techniques work when you have practiced them and use them in the right situation.  Just like any other technique.

As far as that video you showed.  Again, that has some elements to PPCT as far as the pressure point terms, but it has ALOT of stuff that just isn't in the system (like trying to put your knee on the elbow to do a takedown).

I agree that if someone has no MA experience or any other combat sport experience, 40 hours is not enough to get the fine details and be able to teach it properly.  All of our instructors usually had some other type of MA experience so they understood what was being conveyed and could teach it properly.

But, again PPCT is not the "end all, be all", but it is a very good base system with which to build from.  The biggest issues I see with it are agencies that don't teach it properly either because they want to limit all liability and think that you can just use pressure points to "vulcan neck pinch" the guy and he passes out, or they selected someone to get certified that has no business teaching others.  I blame the individuals though and not the physical system itself.

Also, for the record.  I have yet to find an actual video of straight PPCT on youtube.  It is always some hybrid thing that has a bunch of questionable stuff added to it.


----------



## punisher73

punisher73 said:


> Ok, I can kind of see where your training probably went (please correct me if I am wrong) and it is what I talked about "misapplying" the techniques.  Wrist locks etc. are for LOW LEVELS of force (same as the pressure points), think of a non-violent sit in, or a come along where the other person isn't listening to what you are saying, but they are fighting with you.  If you are trying to apply a joint lock to someone actively resisting you (punching/kicking/fighting etc) than you should NOT be trying a joint lock at that time.  If someone takes up a fighting stance, you should be responding with punches/kicks at a MINIMUM and according to the system if they are trying to punch you, you deploy your baton to strike them (+1 theory).  So, when the guy puts on the redman suit there was no real goal for the exercise, so both parties resort to "sparring" or the guy in the redman suit doesn't understand their role and when working the drills keeps jumping straight to "active aggression" which ends up both parties punching/kicking with each other.
> 
> Biggest complaint, pressure points.  Again, they are designed for low levels of force.  It SHOULD BE taught that if you don't gain compliance in a couple of seconds that you try another point and if nothing still, you escalate the force.  Trying to apply pressure points to someone actively wrestling/fighting with you is NOT what the system teaches or suggests.
> 
> Straight arm bar takedowns:  I have personally used them on about a half dozen different situations while working in the jail.  Again, understanding positioning and the takedown I haven't had issues with it..  I am not sure what you mean by the "arm bar hold down".  Are you referring to applying an armbar to a prone compliant subject while applying a wristlock for handcuffing purposes?  If so, again it is meant to maintain control of a subject and NOT meant to magically disable someone trying to fight with to handcuff.  Handcuffing is NOT done until the subject is brought under control.
> 
> "Goosenecks" (transport wrist locks): Again, I have personally used them several times to escort a semi-cooperative person to where I needed them to go.  Not sure what you didn't like.
> 
> Again, to reiterate if a subject is trying to fight with you, then you should be responding with a straight punch (solar plexus/face) knee strikes, muay thai style roundhouse kicks, or low straight kicks to the lower legs, or heel palms (face/torso).  Taking care of punches in PPCT is very similar to other MA's or boxing, you parry straight shots and for looping punches you strike into the arm or where the shoulder/arm meet to stop the rotation.  Takedowns vary, if the person is more aggressive you use an inside takedown (muay thai style neck clinch and then snap down) or use the neck restraint takedown (which if held, chokes out the person to gain compliance).
> 
> Everything in PPCT is found in almost all martial arts styles.  The individual techniques work when you have practiced them and use them in the right situation.  Just like any other technique.
> 
> As far as that video you showed.  Again, that has some elements to PPCT as far as the pressure point terms, but it has ALOT of stuff that just isn't in the system (like trying to put your knee on the elbow to do a takedown).
> 
> I agree that if someone has no MA experience or any other combat sport experience, 40 hours is not enough to get the fine details and be able to teach it properly.  All of our instructors usually had some other type of MA experience so they understood what was being conveyed and could teach it properly.
> 
> But, again PPCT is not the "end all, be all", but it is a very good base system with which to build from.  The biggest issues I see with it are agencies that don't teach it properly either because they want to limit all liability and think that you can just use pressure points to "vulcan neck pinch" the guy and he passes out, or they selected someone to get certified that has no business teaching others.  I blame the individuals though and not the physical system itself.


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> Ok, I can kind of see where your training probably went (please correct me if I am wrong) and it is what I talked about "misapplying" the techniques.  Wrist locks etc. are for LOW LEVELS of force (same as the pressure points), think of a non-violent sit in, or a come along where the other person isn't listening to what you are saying, but they are fighting with you.  If you are trying to apply a joint lock to someone actively resisting you (punching/kicking/fighting etc) than you should NOT be trying a joint lock at that time.  If someone takes up a fighting stance, you should be responding with punches/kicks at a MINIMUM and according to the system if they are trying to punch you, you deploy your baton to strike them (+1 theory).
> 
> Biggest complaint, pressure points.  Again, they are designed for low levels of force.  It SHOULD BE taught that if you don't gain compliance in a couple of seconds that you try another point and if nothing still, you escalate the force.  Trying to apply pressure points to someone actively wrestling/fighting with you is NOT what the system teaches or suggests.
> 
> Straight arm bar takedowns:  I have personally used them on about a half dozen different situations while working in the jail.  Again, understanding positioning and the takedown I haven't had issues with it..  I am not sure what you mean by the "arm bar hold down".  Are you referring to applying an armbar to a prone compliant subject while applying a wristlock for handcuffing purposes?  If so, again it is meant to maintain control of a subject and NOT meant to magically disable someone trying to fight with to handcuff.  Handcuffing is NOT done until the subject is brought under control.
> 
> "Goosenecks" (transport wrist locks): Again, I have personally used them several times to escort a semi-cooperative person to where I needed them to go.  Not sure what you didn't like.
> 
> Again, to reiterate if a subject is trying to fight with you, then you should be responding with a straight punch (solar plexus/face) knee strikes, muay thai style roundhouse kicks, or low straight kicks to the lower legs, or heel palms (face/torso).  Taking care of punches in PPCT is very similar to other MA's or boxing, you parry straight shots and for looping punches you strike into the arm or where the shoulder/arm meet to stop the rotation.  Takedowns vary, if the person is more aggressive you use an inside takedown (muay thai style neck clinch and then snap down) or use the neck restraint takedown (which if held, chokes out the person to gain compliance).
> 
> Everything in PPCT is found in almost all martial arts styles.  The individual techniques work when you have practiced them and use them in the right situation.  Just like any other technique.
> 
> As far as that video you showed.  Again, that has some elements to PPCT as far as the pressure point terms, but it has ALOT of stuff that just isn't in the system (like trying to put your knee on the elbow to do a takedown).
> 
> I agree that if someone has no MA experience or any other combat sport experience, 40 hours is not enough to get the fine details and be able to teach it properly.  All of our instructors usually had some other type of MA experience so they understood what was being conveyed and could teach it properly.
> 
> But, again PPCT is not the "end all, be all", but it is a very good base system with which to build from.  The biggest issues I see with it are agencies that don't teach it properly either because they want to limit all liability and think that you can just use pressure points to "vulcan neck pinch" the guy and he passes out, or they selected someone to get certified that has no business teaching others.  I blame the individuals though and not the physical system itself.
> 
> Also, for the record.  I have yet to find an actual video of straight PPCT on youtube.  It is always some hybrid thing that has a bunch of questionable stuff added to it.



Yeah. I looked for any good stuff as well and couldn't find. 

 If ppct was taught as a system for semi compliant people then 90 percent of its issues would go away. There are still some mechanical processes don't like. But it would at least be moving on the right track.


Here it is taught as the method to restrain people. So if I ever do pop someone then I have gone off reservation and are then liable for criminal charges.

Because instructors never need to validate their methods by any standard there is this propagation of bad instructors applying ineffective techniques.

Ok. Back to what I find actually works.

Numbers are king. No getting around that.

Otherwise more focus on controlling position and less focus on the submission. (Or pain compliance) you should assume nobody will just let you lock on a goose neck. You need an entrance strategy and an exit one. Which ppct in my experience has never covered. Other than somehow sneaking up behind a person and doing a slap and trap or something silly.


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I looked for any good stuff as well and couldn't find.
> 
> If ppct was taught as a system for semi compliant people then 90 percent of its issues would go away. There are still some mechanical processes don't like. But it would at least be moving on the right track.
> 
> 
> Here it is taught as the method to restrain people. So if I ever do pop someone then I have gone off reservation and are then liable for criminal charges.
> 
> Because instructors never need to validate their methods by any standard there is this propagation of bad instructors applying ineffective techniques.
> 
> Ok. Back to what I find actually works.
> 
> Numbers are king. No getting around that.
> 
> Otherwise more focus on controlling position and less focus on the submission. (Or pain compliance) you should assume nobody will just let you lock on a goose neck. You need an entrance strategy and an exit one. Which ppct in my experience has never covered. Other than somehow sneaking up behind a person and doing a slap and trap or something silly.



We are more in agreement than it seems.  I very much agree with your last paragraph, and can only say that we do train our people that way.  But, our area was also the "stomping grounds" of one of the founders/original instructors and standards were very high.  Very old school of "show me that you can get it to work".

I'm curious to know how they taught you the "gooseneck".  The way it _should be _taught, is you having a semi-compliant (not that the system doesn't work it they become aggressive, just that if they are highly aggressive and non-compliant before this, you should be using other tactics) person that you are escorting and their resistance is trying to curl their arm inward. You hit them with a knee strike to the middle of the thigh as a distraction technique, which also buys you a little time to apply the lock.  But, outside of the context of being in the escort position already it is not taught for the reasons you mentioned.  You are highly unlikely to sneak up into that position and just apply it out of thin air.


