Unarmed Skills for Close Protection Roles

Over on my forum I was asked the following question(s):

...What unarmed skills would you consider to be relevant for close protection tasks? I've had quite a few conversations recently with friends and collegues in regard to this and opinions vary from common sense to complete nonsense.

Some Training Providers do teach unarmed skills and a lot don't.

So if you were to teach skills relevant to CP, what would they be and why?...

As can be expected, this could never really be answered in a couple of paragraphs, and I did a fair bit of typing - which I'm happy to share here, as follows:


That's a big question, so I'll get to it in stages...eventually...

First thing, as always, is to define it a little more tightly - in this case, what exactly are 'close protection tasks' specifically?

Overall, mainly for the 'unenlightened' regarding such issues, you could divide CP taskings into some key areas, and though exact terminology differs, these could be interpreted as follows...

First off, the role that most people think of as being the definitive CP tasking is that of 'escort' where the client - the principal - is provided direct protective cover by any number of personnel, on foot, by vehicle, whatever, generally moving between a secure pointA to a secure point Z, but stopping off at every non-secure letter of the alphabet on the way...

Regarding the 'physical intervention training' that these guys need, just consider that the primary focus of their role is to prevent the principal encountering conflict, and remove the principal from it, if present, by any means that facilitates such solutions with the minimum of fuss.

Usual best-practice deal to design and develop anything 'fit for purpose' is always to realistically identify the actual problem and reverse-engineer a workable solution to it - not vice versa, as tends to be the case.

Such 'conflict' could constitute almost anything - obviously a worse-case extreme would be a planned assault of some description, with the odds deliberately stacked well and truly against you, or a more opportunistic and random event...a robbery maybe, or even an escalated argument that heads towards violence. At the lower end of the scale, some form of physical intervention might be required to deal with a whole host of nuisance occurences - ranging from over-enthusiastic fans to annoyingly intoxicated dinner-part guests... The list of possible problems would be endless,

With this is mind - in a general fashion - you'd be fairly on the money to consider that the overall aim, the bigger-picture 'ideal' given that something has happened and that 'avoidance' ship has already sailed, revolves around disengagement as far as the role of a protective escort detail is concerned.

Whatever physical force has to be used, it needs to be quick, immediate, and must be detached from the threat itself, since the aim must be to remove the principal at the earliest opportunity, not become entangled and ensnared with any other person or persons. Regardless of if the incident involves a team of kidnappers executing a well-thought plan en-route to the office, or a group of belligerent drunks that have taken an unwanted interest during a night out - the longer the principal remains in-situ, the more resources that can be brought to bear against him.

This physical detachment needs to be considered more consciously in my opinion - within the context of providing a protective escort, given the above points, when would applying a grappling-based hold of any description be tactically sound? Given that in the real world you will be drastically under-resourced - forget the four-man escort teams, forget the specific allocation of an extra person just to provide cover for the principal, and definitely forget having that counter-assault element hovering nearby - just what do you think will be going on whilst you are wrapped-up with just one aggressor?

More to the point, just who else is out there, either involved already or just about to join in? The answer to this tends to be 'you don't know' and kind of highlights getting attached to anyone other than the principal is a bad idea, as is sticking around any longer than is absolutely essential in any capacity.

Obviously, as has already been mentioned, the scope for varying scenarios is staggering, so by no means am I intending to attempt to nail the subject down definitively with a few paragraphs - however, I can maybe hope to highlight certain circumstances that bring some current training approaches into doubt, as being not suitable for context...in my opinion.

I'll be following up on this later, and will attempt to address the various other taskings and roles that require varying forms of physical intervention...

As I opened with, this is a huge subject - so give me a chance!

Mick

I find it's usually the case that everything is effective, so long as it's used in context - but this is always the tricky part isn't it?

The remit of certain roles is what determines what is feasible in the circumstances, and this tends to occupy a great deal of my time to accurately establish since sometimes it's completely screwed up from a personal perspective basis.

A little critical thinking, and an understanding of the nature of the tasking, should soon highlight that teaching the same control-holds that suit a security officer, or policeman, to be used to apprehend and secure a resisting subject, are completely redundant - pointless - for a member of a mobile protective detail to employ...unless the team SOP involves taking prisoners...!

As I will get around to in due course, if you are a member of a security team tasked with patrolling a residence, then such skills become highly desirable - same as for a follow-up response team, that cleans up after an attempted attack...but the escort team? No requirement...it'd be like a quarterback, holding the ball, tackling a member of the other team...

