Distance and Knife Attacks

[nycnoob]

We did a ton of work on this stuff at ITTS with Scott Reitz. Scott does an exceptional job in court cases as an expert in many of these cases. Scott has several knife attack target systems, and drills. What they found was the "21" foot rule also requires perfection. A perfect identification of the attack, perfect draw stroke, perfect hits and a very clean response. This is rarely possible in the field and well over 30 feet is far more realistic and the ability to move off line is critical, and it is especially important to try to put a barrier between you and the assailant.

I would be very interested in learning more about this "theory approach". I checked Scott's website: http://www.internationaltactical.com/scott.html and I do not see any edged weapons classes. I am particularly interested in learning something "court defensible" about the danger of edged weapons. SouthNarc and the TPI crew very firmly believe "In a fight, most people do not get violent enough early enough". I currently live in NYC where the police are not particularly friendly to the idea of selfdefense. I have taken Ayoob's course on the legal issues of Lethal force (just came back from a refresher this weekend) and he still teaches "use of force ladder". I do not see how to apply Criag's experiance about the danger of such situations and still maintain the "reasonable" response the law requires.

[Cecil Burch]

Never mind.

[SouthNarc]

I would be very interested in learning more about this "theory approach". I checked Scott's website: http://www.internationaltactical.com/scott.html and I do not see any edged weapons classes. I am particularly interested in learning something "court defensible" about the danger of edged weapons. SouthNarc and the TPI crew very firmly believe "In a fight, most people do not get violent enough early enough". I currently live in NYC where the police are not particularly friendly to the idea of selfdefense. I have taken Ayoob's course on the legal issues of Lethal force (just came back from a refresher this weekend) and he still teaches "use of force ladder". I do not see how to apply Criag's experiance about the danger of such situations and still maintain the "reasonable" response the law requires.

What in particular do you believe is not defensible?

[TCinVA]

I would be very interested in learning more about this "theory approach". I checked Scott's website: http://www.internationaltactical.com/scott.html and I do not see any edged weapons classes. I am particularly interested in learning something "court defensible" about the danger of edged weapons. SouthNarc and the TPI crew very firmly believe "In a fight, most people do not get violent enough early enough".

I'd be very reluctant to make statements about Craig's opinion or the general temperature of TPI like that.

I believe I'd be accurate if I said that one of the points Craig teaches in ECQC is that people are not proactive enough in defense of themselves, meaning that they often aren't paying enough attention and if they start and combine that with taking reasonable, non-violent actions that often completely avoid an intended attack or that give them a much better chance of success should it become a fight they can dramatically up their chances of a good outcome.

Often when doing this properly one sees the signs that violent action is necessary before there's a knife in their guts or a gun in their face, and that can prompt an appropriate response (like a preemptive draw) which will stop the attack cold without any blood being spilled.

If you haven't taken ECQC, I recommend it. Craig's approach to the use of force...any level of it...is very nuanced and one of the best I've ever encountered. Being an actual court certified UOF expert who has testified in a bunch of cases helps out with that.

[Dagga Boy]

I would be very interested in learning more about this "theory approach". I checked Scott's website: http://www.internationaltactical.com/scott.html and I do not see any edged weapons classes. I am particularly interested in learning something "court defensible" about the danger of edged weapons. SouthNarc and the TPI crew very firmly believe "In a fight, most people do not get violent enough early enough". I currently live in NYC where the police are not particularly friendly to the idea of selfdefense. I have taken Ayoob's course on the legal issues of Lethal force (just came back from a refresher this weekend) and he still teaches "use of force ladder". I do not see how to apply Criag's experiance about the danger of such situations and still maintain the "reasonable" response the law requires.

Scott doesn't do "theory". First, he doesn't teach "edged weapons". He often works with Ernie Emerson and some of the high end Krav guys on the edged weapon specific stuff. His systems are designed to use a firearm response to an edged weapon. This is done live with an excellent charger system (that he can also bring Juries to see in action), and he will take actual LAPD shooting cases and they will be recreated with Sims. This includes case involving edged or unknown weapons that test your abilities to maneuver, problem solving and use appropriate force. What his training does is allow the "if a guy has a knife I'll just shoot them" people to see exactly how hard that is to pull off. The Sims work also show how difficult "problem solving" really is using actual cases as a guide. Scott has a heavy emphasis on "Problem Solving". Many cases have edged and impact or improvised weapons as part of the problem and he gives you exposure time to what is involved with many of the solutions.

[nycnoob]

What in particular do you believe is not defensable?

I am worried about how to explain violence to the Jury, I think there is much that is defensible but would be hard to explain.

