T Nation

Southpaw or Orthodox for Law Enforcement

I’m looking for some insight from others as to the pros and cons of each stance and which one would be most beneficial for me specifically given my circumstances.

I have 6 months of boxing experience in a southpaw stance and will start working in law enforcement where I will wear my firearm on my right side (since I am right handed and right eye dominant). If I were to stick with a southpaw stance, my firearm is a lot more exposed in this stance than the orthodox position. This is a serious concern.

Here are some of my notes:

  • I am naturally right handed
  • Punch harder with my left hand
  • Move fluidly as a southpaw
  • I recently tried to switch to orthodox and my footwork, jab, and right cross just doesn’t feel comfortable. I am a lot slower and generate less punching power from the orthodox stance.
  • My technique is considerably better as a southpaw

Here are some reasons why I may want to train as an orthodox fighter

  • I kick A LOT harder with my right leg in an orthodox stance.
  • My firearm is on my right side. In a bladed orthodox stance, my firearm is less reachable than in the southpaw stance
  • I plan on training in Muay Thai and kicking harder in the orthodox position with my right leg seems like a good reason to switch to orthodox
  • I want to add in some Judo and I’ve read that most wrestlers train with their dominant hand in the front. When I grappled in the past, I did so as a southpaw and felt a lot more comfortable. Not sure if this matters much for Judo

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Happy Turkey Day!

My initial reaction is to say to fight how you’re most comfortable.

I am also a predominantly right-handed person, but I’ve always fought southpaw. The footwork is more natural for me (I literally can barely move in an orthodox position) and this gives me the benefit of not only having a good left hand, but also a strong jab and right hook. My right hook, actually, is my Sunday punch, which is unusual for lefty. I can also punch with my right hand , I’ve recently found, and my straight right hand and hook out of the orthodox stance is fairly strong, which allows me to change up a little while sparring and working the bags. But I still have NO movement, and if I want to go somewhere, I have to switch stances or back out and reset.

Now, I only box, and I don’t know shit about Muay Thai, but I remember back in my karate days being struck with a similar dilemma - I couldn’t kick for shit with my left leg, but couldn’t really do much of anything BESIDES kick while in the orthodox stance. So basically I hated kicking, sucked at it, and switched to boxing because fuck karate.

So if you want to kick, and are going to depend on kicking, then switch to orthodox. If fighting with your fists is more your style and you can make it work, continue fighting southpaw.

But whatever you do, don’t let your ideas of what you’ll be doing on duty affect that choice. If you’re “boxing” or “fighting” with criminals you’re supposed to be arresting, you’ve made some seriously bad choices leading up to that moment.

You’re supposed to arrest them. Detain them until backup comes. Pin them down so you can handcuff them. You’re not supposed to have your gun in your holster, while your fists are up, challenging some crackhead to a mano-y-mano bout on Jerome Avenue at 4 a.m.

And I suspect that while being a cop, you’re going to find yourself getting into altercations in some pretty strange ass places - small rooms, stairwells, maybe in the backseat of a car - where what hand you’re leading with is going to be the least of your worries.

Moral of the story is you must separate your sport fighting pursuits from your ideas of what street violence is and how you’ll handle it. They’re not mutually exclusive… especially in this world where laying a criminal down with a hook or a roundhouse is more likely to get you locked up for brutality than anything else.

I’ve trained with very highly respected and experienced RMA coaches/LEO instructors who say to go strong side forward and ones that say go weak side forward. In the end you simply need to make your decision and then work the hell out of your skills from that position; also realize that it’s always a good idea to be able to function from both stances as well as a neutral stance, seated, laying on the ground, sitting in your car, etc…as you could potentially start a confrontation in any position.

Here are some of the pros and cons that I can think of off the top of my head; hopefully some of the experienced LEO’s that post on this forum will chime in with more:

Orthodox (assuming right handed) pros-
-firearm is less easily accessible to being taken from you (assuming you can face opponent)
-generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

Cons-
-weaker lead hand strike and lead leg strike, which also means in general you will have less neuromuscular coordination/speed/accuracy when/if utilizing other tools such as a night stick with the lead arm, or less range with the weapon if using it with your rear hand (bad for weapon on weapon scenarios)

Southpaw pros-
-strongest more neuromuscularly skilled hand (or weapon utilized) and leg will be closer to opponent meaning quicker delivery of attacks with lead side

Cons-
-again, you will need to switch from your regular stance to effectively fire your firearm
-easier access to weapon by unarmed assailant

Hope this helps, good luck.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I’ve trained with very highly respected and experienced RMA coaches/LEO instructors who say to go strong side forward and ones that say go weak side forward. In the end you simply need to make your decision and then work the hell out of your skills from that position; also realize that it’s always a good idea to be able to function from both stances as well as a neutral stance, seated, laying on the ground, sitting in your car, etc…as you could potentially start a confrontation in any position.

Here are some of the pros and cons that I can think of off the top of my head; hopefully some of the experienced LEO’s that post on this forum will chime in with more:

Orthodox (assuming right handed) pros-
-firearm is less easily accessible to being taken from you (assuming you can face opponent)
-generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

Cons-
-weaker lead hand strike and lead leg strike, which also means in general you will have less neuromuscular coordination/speed/accuracy when/if utilizing other tools such as a night stick with the lead arm, or less range with the weapon if using it with your rear hand (bad for weapon on weapon scenarios)

Southpaw pros-
-strongest more neuromuscularly skilled hand (or weapon utilized) and leg will be closer to opponent meaning quicker delivery of attacks with lead side

Cons-
-again, you will need to switch from your regular stance to effectively fire your firearm
-easier access to weapon by unarmed assailant

Hope this helps, good luck.
[/quote]

Thanks a ton Sentoguy. This is very very helpful and a solid breakdown of the pros and cons. Awesome job man. The strongest and only con against the southpaw stance is that an unarmed assailant has easier access to the weapon (which you mentioned). If it weren’t for this reason, the choice would be easy.

