@fitnesstrainer
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I would highly encourage any LEO to attend this training, but particularly subject control/DT trainers. Our subject control training in BLET here in NC is beginning to incorporate many of the Krav techniques. In addition, for our 2008 mandatory in-service training, one of the blocks is a 4 hour \”Weapon Retention & Disarming\” course….the state subject control sub-committee voted to use the Krav techniques. We are slowly, but surely trying to weave as much Krav Maga in as is practical. Ryan Hoover, Jeff Jimmo, and the Krav Maga staff have been particularly helpful and supportive with these changes.
Believe me, this training will be a big asset to our programs in NC….I would certainly invite and encourage any out-of-state LEO to attend as well.
Stay safe, and don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions as well.
John Combs
NC Justice Academy
[email protected]KM Instructor Course
Mike, fyi…the NC Justice Academy will sponsor another KM Agency IT course at Ryan’s school in Gastonia on August 14-18…I’ve already sent out the info to the BLET school directors and will shortly send it out to the subject control instructors as well…help me spread the word!
John
Bill,
My post was not directed specifically toward you or anyone else who has posted thus far. Just adding my own views to the discussion to shed some light, so-to-speak on this seemingly very controversial topic.
I actually agree with much of what you have posted on this topic in that I myself don’t think its a good idea to have a non-LE person come in and try to teach police tactics, force option selection, etc., because that person may not understand the law enforcement application of reasonableness, perception, totality of the circumstances, Graham v. Connor, and so on. Having said that, I look at this issue the same way that I look at health/fitness applications for LE. When I am designing fitness programs for my courses – for example, speed and power development, I often look to outside sources such as the American College of Sports Medicine, the Nat’l Strength & Conditioning Assoc., etc., for ideas, techniques, and research. The main reason for this is that there are precious few programs specifically geared for LE so, rather than try to reinvent the wheel, I will look to college and pro sport programs for ideas on periodization of training and plyometrics and \”tweak\” the techniques to fit LE training. I try to take the best ideas from many different areas and make them relevant to our trainees….same with DT tactics.
As in fitness, though I don’t believe in non-LE trainers teaching certain aspects of our job, I do believe in finding the best systems, techniques, and training methods – regardless of the source – and putting together the most comprehensive well-rounded force training program possible.
Stay safe,
John Combs
NCJA\”Grappling may be your thing, but blunt trauma is king.\”
– – Ron DonvitoI am new to this forum and have only posted a couple of times. I am an 18+ year LE veteran and current full-time LE trainer. I am not a belt holder nor a competitor. My interest in any DT curriculum or martial art is very simple…what can I learn that will: 1) make me a more tactically sound officer, and 2) is this knowledge/skill relevant and applicable to the job? In other words, is it something that I can teach to my students in a short period of time giving them at least a basic level of proficiency in street DT skills? I do not care where or from whom this is provided, as long as it is relevant, and the instuctors are quality and reputable.
In my capacity as the School Director for the Subject Control training curriculum for the NC Basic LE Training (BLET) program, I have to ensure that course curricula are job-related and applicable, reflect current information and practices, and employ appropriate performance-based training methods. Further, I facilitate on-going curriculum revision committees responsible for making needed changes in course curriculum based on findings and reports from the field, and for making presentations on needed changes and/or additions to the programs. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously (as should any trainer).
Now, how is this relevant to this discussion? I can say (in my experience) that the NC Justice Academy has hosted many training seminars in the DT area with trainers w/o a day of LE experience. Without exception, every single one of them were top professionals in their art and well respected in the LE community. None ever made any claim to understanding what the cop’s job is really like, nor acted like \”wannabe’s.\” They were all very attentive to our inputs and suggestions on DT techniques…this usually was in the form of us saying, \”this is a common situation, do you have something that we could learn to better respond?\” And, \”is there a better way for us to do this?\”
I’m not for one second saying that ANY non-LE trainer should be allowed to teach the LE community, any more than I’m saying that EVERY LE DT trainer is top-quality. I believe that this should be carefully considered and approved on a case-by-case basis, as in any employment contract. It’s no secret that LE departments don’t have a lot to spend when it comes to $$$ for training…we also know that when budgets are tight, sometimes training is cut down. Having that in mind, I think it is even more important than ever that we in this profession use our resources wisely! LE training in years past has been very \”clique-ish\” and narrow…its time for that philosophy to GO AWAY! If I know of a non-LE trainer who has a certain kind of expertise that I think will benefit NC BLET and in-service training in general, I will continue to take necessary steps to try to provide this information to all. These techniques must be reviewed by the Subject Control Curriculum Revision Committee. If approved by the committee, they must be approved by the NC BLET Revision Committee. If approved here, they must then go to the state Training Standards Commission for final approval. In other words, this is not a \”one-man show,\” but a collaborative effort from many experienced professionals and careful decision-making.
