Countering Disarmament Techniques

[Cheapo]

No, I'm not talking politics here.

Since we are now all enlightened enough to prefer the "retention position" for our handguns when the threat is within bad breath distance, the question comes up--

What do we do to avoid the fate of all those cops who are shot with their own sidearms? I'm interested in insights into resisting the more common and/or jail-taught disarmament techniques.

However, the planned ambush-the-cop-from-behind technique involving a blunt instrument and an unconscious LEO is *not* among the disarmament techniques I would like to see discussed.

Any ideas? All I can think of are a few martial arts fundamentals from years ago, which may or may not translate to helping me keep the muzzle off of me and on the threat.

[Navy joe]

Assuming you are non-LEO Best idea I can see relating to martial arts is try not to solve a problem of the mind with your hands. If as an armed citizen your weapon is out and visible you should already have reason to and be resolved to shoot, a criminal coming into range to make a grab is most likely considered justifiable intent, considering what would happen if relieved of your weapon. I think that even if you made a bad decision by drawing your gun when unwarranted, at the time someone attempts a disarm, the most positive course of action is to prevent the disarm by shooting. If a question of contact distance where you can't fully draw and fire, probably better to keep your gun concealed and rely on other skills to create the space possible for a draw. Don't make a losing play. Furthermore, if you are average Joe armed citizen you have a great advantage over an LEO in that your armed job title does not include looking for trouble. The downside of this is that if a criminal is now within disarm range of you, you have been let down by numerous survival skills to get yourself in the sit. Consider other things,HCI's opinions not withstanding, that make you a less likely disarm shooting victim than a uniformed cop. You have no uniform that screams out you are armed, and your gun is not visible until you make it so. So I guess my whole idea is that one needs to use the advantages presented by being overlooked by a criminal as joe ordinary to create the time and distance both mentally and physically to solve the problem at hand, preferably without revealing your armed status.

[SB]

If we're talking strictly about LEOs, from what I've personally seen, most LEOs are shot because they've already made a mistake somewhere before perps go for their gun. Maybe the LEOs got too distracted. Maybe they got to the LEO's blind side. Etc. Etc.

Following good police procedure and staying alert is the best line of defense. As the axiom goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

If a department is willing, I've always advocated increasing CQC training for all LEOs.

[Danger Dave]

LEO's have a major disadvantage when compared to CCW's - Everyone knows the LEO is armed, and where his weapon is. Not to mention that non-LEO's don't have to rush into bad situations on a regular basis - I'm free to leave when the knife fight breaks out in the parking lot. While I think practicing weapon retention is vital for everyone, it's less likely to be useful to CCW's.

That being said, I would like to hear some input on weapon retention techniques....

[Marty Hayes]

There are instructors who teach weapons retention and disarming. LFI for one, (east coast) , FAS for another, West coast. Lots of others if you want to research the discipline a little.

Speaking for ourselves, our retention and disarming course is a one-day course, but we only teach it locally. LFI travels around, and so does Greg Hamilton, although cannot recommend the training becasue I haven't experienced it myself, but reports are positive.

Marty Hayes, Director
The Firearms Academy of Seattle

[lc609]

We were trained in Disarming/weapon retention in the academy, using the Lindell Method, the same one that LFI teaches. We were then trained in Edged Weapons tactics, which includes using a knife to safeguard a firearm.

The trouble is that all of these psychomotor skills require practice to even remember the technique, let alone successfully use them.

Many officers, once trained, fail to hone the techniqes.

pat

[LASur5r]

There is a big difference between situations that a citizen with CCW and an LEO gets to pull his weapon.
As a private citizen, there are very limited situations that you should consider pulling you sidearm....all of them preclude shooting someone to save a life.
If you have not made that decision yet, then I suggest you reexamine your motivation and resolve.

Having said that, I can now get off my soap box.

As a private citizen, you can avoid a lot of situations where someone will attempt to disarm you by knowing that you will only draw to shoot...not to "brandish" = not to "stop" the BG by showing your gun.
Usually. you step into a situation where your gun is accessible because you are not totally aware of the situation (Not assessing who all the BG's are, mistaken identity= they don't know you're the good guy;not watching your six, and the most common one...getting too close to your adversary. Of course, there is always the fumble the draw technique.)
Actually what Navy Joe and some of the other guys have said.

