Right, and that is what I am trying to get across, perhaps somewhat less than clearly. Being aware of what is going on and how to respond to it based on reality is probably far more important for most than spending lots of training time and worry on what is the rare and unusual. Being aware that some dogs are outliers and can be a problem, but realizing that most are not and knowing how to respond to them will go a lot further.Originally Posted by Chuck Haggard
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
Took me a few days to read through the thread in its entirety, but a lot of great discussion here (no big surprise).
I don't like spinning everything in to an ECQC parallel, but pulling a T-gun out and the guy doing nothing or saying "fuck you" is a really great first experience to make you say "Okay, now what?" Same with blasting away with the pistol and the same result happening.
Should the gun really, really come out of the holster? Yes? Am I willing to shoot this person after it comes out? Yes? Proceed. If I thought there was reason enough to pull the gun out of the holster HOPEFULLY, I've got my mind right that if dude chooses the "f*** you option" that I have made some attempt at prior planning to work that problem out as best as possibly. Hopefully it doesn't involve shooting said person. But if it does, that's what the gun came out of the holster for unfortunately.
A good place to start:
http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/
"It's surprising how often you start wondering just how featureless a desert some people's inner landscapes must be."
-Maple Syrup Actual
Aray = Jay's assistant instructor and primary drinking companion.
And Viking Blue chemist...
Director Of Sales
Knight's Armament Company
I don't have anything to add, but as a concealed carry holder, and newly licensed CHL instructor in Texas I really appreciate all of the incite and wisdom shared on this thread. It's really opened my eyes about several things, the one that comes to mind is the 'talisman vs. tool mentality. Similarly the decision to throttle back if need be and re transition to say OC if the dynamic of the scenario has changed. My thinking clearly has been rigid and linear in that once I climbed the steps of the use of force continuum if the gun is out there will either be compliance or the criminal actor(s) are going to be shot upwards of several times. Maybe not so much. Thanks again.
Best,
Dave
I did just that in Sage Dynamics Force Focus Fundamentals class...a few times.
If I'm taking training, I volunteer for *everything*. This led to my being the BG often. In one scenario, I was "stabbing" a guy on the ground in a doorway. The GG was just walking down the hall and stumbled upon me. He verbalized too early and I kept "stabbing" the guy until I saw his shirt go up and him go for the gun. I dropped the knife and ducked around the corner into the room. When he ordered me to come out, I taunted him mercilessly. I refused his commands and he finally made entry. I had my hands up and refused his commands to get down. He had no recourse but to "call" the cops with me at gunpoint. I had fun being that much of an asshole.
Aaron Cowan, the teacher, then relayed a story from his beat days about a non compliant collar. At gunpoint, the shitbird refused commands and told him "You think you're the first cop to point a gun at me?". Aaron had to 1h deploy a tazer on the guy while keeping his pistol in play.
In another scenario, I was "stomping a guy's head in". It took a few commands before the GG finally drew. I kept "killing" the guy on the ground. Gun drawn, I stopped. Hands up, I waited until his attention diverted and ran.
I was 1/2 in the escape department, but the big lesson was that I was 2/2 in the murder department.
I fully agree with your assessment based on my experience.
I also, as a bystander, tried to engage the GG in every scenario. I think it made it harder for them to "game it". I was the only one that really tried that.
Nice topic, good thread.
I'll contribute my personal experience on the matter.
The only people who care about having a gun pointed at them are law-abiding and otherwise non-combative.
The people who flip out, as seen in the video and start committing physical acts of violence, while unarmed, will continue to do so even if you point a gun at them.
In multiple situations I have had to point a gun at someone for various reasons during various situations and their response is usually "fuck you shoot me" or "omg please don't hurt me," but almost never in the middle.
I would highly suggest using the element of surprise on persons that may require you to point a gun at, by this I mean, you should only do so when it is absolutely necessary and you are about to use it. This is more applicable for LEO's than the CCW holder.
The force on force that I have done, and the people I have done it with, normally resulted in a wide gap in understanding of "use of deadly force" and verbal commands. Even for a CCW holder, if you are about to engage or are engaged with a person with a weapon, especially one that you reasonably believe can (and many times will if used enough) hurt you severely and/or kill you, then the time for talking has past.
VDMSR.com
Chief Developer for V Development Group
Everything I post I do so as a private individual who is not representing any company or organization.
Stumbled upon this thread lined with "gold nuggets" of information, figured it deserves some attention. This recent incident may have some relevance to the overall issue discussed in the thread:
http://www.wwltv.com/mb/news/local/n...lice/119358225
In relation to the "ICHY" and "Get back" conditioning, it can be nerve-wracking to the untrained/poorly-trained on how to otherwise manage unwanted approaches. These days there's no shortage of beggars/scammers trying to score handouts by playing on people's sympathy. Then factor in the criminals utilizing such ruses to get inside their target's comfort zone and many are content to be hostile to any individual who approaches them uninvited.
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
A great thread rediscovered. Thanks HCountyGuy!
I went back and reread the first 6 pages. What stood out to me is that we talked a lot about what doesn't work, what not to do, etc. However, there was little to no discussion from experts about what they would do, what does tend to work in these scenarios, or how they have managed to resolve similar situations over the years. Certainly, this is territory where there isn't going to be a single answer. It's going to be highly situational, nonlinear, and scenario specific. That's fine. But I think these sorts of discussions, lacking that leadership by example, fall short of the pedagogical value that they are capable of having.
What I'd really like to see is a module of some Craig-like classes that has confirmed experienced guys going through blind scenarios for demonstration purposes. Getting good role-players would become that much tougher, since they might automatically kneel at the known experience gap. If it can be done though, I'm imagining something like "civilian FTO training".
Time and time again, LE on this board have told me and others that they way they learned to manage these situations was by watching more experienced dudes. That fits well within my mental model for how learning best occurs. I feel like this is a massive hole in civilian training. Civilians spend most of their training time being told what to do, trying to do stuff they've never seen done right before, and then watching other unexperienced people try to do the same thing.
Reply With Quote