----------



## punisher73

Sorry, just thought of one more thing in regards to your post about semi-compliant people.  PPCT will tell you that they looked at use of force reports from agencies across the nation and looking at the FBI crime stats.  They found that there were 4 main types/times of resistance.

1) Defensive resistance (just going limp, or not standing up to move etc)
2) Escort position (officer trying to walk somebody)
3) After the first handcuff is put on
4) Punching/Kicking (8-10% of the total uses of force)

It is based on these statistics that they designed their program for what officers are MOST likely to face.  About 90% of the time they aren't dealing with an all out brawl or someone trying to hurt them.  As such, the most tools and time in training is for that 90%.  Again, what gets officers in trouble is applying that 90% stuff to the 10% when someone is trying to really hurt them.


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> We are more in agreement than it seems.  I very much agree with your last paragraph, and can only say that we do train our people that way.  But, our area was also the "stomping grounds" of one of the founders/original instructors and standards were very high.  Very old school of "show me that you can get it to work".
> 
> I'm curious to know how they taught you the "gooseneck".  The way it _should be _taught, is you having a semi-compliant (not that the system doesn't work it they become aggressive, just that if they are highly aggressive and non-compliant before this, you should be using other tactics) person that you are escorting and their resistance is trying to curl their arm inward. You hit them with a knee strike to the middle of the thigh as a distraction technique, which also buys you a little time to apply the lock.  But, outside of the context of being in the escort position already it is not taught for the reasons you mentioned.  You are highly unlikely to sneak up into that position and just apply it out of thin air.



Ok the gooseneck.  Basically you walk up to a guy just standing there.  He lets you apply the lock and then you rack the lock on hard to show that the technique worls.

You can do the slap and trap where you somehow get behind the guy.  Do the same compliant move.  But this time it is done with a series of judo chops and palm strikes.

If you are working in teams you might even get taught to signal them before you do it.  As if going for a wristlock isn an indication you are going for a wrist lock.


----------



## MAfreak

drop bear said:


> I have used an asp.  And played around with the tonfa.  And for me from a practical level as soon as you move away from holding one end and hitting them with the other you get into trouble.
> 
> So the tonfa handle becomes a bit more trouble than it is worth.
> 
> Especially if you are trying to swing on a guy while holding the little handle thing.



? okay, forget about the swing, but you can even punch normally while holding the tonfa, to hit the opponent with the short end. and when opponent uses a bat or something, you just hold in your arm (with the tonfa, of course). i think, its one of the best weapons because it adjusts perfect to the body so one can move like when fighting without weapons. but i know, law enforcement normally isn't about beating the crap out of others, so this would be just for serious self defense situations.









what i don't like is using sticks or staffs for grappling such as joint locking. i personally think, it interferes and is much easier to make with bare hands (maybe a matter of habituation).
do you use stick-grappling as police officers?


----------



## Juany118

First I would like to say I agree with just about everything @punisher73 has said, as such some of the stuff below may seem repetitive.  My context, over 18 years on the job in a small city of 25000 people and a per capita crime rate on par with Cities like Philadelphia, Chicago etc.  I also used to be on a Street Crimes/Narcotics Enforcement Unit that served high risk search warrants and the like.

1. In a Law Enforcement class I don't think you can focus on a single martial art.  Most traditional Martial Arts, especially grappling arts, don't take into account all of the tools on the duty belt, whether it be in terms of retention or accessibility during an encounter.  Note I said traditional.  There are Combative Systems (PPCT, LOCKUP etc that do account for it to my knowledge)

2. Personally I don't think simply teaching techniques is enough.  I believe a Law Enforcement combative system needs to also address the fundamental principles of an encounter. LE combatives, just like all training based on the UoF continuum, is about stopping resistance and aggression before we have to escalate to a higher level of force.  The first step in achieving this goal is to not teach physical techniques but to instruct the LEO in pre-attack indicators.  An officer well trained in this regard will be able to use the techniques taught later to end a fight before it starts.  This section should also cover proper articulation for the purposes of reports, court proceedings etc.

3. After that you need to have a system that A. Explains to the Officer the physiological reactions of a real violent encounter and B. that the actual techniques involved should be based on these as well.  The problem with most such training is that after the training is over Officers don't end to practice a lot on their own.  As such the techniques should rely primarily on gross motor function as those skills aren't as perishable as fine motor function.

I personally study Wing Chun and Filipino Martial Arts, specifically Inosanto Kali.  Many of the  techniques in both these arts though are fine motor skills.  I practice almost every day though so it works.

4. After the techniques you need to teach realistic scenarios.  This may require taking the mats somewhere where you can not only control lighting but also maybe get a patrol car in there.  Why?  Well there may well be times where the conflict happens when your only real source of illumination is the light bar, maybe take down lights etc.  You might want to blare loud music or have the sirens going as well.  You may even want to forgo the mats entirely.  I have seen officers quite skilled in wrestling give themselves concussions because they did take downs that work fine on mats, because the impact to their own head is cushioned, due to muscle memory, forgetting that tarmac is far less forgiving.  Also there is NOTHING that sucks more than doing a take down and having your radio or gun jammed into your hip.

5. Also keep in mind what punisher said.  Joint locks and the like should not be the first techniques attempted against actively aggressive/resisting subject.  Often the bosses, if they did not go through combatives training on the "way up", will default to something like Judo or wrestling because they are simply concerned with the minimal use of force, but striking may well be required, even if a suspect is already on the ground, in order to properly and safely apply restraint maneuvers.

6. You may also want to integrate baton training into the curriculum.

With all the above in mind it may actually behoove you going to the bosses and saying "hey, Judo and Wrestling clearly work but there are "holes" in their application for LE use.  Here is an upcoming train the trainer school on LE Combatives  coming up and I would like to go to it.

@MAfreak I at least have used the expandable baton for escorts and I think that is appropriate for most officers.  Personally I have also used it for quick disarms when people have had sticks and occasionally locks.  The thing is, all of the above are, to an extent, fine motor skills.  I train in Kali as I said and practice regularly so it works for me.  I would only suggest the escort use, and perhaps as a lever, when you get one of those knuckleheads who lies on their stomach and interlocks their hands for your typical officer though. They will, more than likely, not be training the way I do and so not do things appropriately and even risk losing their baton to the suspect.


----------



## Buka

I've never seen two DT programs that were the same, never met or saw two DT Instructors that taught the same things or in the same way. Same goes for Academy training, all different.

It's a real mess. And pretty much always has been.


----------



## Juany118

Buka said:


> I've never seen two DT programs that were the same, never met or saw two DT Instructors that taught the same things or in the same way. Same goes for Academy training, all different.
> 
> It's a real mess. And pretty much always has been.



Oh agreed on that.  The problems I have seen often comes down to the following.
1. Way to many departments do what it appeared the OPs did.  Don't worry about sending someone to a school to learn a comprehensive method, which includes consistent training methods as well, find somebody with martial arts knowledge and ask them to slam something together.  This leads to consistency, and imo liability issues.
2. Trainers get sent to "train the trainer" courses but they themselves don't actually practice afterwards so they end up clinging to the handful of the easiest to maintain techniques.

I think the reason for this was that people kept saying "give the police more tools" and this focus on tools made combatives take a back seat.  However with the focus of LE use of force I believe I see a push for taking combatives more seriously.   That said if a proper program is going to be taught this is what I think the trainer needs to have learned and being capable of teaching not simply skills but to do so in a manner that has been designed specifically with liability in mind.  Whether it's PPCT, LOCKUP etc, if you teach a course that includes liability training from a certified training organization for these systems, usually, you can have someone appear as an "expert" witness in court to testify to the training.  NTOAA does the same thing regarding SWAT Operations, so long as the Team involved adheres to specific training standards.


----------



## Juany118

Buka said:


> I've never seen two DT programs that were the same, never met or saw two DT Instructors that taught the same things or in the same way. Same goes for Academy training, all different.
> 
> It's a real mess. And pretty much always has been.



Let me clarify one thing though.  Consistency in techniques aren't imo strictly necessary between each and every department.  What matters is that the techniques A) work and B) are consistent with the Use of Force Continuum, State Law and Department policy.  

What should be consistent is that the training also includes topics involving the impact of stress of the body during a fight, pre-aggression indicators and protecting yourself and your agency from liability.   It terms of liability the training should address; how to properly articulate the way you recognized the onset of aggression/resistance,  the level of said resistance and the justification for your response in accordance with the use of force continuing, law and policy.


----------



## Buka

I agree, I don't think there should, or could be, an across the board DT program.

Some of the problems with DT - it's considered a necessary liability to start with. And very little training time is allocated to DT programs, especially in service programs. And, as you mentioned above, there's so many departments that just send a guy (with no background even remotely related to controlling people or things) off to a week long course (if that) have him certified and let him teach.

Massachusetts, where I am from, had been notorious for this. Getting better now, though.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I've never seen two DT programs that were the same, never met or saw two DT Instructors that taught the same things or in the same way. Same goes for Academy training, all different.
> 
> It's a real mess. And pretty much always has been.



We sort of have that but there is only a few industry instructor mills.  So the training is pretty consistent. It is just consistently bad.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Let me clarify one thing though. Consistency in techniques aren't imo strictly necessary between each and every department. What matters is that the techniques A) work and B) are consistent with the Use of Force Continuum, State Law and Department policy.



It is important when you are trying to achieve 1 thing.  That the other guy helping you isn't working against you.


----------



## Langenschwert

An important question is what do you want your potential students to be able to do? What holes in their training are you being asked to fill?


----------



## Charlemagne

The two best police DT programs that I am aware of are from Gracie Academy and from Texas Kali Association (contact Erwin Ballarta who is a DT instructor in Texas, and has been for years).  
Gracie Survival Tactics
http://tacticalkali.com/bios.htm

_As a disclaimer, though I train these arts, I have no affiliation with either of these organizations or instructors.  _


----------



## Juany118

Langenschwert said:


> An important question is what do you want your potential students to be able to do? What holes in their training are you being asked to fill?



