Close Quarter Combat A Necessity In Todays World

[Warrior Don]

I can't believe that there has been no posting in this forum in the last 15 days.

Doesn't anyone have any good topics on this subject?

Well I am curious? I would like to hear about anyone's CQB encounter and how they handled it!

Any takers?

IMPO, I believe that CQB (close quarter battle) should be an integral part of everyone's training. Mainly because it such a practical thing.

JMO!

[Joseph Svinth]

Shortly after they busted the Sergeant Major of the Army for sexual harassment and indicted a Division commander for hitting on his officers' wives, I made a recommendation that the military teach self-defense to females.

Sadly, the powers that be (I was in the Army at the time) didn't find that an appropriate use of training dollars.

[MarkF]

I thought most, if not all taijutsu fighting arts, do teach CQC. I think at sword length, it is CQC. Even closer still, in others.

JMO

Mark

[Neil Hawkins]

I think you need to seperate CQC from self-defense (SD). CQC is military style combatives and by necessity is simple, effective and probably deadly. Whilst this does on occasion translate well to SD, I don't believe that it should be taught as a general rule.

The main reason is that there are laws in the civilian world that you MUST take into account. Regardless of what people will say, if you don't use "minimum necessary force" and can't justify your actions, you will be in trouble. Self Defense is most often decided after the event by a judge.

Realistically the huge majority of attacks people talk about can be avoided entirely, the rest can be grouped into two areas: attacks of opportunity, robberies and muggings, etc, where the majority of self defense will work, simply in the fact that the attacker is looking for an easy mark. The other area is the one where someone really wants to kill you, thankfully most of us will never get into that situation, those that do will often stand little chance of survival against a determined attacker.

Now before I get lynched by those out there that think I just said you don't have a chance so give up now, let me elaborate.

If you firmly believe that the likelyhood of facing a lethal force situation, because of your occupation, or your inclination, is high, then you should prepare yourself sufficiently and CQC is probably the best tool available to you. (Aside form a loaded firearm in a tactical holster! ;))

The reality is though that the vast majority of people who learn SD, will never need it, and if they do, basic non-lethal techniques will suffice.

There is much confusion out there at present, many MA's do not teach effective SD. Instructors believe things they read or are told and pass on poor information to their students. Martial Arts CAN be effective self defense, but few people have the skills to teach them this way. Years of training can give you the skills you require, but often doesn't. SD courses that last a few weeks rarely will give you more than an awarenes of the danger, but this can sometimes be sufficient.

Choose the tool that most suits your needs and use common sense to avoid situations you are not prepared for.


Anyway, I think Don was seeking war stories. I rarely tell them, but there was a guy who pulled a knife on me once.

He was young, maybe 18, which didn't really make him any less dangerous, but did cause me to subconciously tone down my response. I had only recently finished discussing the merits of a case that had been in the media where a 35 year old man had severely beaten a sixteen-year-old kid who had broken into his house. The man had recieved a six year suspended sentence for assault, despite claiming self defense.

I don't like prisons, but I like being stabbed a lot less (at least I think I'd like it less as so far I've managed to avoid both!) so I prepared to do what ever it took. He lunged, I stepped aside and snapped his arm over my hip. I used a simple irimi senkai, no flash technique, no violent strike, just an enter and rotate. I did pull his arm against my hip fairly firmly though. :)

I pinned him to the ground and removed the knife. I searched him for more weapons and then made sure he was comfortable whilst I called an ambulance and then the police. I was told later by the police that he had wanted to press charges against me (his arm was rather badly broken), but they felt he had no case. I had used minimum force, I had stopped as soon as the threat was negated, I had tended to his wounds before calling the cops. In essence I had done everything right.

Now I'm not going to say that this will work for everyone, but I do firmly believe in escalating to meet the threat. The more you know the better you can judge the threat, it doesn't have to be concious, I certainly didn't conciously think about what technique I would do, it just happened.

There is no room for anger in any conflict, keep calm and react appropriately. That ability only comes through practice. As the old saying goes "the more you sweat in practice, the less you bleed in battle".

Regards

Neil

[Kit LeBlanc]

I'm with Neil on this one, CQC/CQB is for a professional environment, self defense is a very different thing.

But then I thought a loaded firearm and a tac holster were an integral part of CQB training and practice.....

Kit LeBlanc

[Tetsutaka]

Kit,

Good point -- my opinion would be to perhaps exchange the word "firearm" for "sidearm" and you'd be spot on.

Neil, thanks for putting a point on a point that I've tried to explain in a concise manner for years. You've done in a few paragraphs what I would take chapters [and long verbal diatribes] to convey.

