heresyourdipstickjimmy
Regular Member
I asked the site user if I could use that video. His response:
Not my video and I do not like it. At that distance the woman has no business drawing her weapon.
Obviously training is key with that issue and that's not saying that training can get you out of that type of situation, but it certainly give you an edge. Especially if you have the mindset that you'll get cut once a knife is involved.
So I'm left with the question that if at that distance there's no business drawing a firearm, then why do we teach our LEOs to defend themselves at those distances IF they are left with no other options to preserve their own lives.
I noted several mistakes made in the video, but those aren't what I wanted to illustrate. I noted that it illustrates just how fast things can develop from nothing to an attack involving a weapon. Mistakes? Sure. She put her hand on her firearm and bladed her body away. Should have squared up her body and kept her hands where she could use them both as immediate defense, but she already knew it was coming so the response isn't genuine. Blading her body left her kidneys exposed to a side-attack and it put more distance between her firearm and the threat.
Once the 21 foot reactionary gap is closed, you can be better off stepping further into the issue than withdrawing to create distance. One must train on this or you put yourself at the hazard by closing that gap. You're already inside the danger zone to react timely, so why not make it harder for your threat to attack timely. I train at danger-close proximities due to the statistics showing 70% or more of police shootings occur within 21 feet and 80% or more are within 10 yards. At those distances your ability to withdraw is dramatically hindered if not blocked completely and you're then left with one option....fight for your life.
Not my video and I do not like it. At that distance the woman has no business drawing her weapon.
Obviously training is key with that issue and that's not saying that training can get you out of that type of situation, but it certainly give you an edge. Especially if you have the mindset that you'll get cut once a knife is involved.
So I'm left with the question that if at that distance there's no business drawing a firearm, then why do we teach our LEOs to defend themselves at those distances IF they are left with no other options to preserve their own lives.
I noted several mistakes made in the video, but those aren't what I wanted to illustrate. I noted that it illustrates just how fast things can develop from nothing to an attack involving a weapon. Mistakes? Sure. She put her hand on her firearm and bladed her body away. Should have squared up her body and kept her hands where she could use them both as immediate defense, but she already knew it was coming so the response isn't genuine. Blading her body left her kidneys exposed to a side-attack and it put more distance between her firearm and the threat.
Once the 21 foot reactionary gap is closed, you can be better off stepping further into the issue than withdrawing to create distance. One must train on this or you put yourself at the hazard by closing that gap. You're already inside the danger zone to react timely, so why not make it harder for your threat to attack timely. I train at danger-close proximities due to the statistics showing 70% or more of police shootings occur within 21 feet and 80% or more are within 10 yards. At those distances your ability to withdraw is dramatically hindered if not blocked completely and you're then left with one option....fight for your life.
Last edited: