One Thing that Changed Everything

Training
141

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Weapons use while in a grappling situation, particularly a “real fight” situation? Good luck. Anyone who says they would pull a knife or gun (if they had one) while grappling has never grappled. I have participated in training cops in weapons retention. We would basically start by having a cop, with an unloaded gun in his holster, try and keep one of us from taking it. We always got the gun. I can’t see what position you could be in to draw a weapon. Mounted? Try reaching your pockets. In someone’s guard? Again, try reaching your pockets. And this is not taking into account any control the opponent has on your arms or punches or elbows being thrown.
[/quote]
In this example, YOU would be the one to draw. I am saying that the better “BJJ” or even “Sport BJJ” positions are also the positions that give a better shot at weapons access or thwarting the other guys attempts at it.

I think you may be agreeing with me. Or insulting me. Or both…I mean that is as good an option as any.

Agree. In fact I said so earlier. No free rides. One of the reasons that the “better” positions are “better” is that it is easier to hurt the other guy and harder for him to do it to you. The “dirty” tactics/techniques follow this rule. Doesn’t mean they can’t get you out of trouble against a “better” fighter, just that you are still behind the power curve. Of course you may opine that a “better” fighter is one that is proficient in both the “dirty” stuff AND the more conventional, tournament approved, jiu-jitsu. I wouldn’t argue that one bit.

[quote]
Of course, if you are dealing with two untrained people then who knows what will happen but that’s why some of us train: we don’t like the idea of chance. [/quote]

I just like the excuse to put on pajama’s and wrastle around…

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

Good points from both of you and Sento as well. valuable reading for quiet reflection. One aspect that gets little attention on these discussions is this: Someone who has a crystal clear, savage mindset on killing you, at whatever cost to themselves is something that very few individuals experience, no matter what your style, if you dont have the mental strength to win at all costs, then you die. Doesnt matter if you are the world’s best striker, grappler, or combination of both, you dont have what it takes mentally, then you lose. Probably off topic, and, I apologize if it is, but, physical ability (fighting style) alone will not win fights againist that type of savage attack. [/quote]
Training can build mental strength and confidence (although sometimes of the false variety). It can also train you to stay focused under pressure. Soldiers don’t go into battle having trained under the same exact conditions as battle but when the pressure is on the idea is that the training will kick in. [/quote]

True, but no training (of any degree of realism) can exactly replicate actual combat/battle. I don’t care if we’re talking military training, sport training, RMA training; no matter how “realistic” the training is, it’s still not actually real.

What Idaho (and Zecarlo) said about having a “killer instinct”, “anything goes mindset”, “indomitable fighting spirit” is definitely a crucial aspect of real world combat, and often times it’s this “will to survive” that ultimately determines who become victims and who live to tell their tales to future generations. I tend to agree that if it’s structured correctly, training can help to develop/tap into this, and can give you the best chances of survival, but ultimately it comes down to the individual in question.

142

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Weapons use while in a grappling situation, particularly a “real fight” situation? Good luck. Anyone who says they would pull a knife or gun (if they had one) while grappling has never grappled. I have participated in training cops in weapons retention. We would basically start by having a cop, with an unloaded gun in his holster, try and keep one of us from taking it. We always got the gun. I can’t see what position you could be in to draw a weapon. Mounted? Try reaching your pockets. In someone’s guard? Again, try reaching your pockets. And this is not taking into account any control the opponent has on your arms or punches or elbows being thrown.
[/quote]

It all depends on how good a person is at drawing their weapon, what the rules/circumstances of the fight are, and what the respected skill of each person is regarding combative skills (striking, grappling, “dirty” tactics).

Most cops that I have met and trained with aren’t very well trained in unarmed combative skills (and honestly a lot aren’t even that well trained with the weapons they carry), are generally acting in somewhat of a restricted/limited manner as they generally have to follow certain laws and regulations that a fully commited criminal would not, and they tend to suffer from “tactical tunnel vision”/weapon over-reliance.

There are lots of pauses and potential openings during grappling situations where there are opportunities to access weapons. If the grappler has trained specifically for the realities of actual combat they may recognize the attempted weapon deployment ahead of time and successfully prevent of defend it. Honestly though, most grappling taught in the US does not address these realities. And honestly, even if you did , I bet that if took any of the top BJJ guys today and replicated (meaning made an exact double including BJJ skills, conditioning, mental toughness, experience, etc…) them and then asked each replica whether they’d rather have the gun or knife in a fight to the death that they’d all want the weapons.

So let’s not pretend that weapons don’t give someone a huge advantage in a real fight. Grappling is a useful skill set to have, but it’s not the end all.

143

Sento stated: " Most cops that I have met and trained with aren’t very well trained in unarmed combative skills (and honestly a lot aren’t even that well trained with the weapons they carry), are generally acting in somewhat of a restricted/limited manner as they generally have to follow certain laws and regulations that a fully commited criminal would not, and they tend to suffer from “tactical tunnel vision”/weapon over-reliance".

This is 100% correct.

And in my personal opinion, why a cop is killed (on average) every 4 days in the United States. By the time they have graduated from the academy (usually 18 to 27 weeks) , they have been bombarded with department rules and regulations, and how every thing you do on the street ,will get you either sued, suspended, or arrested. And for the love of whatever GOD you believe in, dont EVER act aggressive toward some poor, misunderstood asshole, thats not the image the department wants to project.

The comment about over reliance on weapons is correct, especially non-lethal type weapons ( pepper spray, Taser, etc) . IF, GOD forbid, you actually had to STRIKE some asshole, whether it was with a baton or fist or foot, then you are automatically placed under administrative investigation. Far better, to follow department guidelines and get yourself hurt or killed…than be charged with excessive force…as if pertains to firearms, I was assigned to the academy for about 18 months and during that time was responsible for inservice firearms training. I had many a cop tell me that they didnt care about achiving a better score or improving their weapons skills, simply, because they (in their mind) never invisioned shooting someone. “Hey, I"m not getting sued, no matter what the asshole does” “I want to keep what little I own”. The situation makes me want to puke, just writing about it.