Hats off to both of you,
Houston

[Neil Hawkins]

Kit

I agree, ideally CQC should be taught to include firearms training & weapons retention. Unfortunately I live in Australia, where because of Law, I have to seperate the two elements.

I try and maintain my training as one method, but when I teach, I have to seperate firearms and rarely get the opportunity to combine them with my CQC.

Even in military circles here is weapons work taught as part of CQC, though the situation is improving slowly. A friend of mine is an instructor with the VIP Protection Squad of the local PD and their training is very good. Though as always it could be better.

Note to self, go and do some reloading so that you can get to the range this weekend! Must practice.

Neil

[Kit LeBlanc]

Neil,

Three words: Redguns, Simmunitions, and Airsoft.


You might try these. At different times I have had the opportunity to train with all the above mock weapons. Of course, I have no idea about Australia, as I think Stateside Sim is only available to military and law enforcement, but I wonder if Redguns and Airsoft guns would be a problem.

For those not familiar, the former is completely inert, just a red plastic gun molded like a Glock or Sig or Beretta or whatever of various calibers. You can get long weapons (MP5, AR-15, and I think Remington 870 shotguns) too!

Airsoft guns are replicas of various commonly used firearms. The slides cycle, and the pellets are loaded by actual sized magazines so you can do reloading drills, etc. I have only used them once, but they seem pretty cool. They shoot a little BB sized plastic pellet which does leave a nasty mark, even through a fairly thick T-shirt, and it stings, so you still get the pain reaction that you would with Sim at a much lower cost. You also do not have to convert live weapons to Sim, or shoot rounds that are like $.50 a pop!

I think Airsoft is somewhere on the Internet.

Oh, and I get my ammo for free (dig! dig!)

Kit

[Kit LeBlanc]

Neil,

Here ya go

http://www.airsoftone.co.uk/index2.htm

and

http://www.airsoftone.com/


The British one won't deliver overseas, don't know about the US one. Check out the guns, though.

Kit

[Neil Hawkins]

Thanks Kit.

They look good, but I doubt they would let me bring them into the country. Even if they did they would have to be licensed.

It would probably be easier to bring in simmunition, what mods have to be made to the weapon to use it?

I have replica weapons I use for retention training, but even these need to be licensed now.

I have used water pistols, they do give a fairly clear indication that you have been shot. I've also used paintball guns, but they don't resemble real weapons at all. Simmunition is the way to go, but I am then restricted to the weapons I have licensed or the people I train with have licensed. Which means nothing exotic or automatic.

The military won't allow that kind of training either as they consider it too dangerous. Most PD's are the same, although special forces and SWAT may do it in some areas.

Hardly surprising really, training is terrible on the whole, I don't have real stats, but I am sure most bullet wounds in the military are self-inflicted or accidental. I've managed to get by without ever having a UD (unlawful discharge), but nowadays, they happen all the time.

I'll look into them though and see what I can find out.

Neil

[George Ledyard]

Originally posted by Neil Hawkins
I think you need to seperate CQC from self-defense (SD). CQC is military style combatives and by necessity is simple, effective and probably deadly. Whilst this does on occasion translate well to SD, I don't believe that it should be taught as a general rule.

The main reason is that there are laws in the civilian world that you MUST take into account. Regardless of what people will say, if you don't use "minimum necessary force" and can't justify your actions, you will be in trouble. Self Defense is most often decided after the event by a judge.
Neil

I just wanted to point out that while people seem to generally believe that the legal standard is "minimum necessary force". a very vague stadard that allows the defender to be second guessed after the fact, the real lagal standard is that the amount of force used must be "reasonable". In other words it must appear "resonable" to the hypothetical "reasonable man". It does not have to be the absolute minimum amount of force needed but must fit into a range of what people will view as reasonable. This is much more forgiving. The minmium necessary standard is often mistakenly used by law enforcement agencies and companies in their use of force policies and actually makes it difficult for their representatives to act without violating the policy. It actually makes them more liable rather than less which was their original intention.

[Kit LeBlanc]

George,

Great point, and one which is often lost in the self defense debate. It would be far better for people to train with "MAXIMUM reasonable and necessary force." It is better to use the most force you can reasonably use to begin with and scale DOWN than use the minimum amount of force and scale up.


Neil,

Man! I am glad I don't live in Australia. You have to register MOCK weapons??

Sim involves using the actual weapon slide and receiver, you fit it with a different barrel and I am not sure what else. I do not believe the magazines have to be modified at all.

I am not a Sim instructor or Sim certified, I can only tell you what I have seen with the guns when they let us use them for training. I think you do have to be instructor certified, but I am not sure if that is a departmental/State regulation or if the company itself requires it before selling you the ammo, for liability purposes.

