Cutting Edge Training

America’s Combatives and Liability Trainer Training With Real-World Impact

Why Do We Teach? Move: Proximity and Distance Shootings

by George on November 26, 2012 07:22

Time “…is like a fire—it could either destroy us or keep us warm…we live or we die by the clock…We never turn our backs on it and we never allow ourselves the sin of losing track of time…That’s how much time we have before this pulsating, accursed, relentless taskmaster tries to put us out of business.

—Chuck Nolan in the movie, “Castaway”, 2000

While most think that bullets are their enemy in a shooting, the real enemy is time—not enough of it to effectively respond to a Threat (a person who is an actual or imminent threat to your life, or the life of another) by putting bullets through him while avoiding bullets sent their way.  Not seeing a Threat in time, not recognizing the threat in time, not reacting in time, or not hitting him in time can be fatal.  Your job in a gunfight is save or create sufficient time for you to safely move beyond the Threat’s initial assault by controlling his perception of the time he has in the gunfight.  The goal in your tactical response is to destroy his accurate perception of current time and the actual unfolding of events.  Oh yeah.  And you have to hit him with enough bullets to finish the job.

We teach that when in proximity to the Threat, move and hit the Threat.  When at distance or forced to take a technical shot, move to cover, then hit the Threat.  The inevitable question is asked, “Why move?  Why not just stand, get a solid shooting stance, and get your accurate hits?” 

These questions generally come from a misunderstanding of the basic context of how police and responsibly-armed civilians get involved in shootings.  Because we aren’t bad guys who get the drop on a targeted person and shoot him/her down, our force response is generally to an actual or imminent deadly threat—the Threat is approaching with a knife, is reaching for a gun, or has begun firing before we realize we are in a deadly force event.  That we know we need to respond means we used up time recognizing and identifying a specific threatening act, orienting to the need to physically respond.  And even more time is required to reach for and draw our handgun, present and fire our first bullet as several of his rounds are already in the air.

Let’s use an example of a Threat drawing a handgun from his waist with the intent of shooting you down and killing you.  Responding takes time—a lot of time, often measured in a second or more of actual time before you meaningfully react.  This is time you just don’t have.

Inescapably, it takes time to observe the Threat’s action, orient to the change of status, decide what to do, and then react to the new environment.  Just because you see a movement does not mean you understand what the movement means.  Orienting, or contextualizing the subject’s actions takes time.  Once you understand the threatening intent of that movement, that person becomes a Threat requiring a response. 

Until you are able to identify that movement as threatening, it’s just a guy who is moving his hand.  The actual time for a subject to become a Threat may be less than a tenth of a second as his hand moves to his waistband, grasps the handgun, points the weapon at you and fires his first round.  Untrained trigger fingers are able to easily fire four rounds per second, or one every quarter of a second. 

Many people, generally due to improper training concepts, operate from the misconception that they can actually perceive reality the moment something is happening and instantly react.  It just ain’t true.  No matter how switched on you are—or think you are—instant reaction is simply impossible.  It takes time to recognize and react to changes in the status quo.

Lots of things slow down our putting into context his threatening actions.  If you are not looking in the right place, you won’t notice the unfolding threat.  If your attention set is absorbed elsewhere, thinking about something else, you may observe his action but not take note.  If you have to make decisions based on your moral beliefs, uncertainty about the law, or fear of legal repercussions, it will increase the time you need to mount your defense. 

Expectations play a huge role in slowing our response to threat.  If your expectations are that he is doing something benign, it will take longer for you to recognize a threat.  If you expect a specific result, such as movement and are rewarded with movement different from that expected, it will take you much longer to recognize that something different from your expectations is occurring, and then what that difference is.  If you are not expecting someone to draw a handgun at that moment, it will take you longer to recognize that you are under threat than if you anticipated there might be a problem. 

If you are anticipating a very simple action, and are fully prepared and mentally ready, your reaction time will be approximately 0.1-0.2 seconds—that is, the time for you make a simple decision that a physical response should be made.  Once the decision is made, it will take a unit of time for your response to be initiated.  Human reaction-response time is the time it takes to observe, orient, and decide what that response might be plus the time it takes to physically respond.  If that is shooting, you then have the time for the bullets to hit him.  And it will depend upon the percentage of bullets you fire actually hitting him to take effect and cause a change in him before it begins to save your life. 

When it takes an average of three-quarters of a second up to a second and a half to draw and fire when you anticipate the command, how much longer is it going to take when you are surprised?  And even if you are Johnny-on-the-spot, rough-and-ready to go, how many bullets are being sent your way during that three-fourths to one and a half seconds you are drawing and getting ready to fire? 

Time equals bullets in the air.  Surviving being shot at is both a question of luck at surviving the initial assault and creating enough time to respond well enough to stop the Threat from harming you.  While luck is not a skill set, movement has been used for millennia to manipulate the relative perception of time between combatants.  The reason why we advocate movement is to manufacture the perception of increased time on the mover's part, and to decrease the perception of time on the attacker's part.

