1986 FBI Miami Shootout

Saw this video yesterday during a training – it is a dramatic, though attempted accurate,  reproduction of the famous 1986 FBI Shootout in Miami:

This is good for people to watch because it is quite a realistic dramatic portrayal of an actual gunfight, as opposed to the usual Hollywood fluff.

David Soul (Hutch gone to the Dark Side!!) plays Michael Platt.

One thing to remember is that the first wound Platt suffered in this fight was a serious, non-survivable injury, yet he went on to wreak the mayhem that Soul portrays in this movie, while sustaining many additional wounds.

Neither he, nor his partner Matix, who also suffered numerous wounds before succumbing, were under the influence of anything during this incident.

The tactical/technical details and wound descriptions can be found at this link.

Worthy of study.

Ecuador Training Postponed

Due to circumstances, the training in Quito Ecuador has been postponed to a later, as yet to be determined date.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Not Being Clear on the Concept

Classic example of a tactical mismatch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEfyr…Nt79oYG4v4Vp0M

This is one of the major problems with taking a sportive fighting system and adopting it wholesale to an environment/paradigm for which it was not designed and was never intended. While it is common to find non-LE and military promoting this kind of thing to the latter professionals, it is often because they lack the frame of reference as to what is useful, what is practical, or what is tactically advisable in the adaptation of a fighting method to their particular needs and situations.

However, one also sees people who are professionals (an assumption here as to the instructor) that engage in the same thing. I have alluded to this previously with respected instructors and instructional materials out there demonstrating double leg takedowns for use while wearing kit and carrying M-4s, or the kinds of things you see here with drop arm bars and double legs and taking the back – falling back on the ground – when one KNOWS one is surrounded by multiple subjects and potential suspects.

This is, plainly speaking, a tactical mismatch that is misguided at best. This is to my thinking someone who is more interested in demonstrating their own personal skill set regardless of its viability for the street, or the advisability of it for other officers – most of whom will not be able to skillfully perform it even in these gym conditions.

Readers here obviously know my background: this is not “hater-ism.” I have submission grappled, done Judo to black belt level (recently returning to that practice), and have trained Brazilian jujitsu for many. I consider such “live” or antagonistic training disciplines foundational to effective defensive tactics.

But not in the way as shown here. A number of alternative methods found in those practices accomplish the same goals, that DO NOT: go to the ground, on one’s back, intentionally limiting one’s mobility while also losing control – or even any ability to control – the suspect’s other hand, THEN requiring you to get back up for final control while entangled with the suspect.

Or that expect you to do it WITH MULTIPLE POTENTIAL OPPONENTS present……foolishly failing to manage officer jeopardy and then defaulting to a handgun response while entangled: a great way to lose your gun, or at least get into a fight over it with those multiples around.

That this instructor is also demonstrating this with no body armor, equipment belt, or boots on is notable. Not saying you must always train in gear: but you should know that you will be wearing such gear when it is real, and therefore be doing things that make more sense while you are wearing them.

This would not be it.

 

 

 

Marcus Wynne’s Blog

A must read:

http://marcuswynne.posterous.com/

FFKG Course at Lakewood Washington, March 2012

Note to LE trainers in Washington State:

Rich Daniel is the founder of the FFKG training system, and a professional trainer. Rich is good people,  as well as  multi-time attendee of ECQC coursework; he is uniquely positioned to compare and contrast airosft and sim training in terms of close quarters officer survival practice.

This course will definitely be worth a look.

Lakewood Police Department presents:

FFKG 2 day Train the Trainer Program With Rich Daniel and Sifu Christopher Clarke of Northwest Kali Academy…

 

 

March 19-20^th , -2012 8-5 pm

Location:  Lakewood PD 9401 Lakewood Dr. SW Lakewood, WA 98499

Cost: $450 per student

This two day course is designed to help trainers establish their own Airsoft program. It also serves as an introduction to Airsoft equipment and a demonstration of training techniques possible with Airsoft.

Airsoft is not a replacement for live-fire or Simunition FX. It is, however, an excellent addition to any modern training program. If you are a Law Enforcement Instructor and are tired of training in a box, this program is for you.

