3rd Takeaway from Force on Force Training

[strambo]

Last month I posted about 2 top takeaways I observed from the students at the FoF course I taught. There was a 3rd standout observation, but it didn't fit with the other two and I didn't want it to distract from those.

The 3rd takeaway was to make good use of force decisions. A lot of students (male) ended up drawing their gun on a belligerent, but unarmed, female. Also, on more than a few occasions, role players got shot who were not presenting a deadly fore threat at the time as well as more "brandishing" incidents in general (drawing the gun before it was a clear deadly force incident).

This happened for multiple reasons. The first is a training environment issue. The students assumed that since they have a "Simmunitions" gun in a FoF scenario, that means they are supposed to shoot. Going along with that, they want to use the gun because that is what they are paying for.

However, probably one of the biggest disservices an instructor could make would be to condition the students into only one response, that deadly force is always (and the only) option based on poor scenario design.

Another reason has to do with not treating the scenarios as real. At one point I asked why the student pointed the gun at a role player. "Because they got too close to me" was the response. I then asked if they drew their gun out in public every time someone gets to close to them like at the mall etc. "No...."

Finally, just plain 'ol stress. The drill where these issues came out the most was a decision making drill with 3 role players all doing different things at once (some threatening, some just annoying, some no threat at all). This forces the student to take in a lot of info and make decisions. It is supposed to be stressful. Under stress (and the expectation that things might get violent), our subconscious reaches for safety, in the form of the gun if we have one. Under stress we tend to have our hands go to the gun and our fingers get drawn to the trigger prematurely as if by a tractor beam whether we want it to consciously at that point.

Finally, a mirror-image problem of to being too quick to draw or shoot (when deadly force isn't warranted yet) is a hesitation to shoot when it is. I noticed this the most when the role-player had an impact weapon or a knife or hatchet (safe training versions of course!). Students giving them way too much leeway and letting them get way too close after they indicated they meant to harm the student and made a movement forward. Once you see they have a deadly weapon and they make an aggressive move, don't hesitate!

How can you apply it in your training? Use photo-realistic or 3D targets that have guns or knives so you are conditioning yourself to only use deadly force when legal to do so. Also, have a partner work in no-shoot targets for you to practice rapid observation and decision making.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

As usual, good stuff Strambo.

 

[jmf552]

I think force-on-force is great training. But one artificiality about it when I've taken it is that the defender needs to stand on the X. I took an otherwise very good video simulation course a couple of years ago. I would say in about half the scenarios, I wanted to maneuver before I even drew my gun, but the way the training was set up, that was not an option. It was either shoot or don't shoot. But in those half of the scenarios, there was clearly cover available, room to run, etc. Those options can give you time to safely figure out what is going on, whether you really need to shoot and even a possibility of avoiding shooting even though there is a deadly threat.

I remember one scenario where my POV was I was in a nearly empty parking lot and a guy was just waving a knife around in the air and slowly closing distance on me, but he didn't seem to actually be attacking me or even aware of me. He just seemed like a disoriented, crazy guy waving a knife around. Obviously, the "correct" response in the class was to shoot. But there was a car right next to me. What I really would have done is get the car between us. Reasons:

1. Given the Tueller drill, he was close enough that if my going for my gun caused him to charge, he probably would have gotten me even if I also got him. By moving around the car, I could have gotten off of the X, gotten an object in between us and gained time and distance to draw and fire.
2. By moving around the car, I could have determined whether it was actually an attack or not based on whether he sped up and/or followed me. If he just kept dancing around with the knife and ignoring me, I could gotten to a safe place/distance, observed him, called 911 and perhaps not had to shoot him.

I didn't see your original post on take-aways from FoF training, but mine is that FoF should allow for maneuver where appropriate.