Manipulating Perceptual Time in Proximity Shootings—Contact to 10 yards, or 80% of shootings in the US 

When you are up close on the Threat and he is suddenly attempting to take your life, you need to change the situation:  MOVE!  Sudden, hard movement in any direction is intended to confuse the Threat and create time for you to react and take the fight to him.  While some angles are more advantageous than others, any abrupt movement will be beneficial to your surviving his initial burst of gunfire.

Looking at his mindset, he has made a decision to murder you and has taken action—this is a life-changing decision for both people, and the consequences of his failing are huge: if he fails to shoot you, it’s very likely he will be shot and perhaps killed.  The Threat acts with the expectation of success—his weapon is brought up and pointed where he perceives you to be at the time his decision to act was made—tenths of a second ago.  Whether you move or not, he is pressing the trigger at the position he saw you in when he made the decision to shoot.  He’ll be pressing the trigger as fast as he can because most people believe in volume of fire as a life-saving—or taking—strategy.  His hard intent—to shoot and kill you—is acted upon, and will continue to be acted upon until he receives feedback that the status quo has changed.

If you stand there while drawing your weapon, you will be negatively affected by his time manipulation:  you will be shocked (requiring time to recover), then you draw your weapon (taking time), and then return fire (taking time for the bullets to strike and affect his ability to shoot you).  That's a lot of time when bullets are burning at you at a rate of 4 or 5 per second before you have your first round out.  You have not changed the status quo by standing there absorbing bullets.  If you are lucky, you were missed by his bullets.  Either way, you have done nothing in the first critical half-second or more to alter the situation.  He has no reason to change his program, and he’ll keep shooting until he puts you down, he runs out of rounds, or you are able to weather the storm and finally shoot him. 

The relative perception of time is affected by each individual’s expectation of events.  If the event continues as expected, the perception of time continues smoothly, and even pleasantly slows relative to actual time—you are operating “in the zone,” where everyone but you seems to be moving in slow motion.  If the event is surprising or veers radically from the expected path, perceived time slows to the point where every moment is a desperate struggle against the tide, with the increasing and certain knowledge that your are helpless to change the looming and ominous outcome.  You feel as if you are moving through an impossibly thick gel preventing you from acting in time. 

In this close range shooting situation, his expectation is driving his perception of events, working against him if you move suddenly.  It will take him time—tenths of a second—to realize he's shooting at empty air.  He will be shocked because his expectation is that you will stand there and be shot or fall to the ground.  His confusion continues as he presses the trigger, realizing that he desperately needs to reorient to this unexpected change.  Your moving bought you time to draw your weapon.  He knows he has to quickly find you, move his weapon, and finish you—he started this gunfight but his target somehow disappeared.  He’s now the one who is threatened.  Desperation and confusion decreases his efficiency.

 You continue to move and now begin hitting him.  He becomes very aware that your bullets are now inbound, increasing his desperation making him even less efficient in finding and hitting you.  He may quit the gunfight.  He may be hit and quit the gunfight or be unwilling to quit the gunfight.  He may be hit but not realize he’s been hit, continuing to shoot.  In any case, you continue to move and continually hit him until you reach cover, he goes down, you get hit and go down, or you run out of rounds, move to cover to reload or keep running. 

Moving manufactures relative perceived time because by displacing, you take yourself temporarily out of the line of fire.  Movement is the primary survival mechanism in any proxemic gunfight.  Move and make yourself a more difficult target.  Displacing hard off the line, drawing your handgun while moving, creates the time you need to draw, time you would not have had if you had remained where you were when he started firing.  While you may draw your weapon in the same amount of time whether standing or moving, there is a huge survival difference:  standing and drawing while three to five bullets are fired at you from a couple of steps away may mean you will not be able to respond, whereas moving and confusing him, causing him to fire those three to five bullets where you were standing when he made the decision to fire, may allow you to draw your weapon without being injured. 

Standing and fighting it out when you are waaaay behind is an attritional mindset.  Attrition is defined as a reduction or decrease in resources or personnel.  In this case, it is the willingness to take injury to give injury.  Attrition is about outlasting him.  In an attrition-based gunfight, you may win the gunfight and be killed as well (I guess in this case winning would be knowing you killed him before you die).  Standing and taking unanswered rounds is an attritional mindset.  You may never get the chance to get to your gun. 

Moving and hitting in proximity is a method of negatively multi-tasking the bad guy.  By creating a problem requiring him to deal with more than he can mentally handle, by confusing him, by dividing his attention, by making him more concerned for his welfare than he is in hurting you, you negatively multi-task the Threat and increase your survival odds.  For more on negatively multi-tasking the bad guy, see the article, "Fighting Smart: Negatively Multi-Tasking the Suspect."  http://blog.cuttingedgetraining.org/post/Fighting-Smart-Negatively-Multitasking-the-Suspect.aspx.