Course Content:

* Airsoft operation

 

* Safety

* Advantages and short comings

* Training site set-up

* Footwork drills

* Tactical movement

* Break contact drills

*Close quarter knife defense

*Centerline control / limb control

*Close quarter hitting

*Close quarter transitions to weapons

We’ll bring:

* 15 gas guns

* Gas and ammo

* Helmets and throat protection

* Chest protectors

* Focus mitts

* Training knives

Students supply:

* Eye protection

* Groin protection

* Hand protection (gloves)

* Flash light and holster

* Firm belt

* Glock belt holster

The course content is flexible and may change based on the needs of the host agency.

To Register, contact:  Svea Pitts, Lakewood Police Department, 253-830-5022

TacticaLOL

Not to be missed!

http://tacticalol.com/

Systems

A friend of mine once wrote for the Tactical Edge magazine on what your “system” is….he was speaking of SWAT teams in particular (*he is a very experienced and highly respected team leader*), but it applies to personal preparation as well.

I must confess that I am not a true believer. I don’t have a specific system, or specific guru, nor am I continually seeking the “Compleat System”  - because it does not exist. I’ve written before that I am suspicious of people who trumpet that, just as I am of instructors who believe that really want you (or themselves?) to believe they have it and can’t understand why you don’t agree with them.

I am a proponent of several approaches and the teaching of several trainers, because overall they are consistent within their principles across the board from Tactics to Weapons to CQC, and have been proven to me in force on force training and in the field.

Oddly, I have found some things are  more consistent within principles by taking a piece from one system and integrating with a piece from another, rather than from similar practices within the system itself (this is a Boyd reference that has shades of meaning in that particular sentence….BTW), as in taking a tactics system from one and combatives system from another. Do not put it past people to strongly advocate a certain theory or testing methodology for one aspect of their training and completely dispense with it in another – the obvious contradiction there is a hole that needs filled, typically from outside the established system.

Not every system has such a hole in logic/principles and pressure testing methodologies, but many do. Still, EVERY teacher and system I have trained in has had some thing or things within it that I just don’t like, agree with, or that doesn’t fit the way I operate for these or other reasons.

No biggie, I fill that hole from somewhere/someone else.

I stipulate that at times it is a matter of not enough time on the thing to make a decision, and sometimes have adopted things I initially did not like or rejected at first glance. Others, I continue to reject. Some I find a place for in certain circumstances so long as it ‘fits’ within the overall principles and platform that I practice: for instance I have integrated some Arrestling contact weapons stuff within ECQC contact weapons stuff  I do as a ‘last ditch’ default to the default, if that makes sense…

And sometimes just different ways to skin a cat,  something is principally and technically sound and just not something I do based on personal likes, dislikes, or training. For instance I am not a “Reverse Edge” knife guy because I have far too much time in on conventional edge in different grips and don’t see the need or want to put the time in changing that….in particular since I need that time now to change some of the ways I run a gun and am working with someone to do that. My  ”programming”  time to pattern new things is needed there, not in altering something that really is pretty far down the list in my layered platform, and that would make a minimal difference to how I work a blade anyway.

It’s a give and take.

Above all, your tactical practice should be just that, a practice. You constantly train, adjust, hone, experience, analyze, evaluate and integrate new information and new things as they appear to be both rational, more sound, and consistent within your overall operating system. Then begin the cycle again. In this way you are constantly striving to avoid becoming a practitioner of a “system within itself.” Advances in human performance in all arenas have come about only because of this process.

Yes, this may mean some radical changes early on. Later they are smaller changes, yet keeping the ripples across the rest of your platform in mind. With more practice and experience you can better judge that, as you will know what you can do under stress.

Update 2012 Shivworks/ECQC Schedule

Updating this with the link to the new Shivworks site Training Schedule. It says “2011 Schedule” at the top but it appears this is for 2012:

Shivworks Training Schedule

Come to a course and be truly challenged in you tactics and your thinking!

