Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Adventure]

This is what this officer has to say:


Calibre Press Survival Seminar, 2003

In its April 2003 online newsletter, Calibre Press published results of a research project completed along with PPCT Management Systems. This project measured the other side of the equation, namely the frequency in which police officers were forced to the ground by attackers. About 1,400 cases were reported by officers attending the Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar. [EN3]

Respondents were asked whether an attacker had ever attempted to force them to the ground. More than half (52%) reported this had occurred. Of that number, 60% reported that their attackers had been successful in taking them down. Of the 60% taken down, 52% reported receiving ground control training prior to the event, and 40% after.

At the time of the assault, most of the assailants were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Most of the takedown incidents occurred during domestic and other disturbance calls, or during traffic stops. These are the same situations in which the majority of officers are assaulted and killed each year (31% during disturbances, accounting for 15.6% of officer deaths, followed by traffic stops, accounting for 15.1% of officer deaths).

45% of the attempts to take the officer down occurred during interviews

40% occurred at handcuffing

10% at escort

5% during booking

Standard assault patterns took the following forms:

Pulling the officer to the ground (33%)

Pushing the officer to the ground (28%)

Tackling the officer to the ground (24%)

Kicking or punching the officer to the ground (15%)

Once the officer was down:

The subject continued to assault the officer once the officer was down (64%)

The subject fled (31%)

The subject waited for the officer to get back up to continue the fight (5%)

Of the ground fights, suspects generally continued with grappling and pinning techniques (77%), or used punches, kicks, and strikes (66%). However, in 21% of the cases, the subjects attempted to disarm the officer, with 5% being successful. As a side note, the FBI states that of 594 law enforcement officers killed between 1992 and 2001, 46 were killed with their own weapon.

On the ground, the officers tended to use weapons other than firearms:

Pepper spray (OC) was used 29% of the time

Impact weapons (sticks, batons, flashlights, handcuffs, etc.) were used 26% of the time

Hands, feet, holds, etc., were used 24% of the time

Officers used firearms in just 13 cases (less than 1% of attacks). However, during these 13 uses of firearms, three resulted in suspect fatalities.

Final Comment

Statistics should be viewed more as guidelines than as specifics. The varied situational, environmental, physical, and psychological intersections that occur within confrontations make each and every one different. However, if similar patterns occur time and again, the patterns should not be ignored.

The LAPD study does not show that “90% of fights go to the ground.” Instead, the LAPD study shows that 95% of altercations took on one of five familiar patterns (with which any street cop will be intimately familiar). It also shows that of that 95%, 62% ended up with both the officer and the suspect grappling on the ground.

Obviously, being professionally charged with restraining someone versus being primarily focused on escaping an attack will change the dynamic of a confrontation after the initial engagement. This is why I believe police in an arrest situation are more likely than a citizen in a self-defense situation to stay on the ground during a physical encounter.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that more than half the officers surveyed by Calibre Press reported that suspects had attempted to take them down, and that the suspects accomplished this 60% of the time. Of that number, the overwhelming majority stayed on the ground grappling with the officer (77%). When considering these patterns of assault, they are of the same nature as criminal assaults on citizens. In other words, the mechanics of an assault (versus the mechanics of arrest) do not change simply because one of the people involved is a police officer. [EN4]

To conclude, one can quibble with the exact percentages, but being on the ground happens frequently during serious altercations. Could a person’s being taken down and not having an effective means to deal with the situation increase odds of death or serious injury, either to him/herself or to the assailant? My personal view is that this is the case.

http://www.ejmas.com/jnc/jncframe.htm

[Joe Hubbard]

100% of all fights start standing!

Out

Joe

[whitewolf]

Good stats-Joe made a excellent comment also=While in discusssions with the instructor of KM in Athens and talking to the second in charge of the school (who is a street police officer) the comments were made that they try to never ever go to the ground as their almost always a third party waiting to jump in plus the fact that street altercations are not a pretty sight (my words)-in another post their were comments about the English POs being hampered due to not being able to  seach a suspect the same way as here in the US-this adds to to the problem of ground fighting for them and anyone who is not trained in responses to subduing a suspect while off your feet.Sence a PO is bound to try to just subdue a suspect they are a hell of a disadvantage-my final comment is that it would probably save a lot of  POs lives if the chain of  command in the police departments all the way up to the top would add mandatory response training in the area of submissions to their sylabus for the line officer. whitewolf (el  lobo blanco)

[Joe Hubbard]

Although going to the ground should never be your main priority, if you find yourself there- you'd better know what to do.  Enter-Jim McCann!