Obviously - as I alluded to - lower-levels of force often require a 'hands-on' attachment of sorts, moving and generally manhandling individuals on occasion, in a gazillion various guises...but as soon as more force is required, by virtue of this being the case, as soon as a real threat is established, anything more grappling-involved just leaves your principal unprotected - and further to this, it must be assumed that a secondary attack is on the cards and the guy you have just wrapped up is the diversion...

More later.

Mick

I'm only including my own posts here, and a point was made - predictably - that certain practices are unsuitable for the CP role...namely various high-force options - a cliched opinion that I firmly disagree with, as can be seen:

Continued.

Staying with the theme of 'worst case' eventualities for a little while longer, I feel that there simply must be a high-force option available, a mandatory and essential emergency default - the proverbial 'big stick' that's better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

Even the generally unarmed UK police routinely arm those officers serving on protection duties - so consider the implications that can be drawn from this.

There should be no illusions or misconceptions regarding the use of such extreme measures, as far as common usage is concerned - it's an absolute rarity by any stretch of the imagination.

However - no matter how rare an occurence this might be - the nature of the work, the very fact that such work actually exists at all, identifies that there must be some potential for such an eventuality.

Therefore effective training that addresses worst-case needs to be in-place and good-to-go, just like a safety-net, seat-belt, airbag even, prior to needing it. By the very definition of the event, an emergency situation requiring such immediate and decisive action leaves no time to play catch-up with your training, and there is no substituting lower-force options and still expecting to get the problem solved.

A serious attack on a principal is the ultimate 'short-game' of sorts, since the aim, as previously highlighted, is to get the principal somewhere else at the very earliest opportunity - just like with self-protection, negative assumptions must be made regarding multiple attackers, weapons involved, all that 'the clock is ticking and the situation won't be getting better' stuff, and now you have to consider someone else's wellbeing more than your own.

I'm very keen to labour the requirement of a high-force option for a person employed in a protective role as you may have guessed - not only is it crucial to have operationally, it tends to be overlooked within a great deal of the training packages that I have come across, or paid 'lip-service' to at best.

I find highly amusing that as soon as such training is mentioned, it is dismissed as unsuitable by some who sagely point out that you can't go around punching paparazzi, and the like... I hope these types also deem to tell armed police officers that it's unsuitable to shoot people that they arrest... Not forgetting to remind firemen that they shouldn't chop down every door they need to enter with their axes...

Maybe, and it's a crazy concept I admit, all this clear and distinct mention of 'emergency-only' and 'worst-case scenario' might be a clue as to the proposed actual usage of such 'higher-force' tactics?

Here's the thing, and it's a conversation I have on a regular basis when training police personnel - from street cops, to SWAT-types, to academy instructors - when the subject of using extreme unarmed force is addressed, and I am politely informed that their unit or department does not allow, for example, strikes to the head of a subject...and I, equally politely, point to that big shiny high-capacity large-calibre handgun carried by every one of them, and simply ask "what's that for then?"

To expand upon this, since I usually get a strange look in place of an answer, I further ask "...so you are 'allowed' to shoot someone as many times, centre mass, as it might take to stop an attacker - with a very high possibility of killing them - but you are not allowed to punch someone in the head?"

It's nonsense of course, there is no 'extra law' that states that a police officer - or close protection operative - cannot use such force, so long as it is reasonable and necessary...justifiable in the circumstances...but this ridiculous skewed train of thought comes from somewhere, and usually it's from those with a very short-sighted - limited - perspective. Unfortunately this tends to be driven by unrealistic liability-terrified policy makers, and reinforced by 'toe-the-party-line' trainers, and this creates a void between the nice neat training-hall competence tests that are easily passed to put ticks in boxes, and what is actually required when the worst happens.

As with everything, I aim to always address this 'worst-case' issue - whatever subject it pertains to - as my first priority...as that already mentioned 'emergency default option' that is exactly that, a last-resort, and no more.

Obviously I've only stressed one point so far, extensively, but it's an important issue - I certainly intend to address the other more common use-of-force requirements, dealing with nuisances and the like, but once again, there should be a realistic fall-back high-force option in-place...especially if you are working unarmed.

Just consider one other issue, as I close this particular post, that I also consider fairly important. Along the lines of everyone on a protective detail being physically capable of performing a solo medevac/casevac of anyone in the team, especially the principal, as a mandatory requirement...for obvious reasons...they should also be physically capable of protecting themselves effectively - in that worst-case context - or else they have no business whatsoever attempting to protect someone else.

More later.