Tbh, it terms of unarmed combatives, if a Police Department is asking for such a program they have to ask for pretty much every hole to be filled because the training has to be uniformed from the rookie grab out of the academy to the over weight 35 year veteran who sits behind a desk.  Welcome to the world of liability in law enforcement


----------



## Juany118

Charlemagne said:


> The two best police DT programs that I am aware of are from Gracie Academy and from Texas Kali Association (contact Erwin Ballarta who is a DT instructor in Texas, and has been for years).
> Gracie Survival Tactics
> http://tacticalkali.com/bios.htm
> 
> _As a disclaimer, though I train these arts, I have no affiliation with either of these organizations or instructors.  _



There is also PPCT, LOCKUP etc.  All of them are reputable but, and I assumed the OP knew this, if you are going to go with these kinda things, call your State Police, State Municipal Training Authority etc. because some States actually will say "Combatives system X and only X meets the State Standard" and if you go into court with something else, you can have issues.


----------



## Langenschwert

Juany118 said:


> Tbh, it terms of unarmed combatives, if a Police Department is asking for such a program they have to ask for pretty much every hole to be filled because the training has to be uniformed from the rookie grab out of the academy to the over weight 35 year veteran who sits behind a desk.  Welcome to the world of liability in law enforcement



If that's the case, then something like this might be a better idea. I'm a big fan of Kelly McCann's stuff:

Home - Kembativz


----------



## Juany118

Langenschwert said:


> If that's the case, then something like this might be a better idea. I'm a big fan of Kelly McCann's stuff:
> 
> Home - Kembativz



The thing is, from researching that, it appear they dont do what most LE agencies want.  They do not only want the training for their officers they often want the following as well.

1. A course where they can have selected personnel trained as instructors.  In this way you are not locked in to waiting for someone else to have a course or have to potentially pay a fee up front to have the company in question show up.  They also often like this because different States and LE Agencies may have different Laws or policies regarding UoF.  Having your own instructor allows you to tailor the training to these requirements.

2. They also often look for legal expert testimony, from the Company for the purposes of Law Suits.  This is rarely supplied by companies that simply train their personnel in combatives BUT it is not uncommon in terms of those who have provided "train the trainer" seminars, so long as the in house instructor has proper documentation for the training itself and the reports etc reflect that the combative system itself was used properly.

It's all about liability.


----------



## drop bear

Langenschwert said:


> An important question is what do you want your potential students to be able to do? What holes in their training are you being asked to fill?



Mostly for me it is making them realise what does what. So if I am hanging off an arm the can grab the other arm and hang off that.  It dosent matter which lock at that point.

Or. I have a guy wrapped up. He needs to know how to take a guy down from there.

Or if I am on the ground then the other guy needs to protect me from interference.

They need to know that if I go in they go in and not stand around like an idiot waiting to see what happens.

Rugby does this the best tactically where both guys are doing the one job. Because they both have an idea what the other is trying to do. And because they have planned for it and drilled it.






Ever seen a tazer fail video. It is almost always an example of crap wrestling.
















The Gracie module has the better tactical approach. Earlier in the thread we could not find any decent PPCT. At least there is an example of decent Gracie stuff.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The thing is, from researching that, it appear they do what most LE agencies want.  They do not only want the training for their officers they often want the following as well.
> 
> 1. A course where they can have selected personnel trained as instructors.  In this way you are not locked in to waiting for someone else to have a course or have to potentially pay a fee up front to have the company in question show up.  They also often like this because different States and LE Agencies may have different Laws or policies regarding UoF.  Having your own instructor allows you to tailor the training to these requirements.
> 
> 2. They also often look for legal expert testimony, from the Company for the purposes of Law Suits.  This is rarely supplied by companies that simply train their personnel in combatives BUT it is not uncommon in terms of those who have provided "train the trainer" seminars, so long as the in house instructor has proper documentation for the training itself and the reports etc reflect that the combative system itself was used properly.
> 
> It's all about liability.



Because it costs more for the criminal to be hurt that the officer. Making the officer disposable.


And that infuriates me.

Also that industry trainers are making a living perpetuating this belief.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Because it costs more for the criminal to be hurt that the officer. Making the officer disposable.
> 
> 
> And that infuriates me.
> 
> Also that industry trainers are making a living perpetuating this belief.



First I screwed up the first line of the post you quoted.  It should read "don't do what most..." not simply "do what..."

Oh I agree that budgets are part of it BUT some of the systems actually have good rates to train an instructor though.  Example you can get quality "train the trainer" training for $400-$1200, the higher end for systems that may have multiple courses like PPC and Gracie.  This pays dividends in the long run though, if you keep the certs current.  New officers get trained on your agencies schedule, you can even use it for revenue generation by hosting your own regional Combatives training.

I do agree with you however regarding the companies/systems that do NOT offer "train the trainer" courses. Gracie, PPCT and LOCKUP all offer these "train the trainer" courses.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> Mostly for me it is making them realise what does what. So if I am hanging off an arm the can grab the other arm and hang off that.  It dosent matter which lock at that point....
> 
> Or. I have a guy wrapped up. He needs to know how to take a guy down from there.
> 
> Or if I am on the ground then the other guy needs to protect me from interference.
> 
> They need to know that if I go in they go in and not stand around like an idiot waiting to see what happens.




Here is L.o.c.k.u.p, it's started in the US but has spread.  Also I noted check with your State here in the US because if you are in CT (as an example) the only authorized system is L.o.c.k.u.p.  Sorry for the language in this one not being english






and here is another






As for PPCT one of the things you have to understand is that different systems teach differently.  Many of the drills I have seen in PPCT are just that drills.  They are there to teach you the various places and ways one can strike and type give an example of flowing one into the other but that flow is just that only one example. 

I am a bigger fan of L.o.c.k.u.p personally, since it will puit you in realistic scenarios, right down to a mud bog if that is what the field is at the time of training, but PPCT actually does work.  I think the problem with PPCT is that it is taught in a way that someone familiar with traditional martial arts training can follow, if you aren't familiar with the concept of a drill in MA training though, you will see the drill not as simply a series of potential steps designed to show targets and avenues of attacks but rather as a set sequence that must be followed and that does create issues with someone unfamiliar with Martial Arts training.  Most PPCT instructors in my area are also Martial Arts instructors and I think they forget to keep this in mind when teaching and explain "you do not have to do a brachial stun, followed by a strike to the bicept, followed by a double knee strike followed by a head take down.  This is just to illustrate how to apply the techniques and a possible combination."  Hell a properly applied brachial stun will drop someone with one shot.  This is just one example...






The only other thing I will say is that, in reality, getting a guy "wrapped up" in police work is not high on the lists of priorities , especially on the ground.  That creates issues with disengagement, weapon retention and access.  It really sucks when you are down wrapping a guy up and then realize "oh look, he had a weapon and it's draw now."  Additionally the system has to acknowledge the reality of police work in most communities.  I work in a small city of 25,000 people with a crime rate per capita a kin to cities like Philadelphia and Chicago.  In that environment we will often be running 4 officers (splitting the town into 4 zones) and 1 supervisor.  As such you often may find yourself in a violent confrontation where there is no one to protect you from interference for some minutes depending on where the back up unit(s) are coming from.  As such the ground is not a place you want to go.  Take the bad guy there but you need to stay up if at all possible so you can disengage if necessary.  This is pretty common outside of the larger cities in the USA.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Here is L.o.c.k.u.p, it's started in the US but has spread.  Also I noted check with your State here in the US because if you are in CT (as an example) the only authorized system is L.o.c.k.u.p.  Sorry for the language in this one not being english
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and here is another
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for PPCT one of the things you have to understand is that different systems teach differently.  Many of the drills I have seen in PPCT are just that drills.  They are there to teach you the various places and ways one can strike and type give an example of flowing one into the other but that flow is just that only one example.
> 
> I am a bigger fan of L.o.c.k.u.p personally, since it will puit you in realistic scenarios, right down to a mud bog if that is what the field is at the time of training, but PPCT actually does work.  I think the problem with PPCT is that it is taught in a way that someone familiar with traditional martial arts training can follow, if you aren't familiar with the concept of a drill in MA training though, you will see the drill not as simply a series of potential steps designed to show targets and avenues of attacks but rather as a set sequence that must be followed and that does create issues with someone unfamiliar with Martial Arts training.  Most PPCT instructors in my area are also Martial Arts instructors and I think they forget to keep this in mind when teaching and explain "you do not have to do a brachial stun, followed by a strike to the bicept, followed by a double knee strike followed by a head take down.  This is just to illustrate how to apply the techniques and a possible combination."  Hell a properly applied brachial stun will drop someone with one shot.  This is just one example...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only other thing I will say is that, in reality, getting a guy "wrapped up" in police work is not high on the lists of priorities , especially on the ground.  That creates issues with disengagement, weapon retention and access.  It really sucks when you are down wrapping a guy up and then realize "oh look, he had a weapon and it's draw now."  Additionally the system has to acknowledge the reality of police work in most communities.  I work in a small city of 25,000 people with a crime rate per capita a kin to cities like Philadelphia and Chicago.  In that environment we will often be running 4 officers (splitting the town into 4 zones) and 1 supervisor.  As such you often may find yourself in a violent confrontation where there is no one to protect you from interference for some minutes depending on where the back up unit(s) are coming from.  As such the ground is not a place you want to go.  Take the bad guy there but you need to stay up if at all possible so you can disengage if necessary.  This is pretty common outside of the larger cities in the USA.



There is a lot wrong with that. But it will take me a while to get it properly nutted out.

