LinkedIn debate

Interesting Dialogue from an ILEETA debate on LinkedIN. Can you pick out which gentleman is against knife training…?

DEVIL’S ADVOCATE: THE ANTI-KNIFE TRAINING ARGUMENT…

I am in the process of addressing the Colorado POST board / SEM committee on arrest control to try and get a basic course added to the POST LE academy training. I am interested in feedback / comments / input from other trainers in other States.

Please refer to the link below that will take you to a recent Blog posting......

Tactical Knife Options and.... tacticalknifeoptions.blogspot.com

Devil’s Advocate: The anti-knife training argument… Over the years, and despite the enormous need and desire for knife tactics training, I have heard some interesting myths surrounding knife tactics training for peace officers....

 John Franklin • Since most working street policemen carry some sort of knife on their persons, I think it's time that depts. actually consider some sort of actual training that incorporates offensive knife training along with their annual or semi-annual firearms training. If by some chance an officer is forced to defend himself by using the personal knife he/she carries on his person, they and their agency are likely going to be sued by the offender (should they survive) or the offender's surviving family. One big sticking point in many lawsuits is an alleged failure to train, or train properly. It makes good sense from that point alone for agencies to offer training in offensive knife training for those officers who choose to carry one while performing their duties.

John Weninger • My knife was used as a tool, I would have my pen as a weapon if I had to. Should we train on that too? When It comes to surviving a deadly assault against a suspect officers need to be able to think of all the weapons they could use that they have to survive such an attack. Therefore your training program should include everything to survive a deadly assault. Since you are not able to hypothesis every deadly encounter it is impossible to train to avoid being sued after surviving one of any kind of deadly incident, pistol, rifle or shotgun (whatever); period. Who sues you is not up to you, surviving is.

Peter Kolovos • If you carry a gun. Then you carry your "Weapon Retention Tool" (knife) on your Support side. Period, end of discussion. When it's a life or death struggle for your pistol and you have a knife on you, use it and use it well!

Jeff Black, M.Ed • Thanks all for the input and perspectives. I like the adage "one mind, any weapon". Meaning the proper mindset prepares and operates the body properly. Yes, a pen can be used as a weapon just like a rolled up magazine, hand full of dirt, seat belt, flashlight and so on. But only if the person is dedicated to and prepared mentally to fight, fight hard and win. My major point (at least here in CO) is that unlike the pen or flashlight, the knife is clearly defined in the CRS as a "Deadly Weapon". So if an officer knowingly carries it (just like the other defined deadly weapon: firearm) he/she should probably ahve some training with it. Proper training instills confidence by increasing awareness, ability and skill. I always ask "what would it hurt to train the officer with the knife?". It only gives them an additional deadly force option and increases situational awareness. Thanks again for all the input.

George Williams • Good job, Jeff, on your blog with explaining a lot of the fallacies advanced by the "No need to train" crowd re: duty knives. This is the same reasoning we've been arguing since 1990, when we introduced the only 4th Amendment-based nationwide duty knife training available. We've also distributed a Duty Knife model policy to over 3,000 agencies in N. America. Additionally, I initiated the discussion and design of the Benchmade Knife Company's "Trainer" training drones that perfectly duplicate the feel, weight, throw, and operation of their live counterparts.

Our Duty Knife courses have very high evals from officers because they answer fundamental questions of last-ditch survival as well as their questions about post-incident survival (not going to jail, keeping their job, and not losing their stuff). This course was developed to meet the physical defense needs (good catch, Jeff, and the offense/defense nonsense so many espouse--reasonable force can only be responsive in nature, and therefore is not "offense"), while remaining defensible during the deployment of the knife (hacking, slashing, and inflicting maximum damage will make it less likely to survive the post-incident processes). It's a proven system with 3 saves so far (where the officers each stated that it was "just like training"), and each save was bloodless because the officers followed the training (although in each case, it was reasonable to have stabbed the suspect, the warning as the officer deployed the knife was sufficient to gain compliance). While we have a military course that we teach, a police course should be focused on the reality of the officer, and not employ a knife in the same manner.

If anyone would like a copy of the policy, or more information about this course that has no martial arts techniques or military employment philosophy, is defensible (articulation points and deadly force standards are reinforced both in class and on the floor), let me know. gtwilliams@cuttingedgetraining.org.

Good luck with Colorado POST. Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you--I've been down this road for over a decade. Be safe.

Jeff Black, M.Ed • George: Thank you for the valuable feedback and willingness to share your expereince. I would love a copy of the policy you reference. I have worked with several agencies on policy development and it has arisen in civil court as well. Thanks again. I will send you an e-mail as well. Merry Christmas...