Mick

So consider the closing paragraph of my last post, regarding physicality. I realise that this might be a little harsh and 'elitist' perhaps...excluding so many people who really want to work in the specialist security industry - surely I must have heard of 'equal opportunities' after all? Well actually I have, but I'm fairly sure that any would-be threat out there with unpleasent intent towards me or mine certainly hasn't...and if by chance they have, I'm certain that they couldn't give a rat's ass about anything being 'equal' whatsoever...

This being the case, then me neither - and all the training, tactics, techniques, etc, that is undertaken and employed is purely to tip the scales as far from equal as is possible, in my favour, in every regard. Just how useful are you if you cannot physically carry a principal to safety? If you are on the escort detail, then I view this as a mandatory requirement...and something to train for. Can't lift and move a principal? Who's fault is that? Is it his for being overweight, or yours for being understrong? Good luck with trying to present the former option...

Bringing this inline with the 'physical intervention' issue, you have to consider that you will be significantly under-resourced if on a private contract - there simply will not be seperate advance, escort, security, and response teams, and just because on a training course there were a dozen or more candidates to utilise on the various exercises undertaken, you'd be crazy to think that this will be the case in the real world.

Maybe you'll be lucky and land a job with all this manpower - but don't hold your breath! More than likely you might find yourself working as a pair, hopefully with a driver, for the day to day, out and about tasking - but even this might be optimistic in truth. So when you are escorting your client's wife or girlfriend during a long day of shopping, and/or an often messy night out to a series of clubs and bars, your 'worst case' event, a kidnap attempt for instance, is about as 'worst' as it could get for you.

You are likely to be under-resourced for a number of reasons - mostly cost is going to be a huge factor in this, paying wages and expenses every single day will put your client's accountant into a cold sweat, especially when nothing happens day to day, apparently, as good security rarely provides a tangible return that they can use to justify the expenditure to themselves. Another reason is the convenience issue - it's no fun at all having a team of people around you 24/7 and it's a significant impact on a client's lifestyle, no matter how discreetly they manage to play it, so this can influence the amount of manpower available. Lastly, as already mentioned, often it appears - to the client, their accountants, whoever is actually footing the bill - that there's no need for all that personnel really, since nothing has ever happened so far...

This is a tricky issue to negotiate around, since you can easily be perceived as scaremongering perhaps, if you point out that nothing ever happens...until it happens... John Lennon was doing just fine for instance...until he was shot...

All this being what it is, guess what? A would-be kidnapper has none of the above concerns, not one, but he's extremely glad that you have... For only one part of one day to concern himself with, his 'wages budget' will stretch considerably further than that of your client. It would be highly inconvenient for him to not have as many people involved as possible, especially considering he is very aware of your exact manpower, and this is the real one - he knows something is going to happen, and exactly when. Do you reckon that in the interests of equality, that he won't decide to outnumber you, and possibly - probably - be armed?

This scenario alone is exactly why there needs to be an unarmed high-force option, because even with armed protection, you are very likely to be hands-on rather than resorting to gunplay, since kidnappings happen up-close - they need to physically seize their target, your principal, and you need to be able to do something to immmediately incapacitate them in response.

This sort of response, given the circumstances and the overwhelming need to evacuate to a secure location, rests firmly within the realms of heavy impact to the head - sorry to be so anticlimactic, but somebody in such a situation needs putting down as soon as possible, and there is no better way of doing it, in terms of energy expended, actual effect, time frame, non-attachment and possibility of engaging multiple threats.

All this might never, ever, happen - and most probably won't - this is a fact, so I'll never insinuate otherwise just for a little extra drama...more principals will have their life threatened by a medical emergency, or vehicle collision - through negligence - than any kidnap or assassination attempt. Another fact though, is that it will happen to someone, somewhere, at sometime - so this tiny chance puts it in the ball-park so to speak. Every day we pay for home and vehicle insurance that it seems like we don't need, we pay extra for a car with as many airbags as possible that will probably never use, we wear a seat-belt when driving that seems like a waste of time...etc... Same deal. Try putting on that seat belt when you need it...you'll find yourself a little 'otherwise occupied' I'm guessing...so you buckle up in advance. Try taking out your home insurance after the fire that gutted your house, and making a claim...

There needs to be a high-force unarmed option as a standard component of training for those involved in the personal protection of others...not an interest period tagged onto a load of politically correct nonsense, but a comprehensive and effective package to build upon, a foundation of sorts - not an afterthought. Once more - better to have a big stick that you don't need to use, than to need to use a big stick that you don't have...

