PDA

View Full Version : Japanese Police having problems with gun retention skills?



John Lindsey
31st October 2000, 19:12
1. A police officer in Urawa was seriously injured when he was shot with his own gun by a robbery suspect who had snatched the weapon from the officer's holster during a scuffle.


2. In Suginami-ku an officer-in-training had his gun taken from his holster during a struggle with a man involved in a traffic accident. The offender pointed the gun at the policeman's head and pulled the trigger twice, but the gun didn't fire because officers-in-training are not yet allowed to carry live ammunition!

So, the question I have is how much if any do the Japanese police get trained in weapon retention skills? On the other hand, how many do in the USA or around the world?

jerkyguy
2nd November 2000, 23:59
Hey John,

That is a very good point. But the problem is not always the amount of training, but the circumstances around the incident. Most police agencies will require you as the on scene officer to call for additional forces; "back up"; before you proceed with any problem. there are many different procedures that are dictated for hostile environments and it is clear that they were not followed by thes officers.

George Ledyard
4th November 2000, 14:47
Originally posted by John Lindsey
1. A police officer in Urawa was seriously injured when he was shot with his own gun by a robbery suspect who had snatched the weapon from the officer's holster during a scuffle.


2. In Suginami-ku an officer-in-training had his gun taken from his holster during a struggle with a man involved in a traffic accident. The offender pointed the gun at the policeman's head and pulled the trigger twice, but the gun didn't fire because officers-in-training are not yet allowed to carry live ammunition!

So, the question I have is how much if any do the Japanese police get trained in weapon retention skills? On the other hand, how many do in the USA or around the world?



I am familiar with the training that is done in the US. By far the most prevalent system is the Lindell Handgun Retention System put together by Al Lindell in Kansas City. He has a nicely packed program that administrators like becaue a moron can learn it in a few hours.

Meaning no disrepect to Mr. Lindell, who is an old judo man and quite a good instructor, this program is, like a lot of law enforcement training, simplistic to the point of idiocy. In a nutshell the program consists of an "attacker" trying to grab your gun, either from the front or the back. You secure the weapon with one hand and smash his grip off the wepon with your other arm in a motion not unlike a down block in Shotokan Karate.

It's not that this doesn't work, it's that no one but a complete idiot would ever try to take your gun away that way (unless you are being mobbed in a crowd situation). A real hand gun retention situation is the subject knocking you to the ground, sitting on your chest and pummeling you while trying to work your gun out of its holster. Or coming up behind you, throwing you in a choke with one arm and working the gun with the other. Or in your worst case scenario, the subject is the graduate of one of our instutions of higher criminal learning where they actually have covert films of the inmates teaching each other gun takeaways so they can take out an officer.

Unless an officer has taken the initiative to go to some sort of elite Defensive Tactics Training at which he has done scenario based training with armored instructors, done a bit of ground fighting, etc. he will have at best only the most simplistic idea of hand gun retention. I would say that the vast majority of the departaments in the US do no retention training whatever.

The reason why the training that is done is generally not very good is that no one actually cares if an officer can retain his gun. The only reason that a department does retention training at all is to avoid liability if the officer shoots a subject in a retention situation. Since 95% of the officers who lose their gun to a subject are shot with it, any attempt to take an officer's gun is considered a Deadly Force situation. A plaintiffs lawyer might get the officer who shot a subject on the stand and say "Why did you shoot my client's son" Answer: "Because he attmpted to take my weapon away" Question: "Wasn't there snother alternative available other than shooting the subject?" Answer: "No, it was the only response appropraite at the time" Question: "Did your department provide you with handgun retention training?" Answer: if, yes then everybody is off the hook beacuse you had your two hours of training and you can honestly say that you are familiar with hand gun retention techniques and in your judgement they were not appropraite in this instance so you shot the guy. If however, the answer is no, the department is screwed (not necessarily the officer) for "Failure to Train". It is almost impossible to argue that training that you didn't do would not have made any difference in a given situation. So all the administrators care about is that they did their two hours of training that gets them out of the law suit loop. Either the officer loses his gun and is shot or the officer justifiably shoots the subject and they are in the clear because they had provided the training. It simply doesn't matter if the system taught actually works!

