LOILOI44 Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 It seems that this thread has gone from a tactitcal discussion to a legal discussion. It all boils down to what you can articulate while on the stand. If a suspect tries to forcibly take your gun from you, I think it's safe to say that you can articulate that the suspect put you in fear for your life and you had to use deadly physical force against them. As far as what I know about Krav Maga, granted I don't know that much about the style but if every suspect of mine had been bloodied because I elbowed them and broke their nose; there could be potential problems. I'm not saying that Krav Maga couldn't be useful, but I would prefer a softer style like aikido and traditional JuiJitsu. Krav Maga might be good on the battle field, but the streets are not really a battle field. In battle your intention is to kill your opponent. On the street it is to arrest your suspect.
Kyle-san Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 So you feel a softer art should be used, What about when the oifficers life is threatened? You dont think it might be useful to know an effective system for that type of scenario? Traditional Jujutsu is more than effective for a situation where the officer's life is threatened short of a gunfight. It's at least as effective as KM can be and certainly can be as devastating if needed. However, there are also options in the style for when the situation doesn't require that much force.
LOILOI44 Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 Traditional JuiJitsu, has more than enough fatal techniques. Yes there is no martial art that is effective against GunJitsu, unless you've watched The Matrix too many times.
Kirves Posted February 2, 2003 Posted February 2, 2003 So you feel a softer art should be used, What about when the oifficers life is threatened? Of course, this discussion is mostly about the US law system, which I'm not that familiar with. Where I live, the law basically says, you must always do the least damage possible. There have been cases where the officer's life has been threatened, yet the officer has faced a law suit (and been found guilty) when it was obvious that he could've solved the situation without himself doing too much damage. If your life is getting threatened and you can solve it with a shoulder lock, then you should do that instead of breaking his neck. If you train your instincts to go for the neck break, that's what you'll do under stress. If you train your instincst to go for the shoulder lock, that's what you'll do under stress. Both solve the situation, one makes excessive damage (unless you're in war).
JerryLove Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 I feel that farm more phyical confontations are with drunkn and disorderly than with life-threatening situations. I feel that Jujitsu (for example) is far more an art suitable for defending deadly situations than KM (which focuses on repeated striking of face / throat / groin) is a suitable art for normal operations. the topic title is "which arts are well suited for a police officer." This makes an obvious infrence to the differences between police needs and the needs of others (or "for police" becomes redundant). So, what is different about police needs? Police will need to involve themselves in non-deadly fights that civillians would avoid. Police need to forcibly restrain without injury resisting people. Police need to work on protection of civillians and retention of a weapon that is not in use. Tell me how said elbow is a good example of KM excelling at these needs over other arts. Tell me how an art with such a focus is a good art (as opposed to say, jujitsu) for someone who'se primary need is the bringing down and control of someone simply struggling to run away. It is not. https://www.clearsilat.com
TJS Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 KM Works under stress becasue it relies on instinctive movements and builds off of them, That does nto mean they have to be "deadly". with any art you must learn control. THere are softer techniques In KM. TO assume you will elbow everyone in the face is not true. I simpley think it has the tools that are neccesary if the time comes to use them. I'll give you an example: I just fought in a Kickboxing Match...When we clinched my first instict was to throw knees, did I? No becasue of Control. When I droped him, my first instinct was to drop down and finish the Job, did I? No..because of control. I would say its better to have the tools and not use them then to not have them if the need arrises.
LOILOI44 Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 I feel that farm more phyical confontations are with drunkn and disorderly than with life-threatening situations Actually most injuries happen to officers in family disputes. It is the most deceptive situation. You walk in to a simple verbal argument, and the next thing you know the wife is swinging a frying pan at you. I found that drunks on the street could be dealt with fairly easily. Usually if you ignore them, they go away (provided they hadn't broken any laws.) Pepper spray works well to subdue them in addition. Family disputes on the other hand, it does not feel very good to have a stranger come into your own house and tell you how to behave. It can be very emasculating, especially if that stranger is younger, or female. Inside pepper spray isn't always ideal. It can really ruin your day when you spray it and it hits a fan or air conditioner. Trust me I know. Aside from that Jerry, I agree with you on everything you posted. As a civilian when you see something, you can call 911. As the police, when you see something you are 911. [/code]
LOILOI44 Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 I went to a couple of Krav Maga websites. Now I have never trained in the art, nor do I claim to be an expert. Here are a couple of videos I found: http://www.kravmaga.com.br/english/galery/index.asp# What I have seen here is basic JuiJitsu. The foot sweep that you see in video #1 and #4 is a move called O-soto-gari. As far as the 2nd video I would never even consider leaving my feet to take a person down. Granted these are only a few KM techniques. From what I saw though, they did not reinvent the wheel. It looks like it was just packaged differently. I'm not taking anything away from the effectiveness of KM. Isreali special forces are supposed to be the fiercest soldiers in the world. I once met a retired Massad (sp?) agent, scariest person I ever met. I just think it's not ideal for law enforcement. Just because something says it's designed for police doesn't always make it so. I remember a bullet proof vest manufacturer who was putting out a defective product for police officers. It didn't live up to it's ballistic rating. Selling products to law enforcement is a multi-million dollar industry.
JerryLove Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 KM Works under stress becasue it relies on instinctive movements and builds off of them, That does nto mean they have to be "deadly". This is exactly my point. When you train a martial art, you are training instincts. You will fight how you train. The whole point about 'training instincts" is that under stress, you will not neccessairily make complex decisions... you will act how you are trained. So, back to the image example.. I'm trained to elbow someone in the throat. I've chased a suspect down, my adreneline is going, he resists and the first thing I do is elbow him in the throat. This is not a good response to train into an officer. This is not an allowed response to the situation. To say "we can have him exclude a large element of what we train under stress it not only to deny the entire reason fro trainign stress-response, it is to say "this is not a good choice in arts".I'll give you an example: I just fought in a Kickboxing Match...When we clinched my first instict was to throw knees, did I? No becasue of Control. But what can we say? That an art which trains to throw knees from the clench is not the best art for someone to do kickboxing. You seem to be trying to defend your art. this is not about attacking or defending KM, this is about suitability. That said, I could be wrong, but I don't feel that you have offered a good argument that I am. https://www.clearsilat.com
LOILOI44 Posted February 3, 2003 Posted February 3, 2003 I'll give you an example: I just fought in a Kickboxing Match...When we clinched my first instict was to throw knees, did I? No becasue of Control. When I droped him, my first instinct was to drop down and finish the Job, did I? No..because of control. I would say its better to have the tools and not use them then to not have them if the need arrises. Yes I do agree with the fact that it is good to have the tools. I do not see how you can compare a kickboxing match to an encounter on the street. They are two tottally different animals. Things on the street happen so fast, and nobody is going to ring a bell if you get knocked out. Time is not a luxuary you have out there. Another thing that was not considered is the fact that in a uniform, you can weigh up to 30 lbs heavier. You're wearing a vest, and a belt with a gun, sometimes 2, you have a flash light, baton, extra ammo, portable radio, and other junk. JuiJitsu is ideal because the samuari wore armor. It's all about economy of movement, minimum effort; maximum results.
Recommended Posts