Mil training vs Def training

Well, setting mines is defensive, right?

I don't know the training of which you speak, but I think the key in the defensive use of lethal force is to not start until you're convinced a lethal force attack has begun or is about to, and to stop as soon as the threat has ended.

The objective, IMHO, is to retreat in safety with all loved ones accounted for, to summon the cavalry, and wait in safety for them. The means of your defense is less important than articulable, reasonable justification--although bayonetting may be less acceptable to a jury that use of a standard handgun.

Oh, yeah: don't forget about getting a lawyer. IANAL.

The skillsets are still applicable, it's the mindset that has to shift- from offensive to defensive, from proactive to reactive.

A good working familiarity with your state/jurisdiction's legal stance (lawbook law and case law) on self defense is essential...

lpl

How to use it?

Easy...

Train ROE:
- Familiarize yourself with local self defense law and develop a personal ROE for the use of deadly force.

Establish an individual training plan:

Use the same approach used to train and sustain the proficiency of your troops for your own personal defense. The concept of individual and collective tasks, and drills, remain the same, however, a "collective" task does not refer to tasks performed as a member of a team, but simply a task composed of multiple "individual" tasks.

Identify and train individual tasks:
- Basically, the tasks you need to run your gun, and keep it running.
- Clear, load, unload, reduce stoppage, engage target, etc...

Identify and train collective tasks:
- Tasks that require the execution of multiple individual tasks.
- This is where you start to chain together your individual tasks.
- Draw from concealment, draw from concealment and engage targets,
draw, shoot and reload, etc...

Identify and train drills:
- collective actions rapidly executed without having to apply a deliberate decision-making process.
- React to gun threat (close / far), react to knife threat (close / far), React to carjacking etc...
- This is the "run" phase where you execute and evaluate your tactics and performance, identify strengths and weaknesses, and establish a new training plan to sustain strengths and improve weakness.


Remember that frequency is crucial to developing any kind of conditioned training effect, and dry fire practice can significantly contribute to achieving a conditioned behavior, however, you will have to incorporate live fire as well. It is up to you to decide how frequently, and intensively, you train yourself. Most LEO agencies only do a semi-annual qualification, and they usually end up on the winning side of their engagements. I prefer weekly training followed by competition shooting on the week ends, but even quarterly training "should" suffice depending on the intensity, time, and type of training involved.

Nothing in this approach should be unfamiliar to what you should have experienced in service.

Two of the toughest challenges I've seen military-trained shooters adjust from -

• You're on your own out here as a civilian.

You're not on a team anymore. There is no back-up coming. No medic on the other end of the radio for you. The command structure and formal organization that supports you doesn't exist in private life.

So don't act like it is.

Tactics that risk safety, rely upon a team, and that rely upon the organization when you need help have to get re-evaluated. Sometimes the student doesn't even recognize what those tactics are until someone else spots the behavior and points it out to him.

• The justification for your actions is the necessity for the protection of your life, to prevent grave bodily harm, or protect someone else from the same.

Some tactics you might have learned in the military aren't going to be justified. Some might just be unwise decisions that will later be found jusified, but you'll just wish you had done differently.



I've seen a handful of people who have the decisions and behaviors they learned in military training very deeply embedded, and it took/takes a lot of effort for them to make the adjustment.

Being able to recognize subtle, ambiguous threat cues is important. A defensive encounter in public will be more like a fist fight than a fire fight. In many cases the bad guy will use ambush tactics to close distance with you, surprise you and prevent you from reacting effectively in time. The sooner you detect that the bad guy is trying to shape the situation to his advantage the more time you have to react effectively.

I have been working with the opposite dilemma. My soldiers dual-carry, which means in reality, that they mostly leave their rifles and carry their pistols. On our post, they aren't allowed to carry loaded. This means, that they are carrying a pistol to react to an unknown possible threat that may pop up on the post. They won't have body armor or their rifle, they will likely be alone. This situation translates more closely to a civilian armed encounter than a wartime one. For my soldiers I have been training them how to load quickly, and also a lot of retention training, which is something the army has never heard of as far as I can tell.

I have to agree with Lee Lapin. The skillset isnt any different, only how we apply it.
As civilians we should be focused on defensive reaction, not offensive action. While I can not speak for every service member, I can say that I was exposed to quite a bit of training that would apply as a civilian. The though behind this training was that as a member of the armed forces, being alone left you open to attacks from not only the normal crimes, but also from terrorist cells that might see you as an opportunistic target.
Mindset was the main focus of such training. The physical side was no different than anything else I ever learned.

what about controled pairs is this standerd or would this be considered exsive force???

Click to expand...

In a civilian shooting, you will need to be able to articulate why each shot you fired was necessary and legal. Once the threat has ended, you must stop shooting. You can shoot controlled pairs, or even ten rounds at a time as long as you can justify why each of those rounds were necessary.