 

[strambo]

I think force-on-force is great training. But one artificiality about it when I've taken it is that the defender needs to stand on the X. I took an otherwise very good video simulation course a couple of years ago. I would say in about half the scenarios, I wanted to maneuver before I even drew my gun, but the way the training was set up, that was not an option.
...
I didn't see your original post on take-aways from FoF training, but mine is that FoF should allow for maneuver where appropriate.

Video simulation is great. Every training methodology has benefits and weaknesses. You hit on probably the major weakness of video simulators, limited maneuver.

My course was using Simunitions FX and it was outside for these particular scenarios in this thread. The students could have run off wherever the heck they wanted to. Ironically, most "stood on the X" as if they were stuck in a video simulation. Product of either square range training and/or simply not having enough experience under stress.

Scanning and movement were the other 2 top takeaways from my 1st thread on the topic. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/top-2-takeaways-from-fof-course-last-week.816702/

 

[fastbolt]

Nice summation of some cogent observations Strambo.

When FoF/Sim classes are being used for LE training, it's usually as an assessment tool to see if good decisions are being made, for the right reasons, and that can encompass not only the acquired training in legal issues and use-of-force, but also knowledge and adherence to use-of-force policies for the individual cops involved.

It's entirely understandable that you might see more "judgment" & "good decision-making" issues arise in a class comprised of non-LE, as the ordinary folks simply lack the hundreds of hours of basic academy, FTO & in-service training/legal updates, not to mention the really significant influence of acquired experience in properly utilizing training & "book knowledge".

Since assessing decision-making and use of good judgment would naturally include recognizing situations that are "no shoot", or even where a firearm doesn't reasonably need to be drawn/presented, it's expected that some scenarios would turn out not to involve a "student" even reaching for a holstered weapon.

Without the advantage of on-the-job experience in applying knowledge to inherently stressful situations, it's not surprising that ordinary students might not be able to realize the degree of "stress inoculation" that working LE can (hopefully) acquire as a consequence of their "routine" activities.

Being able to get a brief exposure to such things in properly conducted Fof/Sim scenario training can be a glimpse into the nasty world of suddenly finding oneself unexpectedly caught up in what's often referred to as a dynamic, chaotic, rapidly evolving and changing situation. Might help some ordinary folks to start to consider how to better put things into perspective, and whether they may lack a solid foundation of knowledge of the laws that would better enable them to make good decisions, instead of just relying upon whatever they may mistakenly think is "common sense", or might later be found to be contrary to what a "reasonable person" might be expected to know and do in the same circumstances.

The rule of the 7P's, augmented by conditioning oneself to better think under stress, and acquiring at least some relevant training in making successful decisions when subjected to realistic training.

 

[herrwalther]

Some of the MP units I served along side had a great video force on force simulator. It was a live action video recorded by actors with multiple video clips. The instructor uses a knob to escalate or deescalate the "actor" in the scenario. The scenarios were real action situations that MPs would face such as pulling over a suspicious vehicle on post or seeing someone jump over the base wall. How the trainee acted might determine how the instructor controlled the video actor. The trainee used an M9 replica with a laser with feedback of where any shots fired hit the video actor. It was great training that I learned a lot from.

The same could be done with obviously non lethal weapons (sims, Airsoft, or even Nerf guns) using real people. Any training I ever ran of this revolved around the "shoot or don't shoot." There are situations that can be handled without deadly force. And that applies to military, LEO, and civilians.

 

[strambo]

Video simulators are great. I mimick that variable outcome by giving my role players instructions such as "If they do a good scan and see you, back down/follow instructions. If they don't scan, pause a few seconds then shoot them in the back." I give similar instructions for verbal commands, "If they are forceful and you believe them, do what they say."

This is important because we want to reward the right actions like a good scan or good commands. Less effective actions result in a harder problem to solve. Note, the students always "win" no un-survivable scenarios. If they get shot in the back, it isn't over until the student successfully engages the threat they didn't see.

 

[Jeff White]

Since assessing decision-making and use of good judgment would naturally include recognizing situations that are "no shoot", or even where a firearm doesn't reasonably need to be drawn/presented, it's expected that some scenarios would turn out not to involve a "student" even reaching for a holstered weapon.