When I was younger and stupider, I foolishly thought I could stop a BG and his two buddies from attacking me and my girlfriend...I was informed that I would be killed and my GF was going to be raped repeatedly then murdered. I drew my semi-auto and "brandished" the weapon by pointing it at the BG's figuring they would at least put their hands up...wrong...the leader went berserk and pounded on my car window, he ripped his shirt open to indicate where I should shoot.(These were men in about their late 20's)
I was lucky, I was in my car with the engine running...I took off. Can you imagine if you had been standing facing this crazy and you had no intention of shooting? I would have had to fight for my life....and with three of those guys, I don't give good odds on what my chances would have been. And that's speaking from about about 6 years of martial arts. I have never "brandished" my gun again.
Instead I built up my resolve and my drawing and firing techniques.
I recommend that you spend a lot of your free time doing the same thing, then taking matches that you can practice drawing and hitting your targets...then you won't have to worry too much about weapons disarmament...except for the political kind.

[LASur5r]

Sorry,
recommend you learn some knife techniques as back up...just in case you come across the time someone tries to get your gun.

[ctdonath]

Secure, position, release, create distance. That's the basis of the Lindell weapon-retention system. Secure the gun in the holster or your hand, position your whole strength against a small part of his body, release the gun from his grasp, and get the heck away from him. Further elaboration really requires in-person training, as many of the particular scenarios are hard enough to describe with hands-on demos, much less via written text. Go take a course as others have described above (I recommend LFI).

Yes, there is a downside that different disarm attacks require different responses, and that most people don't practice enough. That's life - practice.

[Josh]

I took LFI-II and Mas taught us the Lindell Method as lc609 and others mentioned. I highly recommend it however like anything else to remain proficient you have to practice the techniques. I was surprised that one week after LFI-II when my son and I were practicing these techniques how much I forgot as well as hesitated which in real life could cost you your life.

My advice and and with .75 that will get you a cup of coffe is to take a course in this and above all practice.

Marty Hayes brought up Gregg Hamilton from Insights. I can highly recommend him. He along with John Holsen has developed techniques that are very basic and do work when confronted with a scumbag trying to take your weapon away. I have personally taken classes from them and can attest to the efficiency of their classes.

[Cheapo]

Thank you, ctdonath.

Yes, I *am* very much aware of the distance factor. I used to be real annoying while watching "action" movies because I would mutter and growl things about don't let 'em get so close and don't leave the BG's gun lying on the ground.

Many of your comments focus on prevention, which I agree is the best defense. But what about the fluid situation where the distance is closed despite your best efforts? Mistakes happen, and non-threats can change their minds under many different sets of circumstances which other armed civilians have undoubtedly encountered.

And yes, I am keenly aware that the best (most effective) weapon retention technique in many settings is one shot center of mass, repeat until retention is assured.

And doesn't the force continuum allow escalation which goes from command voice to presenting the weapon? There is a difference between foolishly brandishing a firearm and making it ready for an imminent but not fully developed threat.

[ctdonath]

Cheapo-
Secure, position, release, create distance. In that order.

[Marty Hayes]

The reason that I like the Lindell model of weapons retention is that the techniques work well for even very small people against large people. Other systems, that require you physically assault/injur your opponent inorder to regain control over your firearm will work well for in shape, aggressive males, but might not work otherwise.

Having said that, even the Lindell method requires practice and dedication to master. I recommend a minimum of 16 hours of initial training, and refresher training once a year, plus practice occasionally.

[LoneStranger]

Let's see if I get this correct. We are looking at two separate situations. #1 Is the LEO who is voluntairly involved in dealing with BG's who are definitely antisocial. #2 is the Non LEO type whose involvement with BG's is non-voluntary and hopefully against his wishes.
In #1 the LEO should have training that would help him/her in these situations. The LEO should also be recieving regular retraining for this situation. I would think that the basic system would probably be unimportant in the long run. Expereince will modify to suit. The important point will be training and retraining. In their chosen profession failure to train/retrain is like walking around with your dropseat drawers down and wondering about the draft.
In #2 the Non-LEO has a big advantage, Odds are that you do not have to be there. This should simplify your responses to a situation. You do not have to close, you do not have to hold. Since you are always working from defense you can make presence known and if necessary make BG's aware of weapons. If they try to close stop them. Easier to pay legal bills than results of hospitalization.
Last but not least remember that no plan survives contact with reality of moment.