Otherwise environmental concerns has been the least of my worries. There is potentially things you would not do in some environments. But for the most part I have never even noticed that it was especially dark.

If it is slippery you are probably going *** up. Such is life. I don't think there is really slippery surface fighting.

Boggy or muddy is not nice but does not change what you would do.

It seems like time wasted to ad an element of realism that does not really make a difference.

You get this a lot with the rsbd guys. Who do moves and techniques in drills that are not really reasonable on a guy who is resisting and then talk realism by putting on camo pants.

It would physically have to change the tactics or techniques to have merit.

So for example I will hold a guy down like this.






Rather than this.





Because it rips up your knees on concrete. But that is a comfort issue. You can get p fine at any time by just sticking your knee into their face and standing up.


----------



## drop bear

See I don't get why people are trading off simple back takes and fighting from safe positions for things like outer wrist lock throws. And punching guys in the bicept. 






You can't safely fire off wristlocks from inside the pocket. I have tried it and have scars from it. And it is pretty self explanatory.

If you wind up here.





Or here.





You are probably going to get punched in the mouth. It does not take a tactical genius to figure that out. 

So don't fight from there. Especially if you have limited training.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Additionally the system has to acknowledge the reality of police work in most communities. I work in a small city of 25,000 people with a crime rate per capita a kin to cities like Philadelphia and Chicago. In that environment we will often be running 4 officers (splitting the town into 4 zones) and 1 supervisor. As such you often may find yourself in a violent confrontation where there is no one to protect you from interference for some minutes depending on where the back up unit(s) are coming from. As such the ground is not a place you want to go. Take the bad guy there but you need to stay up if at all possible so you can disengage if necessary.



The system is then perpetuating the reality that you are disposable and nobody will take responsibility when you fail.

There is no system that will let you safely and professionally manhandle some random on the street on your own. 

And so long as the trainer makes money and goes home safely to his family he won't care.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> There is a lot wrong with that. But it will take me a while to get it properly nutted out.
> 
> Otherwise environmental concerns has been the least of my worries. There is potentially things you would not do in some environments. But for the most part I have never even noticed that it was especially dark.
> 
> If it is slippery you are probably going *** up. Such is life. I don't think there is really slippery surface fighting.
> 
> Boggy or muddy is not nice but does not change what you would do.
> 
> It seems like time wasted to ad an element of realism that does not really make a difference.



On the last bit it is not wasted time, "you train like you fight" is a saying from every military in the world.  Why do soldiers crawl through dirt and mud in the army?  So it does not cause them to hesitate in a real situation, so you practice "yeah I may slip but that can not slow me down", yeah I may be getting muddy but I can't recoil.  I need to run, hop a simulated fence like I would in a foot pursuit and THEN if I get the suspect corned be ready to fight regardless of the grading of the terrain.  This is the stuff I was talking about in another thread when I spoke about the difference between the ring and real life (at least my real life.)  Simply saying "such is life" and actually acting like that in real life are two very different things believe me. I will provide an example of this at the end.  

Also LOCKDOWN involves not just low light conditions but bizarre light and sound conditions.  Things look VERY different and can even be disorienting, in a real fight when you are on the "wrong side" of a spot light, take down lights, the red and blues and potentially a siren still blaring.  Heck the CIA used similar conditions as part of "enhanced interrogations", now imagine fighting in them.



> You get this a lot with the rsbd guys. Who do moves and techniques in drills that are not really reasonable on a guy who is resisting and then talk realism by putting on camo pants.
> 
> It would physically have to change the tactics or techniques to have merit.
> 
> So for example I will hold a guy down like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it rips up your knees on concrete. But that is a comfort issue. You can get p fine at any time by just sticking your knee into their face and standing up.



And both of these are actually try to never ever in 100 million years do them as a Police officer.  In the second video I show you will actually see an officer on his back with the bad guy on top of him (bad guy in white t-shirt).  The officer then reverses it and begins to stand because in both of these positions the bad guy both A. prevents you from getting to tools (in terms of my duty belt, taser, OC spray, spare mags and spare cuffs) and B. can access tools.  As such the officer who uses these is making a cardinal error.  If the officer is forced into this situation they want to rapidly swap to either an arm or leg control technique that does not have you in a position where you can't easily disengage (if necessary) access your tools and prevent access to them by the bad guy.  btw concrete ripping up your knees?  that is one thing I will admit you have to deal with in order to protect your tools.

As for an example...true story and it brings just about everything above into the pile.  

1.  It is after midnight and I see a guy I have been looking for on a warrant.  I call it out over the in car radio. It is an urban environment with those crappy yellowish street lamps, half of them burned out, no such lights in the alleys.  Also row homes with only occassional breeze ways you can cut through.  Also this section of town dates back to pre-Civil War so you have these kind of fences all over.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




2.  I get out and start chatting him up because I am a bigger fan of Dr. George Thompson - Verbal Judo Tactics & Techniques than fighting, it actually works more than you would think.  I move to take him into custody and he played along until just that "right time" when he could make a break.  Off to the races.  My portable radio is "bonking" out because we were in a transition mode to new digital frequencies and a tiny switch got trip (f-you Motorola) so no one knows the foot pursuit has started.

3.  down the street into the alley.  cut through a breezeway.  He hops a fence like that.  I try to cut the pie to cut him off and do the same "ahead of him".  Ooops the crap light, it was a gate and moved.  luckily it hit my left cheek when I landed and didn't give me a prostate exam.

4.  I finally catch up with him a block and a half away from my car.  During this time my back up has found my car, my one pair of cuffs in the middle of the street but since the radio is bonking out is now running through the alley I was in yelling "JUANY!!!!!!!!!!!" trying to find me.

5.  Now back then I was operating under my Aikido training that included ground techniques from Jujutsu.  The SOB got my OC canister out.  Luckily at the time we were issued the foam and I managed to knock it away and it just splattered on my cheek.  if it was "spray" I would have been done.  I then flipped him onto his belly and did what I should have done in the first place, slammed my knee into the small of his back to keep him down, but that transition from a BAD position to this freed an arm to come back and elbow me in the nuts before I got him under control and my back up found me.

The above is how a real world LE violent encounter happens.  training inside on mats doesn't prepare you for this.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> The system is then perpetuating the reality that you are disposable and nobody will take responsibility when you fail.
> 
> There is no system that will let you safely and professionally manhandle some random on the street on your own.
> 
> And so long as the trainer makes money and goes home safely to his family he won't care.



The system isn't.  Not even particular departments.  My department is very big on real life training (it likely helps one of our Officers is actually a Nationally recognized trainer in SWAT tactics and Combatives) such as extensive low light engagement with firearms as well as the rest etc. so we don't need to spend money on outside people.  However when the issue does arise the Departments do the best they can with the money they have.  However in terms of the various courses I have seen outside of my Department I would have to say that L.O.C.K.U.P, with the real world simulation training is what I would recommend for departments looking for outside trainers because it integrates environmental factors and that is insanely important.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> On the last bit it is not wasted time, "you train like you fight" is a saying from every military in the world.  Why do soldiers crawl through dirt and mud in the army?  So it does not cause them to hesitate in a real situation, so you practice "yeah I may slip but that can not slow me down", yeah I may be getting muddy but I can't recoil.  I need to run, hop a simulated fence like I would in a foot pursuit and THEN if I get the suspect corned be ready to fight regardless of the grading of the terrain.  This is the stuff I was talking about in another thread when I spoke about the difference between the ring and real life (at least my real life.)  Simply saying "such is life" and actually acting like that in real life are two very different things believe me. I will provide an example of this at the end.
> 
> Also LOCKDOWN involves not just low light conditions but bizarre light and sound conditions.  Things look VERY different and can even be disorienting, in a real fight when you are on the "wrong side" of a spot light, take down lights, the red and blues and potentially a siren still blaring.  Heck the CIA used similar conditions as part of "enhanced interrogations", now imagine fighting in them.
> 
> 
> 
> And both of these are actually try to never ever in 100 million years do them as a Police officer.  In the second video I show you will actually see an officer on his back with the bad guy on top of him (bad guy in white t-shirt).  The officer then reverses it and begins to stand because in both of these positions the bad guy both A. prevents you from getting to tools (in terms of my duty belt, taser, OC spray, spare mags and spare cuffs) and B. can access tools.  As such the officer who uses these is making a cardinal error.  If the officer is forced into this situation they want to rapidly swap to either an arm or leg control technique that does not have you in a position where you can't easily disengage (if necessary) access your tools and prevent access to them by the bad guy.  btw concrete ripping up your knees?  that is one thing I will admit you have to deal with in order to protect your tools.
> 
> As for an example...true story and it brings just about everything above into the pile.
> 
> 1.  It is after midnight and I see a guy I have been looking for on a warrant.  I call it out over the in car radio. It is an urban environment with those crappy yellowish street lamps, half of them burned out, no such lights in the alleys.  Also row homes with only occassional breeze ways you can cut through.  Also this section of town dates back to pre-Civil War so you have these kind of fences all over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  I get out and start chatting him up because I am a bigger fan of Dr. George Thompson - Verbal Judo Tactics & Techniques than fighting, it actually works more than you would think.  I move to take him into custody and he played along until just that "right time" when he could make a break.  Off to the races.  My portable radio is "bonking" out because we were in a transition mode to new digital frequencies and a tiny switch got trip (f-you Motorola) so no one knows the foot pursuit has started.
> 
> 3.  down the street into the alley.  cut through a breezeway.  He hops a fence like that.  I try to cut the pie to cut him off and do the same "ahead of him".  Ooops the crap light, it was a gate and moved.  luckily it hit my left cheek when I landed and didn't give me a prostate exam.
> 
> 4.  I finally catch up with him a block and a half away from my car.  During this time my back up has found my car, my one pair of cuffs in the middle of the street but since the radio is bonking out is now running through the alley I was in yelling "JUANY!!!!!!!!!!!" trying to find me.
> 
> 5.  Now back then I was operating under my Aikido training that included ground techniques from Jujutsu.  The SOB got my OC canister out.  Luckily at the time we were issued the foam and I managed to knock it away and it just splattered on my cheek.  if it was "spray" I would have been done.  I then flipped him onto his belly and did what I should have done in the first place, slammed my knee into the small of his back to keep him down, but that transition from a BAD position to this freed an arm to come back and elbow me in the nuts before I got him under control and my back up found me.
> 
> The above is how a real world LE violent encounter happens.  training inside on mats doesn't prepare you for this.