As far as training, though paintball guns are not like the real weapon, they offer one thing squirt guns can't, PAIN. I think for force on force type simulations (RE: Surefire) PAIN is what you want, not necessarily an authentic looking gun. Ken Good discussed this on a recent thread on Bugei's close combat forum.

You should basically skip anything other than eye and groin protection to get the full benefit of the stress that pain can induce.

Kit

[TIM BURTON]

Originally posted by George Ledyard


I just wanted to point out that while people seem to generally believe that the legal standard is "minimum necessary force". a very vague stadard that allows the defender to be second guessed after the fact, the real lagal standard is that the amount of force used must be "reasonable". In other words it must appear "resonable" to the hypothetical "reasonable man". It does not have to be the absolute minimum amount of force needed but must fit into a range of what people will view as reasonable. This is much more forgiving. The minmium necessary standard is often mistakenly used by law enforcement agencies and companies in their use of force policies and actually makes it difficult for their representatives to act without violating the policy. It actually makes them more liable rather than less which was their original intention.

Hi,
In evidencing a reasonable response to someone’s actions we can apply a model to best convey the reason for our actions towards another person. This model profiles offender behaviour, reasonable response options and considers impact factors that may influence our course of action.

Offender behaviour.
1. Compliance, here no resistance is offered and the offender complies with your request, e.g. “Go away”!
2. Physical gestures and verbal resistance, here the offender demonstrates by way of body language and verbally, a state of non-compliance.
3. Passive resistance, here one may be pushed and pulled by the offender but there is not a deliberate intention to injure.
4. Aggressive resistance, here the offender fights using any unarmed method.
5. Serious or Aggravated resistance, here the offender may produce a weapon or there is the likelihood of serious bodily harm or death.
6.
Reasonable response options.
1. Presence, your appearance at the scene causes the situation to cease.
2. Communication, you attempt to resolve the situation through speech and gesture.
3. Controlling skills, here you apply restraining type techniques.
4. Protective skills, here you use empty hand/weapons at hand skills to block, strike and takedown an aggressor.
5. Deadly force, this is any action that may cause serious harm or death, with or without a weapon.

Impact factors.
These factors work both ways when justifying what is reasonable.
1. Age, sex and size.
2. Relative strength.
3. Level of skill.
4. Injuries.
5. Exhaustion.
6. Numbers involved.
7. Drugs and or alcohol.
8. Weapons being used or threatened.
9. Imminent danger.
10. Mental derangement.
11. Special knowledge, for example that the aggressor is trained in someway or is involved in street fights regularly.
12. In a position of disadvantage and your perception of the aggressors willingness to continue.

One can see that this model can be used to explain why we have taken a certain course of action and if coupled with the basic understanding that we must only escalate our response sufficiently to achieve safety and must always de-escalated afterwards and not use force to punish. Then it will help to justify “reasonable force”.

Tim BURTON Taiho Jutsu UK

[Tom Douglas]

A guy with a razor attacked me just this morning, slashing at the shaving cream on my face . . . ;- )

Great thread. Thanks to all the contributors.

[Tom Douglas]

A guy with a razor attacked me just this morning, slashing at the shaving cream on my face . . . ;- )

Great thread. Thanks to all the contributors.

Tom Douglas

[Neil Hawkins]

Tim

We call that the 'Force Continuum' and is pretty standard training for Security personnel in Australia.

Whilst it is a 'safe' method for explaining response and justification, I have found that in is often difficult to equate to real life situations.

In a bar scenario it works reasonably because you can see what is happening most of the time and you have backup at hand (sometimes). But in other situations faced by LEO's and Security professionals there is no time or room to run through it.

That said, I do use a variation in conjunction with OODA loop concepts to try and distinguish the level of force needed. That's one of the things I like about jujutsu, once the guy is off balance you have the ability to increase or decrease the use of force fairly safely.

As I've said many times in class, there is no range of force in striking, it either controls or it doesn't, and when it doesn't it just pisses them off more. Locking (if trained and taught correctly and appropriately) gives you the ability to increase the force from pain to disable in a very quick smooth transition. Even if they don't stop, that limb is useless to them and they become easier to put down.

Many people argue that jujutsu is not practical in todays world, and having seen some schools I would agree. BUT IT CAN BE if taught well, some techniques are not appropriate, and some people don't respond well to others because of flexibility or substance abuse. The skill comes from identifying what works when and training in a realistic manner.

The thing that most CQC advocates forget is that: a) not all confrontations require maximum force; and b) jujutsu was the root of most of the CQC styles around today.