The LEO instructors who you have trained with who recommend strong side forward, what are their thoughts on having the firearm on the front side? In other words, what they did say and believe in to help mitigate the serious concerns involved with having the firearm on the front side?

Thanks again for your very helpful post.

I think its as simple as identifying your dominant eye.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

[/quote]

This was definitely an initial problem for me. Holding the gun in my left hand is quite impossible, but standing with my weak (left) leg forward while shooting “righty” also felt strange, since I do everything athletic - from swinging a bat to playing golf - from a southpaw stance.

As a result, I’ve adopted much more of a squared-off stance. Although it’s not as comfortable as having my left leg back, it’s doable.

That being said, the friend that I’ve learned to shoot from - who is a cop and veteran of multiple branches of the service - uses a pretty squared-off stance, and he is very accurate.

[quote]donnydarkoirl wrote:
I think its as simple as identifying your dominant eye.[/quote]

It’s more difficult than that if you’re in the situation that the OP is. Trust me.

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I’ve trained with very highly respected and experienced RMA coaches/LEO instructors who say to go strong side forward and ones that say go weak side forward. In the end you simply need to make your decision and then work the hell out of your skills from that position; also realize that it’s always a good idea to be able to function from both stances as well as a neutral stance, seated, laying on the ground, sitting in your car, etc…as you could potentially start a confrontation in any position.

Here are some of the pros and cons that I can think of off the top of my head; hopefully some of the experienced LEO’s that post on this forum will chime in with more:

Orthodox (assuming right handed) pros-
-firearm is less easily accessible to being taken from you (assuming you can face opponent)
-generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

Cons-
-weaker lead hand strike and lead leg strike, which also means in general you will have less neuromuscular coordination/speed/accuracy when/if utilizing other tools such as a night stick with the lead arm, or less range with the weapon if using it with your rear hand (bad for weapon on weapon scenarios)

Southpaw pros-
-strongest more neuromuscularly skilled hand (or weapon utilized) and leg will be closer to opponent meaning quicker delivery of attacks with lead side

Cons-
-again, you will need to switch from your regular stance to effectively fire your firearm
-easier access to weapon by unarmed assailant

Hope this helps, good luck.
[/quote]

Thanks a ton Sentoguy. This is very very helpful and a solid breakdown of the pros and cons. Awesome job man. The strongest and only con against the southpaw stance is that an unarmed assailant has easier access to the weapon (which you mentioned). If it weren’t for this reason, the choice would be easy.

The LEO instructors who you have trained with who recommend strong side forward, what are their thoughts on having the firearm on the front side? In other words, what they did say and believe in to help mitigate the serious concerns involved with having the firearm on the front side?

Thanks again for your very helpful post.[/quote]

No problem.

Their argument had to do primarily with being able to utilize the front hand as a more effective weapon (for striking) and that at a close range your first reaction are going to need to be unarmed anyway since there will be insufficient time to draw and utilize the weapon. It’s only after you’ve utilized empty hands stuff that you’ll be able to step back and access the weapon. In other words, generally a hard punch,elbow, shield, etc…to the bio computer/brain will interrupt/stop a person’s fixation on accessing your weapon/tool and give you the time/distance to access it yourself.

That said, they also teach a “gun shield” with the gun held in the rear (strong side back) for close quarters shooting.

So again, realistically you need to be competent from either stance, squared, or any other position that you regularly find yourself in. Also realize that while the balance and basic structural stance mechanics that boxing teaches and striking speed, power, timing, judgement, and accuracy that boxing teaches are extremely useful for an LEO, you really aren’t going to be dancing around like in a boxing match (or if you are, something went very wrong), so you only really need basic footwork for the most part.

I’m not suggesting that you don’t continue to practice and refine your boxing skills, in fact I’d highly recommend you continue to develop them. Just realize that as a LEO, you don’t want to ever wind up in a sparring match/boxing match against an assailant.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

[/quote]

This was definitely an initial problem for me. Holding the gun in my left hand is quite impossible, but standing with my weak (left) leg forward while shooting “righty” also felt strange, since I do everything athletic - from swinging a bat to playing golf - from a southpaw stance.

As a result, I’ve adopted much more of a squared-off stance. Although it’s not as comfortable as having my left leg back, it’s doable.

That being said, the friend that I’ve learned to shoot from - who is a cop and veteran of multiple branches of the service - uses a pretty squared-off stance, and he is very accurate.[/quote]

That’s called an “Isosceles stance” and I’ve trained with some very knowledgeable firearms instructors who prefer that stance, especially for beginners. Whether that or a “Weaver stance” (strong foot back) makes more sense is going on the situation (you can’t really stay squared if you are sweeping a house), your level of experience (Isosceles is generally easier for beginners to feel stable, and easier to sight from), and of course just preference.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

[/quote]

This was definitely an initial problem for me. Holding the gun in my left hand is quite impossible, but standing with my weak (left) leg forward while shooting “righty” also felt strange, since I do everything athletic - from swinging a bat to playing golf - from a southpaw stance.

As a result, I’ve adopted much more of a squared-off stance. Although it’s not as comfortable as having my left leg back, it’s doable.

That being said, the friend that I’ve learned to shoot from - who is a cop and veteran of multiple branches of the service - uses a pretty squared-off stance, and he is very accurate.[/quote]

Isoceles (squared) shooting seems to be gaining popularity right now, both for pistol and (perhaps more surprisingly) long gun.

Part of the reason, as I’ve heard it explained, is that the vast majority of shooters will default to a square stance when shooting at close range, dynamically and under stress (as in during a gunfight). This includes Weaver trained shooters. It’s involuntary, not unlike how trained boxers will often end up squaring up toe to toe and just hammering away when it’s for real. Training has a way of going out the window in a hurry when the lizard brain’s in charge.

So, if that’s what you’ll almost certainly do when it counts and you don’t have 100’s of hours to devote to training that response out, why not train to shoot that way? I agree that it feels awkward as ass at first (especially with a rifle/carbine), but it gets easier.