1. I worked in night clubs which are as bad for disorienting sound and lighting as you can get. 

2. Training realistic techniques live on a mat is more honest than drilling unrealistic techniques in a dark room. 

Everybody has had a keystone cops violent encounter.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The system isn't.  Not even particular departments.  My department is very big on real life training (it likely helps one of our Officers is actually a Nationally recognized trainer in SWAT tactics and Combatives) such as extensive low light engagement with firearms as well as the rest etc. so we don't need to spend money on outside people.  However when the issue does arise the Departments do the best they can with the money they have.  However in terms of the various courses I have seen outside of my Department I would have to say that L.O.C.K.U.P, with the real world simulation training is what I would recommend for departments looking for outside trainers because it integrates environmental factors and that is insanely important.



But can't put two guys in a car.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> But can't put two guys in a car.



First none of the below is to say that your methods do not work for your purposes.  I think you simply don't understand that there are factors in US LE that you do not understand.

First simply because a guy left the LAPD and their SWAT team and came to ours because his wife wanted to move home and raise her kids in her home State has nothing to do with the minimum manpower # the PD operates with. (we max at 6 and a supervisor).  PS he wishes he was still back with the LAPD, he just cared more for his wife and kids because the schools they go to are better, they have a house with a yard etc.

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).

As for unrealistic I can tell you from 18 years of experience one thing the techniques you showed as examples of what to do are the last resort want to avoid at all costs for any law enforcement officer due to the fact that unlike other Countries most PDs have all of the officer's gear on the belt around their waist and the techniques you illustrated fail to take this into account completely.

Also after over 18 years on the jobs the techniques shown in that video actually do work.  You have to remember something... yeah the "bad guy" isn't going all out, but neither is the officer.  Also note that they actually train to only apply said grappling maneuvers after striking, you just can't be punching the crap out of instructors.  

Also just focusing on the lights and noise of a squad car vs a club ignores everything else I mentioned.  If your sirens are still on that is because you had a vehicle pursuit.  That pursuit in and of itself created the fight or flight response that you will get in a fight because each intersection could result in a pile up.  Police Combatives need to account for that.  Also training so you know what it's like starting the fight after hopping fences and running for a block or too is also very important because before you go hands on you will already be fatigued, possibly even with minor injuries.  If you can't deal with those in training you sure as heck wont be able to do it on the street so you need to "train like you fight" not only so you know what can happen but so that you can say to yourself "yeah I can do that".


----------



## Langenschwert

Wow, that sounds like a major pain from a curriculum perspective. Judo is simply not comprehensive enough to deal with that, nor was it ever meant to be. I understand that the Tokyo police use Judo, but as a Judoka myself I suspect it is heavily adapted. There's not much need for kuzushi when you can use a good strike to soften the suspect up if needed. The pins used in Judo will probably be useful, but the standard clinch (lapel and elbow) is not, as you can get fed punches or gods forbid get stabbed. Much better for that is the medieval arm clinch, which is bicep and elbow. It has the added advantage of working well whether there's a jacket or not, and allows good visibility too. It breaks structure quite well by pushing the bicep and pulling at the wrist.

But that's just a technique, not a curriculum. 

Certainly Judo has a lot of good things that can be adapted by LEOs, and so does wrestling. Neither will be a panacea for a lack of a good police combatives program.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> 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).



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.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> As for unrealistic I can tell you from 18 years of experience one thing the techniques you showed as examples of what to do are the last resort want to avoid at all costs for any law enforcement officer due to the fact that unlike other Countries most PDs have all of the officer's gear on the belt around their waist and the techniques you illustrated fail to take this into account completely.



What other countries have police that don't have belt kit?

Ok Australia and England are moving towards vests. And where as I have fought guys in belt kits baton handcuffs no gun. I haven't used. Vest.

And where I can show you numerous examples of police wrestling in belt kit. You will struggle to show one cop anywhere pulling off an outer wristlock throw.




















Good job America is the only country where police have belt kit.

So you will have to rely on this assertion based on nothing that it works. Which is the same assertion I got from DT instructors.  Also based on nothing. And especially a cop on his own because two people in a car is some sort of science fiction apparently.

Now for me if was putting together a system for police I would be very wary of relying on techniques that have no actual basis in real life. Regards as to whether they drill the thing in the dark.

There is this saying. Train how you fight.

 So if police fights look like wrestling and not arm punches outer wristlocks and some of that other never used stuff in lockup. I would train something that looks like the sort of fight they would get in to.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> What other countries have police that don't have belt kit?
> 
> Ok Australia and England are moving towards vests. And where as I have fought guys in belt kits baton handcuffs no gun. I haven't used. Vest.
> 
> And where I can show you numerous examples of police wrestling in belt kit. You will struggle to show one cop anywhere pulling off an outer wristlock throw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good job America is the only country where police have belt kit.
> 
> So you will have to rely on this assertion based on nothing that it works. Which is the same assertion I got from DT instructors.  Also based on nothing. And especially a cop on his own because two people in a car is some sort of science fiction apparently.
> 
> Now for me if was putting together a system for police I would be very wary of relying on techniques that have no actual basis in real life. Regards as to whether they drill the thing in the dark.
> 
> There is this saying. Train how you fight.
> 
> So if police fights look like wrestling and not arm punches outer wristlocks and some of that other never used stuff in lockup. I would train something that looks like the sort of fight they would get in to.




There is a difference regarding the amount of belt kit, in comparison to other countries, you noted some of them.  Also even other places that use belts don't have half the stuff on their belts.  On my belt I have the following things.
Right hip...
1.S&W M&P
Across the front...
2. OC spray
3. Rescue knife (seat belt cutter/window punch)
4. Second pair of cuffs
5. 2 spare magazines
6. Taser.
Left hip
7. The radio 
Across back
8. Flash light
9. Glove pouch
10. Hand cuffs
11. Baton.

I think you missed my point.  The point was the techniques you were championing are bad for Law Enforcement in terms of access and retention of gear.  I was being generous and assumed that you didn't know that equipment access and retention needs to be part of the curriculum and as you are apparently not a LEO gave you the benefit of the doubt that the cops you see don't have a lot of gear on their belt.

So I stand corrected.  You simply think that your idea has to be correct because, well it's your idea, regardless of centuries of military and LE success in terms of "train like you fight" and your complete ignorance in terms of the requirements of LE combatives.

As for your snarky comment regarding one man patrol vehicles here is an article specifically to that point and arguing how it has to change, since clearly you won't take the word of any poster that contradicts your TV and YouTube driven vision of LE deployment  Two-Officer Cars: The Buddy System.

One of the key paragraphs



> Very few American law enforcement agencies deploy two officers per vehicle. The reasons for having their officers ride solo are easily understood. Most agencies have too few officers to even consider two-officer patrols. Others who have enough sworn personnel to field two-officer units say they need their officers to ride solo to cover the jurisdiction.
> 
> And of course the biggest argument larger agencies have against two-officer patrols is cost. Thanks to a study of the San Diego Police Department that was conducted in the mid-1970s that said the SDPD spent more than 80% more money to field two-officer patrols than single-officer patrols, it is widely believed that running two-officer patrols is much more expensive than single officer patrols



Now it also notes it is not Universal, LA and NYPD run two man cars but the vast majority of jurisdictions don't run two man cars in the US.  Not Science fiction, it is simple fact.  By the way I would LOVE it if it was otherwise but facts are facts, even if they contradict your uninformed opinion.


----------



## Buka

Juany118 said:


