REAR GUARD
The Force Instructor No more single-discipline instructors
By BJ Bourg I Guest Editorial
hen suspects attack law enforcement officers, they do not proceed like static robots, using distinctive and telegraphed movements. Rather, their attacks are carried out in fl uid motion, and their move- ments fl ow seamlessly from one to the other without interruption. The situation can begin with a verbal cue and escalate rapidly into a deadly attack, or it can begin as a deadly assault and de-escalate immediately to the point of being non-threatening.
W Considering the dynamic and fl uid nature of
these situations, instructors should make their training as seamless as possible—up and down the force continuum—in order for offi cers to develop the edge they need to survive, as well as the foresight to avoid overreacting to a rapidly de-escalating situation.
If instructors segregate empty-handed defen- sive tactics training from less-lethal training from fi rearms training, they create a number of prob- lems that could prove detrimental to an offi cer’s safety, especially if there are diff erent instructors specializing in the diff erent types of training. One of the biggest problems with having specialized instructors is the potential for incon- sistency in training. For instance, fi rearms in- structors might advocate a shooting stance that diff ers from the fi ghting stance taught by de- fensive tactics instructors. Firearms instructors might recommend a particular stance because it improves an offi cer’s accuracy, while defensive tactics instructors may argue it compromises the principles of balance and movement and could place an offi cer in grave danger. Additionally, less-lethal instructors might
recommend deploying a TASER in the same situation a fi rearms instructor might advise utilizing deadly force, and so on. T ese types of inconsistencies can lead to confusion, which could cause hesitation and result in offi cers get- ting hurt or killed.
One remedy would be to have the diff erent instructors come together and exchange infor- mation to ensure they are teaching the same techniques across the use-of-force spectrum. By letting the “right hand know what the left hand” is doing, instructors can minimize the amount of inconsistencies between the diff erent levels of force training. While this would be better than the aforementioned alternative, it still is not the seamless approach necessary to adequately pre- pare offi cers for rapidly evolving attacks. When boxers train for a fi ght, they don’t
segregate off ensive techniques from defensive techniques and from footwork, because this approach would not closely replicate what will actually take place during the fi ght. Instead, they work on all of their techniques simulta- neously, fl owing seamlessly from off ense to defense while utilizing proper footwork. If of- fi cers combine empty-handed defensive tactics training with less-lethal training and fi rearms training, they will be able to more eff ectively and seamlessly transition up and down the force continuum.
While this all-inclusive approach is necessary
for offi cer survival, how can instructors pro- mote it if they do not practice it themselves? T us, rather than thinking in terms of “fi rearms instructor” or “defensive tactics instructor” or “less-lethal instructor,” the law enforcement
community should transition to “force instruc- tor.” T ese force instructors should be certifi ed in all areas of offi cer survival, which should defi nitely include verbal communication. T e benefi ts could be immeasurable. Con- sider a force instructor teaching fi rearms and observing an offi cer shooting in a squared-up stance. He would be able to immediately ex- plain the dangers of facing a suspect in that manner because of his instructor-level defensive tactics training, whereas a fi rearms instructor might not recognize the problem. Similarly, a force instructor might recog- nize that a rising block violates the principles of weapon retention because of his instructor- level fi rearms training, while a defensive tactics instructor might not. Additionally, in a single training session, force instructors would be able to immediately transition from fi rearms to less- lethal to defensive tactics and back to fi rearms, whereas an individual with a single instructor certifi cation would not.
Utilizing this all-inclusive method would promote consistency in training and ensure a seamless and ever-evolving approach to use of force, which more closely replicates what hap- pens in a real attack.
BJ Bourg is the chief investigator for the Lafourche Parish District Attorney’s Offi ce. He has more than 20 years of law enforcement experience and has served in various capacities, including patrol, investigations, training and special operations. He can be reached at
bjbourg@bjbourg.com.
Post your comments on this story by visiting
www.trmagonline.com
Lt. Ed Sanow
Ed Sanow I Editorial Director
Lieutenant Ed Sanow is the director of force training for his department, coordinating or instructing both patrol and tactical team training. He may be reached at
esanow@hendonpub.com
T e strong have a duty to protect the weak. – George W. Bush To post your comments on this story, please visit
www.trmagonline.com 64 Tactical Response Fall 2015
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68