I agree, you need to incorporate ordinary, no-shoot situations into your training. Your students are coming to class expecting to be in a gunfight. We incorporated a lot of ordinary, everyday scenarios into our FoF training. I liked to start off with a no win situation like the officer walking up on a drawn gun during a vehicle stop, just to get the adrenaline flowing and then move right in to something like a normal traffic violation vehicle stop with a compliant offender.

It's entirely understandable that you might see more "judgment" & "good decision-making" issues arise in a class comprised of non-LE, as the ordinary folks simply lack the hundreds of hours of basic academy, FTO & in-service training/legal updates, not to mention the really significant influence of acquired experience in properly utilizing training & "book knowledge".

I can remember when we tested the Robbec simulator. It had a sensor on the holster that recorded the moment the officer drew his weapon and matched it to what the developers said was the proper stimulus to draw. One scenario was a misdemeanor warrant arrest of a subject at his place of employment. The subject was a cook and the scenario had the officer walk into the kitchen and the subject was chopping vegetables for a salad. The subject was on the other side of a stainless steel work table like one might find in a kitchen. The simulation ended with the subject running around the table to attack the officer with the knife. No officer who went through that test that day drew his weapon when the designer said they should, which was when the officer observed the subject with the knife. The feedback we all gave was that one would expect to find a cook using a knife on the job and that there was a stainless steel table the subject would have to jump over or run around to use the knife on the officer and that walking into a business and pointing a gun at someone at the point the designer said he should would likely result in the officer being disciplined. No officer was stabbed in the simulation. The stainless steel table slowed the subject down enough that there was plenty of time to draw and engage the subject when the attack occurred.

Perhaps if you had a longer classroom presentation on the legal aspects of use of force before you went into your scenarios you could work through the tendency to draw your weapon in inappropriate situations.

 

[harrygunner]

Not sure what conclusion I'm to draw from "belligerent, but unarmed, female."

Early in my Karate training, my Sensei partnered me with a brown belt. He underestimated the noobe and got knocked down.

Any female could be as capable as Ronda Rousey, kicks your butt and shoots you with your own weapon. You never know.

 

[shafter]

I can remember when we tested the Robbec simulator. It had a sensor on the holster that recorded the moment the officer drew his weapon and matched it to what the developers said was the proper stimulus to draw. One scenario was a misdemeanor warrant arrest of a subject at his place of employment. The subject was a cook and the scenario had the officer walk into the kitchen and the subject was chopping vegetables for a salad. The subject was on the other side of a stainless steel work table like one might find in a kitchen. The simulation ended with the subject running around the table to attack the officer with the knife. No officer who went through that test that day drew his weapon when the designer said they should, which was when the officer observed the subject with the knife. The feedback we all gave was that one would expect to find a cook using a knife on the job and that there was a stainless steel table the subject would have to jump over or run around to use the knife on the officer and that walking into a business and pointing a gun at someone at the point the designer said he should would likely result in the officer being disciplined. No officer was stabbed in the simulation. The stainless steel table slowed the subject down enough that there was plenty of time to draw and engage the subject when the attack occurred.

Perhaps if you had a longer classroom presentation on the legal aspects of use of force before you went into your scenarios you could work through the tendency to draw your weapon in inappropriate situations.

There shouldn't be a right or wrong answer in this scenario when it comes to when should the officer draw his gun. What do we know about him, what's his demeanor? One point that a lot of people don't consider when it comes to knives is that they can be thrown. I don't mean ninja style like the movies, but as in an enraged whip it across the room kind of throw. I've seen chefs throw a lot of things when they get mad including one who threw a knife. It's not the usual method of attacking with a knife but even a clumsy throw could badly injure or even kill. Use extreme caution with knives.

 

[strambo]

Not sure what conclusion I'm to draw from "belligerent, but unarmed, female."