The other argument, I believe has, to do with your ability to brace against the recoil to stay on target for quick follow up shots. The thinking goes that you are more able to do this if the weapon is pushing straight back into your centre of mass as opposed to on a diagonal across your body, or at least that’s how I’ve understood the firearms guys who’ve tried to explain it to me. Any of the guys with more in depth firearms backgrounds, feel free to set me straight, of course.

[quote]donnydarkoirl wrote:
I think its as simple as identifying your dominant eye.[/quote]

It is a lot more complicated than that. There are a lot of different variables in policing.

I am right eye dominant.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

[/quote]

This was definitely an initial problem for me. Holding the gun in my left hand is quite impossible, but standing with my weak (left) leg forward while shooting “righty” also felt strange, since I do everything athletic - from swinging a bat to playing golf - from a southpaw stance.

As a result, I’ve adopted much more of a squared-off stance. Although it’s not as comfortable as having my left leg back, it’s doable.

That being said, the friend that I’ve learned to shoot from - who is a cop and veteran of multiple branches of the service - uses a pretty squared-off stance, and he is very accurate.[/quote]

Interesting you mentioned that because I initially started shooting with my left hand but the instructors recommended that I changed to right handed because I am naturally right handed and right eye dominant. I really can’t notice any discernible difference except that I draw my firearm quicker with my right hand.

I feel the same way regarding the athletic southpaw stance. I spent all of my childhood and high school years playing competitive basketball and as a righty in basketball my stance mirrored a southpaw stance.

Thanks for your insight and help. Your first post was very good, too.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I’ve trained with very highly respected and experienced RMA coaches/LEO instructors who say to go strong side forward and ones that say go weak side forward. In the end you simply need to make your decision and then work the hell out of your skills from that position; also realize that it’s always a good idea to be able to function from both stances as well as a neutral stance, seated, laying on the ground, sitting in your car, etc…as you could potentially start a confrontation in any position.

Here are some of the pros and cons that I can think of off the top of my head; hopefully some of the experienced LEO’s that post on this forum will chime in with more:

Orthodox (assuming right handed) pros-
-firearm is less easily accessible to being taken from you (assuming you can face opponent)
-generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

Cons-
-weaker lead hand strike and lead leg strike, which also means in general you will have less neuromuscular coordination/speed/accuracy when/if utilizing other tools such as a night stick with the lead arm, or less range with the weapon if using it with your rear hand (bad for weapon on weapon scenarios)

Southpaw pros-
-strongest more neuromuscularly skilled hand (or weapon utilized) and leg will be closer to opponent meaning quicker delivery of attacks with lead side

Cons-
-again, you will need to switch from your regular stance to effectively fire your firearm
-easier access to weapon by unarmed assailant

Hope this helps, good luck.
[/quote]

Thanks a ton Sentoguy. This is very very helpful and a solid breakdown of the pros and cons. Awesome job man. The strongest and only con against the southpaw stance is that an unarmed assailant has easier access to the weapon (which you mentioned). If it weren’t for this reason, the choice would be easy.

The LEO instructors who you have trained with who recommend strong side forward, what are their thoughts on having the firearm on the front side? In other words, what they did say and believe in to help mitigate the serious concerns involved with having the firearm on the front side?

Thanks again for your very helpful post.[/quote]

No problem.

Their argument had to do primarily with being able to utilize the front hand as a more effective weapon (for striking) and that at a close range your first reaction are going to need to be unarmed anyway since there will be insufficient time to draw and utilize the weapon. It’s only after you’ve utilized empty hands stuff that you’ll be able to step back and access the weapon. In other words, generally a hard punch,elbow, shield, etc…to the bio computer/brain will interrupt/stop a person’s fixation on accessing your weapon/tool and give you the time/distance to access it yourself.

That said, they also teach a “gun shield” with the gun held in the rear (strong side back) for close quarters shooting.

So again, realistically you need to be competent from either stance, squared, or any other position that you regularly find yourself in. Also realize that while the balance and basic structural stance mechanics that boxing teaches and striking speed, power, timing, judgement, and accuracy that boxing teaches are extremely useful for an LEO, you really aren’t going to be dancing around like in a boxing match (or if you are, something went very wrong), so you only really need basic footwork for the most part.

I’m not suggesting that you don’t continue to practice and refine your boxing skills, in fact I’d highly recommend you continue to develop them. Just realize that as a LEO, you don’t want to ever wind up in a sparring match/boxing match against an assailant.

[/quote]

Thanks. I like their argument and it makes a lot of sense especially in my case. I agree with you that I should be prepared to utilize both stances because the unpredictability of law enforcement work could have me starting off in either an orthodox, squared, or southpaw stance. There are so many variables at work here.

As for boxing, although I really enjoy it, I do know the inherent limitations specifically in law enforcement where I am more likely to grapple with a perpetrator. I am going to transition over to Judo and Muay Thai training.

If you don’t mind me asking, do you know of some competent and highly respected training agencies who specialize in firearms tactics within the northeast? I am looking to supplement my department training with outside training.

Thanks a again for your very helpful comments.

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:
I’m looking for some insight from others as to the pros and cons of each stance and which one would be most beneficial for me specifically given my circumstances.

I have 6 months of boxing experience in a southpaw stance and will start working in law enforcement where I will wear my firearm on my right side (since I am right handed and right eye dominant). If I were to stick with a southpaw stance, my firearm is a lot more exposed in this stance than the orthodox position. This is a serious concern.

Here are some of my notes:

  • I am naturally right handed
  • Punch harder with my left hand
  • Move fluidly as a southpaw
  • I recently tried to switch to orthodox and my footwork, jab, and right cross just doesn’t feel comfortable. I am a lot slower and generate less punching power from the orthodox stance.
  • My technique is considerably better as a southpaw

Here are some reasons why I may want to train as an orthodox fighter

  • I kick A LOT harder with my right leg in an orthodox stance.
  • My firearm is on my right side. In a bladed orthodox stance, my firearm is less reachable than in the southpaw stance
  • I plan on training in Muay Thai and kicking harder in the orthodox position with my right leg seems like a good reason to switch to orthodox
  • I want to add in some Judo and I’ve read that most wrestlers train with their dominant hand in the front. When I grappled in the past, I did so as a southpaw and felt a lot more comfortable. Not sure if this matters much for Judo

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Happy Turkey Day![/quote]

Disclosure:

I’ve dabbled in MA, and I am no expert in that area by any means. I’m currently assigned to patrols and it’s really different training in the gym and being on the road.