All of these committees are much less concerned with who taught the techniques initially, or what martial art they came from, than they are with the relevance to NC LEO’s. We have enough problems in this profession…let’s not make quality training one of them.
Stay safe,
John CombsI think dugfoot and Ryan make good points. It certainly is true that there is a credibility issue for a non-LEO instructor to overcome when teaching LEO’s (I feel the same way about college professors who have never done the job). But once the officers see that the techniques have been geared to what they must accomplish, most are quite receptive and glad to have the training. For example, the NC Justice Academy (where I work) has developed and coordinated several Basic and Advanced Ground Defense IT programs…all of the techniques were developed by Carlson Gracie, Jr., after numerous subject matter committee meetings with him so that he would know what cops typically need to be able to do. The result is courses where every technique is geared either to avoiding being taken down, escape, or control. In other words, a job-relevant LE ground defense course and not a sport grappling class.
Its been my experience that once officers see the relevance and importance of what is being taught, most don’t mind that it may be a non-leo giving the training – as long as the instructor is top quality, we’re just happy to get the training!
\”Um, I don’t know about in Buffalo, but around here, if you’re looking to make money from LEOs or their departments, you’re in trouble.\”
Ryan is correct on this point! In NC, the budgets for training have been cut quite a bit in the last few years (its just steadily gotten cut more and more over the years), especially for travel TO training. Its certainly no great mystery that you don’t get rich in this profession, and individual departments very often cannot or will not fund long-term (or even short-term) training in an arrest & control system, no matter how good it is. They MAY authorize funds for an instructor-level course for a week or two if they believe it will be valuable for the department as a whole, but very often individual officers have to pay this out-of-pocket with no reimbursement. Then you have the issue of how many officers out there are even committed to spend the time and money necessary to become proficient in a particular system and/or to remain physically fit for duty. I’m sorry to say that those seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, any martial arts school is not likely to have a great deal of income from our profession….the officers who are dedicated to training will train regardless, as long as they believe in the value of the system and the cost is reasonable.
Stay Safe!
Police DT
As a law enforcement DT trainer, I’d have to agree that some of the techniques taught should probably be revised. Here in NC our basic program involves 40 hrs of training on 33 techniques (it has actually improved a lot from a few years ago when we had 10 techniques that were very complicated and very \”defensive\” in nature). Departments and academies can do more but most unfortunately only do the minimums. Our program at the basic level has PPCT, some ground defense, ASP Baton techniques, and weapon retention/disarm. I am currently in the process of trying to incorporate more KM techniques particularly focusing on more striking and better weapon techniques. We try to provide at least something to cover the spectrum of \”force options\” and proper decision making.
I have worked as an expert witness several times on behalf of officers who have been sued over their choices of force options. One thing is always very clear – the more options, the better!
There is no single technique, book, video, or training program that will even begin to address every possible scenario and level/type of resistance that an officer may face. To advocate that certain lower level force techniques are the only ones that an officer may use would be irresponsible and dangerous on the part of an instructor, school, or law enforcement agency. To do so would ìpigeon-holeî officers into having to choose from a limited number of force options to address an infinite number of possible scenarios. Officers must be able to choose appropriate force options based upon the totality of the circumstances (i.e., the scenario and the resistive subject will dictate the officersí response in selecting appropriate force options), and those force options must be based upon ìgross motor skills.î Techniques based on gross motor skills are simple to use, easily recalled under stress, and most importantly, are applicable in a variety of situations. This means that there is more than one force option for a given level of resistance. As stated earlier, no single technique can address every possible physical contact therefore, the best techniques are the ones that can be applied to a wide variety of situations.
Real law enforcement confrontations are quick, often violent, and sometimes take place in very confined areas. These confrontations are also very different than the static environment of a mat room during a training session, and the variables are too numerous to describe. Therefore, just like the myth of the ìone-punch knockout,î it is unrealistic to assume that a large combative individual can be taken down and completely subdued with one strike. Therefore training in a system that anyone from the lowest skilled to the highest skilled in the class can perform at a level needed in realistic confrontations is critically important!
I welcome anyone’s comments and suggestions.
