Disguising the Draw

[Gray01]

Cooper wrote that fighting back is a social duty.

I think that he was right, but I also think that the duty is conditional. Duties in society are based upon a compact that contains a shared culture and values. When the culture degrades to the point where individuals (including those who hold (or did) an office charged with enforcing the laws of society) have a perception that there is a significant possibility that the victim will be penalized by the "justice system" (either by the process or the penalty), then there is no longer an incentive to the aforementioned duty.

When, after successfully defending against a criminal attack, society says that it will then place the victim in additional jeopardy, duty to said society evaporates.

[Alpha Sierra]

When, after successfully defending against a criminal attack, society says that it will then place the victim in additional jeopardy, duty to said society evaporates.

Indeed

[NH Shooter]

When, after successfully defending against a criminal attack, society says that it will then place the victim in additional jeopardy, duty to said society evaporates.

Agreed.

It's not a reach for someone who is fully competent with CCW to decide they would better off being non-fatally injured during an assault than to successfully defend against it with a firearm. Many injuries are 100% recoverable with no lasting complications, whereas a legal defense has the potential to more negatively impact your life and perhaps never recover from.

It's a sick and warped world we live in.

[UNM1136]

BBI`s observations are dead nuts on, as usual.

One of the biggest takeaways I had from ECQC is at those distances you need to control his shit before going for your shit. That requires a level of commitment and decision making that you need to experience a few times to learn. No matter how natural or unnatural your set up for the draw, NOTHING will make up the the jerky "OK....NOW...NO, NO....OK...NOW....WAIT....OK...."indecisive, incredibly unnatural motion. When it is time to move, it is time to move and you cannot keep second guessing yourself.

Kinda like the first few times you go hands on with someone and you are not really certain that you are doing the right thing, or when you have a violent drunk to deal with and you get that indecisive moment in your gut that tells you "wait a second, a better opportunity might present itself in two seconds....nope, but maybe another couple of seconds".

Any one remember this?



One of the things I frequently trained rookie officers to do is during a traffic stop to approach with their gun in their hand, ask for license, registration and insurance, an holster up during the contact if everything is going well. The goal of the exercise be decisive, confident, and never let the driver know what is going on. I have never had a rookie or myself "busted" by a driver and complained on. Say what you will about never training from the behind the thigh one handed pistol position: it happens. My first exposure was backing up a sergeant on looking for a potential felony vehicle. Description was close, but not that close and she elected to approach rather than do a high risk stop. It was the wrong car, and one of several several stops that night of similar cars, none of which were the "right" car.

I also later adapted the technique to open of business alarms and confronting people who looked like they might belong, but the time was wrong, the alarm was going off, dispatch has no phone contact with the location, etc. Confronting someone at gunpoint might be the safest way to go, but complaints from powerful people tend to be sustained by semi-spineless administrators who seem to forget that good tactics are good tactics. A lower profile confrontation or semi-ready position has gone a long way to satisfy my approach that no alarm is routine, and provide a bit of political cover. It can be amusing to see facial expressions when you confront someone in their own office, and they only realize that you were speaking to them with a gun in your hand when you holster up while thanking them for their cooperation, and explaining the need to treat THEIR alarm like the real thing, always.

I have never had a complaint while doing this, while other officers have been disciplined for "not exercising better judgement with what was likely a false alarm." These are done in full uniform, with people who can immediately identify you as a cop, and your body language, presence, bearing and the overall situation keep them from noticing that you are looking for any advantage possible in the confrontation.

I am not a fan of the old pistol under the thigh while seated in the car. Your awareness, observations and locked doors should buy you what you need to drive away or draw.

Like I tell new officers...you need to take a decision, and act on it. Being less than decisive in your actions will greatly reduce their effectiveness. Whether you are right or wrong is not something you are likely to know until afterwards, so do the best you can, take a decision and act. And there is not much wrong deciding to comply if you judge it to be the best course of action at the time, and live to tell.

Sorry, some thoughts. I am up waaaaay past my bedtime again.

pat

[BehindBlueI's]

Remember when I said the "simulations" shown weren't realistic in how they showed street crime in this context? Anyone who still doubts it should watch the video in this thread, then the simulations, a few times.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....5-Self-defense



The "attacker" didn't just jump right in with physical violence. He did not expect resistance, he expected compliance or flight. He was simply trying to corral her. Probably still verbally going for compliance. He did not expect her to resist with deadly force. If he had of, he wouldn't have behaved that way and would almost certainly have not selected her to begin with.

A solid demonstration of what I mean when I said real street crime against women doesn't look like the simulations.

[willie]

I discussed the thread with an elderly retired Texas DPS trooper. He said that on a couple occasions when stopping a vehicle at night with no backup available, he had three or four occupants exit the vehicle in order to surround him. Each time he convinced these folks that if they continued, he would shoot to kill. Further, he stated that he would not have wasted one of his 6 bullets with a warning shot. I believe that he would have done what he claimed. He added that in today's world that action would cost his job and maybe send him to prison. I have zero training in this area and have no idea what an officer might do to defend himself in this scenario. It's scary.

[blues]

I discussed the thread with an elderly retired Texas DPS trooper. He said that on a couple occasions when stopping a vehicle at night with no backup available, he had three or four occupants exit the vehicle in order to surround him. Each time he convinced these folks that if they continued, he would shoot to kill. Further, he stated that he would not have wasted one of his 6 bullets with a warning shot. I believe that he would have done what he claimed. He added that in today's world that action would cost his job and maybe send him to prison. I have zero training in this area and have no idea what an officer might do to defend himself in this scenario. It's scary.

