Scott Reitz Low Light and Problem Solving Tactics, Pittsburgh PA October 11-13, 2013

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

http://www.internationaltactical.com/FIRE_Institute.pdf

Registration is through the ITTS site. Note; Pitcairn is misspelled on the flyer if you are looking for directions; and the club is east of Pittsburgh, not west. Other than that, it's accurate... :)

Let me know if you have questions

Tony Muhlenkamp
tmuhlenkamp@gmail.com
724.934.5139

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Tim at Gun Nuts Media posted a review of Reitz's book:

http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/08/29/book-review-the-art-of-modern-gunfighting-volume-1-by-scott-reitz/

It's a good review and he seems to think it's a good book. It doesn't mean the training is equally good, but that might be the way to bet.

Let me know if you have questions and I hope to see you in the class.

Tony Muhlenkamp
724.934.5139
tmuhlenkamp@gmail.com

[Dagga Boy]

While I don't agree with every single thing Scotty does, he is a "must train with" individual if you are serious about the use of firearms in a defensive role. Scotty's problem solving and low light class is outstanding. We also endorse his book as one of those things that should be in your library of gunfighting reference material.

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Peter Georgiades is the head of FIRE Institute, which is hosting the Scott Reitz class in September. He found and commented on an interview with Scott Reitz (among others) on justification. I put Peter's comments in bold italics. See below. Tony Muhlenkamp

I recently read a long interview with a lawyer who practices in California, a corrections officer from California and a martial artists on the topic of the justification defense ("self defense"). Much of the information provided would be plainly incorrect in Pennsylvania, but the discussion was interesting. Here is a sample (emphasis mine):

Matt Thornton [martial artist]: One point I’d like to make in this context is that the best defense against violence is always your own mind. People tend to overlook this because it sounds like an empty platitude, but it’s true. Some people acquire the maturity and understanding to avoid violence early on, but these days*and this is obviously a good thing*most of us go our whole lives without encountering violence, so we need to be taught what to look for. We also need to be willing to see it, and we need to know how to manage our distance from it.

From the victim’s perspective, an attack may seem to have occurred suddenly, but we know that in most cases it was anything but sudden. If people were more open to their own instincts*what you referred to as “profiling” in the example you gave of the man at your daughter’s school*many crimes could be avoided altogether.

Sam Harris [attorney]: I completely agree that avoidance is almost the whole story when it comes to self-defense. I also agree that it is very easy to lose sight of this truth, because people don’t really train for avoidance or de-escalation. Rory talks about this a lot in his work. And there is a very unhappy valley between knowing nothing about self-defense and knowing a lot, where the average martial artist is probably more likely to get into a violent altercation than he otherwise would have been. His ego has become bound up in being someone who can handle violence and who doesn’t have to take shit from anyone, and his training has probably given him some unrealistic ideas about his own competence. . . . .

. . . .

Steve, how do things change if a person is attempting to rob me? I haven’t been assaulted*but the other person is implicitly threatening me with the prospect of violence by saying that if I comply with his instructions, I won’t get hurt.

Steven Levine [attorney]: If you’re being robbed, you can just kill the other person.

[Interviewer] : Are you kidding?

Steven Levine [attorney]: If you’re being robbed, you can take out your gun and shoot the person dead, and no one will prosecute you.

[I][I]He might well be right. Or not.

After the interview, there is an additional interview with Scott Reitz. In my opinion, Mr. Reitz is spot on with regard to everything he says, in any state, with one exception. I do not believe that all shootings are investigated as thoroughly as Scott says they are. Certainly officer involved shootings are. Unfortunately, sometimes a shooting looks so cut-and-dried the investigation is curtailed, and then later when information comes to light to suggest the matter may have been more complicated than it first appeared to be, it is too late to recover a lot of evidence.

Scott's emphasis on the need for good training, a good lawyer and top-notch expert witnesses can be seen as self-serving, since he is in the training and expert witness business. But just because it is self-serving does not mean it's not true. It is true. (And I'm not in either business.)

Like most people who have substantial experience in the legal system, Scott believes it usually works.
It does (as long as one has the money to play the game).Sam Harris: What should my readers understand about self-defense in general and the use of deadly force in particular?
Scott Reitz: That they are taken very seriously by both the investigating entities and the courts. The use of deadly force is arguably the most critical life event one may participate in. Hollywood’s version is purely entertainment. Actual deadly-force incidents are anything but entertaining.

Sam Harris: What standard is used to judge whether a use of deadly force was legitimate?