Just out of interest, do a little research into the United States Secret Service, specifically their protective services obviously. Consider the enormous resources that they have available, manpower, firepower, etc, and the very real threat that their primary client - POTUS - faces from every professional and amateur nutjob organisation/individualout there. They have provided Presidential protection since 1902, and they are tasked to provide protection for a range of other individuals and their families, and there have been attacks upon their principals - some extremely serious - but try and find out exactly how many shots have been fired by an USSS escort detail during any such incident. You might be very surprised by your findings...

More to come.

Mick

Apologies for the delay in resuming this thread - just back from teaching in Dublin, plus I was gearing up to deploy overseas which has now been put on hold for a month...so I can get to grips with this forum in the meantime...

So far I have laboured the same point almost ad nauseum and I make no apologies for this - quite simply my decision to do so is driven by the overwhelming, ridiculous, notion maintained by some that if you are a bodyguard, policeman, or work nightclub security, then you are not allowed to hit someone or use a corresponding amount of extreme force, not ever, and that it is an unnecessary field of practice.

This is, as I wrote above, utterly ridiculous - plain wrong - as most absolute statements regarding such issues tend to be...as I mentioned earlier, if this were the case why do police generally get issued batons - for hitting - and guns even? Makes no sense in such a light does it?

I constantly reference identifying the correct context for any training, since this can shift slightly and have a profound effect on how relevant the subject-matter actually is, rendering the 'right' material 'wrong' which may or may not be picked up by the individual, so I take great care to establish context clearly, up-front.

Regarding terminology, which I feel is important as it highlights trains of thought from the off, I use broad terms as most will know by now, quite generic to a degree but clearly defined in terms of describing the context of the activities they refer to. Everything is concerned with the 'management' of a particular problem - be it combat management as an emergency last-resort option for most, the more common contact management interaction with a potential or proven hostile party, or the ever-present threat management that seeks to avoid conflict completely. For those within certain specialist roles, subject management is a vital element of the required overall picture, to secure a problem individual without excessive force as the aim - however, such a topic does not replace combat management even within a specialist role, as this will always be the ultimate emergency default when personal survival is the absolute priority.

So for an individual engaged in duties protecting a third party - a bodyguard, CPO, PPO, PSD...whatever - the full spectrum should be trained.

This means combat management for those extreme - but rare - incidents that would equally see the CPO accessing a firearm perhaps, such is the threat, but where circumstances might not permit/allow such an option - no matter how infrequent such a situation might be, the severity of such an occurence places it very highly on any risk assessment scale, therefore training should be mandatory in such a regard. Slight adjustments - additions - to the usual format of such applications should be made, factoring in the reality of maintaining control over a probably panicking individual - your principal - whilst being able to deliver effective force to another, and doing the whole thing whilst rapidly moving to another location - not to mention being able to cover someone else's head from attack, etc.

More commonly, in reality, the CPO might be dealing with - handling - various day-to-day nuisance incidents, so sound contact management skills and tactics will be the relevant option in this context. Creating a positive presence is the key to this - establishing and maintaining 'tactical' best-practice posture, proximity, and position, is crucial and can even serve to dissuade the opportunist alone - not forgetting the vital observation and communiction skills that must factor in. Once again, modifications should be made to add the 'third-party priority' aspect, to intercept and divert unwanted interaction with a potentially hostile individual and the principal to the CPO instead. Such incidents might range from an aggressive panhandler encountered on route to the car, to a drugged-up aggressive loudmouth in a club, all the way to an over-inebriated business partner or potential client at an upmarket restaurant. Tact and discretion are prerequisites - obviously - in such circumstances, since the principal wants his public image protected as well as his person, his property, and his privacy, but never fail to consider that nothing is foolproof...and people in such instances are unpredictable...so there has to be an emergency back-up plan, just in case...

More of this later...and a look at threat management options...

Mick

Obviously the original question was specifically aimed at what physical 'hard skills' should be considered essential for a CPO, so I won't delve too deeply into the threat mangement options - as these are purely 'soft skills' in format. Understanding and implementing effective threat management is an underpinning foundation to any protection operation in truth, being focused upon the various levels of general, specific and direct awareness that enables not only the prediction of potential risk, but the means to reduce or completely avoid it. I've covered such processes elsewhere in some detail and it's beyond the remit of this particular thread in truth.