> On the last bit it is not wasted time, "you train like you fight" is a saying from every military in the world.  Why do soldiers crawl through dirt and mud in the army?  So it does not cause them to hesitate in a real situation, so you practice "yeah I may slip but that can not slow me down", yeah I may be getting muddy but I can't recoil.  I need to run, hop a simulated fence like I would in a foot pursuit and THEN if I get the suspect corned be ready to fight regardless of the grading of the terrain.  This is the stuff I was talking about in another thread when I spoke about the difference between the ring and real life (at least my real life.)  Simply saying "such is life" and actually acting like that in real life are two very different things believe me. I will provide an example of this at the end.
> 
> Also LOCKDOWN involves not just low light conditions but bizarre light and sound conditions.  Things look VERY different and can even be disorienting, in a real fight when you are on the "wrong side" of a spot light, take down lights, the red and blues and potentially a siren still blaring.  Heck the CIA used similar conditions as part of "enhanced interrogations", now imagine fighting in them.
> 
> 
> 
> And both of these are actually try to never ever in 100 million years do them as a Police officer.  In the second video I show you will actually see an officer on his back with the bad guy on top of him (bad guy in white t-shirt).  The officer then reverses it and begins to stand because in both of these positions the bad guy both A. prevents you from getting to tools (in terms of my duty belt, taser, OC spray, spare mags and spare cuffs) and B. can access tools.  As such the officer who uses these is making a cardinal error.  If the officer is forced into this situation they want to rapidly swap to either an arm or leg control technique that does not have you in a position where you can't easily disengage (if necessary) access your tools and prevent access to them by the bad guy.  btw concrete ripping up your knees?  that is one thing I will admit you have to deal with in order to protect your tools.
> 
> As for an example...true story and it brings just about everything above into the pile.
> 
> 1.  It is after midnight and I see a guy I have been looking for on a warrant.  I call it out over the in car radio. It is an urban environment with those crappy yellowish street lamps, half of them burned out, no such lights in the alleys.  Also row homes with only occassional breeze ways you can cut through.  Also this section of town dates back to pre-Civil War so you have these kind of fences all over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  I get out and start chatting him up because I am a bigger fan of Dr. George Thompson - Verbal Judo Tactics & Techniques than fighting, it actually works more than you would think.  I move to take him into custody and he played along until just that "right time" when he could make a break.  Off to the races.  My portable radio is "bonking" out because we were in a transition mode to new digital frequencies and a tiny switch got trip (f-you Motorola) so no one knows the foot pursuit has started.
> 
> 3.  down the street into the alley.  cut through a breezeway.  He hops a fence like that.  I try to cut the pie to cut him off and do the same "ahead of him".  Ooops the crap light, it was a gate and moved.  luckily it hit my left cheek when I landed and didn't give me a prostate exam.
> 
> 4.  I finally catch up with him a block and a half away from my car.  During this time my back up has found my car, my one pair of cuffs in the middle of the street but since the radio is bonking out is now running through the alley I was in yelling "JUANY!!!!!!!!!!!" trying to find me.
> 
> 5.  Now back then I was operating under my Aikido training that included ground techniques from Jujutsu.  The SOB got my OC canister out.  Luckily at the time we were issued the foam and I managed to knock it away and it just splattered on my cheek.  if it was "spray" I would have been done.  I then flipped him onto his belly and did what I should have done in the first place, slammed my knee into the small of his back to keep him down, but that transition from a BAD position to this freed an arm to come back and elbow me in the nuts before I got him under control and my back up found me.
> 
> The above is how a real world LE violent encounter happens.  training inside on mats doesn't prepare you for this.



I so like this post. Stay safe, bro.


----------



## Juany118

Buka said:


> I so like this post. Stay safe, bro.



Thanks on the first, always on the last, the wife would kick my *** otherwise lol.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> There is a difference regarding the amount of belt kit, in comparison to other countries, you noted some of them. Also even other places that use belts don't have half the stuff on their belts. On my belt I have the following things.
> Right hip...
> 1.S&W M&P
> Across the front...
> 2. OC spray
> 3. Rescue knife (seat belt cutter/window punch)
> 4. Second pair of cuffs
> 5. 2 spare magazines
> 6. Taser.
> Left hip
> 7. The radio
> Across back
> 8. Flash light
> 9. Glove pouch
> 10. Hand cuffs
> 11. Baton.
> 
> I think you missed my point. The point was the techniques you were championing are bad for Law Enforcement in terms of access and retention of gear. I was being generous and assumed that you didn't know that equipment access and retention needs to be part of the curriculum and as you are apparently not a LEO gave you the benefit of the doubt that the cops you see don't have a lot of gear on their belt.



So what happens here if i say, just google Australian police belt and the cops i see do have about the same amount of gear.  

But there is a much more nuanced debate about gear retention. Which is about positional advantage.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Now it also notes it is not Universal, LA and NYPD run two man cars but the vast majority of jurisdictions don't run two man cars in the US. Not Science fiction, it is simple fact. By the way I would LOVE it if it was otherwise but facts are facts, even if they contradict your uninformed opinion.



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


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


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


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.

As for your prior response.

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 nuance you seem to think exists in the debate really doesn't. You can of course debate it in terms of other occupations, unarmed bouncers as an example but in terms of armed LE it is different.  Reasons.

1. It is not just about retention, it is about access as well.

2. A officer has to be prepared to disengage.  Maybe the suspect had a concealed weapon that they have managed to get?  Maybe their buddies are now closing and you have to address multiple threats?  There are other circumstances but the maneuvers you seem to champion are simply bad for a dynamic real life fight where you may have to disengage and be mobile very quickly.  

Officers do need to know how to ground fight however the primary reason is not to get someone in a BJJ submission hold like the two photos you showed, it's so you can get OUT of them if the bad guy tries to get you into one or if you are forced to, because the bad guy is close to overwhelming you and the only way to possibly avoid it is to use a non-preferred technique.

3. Yes retention is a part of it as well, why?  

---a. Because until you get into that "position of advantage" the suspect can access your tools.  If he starts grabbing for one you have to then basically have to stop going for that position to address the fact the bad guy is going for one of your tools.  So why bother going for it in the first place?
---b. If you manage to get the suspect into an inferior position there are few positions of advantage where the bad guy can't get at something unless the bad guy is flat on his face.  Maybe it's the baton or flashlight on your back?  The gun on the right hip or the taser on the opposite side front?  If the bad guy is flat on his face there is no reason to lay on him as in your second photo, locking up his rear legs, a knee to the kidney, small of the back, or between the shoulder blades and a wrist/elbow lock, do the job and allow for 1, 2 and 3.

I get it... for you the techniques you posted photos of work, but even the guy I work with who had trained in BJJ for the last 15 years would never use something like that as a first option.  Btw, all the Combatives I know, LOCKUP, PPCT and Gracie Survival Tactics have ground fighting in their curriculum but the techniques you are a fan of are taught as last resort kind of measures.  I would suspect that people creating programs for LE, using decades of experience, plus all the other cops I know, would have a better idea as to what is preferred tactics in a LE setting.


drop bear said:


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




Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## 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

Juany118 said:


> 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.




Juany118 said:


> 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

Juany118 said:


> 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

drop bear said:


> 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

drop bear said:


> 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

jks9199 said:


> 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

jks9199 said:


> 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

jks9199 said:


> 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

drop bear said:


> 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

drop bear said:


> 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

jks9199 said:


> 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

Juany118 said:


> 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

drop bear said:


> 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

drop bear said:


> 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

drop bear said:


> 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

jks9199 said:


> 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

jks9199 said:


> 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

Buka said:


> 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.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> 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.



Ahh look, simple proof that you cherry pick, or simply do not read.  I acknowledged that you fought with a baton and cuffs on your belt.  That is not the same as fighting with the kit of a patrol officer where they will have 3-4 weapons, not including the baton, on the FRONT or side of their belt, all accessible to a suspect. 

Also in so far as use of force you don't know what a US Police Officer has to be able to articulate in terms of use of force.  As was illustrated in a post above that noted case law we have to address.  Then you have Act 1983 where an officer can be sued for civil rights violations under the 4th Amendment (among others).  I have invented nothing regarding your experience.  I have even said those techniques may work for your purposes but that does not mean they work for LE, at least in the US.  All I have pointed out is that your argument is based on two things...
1. I think the realities of US Police work are stupid.  Since I believe those realities are stupid it's stupid to design tactics to account for them.
2. Because MMA is the end all be all, and these techniques work for my purposes, ergo they must work for all purposes, even those I have no experience with.
3. Even if someone has experience I lack, they don't know what they are talking about.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> Ahh look, simple proof that you cherry pick, or simply do not read.  I acknowledged that you fought with a baton and cuffs on your belt.  That is not the same as fighting with the kit of a patrol officer where they will have 3-4 weapons, not including the baton, on the FRONT or side of their belt, all accessible to a suspect.
> 
> Also in so far as use of force you don't know what a US Police Officer has to be able to articulate in terms of use of force.  As was illustrated in a post above that noted case law we have to address.  Then you have Act 1983 where an officer can be sued for civil rights violations under the 4th Amendment (among others).  I have invented nothing regarding your experience.  I have even said those techniques may work for your purposes but that does not mean they work for LE, at least in the US.  All I have pointed out is that your argument is based on two things...
> 1. I think the realities of US Police work are stupid.  Since I believe those realities are stupid it's stupid to design tactics to account for them.
> 2. Because MMA is the end all be all, and these techniques work for my purposes, ergo they must work for all purposes, even those I have no experience with.
> 3. Even if someone has experience I lack, they don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



You keep changing what you said and did not say. I am cherry parts that you are quite simply pulling out of thin air. 

And it makes having a normal discussion with you incredibly difficult.


----------



## Buka

Might be a good idea to keep one thing in mind in this thread. We're all the good guys. Hope so, anyway.


----------



## Juany118

Just one thing.  Go to about the 6 minute mark.  It is a BJJ guy making my point for me.  




Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> But there is a much more nuanced debate about gear retention. Which is about positional advantage.



So nothing like that? 

No nuanced debate or normal conversation about how to protect belt gear?

Because if it was then we would have had a normal conversation about it.  Because old mate is right in what he says there.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So nothing like that?
> 
> No nuanced debate or normal conversation about how to protect belt gear?
> 
> Because if it was then we would have had a normal conversation about it.  Because old mate is right in what he says there.



The point was basically, you need your "eyes open" to the reality, which he didn't get, until he got away from ground fighting arts.  Because your positional advantage arguments is actually the weakest of the arguments you made, and I detailed why previously and will not be repeating myself.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> The point was basically, you need your "eyes open" to the reality, which he didn't get, until he got away from ground fighting arts.  Because your positional advantage arguments is actually the weakest of the arguments you made, and I detailed why previously and will not be repeating myself.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



That's fine I will look them up for you.

*Also LOCKDOWN involves not just low light conditions but bizarre light and sound conditions. Things look VERY different and can even be disorienting, in a real fight when you are on the "wrong side" of a spot light, take down lights, the red and blues and potentially a siren still blaring. Heck the CIA used similar conditions as part of "enhanced interrogations", now imagine fighting in them.*

Distracted by flashing lights?