144

[quote]idaho wrote:
Sento stated: " Most cops that I have met and trained with aren’t very well trained in unarmed combative skills (and honestly a lot aren’t even that well trained with the weapons they carry), are generally acting in somewhat of a restricted/limited manner as they generally have to follow certain laws and regulations that a fully commited criminal would not, and they tend to suffer from “tactical tunnel vision”/weapon over-reliance".

This is 100% correct.

And in my personal opinion, why a cop is killed (on average) every 4 days in the United States. By the time they have graduated from the academy (usually 18 to 27 weeks) , they have been bombarded with department rules and regulations, and how every thing you do on the street ,will get you either sued, suspended, or arrested. And for the love of whatever GOD you believe in, dont EVER act aggressive toward some poor, misunderstood asshole, thats not the image the department wants to project.

The comment about over reliance on weapons is correct, especially non-lethal type weapons ( pepper spray, Taser, etc) . IF, GOD forbid, you actually had to STRIKE some asshole, whether it was with a baton or fist or foot, then you are automatically placed under administrative investigation. Far better, to follow department guidelines and get yourself hurt or killed…than be charged with excessive force…as if pertains to firearms, I was assigned to the academy for about 18 months and during that time was responsible for inservice firearms training. I had many a cop tell me that they didnt care about achiving a better score or improving their weapons skills, simply, because they (in their mind) never invisioned shooting someone. “Hey, I"m not getting sued, no matter what the asshole does” “I want to keep what little I own”. The situation makes me want to puke, just writing about it. [/quote]

It is indeed a sad state of affairs. Let’s be honest and admit that there should be REASONABLE restrictions on people in positions of power (which police would theoretically fall into) since we don’t want them thinking that they are “above the law” and using their power in destructive or manipulative ways. But to not even allow them to use reasonable means to perform their job of keeping the peace and neutralizing criminals doesn’t make any sense either.

145

[quote]idaho wrote:
Good points from both of you and Sento as well. valuable reading for quiet reflection. One aspect that gets little attention on these discussions is this: Someone who has a crystal clear, savage mindset on killing you, at whatever cost to themselves is something that very few individuals experience, no matter what your style, if you dont have the mental strength to win at all costs, then you die. Doesnt matter if you are the world’s best striker, grappler, or combination of both, you dont have what it takes mentally, then you lose. Probably off topic, and, I apologize if it is, but, physical ability (fighting style) alone will not win fights againist that type of savage attack. [/quote]

I agree wholly with your point here, but the “at whatever cost to themselves” notion I am not sure of. Most everyone I have met, and I certainly put myself in this category, has a tendency to try to assign “costs” and “benefits” based on their own value system instead of the person they are discussing/trying to run an analysis on.

I submit that “whatever the cost” might be more an issue of them having grossly different notions of cost, benefits, and the relative values of either. Even in the case of someone going “berserk” in the classic sense I would describe it as not recognizing, and hence there not being, any “costs” related to their actions. I am using costs and benefits in a more game theory, and hence amoral, sense.

I realize this distinction may have about zero utility for tactical decisions. I am not suggesting that anyone has a moral/ethical requirement to try to visit the motivations of another when faced with their actions. I am not claiming that violent individual(s) invading one’s personal space with the clear intention of making one dead or pregnant or sudden attacks for the duration of a PKM belt are the time for any of this evaluation. I do think the distinction is worth making in term of strategy.

Note: None, I mean fucking none, of the above should in any way be taken as an endorsement of moral relativism or as a defense of the kind of individuals you, and those like you, have dealt with your whole professional life. I offer it to further your personal and professional goals.

Regards,

Robert A

146

Training: Being hit so hard I was knocked to the floor. That was an eye opening event.

Watching boxing after learning a LITTLE bit about the sport.

Life: My best friends dad being murdered in front of his family in his family home.

147

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
Sento stated: " Most cops that I have met and trained with aren’t very well trained in unarmed combative skills (and honestly a lot aren’t even that well trained with the weapons they carry), are generally acting in somewhat of a restricted/limited manner as they generally have to follow certain laws and regulations that a fully commited criminal would not, and they tend to suffer from “tactical tunnel vision”/weapon over-reliance".

This is 100% correct.

And in my personal opinion, why a cop is killed (on average) every 4 days in the United States. By the time they have graduated from the academy (usually 18 to 27 weeks) , they have been bombarded with department rules and regulations, and how every thing you do on the street ,will get you either sued, suspended, or arrested. And for the love of whatever GOD you believe in, dont EVER act aggressive toward some poor, misunderstood asshole, thats not the image the department wants to project.

The comment about over reliance on weapons is correct, especially non-lethal type weapons ( pepper spray, Taser, etc) . IF, GOD forbid, you actually had to STRIKE some asshole, whether it was with a baton or fist or foot, then you are automatically placed under administrative investigation. Far better, to follow department guidelines and get yourself hurt or killed…than be charged with excessive force…as if pertains to firearms, I was assigned to the academy for about 18 months and during that time was responsible for inservice firearms training. I had many a cop tell me that they didnt care about achiving a better score or improving their weapons skills, simply, because they (in their mind) never invisioned shooting someone. “Hey, I"m not getting sued, no matter what the asshole does” “I want to keep what little I own”. The situation makes me want to puke, just writing about it. [/quote]

It is indeed a sad state of affairs. Let’s be honest and admit that there should be REASONABLE restrictions on people in positions of power (which police would theoretically fall into) since we don’t want them thinking that they are “above the law” and using their power in destructive or manipulative ways. But to not even allow them to use reasonable means to perform their job of keeping the peace and neutralizing criminals doesn’t make any sense either. [/quote]

Yes, I certainly agree on the restrictions of power. I have done enough work in third-world countries to know, that, I would never want those powers imposed on United States citizens. I guess, to sum it up, I just want officers, who have been involved in a non-lethal or lethal confrontation, to be accorded the same rights as a civilian in a self-defense situation. Often, when you are called before the Internal Affairs Unit, an administrative hearing, or a civilian review board, the officer is presumed guilty and has to prove their innocense.