John Weninger • Good forum. George I have one of your knives. It has served me well: The knife needs new screws for the pocket clip and a paint job. I would like to play the devils advocate in the training as a prerequisite to carrying one on duty.

If anyone has been to a street survival class, an advanced pugilistic street survival class or read books, viewed your departments video library then we know that there are many weapons we can use in the last ditch effort.

In a simple fight with a 5150 resisting arrest, this suspect was wearing a backpack, I had one handcuff on the suspect in a right rear arm bar and wrist lock; suspect on their belly. I needed my partner to cut the backpack straps off the suspect to handcuff the other arm and then fit the suspect in the patrol car; empty pockets. My partner did not have knife. So he had to get one of mine. It extended the struggle. This was not a last ditch effort, it was a necessity. I bought that officer a knife that day. That's how strongly I felt the need for on was that day.

A lot of motor officers have one pen that is special, it is not for tickets to be signed with. It is one of their last ditch tools. The tools at hand, the fear of being sued, the complexity of certifying all the hypotheticals is not as necessary as the officer having the proper mind set and being physically prepared.

Law suits are inevitable. Some people wait to see if the officer is criminally negligent as found by the DA after surviving an event. Some people sue immediately via federal court. The weapons do not matter, it is the totality of the circumstances and environment that will carry the weight in the courts decision. Lethal force options, such as using a brick if a suspect has taken your weapon, are we trained to use bricks, we are trained to survive. The question will come up, have you been trained to use a brick? Are you alive to answer the question?

Going to special pugilistic schools should be an option for advanced training credits. Being ready for work is your responsibility and you should invest in yourself. The criminals do. Legislation opens the door for litigation.

Train, get trained but let's not keep a valuable tool off of officers reach when they need it for non-combat issues. Such as rescue or increasing officer safety and suspect injuries as in the above mentioned example with the backpack.

Jeff Black, M.Ed • I completely agree that the officer must have the mind-set, drive and dedication first off. However, from an Expert Witness perspective in LE UOF civil cases, the first thing plaintiffs go after is the officer’s training. Unlike the brick, a knife is designed, manufactured, sold and purchased as a weapon. In the Colorado Revised Statutes it is clearly defined as a deadly weapon. I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting that officers not be allowed to carry a duty knife as a second deadly force option. I strongly advocate for such and believe that having more than one deadly force option is tactically wise.

 I am simply stating that there is a personal and agency responsibility to train with all weapons that you carry. Officers are required to train and be certified with TASERs, OC, Batons, firearms and hand-to-hand. So, why would they not be afforded the opportunity to train with a deadly weapon; the duty knife? What possible harm can be had by developing ability, skill and confidence in a weapon that in Colorado 96% of officers carry every single day?

Mindset first of course…. However, the proper warrior mindset also dictates that you train with all of your weapon systems and develop an intimate familiarity with them prior to carrying them on the street. To do otherwise is foolish and irresponsible. After all doesn’t Dave Grossman proffer “in combat you will not rise to the occasion; you will simply default to your level of training”.

George Williams • I have to concur with Jeff re: the need to train with "weapons." I've been an expert since 1991 all over this country, defending officers against some of the best the plaintiffs' bar has to throw at us in federal and state courts. Allegations of failure to train are SOP in every case. Lt's say we now have an officer intentionally and reasonably injure a suspect with a knife, and we need to defend it.

Now, given the line of reasoning that 99+% of police knife use is for utility, we walk into federal court, stand in front of the jury holding up the knife, and say, "This is a utility tool. It is not a deadly weapon in and of itself. It is not normally used as deadly weapon, and therefore it is a utility tool. Except for this single instance...and a couple of dozen others in the last ten years where it was reasonably used to kill or injure suspects." Plaintiff's attorney will then rise, with a smirk on her face, hold the knife up and say, "Who are they trying to kid? When is a knife not a deadly weapon? If you were to have one of these in your hand, don't you think the officer might shoot you? It is a deadly weapon and the defense is simply attempting to mislead you, as they have this entire trial." To state that a knife is solely a utility tool is ingenuous, and will rightly create the appearance that we are afraid to say, "It's a knife, a deadly weapon that is most often used by police as a utility tool."

I don't believe there should be a policy and training course on everything (I knew a cop who used an overstuffed chair to hold a PCP suspect against a wall until backup arrived, but he never attended and I would never advocate "Overstuffed Chair Training" courses). However, those force tools designated as weapons, as Jeff points out, firearms, Tasers, OC, baton, etc., have policy directives as well as specific training courses. Common objects employed as "emergency measures of defense" will be covered in the officer's articulation of his reasonable perception of need at the time.