Out

Joe

[Karl]

I agree with Joe,

Thats like the fight should be over in 60 Seconds, if it isn't you better know some stuff.

It's not so much of going to the ground, as knowing what to do so you don't get taken there and if you do get taken there.
Knowing what to do to get up safely.

[Joe Hubbard]

Alas, the reason we train.  Well stated brother Karl.

Out

Joe

[Ed Giglio]

I agree with all your comments. However the first element to address, especially for LEOs, is the number of hours actually spent training. In the UK you have 6 hours a year mandatory training in officer defence...6 hours I tell you!

Many of my fellow officers couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag and through inglorance and lack of training seriously believe the 6 hours is all they need and that they have become proficient in the use of their weapons.

Now, I am no ninja by any stretch of the imagination however I do put in a hell of a lot of training hours a year, daily, weekly, monthly. Mainly because its my passion. But even so I have found myself analysing the post-incident and kicked myself for forgetting or not being sharp enough to use a particular weapon transition, tactic etc...

In addition, I am sorry to say this, but all the police defence trainers I have encountered are pathetic. Their coordination, skill level and instructional prowess are very very low.
So before we can concentrate on what to teach in the syllabus changes have to be made in the number of mandatory hours training for officers (and they should undergo an exam and not simply turn up as most do!) and assign willing and capable instructors.

Finally, the aspect of fitness has also to be addressed. Some hardcore, functional training should be also made mandatory. Not only is it necesary for chasing suspects (I am the assigned unit runner: they drive me to the location and let me loose...mainly because everyone else is so overweight!) but also for fighting. Additionally, its great to establish some of the lost esprit de corps and , this will please the Commissioner, it is good for public perception to see fit-looking cops on the streets.

So to recap, mandatory training; able and motivated instructors and fitness. These are the building blocks that in my view need to be established before designing a syllabus.

Rant over!

Ciao

Ed

[Joe Hubbard]

The moral of the story?  Cops and citizens need to know what to do if they get taken to the ground.  Not only do they NEED to know how to get up, they need to understand the tactics that will allow them to get up- this means understanding that range!

Londoners, listen up.  Big Jim McCann is coming to London in October.  The dates aren't confirmed as yet, but they will be soon.  He will be teaching a prominent MMA group in North London, but all others are welcome to this invaluable information- please don't loose out!

Anybody with inquiries can contact me direct on: 0789 444 6794

Out

Joe

[Joe Hubbard]

Amen!

[Karl]

Hi Ed, i feel what you say.
Down under we have the same problem.
I am Private Security but have Friends in the Force who tell me things.
When ever there is a chase and somebody has to go over the wall, the first question is.
Who is just out of the Academy??///
Then, Ok you go over the wall and chase him,them.
Even the Corrective Service doesn't have an annual Fitness Test.

For the Force they only have to pass the annual Firearms Test once a Year.
No Annual Fitness Teat.

Just remember, If you practice something every day, for Years.
You will be very good at what you are training.
It might be the wrong thing, but you will be very good at it.

Sorry just my 3 Cents.
As the Aussie Dollar is now 96 to the dollar it has to be worth something.

[WTAC]

I have seen this data many times. They don’t really talk about Officers taking the suspect to the ground. In California resisting suspects get taken down by Officers a large portion of the time. The full LAPD study talks a little about it. In California ground fighting training for L.E is pretty common. It varies in quality but it is taught at almost the Departments I have contact with. One of the reasons LAPD did so well in their study.
Aaron

This is what this officer has to say:


Calibre Press Survival Seminar, 2003

In its April 2003 online newsletter, Calibre Press published results of a research project completed along with PPCT Management Systems. This project measured the other side of the equation, namely the frequency in which police officers were forced to the ground by attackers. About 1,400 cases were reported by officers attending the Calibre Press Street Survival Seminar. [EN3]

Respondents were asked whether an attacker had ever attempted to force them to the ground. More than half (52%) reported this had occurred. Of that number, 60% reported that their attackers had been successful in taking them down. Of the 60% taken down, 52% reported receiving ground control training prior to the event, and 40% after.