That said, there are people out there who have put a lot of thought into their systems. Even though I am a DT Instructor with an Aikido background and know a lot of cool techniques for this type of thing, the best systems are based on the use of a backup weapon to take out the subject. Eric Remmen in Olympia, Washington developed a Spyderco Clipit defense course which was essentially taught as a system of weapons retention. We spent about eight hours one day at my school throwing each other in every grappling lock and choke you could imagine where we had to proctect our weapon with the strong hand and access our backup knife with the other. He gave us three seconds to get the knife opened and brought to bear. A modified version of that couse is taught by Greg Hamilton of Instights Training of Bellevue, WA.

I think it is the guys from Sure Fire Institute in California that use a simliar idea but assume that you have a back up firearm that you can access. So in their system you either fall to the ground keeping your weapon away from the attacker, draw it and shoot or you fall on your primary weapon and access your backup and shoot. In any case the subject who tries to take your weapon is shot. Both of these systems are very realistic and effective.

Weapons retention is where you find that the need in tactical knives is for left hand draw versions of the knives. Only a small number of companies make left handed tacticals yet that is really where you might use a blade for defensive purposes, using your off hand while protecing your fireram with the strong side. Also, officers should make their decision about how to postion their backup weapon to allow quick access with the off hand.

Mark Brecht
4th November 2000, 15:18
Originally posted by George Ledyard
... using your off hand while protecing your fireram with the strong side...[/B]

Hmmmm, strong hand weak hand...

George do you teach this terminology???

kenjgood
5th November 2000, 06:03
George,

Outstanding post!

I am one of "those guys from the Sure-Fire Institute" and we do have some ideas and training methodologies in the area of weapons retention. I am still learning and open, hopefully I will stay that way. I will be up your way in May 7-9, 2001 with Vancouver PD for a low-light class, we spend a small bit of time in the DT area as well. Please feel free to come by. One of my basic assumptions is: It is not the guy you see that will easily get your weapon, it is the guy you don’t. I try to instill some basic responses to hard attacks directed at the weapon through proper drilling. The culmination of the drilling requires the officers to hold the weapon loosely and with their eyes closed. I then have the officer encircled with potential attackers. I point to an attacker and then he moves in for a committed take-away. I am getting great results and officers are asking for more.

Would like to point out that we do not advocate falling or going to the ground as a primary means of weapon retention. Quite the opposite, staying on your feet whenever possible, maintaining mobility and balance are a prime directives for us.

Obviously it does not always go this way, so an officer should spend time grappling on the ground with weapons involved, primary and secondary. I have spent time with some decent grapplers over the past few years. It is always interesting to observe the “revelations” during grappling sessions when a firearm or edged weapon is introduced into the mix. Priorities and positioning issues can change significantly.

Changing direction: Quite a few years ago I had the opportunity to give a seminar to about 60 visiting homicide detectives from Japan. I had some practical demonstrations and videotape sequences for them to view in order to stir some discussion and assess mind-set.

I was really surprised when I found out that they were taken back by our perspective of engaging armed suspects. Specifically shooting to the center mass of the body when offered. When I asked why, they told us that there was too high of a probability of killing the threat if they shot center mass! They also told us that the good guys and bad guys have an unwritten understanding, not to shoot center of mass. I thought they were joking….They were serious. Maybe things have changed now.

I then asked them how often they trained with firearms. I don’t remember the time interval, but I do remember thinking, how pathetic.

Obviously any weapon intended to be used in a combative situation needs to be a transparent extension of your mind and body. If one doesn’t carry it and use it on a regular basis in a wide variety of potential threat situations, it should be to nobody’s surprise that is gets taken away from this same individual.

Just because have a good working, practical knowledge of a MA doesn’t automatically mean you will be comfortable with a firearm or even keeping in your control. I have had the opportunity to deliver some firearms training to a world-renowned Daito-ryu teacher.
On the mat, he was smooth, flowing, relaxed and effective – amazingly so! On the range, he was stilted, uncomfortable, stiff and ineffective. There was no immediate connection between his mind/body and the new tool. He was learning to drive a stick shift for the first time.

This is the way of things. If you carry deadly tools, learn to employ them and keep them. I am afraid there is not enough serious thought and effort going into this at many U.S. Police Departments.

Check the financial liability box and march on seems to be the driving force.

Respectfully,


Ken J. Good
Director of the Sure-Fire Institute
http://surefire.com

[Edited by kenjgood on 11-05-2000 at 12:09 AM]

George Ledyard
12th November 2000, 03:11
Originally posted by Mark Brecht

Originally posted by George Ledyard
... using your off hand while protecing your fireram with the strong side...

Hmmmm, strong hand weak hand...

George do you teach this terminology???

[/B]
Not just me. This is standard Defensive Tactics terminology which refers to which side you carry your gun on.

Mark Brecht
15th November 2000, 15:46
George,

hm, maybe it is standard terminology (but standard is often refered to as average, and average is NOT good enough for lifesaving skills...). Also i doubt this standard is thaught at FLETC...

I look at it this way, if you tell somebody he has a strong hand, that makes anybody automatically and naturally think that they have a weak hand. The person gets messed up psychologically, as he will not perform as well with his "other" hand...

I had an interesting encounter with an individual during a firearm certification course. We had a conversation the day before the range testing. He asked what was required, when i mentioned left and right hand and the various ranges and positions, he responded with a gasp:"Arrghhh weak hand". I told him i have no weak hand. He called me cocky and walked off... The guy barely passed the certification (232points, the minimum was 225 to pass...)...

The way you think is the way you will most likely perform...

Troy Wideman
19th November 2000, 07:01
Hello,

My name is Troy Wideman, I am a police officer in Ontario and I am a Use Of Force instructor and assigned to a Tactical team as well.
To answers John's concerns about the Japanese police losing their firearms, I think we also have to look at the equipment end. I know for a fact the Japanese police are quite behind in their equipment. When I have been over to Japan, I have noticed that they use a typical Lanyard Holster (Security Level One) if that. Unless you have some amazining DT skills and gun retention, the gun just basically falls out with this type of holster, especially in a struggle. I know in Canada (Ontario) it is mandatory for officers to use a level 3 security holster and undercover officers use a level 2 at least.
In reference to the terms Strong hand/ Weak Hand, in Canada we have gotten away from that and use the terms, Weapon hand (side firearm is on) and Support hand. This removes the negative perception of weak hand.

Kind Regards,

Troy Wideman

Mark Brecht
19th November 2000, 14:32
Dear Troy,

:D i know you, we have met before briefly. I was for a year in TO and trained under Greg. When you see him please say hi from me.

Thanks for the contribution regarding strong/weak hand...

Hm, i think LE tactics, procedures, demand and priority of LE matters is very differnt in Japan than elsewhere, as the Japanese culture and society is very unique. I have witnessed and experienced some very strange things here. Through these factors the actual threat level towards an officer is very low, thus the priority of gun retention skills or proper equipment does not seem to be a high priority.

Troy Wideman
19th November 2000, 16:11
Hi Mark,

I will say Hi to Greg for you. Greg is a great guy, good friend as well. Sorry wish I could put a face to the name. When exactly did I meet you? I do agree with you inregards to the LE tactics in Japan being a little different than any where else. You are also correct in saying the threat level is very low there. Its the only place I've been where a friend of mine left a $500 dollar camera on the city bus seat early in the morning, we went back later to look for it and there it was, hadn't been touched. I also agree that equipment is on the low priority list for the Japanese Police. However, this was probably one of the contributing factors in the officer losing his sidearm. I know when I've trained hand gun retention, it definitely makes it harder with only a security level 1 holster. Hope your enjoying Japan.