Adapt-Ability and an Article at Policeone

 

One of the few good articles that comes across on PoliceOne:

(edited to add the content of the article before it goes protected…)

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/4965069-Are-you-prepared-to-adapt-and-win-on-the-street/

 

Staying Oriented with Fred Leland

You’ve got to have an “ace in the hole” — a little secret that nobody knows. Life is a gamble, a game we all play, but you need to save something for a rainy day. You’ve got to learn to play your cards right if you expect to WIN in life. Don’t put it all on the line for just one roll. You’ve got to have an ace in the hole. If you’re headed down a one way street and you’re not sure it’s the way you wanna go. In money or love, or all the above, Have a little more than what you show. When life deals out a surprise have a few surprises of your own. No matter what you do, no matter where you go you’ve got to have an ace in the hole. So the song goes, as it talks of life, love and all the above. With cops being killed in the line of duty at a 60 percent higher rate than two years ago, and nice cops (as of this writing) already tragically lost in 2012, this ability to adapt and shift tactics in my view is a big missing factor in our training and in our thinking in the law enforcement profession. This “ace in the hole” concept conjures up thoughts of being agile, flexible and being prepared for the worst. In other words being adaptable, being prepared to adjust our responses to meet the changing conditions we encounter on the street. Are we willing to make the shift in mindset to that of one that includes adaptability? We Need Problem Solvers In law enforcement there is a pronounced tendency at all levels of law enforcement to control by rules — each problem seems to result in more rules (policies, regulations, directives, etc.) this tendency often creates friction in decision making of an officer. You know friction; that which makes the apparently easy difficult. Those things running through our minds useful or not, that slow decision making down. This is not to say that dealing with people when emotions are high is easy, it certainly is not. In fact, dealing with people in conflict is one of the most unpredictable things we can encounter in life cop or not. What has troubled me for some time in our profession is that policies and procedures and checklist driven law enforcement organizations are teaching cops what to think and do, instead of HOW to think and do. Despite the talk to the contrary we are not creating and nurturing problem solvers in law enforcement. Instead we are creating rule- and checklist-followers and this, is, I believe dangerous and part of the problem when it comes to officer safety and effectiveness. Dangerous in the sense that the types of circumstances cops handle are dynamic, rapidly changing, complex situations that require walking, talking, thinking cops. Policies take the thinking out of the equation. For years, those of us who train other officers thought policies and procedures were the answer. In reality, as soon as circumstances change, to something an officer on the street has never seen before, many do not adapt. They cannot think of a new plan. They fail to adapt to the changes they see, and either freeze, while trying to figure out what’s going on or what to do, or they carry on unaware. They wind up moving forward emotionally charged with yesterday’s plan, policy or procedure that does not work today. Their actions do not fit the circumstances and they stay in a battle they are not able to win with the chosen method or tactic they believe they are suppose to use, putting the officer(s) in jeopardy. Is this tendency to standardize tactics, policy and procedures and practices causing us to lend the initiative to our adversaries and giving those cop killers more of an advantage than they already start with? Officer Created Jeopardy (OCJ) comes from a failure to adapt to changing conditions. OCJ is enhanced by emotion that instills a false sense of urgency verse a true sense of urgency, complacency verses awareness, habit verses innovation, and personal attributes that stifle insight into a tactical encounter. OCJ is also comes from the lack of knowledge and/or the inability to apply knowledge in a strategic and tactical way to the changing conditions, considering the factors of time and risk. Officer Created Jeopardy can also be created, within an organization, where distrust and lack of support are the prevailing feelings for action taken outside of procedural guidelines. Does this sound familiar? If so how do we fix this problem? Both Art and Science Understanding tactics is an art and science is something we all must strive to grasp. Applying tactics based solely on policy and procedure, or yesterday’s battle applied to today’s situation is a critical decision — one that should be based on the conditions officer(s) are dealing with, and not a canned response. A decision that affects the outcomes in a given set of circumstances requires interaction, insight, initiative and innovation on the part of officer(s), and the ability and flexibility to make decisions in the heat of the moment has a direct effect on officer created jeopardy and the overall outcome. The (often) missing link of strategy and tactics is operational art–or, applying what we know to a given set of circumstances. Operational art  is the link between ends (strategy) and our means (tactics) to reach the safe and effective outcomes we are striving for based on the unfolding conditions, not yesterday’s situation but