*If your sirens are still on that is because you had a vehicle pursuit. That pursuit in and of itself created the fight or flight response that you will get in a fight because each intersection could result in a pile up. Police Combatives need to account for that. Also training so you know what it's like starting the fight after hopping fences and running for a block or too is also very important because before you go hands on you will already be fatigued, possibly even with minor injuries. If you can't deal with those in training you sure as heck wont be able to do it on the street so you need to "train like you fight" not only so you know what can happen but so that you can say to yourself "yeah I can do that".
*
Distracted by car chases foot chases and minor injuries?

*unlike other Countries most PDs have all of the officer's gear on the belt around their waist and the techniques you illustrated fail to take this into account completely.

you are apparently not a LEO gave you the benefit of the doubt that the cops you see don't have a lot of gear on their belt.*

The only country in the world that has belt kit?

*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.*

The training isn't sufficient?
*
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 *

But it is also crafted by experts that should not the questioned.

I mean look. You probably have a point you are trying to make here. But so far you arguments are not really making any real sense.


----------



## Charlemagne

Juany118 said:


> Just one thing.  Go to about the 6 minute mark.  It is a BJJ guy making my point for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk







On a serious note, though I was kind of serious there, I do know a bunch of police officers training in the Filipino Martial Arts, and all of them talk about how much they have learned from their training.  Heck, my first FMA instructor was a LEO himself, so that added a dose of reality to what he was teaching us.  As for the rest, I think that the answer is more complex then some are making it out to be.  There are obvious realities that LEO's have to deal with that the average person does not.  As such, any martial arts approach is going to have to be adapted for their situation.  Having said that, when I look at the attributes that certain martial arts systems teach, and the manner in which they pressure test them, I believe strongly in what I posted earlier in the thread in regards to Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and Pekiti Tirsia Kali, both of whom have programs for LEO's that are tailored to them.  The weapons game is important, but so is the grappling game. As such, bringing in more than one group might be the answer, depending on resources of course. 







Some good work which is being done in the area of weapons grappling:


----------



## Juany118

Charlemagne said:


> On a serious note, though I was kind of serious there, I do know a bunch of police officers training in the Filipino Martial Arts, and all of them talk about how much they have learned from their training.  Heck, my first FMA instructor was a LEO himself, so that added a dose of reality to what he was teaching us.  As for the rest, I think that the answer is more complex then some are making it out to be.  There are obvious realities that LEO's have to deal with that the average person does not.  As such, any martial arts approach is going to have to be adapted for their situation.  Having said that, when I look at the attributes that certain martial arts systems teach, and the manner in which they pressure test them, I believe strongly in what I posted earlier in the thread in regards to Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and Pekiti Tirsia Kali, both of whom have programs for LEO's that are tailored to them.  The weapons game is important, but so is the grappling game. As such, bringing in more than one group might be the answer, depending on resources of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some good work which is being done in the area of weapons grappling:


I just used that video because at the indicated mark he sums up one of the differences that a lot of "traditional" martial arts don't address but Kali does due to its idea of "anything is a weapon".  

That is why I like certain LE DT courses.  It addresses this and focuses on the fact your weapons, even radio, can be used against you.  In terms of the actual techniques they are all actually a kin to Krav Maga in that they take a lot of the more easily digested techniques from other martial arts, that are appropriate for LE, and then also go into other things like actual tactics, UoF continuum, point out the physiological and psychological effects of combat, threat de-escalation etc.  All of this in a package that doesn't require years of regular intense training to be competent in.

Also I agree, the grappling game is important, the Kali I take includes it.  All I am saying is some grappling techniques are not preferable as it puts your tools at risk and makes disengagement problematic.  So grappling should be about avoiding these pit falls and if the opponent forces you into them, extricating yourself from that circumstance.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Charlemagne said:


> On a serious note, though I was kind of serious there, I do know a bunch of police officers training in the Filipino Martial Arts, and all of them talk about how much they have learned from their training.  Heck, my first FMA instructor was a LEO himself, so that added a dose of reality to what he was teaching us.  As for the rest, I think that the answer is more complex then some are making it out to be.  There are obvious realities that LEO's have to deal with that the average person does not.  As such, any martial arts approach is going to have to be adapted for their situation.  Having said that, when I look at the attributes that certain martial arts systems teach, and the manner in which they pressure test them, I believe strongly in what I posted earlier in the thread in regards to Gracie Jiu-Jitsu and Pekiti Tirsia Kali, both of whom have programs for LEO's that are tailored to them.  The weapons game is important, but so is the grappling game. As such, bringing in more than one group might be the answer, depending on resources of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some good work which is being done in the area of weapons grappling:



The big issue you have is a DT system generally has to be as lean as you can physically make it. Every move has to multitask if you can get it to.

So you are limited by what you can teach a bit. Now from there you would almost have to include a basic sweep and a basic get up. And it would take most of a day to get that functional.

Add to that good position and good hand fighting. Because belt kit. And punching/stabbing/shooting.

So there is to a certain degree an order of importance. If You can be out of guard that is the first place to be. Even to a fifty fifty stand up. Because you don't have to re engage. Because space works for you if you have a tazer bat spray and gun.


----------



## Charlemagne

Juany118 said:


> All I am saying is some grappling techniques are not preferable as it puts your tools at risk and makes disengagement problematic.  So grappling should be about avoiding these pit falls and if the opponent forces you into them, extricating yourself from that circumstance.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



No argument there.  

It would seem that the nature of having to put your hands on someone and arrest them would put you in a position where you are grappling whether you want to be or not.  As such, it would seem logical that all officers have some background in basic grappling techniques.  As you noted, there may be some techniques which are more appropriate then others.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> The big issue you have is a DT system generally has to be as lean as you can physically make it. Every move has to multitask if you can get it to.
> 
> So you are limited by what you can teach a bit. Now from there you would almost have to include a basic sweep and a basic get up. And it would take most of a day to get that functional.
> 
> Add to that good position and good hand fighting. Because belt kit. And punching/stabbing/shooting.
> 
> So there is to a certain degree an order of importance. If You can be out of guard that is the first place to be. Even to a fifty fifty stand up. Because you don't have to re engage. Because space works for you if you have a tazer bat spray and gun.


I'll address the first thing.  My point is NOT talking about other police departments in the world, it is focused solely on the lack of experience YOU have.  You are projecting what works for you, in your environment.  Sorry your environment and kit isn't the same.  The Gracie DT system, PPCT, LOCKUP, Code 4, and more aren't just taught in the US, they simply started there.  Other Countries have started importing them from South and Central America to Europe.  As an example I have traveled to England and Germany and spoken to cops there.  They have said "in terms of regular police work we are equal but when it comes to DT we are about 5 years behind." As for them not being questioned, if they weren't questioned you wouldn't have multiple systems.

I think you also miss that these are NOT martial arts.  They are called DT for a reason.  All of them are designed in a specific way to address these following factors, before you even get to the things you still, for some reason, senselessly dismiss because the requirements are beyond your personal experience. 

1. Anything taught by a Police Department HAS to be standardized and have a pedigree that will stand up in a court of law.  
2. It needs to address the fact that Police Departments will NOT pay for officers to be trained weekly, and over a LONG period of time as is required to really become competent in a more formal Martial Art.  So you have something that is taught in an immersive matter of a day or course of days and then is "refreshed" by individual practice and recertification courses. 

After those two big things you look at the following 2 key facts.  99% of the time this is the nature of the suspect...
1. Little to no actually training in terms of fighting
2. When they fight they are fighting to escape, not to beat you.

Next they are designed with the following in mind
1. To hold on and get the suspect in cuffs or so you can disengage and go to a tool.
2. If the above can't happen hold on until the Cavalry arrives, it is coming, and then weight of numbers wins the day.

A perfect example of #2 was the last Saturday into Sunday.  We had a huge brawl, Just the two of us who could respond (we also had a burglary in progress at the same time) couldn't handle the numbers on our own so we asked for an assist to be toned out.  My wife works for a department over 30 minutes away, but in the same County, so she heard it over County Wide, and would have started my way if she wasn't the OIC because every department in the County heard "officers need assistance, X city, Y address." 

DT are built with very specific and different purposes in mind than Martial Arts.  Do I personally prefer "real" martial art(s) yes, otherwise I would be spending money out of my own pocket BUT in terms of the specific purposes and needs of LE, DT do an excellent job because they account for the specific dynamics; 

purpose, equipment, environments, access to back up via radio, the nature and purpose of the resistance you need to overcome, civil liability, skill retention (hence largely gross muscle skills) etc.

If you look at it from strictly a Martial arts perspective you will see things lacking BUT if you look at things from a LE perspective you see it is there by design.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

Charlemagne said:


> No argument there.
> 
> It would seem that the nature of having to put your hands on someone and arrest them would put you in a position where you are grappling whether you want to be or not.  As such, it would seem logical that all officers have some background in basic grappling techniques.  As you noted, there may be some techniques which are more appropriate then others.


Exactly, arm bars, wrist and elbow locks, even knee restraint maneuvers (from the kneeling position on a prone subject.). I have used all of these.  What you want to avoid is wrestling with bad guy, especially on the ground, because he now can reach for your most dangerous tools  and you go from restraint to weapon retention.   It also interferes with your ability to disengage and/or access your tools if it becomes necessary.  

The easiest way I can describe it is when you grapple you need to think about your waist, 360 degrees, being free from contact with the suspect while grappling, especially when face to face, but there are plenty of techniques that allow for this.  

This isn't to say crap doesn't happen, there are times it is unavoidable, but you should always be trying to avoid it.