At the time of the assault, most of the assailants were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Most of the takedown incidents occurred during domestic and other disturbance calls, or during traffic stops. These are the same situations in which the majority of officers are assaulted and killed each year (31% during disturbances, accounting for 15.6% of officer deaths, followed by traffic stops, accounting for 15.1% of officer deaths).

45% of the attempts to take the officer down occurred during interviews

40% occurred at handcuffing

10% at escort

5% during booking

Standard assault patterns took the following forms:

Pulling the officer to the ground (33%)

Pushing the officer to the ground (28%)

Tackling the officer to the ground (24%)

Kicking or punching the officer to the ground (15%)

Once the officer was down:

The subject continued to assault the officer once the officer was down (64%)

The subject fled (31%)

The subject waited for the officer to get back up to continue the fight (5%)

Of the ground fights, suspects generally continued with grappling and pinning techniques (77%), or used punches, kicks, and strikes (66%). However, in 21% of the cases, the subjects attempted to disarm the officer, with 5% being successful. As a side note, the FBI states that of 594 law enforcement officers killed between 1992 and 2001, 46 were killed with their own weapon.

On the ground, the officers tended to use weapons other than firearms:

Pepper spray (OC) was used 29% of the time

Impact weapons (sticks, batons, flashlights, handcuffs, etc.) were used 26% of the time

Hands, feet, holds, etc., were used 24% of the time

Officers used firearms in just 13 cases (less than 1% of attacks). However, during these 13 uses of firearms, three resulted in suspect fatalities.

Final Comment

Statistics should be viewed more as guidelines than as specifics. The varied situational, environmental, physical, and psychological intersections that occur within confrontations make each and every one different. However, if similar patterns occur time and again, the patterns should not be ignored.

The LAPD study does not show that “90% of fights go to the ground.” Instead, the LAPD study shows that 95% of altercations took on one of five familiar patterns (with which any street cop will be intimately familiar). It also shows that of that 95%, 62% ended up with both the officer and the suspect grappling on the ground.

Obviously, being professionally charged with restraining someone versus being primarily focused on escaping an attack will change the dynamic of a confrontation after the initial engagement. This is why I believe police in an arrest situation are more likely than a citizen in a self-defense situation to stay on the ground during a physical encounter.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that more than half the officers surveyed by Calibre Press reported that suspects had attempted to take them down, and that the suspects accomplished this 60% of the time. Of that number, the overwhelming majority stayed on the ground grappling with the officer (77%). When considering these patterns of assault, they are of the same nature as criminal assaults on citizens. In other words, the mechanics of an assault (versus the mechanics of arrest) do not change simply because one of the people involved is a police officer. [EN4]

To conclude, one can quibble with the exact percentages, but being on the ground happens frequently during serious altercations. Could a person’s being taken down and not having an effective means to deal with the situation increase odds of death or serious injury, either to him/herself or to the assailant? My personal view is that this is the case.

http://www.ejmas.com/jnc/jncframe.htm

[michael]

It does seem that LE training has been changing over the last  few years to include more groundfighting training. I know at my department it has, and a lot of the DT curriculum is based around it. It is still not enough, but it is a start....

[herb]

 Hmmm, im kind of confused Hoch, the Ground and pound method was used by wrestlers, notably Mark Coleman, Mark Kerr, and Dan Severen, agianst the submission based BJJ fighters.
You need wrestling skills to pin and pound.

[whitewolf]

I reread the posts here and it occured to me -what happens if the water bed explodes from the strain of two bodies ground and pounding on the water bed-
1-does one drown?
2-Are they thrown out of the bedroom window?
3-are they both suffecated from plastic covering them?
4-does the one who is a better swimmer win?
And lastly does the owner of the trailer (single wide) have god dam home insurance for water damage?

As for the post that gives the %,s of police going to the ground -good info..
WW (ELB)

[Benjamin Liu]

As a side note, the FBI states that of 594 law enforcement officers killed between 1992 and 2001, 46 were killed with their own weapon.


This also shows the problem with the statistic some people like to use saying that "25% of police officers who are shot (in some statements, 25% of those who use their gun) are shot with their own guns."