While moving and shooting is not necessarily limited to distances of contact-to-ten-yards and can be performed at any distance, moving fast and hard enough to confuse the subject while simultaneously having the real likelihood of hitting the subject is an up-close-and-personal situation.  As the distance between you and the threat increases, the benefits to moving and shooting to hit decrease, although there are times it is justified to fire in the Threat’s general direction while moving for distraction purposes.  At some point, the probability of hitting the Threat is so low that the benefit of simply moving as fast as you can is greater.  At what distance does this cost versus benefit analysis tip to simply running to cover before fighting back?  That will be up to the individual in that particular fight to determine. 

Affecting Perceptual Time At Distance

As the distance increases between you and the Threat, the benefits of moving and hitting will lessen, and will make movement to cover your primary concern.  If you have a choice, not being there would be first on the list, with fighting from cover a very close second.

Hitting at distance is a matter of precise marksmanship.  Technical shooting takes time —think using a handgun to hit a hostage taker who is giving you only his right-eye and part of his forehead at 15 yards, or a life-and-death head shot with a carbine and iron sights at 125 yards.  Movement confounds marksmanship because it decreases the time available to the shooter to obtain a solid firing solution.  If a very good shooter with a rifle at 70 yards takes a minimum of one and a half seconds to acquire, aim, and hit a man-sized target, sudden movement increases the difficulty of getting that hit.  Sharp, abrupt, irregular (as well as short, unpredictable) movements will be your best bet at preventing your being shot because he has less time to make the adjustments he needs to hit you. 

The farther you are away from his muzzle, the more time he’ll need to make the hit.  A 5.56mm bullet takes just over 0.2 seconds to travel 200 meters, and nearly 0.4 seconds to 300 meters.  At distances from 100 meters and beyond, the shooter must not only observe and acquire the target, but understand the trajectory of his round, accurately estimate the distance, and understand the time-on-target delay from trigger press to hit for the bullet’s travel time.  This takes time, making it possible for the bullet to leave the muzzle directly on target and still miss because the target moved casually out of the way.  Unpredictable movement dramatically increases the difficulty.

At distance, movement to cover and then fighting from there makes better sense than standing and fighting.  If you must, go to ground and use the irregularities and depressions in the terrain to shield you.  Avoid going to ground on asphalt and concrete due to ricochet problems which decrease the time necessary for a firing solution—as long as the shot is lined up, dropping a round anywhere within the space of 30 feet in front of you to any part of your body means getting a hit.  Getting a hit on a 30 foot tall target is really not that tough from realistic shooting distances. 

If you have something that will stop bullets very close by, immediately move to cover.  The option of going to the ground or getting behind cover permits you to make yourself a small target.  Being a small target gives you the perception of increased time, providing you time to precisely aim and hit him.  At the same time it negatively increases the time he has to aim and hit you. 

Tactics still count when at distance.  Be as small as possible, keeping those body parts not needed for hitting him behind cover.  Shoot around, not over the cover if you can.  And remember, shooting repeatedly from the same piece of cover or hole gives him time to locate and walk rounds into you.  Shoot and scoot if that is the gunfight you find yourself in.  Be sneaky and expose yourself only for the limited purposes of locating and hitting him.

Conclusion

The reason for moving is all about the context of your gunfight.  If you have put solid cover between you and the Threat, stay there and fight from the corner while staying small.  It becomes a technical shooting problem through precise marksmanship to win that fight.  If you don’t have cover, move, then hit.  Moving creates actual time for you by affecting the Threat’s perceptual time.  Both proximity as well as distance shootings are about manipulating the time the bad guy has to harm you—decreasing his perception of the time he has while increasing the time you perceive you have to effectively respond.

Time is the “relentless, accursed taskmaster” that will put you out of business if you get behind and remain there.  When the Threat acts first, he is able to dominate your perception of time with his bullets (or his knife, his club, and/or his fists) and your fear and confusion, eliminating your effective response.  Movement changes the equation by disrupting his expectations, decreasing the time he has to problem-solve by confusing him while increasing his survival pressure in the gunfight.  Sudden displacement negatively multitasks him, forcing him to find and retarget you while you are shooting him.  It manipulates his relative perception of time in your favor, forcing him into having to perform more than he may be capable of while under fire.  The key is to make time your friend and to use it to control the fight in your favor.  Move.