Incidentally whilst not having anything to do with 'threat management' I strongly recommend a book by Geoffrey Padgham titled 'Close Protection: The Softer Skills' that covers some of the most important aspects of the job - the day to day conduct issues. Not a big book by any stretch, and devoid of any 'tactical' stuff like walking-formations and embus/debus drills, it does however realistically address what is often overlooked in favour of the more exciting subjects - namely how to perform at a professional level, in terms of appearance, behaviour, communication and blending in, dealing with 'problem' clients, etc. In truth, these particular skills are so fundamental to the role, so crucial, used on every single job, in every moment of it, that a book on the subject shouldn't be really needed at all...but unfortunately it tends to be! Early on, a truthful and useful perspective regarding hard vs. soft skills is established, that hits the nail squarely on the head in my opinion. Worth a look.

To revisit 'contact management' briefly, that hybrid of soft/hard skills that revolves around a constant accurate assessment of the person, situation, environment, not to mention yourself - it's fuelled by the awareness of 'threat management' and backed-up by the action of 'combat management' just in case - think of it as the day-to-day drive in your car, interacting with other road users, negotiating tricky circumstances with as little friction as possible. The threat management is planning the best possible route that factors 'out' as much potential risk as possible in advance, whilst the combat management is the airbag and seatbelt that will hopefully never be deployed.

Being able to extend effective contact management into the CPO role to reduce 'friction' is essential - and the very definition of being professional. As previously mentioned, being able to smoothly deal with, handle and manage this friction can be an art-form, and is as far from exciting as anything can possibly get - just like all good security...boring = good...exciting = bad!

More later...

Mick

Apologies once again for the lack of momentum regarding this thread...I'll try harder!

Heno wrote:
As for the teaching of Fairbairn/Sykes material, well I'm a big fan of that stuff to be honest BUT what a lot of people don't realise, or in some cases, choose to ignore is the context in which their system was meant to be used.

Both Fairbairn and Sykes stressed that it was only effective if you attacked first and keep on attacking so hardly a fighting/self-defence system, but a very effective attacking system.

So while it may be very effective when used as it was meant to be, does it lend itself to the world of CP? I mean, you can't go chopping the neck or face smashing some over enthusiastic fan at a red carpet event, nor can you chin jab a street vendor hawking his wares on a Middle Eastern street in the manner that's part of their custom, and what a lot of westerners can find irritating or intimidating.


Personally I'm not that much of a fan of what is known these days as being the 'WWII' material - without taking this thread too far off topic, I feel that what some hold in such zealous regard is little more than a collection of combative 'accessories' that were originally intended to augment more comprehensive delivery-systems - vehicles - such as boxing, wrestling and Judo, etc, for 'special occasions' where you were the aggressor applying maximum force to an unaware/unsuspecting target. Certainly not an effective stand-alone 'system' as such, as is very evident today when you see such material taught and practiced without an underpinning 'vehicle' to support it - manifesting as a nothing more than a series of set-piece, barely cohesive, 'fight scenes' for want of a better expression. Obviously opions vary, but if someone wants to hear more of mine then start another thread by all means, and time-permitting I'll be happy to delve into the major inconsistencies and dogma I see touted as being the pinnacle of combative excellence by some...

Back to the quoted piece above - I do believe I've already laboured the point regarding the absolute need for an 'extreme force' option as a key component of any use-of-force training that addresses the specific needs of personnel involved in protective operations...so I disagree with the above observation on the whole, in that such material doesn't lend itself as being suitable - if this is the case then surely it isn't suitable to carry and train with firearms surely, since you can't very well Mozambique annoying photographers can you?

I'll submit, for what seems like the gazillionth time, that it is a major failing to omit such an important skillset - that of being able to immediately incapacitate an attacker via sudden violence - on the premise that it isn't suitable for role, as this is a nonsense fallacy that doesn't bear up under logic when considering the presence of firearms training and carriage, etc.

On any job, dropping someone - by fist or fire - is rarely the solution to a situation...however when it is the solution to a particular situation, it is the only solution to that situation - so it has to be trained for up-front and at such a level that it is usable and effective. In short, if you train to shoot then you are obviously admitting and accepting the need to be able to apply exteme force in an emergency...so why not admit and accept that you need an unarmed equivalent? I bang heads with this perceptual blind-spot on a regular basis...and thought I might have covered it earlier, at-length, on this very thread...

Consider any version of a force-continuum, if you - and/or the principal - are in grave personal danger and the accepted response reads 'lethal force' then you need this option available to you, armed or otherwise.

The usual statements against such material being an important element generally involve pointing out that you can't go around punching over-zealous fans and reporters, so therefore such methods are unsuitable for inclusion into a training programme.

...but what a ridiculous argument! Obviously such tactics cannot be employed in such circumstances - show me someone who has ever suggested that they should? As I am certain I mentioned in an earlier post, armed police officers don't shoot every suspect they encounter, and firemen don't chop down every door they need to enter...but they need the capability to do so just in case the worst happens...same as that close-protection operative needs to be able to drop someone in a worst-case scenario, in addition to all the other skills he needs to handle the fans and reporters, etc.

