Police Training sounding familiar.........

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Hello all, This week I am participating in a DAAT, defensive and arrest techniques trainer school. We are learning techniques for general defense and offense as well as groundfighting. Police techniques in general center on concluding the active fight quickly, efficiently and with maximum force so that the situation ends quickly and order and position of advantage is gained and maintained.

You can imagine my surprise when the cutting edge techniques focus on moving along the 8 diffrent lines of attack, using a square with 8 lines drawn through to assist movement in the diffrent directions. When proper stance is described as loading your strong side back, to move forward with the strikes, etc.....see where this is going all of these cutting edge techniques have all-ready been taught to warriors say around....1200 or so.

I was used aa a demonstration dummy with one of the instructors for groundfighting who actually asked me during the presentation if I had been to a special groundfighting Police school called "spear" school. Imagine his surprise when he learned how old these techniques actually were.

That's why I feel WMA has such a direct corolation to Law Enforcement...Cops are in it for real, there are no sparring rules, ever. We either win or we lose then we die. The techniques tuaght in WMA really are focused on this mindset...win or die--that's where I feel we as WMA differ from some of the other systems out there, the mindset is much much diffrent from a sparring or sporting event.

Can I get some other thoughts on this? What do the rest of you in Law Enforcement think? Have you used any of these techniques out there, or care to comment on what I mean by a direct relationship to Law Enforcement... granted they are tailored as we are not trying to kill anyone with the technique, but what if they start to choke you or try and take out an eye? Now the rules are diffrent for us as Officers. What do people not involved in Law Enforcement think...say you get involved in a bar fight will you use maximum force and efficiency. Thoughts?

[Devin Wilson]

By brother-in-law is a Washington State Trooper and saw a lot of similarities in what we do in ARMA. When I showed him the barehanded stuff in the Codex Wallerstein, he said that nothing changed since the middle ages. He later mentioned one difference: the nature of his job means that he has to subdue far more often than kill or seriously injure, so he also trains one notch below the intensity of lethal force, i.e., instead of breaking the arm as depicted in Wallerstein arm-bar, he puts a lot of pressure to force the guy on the ground, leaving the break as an option if he poses a threat.

Devin Wilson
Provo

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hi Aaron <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

2 words for you: Civil Liability. Very scary those words. Of course, this presents a problem of training 2 sets of muscle memory. One set for the ernst fechten ("this is my baseball bat that I will break your car window and kneecaps with...") stuff and another for the control aspect ("I don't want to be arrested so I will just try like hell to get away while not actually seeking to hurt the copper"). So how do you train for both scenarios with one set of muscle memory? The theory says that should be able to calibrate your force for the scenario. I guess in the perfect world you can. But the world ain't perfect.

[Jaron Bernstein]

I did use Ringeck's first leg break on a guy once at work. Worked great. He seemed surprised. He was trying like hell to get away at the time. I am hesitant to hit anyone at work for liability reasons unless the situation merits it.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

You have to keep in mind the set of circumstances I gave, like I said a "passive resistive subject" like you mentioned is diffrent but an "active resistive subject" also presents a diffrent set of circumstances in Wisconsin we use force to control a subjects behavior using -a trained technique-a dynamic application of a trained technique-or a learned technique reasonably justified under the circumstances.

We have Officers invovled in fights-"active resistive subjects", or guys actually fighting you-punching, poking, scratching, kicking, who end up striking these subjects squarly in the face. They are covered and not liable as they are using techniques, while not taught in the "classroom" are still justified and reasonable given the circumstances, remember Law says that we can always go one step above what the suspect does.

So "no" there are no two sets of muscle memory, you just have to use the amount justifiable given the circumstances, but I digress we are getting of my main point,--- that is these techniques are taught not to play with someone or to spar or be in some kind of comparison of technique but to be brutally effective and efficient. I think it also sheds some light on the mindset of these warriors, no frills give me something that works quickly and effectively right now- not two or three moves from now. The training methods are also little changed in all this time, the 8 diffrent lines of attack, the diagram we use to aid movement etc..

[Jaron Bernstein]

" in Wisconsin we use force to control a subjects behavior using -a trained technique-a dynamic application of a trained technique-or a learned technique reasonably justified under the circumstances."

Same here.

"We have Officers invovled in fights-"active resistive subjects", or guys actually fighting you-punching, poking, scratching, kicking, who end up striking these subjects squarly in the face. They are covered and not liable as they are using techniques, while not taught in the "classroom" are still justified and reasonable given the circumstances, remember Law says that we can always go one step above what the suspect does."

Same for Ohio

"So "no" there are no two sets of muscle memory, you just have to use the amount justifiable given the circumstances,"

I wonder. If you train to pull your punches (as one example) my sense is that in actuality, you may just do that when you actually need to hit the guy for real. Mind you, I am all for controlled training, but just that some time (preferably a lot of time) on the heavy bag and actual sparring with gloves is also needed.


"but I digress we are getting of my main point,--- that is these techniques are taught not to play with someone or to spar or be in some kind of comparison of technique but to be brutally effective and efficient. I think it also sheds some light on the mindset of these warriors, no frills give me something that works quickly and effectively right now- not two or three moves from now. The training methods are also little changed in all this time, the 8 diffrent lines of attack, the diagram we use to aid movement etc.."

Kind of funny how we keep reinventing the wheel sometimes, just as your instructor in that class was amazed at your "new" techniques and approaches. One thing you will find in most arts that are effective is that they tend to share the approach you just described. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> Look at Krav Maga (high intensity), catch-as-catch can wrestling (heel hooks, neck cranks galore), Muay Thai (6 or so simple techniques), WMA and the like. Compare that to some of the more elaborate "plum flower fist stands on one foot because the form says so but no one knows why" things who wouldn't do so well in an actual fight. I actually tried, only once, one of those aikido based academy control techniques they showed at the academy where you lead the guy around and he is supposed to comply on a resisting subject. It failed badly. By comparison, Ringecks first leg break in a similar situation just worked beautifully.

[Jake_Norwood]

I've been taking the Level One Combatives Instructor's Course lately (finished "Punch day" today, if that means anything to any of you...). While the Level One stuff is grounded primarily in BJJ, I have had the opportunity to spend quite a bit of time with SGT Matt Larsen, the NCOIC of the Army Combatives Program (and ARMA member). What is interesting in our discussions is that long before he encountered "ARMA guys" he was looking for and developing a similar approach to combat--not really techniques, but rather principles. Stuff like 3 ranges of hand-to-hand combat, times, etc. His conclusions and "fundamentals" are all right out of fechtbucher...and many of them were before he met JC and the ARMA.

My point is that he has, from the beginning, been trying to develop something for people that really have to fight. Techniques may vary, but the principles especially for those who fight "for real" do not.

Jake

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Jake-totally agree and that was the essence of my post, like Jaron said we tend to reinvent the wheel alot more than I ever realized, I had a quick talk with Gary Lewis, (ARMA member), tonight after our session and we were thinking we should change our group's name to something like:" Association of Renissance fighters" or something similar because I think Martial Arts does not really cover what we actually learn and train to learn.

We are really more of "fight mangers" than martial artists when you think about it- but I know that "fighters" does not sound very good, but I think it really sums up what we do-

[Randall Pleasant]

...we tend to reinvent the wheel alot more than I ever realized...

Well, reinventing the wheel in a historical valid and martially sound manner is what ARMA is all about. <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

[JeanryChandler]

that is fascinating, an ARMA member is the NCOIC of the combattives program for the whole Army? Wow! Talk about instant street cred!

JR