PDA

View Full Version : Do 90% of fights really go to the ground? The LAPD apparently doesn't think so many:



Pages : [1] 2 3

Judah Maccabee
2/22/2007 10:57pm,
This author of this e-journal article discusses the "90%" statistic concerning how many fights end up on the ground, and uses statistics from the LAPD to find that fewer fights go to the ground than thought, along with other notable info

http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html


2,031 (0.6%) altercations developed from these arrests. “Of the 5,617 reports examined, only 2,031 incidents contained a sufficient level of aggressive resistance by the suspect toward the officer to qualify as an altercation.”

Mr. Jones
2/22/2007 11:10pm,
Some people take the gracies seriously Osrisis.

Red512S
2/22/2007 11:44pm,
At the beginning, I thought the author was going to try to disprove the idea that the majority of altercations go to the ground,, but in the end it showed that th majority actually do. Of course it's important to remember also that what a police officer needs to know is often more "neutralization" than "attacking." Still, interesting read.

Dave

Judah Maccabee
2/23/2007 12:09am,
The article says closer to 2/3rds of the fights go to the ground, and that when officers have ground training, they're far less likely to employ greater force or suffer injury.

So it diminishes the stereotype that "all fights go to the ground", but still emphasizes the necessity of groundfight training.

aaaargh
2/23/2007 5:21pm,
Hearing the "90% of fights go to the ground" line is a sure sign that you are about to enter a really stupid conversation.

I actually had a conversation with a Wing Chun guy begin like this. It ended with an explanation of why Wing Chun is better than kickboxing.

BSDaemon
2/23/2007 5:35pm,
Here is the actual abstract of the article

The LAPD study does not show that “90% of fights go to the ground.” Instead, the LAPD study shows that 95% of altercations took on one of five familiar patterns (with which any street cop will be intimately familiar). It also shows that of that 95%, 62% ended up with both the officer and the suspect grappling on the ground.

Obviously, being professionally charged with restraining someone versus being primarily focused on escaping an attack will change the dynamic of a confrontation after the initial engagement. This is why I believe police in an arrest situation are more likely than a citizen in a self-defense situation to stay on the ground during a physical encounter.

Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that more than half the officers surveyed by Calibre Press reported that suspects had attempted to take them down, and that the suspects accomplished this 60% of the time. Of that number, the overwhelming majority stayed on the ground grappling with the officer (77%). When considering these patterns of assault, they are of the same nature as criminal assaults on citizens. In other words, the mechanics of an assault (versus the mechanics of arrest) do not change simply because one of the people involved is a police officer. [EN4]

To conclude, one can quibble with the exact percentages, but being on the ground happens frequently during serious altercations. Could a person’s being taken down and not having an effective means to deal with the situation increase odds of death or serious injury, either to him/herself or to the assailant? My personal view is that this is the case.

So the more of the story: learn to grapple.

OnceLost
2/23/2007 5:37pm,
Don't forget that LEOs use force for a different reason than your 'standard' physical altercation. I'm not arguing either side, but it's an important fact. And there have been a number of studies suggesting that there is a direct correlation between the competency of an LEO's empty hand use of force situations and the potential for excessive force to be used.

new2bjj
2/23/2007 9:49pm,
Don't forget that LEOs use force for a different reason than your 'standard' physical altercation. I'm not arguing either side, but it's an important fact. And there have been a number of studies suggesting that there is a direct correlation between the competency of an LEO's empty hand use of force situations and the potential for excessive force to be used.

Someone that studies how to hurt people, when given the chance, will hurt people. Big surprise! There are many good cops out there. There are also many, who, if it weren't for the job, would be in jail themselves. I've seen several of the most thuggish, sleazy guys from my youth grow up to be cops, and then were dismissed from the Oakland/Berkeley police force. Some guys are just on a power trip, and it is a quick route to power. Still, when your house is getting robbed, what do you do- call the ACLU? Plus, some guys need a little beat down, once in a while. It's all part of the game for some? Right?

Epicurus
2/23/2007 10:19pm,
Two things;

The gracie percentages are ridiculous. Fights go to the ground often when someone is knocked down, unable to defend themselves.

No one (smart) is arguing that a good grappler can't take you down if they want to, but to assume that all fights turn into BJJ tourneys is nuts.

And yes, I didn't bother to read the rest of this thread. This is all I really care to say and I think it's view we'll all embrace (dammit).

JKDChick
2/24/2007 12:59am,
No sane person belives the 90% myth, BJJ'er or not. That's been clear for YEARS.

OnceLost
2/26/2007 11:08am,
Someone that studies how to hurt people, when given the chance, will hurt people. Big surprise!
I phrased that the wrong way...the correlation is that cops who know what they are doing are LESS likely to use excessive force. Sorry for the confusion.

Mei Hua
2/26/2007 11:16am,
Its still most of them and you still need to know how to grapple. Why do we care?

Well said.

It either happens or it doesn't, I've seen/been in both types, either or, why not be prepared for the eventuallity?

Hanniballistic
2/26/2007 11:18am,
I phrased that the wrong way...the correlation is that cops who know what they are doing are LESS likely to use excessive force. ...

Because we don't have to.

If I FIGHT you (as opposed to simply arrest you) you are going to the ground, period. This is because I cannot cuff you as safely when you are standing.

Like OnceLost said, the comparison is somewhat misleading as my aims as an LEO are different to "Mr. Citizen". Even off-duty I would still tend to favour downing and restraining because again if I fight you then you need arresting.

OnceLost
2/26/2007 11:25am,
Absolutely. If I know how to take you down empty-handed and work on restraint, why bother beating you with a baton?

Mei Hua
2/26/2007 11:27am,
Absolutely. If I know how to take you down empty-handed and work on restraint, why bother beating you with a baton?

Less fun?

OnceLost
2/26/2007 11:32am,
Again, I'm not an LEO any more, but I never really like the baton. Which is probably why I didn't use in my (almost) 5 years...if I did use it, I'd have to maintain control of it and then put it away when I'm done. I'm a small guy (5'8", 135ish), but I always had more luck grabbing someone and sweeping/slamming/tripping them into a better control position. Of course, the benefit of the LEO thing is that you usually have back-up there or able to get there quickly...