Scott Reitz: The judicial system applies the “reasonable man standard,” which is meant to be objective. In essence, it takes the facts of the case, along with any other empirical data that relate to the incident, and critically examines them*and this analysis includes the perspective of the person who applied deadly force. If a reasonable person would have judged deadly force to be warranted under the same circumstances, then the person’s actions will be deemed justified in court.

Sam Harris: So the system supports reasonable actions, by definition?

Scott Reitz: Yes. But, unfortunately, the system isn’t perfect*and what would seem to be a reasonable course of action isn’t always judged to be so. However, in most circumstances in which I have been involved, the system does absolve people who act reasonably.

Sam Harris: If a person who acts in self-defense is not charged with a crime, is that the end of it?

Scott Reitz: Not necessarily. Civil actions can be generated no matter how obtuse the rationale behind them. But the same standard of objectivity will be applied.

Sam Harris: Are you aware of cases that have gone terribly wrong?

Scott Reitz: Yes. In some cases either the attorney or the experts involved are not up to the task. At times, the defendant may misspeak with respect to his actions, resulting in an improper decision. Sometimes the courts themselves can err when issuing jury instructions, or their procedural rulings may be flawed, giving rise to an appeal.

Sam Harris: What do you advise people to do if they choose to own a firearm?

Scott Reitz: My advice is to train*and only with highly qualified instructors. Simply arming yourself without proper, realistic training is courting disaster. Deadly force is a deep subject. You must also understand the law as it relates to self-defense.

Sam Harris: What should one do if one has been involved in a lethal-force encounter?

Scott Reitz: First, secure the area and your loved ones. The police should be called, and you should follow their instructions. They have to investigate the incident. That is their primary function. I recommend that you tell them that you were in fear for your life and safety and had to defend yourself. Tell them that you will cooperate with them 100%. Then ask if you may call your attorney. In this manner you have diplomatically invoked your Miranda rights and informed them that you had to protect yourself and that you will cooperate with the investigation. You will need good legal representation, and the experts involved in your case should be of the highest caliber.

Sam Harris: To what degree are deadly-force incidents investigated?

Scott Reitz: To an extent that amazes even police officers once an investigation is under way. Each of my shootings involved hundreds of hours of investigation and mountains of paperwork and evidence. The backgrounds and personal knowledge of participants are all discoverable. Internet postings, writings, phone records, etc. can all come into play. Forensics has made galactic leaps since I started as an expert, some 24 years ago. The tools available*such as DNA, blood-spray-pattern analysis, trajectory analysis, and so forth*improve with each passing year. We can now meticulously reconstruct many incidents. To say that a shooting will be “investigated” is an understatement.

Sam Harris: Is a law-abiding citizen at any disadvantage if a case goes to trial?

Scott Reitz: Not necessarily. Most violent offenders*those whom you may have to defend yourself against*did not start out that way. They have matriculated to a level of violence through the years. They will probably have criminal records, gang affiliations, etc. Most law-abiding citizens will be viewed as precisely that*law-abiding. The District or City Attorney’s office will notice these background facts, as will experienced police investigators. I have worked with all these entities, and we all feel for victims of crime. You’re the good guys, and through proper investigation this generally comes to light. It can be frustrating when you feel that you are being treated as the offending party. But you need to be patient and heed my advice about obtaining legal representation immediately and about developing thorough knowledge of the law prior to an event.

Sam Harris: What have you experienced during deadly-force encounters?

Scott Reitz: They can happen very, very fast. Each of mine transpired in about two seconds. Training is key here. I might own a Steinway, but playing it is another matter altogether. Everything you need has to be in place beforehand. Well-trained individuals generally make good decisions and act accordingly. Untrained individuals do not. This truth seems lost on many people. I knew the law, the use-of-force continuum, and policy, which allowed me to make rapid assessments and respond appropriately.

Bad guys pick up on potential victims: They “read” people with an astounding precision. They also recognize confident and capable individuals for who they are*and this is another benefit of training. A composed person who possesses the means to protect himself poses a very real risk to a criminal, and this fact alone can prevent incidents. I experienced this firsthand over the course of thousands of arrests.

Sam Harris: Any final advice?

Scott Reitz: More often than not, the legal system protects the “good guys.” However, you must know both how and when to defend yourself, and also what degree of force is required. And you need legal representation. Deadly force is a full-spectrum event. Your knowledge prior to, actions during, and articulation after an event will determine the outcome. These events can happen anytime and anywhere. Often there is no rhyme or reason: The event simply occurs. Knowledge is power here as it is elsewhere in life. And that is why we teach. Our students have applied their training with great success on numerous occasions. It can make all the difference.

- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/self-defense-and-the-law?utm_source=Newsletter+-+September+2013&utm_campaign=September+2013+Newsletter&utm_medium=email#sthash.LWOqbH63.dpuf

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

While I don't agree with every single thing Scotty does, he is a "must train with" individual if you are serious about the use of firearms in a defensive role. Scotty's problem solving and low light class is outstanding. We also endorse his book as one of those things that should be in your library of gunfighting reference material.

Thanks for the support, we're pretty excited about bringing him to Western PA.

Tony Muhlenkamp
tmuhlenkamp@gmail.com
724.934.5139

[Dagga Boy]

If I was ever in another shooting, and needed an Expert Witness, Scotty would be my number one choice. He is exceptional in this area. One of the benefits of training with Scott is that you get "non-theory" information that is grounded in extensive actual experience that is easily verified.

[SeriousStudent]

Tony, do you know if any of the attendees were planning an AAR of this class?

Thank you very much, I hope you all had a great experience.

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

Tony, do you know if any of the attendees were planning an AAR of this class?

Serious; I don't know; but I will post my thoughts and observations under the AAR banner. Not sure what I have to say will qualify as an AAR, but there you go.


Thank you very much, I hope you all had a great experience.

You're welcome; and it was a good three days.

[SeriousStudent]

Thank you, I will look forward to reading it.

[Dagga Boy]

Thank you, I will look forward to reading it.

Speaking of someone who is way behind on AAR's.......;).

[SeriousStudent]

Speaking of someone who is way behind on AAR's.......;).

*cough* Still waiting on list/description of shotgun drills from you and partner in crime. *cough*

I could always laboriously write them down Saturday during lunch, while you are savoring fries from In 'n' Out Burger. :cool:

[nycnoob]

I keep waiting for someone else to "go first" and post an AAR but I guess I will have to step up to the plate and do it myself.

The class was very good, one of my favorite.

The main thrust of the class was adjusting speed and accuracy, there were numerous drills with pepper poppers at some close distance (10 yrds?) and smaller steel torso targets behind. The goal was to put down the poppers then put some shots on the steel.

Another favorite drill was a collection of shoot/don't shoot targets with overlapping sight lines, not only did one have to decide which targets to shoot but also had to decide if your shots would hit the targets behind and figure out if those needed shooting as well.

I really enjoined "Uncle Scotty" as an instructor and he was personable and full of real life experience. I never felt he talked down to us, or used offensive language, and it was amusing that he referred to us collectively as "you sweethearts". The pacing of the class was great and he attempted to "keep changing things up" so that the next set of exercises was different from what we just did.

The FIRE group who sponsored the course were prepared, hard working and quite approachable. The caliber of students on the line was very high. I had driven up from the ialefi "Master Instructor Development Program" and can honestly say that these were FAR better shooters then the 15 year law enforcement instructors I had been training with just a few days previous.

The Scott's material and FIRE's preferences are strictly "Modern Technique", and though it is true that I have never been on a line with more people carrying "the lords gun in 45" the approach and general handling was a bit less stilted then I have seen before. It was really the first time I have seen some one work the "older methods" in a way that I could understand and believe would work.

Scott had an interesting story about a (recent?) shooting by a cop. It seemed the cop had just come from some high speed military style shooting class (Rogers?) and had tackled a "bad guy" to the ground and was proceeding to arrest him. (no guns in the story yet) There was a witness to the crime who told the officer that he had the wrong man, and the criminal was "over there" (behind him?) the cop spun around and shot the man. It was more of a shoot by reflex then a decision to shoot. It was an interesting story (though scant on details) and does reinforce the worry of training scars. Scott was particularly worried that the officer had received "inappropriate training" to the type of shooting he should be doing. Earlier this summer I had a minor issue in the same vein, as part of a class we were all drawing to a paper target with loaded guns. No one was wearing ear protection as this was a "non shooting drill", though we were using the same range and targets we had used all morning. I had an AD on about the third draw (hit the target, but it was a "non shooting drill). Seems like the old adage "practice makes permanent".


Scott has a new book out (and second one to be published real soon now) and this has much of the class "wisdom" in its contents (and its printed on nice quality paper if you get the print edition).