[M1911]

I've taken the Lindell training at LFI-II, and have also taken the same training elsewhere. Unfortunately, I haven't had much opportunity to practice (no training partners). I doubt I'll be able to correctly apply many (most?) of the Lindell techniques.

The advantage of the Lindell system, as Marty mentions, is that it works for small people against larger, stronger attackers. Provided, of course, that they properly execute the correct method against the type of attack.

And there's where I think the Lindell system has its main disadvantage: it is a diagnostic system. You have to diagnose the type of attack and then respond with the correct technique. And there's a number of techniques you have to learn. It's one thing to do the techniques when in the dojo with a cooperating partner when you know what type of attack is coming. I think it will take a whole different level of training to be able to correctly apply the proper technique against a dynamic foe in a real fight.

I've been trying to take a course with the Hamilton/Insights method. I've been told that the Hamilton/Insights method has fewer techniques and is less diagnostic. However, it also involves strikes, so I suspect that it is more of a strength-based method.

The techniques can't really be described in text. And even if we could describe them, you won't learn them on the net. You really have to get to a class with a good instructor.

M1911

[Glamdring]

Cheapo: You asked what "we" can do to avoid being shot with our own weapon(s).

It is useful to think about what type of situations would lead to a weapon grab [holding someone at gun point, drawing at close quarters while already grappling, etc].

As to non LEO's not ever needing to display weapon unless they are going to shoot, that is not completely accurate. I know people, non Leo, who have held people at gun point till LEO arrived.
In one case the goblin was a rapist that the cops were looking for, and the goblin started trying to get into my friends house because he believed his victum was in the house.

As far as weapon retention techniques, I think the Lindell method is far better a defense against gun grabs at holstered weapons than it is a defense against a gun grab of a gun already in your hand.

For CCW people I think Gabe Suarez's ideas about weapon retention make much more sense. They are simple and don't require a high level of skill. But if backed up by a 2nd gun or knife offer a high level of protection IMO.

To paraphrase Mr. Suare's thoughts/advise, if the gun is pointed at the goblin when they try to grab the gun you just shoot them. If it isn't pointed at them you simply try to get the gun pointed at them and then shoot them [using body movement & positioning, empty hand techniques, etc]. If that doesn't work or the gun doesn't fire, let them take the gun [since it isn't working] and use back up weapon or empty hand techniques.

[Spectre]

I will only draw my firearm immediately preparatory to firing.

Now, if I am investigating a noise while out at the cabin in the country, and suddenly find my muzzle grabbed (don't see how, if I've kept proper clearance between myself and cover), I will step back and shoot 'em off.

[Battleaxe]

I will only draw my firearm immediately preparatory to firing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you found yourself in that much danger you are so far behind you already lost. Remember 88% of cops killed died with their gun IN the holster. A bad place for it to be.

[M1911]

Spectre said: "Now, if I am investigating a noise while out at the cabin in the country, and suddenly find my muzzle grabbed (don't see how, if I've kept proper clearance between myself and cover), I will step back and shoot 'em off."

If you let someone like me get close enough to grab your gun, I won't just be grabbing the muzzle. I'll have your gun long before you can step back. If you haven't seen a demonsration of disarm techniques, you might not realize just how fast someone can take away your gun. Done properly, it isn't a prolonged struggle, instead you're disarmed in under a second. I've seen a 5' 0" female instructor take a gun away from a big strapping guy just that fast.

And if it is a prolonged struggle, stepping back would be absolutely the wrong thing to do, you'd be giving up a fair bit of your strength in controlling the firearm because I wouldn't let you take the gun with you. The first step in the Lindell technique -- secure -- involves bringing the gun in close to you, to your strength, and extending the arms of the attackers, to a point of weakness for him.