  • apologizes to OP, got way off topic.
148

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
Good points from both of you and Sento as well. valuable reading for quiet reflection. One aspect that gets little attention on these discussions is this: Someone who has a crystal clear, savage mindset on killing you, at whatever cost to themselves is something that very few individuals experience, no matter what your style, if you dont have the mental strength to win at all costs, then you die. Doesnt matter if you are the world’s best striker, grappler, or combination of both, you dont have what it takes mentally, then you lose. Probably off topic, and, I apologize if it is, but, physical ability (fighting style) alone will not win fights againist that type of savage attack. [/quote]

I agree wholly with your point here, but the “at whatever cost to themselves” notion I am not sure of. Most everyone I have met, and I certainly put myself in this category, has a tendency to try to assign “costs” and “benefits” based on their own value system instead of the person they are discussing/trying to run an analysis on.

I submit that “whatever the cost” might be more an issue of them having grossly different notions of cost, benefits, and the relative values of either. Even in the case of someone going “berserk” in the classic sense I would describe it as not recognizing, and hence there not being, any “costs” related to their actions. I am using costs and benefits in a more game theory, and hence amoral, sense.

I realize this distinction may have about zero utility for tactical decisions. I am not suggesting that anyone has a moral/ethical requirement to try to visit the motivations of another when faced with their actions. I am not claiming that violent individual(s) invading one’s personal space with the clear intention of making one dead or pregnant or sudden attacks for the duration of a PKM belt are the time for any of this evaluation. I do think the distinction is worth making in term of strategy.

Note: None, I mean fucking none, of the above should in any way be taken as an endorsement of moral relativism or as a defense of the kind of individuals you, and those like you, have dealt with your whole professional life. I offer it to further your personal and professional goals.

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

I believe, I am tracking what you are saying here, and yes, you point out a interesting position.I think the problem (with me) in stating “at whatever costs to themselves” is a natural product of the working environment. If you spend enough time in a place where the style of “vest” is either bullet -proof or suicide, then you tend to think in black or white terms, and, that is not always a good thing, especially if you allow yourself to be sucked into a minor affair in the States. (loud mouth drunks, minor road rage, etc…) The tendency to always react in “condition black” will just land you in prison, something that I am aware of and take every means to avoid most public activities. As always, your insight is thought provoking and challenging.

149

[quote]idaho wrote:

  • apologizes to OP, got way off topic. [/quote]

It’s fine. If this thread starts taking a new and good direction, then why not continue that discussion? You guys can talk about whatever you want. It’s pretty insightful in any case.

150

[quote]idaho wrote:
I believe, I am tracking what you are saying here, and yes, you point out a interesting position.I think the problem (with me) in stating “at whatever costs to themselves” is a natural product of the working environment. If you spend enough time in a place where the style of “vest” is either bullet -proof or suicide, then you tend to think in black or white terms, and, that is not always a good thing, especially if you allow yourself to be sucked into a minor affair in the States. (loud mouth drunks, minor road rage, etc…) The tendency to always react in “condition black” will just land you in prison, something that I am aware of and take every means to avoid most public activities. As always, your insight is thought provoking and challenging. [/quote]

Like I wrote, the distinction is pretty useless for things that are happening in the now, but can have ramifications for strategic(i.e. not in hostile contact at the moment) planning.

I am going to venture that both the shitbags who think throwing acid on a little girls to discourage her from learning to read and the brave soldiers and marines who shoot people like that in the face have “costs” they are not willing to incur. I also suspect quite strongly that the “bridge to far” for soldiers and marines is quite different than for the asshole with the acid.

Even in the case of the suicide vest, I am suggesting “death”/martyrdom is either being looked at as not a serious cost, or as a benefit.

For a long, long time you have been doing difficult jobs where the notion that you may wind up crippled or dead is part of the possibilities. You have still done them and continue to do them at a very high level.

But:
While the risk of your own life may have been a “cost” you were willing to incur in order to succeed, would you risk anyone’s life?

You may well have been willing to kill certain people, but would you kill any person to reach the goal?

etc.

In the case of the suicide vest wearer; he is quite ready to trade his own life and the lives of many others for his perceived benefits, but would he be willing to be denounced as an aposte by his wahabist “brothers”?

I am suggesting that the “black and white” here is people do what they percieve as benefitting them, their goals, cause, or ideals. This is not a plea for a “social workers mindset”. It is more in line with the “knowledge is power” thought process. Looking at actions and extrapolating what they or those like them perceive as cost vs benefits can be useful in modeling. THAT can be wielded as a weapon.

I have to run out the door, but if anyone wants me to go into why I am emphasizing modeling when the idea of “costs” came up I can later. Otherwise, we can chock this up to me being a Pro-Bowl Level Monday Morning QB in a thread with people like you and Jim.

Regards,

Robert A

151

[quote]idaho wrote:
Sento stated: " Most cops that I have met and trained with aren’t very well trained in unarmed combative skills (and honestly a lot aren’t even that well trained with the weapons they carry), are generally acting in somewhat of a restricted/limited manner as they generally have to follow certain laws and regulations that a fully commited criminal would not, and they tend to suffer from “tactical tunnel vision”/weapon over-reliance".

