jmaccauley

When Defensive Tactics Become “Offensive”

By Jerry MacCauley PPS,CST


Back when law enforcement started calling subject control “defensive tactics”, it was assumed that cops would only use force if someone attempted to hurt them. Somehow, over time, it evolved into arrest and control situations where the officer actually had to make the initial contact. Of course, thats what the job calls for and therein lies the problem. With the total lack of respect for authority, as well as the so-called citizens “rights,” comes this common reaction known as “resisting arrest.”

For something to be defensive, it would seem natural that someone was an aggressor and someone was a victim. In the purest sense, that is still true. Unfortunately there has been such an meteoric rise of reality fighting schools that the line between defense and offense has been blurred. In my earlier martial arts experiences, the term was “overkill.” This was used to illustrate overwhelming responses to a threat. The theory was to respond until you felt it was safe to discontinue. The threat would be neutralized and you could walk or run away and call the cops. Now, it is more common to see numerous methods for finishing off your attacker. From the UFC we have learned the phrase “tap out or pass out.” Cute. Or how about the military and the infamous “security shot,” referring to putting an extra round in the enemy just to make sure they are dead?
No, I haven’t turned pacifist and I definately won’t turn the other cheek, but I am careful to teach my students, regardless of whether they are law enforcement, private security or civilians, that there will always be consequences to our responses. The idea that you can kill or maim an attacker, no matter how justified you feel you are, needs to be carefully examined.
Law enforcement generally operates a force selection based on threat/resistance levels. It is called a force continuum or matrix. There is a complicated, and usually unattainable, series of responses that are recommended for different scenarios. Unfortunately, officers never know how much force will be necessary to end the confrontation until it is already well under way. Trying to remember what level you are at, while fighting with a mutant, is pretty inconsistant with our natural self defense instincts. We have now begun training officers to recognize the “totality of the situation” and respond accordingly. In other words, the size disparity, age, sex, location, weapons, etc. that are present will be the factors that dictate the best response.
Civilians are not bound by such a standard, but may ultimately be judged on the intent of their response. If there is proof of a legitimate self defense action, courts have generally looked at the available options and mindset of the defender. Escape and protection from death or serious injury are “rights” that most states have recognized. Injuries to an attacker that appear to be punitive in nature, meaning done as punishment, are frowned upon. These actions could also subject a defender to civil damages and possibly criminal charges. Third party defense creates an even bigger burden of proof on the defender.
When a good samaritan, or paid personal protection specialist, finds himself coming to the aid of another, there are a number of things that create legal and civil headaches for the good guy here. As I mentioned, the burden of proof will be placed on the defender to show that his or her actions were necessary and measured. The actions must be non-punitive and intended to protect life. If acting in the capacity of a paid security officer, following the orders of the employer may not always relieve you of your self defense obligations. A wise, or legally well advised employer will simply say that they never authorized any actions that a court may find contentious. Professionals need to be aware of this dangerous pitfall to providing protective services.

Those same factors need to be addressed in the private self defense training as well. Regardless of how justified you believe your actions to be, you will always be accountable. Is it always fair? No, but it is a fact of life. It’s very easy for some instructor to tell you what you should do, or what he/she would do in a given situation, but ultimately you alone will answer for your actions.
What is defensive and when does it become offensive? Depends on the jury I guess. Of course, when your life hangs in the balance, survival trumps political correctness!

Rich H

Well written and you have underlined a very important issue. So important in fact that the UK's sia has failed to include and list 'unarmed combat' in the core competency framework for the UK licensing. Preferring to call 'it' 'Physical Intervention Skills' and does not make it mandatory training for CP for licensing purposes. A somewhat dimwitted decision in my opinion.

Unarmed combat/ use of force, is an extremely important issue in CP and one that find absolutely bewildering being ommitted.


Rich H

tazape

Great post.
I think it is not only an important issue for CP but door supervisors/ Manned Guarding as well, being taught at the moment breakaway techniques only . The way the sia looks at this type of training needs to be addressed across the board from CP thru to Manned gaurding.

DarkHorse

Guys,

Thanks for your input.

Without a doubt "reasonable force" can be a serious issue/concern when dealing with a situation and many occasions when I attendant a fight inside or outside a club I tend to think if reasonable force been used??

Rightly this subject (phyical intervention or officer safety trg) need to be accredited I.e. Btec qualification, so its compulsory subject in CPO course or even Door Sup as they often need to use and justify force.

I am sure within the development and sia learning from its mistake (I hope) it will come our way...

Just my thoughts....

Cheers!

DH....

James Mc

it will be shortly, City & guilds are doing a Level 3 Conflict management (including physical intervention)

James Mc

DarkHorse

Thanks James for correcting me I though its just Btec qualifications....

DH

Rich H

James Mc,

I beg to differ. The sia will not be including any mandatory core competency for either 'physical intervention skills' as they put it, nor advanced driving. Both of which are an absolute necessity for the UK market. I have campaigned extensively for both these subjects to be included and the NOS, although is being reveiewed at the moment, is not, I fear, going to make any changes to the list of core competencies for training requirements.

Rich H

James Mc

My mistake, but i do know that City & Guilds are releasing a level 3 in Conflict management in the near future.

I think what needs to be remembered here, is that in the UK, only a court can decide what is "justified force".

Yes we all know the famous sentence "Your honour, i had a heart felt fear for the safety of myself & my principle"

However if it goes against you in court, you could be looking at losing your licence, getting a criminal record & if it really goes against you a custodial sentence.

So, there is a very fine line between defensive & offensive tactics.

James Mc

DarkHorse

I agree James and even police officers who are trained twice a year to maintain their credabilty to use of force and still end up by complaints etc.

Court always look at things in different ways and one can never tell...

Hence I think to be an accreditted CPO or even Security person unarmed combat training is important... Even sia doesn't want to know... (Just my thoughts)

Cheers!

Scab

The