Regards

Neil

[TIM BURTON]

Hi Neil,
We call it the conflict resolution model, when using it to explain our actions we take into account the effect we term tachopsychia or the slowing down of time and perception during a stressful encounter. It is encouraged that one takes a little more time in explaining our actions even if this only covers a few seconds of real time. We have found that many people are not judged on their actions but on their lack of explanation of those actions. The written word in today’s society can be ones friend or enemy. For example one can record the events as follows, “ I was threatened by a man at the bar who then attacked me without reason I reacted with a defensive technique and threw him to the floor and restrained him”. Where we should be saying “I was threatened by a man at the bar, he was about ten years younger than me, appeared fitter and stronger, I was worried for my safety. No reasoning would deter him and I had no where to retreat, I became very frightened. It was obvious to me that I was going to be attacked as the man exhibited signs that on reflection I recognised as warning signals, such as practise gestures, a lowering of posture and his eyes were acquiring a target. The colour drained from his face and he attacked. In response to this I reacted by blocking his blow and took him to the ground to prevent him continuing his assault. There I restrained him until other people realised what was occurring and offered assistance. Although this attack was over in a moment I experienced a range of emotions that made me fear for my safety and act in the manner I did. Now after the attack I feel shocked about what took place and keep reliving the event wondering if I could have dealt with it in another fashion, but in reality it all happened to quickly for me to make any other decision” etc, etc.
What we find is that when a person successfully defends themselves, then their account of events becomes almost off handed and does not portray them as the victim that they were. The attacker on the other hand bleats about excessive use of force etc, portraying themselves as the victim.
The other consideration is Parallax view, which simply put, means that witnesses who are standing in different positions will not see the same event, the mere distance from the encounter will make them feel more or less threatened therefore the event more violent or less violent.

I also use the, observe, orientate, decide and act loop when teaching use of force. I also use an awareness system a bit like Coopers colour code, here I liken it to driving a car. Level one you are on auto-pilot and cannot recall how you got from a to b if a kid steps into the road you will hit him and say he came from no where. Level two you are semi aware of your driving and are able to make an emergency stop that might or might not stop the car in time, you will say I didn’t see him until the last minute. Level three you are aware of your car control and look ahead and see the kid on the side of the road. When they step out you are still surprised and brake heavily. You would say that you did not think they were going to step out in front of you. At Level four you see the child at the kerb side and decide what you are going to do if they step out in to the road. When they do you brake or manoeuvre the vehicle to avoid an accident. You say to yourself, I saw that coming.

Your comments about striking force are also very true, I teach that you are going to get one good opportunity at the start of the encounter to apply an on target effective strike after that the odds are stacked against you big time. I equate this to using a firearm you cannot take the chance trying to shoot someone in the arm if you miss they know you have a gun! Likewise when delivering a strike you have one chance that it will work, if it is not your best shot and it fails then you have endangered yourself. If it works and you do not continue to strike out then you have acted reasonably.

The Taiho Jutsu that I have been taught addresses all these issues and these days its not just who’s technique is best, but who can record it so that a reasonable man can understand and empathise with it.

Tim Burton Taiho Jutsu UK

[tcasella]

I agree with Mr. Hawkins. I have been training in MA on my own for some time now and have also been training in Military CQB/CQC as well as Law Enforcement CQB/CQC. There is a difference in liabilities and purpose in each one. In some cases you are just looking after yourself with no concern for bystanders, just saving your own rear-end as in a one-on-one fight; and in others you are concerned about getting the subject down with minimum risk to the subject, the team members, any possible hostages, and innocent bystanders. Better stop before I get off on a tangent...

[Walker]

Perhaps I have a dirty mind, but I gotta say — Is Australia run by a bunch of Nuns!?!
I must not have impure thoughts....
Hail Mary, Mother of God....

[M.Logan]

Hi.
I've been reading this thread for a while and it really interests me. I have great respect for you guys.
I wish I could find some an instructor with as great a capacity and insight as you all seem to have.
Unfortunately there are non around in my area of the UK.
I've had no experience in CQB but it seems very interesting, I wouldn't mind learning some.
It is very difficult to find an art that is useful in street defense let alone an instructor who is genuine these days.
Say, hope you don't mind me asking but what occupations do you guys have?
I'm guessing military/security.
Thanks.


Matt Logan.

[Neil Hawkins]

Matt where abouts in the UK are you? There are instructors all over, but some don't advertise in the glossy mags, if you tell me where you are I may be able to steer you towards someone.

As for my background there's some military and security industry in there, but at present I work with computers.