This is 100% correct.

And in my personal opinion, why a cop is killed (on average) every 4 days in the United States. By the time they have graduated from the academy (usually 18 to 27 weeks) , they have been bombarded with department rules and regulations, and how every thing you do on the street ,will get you either sued, suspended, or arrested. And for the love of whatever GOD you believe in, dont EVER act aggressive toward some poor, misunderstood asshole, thats not the image the department wants to project.

The comment about over reliance on weapons is correct, especially non-lethal type weapons ( pepper spray, Taser, etc) . IF, GOD forbid, you actually had to STRIKE some asshole, whether it was with a baton or fist or foot, then you are automatically placed under administrative investigation. Far better, to follow department guidelines and get yourself hurt or killed…than be charged with excessive force…as if pertains to firearms, I was assigned to the academy for about 18 months and during that time was responsible for inservice firearms training. I had many a cop tell me that they didnt care about achiving a better score or improving their weapons skills, simply, because they (in their mind) never invisioned shooting someone. “Hey, I"m not getting sued, no matter what the asshole does” “I want to keep what little I own”. The situation makes me want to puke, just writing about it. [/quote]

To continue the derail:

This is something that we, as a society, need to look long and hard at IMO. Given that well below 1% of all police contacts with the public result in any type of use of force, it is sensible that time needs to be spent developing the skills to effectively handle those 99.9% of contacts. It seems to me that police officers need to be highly effective communicators who are capable of a reasonable degree of empathy. Verbal Judo/Tac Comm/negotiation/deescalation skills all have tremendous value in day to day policing and should be honed to a high level of proficiency.

However, it seems to me that we (the public) are beginning to lose sight of the fact that a big part of the primary role of police is to stop bad people from doing bad things. No matter how much the job evolves over time, this will always be true. Sometimes bad people don’t stop doing bad things no matter how empathetic you are or how persuasively you ask them. Bad people are like that. This is where that other 0.1% of contacts comes in. That 0.1% is where decisions made in seconds and fractions of seconds have irrevocable consequences for police, their families and the public they are sworn to protect. I, for one, would prefer it if the rough men and women I entrust to do violence on my family’s behalf were very proficient in violence and had no compunctions about using it when it’s called for. This may be unpalatable to some but it is the reality.

Precisely because these events are so rare and potentially unforgiving it is imperative that officers spend significant amounts of time and effort drilling and preparing for them. The “softer” skills, once learned, can be practiced day in day out, shift after shift in real time. There is ample opportunity to stay current just in the natural course of doing business. Tactical skills on the other hand, be it hands on, intermediate weapons or firearms, are perishable and often only get practiced for a few hours a year, if that, depending on the policies and programs of individual agencies. How proficient could a person expect to be at anything that they only practice for a few hours a year? To me, it is a testament to the indomitable will and fighting spirit of the men and women of law enforcement that they are able to come out on top as often as they do given how little training we really afford them.

Perhaps even more concerning IMO, is the climate of fear and CYA that permeates every aspect of modern bureaucracy. If, in those critical moments, an officer is distracted by concerns about the administrative, legal or public relations consequences of his actions it is easy to imagine that he may hesitate when he must act. Yet it seems to me that those are exactly the concerns we are, perhaps inadvertently, conditioning our police officers to think about above all else. It’s difficult when your actions will likely appear on Youtube before the end of your shift, and be tried in the court of public opinion before the close of business the following day. I expect it’s even worse if you can expect your agency to throw you to the wolves in the interest of creating the perception of “impartiality” and “transparancy”. However, it seems to me that appearances and scrutiny should be the last thing on a person’s mind when he’s out in the mud and the blood and the beer. Bringing everyone home safe should rule the day.

The public needs the police to preserve the peace and maintain civil order. Let’s stop making a tough job, dangerous job tougher and more dangerous.

152

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
Sento stated: " Most cops that I have met and trained with aren’t very well trained in unarmed combative skills (and honestly a lot aren’t even that well trained with the weapons they carry), are generally acting in somewhat of a restricted/limited manner as they generally have to follow certain laws and regulations that a fully commited criminal would not, and they tend to suffer from “tactical tunnel vision”/weapon over-reliance".

This is 100% correct.

And in my personal opinion, why a cop is killed (on average) every 4 days in the United States. By the time they have graduated from the academy (usually 18 to 27 weeks) , they have been bombarded with department rules and regulations, and how every thing you do on the street ,will get you either sued, suspended, or arrested. And for the love of whatever GOD you believe in, dont EVER act aggressive toward some poor, misunderstood asshole, thats not the image the department wants to project.

The comment about over reliance on weapons is correct, especially non-lethal type weapons ( pepper spray, Taser, etc) . IF, GOD forbid, you actually had to STRIKE some asshole, whether it was with a baton or fist or foot, then you are automatically placed under administrative investigation. Far better, to follow department guidelines and get yourself hurt or killed…than be charged with excessive force…as if pertains to firearms, I was assigned to the academy for about 18 months and during that time was responsible for inservice firearms training. I had many a cop tell me that they didnt care about achiving a better score or improving their weapons skills, simply, because they (in their mind) never invisioned shooting someone. “Hey, I"m not getting sued, no matter what the asshole does” “I want to keep what little I own”. The situation makes me want to puke, just writing about it. [/quote]

To continue the derail:

This is something that we, as a society, need to look long and hard at IMO. Given that well below 1% of all police contacts with the public result in any type of use of force, it is sensible that time needs to be spent developing the skills to effectively handle those 99.9% of contacts. It seems to me that police officers need to be highly effective communicators who are capable of a reasonable degree of empathy. Verbal Judo/Tac Comm/negotiation/deescalation skills all have tremendous value in day to day policing and should be honed to a high level of proficiency.

