Flashlights as a tactic?

[Robo_Railer]

Does anyone else see a light as part of their arsenal?

You betcha. I've used the same Streamlight SL-20 since sometime around 1978. (Just got it back from the company a few weeks ago, after having a new switch installed.) It might have been earlier that I got it, but the ballpark date comes to mind because I remember one particular time I used it.
I had just finished checking the district AFOSI building one night and was heading back to my patrol car. I was kinda out in the open between the building and the car when I encountered two people walking in the darkness nearby. I caught them in the beam of the Streamlight, and quickly realized it was just a couple of guys taking a shortcut from their barracks to the NCO club. No threat, but I still remember the looks on their faces when they couldn't see who or what was behind the light.

I can't wait until the liberals start using the term "Assault Flashlight".

That may not be that far away. The Nov./Dec. issue of American COP magazine has an article titled "Too Much Light?" and a subtitle of "Academics Should Stay In Their Offices." The author, Ken Good, offers great rebuttal to an article that appeared in the Nov. 2005 issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. I've just brought up the link to the Bulletin article, "Perspective--Use of Force and High-Intensity Tactical Police Flashlights Policy Concerns," so I haven't read all of it yet. (Maybe some night when I can't get to sleep . . .) As you might guess, that was written by R. Paul McCauley, Ph.D.
Based on what I've seen of it so far, the gist of it is that someone illuminated by a bright flashlight might involuntarily make a move that could be interpreted by police as a threat, and end up getting shot. No mention of the fact that the light helps the officer determine whether or not the party being illuminated has the Ability and Opportunity to cause the officer harm, thereby placing the officer in imminent Jeopardy. No ability/opportunity means no jeopardy. No jeopardy should mean no need for the use of deadly force by the police.
I don't remember if it was from a Streamlight or other ad years ago, or something from Massad Ayoob or another writer, but it's always stuck with me: "They can't hurt you if they can't see you."

And on a more cheerful note, here's wishing all THR-types and their loved ones a safe, prosperous and Happy New Year.

 

[JMusic]

Geweher98, point well taken. What I was told was it came from the "Guard" it could have very easily not been from a military aircraft. No point to this actually I was only reminenesing. You have my appology. Where ever they came from they were Damn bright.

What got me to thinking about flashlights was my recent purchase of a light built by someone on this forum. As I charged it up and waited the cooling down period I couldn't help but admire the lines of the Mag 3D. Then I dug out my 5 d cell Streamlight and admired it. No longer pristine(it looks like you had batted rocks with it) I realized how much I depended on good lights. Thus the thread. I had hoped to discuss tactics and different ways the light is used. Sure it can be used as a club, it can also be used as ways to contain people. The list is endless. Anyway have a Happy New Year.

Jim

 

[Tim Burke]

At the NTI's, the role players are not to be physically harmed by the attendees

Is there any place routinely doing FoF training exercises in which the role players are expected to be harmed by the trainees?
Any simulation is going to deviate from reality to a greater or lesser extent. That doesn't mean that extrapolations can not be made from the simulation. However, discussing the limitations of FoF exercises is not the topic at hand.
Effective blinding with a light requires a very powerful light and very dark conditions. We seldom get that in the real world. I'm inclined to agree that the light may buy you a bit of time, but I'm thinking two beats, not two measures. If you don't have a plan when you deploy it, you probably don't have time to think of one before your advantage dissipates.

 

[Atticus]

Does your tactics include the use of a light (other than a means of illumination), and if so is it a weapon that you plan on using as you escalate up the ladder to ultimately deadly force?

One of the most useful demos I've seen with a light, involved turning it on, laying it down on the roof of the car (pointed at the bad guy), and walking to the side while covering the target. The person doing this had me cold. He could of walked or run away just as easily.

 

[JMusic]

Just something to think about but you generally have two visual impacts with a light. One when you turn it on, two when you turn it off. Try it on yourself and you will see what I'm saying. TB you are dead on you need to have plans ahead of time prior to using your light. I see a light as an offensive weapon. But then I see self defense in an offensive light, pardon the pun.

Jim

 

[BullfrogKen]

brownie0486 said: At the NTI's, the role players are not to be physically harmed by the attendees [ at least the one I attended ]. If one were to use a 3 or 4 D cell flashlight as Jim has actually used on the streets, against people at NTI, I would have to guess the results would be the same.

As Tim Burke points out:

Is there any place routinely doing FoF training exercises in which the role players are expected to be harmed by the trainees?

The instructional value of role playing is not as a sparring event. Its value is of testing one's interpersonal skills, and evaluating if the techniques one uses has value in dynamic exercises. Yes, at an NTI, role players are not to be physically harmed. Keep in mind, neither are Practitioners . . .

If you were to use a 3-4 pound flashlight as a club on someone's skull, I have no doubt of its effectiveness in its use as such.

brownie0486 said: Here again, NTI would seem to be a poor indicator to me of peoples street reactions. How I would react on the streets is not how I was allowed to react at NTI in some of the scenarios, to insure the role players did not get injured.

Practitioners are free to act within the limitation of not injuring or physically attacking role players. Accordingly, role players restrain themselves from performing the same actions on Practitioners.

brownie0486 said: With the above determination, would it be safe to assume that the ones who pressed the attack were told to fight through and press on as best they could with the specific goal of making determinations through observations for the study of this subject?

No. Role players, both at our study group sessions, and at the NTI events, are given pretexts on which to initiate an encounter, general motivations to govern the role players' state of mind based on the encounters, and are then encouraged to respond to the Practitioner's words, actions, and presence to let the encounter resolve itself however that occurs.

Again it would seem that this might likely be the case at NTI, in the form of research into the subject through role playing. Keeping in mind the role players are not to be physically harmed by the attendees at the annual event, I'm having difficulty believing that real data can be extrapolated that mirrors the street.

The backgrounds that the role players draw upon for scenarios and governing attitudes come from actual events and the criminal element. Most of these came directly from hundreds of frank, unguarded personal interviews with felons regarding their motivations, mindset, actual responses to their victims' behavior.


Focusing on the limitations restricting physical sparring in role playing diverts attention from its benefit - testing those interpersonal skills. If the response to a "bump" encounter, as we tend to call the interview period of the prelude to the attack, is to resort to force, any interaction with another then is quite unnecessary. Plenty of venues allows the student to practice his sparring abilities. Role playing and Force on Force offers the rare opportunity to practice, and also get another's insight, into the effectiveness of our interpersonal skills.

 

[brownie0486]

The backgrounds that the role players draw upon for scenarios and governing attitudes come from actual events and the criminal element.

I understand that, however, not being allowed to react to the "bangers"/roleplayers apparent intentions as I would have on the street, by taking the initiative and getting the gun in hand and ready to rock, would have allowed those roleplayers to "win", when on the street, with situational awareness as it was, they would have lost.

Knowing I was not going to allow them to carry out their planned attack on me, they stopped the scenario and sent me to jail. Thats not very informative research or data to my thinking.

Brownie

 

[shotgunkevin]

I tend to think of a bright flashlight as an introduction to a hands-on technique. It should buy a very little time to do something effective, but in and of itself will not accomplish much. Additionally, a handful of anodized aluminum will stiffen up a punch, I'd imagine.