More soon...

Mick

To continue then...

So far, using my preferred terminology, I've attempted to establish that no matter what role you are employed within - be it as part of the advance element, the escort itself, the response team or the security detail, there needs to be a credible 'combat management' option to deal with last-resort emergency situations - to reiterate what I stated earlier, anyone who cannot protect their own person has no business being in a profession that revolves around protecting others - and once again, in my opinion, they must be physically capable of evacuating a casualty to safety in addition...but that's another subject. I extend these same criteria to law-enforcement and military personnel also...

The reason I usually lead in with in-fight 'combat management' training is to reflect this fundamental requirement, to provide a safety-net of sorts when all else fails...which is often the case. For the same reason that even 'non-combatant' military clerks, cooks, suppliers and mechanics all receive basic instruction in fundamental soldiering, and each have a designated personal weapon - no-one gets to skip this part of recruit training, for the exact same very sound reasons.

If the protective operation is of a significant level - in terms of not only the anticipated threat, but also the scale of budget and resources available - there might be an allocated response element, often referred to as a 'counter-assault team' or CAT. Generally speaking this is the preserve of government-level operations, and quite often would be undertaken by heavily armed out-of-sight SF or SWAT personnel attached as required, for the duration of a high-profile event only, capable of providing almost instantaneous overwhelming firepower to suppress and neutralise a serious attack.

On a lower level it is not uncommon to utilise additional manpower to 'wait in the wings' and cover the escort element's withdrawl to safety should an incident occur. It's difficult to get your principal into a vehicle outside a nightclub whilst being punched in the head by a couple of drunken tough guys - unless you have a couple of sober 'tough guys' covering your back, who were previously unseen, and dealing with the fallout and aftermath as you make a clean exit. Obviously this is only one scenario, from a low-profile, small-scale perspective, but hopefully you get the idea or what a response element might be used for.

Obviously 'firepower' is a critical factor in such instances, as their role is likely to be certainly 'combative' in application, but additionally there may be a requirement for the response element to secure those who attempted to attack the principal, so there is certainly a need for effective 'subject management' material to be included within their skillset.

Moving to the 'security' element of an operation - commonly referred to as the 'residential security team' or RST - that are tasked with providing static/mobile protection of a key location, such as a house, workplace, or hotel corridor, etc, then once again such a role requires that mandatory 'just in case' combat management skillset, plus a great deal of contact management capability since they will be interacting with all kinds of individuals - friendly, indifferent, and hostile - on a regular basis, and at times there will be 'friction' since a great deal of their duties will be to deny access, and otherwise tell people what they probably don't want to hear. Due to instances where such interaction escalates, or in the case of intruders within certain prohibited areas, this in turn may require subject management applications that effectively secures an offender/suspect for the attention of the relevant authorities.

In the real world, it's highly likely that due to the previously mentioned shortage of resources virtually all these specific roles are rolled into one - so in reality, everything should be addressed in training...not just paid lip-service to.

Now comes the sales-pitch... Or did you think I just typed all the above out of the sheer goodness of my heart...?

Essentially this is what I intended regarding the C2 concept, something designed 'task specific' and I certainly had the 'close-protection' role firmly in mind when I developed it, as well as for military and law-enforcement applications.

So rather than being the usual barely-adapted mix of martial arts and combat sports, full of non-applicable material and conflicting methodology that rarely takes into account specific working practices of personnel within specialised roles, I have striven to build an integrated and cohesive system from the ground up, that heavily emphasises and focuses upon the essential 'core' fundamentals.

In truth, the above couple of paragraphs sound familiar I admit - doesn't everyone claim the same? Saying and writing it is one thing, but living up to it is another in my opinion - I don't much bother with the bumper-sticker rhetoric as I don't value reading or listening to it personally, so in light of this I don't see much point in writing or saying it either.

Those military comabat systems that make all these 'created for the battlefield' claims, or have been specially created for bodyguards, undercover operatives, etc - and then you see them demonstrated...looking just like yet another kickboxing/jujutsu hybrid...

All of a sudden that unique super-soldier 'combat-proven' high-speed/low-drag modern-progressive-tactical system looks surprisingly like...the same old...stuff...

Jab, cross, hook, clinch, knee, etc, combinations? Try that stuff with a long-gun - or client - attached to you...