However, it seems to me that we (the public) are beginning to lose sight of the fact that a big part of the primary role of police is to stop bad people from doing bad things. No matter how much the job evolves over time, this will always be true. Sometimes bad people don’t stop doing bad things no matter how empathetic you are or how persuasively you ask them. Bad people are like that. This is where that other 0.1% of contacts comes in. That 0.1% is where decisions made in seconds and fractions of seconds have irrevocable consequences for police, their families and the public they are sworn to protect. I, for one, would prefer it if the rough men and women I entrust to do violence on my family’s behalf were very proficient in violence and had no compunctions about using it when it’s called for. This may be unpalatable to some but it is the reality.

Precisely because these events are so rare and potentially unforgiving it is imperative that officers spend significant amounts of time and effort drilling and preparing for them. The “softer” skills, once learned, can be practiced day in day out, shift after shift in real time. There is ample opportunity to stay current just in the natural course of doing business. Tactical skills on the other hand, be it hands on, intermediate weapons or firearms, are perishable and often only get practiced for a few hours a year, if that, depending on the policies and programs of individual agencies. How proficient could a person expect to be at anything that they only practice for a few hours a year? To me, it is a testament to the indomitable will and fighting spirit of the men and women of law enforcement that they are able to come out on top as often as they do given how little training we really afford them.

Perhaps even more concerning IMO, is the climate of fear and CYA that permeates every aspect of modern bureaucracy. If, in those critical moments, an officer is distracted by concerns about the administrative, legal or public relations consequences of his actions it is easy to imagine that he may hesitate when he must act. Yet it seems to me that those are exactly the concerns we are, perhaps inadvertently, conditioning our police officers to think about above all else. It’s difficult when your actions will likely appear on Youtube before the end of your shift, and be tried in the court of public opinion before the close of business the following day. I expect it’s even worse if you can expect your agency to throw you to the wolves in the interest of creating the perception of “impartiality” and “transparancy”. However, it seems to me that appearances and scrutiny should be the last thing on a person’s mind when he’s out in the mud and the blood and the beer. Bringing everyone home safe should rule the day.

The public needs the police to preserve the peace and maintain civil order. Let’s stop making a tough job, dangerous job tougher and more dangerous.

[/quote]

A great post…You expressed everything far more eloquently than I ever could. I have too much time in the “system” to not have everything colored by past experience. Thank you

153

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
I believe, I am tracking what you are saying here, and yes, you point out a interesting position.I think the problem (with me) in stating “at whatever costs to themselves” is a natural product of the working environment. If you spend enough time in a place where the style of “vest” is either bullet -proof or suicide, then you tend to think in black or white terms, and, that is not always a good thing, especially if you allow yourself to be sucked into a minor affair in the States. (loud mouth drunks, minor road rage, etc…) The tendency to always react in “condition black” will just land you in prison, something that I am aware of and take every means to avoid most public activities. As always, your insight is thought provoking and challenging. [/quote]

Like I wrote, the distinction is pretty useless for things that are happening in the now, but can have ramifications for strategic(i.e. not in hostile contact at the moment) planning.

I am going to venture that both the shitbags who think throwing acid on a little girls to discourage her from learning to read and the brave soldiers and marines who shoot people like that in the face have “costs” they are not willing to incur. I also suspect quite strongly that the “bridge to far” for soldiers and marines is quite different than for the asshole with the acid.

Even in the case of the suicide vest, I am suggesting “death”/martyrdom is either being looked at as not a serious cost, or as a benefit.

For a long, long time you have been doing difficult jobs where the notion that you may wind up crippled or dead is part of the possibilities. You have still done them and continue to do them at a very high level.

But:
While the risk of your own life may have been a “cost” you were willing to incur in order to succeed, would you risk anyone’s life?

You may well have been willing to kill certain people, but would you kill any person to reach the goal?

etc.

In the case of the suicide vest wearer; he is quite ready to trade his own life and the lives of many others for his perceived benefits, but would he be willing to be denounced as an aposte by his wahabist “brothers”?

I am suggesting that the “black and white” here is people do what they percieve as benefitting them, their goals, cause, or ideals. This is not a plea for a “social workers mindset”. It is more in line with the “knowledge is power” thought process. Looking at actions and extrapolating what they or those like them perceive as cost vs benefits can be useful in modeling. THAT can be wielded as a weapon.

I have to run out the door, but if anyone wants me to go into why I am emphasizing modeling when the idea of “costs” came up I can later. Otherwise, we can chock this up to me being a Pro-Bowl Level Monday Morning QB in a thread with people like you and Jim.

Regards,

Robert A
[/quote]

Yes, please do, since we are highjacking Blase’s thread anyway. Are you using " modeling" as a form of profiling or prediction on types of attack? A way to “plan an assualt” (good guys) based on “cost” for the attacker?

154

[quote]idaho wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
Sento stated: " Most cops that I have met and trained with aren’t very well trained in unarmed combative skills (and honestly a lot aren’t even that well trained with the weapons they carry), are generally acting in somewhat of a restricted/limited manner as they generally have to follow certain laws and regulations that a fully commited criminal would not, and they tend to suffer from “tactical tunnel vision”/weapon over-reliance".

This is 100% correct.

And in my personal opinion, why a cop is killed (on average) every 4 days in the United States. By the time they have graduated from the academy (usually 18 to 27 weeks) , they have been bombarded with department rules and regulations, and how every thing you do on the street ,will get you either sued, suspended, or arrested. And for the love of whatever GOD you believe in, dont EVER act aggressive toward some poor, misunderstood asshole, thats not the image the department wants to project.