[whitewolf]

Ben that is interesting-shows that more POs should be trained in gun retention in close quarters

Also I have added some to this in Arnolds Bus stop to keep it professinal here
WW (ELB)

[harvey]

These comments are based on a very good article(Sep. 08) in Black Belt magazine on the percentage of time that fights end up on the ground. The article states that the chance of both combatants ending up on the ground is 42% not the 95% that's been talked about alot since the early 90's. This 42% is based on 300 youtube fight videos involving average citizens. I had debates about this 95% number since the beginning. I based my thoughts on real experience in the street. In all the self defense encounters that I have been in only 10% ended up with both of us on the ground. With criminals carrying weapons and multiple attackers you do not want to go the ground but you still have to learn ground fighting and ground grappling because you obviously have to prepare for worst case scenarios on the ground. When I teach ground fighting I emphasize position, transition, and situation. Getting to a safer position either to escape or present your weapon to stop violence or both. Also in the study 72% ended up with one person on the ground and one standing and 59% of those that when down first lost and 33% there was no discernible winner. In conclusion do not go to the ground in a life or death or non-referee situation unless you have no choice. More stats is'nt this great its just chaos out there in the big bad world.
Harvey

[Benjamin Liu]

I had debates about this 95% number since the beginning.

The interesting thing is that it has been known for a long time that the ads' "statistics" were based on a creative mis-interpretation of the police statistics, yet they continue to be repeated as some sort of immutable law of the universe all over the internet.

What I found funny was that the percentages seemed to rise, originally it was "90%" IIRC, then went up to "95%."

Most non-dojo fights I've seen that went to the ground did so due to the two totally unskilled people trading blows, getting too close to hit each other with long flailing strikes, then losing their balance and falling to the ground while continuing to try to flail at each other. 

[harvey]

exactly ben what you say is so true.

harvey

[shastana]

Its good that your dept is having you do more ground fighting, but just like any other slice, anything is good as long as it doesn't become an obsession.  Ground ground ground ground...and more ground.

Weapon retention and quickdraw, counter grappling and takedowns, and your bag and tag restraining...and some ground. 

Thanks for your work knocking back the village idiots!

[grlaun]

We are doing some ground fighting as well.  The limited standing skills we have are decent but extremely limited (in the Academy)  not too sure they will improve once I'm out so i'll be going to training seminar's and classes to keep up the skills.  I think it is a good idea too but would like people with a combative sense and not the Gracies...

[harvey]

My previous statements more apply to citizens fighting not LEO. Ground fighting and grappling skills apply more to cops because people resist arrest on the ground and LEO are actively trying to control the opp. without having to punch the guy in the face. As for the Gracies if you want to learn the fundamentals of ground work then Gracie combatives is a good start you just have change the thinking. Gracie strategy is to control your opponent to exhaustion obviously this strategy is limited. So with some modifications(different strategies not just one) Gracie combatives can be useful by teaching basic ground movement, transistion, positions, and certain behaviors of bad guys when they go to the ground. It sound like I am a Gracie guy I am not.  This is just based on my experience in BJJ and what I know about Gracie technique. I am also going to say that LEO probably do not have the time to rework a entire system and you shouldn't have to. So you need find an instructor in your area with right mind set for stand up, weapons and the ground a person that understands the different missions.  I almost sound like a politician on this one everybody is happy Ha, Ha.
 
Harvey

[whitewolf]

Harvey- makes sense to  me WW (ELB)

[shastana]

Harvey, Hock gave some good insight on countering the resisting detainee. To apply rear naked chokes push down on head then thread arm thru, or push down and move side to side so his face 'gently carressess' the concrete back and forth, back and forth.  Then put on choke.  Good example of 'modifications' to ground fighting for the LEO and EDJ.

Rawhide-show them how its done!

[harvey]

Thats why I have been learning from Hock for 10 years.

harvey

[grlaun]

Harvey, Hock gave some good insight on countering the resisting detainee. To apply rear naked chokes push down on head then thread arm thru, or push down and move side to side so his face 'gently carressess' the concrete back and forth, back and forth.  Then put on choke.  Good example of 'modifications' to ground fighting for the LEO and EDJ.

Rawhide-show them how its done!

I think I 'demo' it on Volume 5 or 6 Unarmed/Force Necessary...!  OUCH!  But it works SO well!

[whitewolf]

Actually I learned this from a former vietnam era Green Baret in Hawaii-but instead of rubbing face back and forth we were shown to take the arm around neck-pull his head back and then slam it into pavement with the hand behind his head 2 times at least-then finsih the choke to put him out of his misery.-either way it should win the war for you- WW (ELB)