Early in my Karate training, my Sensei partnered me with a brown belt. He underestimated the noobe and got knocked down.

Any female could be as capable as Ronda Rousey, kicks your butt and shoots you with your own weapon. You never know.

Sure, but the odds of that are very slim indeed and if they were a pro, their would be indicators. Most of these particular scenarios were "leave-able" as well. They could have backed way or even run away, but they chose to stand and draw on an un-armed female.

What they do isn't so important as to why, especially when it comes to any legal aftermath. Can you outline exactly why the un-armed female put you in immediate fear for your life to the point that deadly force was warranted? If so, great. A further point to be made...even if you can, should you? Perhaps legally you could draw, or even shoot....but was it avoidable? Could you have successfully run even if not legally required? Kinda like you look both ways when the light turns green, but there is a car looking like they are gonna run the red. You can legally pull into the intersection, you have the right of way...but do you?

A great example everyone knows about is Zimmerman. Most people look at it from the point of violence, large un-armed teen vs. armed male getting beaten on the ground.

Zimmeran lost, but he didn't lose at the point he chose to shoot Martin (and going to trial for murder.) He lost at the point he decided to follow instead of just observe and report. Yes, he had the legal right to keep following Martin, but should he? Obviously not! (certainly not that close) You can never "win" a violent confrontation...it is simply a question as to how much you will lose. If your lucky, the criminal also lives, your OK, and you just lose a few hours of freedom, and your gun into evidence for awhile.

All factors matter. A couple of un-armed females in their twenties about to go ballistic on a male senior-citizen? That's different. A 6'5 ~250lb mid 40s student vs. an unarmed female 5'7 ~150lb role player? Not a good idea...

They didn't try to leave (I'd have let them, they had an exit, and nobody else with them) and that was the point.

 

[harrygunner]

I agree Zimmerman screwed up and should have stayed in his car.

I wasn't there during your training session and I understand your concern. But I would suggest you also tell your students not to dismiss or underestimate anyone's ability to turn the situation around.

 

[herrwalther]

At any social interaction there are thousands of factors in play to determine if someone will go violent. The vast majority of them are matters beyond our control. We can't control another person's frame of mind, mental stability, or possible drug interactions. Likewise we can't determine or control the 6'4 male who has been a linebacker since age 4 or a 145 pound female who has been in martial arts is having a really bad day and wants to life into someone with their fists or a knife. 99.9% of the time, these interactions boil down to "don't shoot" scenarios. We (anyone armed) train far too much time on scenarios many of us may never be apart of. The reason I like realistic force on force training is it sets the frame of mind for "I may not have to shoot this person based on MY actions."

 

[fastbolt]

...
Perhaps if you had a longer classroom presentation on the legal aspects of use of force before you went into your scenarios you could work through the tendency to draw your weapon in inappropriate situations.

I'd think that for non-LE folks who could find and afford such a class, being able to receive some solid explanation/update of legal issues relating to the lawful, reasonable and appropriate use-of-force (particularly deadly force) would be helpful. It might also help keep some folks from mistakenly thinking their "instinctive" or "common sense" ideas were necessarily good ones, let alone reasonable and appropriate for the circumstances.

Not everyone has the sort of training and involvement in daily activities which can help them grasp what it means to consider the totality of the circumstances.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Unless my ongoing presence is needed to ensure the safety of my wife and children (or others I have a definite duty to protect) my impulse is to escape and evade as soon as there are hints of a confrontation escalating to a potential use of force. I prefer to de-escalate (or just leave) and (if necessary) continue the discussion via email if some issue must be resolved. (Email provides a nice written record, and makes it harder for folks to lie about what you said and what they said.)

But even with wife and children present, my tendency would simply be to say, "Let's go" and make a hasty exit (as quick as possible with wife and children). The only possible exception would be inside my own home, in which case I would first ask the offending parties to leave and then demand it. Folks need to push me pretty hard before I paint the walls with their blood.