Mick

I've finally gotten around to having a look at my copy of the following book:

Close Protection - Richard J Aitch
http://www.cpbook.co.uk/

In short, what I have read so far is simply superb - compared to similar titles on the market...there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever.

Consider that the author has actually worked the role at the highest level, for a considerable length of time, and is a graduate of some of the very best training available anywhere...a more bonafide and credible pedigree would be more than a little difficult to come by.

Certainly he has not simply decided to become an expert in a colossal and highly specialist subject, have an amatuerish stab at it, and then attempt to persuade all and sundry that they are market leaders of legendary status...resting solely upon tall tales, dubious laurels, and incessant name dropping...

I haven't been able to give the book the comprehensive read it deserves yet - it is a substantial piece of work - but the chapter relating to unarmed combat is right on the money, and the candid opinions expressed regarding the Security Industry Authority debacle concerning the 'professional' training required to obtain a close protection licence are eye opening...

To say I would recommend this book is an understatement.

Mick

...and that's about as far as the thread got to...so far...!

Mick

As the industry on a whole I personally think the best form
of defence is your wit and your common sense. Brute force and fighting Is the
wrong stance in CP. CP ain't about staying and fighting. Having worked in CP
for many a year. There has been no need to get physical with anyone at anytime
or than stepping in and offering prevention.


What i mean by this is for example you are walking down the
high street with your client and then someone you see if making a play for the
client by being able to read the situation by walking forward and bending down
to tie your shoe lace etc. Something that shows the client you can deal with an
awkward situation and put a break in between. Obviously still ready to put a
little force in if needed.


As for knowing some sort of fighting technique. I personally
feel knowing a little of everything, Judo for ground with MMA, Krav for the
defensive techniques in close if need be. the ones that will help you defeat opponent
and move client away asap.


I am no way any expert in this but teaching on CP courses
shouldnt be loads of aggression but some teaching on reading the situation
ahead. TOO many times CPOs misjudge the situation and fill the attackers in.
Not needed. get client as far away from danger as possible. provide defensive cover
till a solution for escape has been reached. those are the things that should
be going through the brain. Seconds to decide etc. The stay and fight method is
stupid. Sorry I have not read the full thread as brain couldn't concentrate on
it all. NO offence to be taken from it please.

good post. agreed

Lynxsecuritycv wrote:As the industry on a whole I personally think the best form of defence is your wit and your common sense. Brute force and fighting Is the wrong stance in CP. CP ain't about staying and fighting. Having worked in CP for many a year. There has been no need to get physical with anyone at anytime or than stepping in and offering prevention.


What i mean by this is for example you are walking down the high street with your client and then someone you see if making a play for the client by being able to read the situation by walking forward and bending down to tie your shoe lace etc. Something that shows the client you can deal with an awkward situation and put a break in between. Obviously still ready to put a little force in if needed.


As for knowing some sort of fighting technique. I personally feel knowing a little of everything, Judo for ground with MMA, Krav for the defensive techniques in close if need be. the ones that will help you defeat opponent and move client away asap.


I am no way any expert in this but teaching on CP courses shouldnt be loads of aggression but some teaching on reading the situation ahead. TOO many times CPOs misjudge the situation and fill the attackers in. Not needed. get client as far away from danger as possible. provide defensive cover till a solution for escape has been reached. those are the things that should be going through the brain. Seconds to decide etc. The stay and fight method is stupid. Sorry I have not read the full thread as brain couldn't concentrate on it all. NO offence to be taken from it please.

First off, offerring an opinion on something that is admittedly under-researched is hardly a stance I find to be effective...

One of the reasons I so heavily stress a need, an absolute base-requirement, for an ability to cope with 'worst-case' use-of-force scenarios, for security personnel and LEOs alike, is quite simply due to the dogmatic out of context perceptions that seem to have become standard - that such options are excessive and not in keeping with the nature of the role.

Personally I thought I had covered the reasoning why and why not, for and against in the above posts ad nauseum, but to quote myself, consider the following:

I'll submit, for what seems like the gazillionth time, that it is a major failing to omit such an important skillset - that of being able to immediately incapacitate an attacker via sudden violence - on the premise that it isn't suitable for role, as this is a nonsense fallacy that doesn't bear up under logic when considering the presence of firearms training and carriage, etc.

On any job, dropping someone - by fist or fire - is rarely the solution to a situation...however when it is the solution to a particular situation, it is the only solution to that situation - so it has to be trained for up-front and at such a level that it is usable and effective. In short, if you train to shoot then you are obviously admitting and accepting the need to be able to apply exteme force in an emergency...so why not admit and accept that you need an unarmed equivalent? I bang heads with this perceptual blind-spot on a regular basis...and thought I might have covered it earlier, at-length, on this very thread...