Forget the kicks unless you’re in real trouble. It looks bad in court, and really bad on Youtube. LEOs aren’t really taught kicks, and the defense is going to pick you apart for deviating from what you were trained to do.

I would avoid punching with your gun hand as well. If you break it, it will be very hard to draw your weapon if you need to. Do a few drills drawing your gun from a Level III holster with your opposite hand. It can be done, but it’s far from ideal.

Keep your gun bladed away from bad guy. Enough said.

I wouldn’t add in grappling, I would focus on it. It will be much more useful to you. The only time you should be striking is if you need to create some distance. You have some tools on your belt, utilize them. If OC spray, a baton, or a taser don’t work out, punching him in the face probably won’t, either.

I wouldn’t worry about fluidity too much. I feel pretty fluid after I get warmed up on the bag, but I’m not so fluid working with 4 hours of sleep on the night shift after sitting in a car with all my gear on. Put all your equipment on and spar with some buddies to see what’s it’s like. You’ll see what is good, and what is not so good pretty quickly.

Having said all that, always remember that as an LEO you can’t lose a fight. Do what you have to do if it means going home.

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:
I’m looking for some insight from others as to the pros and cons of each stance and which one would be most beneficial for me specifically given my circumstances.

I have 6 months of boxing experience in a southpaw stance and will start working in law enforcement where I will wear my firearm on my right side (since I am right handed and right eye dominant). If I were to stick with a southpaw stance, my firearm is a lot more exposed in this stance than the orthodox position. This is a serious concern.

Here are some of my notes:

  • I am naturally right handed
  • Punch harder with my left hand
  • Move fluidly as a southpaw
  • I recently tried to switch to orthodox and my footwork, jab, and right cross just doesn’t feel comfortable. I am a lot slower and generate less punching power from the orthodox stance.
  • My technique is considerably better as a southpaw

Here are some reasons why I may want to train as an orthodox fighter

  • I kick A LOT harder with my right leg in an orthodox stance.
  • My firearm is on my right side. In a bladed orthodox stance, my firearm is less reachable than in the southpaw stance
  • I plan on training in Muay Thai and kicking harder in the orthodox position with my right leg seems like a good reason to switch to orthodox
  • I want to add in some Judo and I’ve read that most wrestlers train with their dominant hand in the front. When I grappled in the past, I did so as a southpaw and felt a lot more comfortable. Not sure if this matters much for Judo

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Happy Turkey Day![/quote]

Disclosure:

I’ve dabbled in MA, and I am no expert in that area by any means. I’m currently assigned to patrols and it’s really different training in the gym and being on the road.

Forget the kicks unless you’re in real trouble. It looks bad in court, and really bad on Youtube. LEOs aren’t really taught kicks, and the defense is going to pick you apart for deviating from what you were trained to do.

I would avoid punching with your gun hand as well. If you break it, it will be very hard to draw your weapon if you need to. Do a few drills drawing your gun from a Level III holster with your opposite hand. It can be done, but it’s far from ideal.

Keep your gun bladed away from bad guy. Enough said.

I wouldn’t add in grappling, I would focus on it. It will be much more useful to you. The only time you should be striking is if you need to create some distance. You have some tools on your belt, utilize them. If OC spray, a baton, or a taser don’t work out, punching him in the face probably won’t, either.

I wouldn’t worry about fluidity too much. I feel pretty fluid after I get warmed up on the bag, but I’m not so fluid working with 4 hours of sleep on the night shift after sitting in a car with all my gear on. Put all your equipment on and spar with some buddies to see what’s it’s like. You’ll see what is good, and what is not so good pretty quickly.

Having said all that, always remember that as an LEO you can’t lose a fight. Do what you have to do if it means going home. [/quote]

Thanks. I appreciate the advice especially coming from a fellow LEO. One of the reasons why I want to start Muay Thai is because it will also give me a comprehensive overview on how to defend against kicks, knees, and punches. I agree with you that kicking with all of that equipment is rough and kicking and punching doesn’t look good in court, but, having solid defense is paramount if someone is throwing any of those strikes.

As for grappling, I am going to start training in Judo. This will help me tremendously, more so than Muay Thai or Boxing. I read an article called “Why Every Cop Should Study Judo” (http://www.boxingscene.com/martial-arts/32531.php). I am sure you can attest to what is said in the article.

Excellent point about not punching with my gun hand. I hadn’t really thought about it the way you put it but that’s something I just learned from you.

Thanks again for all of your help and best wishes on your LEO career brother.

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:
I’m looking for some insight from others as to the pros and cons of each stance and which one would be most beneficial for me specifically given my circumstances.

I have 6 months of boxing experience in a southpaw stance and will start working in law enforcement where I will wear my firearm on my right side (since I am right handed and right eye dominant). If I were to stick with a southpaw stance, my firearm is a lot more exposed in this stance than the orthodox position. This is a serious concern.

Here are some of my notes:

  • I am naturally right handed
  • Punch harder with my left hand
  • Move fluidly as a southpaw
  • I recently tried to switch to orthodox and my footwork, jab, and right cross just doesn’t feel comfortable. I am a lot slower and generate less punching power from the orthodox stance.
  • My technique is considerably better as a southpaw

Here are some reasons why I may want to train as an orthodox fighter

  • I kick A LOT harder with my right leg in an orthodox stance.
  • My firearm is on my right side. In a bladed orthodox stance, my firearm is less reachable than in the southpaw stance
  • I plan on training in Muay Thai and kicking harder in the orthodox position with my right leg seems like a good reason to switch to orthodox
  • I want to add in some Judo and I’ve read that most wrestlers train with their dominant hand in the front. When I grappled in the past, I did so as a southpaw and felt a lot more comfortable. Not sure if this matters much for Judo

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Happy Turkey Day![/quote]

Disclosure:

I’ve dabbled in MA, and I am no expert in that area by any means. I’m currently assigned to patrols and it’s really different training in the gym and being on the road.

