I have not studied Krav Maga or many of the other methods. I got lucky and the agencies where I was employed or training at all had specialists for the subdue/control/defense techniques.Paladin wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:22 pmThe author seems to be hard at work on the problem. In my experience instinctive techniques like Krav Maga and COL Applegate's methods are quick to learn and reasonably retained. The law enforcement style unarmed techniques I was taught by LEO's seemed like mostly poor techniques designed to avoid legal liability.
I agree that most police methods are not that well taught nor are they well retained. But the problem with many methods for police vs. citizens is the end goal of the technique. If you are a regular citizen studying Krav Maga to protect yourself, it may be very well suited for that. But police are not studying self-defense, they are studying subdue and control techniques. They not only have to defend themselves, they morally cannot walk away from the attacker. A good cop must defend himself, subdue the attacker and take him in to custody, all without causing unnecessary injury. Citizens who are attacked only need to worry about surviving. They may try to avoid unnecessary injury to the attacker but it is not really required other than going way overboard (at least in Texas, other states are not nearly as enlightened in this area).
As an example of the difference, many of the techniques I was taught were taught by the military. Most of these are also not allowed for police loss. In 1975, I was attending Marine Corps PLC training at Quantico. I remember writing home one day (my father was a former Marine) that we had an interesting class where they taught me eight different ways to kill a man without using a weapon. In 76, going through the Army MP school, I was taught "come-alongs" using the club (such as the figure 4 stranglehold - the club goes across the suspects throat and then into the crook of your other elbow; that hand comes around the club and presses on the crown of the suspects head while the club is being pulled back into his throat) that were very effective but stood a good chance of killing the suspect if you did it wrong. Most of these are now forbidden for the police.
While I support the change in police tactics, I understand the problems it causes in teaching unarmed combat to potential officers. And then the fact that most officers never practice once they graduate the academy makes this even worse. Texas requires officers to qualify with their weapon once a year and take 40 hours of training every two years. The basic academy is now only required to be about 4-1/2 months long (696 hours). Our training may be among the best in the nation but it is woefully inadequate in many areas, not just unarmed combat. This is one reason I believe that we need to move to a program where the officers are immersed in a training class for four years that includes earning a college degree. As of my writing this, there are 78,634 peace officers in Texas (not counting any jailers). If we figure that the average police career is 25 years (my personal guesstimate), that means we need about 3,150 new officers every year just to stay where we are at. That would mean, if we used one campus, we would need a training center the size of UTD for my proposal with a probable cost of $300,000,000 per year. That does not include uniforms or any salary you pay the trainees like they do at West Point.
There are solutions to the problem and mine is just one proposal that may or may not work. I believe that my proposal would result in more professional officers overall and would be a benefit, but that is my belief and not a guaranteed program. I am sure there are other solutions too. And I agree that if we do not do something, we will have larger problems than we do now.