One very important issue that is all too often ignored is context - the questions posed, and the responses given, are concerning the context of unarmed physical skills relevant for the close protection role. There's no mention of any 'tradecraft' or 'awareness' as such - and this is made clear, so saying that the 'best form of defence is your wits and commonsense' is frankly redundant, and as for 'brute force' being the wrong stance, as I have painstakingly pointed out, this is obviously true...until it isn't, and is needed, and all you have are some impotent control holds or accessing a firearm...

On the subject of firearms, I'm sure many/most will agree that if permissable, carrying at least a sidearm is generally advisable - if only to abide by the 'better to have and not need, than to need and not have' maxim. Now as I see it, using a firearm - as many diligently train to do - is considerably more 'brute force' than any unarmed option...but the requirement for such a skillset is apparently quite legitimate? Accepting that tactical firearms training is a valid practice, also completely validates the need for an unarmed equivalent...unfortunately this seems to be a mental 'blind spot' of sorts.

Offerring proof of an opinion via anecdote is always dubious, so stating that fightin' stuff isn't required due to never having a need for it carries as much logic as stating that home insurance isn't required because you've never had a break-in or fire...

As for 'knowing a bit of everything' being the best angle regarding a 'combative' skillset, I'd submit that this is in fact possibly the worst approach, and is responsible for so much of the messy 'collections' out there marketing themselves as being 'systems' or 'methods' when in actual fact they are far from being either systematic or methodical. Having a shopping-list of 'party-tricks' and 'gimmick-moves' might seem impressive, especially on a seminar or course, but it's akin to having a pile of cool accessories in your garage, but no actual vehicle...

In my opinion, obviously.

Mick

Mick,


As your seem hell bent of arguing the fact delete my above comment. I have been
in the industry long enough to know what works and what doesn't. Having a good
all round knowledge in reading people, reading body language, reading
situations and having a good all round knowledge in various disciplines of
martial arts. I have experience in each but don't make ill hazard attempts or party
tricks or gimmick moves. I use my common sense and my own knowledge.





Bullshit baffles brains and all this is
baffling me. The CP industry as a whole was never set up right. Too many
training providers out there do the basics and let the rest fall by waist line.
This whole argument is falling on death ears. Instead of voicing it here send
this to the SIA see if they can up the standards. This industry needs better
training and lots more hands on stuff. But I cannot comment on each individual
CPO but I know i can personally deal with 99.9% of situations that have come across
my path whether aggression or just plain old spiting the dummy.





To many cooks spoil the broth. that is what
CP is now. standards are shit. people think it's all Frank Farmer and going to
ninja this and ninja that.





Lynx

Lynx,

Fair enough - it's just a pity you didn't bother reading what I wrote... every point you raise is covered comprehensively.

To reiterate, the original questions posed were directly aimed at unarmed combative skills specifically, and therefore the responses addressed this issue. It would appear - to me - that you have somehow assumed that I advocate using 'excessive' force as a default option? Nothing could be further from the case...as should be transparently obvious from what I have written.

Here's an observation, judging by the amount of holsters, etc, that you are selling, you've obviously carried sidearms and carbines during your professional career...goes without saying that both provide an extremely high level of force, far above anything the human body can match, yet I'm certain you undertook comprehensive training in such means without batting an eyelash - for sure I would wager that you never refused with any 'you can't just go around shooting people' argument?

What baffles me is your out of context response to a fairly specific, clearly defined, issue - if the dialogue had been about emergency driving techniques, for instance, would you have stated that there was no need for them, since you should drive carefully and read the road properly?

Regarding industry standards, the SIA, etc - this was never the focus of anything that I wrote...and is actually irrelevant as such...so it baffles me why you have made any reference to it?

In truth, as I have said earlier, it seems to be an altogether predictable response - i.e. that effective 'combatives' are an unnecessary skillset, not suitable for role, etc - that is dogmatically upheld by even the 'old-guard' in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Mick

Lynx with the greatest respect, how can you hint at how confident in your ability physically as you know a few martial arts, then hint as strongly that getting physical is hardly worth even considering.

Then have a tag line of "rather be carried by six than judged by twelve".

I do agree that the entire industry has become a complete farce however, but ill not get started on that.

Let's keep on topic and on the unarmed combat importance for CP.

Having half a brain and a smile is obviously very important in order to anticipate and avoid bad situations but sometimes the bad situations still happen and when it gets physical we need the unarmed combat tools and knowledge.