Fighting Smart: Negatively Multitasking the Suspect

by George on April 18, 2012 14:20

“Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.”   Sun Tzu

 

Any type of fighting carries a risk of injury and death—people have fallen after being simply shoved backward, struck their heads, and died.  So you prepare:  you lift weights, you work your cardio, you keep your weight down, you go to the range on your own time, and you train with other motivated cops in defensive tactics, you attend training paid for on your own dime, and are tactically aware in the street.  Despite your own individual skill development, physical conditioning, and aptitude for dealing with the violence you are faced with, nothing can be taken for granted in any combatives environment.  You may be the toughest guy on the block, but there is always someone on any given day who is more prepared, more capable, and more willing to engage in violence than you—thinking otherwise is foolhardy.  Whether it is hand to hand, hand to knife, or a gunfight, it is vital to make use of every advantage, and not assume that your high level of personal abilities, your size and strength, or any other skill factor is going to mean you will automatically win the fight.

Going head-to-head, muscle-to-muscle is often effective when you are dealing with an unprepared, weaker, smaller offender.  It is also the method most fraught with risk, and is unsophisticated in a situation where a sophisticated fighting strategy disadvantaging the suspect combined with your on-going pre-conflict preparations is the best strategy to win the fight.  Please note that “sophisticated” is not synonymous with “complex” or “complicated.”  Complexity in any fight or tactical response is a sure recipe for failure in the real world of combatives (see the article “Abandon Techniques All Ye Who Train Combatives” on this blog).

For purposes of discussion, assume you have contacted a subject who is on the verge of assaulting you.  He is equal in every way to you physically, intellectually, as well as in his skill development and physical conditioning.  Without considering the “luck factor” that is present in every combatives environment (which may also include the “Murphy-factor”—anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible time), your chance of making it through this fight is no better than 50/50.  How do you change these odds in this fight to your favor?

Change your orientation to solving combatives problems from fighting to fighting smart.  When one is equal to or less than his opponent in physical capabilities and skill, the only available strategy must incorporate deliberately affecting the ability of the suspect to act upon current reality.  All conflict is about time.  It is about taking time away from the Threat and using the time you have efficiently to deprive him of even more time.  Time is a luxury permitting you to understand the current reality of your relative positions and physical actions.  Ultimately, the purpose of every fight is to control his perception of time, hence his ability to make effective decisions leading to relevant physical actions.  This is done most simply by multitasking the subject so that he cannot catch up with the action and make those precious decisions he needs so desperately in order to destroy you.

Multitasking is the concurrent performance of multiple tasks.  We all want to believe we can do it, and we want to believe that we can do it well.  However, if we get honest with ourselves, we really don’t do it very well at all.  Even non-critical tasks such as simultaneously watching TV, reading, and talking to our spouse will demonstrate the fallacy of any type of multitasking capabilities.  As an experiment, try it to see how it works for you (hint:  pay attention to your spouse and forget those other activities if you want to survive this little experiment with any degree of marital harmony).  Similarly, being multitasked by a Threat during combatives can be fatal.  It is a very good strategy to deliberately employ multitasking against the suspect in every physical conflict.  It should be one of your primary tactics for success.

 

Attentional Load

To understand multitasking, research is proving that our ability to focus our attention, or “attentional focus” is limited.  Attention is a basic component of thinking, cognition, and of orienting to relevant change.  To note something in our environment, to have any chance of taking that information into consideration, we must pay some level of attention to it.  Attentional focus is defined as, “The ability to focus attention on cues in the environment that are relevant to the task in hand” (Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine).  When someone says, “The knife came out of nowhere,” or, “I had no warning that he was going to attack me,” the hard reality is that the victim’s brain either did not receive the numerous pieces of information signaling the impending threat, or did not interpret the numerous clues because the victim’s attentional focus was elsewhere.  Whether it is because the victim is ignorant of the threatening behavioral cues, or deliberately or innocently distracted, his or her attention was elsewhere, leaving that person unable to apprehend the changes in the behavior, positioning, and/or demeanor of the person about to assault them.

Our ability to focus or concentrate on anything can be compared to a very bright, narrow, very focused, spotlight in a very dark room filled with dozens of pieces of a puzzle, each constantly moving independently of the others, changing position, or modifying its shape and color.  As the spotlight of our conscious mind is placed on a particular puzzle piece in that black room, we are able to utilize our attention to gain information on the specific puzzle piece illuminated by narrow bright beam of light, considering changes in status of that puzzle piece solely based on what we are seeing at that moment.  All of the changes occurring in the other puzzle pieces in that dark room are unavailable to us until we focus on each individually.  The problem is we can only ascertain the status of a particular piece when we are focused directly on it.

