Whenever you get a group of people together who share extensive knowledge in the same subject matter, disagreement inevitably ensues. Firearms instructors and those who are serious students of the topic are no different. I’ve been in groups where two participants have almost come to blows over such miniscule topics as whether the support arm should be bent, should the body be bladed, teaching students to look at the sights, how to breathe, what type of gun is best (caliber, capacity, shotgun vs. carbine).
I seldom say much in these gatherings, for several reasons. One, if I’m talking, I’m not listening. If I don’t listen, I don’t learn. Two, little is ever resolved by such argument, because those involved seldom change their mind/point of view, and I doubt that I will be able to sway anyone.
But such arguments aren’t without repercussions. Who gets hurt in such disagreements? The individual looking for knowledge, trying to build their skill set so when they face a life-threatening situation, they have a skill base to draw upon. These people don’t know what/who to believe because those with expertise in an area are often too busy fighting over who knows more, who’s right or whose doctrine (dogma might be a better word, as such views are usually unchangeable) is better.
Don’t get me wrong. I have my opinions on how combative firearms should be taught—most of it based on
simplicity of action or skill development—but I don’t believe my views are so “ultimate” that I should argue about them. The truth (and I pride myself on this): If something proven superior to what I’m teaching comes along, I’ll change instantly, because all I want to pass on to those I train is results! If it won’t help win the fight, then I’m wasting their time.
Under Attack
But how does an LEO decide what tactics or techniques will help them prevail? In reality, it’s tough because so much of what happens in conflict is situationally dependent. I’ve been taught any number of techniques over the years that worked well on the range or in the gym, only to find out they were less than stellar in the field. In addition, police training often takes on a perspective that’s not appropriate for all potential situations.
In recent months, cops have been under attack in a way that’s only happened a few times in our history. I say “few times” because cops have been in the crosshairs before: NYPD cops remember the early 1970s, when Officers Foster, Laurie, Jones and Piagentini were actually stalked and ambushed by black militants. The famous Newhall incident, in which four California Highway Patrol officers were confronted and overwhelmed by two armed and committed suspects, wasn’t that much different than the four Washington State officers who were attacked and killed in a coffee shop or the recent attack on a Detroit police precinct. All of these incidents share a common thread: Armed, committed suspects knowingly attack armed and trained LEOs and do heavy damage.
It’s happened before and it will happen again. The questions: Will we be ready for it? Will our training cover the circumstances we will face? Or will our complacency get the better of us?
Get Ready
Do we train LEOs to fight to the death, or do we train them to “stop the suspect’s immediate action”? I can’t help but wonder whether many officers in life-or-death situations are thinking about saving their own lives vs. trying to put the suspect in handcuffs. There’s a difference, and it’s situationally dependent. Fighting to the death when attacked by a committed murderer is a much different situation from making an arrest—but do we train our officers to recognize and react to the difference?
Many police administrators will remind us that we police society; we’re not at war with them. But are we prepared when members of society go to war with us?
Even the techniques we teach/use in the field are situationally dependent. Handgun-ready positions are a perfect example: They’re numerous, and every school/instructor has their favorite, but no single ready position will work for all situations. Yes, the ready position is situationally dependent.
The two positions that enjoy incredible popularity currently are Chest Ready and Sul. In a nutshell, Chest Ready is the gun held back against the high chest with the muzzle pointed forward. Sul is the gun held flat against the support hand, which is flat against the chest. In my state, these are the only two ready positions currently taught in the state-approved curriculum, but do they work for all situations?
Chest ready is very fast on target and easy to teach, but we’re also taught not to point the muzzle at anything we’re not willing to destroy, which is where Sul comes in. I’ve seen Sul taught as the primary building search position in many parts of the country. Instructors tell me that it keeps the muzzle off non-hostiles. It’s “safer,” they say. But I can’t help but wonder: When do we allow officers to be dangerous? After all, aren’t they potentially facing off with dangerous suspects when they search a building, suspects that may snuff out their life? Is having the gun flat against the chest a disadvantage at close quarters? Is having the support hand under the pistol an advantageous position vs. up and away, ready to fend off a close attack?
The answer: It’s situationally dependent.
Adjust to the Situation
Fortunately, U.S. LEOs confront far more armed suspects than they shoot. When such confrontations occur, officers orient their sidearm/long gun in the direction of the suspect in an attempt to get them to comply with their verbal commands. The firearm is used as a tool of compliance; its use is a threat of what will happen if the suspect doesn’t comply.
This said, if as a suspect you were confronted by an armed officer, would you feel more threatened by a gun in Chest Ready or Sul, or by a gun that was outstretched, pointed in your general direction—as if the officer was ready to use it?
The position is called the Guard or Low Ready: The gun is slightly low, so the officer can see the entire suspect and what their intentions might be. It’s the same position they would use with a long gun. Although its use in the street is well documented, the Guard/Low Ready position is no longer taught in many regions, as it’s thought to be “old school.”
In addition to ready position, the choice of weapon is also situationally dependent. The cruiser carbine is here to stay, which is a really good thing because it gives patrol officers greater capability to respond to a wider range of threats. I’ve heard a number of instructors make the statement, “Use your handgun to fight your way to a long gun.” But does that work? I understand the sentiment behind the statement, but can it be done?
Maybe. But the history of unexpected conflict reveals that the fight starts and finishes in seconds. One or both (maybe more!) of the combatants go down with their available guns empty or almost empty. Reality states that the fight will start and finish with the weapons the individual has in their hand or on their person. Does this make the carbine unnecessary? Hell no! The person who knowingly goes to a gunfight with a handgun isn’t very smart, but that also doesn’t mean the carbine is the new police handgun.
The bottom line: Train and practice with all available weapons, because what weapon comes into play is situationally dependent.
Focus on the Fundamentals
At this point you might be asking, how can we possibly train for every potential situation we could face if/when engaged in armed conflict? The harsh reality: We can’t.
But that doesn’t stop us from trying. How many training programs have you seen developed based on a single incident? If an officer somewhere in the U.S. is hurt or killed in a mud hole while trying to draw their back up gun from an ankle holster, a slew of “Combat Mud Hole & Ankle Holster” courses will be introduced with THE ANSWER to this situation revealed.
But do we really need such a program? Is it a wise use of limited time and money? Could this situation have been dealt with by a focus on the fundamentals of drawing from the chosen holster and basic punches and kicks adapted to being prone? If you’re going to use an ankle holster, it makes sense to spend some time drawing from it—upright, kneeling, laying on your side or back, falling, getting up, the same things you’d train on with your primary belt holster!
And is fighting on the ground really different from fighting upright? I’m not talking about grappling, I’m talking about fighting: punching, kicking, biting, gouging, head butting and other related non-competition acts of combat. If you can do it upright, you can (with a bit of thought) adapt it to being on the ground. It’s just a matter of reorientation.
So much of this is a matter of how you think about the situation at hand. History has shown that the person who will win a gunfight, regardless of how it unfolds, is the one who can keep their head and adapt their skill set(s) to the situation they face. Again, there’s no way to specifically prepare for every potential situation you may face. But you can train on how to adjust your tactics to the situation at hand.
In Sum
Maintaining situational awareness and being willing to engage in combat will always be the key to your personal security. The attack that’s a complete surprise will always be hard to respond to, regardless of your level of training and combative mindset. Reality bites; there’s just no way to prepare for every potential situation. Adaptation of fundamental skills, combined with a combative mindset, is critical.
Remember: Right now, someone is preparing so that when they meet you, they beat you. Train hard and stay on guard!