Frankly, given the scenario described I don't blame him a bit for what he said under the circumstances. Odds are bad for the officer in that scenario if he doesn't have an avenue of escape.

[runcible]

I've taken SouthNarc's course and don't recall anything like an overt draw with a bad guy closing on you and/or going for a gun while the bad guy is uncontrolled. Probably because, as shown, it doesn't work.

Remember when I said the "simulations" shown weren't realistic in how they showed street crime in this context? Anyone who still doubts it should watch the video in this thread, then the simulations, a few times.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....5-Self-defense

The "attacker" didn't just jump right in with physical violence. He did not expect resistance, he expected compliance or flight. He was simply trying to corral her. Probably still verbally going for compliance. He did not expect her to resist with deadly force. If he had of, he wouldn't have behaved that way and would almost certainly have not selected her to begin with.

A solid demonstration of what I mean when I said real street crime against women doesn't look like the simulations.

You have a lifetime of experience in these matters, that I don't have. Nevertheless, I'm a bit confused by some of your remarks, quoted above.

In the video linked in the topic referenced above, is the female drawing overtly in the face of an encroaching and uncontrolled opponent?

Would she have been able to perform the same with either bra holster or a bag holster? Would she have had the same margin for error?

Like... I get it, you dislike the videos that I linked earlier; though I believe you're reading more into the intent of their filming than was intended. But I don't follow the offshoot tangent beyond that. Could you clarify it all, please?

[BehindBlueI's]

You have a lifetime of experience in these matters, that I don't have. Nevertheless, I'm a bit confused by some of your remarks, quoted above.

In the video linked in the topic referenced above, is the female drawing overtly in the face of an encroaching and uncontrolled opponent?

Would she have been able to perform the same with either bra holster or a bag holster? Would she have had the same margin for error?

Like... I get it, you dislike the videos that I linked earlier; though I believe you're reading more into the intent of their filming than was intended. But I don't follow the offshoot tangent beyond that. Could you clarify it all, please?

It's not that I dislike the videos so much a I dislike the takeaways some viewers have had. I have no issues with the folks who made it nor their intent. My issue is reading more into it then what is there.

Bra holster, almost certainly. Bag holster, tougher call because we don't know if the attacker was targeting HER or her possessions. I'll address that further in a bit.

However note his body language, at least as much as we can tell in this footage. He's not trying to HURT her, he's trying to HERD her. He moves to cut her off when he gets out of the car instead of directly approaching her. He's fairly lackadaisical as his initial approach and he spreads his arms out as she moves.

Now, imagine how you would posture to shoo a group of chickens into a pen. Now imagine how you would posture to fight someone. Which is he doing? You don't attack someone with your arms spread wide from your body, you do that to try and stop an escape attempt and capture or herd them.

He is not "attacking" at this point. He doesn't bum-rush her or tackle her, he closes the distance in hops. He fully expects compliance and doesn't process her going for the gun. He never gets through the OODA loop to the point he mounts a defense to her draw. She's ambushing him, not fending off an attack, so the tactics that will work are different and have a wider margin. If, instead, he was rushing her with a knife with the decision to attack already made and stabbing her a bunch of times, she'd have failed just like the video showed. That's the difference here. In the real video, there's nothing to control because there is no attack yet.

Now, the question becomes is he targeting her for her backpack/valuables or is he going to attempt to abduct her. The media says robbery attempt, and based on what of his body language we can see I'd say that's more likely but not certain. What we can be certain of is fully expects compliance. We can be fairly certain he targeted her because he did not expect her to resist and that he prefers to commit his crimes without violence. In that he's very stereotypical for men who target women for robberies. f she were carrying a purse, would he have directed his "attack" at the purse and tried to do a quick grab and go, turning a purse draw into a struggle over the gun? We can't say for sure, but we can say he doesn't attack her directly with overwhelming physical force. He uses his posture and probably his words to intimidate into compliance. And that brings us back to why I say the videos do not present a very realistic scenario for a woman being attacked on the street. If you find a woman stabbed multiple times, it's almost certainly a domestic and not a random robbery attempt.

[Foxy Brown]

It's not that I dislike the videos so much a I dislike the takeaways some viewers have had. I have no issues with the folks who made it nor their intent. My issue is reading more into it then what is there.

.....

And that brings us back to why I say the videos do not present a very realistic scenario for a woman being attacked on the street. If you find a woman stabbed multiple times, it's almost certainly a domestic and not a random robbery attempt.

(Bold emphasis mine)

Well, as the maker of the videos, I can say you're making the same mistake that you're griping about. The intent of my videos was not to simulate a "...realistic scenario for a woman being attacked on the street." As I clearly explained in the videos, the purpose was merely a comparison of accessibility of two on-body carry methods versus an off-body carry method. (Key word here is accessibility.) The purpose of the "attack" was to simulate some time pressure of having to access the weapon. It was not to show my awesome Street Fighter Skills, nor was it to demonstrate how a woman ought to defend herself from "...being attacked on the street." As BillSWPA called out, the "attacker" dialed back his actions because he is a well trained fighter with depth of knowledge and experience in how attacks happen. The purpose of the videos was not an attack, it wasn't to simulate an ECQC like evo. It was merely to add more pressure than a simple shot timer to assess/investigate accessibility.

I cannot control what other people do or do not take away from my videos. I put the information out there with a clear explanation of its intent. The message taken from the video is viewer dependent.