The moment the spotlight moves to another puzzle piece, we no longer are able to monitor what is happening to the last puzzle piece.  Our ability to focus on multiple puzzle pieces is serial rather than global; that is, we must move the spotlight of attention from one piece to another to another to another before moving back to the first in order to monitor what all of the pieces are doing, how they’re changing, and what all of this means to us in the real world of violence, pain, and death.  Attentional focus on multiple areas or problems, therefore, is a cycling of attention where one’s full attention cannot rest upon any single piece of the puzzle long enough to ponder its significance.  This attentional cycling permits only snap-shots of information without the ability to deeply consider its relational meaning.  Significance is fundamental to relevance, and determining relevance is a function of orientation.  This means that unless a particular puzzle piece among many is not immediately and obviously significant, it is unlikely that you will be able to orient to its meaning, and its significant information and relevance will be lost to you. It may also be that you are focusing your spotlight on a particular puzzle piece that is changing its status in a very important and meaningful manner while your thoughts are elsewhere, perhaps thinking about that puzzle piece you saw moments or minutes ago, or even something completely unrelated to solving the puzzle at all.  Your eyes may be looking directly at the puzzle piece but your focus of attention is elsewhere, making it impossible to “orient” to the important information that is right in front of your eyes.  We have all experienced looking directly at a person speaking to us and not hearing a word he or she said because our mind was “a million miles away.”

A limiting factor of the ability to focus on threatening suspect behavioral cues is the amount of information you can work with at any one time.  There is a maximum capacity limiting the information you can process or focus upon at any moment in time.  As the demands to your attentional focus increase, your ability to focus on multiple tasks will rapidly become limited as your attentional load is maxed out.  Irrelevant information is filtered out as the attentional load increases, permitting attentional focus on whatever has captured your attention.  The greater the “task load,” or for our purposes, as your perception of personal threat increases, so, too, does the narrowing and filtering of available information available for your attention.

  • Tunnel vision is the result of an intense perception of threat where the attentional (or in this case, perceptual) load of the central focus is primary, and the “irrelevant” information is excluded as being unnecessary to survival at this moment. 
  • Auditory exclusion occurs when the attentional load in attempting to resolve the perceived threat is so great that visual processing of environmental cues takes precedence and what the subject is saying, or even that anything is being said (or yelled or screamed) at all is not available to be processed.

As more information is received and considered, older information is lost from your working memory, or “cognitive load” (“The total amount of mental activity imposed on working memory at any instance of time.” http://dwb4.unl.edu/Diss/Cooper/UNSW.htm).  As you experience a deluge of more and more data through the senses, your ability to understand, categorize, and utilize the info is quickly overwhelmed.  Once overwhelmed, your mental filtering systems begins shutting down data (perceptual) streams to attempt to manage the situation, and give you the ability to make sense of the data to produce useful information.  Being increasingly pressured by time and the perception of threat, the more and more overwhelmed your cognitive processes will be, and the less effective your ability to discern and synthesize useful information from irrelevant data.  Injuries, overwhelming frustration, and fatigue begin to compound, increasing the sense of being overwhelmed. At some point, the attempt to sort out the valuable from the worthless stops, and the individual is incapable of problem-solving his way out of the fight.

 

Negatively Multitask the Threat

In a physical conflict, the least sophisticated method of fighting is head-to-head, muscle-to-muscle attritional conflict—“I’ll be able to inflict more injury and disable you before you can inflict injury and disable me.”  Inherent within the “victory through attrition” is universal injury; even the victor is bloody and walks away with a limp.

To avoid this high-risk method of combatives, it makes better sense to fight the Threat on both the physical and the mental planes.  Negatively multitask him.  To "negatively multitask a suspect, you intentionally give him two or more tasks, each of which is threatening, and each of which demands his full attention.  If he stops one of your efforts, he pays dearly at failing to stop the other(s).  Negatively mutlitask him to get into his head and confuse his decision-cycles by misdirecting his attentional focus.  Creating confusion provides openings and opportunities to exploit that are less risk to you while creating more confusion and injury for him.  Events begin moving too fast for him to react and understand—he just won’t be able to put everything that is happening into context in time.

Negatively multitasking the suspect is achieved by physical or psychological means.  It requires you to divert his attention from what he wants to focus upon, and deliberately engage his attention on multiple tasks, none of which he can afford to solely focus upon.  It may be necessary to focus his attention on an irrelevant factor leading to his sufficiently being distracted so that he cannot orient to your actual intent, preparations, or movement.  This requires you to fight smart rather than through attrition.  For example, the following examples compare commonly trained attritional solutions with a possible solution that negatively multitasks the Threat.

WEAPON RETENTION:

  • Attritional Solution: Pin your weapon into your holster with your gun-hand and strike the suspect repeatedly with your free hand or elbow, head strikes, knee strikes, bite, put your free hand’s fingers into his eyes, etc.  If possible, take him to the ground, landing on him to ensure additional disability so it does not turn into a groundfight.  When he is sufficiently injured and incapable of continuing to fight, remove his hand from your handgun and force him into handcuffs.
  • Negatively Multitasking Solution:  Pin your weapon into your holster with your gun-hand.  Strike, hit, bite, etc.  When he begins to focus on defending against your strikes, he will necessarily lessen his focus on your weapon (attention being serial, he cannot help but lose focus on your weapon), and his grip will relax to a degree.  Move to small targets:  grab a finger as hard and pry it suddenly and viciously back while maintaining pressure on the grip of the weapon into your body.  If he is not immune to pain because he’s mentally ill, diabetic, or under the influence, he will likely focus on you twisting and pulling on his broken finger.  Transition back to your strikes with the other hand.  Continue twisting the finger until you judge he no longer wants to disarm you.  Peel his hand from your weapon and shove him away.  Note:  a Parole Officer in Pennsylvania was forced to break four fingers, one at a time, to protect his weapon against a psychotic offender who first attempted to kill the officer by hitting him in the head with an ax.  Once the four fingers were broken, the suspect could no longer physically grip the weapon and was eventually taken into custody.