today’s. Operational art is applying our knowledge to the situation at hand, and considers the moral, mental and physical dimensions of conflict, as well as the methods and tactics we use in implementing our strategy to protect and serve no matter what the call or circumstances are. Gen. A.M. Gray states; “In tactics, the most important thing is not whether you go left or right, but WHY you go left or right.” Police officers often have little understanding of the reasons (WHY) tasks were performed a particular way. Police officers are overly reliant on process, not focused enough on results (true in training, but also in planning and leading and in responding) so why do we continue to focus on policy and procedure development verse developing decision makers and problem solvers? I thought we in law enforcement were doing away with centralized control and wanted a decentralized structure so we could solve problems in an efficient and effective ways. Why are still doing the same old things, the same old way as those who pose a threat evolve in their methods? The ability to adapt to changing conditions in rapidly changing circumstances, and to seize the initiative, requires the ability to think on your feet. We must adapt our response to the circumstances not the other way around. Adapting to the changing conditions is what makes a true professional. It’s what separates the true tactical artisan from the theorist. The ability to adapt is what separates the doers from the talkers. The OODA Loop Winning on the street requires you; observe, orient, decide, and act. Col. John Boyd explained a person(s) in a conflict must observe the environment, to include himself, his adversary, the moral, mental and physical situation, of potential allies and opponents. He must orient to what it all means, “what’s going on” which is part of the ongoing process throughout the tactical situation. Orientation involves the information observed, and how it’s interpreted based on ones genetic heritage, social environment, prior experiences (birth-present) and the ongoing circumstances (what’s happening now) that forms a ongoing picture of the situation. The results one forms during the orientation phase must be decided upon and an attempt need be made to carry out the decision, and finally, he must act. Is adaptability; the ability to make an effective change to an altered situation, a key attribute officers must possess in reducing law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty or is it more policy and procedure that’s needed? If adaptability is a key factor, are cops being trained and prepared to observe, orient, decide and act or is the policies and procedure, canned response driven culture of law enforcement putting cops and those they serve in jeopardy? Have we even considered this? Doing things the way they have always been done is fool hearted and unprofessional. Do we not owe it to ourselves and those we serve to leverage every lesson from the street to continually learn, unlearn and relearn and then apply those lessons? On the other hand, change for the sake of change is just as well fool hearted, but isn’t effective change to enhance safety and effectiveness a good idea? Change to meet the challenges that lie ahead and prepare all for both conventional and unconventional problems and threats law enforcement is to encounter, will take strength of character and leadership. Leadership needs to come from front-line personnel, mid-level supervisors and administrators, and the community as well as, local government leaders. Life (policing) is a gamble (considering time and risk), a game we all play, but you need to save something for a rainy day (the day you face the ultimate challenge of life or death). You’ve got to learn to play your cards right (tactical options) if you expect to win in life. Do you have and are you prepared to use your Ace in the hole? Thanks to country music artist George Strait and his song “Ace in the hole” for inspiring this essay on officer safety. “Situation Awareness implies one takes a holistic approach to identify threats & opportunities through analysis and intuition; then follow through with timely decision and prosecution. Situational Awareness is also known as Coup d’oeil, or Stroke of the Eye.” ~Swot Hunter Stay Oriented!

About the author Fred T. Leland, Jr. is the Founder and Principal Trainer of LESC: Law Enforcement & Security Consulting (www.lesc.net). In addition to his work with LESC, Fred Leland is an active Lieutenant with the Walpole (Mass.) Police Department. He previously worked as a deputy with the Charlotte County (Fla.) Sheriff’s Department and before that spent six years with the United States Marines, including as a squad leader in Beirut, Lebanon. Leland is an accomplished trainer with more than 28 years experience teaching law enforcement, military, and security professionals. His programs of instruction include handling dynamic encounters; threat assessment; non-verbal communications; decision making under pressure; evolving threats; violence prevention; firearms; use of force; officer created jeopardy and adaptive leadership. He is also a 2004 graduate of the FBI National Academy Class 216, and a current instructor for the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee. Outcomes based training and education (OBTE) is his approach to creating and nurturing decision makers to observe, orient, decide, and act while considering consequences.

Force Science on Hollywood vs. Reality

Excellent – great mythbusting for the the public:

Hollywood vs. Reality

Guys like Mark  Wahlberg should take note….