I agree that in the event of a grab to a drawn gun, shooting the perp may be the most appropriate option, provided you can bring your muzzle to bear.

M1911

[Spectre]

Considering I am one of the most aware people I know, I really don't see how anyone is going to get close enough to touch my weapon. Touching my weapon (or me) is vital to disarming me.

Stepping back is a first step when someone just has grabbed your muzzle, not a "prolonged struggle".

I think you mean to say that you will have most folks' arm. Since I train constantly, I have seen many disarms. I know how to disarm, and I know how to counter. I also train in various staff and stick techniques. Comparatively, I would be in the upper decimal points of a percentile in my ability to use my longarm as an impact tool, while my shooting ability is unexceptional, to date.

Battleaxe: if I am not in fear for my life, or other's lives, I have no legal basis for producing my arm. Firearms are not magical icons that the mere appearance will somehow soothe the situation. Expect an escalation. If no-one is in mortal danger, leave. If your life is on the line, present, front sight, press.

It is dangerous to attempt to compare police officers' actions and impacts to citizens'. As a non-LEO it is not my duty to attempt to interfere, and I have no obligation to attempt to resolve the situation at the lowest level possible. I will avoid if possible; I will run if necessary; if I am cornered, I will take whatever actions are necessary to go home in one piece. And I'll have a clear conscience.

[EnochGale]

Ever walk in a crowd?

[Spectre]

Not with my arm out. If it works for you, though...

[Cheapo]

C'mon, let's quit quibbling over prevention.

Consider the following two situations and suggest approaches. The a priori premises include (1) you're using a handgun; (2) there is a completely good reason to have your handgun in your hand; (3) regardless of the reason, a threat has come within contact distance and has at least one hand on you or your handgun.

Situation A: your firearm arm is/was extended in a med- to long-distance firing position.

Situation B: your firearm arm is/was in the retention position.

Now, since I hear SO OFTEN here how handguns are under-powered and should not be *expected* to instantly drop an attacker, Puh-Leeze consider that the attacker you try to "shoot off" could still initiate a struggle during the "dead man's five seconds." Thus, address the question.

[heisenberg]

Lindell retention and disarming has way too many so-called conditional branches. We try to eliminate diagnostic techniques for things like stoppage recovery. Yet, Lindell is just ripe with diagnostics. Palm up attack, palm down attack, one hand attacking the gun, two hands attacking the gun, attacks to the gun, attacks to the arm, disarms against a gun from the rear, disarms against a gun in the left hand, disarms against a gun in the right hand, etc etc. No wonder that the most common retention technique is the lower forearm block, that is, the defender reflexively swats away the offending limb. Gee, how much training does that take?

In addition, the muzzle often goes all over the place in Lindell retention, including a high probability of crossing your own body (such as when you use the techniques "can opener" and "submarine"). Basically, Lindell isn't well-integrated with firearms doctrine. The system is also not well integrated into other defensive tactics such as unarmed fighting and ground fighting.

IMO, some of these things can (and have been) fixed (for example, muzzle crossing your body for can opener). Others are inherent in the system (way too many branches).

WH

[Marty Hayes]

When we teach the Lindell system, we modify it slightly so the muzzle doesn't cross your body. I know what you are saying with the can opener, but the techinque works just fine if you simply rotate the gun away from your securing hand when you effect the release. On a two handed grab, do not cross under the near hand, simply secure it and release as in a one handed grab.

I know the Lindell system has it's faults, but it is the only system that I know of that allows a 100 lb female to win against a 200+ lb attacker. Can't do that with "hold on to the gun and beat the crap out of them" systems.

Too many people want things simple. LIfe ain't simple. The Lindell system has so many recorded successes on the street to discount it as being too complicated to learn. One example I personally know of comes from a local PD, where Mas and I trained a group of firearms instructors for 4 hours in the system. Then, one of these instructors taught what he learnd to his officers. Then, one of the officers was attacked by a 250lb+ football player from the U of W.

While he suffered a torn knee, he credits the techniques with saving his life. Not too much conditional branching for him, I submit.

Marty Hayes