Thoughts on the army rangers combatives manual from the man who wrote it

[WhiteShark]

Most agencies that I know of now do not allow "blood chokes". I cant tell you how many times I have been wrestling on the ground with a guy and saw a RNC or guillitine(SP?) and not been allowed to use it. Simple, Effective, and I cant use it unless its "deadly force". Sad really.

Does that mean that "wind" chokes ARE allowed? If so it is patently insane. Blood chokes are way faster and in my mind that makes them safer for both people.

[dwkfym]

There must be some lame-ass case where blood chokes are deadly force now. If I go to the ground in a defense situation I will go for more painful, more permanent joint locks instead.

[C0WB0Y]

There must be some lame-ass case where blood chokes are deadly force now. If I go to the ground in a defense situation I will go for more painful, more permanent joint locks instead.

See State of Maryland vs. Kevin Killian

The prosecution referred to the rear naked choke as the 'LAPD Sleeper Hold'.

Seriously.

[ranger joe]

Does that mean that "wind" chokes ARE allowed? If so it is patently insane. Blood chokes are way faster and in my mind that makes them safer for both people.

Well, you caught an error of mine. Actually blood and wind chokes are considered one in the same for "use of force" situations. Both are not allowed except under extreme circumstances. My error for leaving that out.

[Styygens]

I know the thread has moved on to LEO defensive tactics, but I thought it might be worth mentioning that Matt Larsen is on the cover of the September 2010 Black Belt Magazine.

Video here: http://www.blackbeltmag.com/basic-tr...n/archives/905

[Flail_Crapple]

I know the thread has moved on to LEO defensive tactics, but I thought it might be worth mentioning that Matt Larsen is on the cover of the September 2010 Black Belt Magazine.

Video here: http://www.blackbeltmag.com/basic-tr...n/archives/905

That was certainly more worthwhile watching than most of the stuff that turns up in that magazine.

[Styygens]

It gets better... The magazine also has a brief profile of MCMAP "founder" Cardo Urso, the senior NCO there at the beginning. It turns out he retired and now runs an MMA school! I did not know that.

[DdlR]

Well, you caught an error of mine. Actually blood and wind chokes are considered one in the same for "use of force" situations. Both are not allowed except under extreme circumstances. My error for leaving that out.

The major liability issue with blood chokes is that, given limited training time, no referees and the confusion of a real-life street drama, it can be hella hard for an officer in the field to distinguish between "subject violently resisting arrest" and "subject desperately trying not to die". This is compounded in team takedown situations - again, the same problem is faced by prison guards and psych. workers. It only takes a bit too much pressure for a bit too long and suddenly a simple restraint turns deadly (positional asphyxia FTW, except that everyone loses).

[ranger joe]

The major liability issue with blood chokes is that, given limited training time, no referees and the confusion of a real-life street drama, it can be hella hard for an officer in the field to distinguish between "subject violently resisting arrest" and "subject desperately trying not to die". This is compounded in team takedown situations - again, the same problem is faced by prison guards and psych. workers. It only takes a bit too much pressure for a bit too long and suddenly a simple restraint turns deadly (positional asphyxia FTW, except that everyone loses).

Positional asphyxia and blood chokes are two different animals and I don't think that they should not be compared. Being in a fight, potentially for your life and knowing that there is at least "1" gun in whatever fight your in brings a different aspect to "street fighting". Almost always having to be "reactive" means a lot of times your starting behind the power curve. Your rolling around, getting scraped up, wearing all kinds of gear (which can lead to injuries) maybe being outnumbered, maybe be in traffic, or a confined space. Bottem line, get the fight over with fast. Often times a RNC is in my humble opinion is a way to go. If I start punching someone, what if I break my hand? Of course im going to use my strong hand, which is my gun hand, so now I have a broken hand and the fight turns deadly...and again im behind the power curve. Obviously we can't haphazordly apply RNC's to everyone ("Hey sir...that a fine looking donut ya got there...RNC!!!!!!") It takes training, and there is a time to use it (just like all weapons, gun, pepper, taser, words) but I think we should be allowed to use it on a lower level of force. Anyway, just my thoughts on it. By the way I heard Matt larson is a BB in BJJ as well as the creator of the MACP.