Kind Regards,

Troy Wideman

Jason Chambers
19th November 2000, 20:36
It would interesting to know how many security officers we have on this forum that, when going through firearms training, take part in some sort of gun retention training as well.

I have been in the Security Industry here in Louisiana for 7 years now and hae seen very little in the way of any type of retention skills taught to "firearms qualified" officers.

For that matter, unless you are on Nuclear Duty or at a privately owned correctional facility, as a security officer, you aren't taught any offensive/defensive tactics either here. It is sad, but the industry is so competitive and the turn over is very high due to the majority of "officers" being floaters or job hoppers. The companies just don't want to put out the money for training.

Any SOs out there have any company paid DT training?

George Ledyard
20th November 2000, 12:57
Originally posted by Troy Wideman
Hi Mark,

I do agree with you inregards to the LE tactics in Japan being a little different than any where else. Troy Wideman

One of the biggest differences between America and Japan in regards to training is attitude. Most officers in the US look at any kind of physical training as something that they would never seek out on there own and must be forced to do by their departments. One of my students was the main DT instructor for his department. He found that amazingly enoungh, every time they put some training on the schedule all sorts of people started having injuries that prevented participation. He managed to get that stopped by getting his administrator to state that anyone who was too injured to train was too injured to be on the street. Magically most of these injuries disappeared.

In Japan, at least in the big cities, police departments ofetn have their own judo and kendo dojos. One of my friends trained under Mitisuzuka sensei in Iaido and they traned at one of the local Tokyo departments. The number of Japnese policemen who do some sort of martial arts training is much higher than it is in the US. That leads them to have much better physical conditioning and have far more confidence in physical altercations than their American counterparts. Their actual technique isn't really more sophisticated than what we teach here. But they are apt to train more. They don't have the same legal environment we do. Where it might be a national scandal for an officer to use his firearm unnecessarily you don't wantto be a guy who screws around with a Japanese officer either. They are tough and you are going to get pretty beat up if you fight. They still have the attitude that you had better respect an officer or else and they don't have law suits all the time about excessive force.

kukai
30th November 2000, 13:50
I'm an ex-police officer,passed the courses, and as I feel from my experience, one of the reasons might be the fear of use of exessive force, pounded into the brains during training. Aggression escalates faster than they let you know at the courses, and faster than you'd like to think. The best thing you can do is to be prepared beforehanded (that is NOT to advocate shooting first and asking questions later,though). More often than not,they (i.e. police and security personnel) are not. :(

Sven Salumets

INFINOO
5th December 2000, 01:43
A pocket knife needs fine motor skills to acquire and draw. Under the stress of combat fine motor go out the window. Another thing, under real life training models we have proven(to are selves) that the pocket knife often falls out of the pocket and to the ground when grappling occurs. The reason for this is when the body jack-knifes , as often happens in grappling, it wedges the pocket knife out. Of course the solution is to carry more blades , say in the shirt pocket. Sadly this dosn't address the fine motor skill problem. Or the fact that you may give your attacker a knife, if it falls. IMO A small fixed blade , with a full sized grip , on the non gun hand side, is a better choice , as it uses gross moter skills to draw and use. With a proper concealex sheath, worn inside the belt, it still leaves room on the belt for all the officers gear. I feel so strongly about this that I designed a Sub four inch fixed blade specifically for law enforcement personal. The knife is currently in production. The knife I designed is called the Rogaltack . I have a proto-type on me right now. I also have a non sharpened non pointy training drone that is the same shape weight and size as the live blade. Of course any type of knife combatives takes training and practice to become and stay proficecent. That being said. I think that the Spyder-co clipit course was a step in the right direction. I do beleive that my knife and the course I designed to go with it will enable police to survive this dangerous situation more effectively. Gregory Rogalsky Director of Rogalsky Combatives International.