In particular there was a discussion here (almost exactly a year ago) about the use of gasoline to the face as a preemptive strike:

http://www.totalprotectioninteractiv...ad.php?t=15962

I agree the situation discussed was dangerous, but there had been no use of force by either side yet so
justification of a potential blinding seems difficult.

Also there has been mention on TPI that the whole "use of force continuum" is dated and not necessarily best practice anymore.
How to explain such things if the prosecutor is working under the old paradigm.(I can not find the thread but I remember general
agreement on this point that minimal force was not required: SouthNarc, Mitchel, Paul Sharp Etc. I think were in agreement. I am
still very fuzzy about what would be reasonable and yet not minimal. I tried to ask Ayoob a question about this, over last weened
but either I was very bad at phrasing what I wanted to say, or this was so far from his experience he could not parse the question.

From nyet's description it sounds like Scott Reitz has some ways of quantifying how uncertainty of the situation
difficulty in correctly observing the attack can lead to very dangerous outcomes.

We did a ton of work on this stuff at ITTS with Scott Reitz. Scott does an exceptional job in court cases as an expert in many of these cases. Scott has several knife attack target systems, and drills. What they found was the "21" foot rule also requires perfection. A perfect identification of the attack, perfect draw stroke, perfect hits and a very clean response. This is rarely possible in the field and well over 30 feet is far more realistic and the ability to move off line is critical, and it is especially important to try to put a barrier between you and the assailant.

[nycnoob]

Scott has a heavy emphasis on "Problem Solving". Many cases have edged and impact or improvised weapons as part of the problem and he gives you exposure time to what is involved with many of the solutions.

Sounds like the course he will be teaching in Pittsburgh in October

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

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...359#post155359

Guess I should make an effort to go to it. Thanks for the info, I would not have known about this.

[SouthNarc]

I am worried about how to explain violence to the Jury, I think there is much that is defensible but would be hard to explain.

In particular there was a discussion here (almost exactly a year ago) about the use of gasoline to the face as a preemptive strike:

http://www.totalprotectioninteractiv...ad.php?t=15962

I agree the situation discussed was dangerous, but there had been no use of force by either side yet so
justification of a potential blinding seems difficult.

Also there has been mention on TPI that the whole "use of force continuum" is dated and not necessarily best practice anymore.
How to explain such things if the prosecutor is working under the old paradigm.(I can not find the thread but I remember general
agreement on this point that minimal force was not required: SouthNarc, Mitchel, Paul Sharp Etc. I think were in agreement. I am
still very fuzzy about what would be reasonable and yet not minimal. I tried to ask Ayoob a question about this, over last weened
but either I was very bad at phrasing what I wanted to say, or this was so far from his experience he could not parse the question.

From nyet's description it sounds like Scott Reitz has some ways of quantifying how uncertainty of the situation
difficulty in correctly observing the attack can lead to very dangerous outcomes.

I think a single discussion in a thread on an internet forum is a quite a stretch to the "ShivWorks/TPI paradigm is not defensible". My opinion though.

Force continuums, ladders, etc. ARE dated. Most agencies are getting away from them and sticking with a 4th amendment standard. For a citizen's perspective you might want to do Mitchell's phone seminar.

And with that being said I'm not sure how ANY of this relates to knives or knife defense.

[ToddG]

I do not see how to apply Criag's experiance about the danger of such situations and still maintain the "reasonable" response the law requires.

I don't want to speak for Craig so if he wants to come in here and say I completely misunderstand his viewpoint, let me offer my mea culpa in advance.

However, I think you're looking at the problem the wrong way. Craig's experience and lessons include, in essence, a warning that many people don't fight soon enough. In other words, a lot of people wait until they're already far behind the power curve before they react violently and that, obviously, increases risk to the defender. (it's worth noting that Col. Cooper said much the same thing a million years ago in his little book... I don't have mine at hand but I do recall words like "aggressiveness," "surprise," and even "ruthlessness")

That is completely disconnected from your local PD and jury. If they believe you need to take a bullet to the chest before you can defend yourself, you live in a sucky place. That doesn't mean instructors are wrong to advocate tactics that involve responding before you take a bullet to the chest. It means you live somewhere that potentially frowns on best practices.

So you're in a tough spot: compromise your defensive strategy and risk injury/death, or employ tactics that may put you at greater risk for incarceration in your local jurisdiction. It's probably fallacious to believe that someone, somewhere, is teaching strategies and techniques that are just as good but don't have any legal ramifications.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Actually, Ken has done my class & shot me in ECQC.

(Obligatory Training Day reference re: you shot me in the ass!)

I can't really comment because im working now and cannot use the real computer (responding by phone sucks) but I would give Ken's conserns some consideration.

Please dont just suggest he needs to take a class as I think he's actually quite well informed.

People may see things differently...so give discussion a chance because I think good stuff will come out of this thread...