The difficult part is defining when a threat has ended. Was your attacker fleeing or moving to cover to continue an attack? You might have a different perception than bystanders who aren't in immediate danger. These are problems that are worth thinking and reading about now so you don'thave to make these choices under stress.

I see the diffferences being:

No body armor

No team mates

Surprise attack, not in ambush but in getting within bad breath distance before attacking.

That being said, the skills you have just need to be adapted to these factors. If you need to defend yourself, your experience under fire will be of greater help than all the training a civilian can buy.

Remember, contrary to the military, the best gunfight is the one you avoid. We are not out here with the objective to get rid of bad guys.

Thanks for your service.

Also, don't underestimate your opponents ability and mindset. Thugs have grown up fighting and are very effective. They don't fight fair and they don't present weapons like in formal training. They also have no regard for human life.

By the same token don't overestimate your ability. If required, end the fight as fast as possible.

Here's the big difference.

Mil training=KILL the enemy
Civilian = Shoot to stop the threat.

It's pretty much that simple.

Oh, and in civ you're probably talking about a handgun which is a pretty crappy weapon.

AFS

+1 Lee Lapin as well.

Here you have to be mindful of the lawfulness of your actions, and that any time you fire your weapon, you can change your life as you know it.

If you find yourself in fear for your life...it's all the same.

There are tactical differences being one person vs. part of a team in how you would maneuver and the choices you make. Once you clearly define the mission (protect yourself or protect your family) use the best tactics and equipment (that you have avail.) to accomplish that mission.

After 10 years in the army (combat arms) i have recived a vast amount of training in CQB CQM (pistol rifle and transition) as well as real world experence. im just couriues of how to use what i have learned in civilen life weather in home defence or CCW.

Click to expand...

I think the training and mindset you have would pay huge dividends in a civil crisis, and it’s not just about guns and shooting.

A good example. I have a family member was a USMC officer in Vietnam, later worked for decades in Washington DC for a defense company (not far from the Pentagon). On 9/11 there was confusion and shock- with wild reports about planes hitting all over, rumors of "sleeper cells" and poison gas- many of the civilians in his company (including the CEO) either panicked or froze up (refusing to react). Some of the people wanted to immediately run out of the building and get in their cars to go home.

His military training kicked in and he took charge- they secured the building, set up observations points (to see what was happening outside) and moved employees to a central location which was safer than near windows, etc. One they got enough intel about what was going on did he organize an orderly system of getting people out and home.

So I'm pointing out- if a civil crisis hit you already have a big advantage mentally and emotionally from your training.

So the best advice I'm taking away from thi is to keep your eyes open, and head on in any incident.

I am in the group that would assert shooting skills to be universal, regardless of military/police/private citizen roles. For that very reason, I have had much success in training classes with a mixture of students.

There are a few important differences, outside of the rules of engagement and use of force continuum, that I do see.

My military students, especially those who work on teams and/or are going through the SF "Q" course, tend to move much more quickly. This is very apparent when we are working live-fire shoot house scenarios, etc. They rely on an overwhelming force in numbers and a violence of action to ensure their victory. They are not as slow and methodical in their searches. As a result, they are not using cover to its full advantage nor "pieing" corners as best they could but they neither have to nor do they have the luxury of doing so. This is also seen in some of my law enforcement students that are either familiar with SWAT techniques or active shooter responses. They are balancing their necessity for speed with exposure.

For individual officers and private citizens, I try to hold them to a slower, more methodical technique - especially when "room clearing". By the way, I rarely would recommend an individual conduct a search by themselves but that is another topic. But if they must, I ask that my individual students take full advantage of cover, slow down, and work methodically. They simply do not have the luxury of such a violence of action or overwhelming force with which to take down their opponent.

So I must say that in terms of tactics between military/teams and those of private citizens and individual officers the greatest difference is the speed at which they perform certain functions and a disparate focus on the full use of cover/concealment/cornering methods as opposed to overwhelming force.

jscott said:

My military students, especially those who work on teams and/or are going through the SF "Q" course, tend to move much more quickly. This is very apparent when we are working live-fire shoot house scenarios, etc. They rely on an overwhelming force in numbers and a violence of action to ensure their victory. They are not as slow and methodical in their searches. As a result, they are not using cover to its full advantage nor "pieing" corners as best they could but they neither have to nor do they have the luxury of doing so. This is also seen in some of my law enforcement students that are either familiar with SWAT techniques or active shooter responses. They are balancing their necessity for speed with exposure.

Click to expand...

I saw the exact same trends. In my experiences running shoothouses I saw Army infantry and Marines run through the houses very quickly. Sometimes it worked to their advantage. Sometimes not.

When they worked as individuals, sometimes they went too fast and left themselves no time at all to make a decision. Taking a little more time to move through the problem would have left them more options and opportunities to figure out who was who and what was occurring.


House clearing is dangerous, and a challenge even for a team. And although it's usually advised as something to avoid as an individual, there might be a need to do it. You might need to go get someone you're legally and/or morally responsible for. Or you might need to clear your way out of a structure.