SUSPECT DRAWS A HANDGUN FROM TWO OR THREE STEPS AWAY:

  • Attritional Solution:  You draw your weapon in response, depending upon your vest and volume of fire to save your life as he fires as quickly as he can at you.
  • Negatively Multitasking Solution:  The moment you perceive he is drawing a weapon, you move hard and suddenly at an angle toward his flank.  As you’re moving you draw your own handgun.  By now you are just a few feet from his flank, punching your handgun at him, firing as soon as it interrupts your eye-target line.  You continue to move to his back as he frantically attempts to target you through the bullets punching through him and the muzzle blast thumping his body.  Your movement and fire continues as he spins in pursuit of you, and finally corkscrews, falling to the ground.

ATTEMPTING TO EMPLOY AN ARM TAKEDOWN TO PUT A RESISTING SUBJECT ON THE GROUND:

  • Attritional Solution:  This subject needs to be on the ground right now!  You have a hold of his elbow, pin it to your body, and attempt a takedown.  However, he’s a prepared offender and skilled enough to prevent the takedown, you both begin moving in circles.  As you attempt harder and harder to put him down, the action speeds up.  At this point, you’re a bit frustrated and getting scared he might get loose, and that would not be a good thing for you with this guy.  You use brute force to muscle him to the ground, shoving him quickly and with as much strength as you can.
  • Negatively Multitasking Solution:  This subject needs to be on the ground right now!  You have a hold of his elbow, pin it to your body, and attempt a takedown.  However, he’s a prepared offender and skilled enough to prevent the takedown, you both begin moving in circles.  As soon as you orient to this fact,  you quickly slap at his upper inner thigh with one hand, striking sharply just under his groin before locking your hand back to his arm.  His body reacts defensively to the slap as if it actually struck his groin and you hear a quick grunt of anticipated pain.  This puts him off-balance, enabling you to complete the takedown without extraordinary effort.

HE ATTEMPTS TO DRAW A HANDGUN FROM HIS WAISTBAND WITHIN TOUCHING DISTANCE FROM YOU:

  • Attritional Solution:  Upon orienting to his grabbing and pulling something out of his waistband, you focus on his hand, grabbing his wrist as you attempt to prevent him from being able to draw the weapon.  You begin to strike him with your forehead, free elbow and hand, and attempt to prevent him from getting that weapon out of his waistband until he is sufficiently debilitated, permitting you to safely remove it, and then throw him to the ground.
  • Negatively Multitasking Solution:  Upon orienting to his grabbing and pulling something out of his waistband, you focus on his hand, and suddenly reach out with your closest hand to press his hand and wrist as well as the handgun against his body as you surge to his flank, wrapping his head with your free hand in a slapping motion.  Pulling his head sharply backward against your shoulder, with your fingers abruptly dig into his face.  With your hand pressing on his and his weapon at the waistband, your fingers, while still pressing the handgun to his belly, reach for and press the trigger.  The weapon fires as he is still worried about being off-balance and your fingers digging into his face.  The shock of the contact shot to his groin/pelvic/femoral area permits you to take him to the ground (if he isn’t already falling).

YOU'RE MAKING ENTRY INTO A HOUSE:

  • Attritional Solution:  You and your team line up, give the announcement, and after a sufficient time for his response, your breacher rams the door successfully.  Your team flows through the door, taking possession of the living room and access points to the whole house.
  • Negatively Multitasking Solution:  You and your team line up, give the announcement, and after a sufficient time for his response, your team leader radios the initiation command, signaling the window to the room where the suspect is expected to be ported and flash-banged while the back door is simultaneously breached and held.  Upon hearing the report of the flash-bang, the front door is then breached successfully, and your team flows through the door, taking possession of the living room and access points to the whole house.

As can be seen in each of the above solutions, every fighting problem can be solved in multiple ways.*  How you deal with the specific combatives event involves your orientation to the solving this particular problem.  In each of the “negatively multitasking” solutions, you took advantage of a momentary distraction, purposefully redirecting his attention from his main effort and intention in order to capitalize on his inability to track and react to every counter of yours.  Once his attentional focus is diverted, he is unable to keep up with the events as you are directing them.  He just doesn’t have time to focus on all of the information he is receiving, and becomes confused and less effective.  That decrease in efficiency and effectiveness translates into an immediate advantage in the ability to process information, orienting more closely to the current physical reality of the conflict, and the resultant control of the direction of the fight.