The comment about over reliance on weapons is correct, especially non-lethal type weapons ( pepper spray, Taser, etc) . IF, GOD forbid, you actually had to STRIKE some asshole, whether it was with a baton or fist or foot, then you are automatically placed under administrative investigation. Far better, to follow department guidelines and get yourself hurt or killed…than be charged with excessive force…as if pertains to firearms, I was assigned to the academy for about 18 months and during that time was responsible for inservice firearms training. I had many a cop tell me that they didnt care about achiving a better score or improving their weapons skills, simply, because they (in their mind) never invisioned shooting someone. “Hey, I"m not getting sued, no matter what the asshole does” “I want to keep what little I own”. The situation makes me want to puke, just writing about it. [/quote]

To continue the derail:

This is something that we, as a society, need to look long and hard at IMO. Given that well below 1% of all police contacts with the public result in any type of use of force, it is sensible that time needs to be spent developing the skills to effectively handle those 99.9% of contacts. It seems to me that police officers need to be highly effective communicators who are capable of a reasonable degree of empathy. Verbal Judo/Tac Comm/negotiation/deescalation skills all have tremendous value in day to day policing and should be honed to a high level of proficiency.

However, it seems to me that we (the public) are beginning to lose sight of the fact that a big part of the primary role of police is to stop bad people from doing bad things. No matter how much the job evolves over time, this will always be true. Sometimes bad people don’t stop doing bad things no matter how empathetic you are or how persuasively you ask them. Bad people are like that. This is where that other 0.1% of contacts comes in. That 0.1% is where decisions made in seconds and fractions of seconds have irrevocable consequences for police, their families and the public they are sworn to protect. I, for one, would prefer it if the rough men and women I entrust to do violence on my family’s behalf were very proficient in violence and had no compunctions about using it when it’s called for. This may be unpalatable to some but it is the reality.

Precisely because these events are so rare and potentially unforgiving it is imperative that officers spend significant amounts of time and effort drilling and preparing for them. The “softer” skills, once learned, can be practiced day in day out, shift after shift in real time. There is ample opportunity to stay current just in the natural course of doing business. Tactical skills on the other hand, be it hands on, intermediate weapons or firearms, are perishable and often only get practiced for a few hours a year, if that, depending on the policies and programs of individual agencies. How proficient could a person expect to be at anything that they only practice for a few hours a year? To me, it is a testament to the indomitable will and fighting spirit of the men and women of law enforcement that they are able to come out on top as often as they do given how little training we really afford them.

Perhaps even more concerning IMO, is the climate of fear and CYA that permeates every aspect of modern bureaucracy. If, in those critical moments, an officer is distracted by concerns about the administrative, legal or public relations consequences of his actions it is easy to imagine that he may hesitate when he must act. Yet it seems to me that those are exactly the concerns we are, perhaps inadvertently, conditioning our police officers to think about above all else. It’s difficult when your actions will likely appear on Youtube before the end of your shift, and be tried in the court of public opinion before the close of business the following day. I expect it’s even worse if you can expect your agency to throw you to the wolves in the interest of creating the perception of “impartiality” and “transparancy”. However, it seems to me that appearances and scrutiny should be the last thing on a person’s mind when he’s out in the mud and the blood and the beer. Bringing everyone home safe should rule the day.

The public needs the police to preserve the peace and maintain civil order. Let’s stop making a tough job, dangerous job tougher and more dangerous.

[/quote]

A great post…You expressed everything far more eloquently than I ever could. I have too much time in the “system” to not have everything colored by past experience. Thank you[/quote]

It’s always encouraging when someone who’s been there and done that finds my remarks to be at least somewhat on point. That said, I suspect it’s much easier for someone in my position (looking in from the periphery) to appear objective about these things than it is for someone who is wading through it.

It saddens and angers me to hear time and again how police officers (and military personnel for that matter) often seem to be more negatively impacted by the “system” than they are by operational demands of the job itself. When the structure that’s supposed to exist to protect and support you so you can do the work you do is a bigger problem than the enemy, it’s time to reevaluate some things IMHO.

I am trying like hell to get into law enforcement myself, and this is actually the biggest (really the only) reservation that I have about it. The potential problems people seem to point out (shift work, risk, job stress etc.) all seem manageable to me. The “system”, however, seems like a bit of a bear.

Still gonna do it at the first opportunity.

155

[quote]idaho wrote:
Yes, please do, since we are highjacking Blase’s thread anyway. Are you using " modeling" as a form of profiling or prediction on types of attack? A way to “plan an assualt” (good guys) based on “cost” for the attacker? [/quote]

Profiling is certainly a useful type of modeling, but I am being way more general. I really don’t rate to give specific advice for what you deal with day to day. I am making a distinction about modeling because of the inherent impossibility of really knowing someone else enough to completely understand their motivations. It is however possible to model them.

The first and foremost thing to remember about models is that they are not reality. Models are not real. They are made up. Some would consider that a limitation, but I am going to argue it is their greatest strength. We strive to be as accurate as possible in identifying and valuing the costs and benefits of their various actions, because presumably that will allow more and greater predictions or extrapolations to be drawn, but as long as we know the limits of a model it can still be useful.

We create models to help us, or others, understand a thing/concept/person/situation. The understanding is then used as a jumping off point for predictions, or further learning. Evaluating the worth of a model is much less a question of “Is this real?” or “Is this completely accurate?” than “Is this useful?” As long as the model serves us well, it is worth it. This allows us to construct models without 100% of the information, or even purposely ignore some of the facts/info if we donâ??t think it will be useful.

This is one reason I like to stress the “made up” part of models. Rather than saying this is what “is”, and setting it in stone, teaching from models is inviting the students to think, understand, and then improve the work. After all, it’s just made up. A profile, or any model, shouldn’t be treated like a stone tablet bore by Moses. It is only a tool to further understanding. If the person trying to understand doesn’t “get” the model, than something else can be used.