[Moenstah]

There must be some lame-ass case where blood chokes are deadly force now. If I go to the ground in a defense situation I will go for more painful, more permanent joint locks instead.

I know that you are referring to a SD situation, but to take this into a psychiatric context: Joint locks aren't such a good option when dealing with psychiatric patients per se. E.g.: people having a psychosis; they can be so 'mental' that they don't even notice breaking something.

Can't the derail about mental health care be given it's own thread? I really like the original thread as it was.

[mrtnira]

Monesta, thanks for noting the problem with compliance as a condition of context.

Psychiatric patients present a challenge, and plenty of law enforcement / security personnel run into people with mental/emotional challenges all the time. Also, hospital personnel may be challenged with people who are not thinking straight and non-compliant, but within the confines of the hospital.

These emotional conditions don't always require mental inability. Some times, it is because of a loved one in the hospital and the family member is not responsive to hospital personnel. Consumed with fear, anger, frustration, or grief, they no longer can hear sound instruction or behave appropriately.

Yep, some of my security background is showing.... The context of incident is a factor in how people respond.

Ranger Joe, your in-put is right on the money. 30 years ago (oh, my), when going through police reserve training, the "sleeper" was a carotid artery squeeze (a V compression across both sides of the neck with the forearm and bicep), which was considered at the level of deadly force in California at the time because a couple of people had died through its use (influenced by age, medical condition, etc). The straight across the throat choke, was unlawful.

[3moose1]

Whoa there piglets, whats with all the mcmap talk?

I have a Sergeant in my Platoon, who got his blackbelt from the guy who helped write the Manual.

Also, blood chokes aren't, "deadly force". I don't care. Sure, they are deadly....if you hold them for 1+ minutes. If I were to kill someone with my bare hands, let me assure you I wouldn't use a damn RNC, I'd be neck cranking...

[DdlR]

Positional asphyxia and blood chokes are two different animals and I don't think that they should not be compared.

I realize that blood chokes and P.A. aren't identical; I maintain that blood chokes are believed to have been a factor in accidental P.A. deaths.

[mrtnira]

3Moose1, in this case one thing to get past is "what it means to me". Concerning my comment, it isn't what you or I declare to be deadly force, it is what courts or policy considered deadly force at that time of instruction.

I was reflecting on policy instructions at a time and place.

Also, context counts: Considering it looks like you're a Marine, you may be thinking about combat in close quarters in Afghanistan, whereas there had been some prior discussion about controlling or arresting mentally disturbed people in more civil environments.

In the escalation of force instruction, I was surpised to find that the baton and the gun were also both held at the level of deadly force. That was an unexpected definition that I haven't my mind around to this day, but some officer misused it at some point and it was then defined to the level of deadly force.

Again, I'm not in agreement with that one, either, but I didn't make that policy at the time, and it wasn't "what it means to me". It comes back to policy, place, and context, not my opinion.

[ranger joe]

Whoa there piglets, whats with all the mcmap talk?

Actually we were not talking about MCMAP (Marine Corp Martial Arts Program) We were talking about Modern Army Combatives and Mr. larson who spear-headed the creation of them. I assume your a cop also if your referring to me as a "piglet" or your just trying to be an insulting douchbag and get your jabs in on a cop over the computer. Your awesome.

I have a Sergeant in my Platoon, who got his blackbelt from the guy who helped write the Manual.

What is your point. I trained, albiet for a brief time with Mr. Larson and have at least earned a small amount of input on this site even though i am a "newby". I dont claim to be a subject matter expert on anything however I do feel I have at least earned my opinion.

Also, blood chokes aren't, "deadly force". I don't care. Sure, they are deadly....if you hold them for 1+ minutes. If I were to kill someone with my bare hands, let me assure you I wouldn't use a damn RNC, I'd be neck cranking...

No one actually stated that they are in fact deadly force. We stated that they were "considered" deadly force on the use of force "ladder". I dont personally feel that they should be considered Deadly Force. That was my point. Im talking about using them in specific incidents instead of going to hard hands or a baton. Blood choke have the "ability" to cause death, hence they are considered Deadly Force in court and for most police agencies, and frankly thats all that matters. If I was going to go around "neck cranking" people as you suggested I think I would transition to a more effective weapon. Just my humble opinion.


RLTW