It is through the multitasking of the Threat that you can defeat a superior athlete with superior skills.  It is said that “Deception is the art of the master.”  If you are someone who cannot expect your attributes (your size, strength, skills, endurance, etc.) to permit you to quickly win through an attritional solution in every instance, learn to negatively multitask the Threat to negate his advantages over you.  If you are someone who has superior attributes, never discount the role of luck in a fight.  Increase your odds of winning by learning to negatively multitask the Threat so that he is confused and overwhelmed first in his mind, and then physically.  It is better to learn it and not need it, than to need it and not to have learned it.

If being successful in a combatives situation is the result of controlling the perception of time, negatively multitasking the subject decreases the time available to him.  The net effect is that you have more time to make better decisions in the fight.  Time is the greatest luxury on a battlefield.  Treat yourself luxuriously in your next fight—negatively multitask him—and you may very likely limit the amount of bleeding and limping you will do after the fight.

_______________________________________

*    Note:  None of these “solutions” are offered as "trained techniques.”  They are a result of the “Universal Rules and Principles of Combatives”© within the “Effective Combatives Problem-Solving”© system of “Integrated Force Combatives”© available only through Cutting Edge Training, LLC.

 

Why we do what we do--training on the cutting edge

by George on October 26, 2011 12:45

We are asked what makes Cutting Edge Training different.  The following explanation is why we do what we do at Cutting Edge Training, and what makes our training programs for armed professionals truly unique.

The training philosophy of Cutting Edge Training, LLC, is this:  Training must be functional to be of value.  If the training cannot be immediately applied by an armed professional, or if it is too complicated, that training is ineffective and will be of little value to the officer when needed.  Functionality within a combatives environment is a direct result of effective, efficient, and practical training preparing an officer to lawfully overcome resistance and to defend against any assault.

To be functional, the training must be:

  • Relevant to the professional's job duties, experience, expectations, and fears.
  • Uncomplicated enough to work within the limiting human factors that are universal to every human, as well as under crushing fatigue, through injury, and when immersed in confusing and mind-numbing threat-to-life events.
  • Sophisticated enough to apply to universal threats and the quickly evolving, high-pressure situations the professional routinely responds to.
  • Oriented to problem-solving rather than attempting to train an professional to employ “techniques” to the thousands of problems that he or she will face. 
  • Defensible in every post-incident venue:  agency, criminal, and civil.  It must also be defensible to the community or public, and to the media.
  • Inherently consistent, both internally and externally, across the spectrum of combatives and tactical threats so that problem-solving is principle-driven rather than attempting employ techniques that are inherently limited when faced with an infinite number of variations.

We look at a problem and break it down to discover how a human being, immersed in that environmental context, can solve that problem with the tools at hand and with the attributes (e.g., everything that person brings to the game:  intelligence, emotional sophistication—or lack of it, built in human performance limitations, values, goals, expectations, fears, etc.), their training life experience, etc., that person possesses.  We strive for “contextually correct” training.  That is, how this individual in that uniform must perform to win and survive within the circumstances presented in their fight, whatever the event might be.  Without being contextually correct, training has little value.  We understand it is not what you can do in a fight, but what you can’t do—and knowing the difference—that is the key to success in the combatives environment.

Functional fighting, from common scuffles to gunfights between individuals to intense firefights among groups, depends upon the application of Universal Principles of Combatives© within Universal Rules of Combatives©.  Training the professional in “techniques” forces that individual to attempt to remember, select, and then apply  the specific inter-related, sequence dependent series of moves comprising that unique technique out of thousands of techniques for this exact circumstance while under time constraints imposed by the Threat.  This routinely—and not unexpectedly—fails in the real world of combatives, causing the armed professional to fall back on primitive problem-solving methods.   For example, a young Marine (and MCMAP Brown Belt), Nicholas B. Wankasky, described this principle-driven problem-solving concept in his evaluation of this training approach:  “With a technique, it’s like I have a bunch of strings that I have tie together to get anything to work, but a fight happens too fast to do that. With this principle-based concept of fighting, it’s like I have a ball of string and let it fall, and then I just follow the string wherever it rolls.”