 I absolutely agree with you, John, about the mindset of integrating force. We've been teaching integrated force problem-solving for more than 30 years, directly incorporating law and all force options into every skill domain. DT classes include those times officers need to transition to deadly force and shoot the suspect. Firearms includes DT on the live-fire line so officers are not having to invent the wheel when they are physically engaged with a suspect at proximity and need to shoot. We explore expedient weapons as well as environmental weapons (fixed objects), and create the mindset of "If you force me to fight, I will bring the world to the fight."

That mindset must include a deadly weapon such as a knife if an officer is going to carry it. And if any officer in an agency carries it, that agency should ensure there is a policy regarding that force tool as a weapon, and then ensure that officer is trained to employ that weapon like a cop and not "go primitive" or use some martial art or military method of maximum infliction of damage to the suspect. It's an easy fix--the policy is free and the training is 4th Amendment compliant and (we're regularly told) the best training they've ever attended.

 I agree, don't fear the inevitable lawsuit. Fear losing that lawsuit. It's easy to protect against. Create a policy, then train it, follow it, and enforce it. Achieve reasonable conduct in the street because that's what you do. Articulate your reasonable perceptions of the imminent threat so that others can understand what you saw and what you went through.

It's just my opinion, but cops need a policy about their knives, and training in their reasonable employment. Be safe.

John Weninger • Thanks George,

I may go to Specialty Tools here in SB for the screws. Yes, the wear is staying. I bought that knife because of the quality and standards, the handle in particular is superior, which is ribbed for none slip.

In knife training I was wondering too, as in EMT classes, we have to learn the human anatomy. Knives have an anatomy of 200 probable parts if I remember correctly and 400 shapes. Would that be on a POST test? Would we need to know knife identification by anatomy parts and shapes, so that we can articulate that parts of the knife parts we used to strike, stab, block or slash a suspect?

This can be very complex if it is legislated. Being taught pugilistic through course instruction, making flash cards to study, or recordings on your smart phones to watch and listen to are great tools to keep your proper mind set trained.

This can get really technical or practical. Can it be both if it goes to POST?

George Williams • Not really sure why a lot of technical and nomenclature aspects of a knife is necessary in a user's course or an instructor's course. We are not creating "knife experts" for court. We can hire those people if technical aspects of testimony is needed (I twice served as an expert on "knives" where technical issues were a factor in the prosecution--once happened to be for my agency, and once as a professional expert).

Officers need to know when and how to efficiently and reasonably put the pointy end into the suspect, and then how to explain why it was reasonable to put their particular pointy weapon into the suspect at that particular time.

Basic nomenclature beyond that of a layman is really not necessary. Same-same with anatomy. The knife is deadly force if it breaks the skin of the suspect. We discuss and demonstrate the circulatory system of the human body in class, explaining where targets are. This is not a medical class nor intended to be such. There is no more need to articulate human anatomy when employing a knife in defense of life than there is when shooting someone in a defense of life situation. I put bullets in the center of the biggest body part I can find until I find a bigger, better body part to shoot as long as he remains an imminent threat.

There is no need to complicate training--knife or any other training. EMTs need to know anatomy at a lower level than paramedics, who in turn need a lower level than nurse practitioners. Their need is lower than a general practitioner, and so on until you reach an anatomical specialist. Cops need targets on the human body and to know that it is deadly force if they use it.

This only gets complicated when folks begin defending their own brand of martial art or training program. I used to keep up with every make and model handgun in the world, including the S&W model of the week. Now, I couldn't care less. If it has a trigger and a muzzle and an ammo source, I can make it get loud and generally hit where I'm aiming. If I press the trigger and the trigger is hard, my thumb pushes down, and if nothing clicks or moves, it pushes up--and then it gets loud. The brand and caliber are less than mildly interesting.

We need to simplify rather than complicate. We need to do training assessments of what cops actually need on the street at and before the critical moments, and then cut away all that is superfluous. While complication fascinates the human ego, simplicity generally rules the fight. Let's keep training as simple and uncomplicated as possible and teach them what they need to do the job.

John, this isn't directed AT you. I know you're just putting out questions. I have no doubt you are a responsible cop and trainer.

Jeff Black, M.Ed • I agree with George that in-depth nomenclature is not necessary for the lay-officer. I prefer to teach what physical characteristic make for a good tactical folder for duty-carry. Blade configuration, (tip up or tip down), can it be opened single handed under duress, and so on. Most officers I know understand how to field strip their firearm, but do not have the in-depth nomenclature knowledge one gleans through say, an armorers course. Same thing for the in-depth medical and anatomical knowledge. It is better to teach which type of attack (slash V. stab) is going to immediately incapacitate an attacker; Where certain targets are and how to access them rather than a full-fledged medical course. Same as with firearms training. We teach where to shoot to optimize the chances of stopping a threat as opposed to the intricacies of an MD level understanding