Neil

[M.Logan]

Hi Neil,
Thanks for your reply on this thread.
Currently I am living in Lancaster, Lancashire which is in North-west UK.
I'm at college so moving would be a bit difficult for me at the moment.
I have tried several martial art classes but none of them really seemed...well...right. Especially when compared to the standards of teaching I read about on e-budo.
Anyway, thanks for the reply. Hope to hear from you again.

All the best,
Matt Logan.

[Stephenjudoka]

Is close quater combat a necessity in todays world?.
Many people spend hours and hours practicing close quater combat but spend no time on recognising potential danger.

Tim Burton mentions 'Coopers Colour Codes'. Used in a personal protection context the colour code can make people more aware of thier surroundings. If you are aware and you can read body language perhaps you could avoid potential violent situations before they happen.

Of course I understand the need to train and practice personal protection but I also think that training in body language and commincation models are also important.
Avoidance of a potential violent situation has got to be better than trying to justify your actions to a court of law.

As we know behaviour breeds behaviour, concentrating on communication models and body language might also help you to send out the right or wrong body language to other people. If you think that someone is about to attack you, consider what body language you might be displaying- is it aggressive- Do they think you are about to attack them- Do they strike you first -then say it was self defence-Does the CCTV produced at court show you displaying the aggressive beahavior.

Communication models and body language are strong tools in the armoury of personal protection.

Stephen Sweetlove

To ask is but a moments shame - but not to ask - and remain ignorant - is a lifelong shame.

QUOTE]Originally posted by TIM BURTON
Hi Neil,
We call it the conflict resolution model, when using it to explain our actions we take into account the effect we term tachopsychia or the slowing down of time and perception during a stressful encounter. It is encouraged that one takes a little more time in explaining our actions even if this only covers a few seconds of real time. We have found that many people are not judged on their actions but on their lack of explanation of those actions. The written word in today’s society can be ones friend or enemy. For example one can record the events as follows, “ I was threatened by a man at the bar who then attacked me without reason I reacted with a defensive technique and threw him to the floor and restrained him”. Where we should be saying “I was threatened by a man at the bar, he was about ten years younger than me, appeared fitter and stronger, I was worried for my safety. No reasoning would deter him and I had no where to retreat, I became very frightened. It was obvious to me that I was going to be attacked as the man exhibited signs that on reflection I recognised as warning signals, such as practise gestures, a lowering of posture and his eyes were acquiring a target. The colour drained from his face and he attacked. In response to this I reacted by blocking his blow and took him to the ground to prevent him continuing his assault. There I restrained him until other people realised what was occurring and offered assistance. Although this attack was over in a moment I experienced a range of emotions that made me fear for my safety and act in the manner I did. Now after the attack I feel shocked about what took place and keep reliving the event wondering if I could have dealt with it in another fashion, but in reality it all happened to quickly for me to make any other decision” etc, etc.
What we find is that when a person successfully defends themselves, then their account of events becomes almost off handed and does not portray them as the victim that they were. The attacker on the other hand bleats about excessive use of force etc, portraying themselves as the victim.
The other consideration is Parallax view, which simply put, means that witnesses who are standing in different positions will not see the same event, the mere distance from the encounter will make them feel more or less threatened therefore the event more violent or less violent.

I also use the, observe, orientate, decide and act loop when teaching use of force. I also use an awareness system a bit like Coopers colour code, here I liken it to driving a car. Level one you are on auto-pilot and cannot recall how you got from a to b if a kid steps into the road you will hit him and say he came from no where. Level two you are semi aware of your driving and are able to make an emergency stop that might or might not stop the car in time, you will say I didn’t see him until the last minute. Level three you are aware of your car control and look ahead and see the kid on the side of the road. When they step out you are still surprised and brake heavily. You would say that you did not think they were going to step out in front of you. At Level four you see the child at the kerb side and decide what you are going to do if they step out in to the road. When they do you brake or manoeuvre the vehicle to avoid an accident. You say to yourself, I saw that coming.

Your comments about striking force are also very true, I teach that you are going to get one good opportunity at the start of the encounter to apply an on target effective strike after that the odds are stacked against you big time. I equate this to using a firearm you cannot take the chance trying to shoot someone in the arm if you miss they know you have a gun! Likewise when delivering a strike you have one chance that it will work, if it is not your best shot and it fails then you have endangered yourself. If it works and you do not continue to strike out then you have acted reasonably.

The Taiho Jutsu that I have been taught addresses all these issues and these days its not just who’s technique is best, but who can record it so that a reasonable man can understand and empathise with it.

Tim Burton Taiho Jutsu UK [/QUOTE]