This contextually correct training is something we call "Effective Combatives Problem-Solving."©  This combatives philosophy functionalizes training, making it accessible to the professional.  It is predicated upon the individual problem-solving their combatives problem--regardless of the type and intensity of the fight--through integrating minimally the following concepts into a single, practical, and achievable program:

  • Law.  The legal restraints (and permissions) imposed by agency policy, state and federal laws, the state Constitution, and the US Constitution for law enforcement, or the ROEs established for military engagements.  The provides permission to act and the knowledge of the limits of restraint.
  • OODA.  OODA functioning and application in the threat environment.  This is the theory of how humans make decisions under time and safety pressures that is practical and built into all training concepts.  It is within the human factors of how we interact with our environment that the officer must intentionally operate to be successful.
  • Univeral Tactical Principles© compliant.  All tactics are a subset of Applied OODA Theory©, permitting the officer the time and position needed to confound the suspect's decision-making through advantageous positioning and in-time, on-time movement and force. Everything taught and trained must be internally consistent as well as explicitly compliant to tactically sound principles. 
  • Problem-solving through the Universal Rules and Principles of Combatives©.  All training is based upon this “primal blueprint” of intrinsic and hard-wired responses built into every human being.  Humans actually problem-solve their way through most combatives events, and rarely--if ever--apply "techniques" to a quickly evolving, highly threatening problem. 
  • Simple skills.  All skills must be functional within the threat environment in which the professional operates.  These skills must be accessible to every officer—from the most to the least skilled—within the time and resources allotted for training.  There are no techniques taught to officers--techniques fail due to an inherent weakness of a series of inter-related sequence moves requiring a level of cooperation from the suspect and the time to develop to be successful.  All skills must operate within the inherent function of the human factors and its limitations. 

This contextually correct approach to training police officers, for example, creates an “integrated force concept” for officers in their response to resistance and assault.  This training eschews the concept of “training in a box.”  For example, historically (through to the present day), officers are commonly trained in distinct and separate categories of force.  This separation of force disciplines and force skills has taken the form of distinct "boxes" that never provide any integration of an officer's training.  The result is an officer responding to threat by resorting to his or her individual training boxes rather than fighting as an integrated whole:

  • Firearms training:  at the range.  Firearms solutions only to any problem involving firearms and knives, or any threat to life. 
  • Defensive Tactics training:  on the mats.  Martial arts or sports-based techniques.  Defensive Tactics solutions to any problem involving any threat level, including guns and knives and threats to life.
  • Less-lethal/Taser/non-lethal:  in the classroom and practical training area.  Every problem except actual, immediate threat to life problems.
  • Legal restraints on force:  In the classroom.  There is no explanation or correlation of classroom learning to the mat, the less-lethal practicum, or the live-fire range.
  • Tactics:  in the classroom.  Following the discussion of “tactics,” there is no other practical application or incorporation of the tactical awareness into the training curriculum.

Through Cutting Edge Training’s integrated approach to training, however, the professional is presented with concepts incorporating his or her whole experience of policing and force response.  Law and policy, sound tactics, human performance limitations and threat decision-making are blended into no-nonsense skills and employment methods.  No longer is Defensive Tactics seen as solely providing defensive tactics-only solutions to police problems.  Instead, officers are taught to work the problem to the “police solution” (Universal Rule of Combatives #2©) and incorporate all of their knowledge, experience, skills, and tools into a lawful, reasonable, and defensible solution.  Every problem becomes a “police-problem” rather than a “gun-problem” or a “DT-“ or “Taser-problem.”  Officers become quickly accustomed to this problem-solving approach because it not only parallels their solution seeking on the street, but it is completely compliant with how we function under threat to be successful.  It mirrors and compliments exactly how officers decisionize their every day responses as well as their extraordinary response to dangerous calls. 

It is in this integrated approach that combatives training (every skill and knowledge domain a professional is trained in involving an arrest and force response) becomes “functionalized.”  By taking a real-world approach, breaking problems down and finding methods that can actually be employed by every officer in that real world of threat, danger, and liability, officers are more likely to problem-solve their way to a defensible and successful conclusion.

Practical. It must work for every individual, regardless of their attributes.  It must be effective in every instance, which is why we emphasize problem-solving to every solution the individual arrives at within the combatives event.

Tactical. It must comport with safe tactical doctrine.  Violations of safe tactics must be consciously employed rather than unconsciously contained in the method of resolving a problem.  When the professional learns to problem-solving across the board by incorporating proper tactics, we see a more tactically sound problem-solver in the street. 

Functional. It must work for the human inside the uniform.  The natural limitations of the human nervous system and decision-making must be an integral part of the balanced program.  Functionality also requires integration of force and tactical training, avoiding compartmentalized doctrine and force employment, to create a functional response capability. 

Defensible. All training must concurrently comport to and explicitly correlate the law, policy, and/or ROE involved in the problem-solving.  Training an individual or a group of individuals to employ force in the absence of concurrent legal restrictions and mandates is hollow, and leads to misunderstandings of when, what type, and what duration a force response can take place.  Everything in training must lead to defensible conduct that can be justified in any post-event scrutiny.

That is Cutting Edge Training’s integrated and contextually-correct approach to functionalizing all of the force skills and knowledge domain training for law enforcement and military personnel.  That is why we are different and unique.  We don't just train you and your professionals.  We functionalize your combatives training.

(We are repeatedly asked why everyone isn't teaching combatives to armed professionals this way.  We have to admit:  we have no clue.)