Some of the most useful models we use are provably “false”. Take Classic Physics/Newtonian Physics/Relativity as an example. If all of that were true and complete there would not be a separate type of physics for really small things, quantum physics. Instead we have a bunch of rules that work great, than shit gets weird and we use different rules.

Still, the classic stuff put’s astronauts into space (Blaze, the OP whose thread I am fucking up, posted an amazing video in the GAL forum that needs to be watched), so it is really damn useful. I have heard that some scientists are saying we got gravity wrong. Still, it works for pretty much all day to day calculations. So let’s keep the model until we get a better one.

When you wrote about “costs”, my brain went to the whole “cost vs. benefit” evaluation process. I tend to lean on game theory for making these evaluations in others. My big contention is that people/players behave “rationally” in terms of game theory. This only means that they try to achieve their “best” attainable outcome. Doing something “whatever the costs” flies in the face of this. I have never met someone who has operated “whatever the costs”.

I have met people who have assessed a certain outcome/choice to be so good/such a benefit that it outweighs all costs they have considered (Before anyone, on this board I think FightinIrish might be the only one who would, brings up Clauswitz; I put Total War in this category.) The other type is crackhead/tweeker willpower. These individuals may give the appearance of a damn the torpedoes level of commitment, but it’s usually due to simply not assessing or considering costs as opposed to willfully disregarding them. They just see the goal and no costs.

To put it another way, when we look at a crackhead and think of how much they have given up it isnâ??t because they possess some kind of Nietzchean Ubermensch level of willpower, it is lack of foresight.

If we want to profile and consider the costs facing our enemy, we need to assess costs, and benefits from their point of view, or as close to it as we can. I firmly hold that truly knowing another is an impossibility, hence my long winded spiel about this only being a model. We look at actions of the individual, or type of individual, and see what that tells us about what they think will give them their best shot at a “win”. We build a model or profile based on this so that we can achieve OUR “win”.

Realizing that it is THEIR perceived costs and THEIR perceived benefits that will drive their actions is the first step in making them predictable. The fundamental assumption is that they will try to act in their own best interests. If their actions don’t match up with our models predictions, modify the model. After all, it is just a made up thing. Their motivations may be very different from our own, that might be why we are enemies. Their goals are not necessarily ours, and vice versa. And we only need to concern ourselves with preventing their win, if it conflicts with our own interests. Otherwise, their perceived success may help keep them predictable. And honestly, you are a very, very bad day for anyone foolish enough to become predictable to you.

NOTE to All (Idaho likely doesn’t need it): I have written before about the line between tactics (done in hostile contact), and strategy. I am only offering this for strategic thinking. Tactical thinking (done in hostile contact) should be selfish, i.e. only YOUR goals matter. However, if you could drink a cup of coffee while thinking about things, than the above may be useful to you.

The idea of using this to plan an attack than becomes a case of using a model to predict the actions of our enemy, and than picking actions that give us our best benefit.

Hope that made some sense.

Regards,

Robert A

156

[quote]humble wrote:

This is just not right.

I cannot grapple ever again. I will not grapple ever again. I will develop laser like striking to the nth degree to avoid your unfortunate exposure and like situations. Oh God, please help me.
[/quote]

I am guessing humble’s absence is do to his renewed dedication to training. Since Ranzo scuttled my last money making attempt maybe I have a future as a motivational speaker?

That, or humble is eagerly going through the new DSM V that came out the 18th to see if “Jiu-Jitsu Curious” has a diagnostic code.

Regards,

Robert A

157

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
Yes, please do, since we are highjacking Blase’s thread anyway. Are you using " modeling" as a form of profiling or prediction on types of attack? A way to “plan an assualt” (good guys) based on “cost” for the attacker? [/quote]

Profiling is certainly a useful type of modeling, but I am being way more general. I really don’t rate to give specific advice for what you deal with day to day. I am making a distinction about modeling because of the inherent impossibility of really knowing someone else enough to completely understand their motivations. It is however possible to model them.

The first and foremost thing to remember about models is that they are not reality. Models are not real. They are made up. Some would consider that a limitation, but I am going to argue it is their greatest strength. We strive to be as accurate as possible in identifying and valuing the costs and benefits of their various actions, because presumably that will allow more and greater predictions or extrapolations to be drawn, but as long as we know the limits of a model it can still be useful.

We create models to help us, or others, understand a thing/concept/person/situation. The understanding is then used as a jumping off point for predictions, or further learning. Evaluating the worth of a model is much less a question of “Is this real?” or “Is this completely accurate?” than “Is this useful?” As long as the model serves us well, it is worth it. This allows us to construct models without 100% of the information, or even purposely ignore some of the facts/info if we donâ??t think it will be useful.

This is one reason I like to stress the “made up” part of models. Rather than saying this is what “is”, and setting it in stone, teaching from models is inviting the students to think, understand, and then improve the work. After all, it’s just made up. A profile, or any model, shouldn’t be treated like a stone tablet bore by Moses. It is only a tool to further understanding. If the person trying to understand doesn’t “get” the model, than something else can be used.

Some of the most useful models we use are provably “false”. Take Classic Physics/Newtonian Physics/Relativity as an example. If all of that were true and complete there would not be a separate type of physics for really small things, quantum physics. Instead we have a bunch of rules that work great, than shit gets weird and we use different rules. Still, the classic stuff put’s astronauts into space (Blaze, the OP whose thread I am fucking up, posted an amazing video in the GAL forum that needs to be watched), so it is really damn useful. I have heard that some scientists are saying we got gravity wrong. Still, it works for pretty much all day to day calculations. So let’s keep the model until we get a better one.