Forget the kicks unless you’re in real trouble. It looks bad in court, and really bad on Youtube. LEOs aren’t really taught kicks, and the defense is going to pick you apart for deviating from what you were trained to do.

I would avoid punching with your gun hand as well. If you break it, it will be very hard to draw your weapon if you need to. Do a few drills drawing your gun from a Level III holster with your opposite hand. It can be done, but it’s far from ideal.

Keep your gun bladed away from bad guy. Enough said.

I wouldn’t add in grappling, I would focus on it. It will be much more useful to you. The only time you should be striking is if you need to create some distance. You have some tools on your belt, utilize them. If OC spray, a baton, or a taser don’t work out, punching him in the face probably won’t, either.

I wouldn’t worry about fluidity too much. I feel pretty fluid after I get warmed up on the bag, but I’m not so fluid working with 4 hours of sleep on the night shift after sitting in a car with all my gear on. Put all your equipment on and spar with some buddies to see what’s it’s like. You’ll see what is good, and what is not so good pretty quickly.

Having said all that, always remember that as an LEO you can’t lose a fight. Do what you have to do if it means going home. [/quote]

Good stuff. Just wanted to expand on a few things, for the sake of discussion. As always, I defer to the voice of experience. Most of the first hand observations below are from force on force reality based scenario training for LE fleshed out by discussions with trainers who have tons of road time.

Regarding punching, closed fist strikes of any kind delivered to hard surfaces are less desirable due to potential hand injuries. Other than the shovel hook to the ribs (which I am a fan of) virtually all hand strikes are better delivered with the palm. Punching a guy in the teeth bare handed may or may not result in a busted hand but it will almost certainly result in cut up knuckles which will very possibly result in fluid exchange, which is less desirable given the nature of some of the clientele LE works with on the road.

Knees and elbows are both much more resistant to superficial injuries (cuts etc) and more severe injuries (fractures) and therefore, IMO make better striking surfaces for LE than the hands in most cases. They also allow a smaller, weaker, less skilled officer to transfer more mass into the strike and thus deliver a heavier, more effective strike than most boxing based techniques will. Thus a larger, stronger more trained officer will get the subject under control that much more quickly/safely. Knees/elbows are also gross motor skill based and therefore won’t deteriorate too much under combat stress. Furthermore, they are effective inside bad breath range (i.e I’m trying to take this guy into custody and he’s resisting range) where most punches will be a bit smothered and most cops get into tussles. Controlling distance is difficult at best in real world violence, all the more so when the goal is to get close enough to establish control.

Regarding striking v. grappling, I absolutely agree that every cop should be a competent stand up grappler. I think that this may be more important than being a skilled striker, but I haven’t made up my mind just yet. However, my understanding and observation has been that, unless you grossly outclass someone in terms of size, strength and/or skill, trying to directly lock/throw/wrestle/control them without first delivering a strike or two to disrupt his attention is likely to result in a push,/pull merry-go-round situation. A well placed knee strike makes it much easier to lock in that standing arm bar. Most people feel less inclined to resist after a hard shot to the pelvic triangle. Twirling around trying to wrassle with and overpower determined, fully resisting opponent on uneven ground puts the officer at prolonged risk. Increasing fatigue as the engagement continues increases that risk.

Regarding other tools on your belt, as useful as they are and as good an idea as it is to be the first person to up the ante in a violent encounter, there is a risk of LEO becoming too tool dependent and not confident enough in their own personal weapons. During a spontaneous assault at close quarters, backpedalling scrambling for OC/baton/CEW or even a firearm is, in many cases not the most advantageous response, again IMO. At least one of your hands will be down at your waste, you are moving backwards, your fine motor skills are shot (fumble fingers), you are not attacking for critical seconds and above all you’ve lost the initiative.

This is especially true in close quarter edged weapon attacks. Sure, you’re 100% justified to shoot and it would be ideal, but if you don’t know you’re in a knife fight until you’re getting stabbed it might be a little late to start trying to pull your pistol and get off that shot. “Shove and shoot” is problematic at best IMO.

In many cases an immediate, aggressive counter-attack with whatever you have available (i.e. empty hand techniques) will yield better results than the old standard, create distance, deploy a better tool/weapon and re-engage. Modern military doctrine recognizes this. The “old” response to an ambush was to retreat to cover, regroup and counter attack. As I understand it, this has been updated in certain cases to immediately attack the attack and fight you way through the ambush with speed, surprise and violence of action. This allows you to reclaim the initiative and shifts the predator/prey dynamic in your favour.

Lastly, as always, having the awareness to see the potential threat and put yourself a such a position advantage that you shut it down of before it starts trumps any technique. Force presence, tactical positioning, superior numbers, tools/weapons etc are your best assets.

Sorry for text wall. Hopefully there’s something useful in there.

Edited, a lot. Apparently I can’t type today.

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Good stuff. Just wanted to expand on a few things, for the sake of discussion. As always, I defer to the voice of experience. Most of the first hand observations below are from force on force reality based scenario training for LE fleshed out by discussions with trainers who have tons of road time.

Regarding punching, closed fist strikes of any kind delivered to hard surfaces are less desirable due to potential hand injuries. Other than the shovel hook to the ribs (which I am a fan of) virtually all hand strikes are better delivered with the palm. Punching a guy in the teeth bare handed may or may not result in a busted hand but it will almost certainly result in cut up knuckles which will very possibly result in fluid exchange, which is less desirable given the nature of some of the clientele LE works with on the road.

Knees and elbows are both much more resistant to superficial injuries (cuts etc) and more severe injuries (fractures) and therefore, IMO make better striking surfaces for LE than the hands in most cases. They also allow a smaller, weaker, less skilled officer to transfer more mass into the strike and thus deliver a heavier, more effective strike than most boxing based techniques will. Thus a larger, stronger more trained officer will get the subject under control that much more quickly/safely. Knees/elbows are also gross motor skill based and therefore won’t deteriorate too much under combat stress. Furthermore, they are effective inside bad breath range (i.e I’m trying to take this guy into custody and he’s resisting range) where most punches will be a bit smothered and most cops get into tussles. Controlling distance is difficult at best in real world violence, all the more so when the goal is to get close enough to establish control.