I should have been more specific and said "ground fighting" and not grappling.  Sorry.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I'll address the first thing.  My point is NOT talking about other police departments in the world, it is focused solely on the lack of experience YOU have.  You are projecting what works for you, in your environment.  Sorry your environment and kit isn't the same.  The Gracie DT system, PPCT, LOCKUP, Code 4, and more aren't just taught in the US, they simply started there.  Other Countries have started importing them from South and Central America to Europe.  As an example I have traveled to England and Germany and spoken to cops there.  They have said "in terms of regular police work we are equal but when it comes to DT we are about 5 years behind." As for them not being questioned, if they weren't questioned you wouldn't have multiple systems.
> 
> I think you also miss that these are NOT martial arts.  They are called DT for a reason.  All of them are designed in a specific way to address these following factors, before you even get to the things you still, for some reason, senselessly dismiss because the requirements are beyond your personal experience.
> 
> 1. Anything taught by a Police Department HAS to be standardized and have a pedigree that will stand up in a court of law.
> 2. It needs to address the fact that Police Departments will NOT pay for officers to be trained weekly, and over a LONG period of time as is required to really become competent in a more formal Martial Art.  So you have something that is taught in an immersive matter of a day or course of days and then is "refreshed" by individual practice and recertification courses.
> 
> After those two big things you look at the following 2 key facts.  99% of the time this is the nature of the suspect...
> 1. Little to no actually training in terms of fighting
> 2. When they fight they are fighting to escape, not to beat you.
> 
> Next they are designed with the following in mind
> 1. To hold on and get the suspect in cuffs or so you can disengage and go to a tool.
> 2. If the above can't happen hold on until the Cavalry arrives, it is coming, and then weight of numbers wins the day.
> 
> A perfect example of #2 was the last Saturday into Sunday.  We had a huge brawl, Just the two of us who could respond (we also had a burglary in progress at the same time) couldn't handle the numbers on our own so we asked for an assist to be toned out.  My wife works for a department over 30 minutes away, but in the same County, so she heard it over County Wide, and would have started my way if she wasn't the OIC because every department in the County heard "officers need assistance, X city, Y address."
> 
> DT are built with very specific and different purposes in mind than Martial Arts.  Do I personally prefer "real" martial art(s) yes, otherwise I would be spending money out of my own pocket BUT in terms of the specific purposes and needs of LE, DT do an excellent job because they account for the specific dynamics;
> 
> purpose, equipment, environments, access to back up via radio, the nature and purpose of the resistance you need to overcome, civil liability, skill retention (hence largely gross muscle skills) etc.
> 
> If you look at it from strictly a Martial arts perspective you will see things lacking BUT if you look at things from a LE perspective you see it is there by design.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



So in relation to the video above where that cop and the guy were wrestling. Instead of accounting for that happening. They are more focused on other issues. 

Guys dont fight back.  That guy did. 

Guys mostly cant fight.  That guy could.

One up was dangerous. Sorry cant afford it. 

But the cop was trained in specific dynamics.  Like i am sure he could have told people where he was in the force continuum. Or was not being disoriented by flashing lights. 
Would have even been able to cuff that guy like a boss had the guy not been resisting. 

That is the irony of these DT.  Methods is they do not put the individuals saftey as a priority. 

And that is something you dont understand.


----------



## Charlemagne

Juany118 said:


> I should have been more specific and said "ground fighting" and not grappling.  Sorry.



No worries.  Regardless, I would expect that yes, you would prefer not to go to the ground, but obviously, things happen as you noted.  As such, one had better know what they are doing there.  






FYI, I know the Gracies are not the end all be all to DT, or to MA in general.  I just remembered this video in the context of your comments.


----------



## Charlemagne

Knowing this system the way I do, and having trained in several others prior, I cannot recommend Tim Waid highly enough.  It may be something worth looking into.  

Defensive Tactics Safety System for Law Enforcement – PTK-SMF™


----------



## Juany118

Charlemagne said:


> No worries.  Regardless, I would expect that yes, you would prefer not to go to the ground, but obviously, things happen as you noted.  As such, one had better know what they are doing there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, I know the Gracies are not the end all be all to DT, or to MA in general.  I just remembered this video in the context of your comments.


Oh I absolutely agree.  You may be forced there and must have a clue as to what to do when there, hopefully to extricate yourself and barring that protect your tools and control the suspect until backup arrives.

 I have just watched some guys fall into the trap of watching it work in a competitive environment and think it is universally awesome, not realizing that the LE professional environment has numerous complications that mean those techniques should be last resort kinda things under most circumstances.  Most DT programs I have seen do teach ground fighting but they tech techniques to get you out of that fight into a circumstance where the bad guy is still there but you are more vertical.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> So in relation to the video above where that cop and the guy were wrestling. Instead of accounting for that happening. They are more focused on other issues.
> 
> Guys dont fight back.  That guy did.
> 
> Guys mostly cant fight.  That guy could.
> 
> One up was dangerous. Sorry cant afford it.
> 
> But the cop was trained in specific dynamics.  Like i am sure he could have told people where he was in the force continuum. Or was not being disoriented by flashing lights.
> Would have even been able to cuff that guy like a boss had the guy not been resisting.
> 
> That is the irony of these DT.  Methods is they do not put the individuals saftey as a priority.
> 
> And that is something you dont understand.




First the officer there made numerous tactical mistakes.  There are a number of things he could have done that would have prevented that from becoming a fight of that nature.  Next, I have said about 100 times... most police officers, in the US, dont get regular DT tactics training after they leave the academy, that is changing but the video is clear evidence the officer is in the "don't" category.

90% of the videos you see on TV or YouTube of such incidents are, sadly, not of officers trained in DTs that don't prioritize their safety, the DTs DO just that.  Rather they usually show an officer who made a number of mistakes due to complacency and are also proof that they, sadly, had the typical training of "here is how to use the tools on the belt now hit the street" and NOT actual DT training.  Heck we often use these videos to say "don't become complacent, don't let this happen to you."

As for the last bit sorry you have no clue and the arrogance evidenced in that last statement is actually quite stunning.  You are the one who doesn't understand, though you were unknowingly half right.  The majority of municipalities do not prioritize safety.  They put one man cars on the street and almost never have officers trained in proven DT systems, only on how to use the tools on their belt.  They also rarely do scenario training so officers have at least half a clue as to how a seemingly innocent scenario can go sideways because to make these corrections costs money.

That said the reputable DT systems fill this gap, the trick is convincing Municipalities to spend the money on the training.  That all said, please feel free to respond in anyway you chose.  For some reason I took you off ignore, I would make that mistake again.  I can honestly say I have NEVER seen anyone with no experience whatsoever in a particular professional field try to tell professionals what will and what will not work for them with as much uninformed certainty as you have and it really isn't worth the time anymore.


----------



## Juany118

Charlemagne said:


> No worries.  Regardless, I would expect that yes, you would prefer not to go to the ground, but obviously, things happen as you noted.  As such, one had better know what they are doing there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, I know the Gracies are not the end all be all to DT, or to MA in general.  I just remembered this video in the context of your comments.



Oh almost forgot my view of the video, it pretty much says what I was saying in terms of dynamics (wanting to avoid a ground fight, protecting your gear etc).  However, if you look at the video, in that circumstance, the ground fight could have been avoided all together.  

The officer has the suspect on the ground, head away from him and almost on his belly.  All this and the fact the officer still standing has that officer in the dominant position.  When he went down and the suspect didn't immediately give up his left arm I expected the officer to do ANYTHING but what he did.  The Officer gave up his dominant position and went head to head with guy and invited a wrestling match.

Now I don't know what the purpose of the arrest was for, but clearly it wasn't for a major charge.  That said this is what the officer should have done.  

1. Preserve the dominant position.  

The officer invited the ground fight.  He could have easily gotten the subject onto his belly from that position and then been kneeling on the subject either on the kidneys or between the shoulder blades. From here there are multitude of techniques and tools one can use as you are in a dominant position and preserve access to your tools.  Yes this became a ground fight and you need to understand what to do there but here the officer invited a ground fight which is simply beyond my understanding.  


In all of the "worst case scenario" cop videos I see I see a few things.

1. officers making tactical blunders, often due to complacency, that if not made could have prevented a physically fight of that nature period.
2. officers saying "i have to arrest this guy right this very second" and so give up a dominant position and open themselves up to vulnerability.
3. Officers who (maybe) do everything to avoid using tools because it requires more paperwork.
4.  Officers who allow their pride to get in the way of good tactics
5. Perhaps most important.  Officers who were not trained in proper DT since the Acadamey and who don't spend the money on Martial Arts themselves.

That video happened because of a combination of the 5 things above and as a result the officer gave up the dominate position.  It sucks but videos like that are often used in in-service training, not as the guys there did to say "learn this technique" but to say "don't do what this guy did that got him on the ground in the first place."


----------



## drop bear

Charlemagne said:


> No worries.  Regardless, I would expect that yes, you would prefer not to go to the ground, but obviously, things happen as you noted.  As such, one had better know what they are doing there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, I know the Gracies are not the end all be all to DT, or to MA in general.  I just remembered this video in the context of your comments.



There is ironically almost no work from them in turtle in any DT system i have encountered. And it is one of the more common scenarios.

If you are trying to flatten a guy out. They will try to get up.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> As for the last bit sorry you have no clue and the arrogance evidenced in that last statement is actually quite stunning. You are the one who doesn't understand, though you were unknowingly half right. The majority of municipalities do not prioritize safety. They put one man cars on the street and almost never have officers trained in proven DT systems, only on how to use the tools on their belt. They also rarely do scenario training so officers have at least half a clue as to how a seemingly innocent scenario can go sideways because to make these corrections costs money.



Well that's all the way exactly right. Isn't it. DT is not designed to protect the individual from assault. It is designed to protect the organisation from cost.

And that is the system you are defending.


----------



## drop bear

Charlemagne said:


> No worries.  Regardless, I would expect that yes, you would prefer not to go to the ground, but obviously, things happen as you noted.  As such, one had better know what they are doing there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, I know the Gracies are not the end all be all to DT, or to MA in general.  I just remembered this video in the context of your comments.



Just saw this one. Which is an interesting twist on that same situation.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=281721275516514


----------