Mike Campagna
6th December 2000, 04:18
{I am a defensive tactics instructor for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Dept.}

I think many of the posts so far equate weapon retention with the physical act of keeping a weapon in the holster. IMO, it is important to start our weapon retention system long before the combatants get hands on. Officers need the ability to read the non-verbal cues, and listen for the verbal indicatgrs of a suspect's intentions. We also focus on maintaining a safe distance, whenever possible.

That being said...Once the attack has begun, we utilize the strong points of our holster system (level 2) by focusing the grip on the top strap of the holster. The other hand (weak / support, whatever) will then engage the subject by attacking targets of opportunity, i.e. pressure points (?), throat or eyes. We prefer that officers stay on their feet, but if they fall or are taken to the ground, we train them to roll onto the gun side. As a last resort, our officers can also disengage the magazine as our weapons have a magazine safety.

If the weapon comes out of the holster, we also train in weapon "take-aways" to regain the firearm if necessary.

We try to incorporate weapon retention into many of our dynamic training exercises. Unfortunately, this usually results in scrapes, scratches, and the occasional sprain in the fingers, wrists or shoulders.

I think we do a pretty good job with our recruits, as described above, but our in-service training is lacking in this area.

Note - this training takes on a special meaning for many of us in Charlotte. Two of my friends were killed on Oct. 5, 1993 when the suspect took one of their weapons.

Just a few of my random thoughts..!

Jeff Cook
6th December 2000, 13:17
Mike,

Great post! I would like to reinforce a few things you have said.

First, you have my deepest condolences concerning the loss of your two friends. I am sorry that you and others have seen the necessity of this type of training in this way. But due to this terrible experience, I am certain that your suvivability is enhanced, as you will always be even more hyper-aware.

What you said about determining and redirecting the intent of a suspect is vitally important, and unfortunately often overlooked in CQC and self-defense programs. Without recognition of intent and psychological controlling techniques in conjunction with situational/environmental awareness, there is zero chance to de-escalate and/or resolve a situation without violent contact.

As far as the injuries that occur during your dynamic training, that is unfortunate but to be expected (as you already know). It is much better to have minor injuries occur during training while hammering home a point concerning survival principles than it is to have somebody killed on the street because they did not train, or trained half-heartedly. Reality really sucks, but some reality has to be injected into the training equation.

I don't know what the lack of in-service training solution is. This is a problem throughout the country, and I have not heard any acceptable solution for this problem. There is not enough time during the duty day to incorporate training, because there are not enough officers on duty to cover for the ones that are training. Everybody has to be "on the street" while on duty. And when an officer is off duty, he is not going to train for free. There is also a shortage of qualified instructors.

In my mind, the only solution is to hire more officers to allow an overlap of street mission and training mission, but we know that not is going to happen anytime soon!

So where does that leave us? With a revision and compromise of tactics, which work generally very well but result in individual incidences of officer fatalities when suspects do not respond in the generally accepted manner, which the general tactical principles are based upon.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

[Edited by Jeff Cook on 12-06-2000 at 07:20 AM]

jerkyguy
10th December 2000, 01:42
This one is for Jason Chambers question about weapons retention training.

I am a member of a tactical response team and I have received quite a bit of w/r training. The few points that I have is
1) the weapon is a part of you, much like a hand or foot, If it is in your hand, strike out with it instead of favouring it. Your opponent will become weary of it.
2)If it is in your holster, accept the fact that your opponent will try to get at it.His focus is on your sidearm, your focus should be on destroying him.

This depends however on the rules of engagement and the guidelines for the escalation of violence. Some agencies view a strike with the weapon as the use of deadly force. their rules of engagement may not allow for deadly force.
I have the right to self defence and may use deadly force to do so,as all human beings in the free world.

take it or leave it!

Dave T.