The Art Of Modern Gunfighting: Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Modern-Gunfighting-Pistol-ebook/dp/B009J6RP7C/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1382139766&sr=8-3&keywords=reitz)

The Art Of Modern Gunfighting (The Pistol) [Kindle Edition]
Scott Reitz (Author), Brett McQueen (Author), LAPD Chief Daryl Gates (Foreword)
4.6 out of 5 stars See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
Digital List Price: $19.95 What's this?
Kindle Price: $19.95


The main con that I would is that although Scott has a real wealth of knowledge and a real been there done that and thought real hard about what happened I feel, there was still the issue that most of his wisdom is law enforcement related and may not apply to the CCW holder. For example he has a real believe in flashlights and while I certainly understand the issue of law enforcement carrying a flashlight and perhaps getting in a firefight at the same time, I really do not see how this would apply to the CCW holder and Tom Givens has no such incidents in his database. I do not think that he has given much thought to the difference between police shootings and CCW shootings though he does have a belief that "there is no typical gun fight" and "expect everything and expect nothing" would perhaps cover much of the difference.

I would gladly take another class with either FIRE or Scott Reitz.



Also the FIRE people might want to branch out and work with Shawn on some of the CQB stuff he is doing. I do not think they were aware he is in Pittsburgh

Shawn.L (http://www.compactmechanics.com/)

http://pistol-forum.com/member.php?3617-Shawn-L

[Odin Bravo One]

In the dozen or so courses I have taken with Scott & Brett, I've never had him pimp the modern technique. He teaches it and preaches it, but never bugged me once about not using it.

As for the low light/flashlight stuff............you may never need it.

But there is a distinct, and somewhat comforting advantage to being able to see when your adversary can't.

Gunfights are dangerous and scary. But with the right TTP's and equipment, one can easily turn a gunfight into a shooting.

[SeriousStudent]

.....

Scott has a new book out (and second one to be published real soon now) and this has much of the class "wisdom" in its contents (and its printed on nice quality paper if you get the print edition).

.....

Thanks very much for the information. I have the first book, and have been hoping for a second. It was definitely the purchase price for me.

[nycnoob]

Thanks very much for the information. I have the first book, and have been hoping for a second. It was definitely the purchase price for me.

I think he said there are eight planned, but the second one is the only one actually written and coming out soon.

[nycnoob]

[QUOTE=Sean M;169790]In the dozen or so courses I have taken with Scott & Brett, I've never had him pimp the modern technique. He teaches it and preaches it, but never bugged me once about not using it.
/QUOTE]

That was definitely true, he showed me his way exactly once then never said another word as I continued with what I had been doing.

[nycnoob]

Here are the products that Scot Reitz recommended during the class
(I found the links, for your convenience)


froglube (http://froglube.com/)

CRYE pants (with built in knee pads) (http://www.cryeprecision.com/C-114/Field-Apparel)

lowa boots (http://www.lowaboots.com/)

rescue tape (http://www.rescuetape.com/)
(for pinning the 1911 grip safety, which he can no longer reliably activate due to hand injuries)

[Dagga Boy]

A couple of things:

Flashlights-this is one of the best things everyone should have, especially CHL holders. I flashlight can deter a ton of fights before they start. Crooks hate being "seen". I find myself using a flashlight a lot. They are so small and powerful now, there is no reason to not have one at all times.

Scott and Tape....Scott has issues with tape and 550 cord. It is an addiction for him. It is contagious, but don't get carried away;).

[Chuck_S]

My simple course review (it's not an afteraction report 'cuz the targets didn't shoot back) is here. (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9980-Course-Review-Scott-Reitz-Low-Light-amp-Problem-Solving-Tactics-11-13-Oct-13)

(I'm new enough here to have posted the course review in the course review section, not the announcements. ;) )

I carry a flashlight and a knife everywhere.

-- Chuck

[ToddG]

(I'm new enough here to have posted the course review in the course review section, not the announcements. ;) )

Fixed. Thanks.

[Tony Muhlenkamp]

I keep waiting for someone else to "go first" and post an AAR but I guess I will have to step up to the plate and do it myself.

And a good thing you did, too. Nice review.


The FIRE group who sponsored the course were prepared, hard working and quite approachable.

Thanks for the kind words. We try; and it helps to have guys like you who pitch in and help whenever they can. It was good seeing you and shooting with you again.


Also the FIRE people might want to branch out and work with Shawn on some of the CQB stuff he is doing. I do not think they were aware he is in Pittsburgh.

We know Shawn L very well, having worked with him off and on. He's good people, although I'll deny saying it if you quote me... :)