Regarding striking v. grappling, I absolutely agree that every cop should be a competent stand up grappler. I think that this may be more important than being a skilled striker, but I haven’t made up my mind just yet. However, my understanding and observation has been that, unless you grossly outclass someone in terms of size, strength and/or skill, trying to directly lock/throw/wrestle/control them without first delivering a strike or two to disrupt his attention is likely to result in a push,/pull merry-go-round situation. A well placed knee strike makes it much easier to lock in that standing arm bar. Most people feel less inclined to resist after a hard shot to the pelvic triangle. Twirling around trying to wrassle with and overpower determined, fully resisting opponent on uneven ground puts the officer at prolonged risk. Increasing fatigue as the engagement continues increases that risk.

Regarding other tools on your belt, as useful as they are and as good an idea as it is to be the first person to up the ante in a violent encounter, there is a risk of LEO becoming too tool dependent and not confident enough in their own personal weapons. During a spontaneous assault at close quarters, backpedalling scrambling for OC/baton/CEW or even a firearm is, in many cases not the most advantageous response, again IMO. At least one of your hands will be down at your waste, you are moving backwards, your fine motor skills are shot (fumble fingers), you are not attacking for critical seconds and above all you’ve lost the initiative.

This is especially true in close quarter edged weapon attacks. Sure, you’re 100% justified to shoot and it would be ideal, but if you don’t know you’re in a knife fight until you’re getting stabbed it might be a little late to start trying to pull your pistol and get off that shot. “Shove and shoot” is problematic at best IMO.

In many cases an immediate, aggressive counter-attack with whatever you have available (i.e. empty hand techniques) will yield better results than the old standard, create distance, deploy a better tool/weapon and re-engage. Modern military doctrine recognizes this. The “old” response to an ambush was to retreat to cover, regroup and counter attack. As I understand it, this has been updated in certain cases to immediately attack the attack and fight you way through the ambush with speed, surprise and violence of action. This allows you to reclaim the initiative and shifts the predator/prey dynamic in your favour.

Lastly, as always, having the awareness to see the potential threat and put yourself a such a position advantage that you shut it down of before it starts trumps any technique. Force presence, tactical positioning, superior numbers, tools/weapons etc are your best assets.

Sorry for text wall. Hopefully there’s something useful in there.

Edited, a lot. Apparently I can’t type today.[/quote]

All great points. Going to continue the discussion as well.

I’m a big fan of knees and elbows, and I agree with your point of having to strike first to stun or take the fight out of someone. Giving someone a good shot can make them think twice about trying to overpower you.

Tools on the belt are just that, tools. Use the right tool for the job. Fumbling around for OC or a baton when you have less than a second to react is a bad idea. I think these tools are better used when you know you are going to be dealing with a violent person before it begins.

I’m not sure if I’m on board with the CQ edge weapon attack strategy. Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re getting at, but from what I read, you would still be in a knife fight without a weapon. I know a guy who was arresting a small woman, she resisted, a struggle ensued, and all of a sudden he was bleeding profusely from the leg. During the struggled she produced a small blade and missed his femoral by inches. They dealt with her without shooting her, but had it been a male I think it would have turned into a bang-bang. If you’re starting to lose the fight, you might as well disengage for a second to get your weapon out. Disengaging would require striking or some dirty fighting. I also carry an inconspicuous blade on my support side to ensure I have something even if I can’t get my pistol out. Err, I mean it’s for cutting seatbelts and tape.

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Good stuff. Just wanted to expand on a few things, for the sake of discussion. As always, I defer to the voice of experience. Most of the first hand observations below are from force on force reality based scenario training for LE fleshed out by discussions with trainers who have tons of road time.

Regarding punching, closed fist strikes of any kind delivered to hard surfaces are less desirable due to potential hand injuries. Other than the shovel hook to the ribs (which I am a fan of) virtually all hand strikes are better delivered with the palm. Punching a guy in the teeth bare handed may or may not result in a busted hand but it will almost certainly result in cut up knuckles which will very possibly result in fluid exchange, which is less desirable given the nature of some of the clientele LE works with on the road.

Knees and elbows are both much more resistant to superficial injuries (cuts etc) and more severe injuries (fractures) and therefore, IMO make better striking surfaces for LE than the hands in most cases. They also allow a smaller, weaker, less skilled officer to transfer more mass into the strike and thus deliver a heavier, more effective strike than most boxing based techniques will. Thus a larger, stronger more trained officer will get the subject under control that much more quickly/safely. Knees/elbows are also gross motor skill based and therefore won’t deteriorate too much under combat stress. Furthermore, they are effective inside bad breath range (i.e I’m trying to take this guy into custody and he’s resisting range) where most punches will be a bit smothered and most cops get into tussles. Controlling distance is difficult at best in real world violence, all the more so when the goal is to get close enough to establish control.

Regarding striking v. grappling, I absolutely agree that every cop should be a competent stand up grappler. I think that this may be more important than being a skilled striker, but I haven’t made up my mind just yet. However, my understanding and observation has been that, unless you grossly outclass someone in terms of size, strength and/or skill, trying to directly lock/throw/wrestle/control them without first delivering a strike or two to disrupt his attention is likely to result in a push,/pull merry-go-round situation. A well placed knee strike makes it much easier to lock in that standing arm bar. Most people feel less inclined to resist after a hard shot to the pelvic triangle. Twirling around trying to wrassle with and overpower determined, fully resisting opponent on uneven ground puts the officer at prolonged risk. Increasing fatigue as the engagement continues increases that risk.

Regarding other tools on your belt, as useful as they are and as good an idea as it is to be the first person to up the ante in a violent encounter, there is a risk of LEO becoming too tool dependent and not confident enough in their own personal weapons. During a spontaneous assault at close quarters, backpedalling scrambling for OC/baton/CEW or even a firearm is, in many cases not the most advantageous response, again IMO. At least one of your hands will be down at your waste, you are moving backwards, your fine motor skills are shot (fumble fingers), you are not attacking for critical seconds and above all you’ve lost the initiative.

This is especially true in close quarter edged weapon attacks. Sure, you’re 100% justified to shoot and it would be ideal, but if you don’t know you’re in a knife fight until you’re getting stabbed it might be a little late to start trying to pull your pistol and get off that shot. “Shove and shoot” is problematic at best IMO.

In many cases an immediate, aggressive counter-attack with whatever you have available (i.e. empty hand techniques) will yield better results than the old standard, create distance, deploy a better tool/weapon and re-engage. Modern military doctrine recognizes this. The “old” response to an ambush was to retreat to cover, regroup and counter attack. As I understand it, this has been updated in certain cases to immediately attack the attack and fight you way through the ambush with speed, surprise and violence of action. This allows you to reclaim the initiative and shifts the predator/prey dynamic in your favour.

Lastly, as always, having the awareness to see the potential threat and put yourself a such a position advantage that you shut it down of before it starts trumps any technique. Force presence, tactical positioning, superior numbers, tools/weapons etc are your best assets.

Sorry for text wall. Hopefully there’s something useful in there.

Edited, a lot. Apparently I can’t type today.[/quote]

All great points. Going to continue the discussion as well.

I’m a big fan of knees and elbows, and I agree with your point of having to strike first to stun or take the fight out of someone. Giving someone a good shot can make them think twice about trying to overpower you.

Tools on the belt are just that, tools. Use the right tool for the job. Fumbling around for OC or a baton when you have less than a second to react is a bad idea. I think these tools are better used when you know you are going to be dealing with a violent person before it begins.

I’m not sure if I’m on board with the CQ edge weapon attack strategy. Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re getting at, but from what I read, you would still be in a knife fight without a weapon. I know a guy who was arresting a small woman, she resisted, a struggle ensued, and all of a sudden he was bleeding profusely from the leg. During the struggled she produced a small blade and missed his femoral by inches. They dealt with her without shooting her, but had it been a male I think it would have turned into a bang-bang. If you’re starting to lose the fight, you might as well disengage for a second to get your weapon out. Disengaging would require striking or some dirty fighting. I also carry an inconspicuous blade on my support side to ensure I have something even if I can’t get my pistol out. Err, I mean it’s for cutting seatbelts and tape.[/quote]

Regarding CQ edged weapon stuff. First off, shit situation regardless. Any response that gets you home was the right one. Let me see if I can clarify a little. One of the members at our local PD was attacked out of nowhere by a guy with a blade. They were in a doorway and this dude decided, for whatever reason, that he should start stabbing her in the neck. Accessing her weapon, at that range while engaged with a guy who was trying to end her was just not practical. Both hands were tied up surviving. Disengaging was maybe practical but very difficult. She ended up getting him to ground and gaining control, hands cut to ratshit.

No way to tell, but IMO had she focused on getting to her gun instead of fighting the guy and removing his ability to stab her anymore, it might have turned out differently. Again, impossible to say. Like your example, she had a significant advantage over him in terms of physical ability and it was still a pretty bad scene. I believe Idaho (a mil/LEO poster) has a story about some scrawny little female who posed a fairly minimal threat unarmed but suddenly grabbed a knife from between the couch cushions and sliced is arm open pretty good. Fighting a knife wielding attacker, especially one of similar size/ability as yourself unarmed seems like an extremely bad strategy, to say the least.

It’s always a situational judgment call. If you can disengage and trade up your weapon system, absolutely do so, of course. However, I think it’s important to have a plan for when that’s not practical because sometimes it won’t be. In that case, aggressively attacking the attack, wrapping up and controlling the delivery system (arm/elbow, not hand/wrist) and continuing to attack (primarily with knees and or fixed inanimate objects) until you can ground the guy (or possibly create an opportunity to disengage and shoot) seems like not a bad play. Don’t get me wrong. I’m totally on board with shooting knife guy as a potential plan A and a better one where practical,

One of my old instructors set up a simulation based experiment with a number trained officers being attacked at extreme close quarters with training knives. Officers were not told ahead of time what was going to happen, simply to deal with the situation. The officers who got “cut/stabbed” the least were those who directly engaged with knees and elbows and brought the subject under control. Those who tried to disengage and shoot had a lot of difficulty and generally got contacted more times with the knife. It’s a small sample, but it’s food for thought…

Regarding “duty knives” they are obviously for cutting seatbelts, tape, rope if someone hangs themselves etc. They are definitely not at all for peeling someone the fuck off you when all else fails, but could be improvised for that purpose in emergency. Tacti-cool knives are better suited to all the above legitimate intended applications than non-tacti-cool variants for a variety of reasons.

A very small, inconspicuous fixed blade (i.e. Ka-Bar TDI law enforcement) that can be accessed with either hand has value as a backup when one hand or the other may be tied up (i.e. holding up the above mentioned hanging victim) and accessing/opening a clip-it folder might be problematic.

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]fearnloathingnyc wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
I’ve trained with very highly respected and experienced RMA coaches/LEO instructors who say to go strong side forward and ones that say go weak side forward. In the end you simply need to make your decision and then work the hell out of your skills from that position; also realize that it’s always a good idea to be able to function from both stances as well as a neutral stance, seated, laying on the ground, sitting in your car, etc…as you could potentially start a confrontation in any position.

