The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 11, 2013, 10:39 PM   #1
the1mu
Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2013
Posts: 47
First Person Defender

Ok, so I know a thread was started on this video series but it didn't generate much discussion. I have been watching quite a few of them because of the thread and I personally feel they probably have a lot of value and I have different thoughts on different videos but in general, does anyone have any thoughts on these videos?

I personally have NO real training. I have played around as a kid and done a lot of shooting but never life/death scenarios. I have broken up a few fights in my day, cleared a house with an army friend (no live fire) but nothing else. Are these videos realistic? Do you feel the situations are 1) real and 2) there advice is applicable?
__________________
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". -Benjamin Franklin
the1mu is offline  
Old August 12, 2013, 12:10 AM   #2
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,271
I liked them and they gave me some things to talk about but I think they need to be taken with a grain of salt.

The way I have seen it, generally, it goes like this:

The person always fails the first time (with one notable exception)

They teach them a technique that may have been related to their failure (which is used about 50% of the time)

They succeed the second time.

There are some interesting tidbits there. During the "Random Attack" video I noticed immediate use of Jiu-Jitsu forms (like a strong side mount into a full mount) and sure enough the instructor taught the participant how to use open guard and closed guard to control an attacker. However, the participant really didn't use this "one helpful tip" at all in the second scenario.


Some things I noticed:

Those who freaked out or immediately went to the gun tended to lose the situation. A normally non lethal situation may have been escalated, or a person who immediately went for their gun was shot by the bad guy who already had theirs ready.

Those who had some kind of plan, really any kind, or anything they knew they could do to survive, tended to do better by knowing what their options were rather than "Go for the gun and hope".

At close ranges, a gun fight is just as much as a fist fight as a shoot out. You need to be able to be in control of your own body space as well as being a good shot, and familiar with shooting in alternate positions.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old August 12, 2013, 01:25 AM   #3
the1mu
Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2013
Posts: 47
Thanks for the great feedback... you brought up a lot of things that I hadn't noticed.

One thing that I did notice was that (on 2 videos- convenient store robbery and parking lot confrontation) the assumption of deadly force seemed to be their first goal and specifically in the parking lot one, the 2nd time, he solved the issue without deadly force and that was what impressed me the most. I think the training that would focus on lack of deadly force (which ATM robbery did actually have done the first time-not successfully). My point is that I was very challenged in my thinking to always find a non-lethal option.

Quote:
Those who had some kind of plan, really any kind, or anything they knew they could do to survive, tended to do better by knowing what their options were rather than "Go for the gun and hope".
This is my biggest take away from you and them and one of the reasons I will look for more of these videos AND possibly seek to find similar training. What I haven't thought through, I probably will not respond correctly too.
__________________
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". -Benjamin Franklin
the1mu is offline  
Old August 12, 2013, 05:30 AM   #4
the1mu
Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2013
Posts: 47
Domestic Dispute

So, I will ask a very pointed question regarding one of these videos based on my own experience (I think it relates enough that it doesn't deserve it's own thread but may help to continually draw out the dialogue of what these videos are trying to get us to think about).

I was walking on the street with my then fiancee and a woman comes screaming out of her complex being chased by her husband. We were in a foreign nation at that point where guns are few and far between and I could not see any weapons, but she was scared spitless and he looked angry enough to murder her. We were only maybe ten feet away when I saw him (forcibly grab her and throw her to the ground- I at this point can't remember if this happened or not) at which point I made the call to intervene and I put him to the ground while instructing bystanders to call LEO's. That was the long and short of it.

The video was pretty one or the other- call police don't engage unless threat is imminent. My gut at that point said there was imminent danger of bodily harm to that woman however there was also no way to know as once I controlled the male, she begged me to let him be (psychology of abuse baffles me).

As such, seeing that the video went from gun in hand to argument alone (it would have been interesting to me to see a pursuit issue) my situation was not as clean cut especially regarding a weapon other than the human body. What do you consider an imminent threat to another person (besides gut reaction)?
__________________
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". -Benjamin Franklin
the1mu is offline  
Old August 12, 2013, 09:12 AM   #5
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 5,386
When intervening in a situation that didn't directly involve you, is it always going to be clear as to who is the bad guy?

As far as deciding when imminent danger of bodily harm is about to happen, my guess would be after verbal commands are given, and making it clear that the police have been called and are on their way - even if it's untrue.
If the threat doesn't begin to fade at that point, and an attack continues, then it can probably be assumed the worst is about to happen.

Intervention can backfire, especially in places where self defense is not an accepted part of the legal system.
There's many parts of the world, and even this country, where the authorities are very jealous of their powers and might consider any interference as justification for causing someone a very bad time.
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old August 12, 2013, 10:04 AM   #6
Louca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 175
Quote:
Those who freaked out or immediately went to the gun tended to lose the situation. A normally non lethal situation may have been escalated, or a person who immediately went for their gun was shot by the bad guy who already had theirs ready.

Those who had some kind of plan, really any kind, or anything they knew they could do to survive, tended to do better by knowing what their options were rather than "Go for the gun and hope".
Dakota, those are Huge points. I recently went to a CPL class and I looked around the class and wondered why each person wanted to be there. I always wonder if folks think that because they are carrying, that's all they need is the gun. As we were instructed in the class, firing the weapon is the LAST line of defense. If so, then what is the first line, or second line?

Sorry, I am commenting here not having watched the video, and I will do that. I realize situations can start out in an escalated state where there is little or no possibility for first or second lines of defense.

Lou
Louca is offline  
Old August 12, 2013, 02:46 PM   #7
glh17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2013
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 165
I've seen the first three videos and found them to be enlightening. I'd thought about some of the scenarios but the videos demonstrated them well.

My first line of defense is the common sense of trying to avoid dangerous situations as much as possible. My days of running, fighting, and other physical responses are long gone. I'm going to avoid getting into dangerous situations if possible.

As far intervention goes, my preferred method is to use the cell phone, as used in the parking lot video. I hate cell phones but carry one for emergencies. It would have to clearly be a life-death situation before I would personally intervene. I'm not a LEO. I carry to defend myself and my family from imminent threats. In fact, I can perceive situations where I'm less likely to directly intervene because I'm carrying. Direct intervention can easily escalate some situations, as between husband and wife. Most of the time it's probably better to call the LEOs or intervene from a distance.
glh17 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07545 seconds with 7 queries