Body Cover or Not?

bodyguard1987

If attacked by an armed agressor I would do my job and get between the bullet and the principal, which could be seen to be the wrong decision. If you break it down and look at ACE ( Assess, Control, Evacuate) assess the position of the attacker if the position allows and the principal not in a direct line of fire to take down the shooter would be control method to the senario however if the principal in in the direct line of fire the control method to remove the principal from harms way would be to put yourself between the two.

mickblack

i think maybe people have been reading "the finest book about Close Protection ever written"
i have just finished it with an open mind,and i know everyone has their own opinions and i`ve never written a book on the subject so i`m not going to be over critical
lets face it, it`s a very good book, very well written, very funny in parts,with a lot more than basic information.
can recomend it, as money well spent

but staying with this thread and trying very hard not to offend

when you get to the chapter 10 BODYCOVER we are back to ,not just stepping in front of our Vip but dragging him by the scruff of the neck around your own back like a bag of spuds and drawing your pistol to shoot the bad guy at the same time,
works well with a obliging training dummy on a range, but imagine complete chaos, a VIP in panic and bad guys shooting at you,you accidently chocking your VIP while he is dragging you backwards and downwards with your pistol going anywhere but on the target.
i know this is one scenario and probably the worst possible one to be in, but does any of this make sense to anyone else out there, that this training ,for this senario doesn`t work in the real world ,and should be kept as an example of what not to do ,or for the make believe world of HOLLYWOOD

mick

jmaccauley

Thats an interesting observation and certainly a valid point about so-called "realistic training." As a long time instructor, I have grappled with the concept of creating scenarios that elicit controlled chaos, as opposed to walking students through a series of solutions.

The difference, of course, is that reality does not always offer clear choices. It does however, present a series of problems that must be solved. "Real world training" often is based on the worst case scenario. As important as providing proper training is, teaching the CP/PPS how to "think" through a situation is equally beneficial. For example, moving rearward and laterally (sometimes referred to as a tactical "L") is considered a standard response to a frontal assault. If you condition yourself to always do this, you will naturally be comfortable with responding this way. If suddenly you are faced with a frontal assault in a narrow hallway for instance, you will obviously have a problem. You may press yourself into the wall and leave your principle exposed or worse, back over him and find both of you on the floor. A different solution may be aggressively advancing on the threat. Just an example and not meant to be a tactic.

Learn to adapt to the threat and "solve the problem", rather than merely follow the standard bullet catcher mentality.

Jerry

mts

I tend to disagree and this is why:

If you put yourself between the bullet and the principal, chances are you will get shot. Once you're out of the game, you can be sure of two things:

1) You can no longer help anyone including your client
2) Your client will be next.

CPO's task is to keep the principal our of harms way, not put ourselves in harms way.

just my .02 pence.

m