Here are some of the pros and cons that I can think of off the top of my head; hopefully some of the experienced LEO’s that post on this forum will chime in with more:

Orthodox (assuming right handed) pros-
-firearm is less easily accessible to being taken from you (assuming you can face opponent)
-generally you want a weapon in the rear hand if engaging someone who is unarmed (for same reason as above)
-you will likely learn to shoot from either an Isosceles stance (squared stance), or Weaver stance (with weak side leg forward), so if you practice fighting unarmed with a southpaw stance, you will have to switch to an orthodox or squared stance if you want to use your firearm, which is going to require extra time and/or distance which you may not have

Cons-
-weaker lead hand strike and lead leg strike, which also means in general you will have less neuromuscular coordination/speed/accuracy when/if utilizing other tools such as a night stick with the lead arm, or less range with the weapon if using it with your rear hand (bad for weapon on weapon scenarios)

Southpaw pros-
-strongest more neuromuscularly skilled hand (or weapon utilized) and leg will be closer to opponent meaning quicker delivery of attacks with lead side

Cons-
-again, you will need to switch from your regular stance to effectively fire your firearm
-easier access to weapon by unarmed assailant

Hope this helps, good luck.
[/quote]

Thanks a ton Sentoguy. This is very very helpful and a solid breakdown of the pros and cons. Awesome job man. The strongest and only con against the southpaw stance is that an unarmed assailant has easier access to the weapon (which you mentioned). If it weren’t for this reason, the choice would be easy.

The LEO instructors who you have trained with who recommend strong side forward, what are their thoughts on having the firearm on the front side? In other words, what they did say and believe in to help mitigate the serious concerns involved with having the firearm on the front side?

Thanks again for your very helpful post.[/quote]

No problem.

Their argument had to do primarily with being able to utilize the front hand as a more effective weapon (for striking) and that at a close range your first reaction are going to need to be unarmed anyway since there will be insufficient time to draw and utilize the weapon. It’s only after you’ve utilized empty hands stuff that you’ll be able to step back and access the weapon. In other words, generally a hard punch,elbow, shield, etc…to the bio computer/brain will interrupt/stop a person’s fixation on accessing your weapon/tool and give you the time/distance to access it yourself.

That said, they also teach a “gun shield” with the gun held in the rear (strong side back) for close quarters shooting.

So again, realistically you need to be competent from either stance, squared, or any other position that you regularly find yourself in. Also realize that while the balance and basic structural stance mechanics that boxing teaches and striking speed, power, timing, judgement, and accuracy that boxing teaches are extremely useful for an LEO, you really aren’t going to be dancing around like in a boxing match (or if you are, something went very wrong), so you only really need basic footwork for the most part.

I’m not suggesting that you don’t continue to practice and refine your boxing skills, in fact I’d highly recommend you continue to develop them. Just realize that as a LEO, you don’t want to ever wind up in a sparring match/boxing match against an assailant.

[/quote]

Thanks. I like their argument and it makes a lot of sense especially in my case. I agree with you that I should be prepared to utilize both stances because the unpredictability of law enforcement work could have me starting off in either an orthodox, squared, or southpaw stance. There are so many variables at work here.

As for boxing, although I really enjoy it, I do know the inherent limitations specifically in law enforcement where I am more likely to grapple with a perpetrator. I am going to transition over to Judo and Muay Thai training.

If you don’t mind me asking, do you know of some competent and highly respected training agencies who specialize in firearms tactics within the northeast? I am looking to supplement my department training with outside training.

Thanks a again for your very helpful comments.[/quote]

Where are you located in the Northeast? I know of some very knowledgeable instructors, but unsure of agencies.

[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding CQ edged weapon stuff. First off, shit situation regardless. Any response that gets you home was the right one. Let me see if I can clarify a little. One of the members at our local PD was attacked out of nowhere by a guy with a blade. They were in a doorway and this dude decided, for whatever reason, that he should start stabbing her in the neck. Accessing her weapon, at that range while engaged with a guy who was trying to end her was just not practical. Both hands were tied up surviving. Disengaging was maybe practical but very difficult. She ended up getting him to ground and gaining control, hands cut to ratshit.

No way to tell, but IMO had she focused on getting to her gun instead of fighting the guy and removing his ability to stab her anymore, it might have turned out differently. Again, impossible to say. Like your example, she had a significant advantage over him in terms of physical ability and it was still a pretty bad scene. I believe Idaho (a mil/LEO poster) has a story about some scrawny little female who posed a fairly minimal threat unarmed but suddenly grabbed a knife from between the couch cushions and sliced is arm open pretty good. Fighting a knife wielding attacker, especially one of similar size/ability as yourself unarmed seems like an extremely bad strategy, to say the least.

It’s always a situational judgment call. If you can disengage and trade up your weapon system, absolutely do so, of course. However, I think it’s important to have a plan for when that’s not practical because sometimes it won’t be. In that case, aggressively attacking the attack, wrapping up and controlling the delivery system (arm/elbow, not hand/wrist) and continuing to attack (primarily with knees and or fixed inanimate objects) until you can ground the guy (or possibly create an opportunity to disengage and shoot) seems like not a bad play. Don’t get me wrong. I’m totally on board with shooting knife guy as a potential plan A and a better one where practical,

One of my old instructors set up a simulation based experiment with a number trained officers being attacked at extreme close quarters with training knives. Officers were not told ahead of time what was going to happen, simply to deal with the situation. The officers who got “cut/stabbed” the least were those who directly engaged with knees and elbows and brought the subject under control. Those who tried to disengage and shoot had a lot of difficulty and generally got contacted more times with the knife. It’s a small sample, but it’s food for thought…

Regarding “duty knives” they are obviously for cutting seatbelts, tape, rope if someone hangs themselves etc. They are definitely not at all for peeling someone the fuck off you when all else fails, but could be improvised for that purpose in emergency. Tacti-cool knives are better suited to all the above legitimate intended applications than non-tacti-cool variants for a variety of reasons.

A very small, inconspicuous fixed blade (i.e. Ka-Bar TDI law enforcement) that can be accessed with either hand has value as a backup when one hand or the other may be tied up (i.e. holding up the above mentioned hanging victim) and accessing/opening a clip-it folder might be problematic.[/quote]

Good stuff man. I see where you’re coming from, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I saw a video of a very similar scenario that your instructor set up. Cops were instructed to interact with a subject in a room who appeared to be unarmed. Well, the subject just happened to be Dan Insanto(IIRC). It was very eye opening. Being strapped isn’t all it’s made out to be. I’ll try to dig up the video…