When you wrote about “costs”, my brain went to the whole “cost vs. benefit” evaluation process. I tend to lean on game theory for making these evaluations in others. My big contention is that people/players behave “rationally” in terms of game theory. This only means that they try to achieve their “best” attainable outcome. Doing something “whatever the costs” flies in the face of this. I have never met someone who has operated “whatever the costs”. I have met people who have assessed a certain outcome/choice to be so good/such a benefit that it outweighs all costs they have considered (Before anyone, on this board I think FightinIrish might be the only one who would, brings up Clauswitz; I put Total War in this category.) The other type is crackhead/tweeker willpower. These individuals may give the appearance of a damn the torpedoes level of commitment, but it’s usually due to simply not assessing or considering costs as opposed to willfully disregarding them. They just see the goal and no costs. To put it another way, when we look at a crackhead and think of how much they have given up it isnâ??t because they possess some kind of Nietzchean Ubermensch level of willpower, it is lack of foresight.

If we want to profile and consider the costs facing our enemy, we need to assess costs, and benefits from their point of view, or as close to it as we can. I firmly hold that truly knowing another is an impossibility, hence my long winded spiel about this only being a model. We look at actions of the individual, or type of individual, and see what that tells us about what they think will give them their best shot at a “win”. We build a model or profile based on this so that we can achieve OUR “win”.

Realizing that it is THEIR perceived costs and THEIR perceived benefits that will drive their actions is the first step in making them predictable. The fundamental assumption is that they will try to act in their own best interests. If their actions don’t match up with our models predictions, modify the model. After all, it is just a made up thing. Their motivations may be very different from our own, that might be why we are enemies. Their goals are not necessarily ours, and vice versa. And we only need to concern ourselves with preventing their win, if it conflicts with our own interests. Otherwise, their perceived success may help keep them predictable. And honestly, you are a very, very bad day for anyone foolish enough to become predictable to you.

NOTE to All (Idaho likely doesn’t need it): I have written before about the line between tactics (done in hostile contact), and strategy. I am only offering this for strategic thinking. Tactical thinking (done in hostile contact) should be selfish, i.e. only YOUR goals matter. However, if you could drink a cup of coffee while thinking about things, than the above may be useful to you.

The idea of using this to plan an attack than becomes a case of using a model to predict the actions of our enemy, and than picking actions that give us our best benefit.

Hope that made some sense.

Regards,

Robert A

[/quote]

Excellent, Thank you. To expand further on your “modeling for strategy”, I have just finished reading (again)the book: Lure the Tiger Out of the Mountains: The 36 Stratagems of Ancient China by Gao Yuan. Thou, the book is dated (1991), after each stratagem, he will list an example being used in modern buisness or an interpersonal relationship.

Example: “Kill with a borrowed knife”, The author first gives us the ancient breakdown of the battle and then a modern example, such as Coke using celebrities to sell their product.

A careful study of your enemys’ known tactics and strengths, plus, “building a model” based on known and projected theories (your physics example) should give you plenty to think about over coffee.

For humor: I used to work with a guy, who, went things looked like they were going hot, would say in a very south Mississippi drawl, “Hey Bro, This shit is getting way kind of deep”. I believe, we are headed there with this discussion. LoL.

Be Safe, Watch your 6.

158

Great discussion guys, thanks for contributing.

159

[quote]idaho wrote:
Excellent, Thank you. To expand further on your “modeling for strategy”, I have just finished reading (again)the book: Lure the Tiger Out of the Mountains: The 36 Stratagems of Ancient China by Gao Yuan. Thou, the book is dated (1991), after each stratagem, he will list an example being used in modern buisness or an interpersonal relationship.
[/quote]
I think I have that exact edition of the 36 Stratagems. Simon & Schuster 1991. It is great, and deserves to be on the same shelf with the more popular Art of War and A Book of Five Rings.

I still think Clausewitz is excellent as well. Unfortunately translated Prussian is anything but brief, so it takes a lot more time to get through a “lesson”.

I am doing my best to keep it shallow, may be if I make more low brow jokes?

[quote]
Be Safe, Watch your 6.
[/quote]

Same to you.

Regards,

Robert A

160

[quote]Robert A wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
Excellent, Thank you. To expand further on your “modeling for strategy”, I have just finished reading (again)the book: Lure the Tiger Out of the Mountains: The 36 Stratagems of Ancient China by Gao Yuan. Thou, the book is dated (1991), after each stratagem, he will list an example being used in modern buisness or an interpersonal relationship.
[/quote]
I think I have that exact edition of the 36 Stratagems. Simon & Schuster 1991. It is great, and deserves to be on the same shelf with the more popular Art of War and A Book of Five Rings.

I still think Clausewitz is excellent as well. Unfortunately translated Prussian is anything but brief, so it takes a lot more time to get through a “lesson”.

I am doing my best to keep it shallow, may be if I make more low brow jokes?

[quote]
Be Safe, Watch your 6.
[/quote]

Same to you.

Regards,

Robert A[/quote]

Actually, I wish , I had not included that statement about the shit getting deep. When I went back and re-read what I wrote, I almost deleted it. The comment was made more about hijacking Blaze’s thred more than anything. Feel a little guilty about that.

I find your viewpoints (and the rest of regulars) very different from mine and I realize, what have I been doing is getting stale mentally. I guess its human nature to always use what works in the past, but, the danger there is not learning and adapting. With the above discussion, I realize that I am not thinking enough outside the box, especially on tactical entries, weapons training, or PSD movenments. For that, I am grateful for the insights you and rest offer. Nothing turns you arrogant like success.

From a reality point of view: I dont know if you caught the news earlier this week, about the two military and 4 contractors killed in an IED explosion in Afghanistan, but, I found out yesterday, that one of the contractors killed was someone I worked with in Iraq, in 2007. So, thats a excellent reminder to learn, discuss, and take into consideration new ideas (for me) on building models and trying to think better outside the box. As always, good insight from you and I appreciate your thoughts, now, lets hope we are not boring everyone else to death here.:slight_smile: