Rethinking police defensive tactics training: Prioritizing what matters most

The field of law enforcement has a bad habit of requiring officers to deftly take control of suspects in physical altercations but giving them very little training on how to do it. Since we are unlikely as a profession to receive a bounty of training hours, we must use the time we have as efficiently as possible. In addition to maximizing training benefits through efficient practice methods, instructors must ensure every technique they teach is worth their student’s time.

Skill categories and priorities

There are several categories of skills in defensive tactics — control tactics, striking, ground control and survival, OC spray use, baton, weapon retention and a few others. When deciding how much of your allotted training time to spend on each, consider these factors:

• How often are the skills from the categories needed?
• What is the risk of having insufficient skill in one category?
• How difficult are the necessary skills to learn?

Many departments go years without baton use in the field, and for most patrol applications, a TASER is more effective. Moreover, I have rarely heard of baton use in the field that involves more complexity than swinging it hard and knowing where to stow it for handcuffing. This suggests that only minimal time should be allocated to baton training.

Weapon retention techniques are not frequently needed, but when they are, they can be a matter of life or death. Thankfully, these are simple skills that can be built on the fundamentals of position and technique learned in control tactics training, so they should not require a significant portion of training time. Additionally, modern holsters from reputable manufacturers handle most of the retention work for us.

As a program manager, you should evaluate each skill category with these considerations in mind and prioritize your training time accordingly.

Control tactics and ground control

Control tactics are the most frequently used skills across all categories, and when executed effectively, they lead to ground control. Proper use of these two skill categories can often prevent a use-of-force incident from escalating to a higher level of force. However, both require time to master, and there are numerous techniques and methods to choose from. As a result, instructors must be discerning about what to include in the lesson plan — and what to leave out. After all, deciding what is omitted from instruction is just as important as deciding what is included.

First, relying on pain compliance is a poor strategy — its success depends on the suspect choosing to comply. A significant percentage of suspects on whom police use force are either under the influence of drugs or alcohol, experiencing a behavioral health crisis or condition, outright refusing to comply, or some combination of these factors. Instead, techniques should emphasize the principles of leverage and position.

For example, working toward a body lock position, putting the suspect’s body out of alignment, and dropping weight are far more effective than applying pressure to a wrist in a gooseneck position to perform a takedown. With the former approach, the suspect cannot simply choose not to fall; the technique does not rely on their cooperation. While the suspect might still struggle or attempt to escape the position, their compliance is not required for the technique to be successful.

Another common issue with control tactics curricula is the reliance on untested skills practiced in static, sterile drills. If techniques fall apart when training partners apply even minimal resistance, they will fail even more dramatically in the field. For example, a system that depends heavily on wrist control techniques might be defeated by something as simple as sweaty hands. Every technique must be capable of functioning against a resisting suspect and should be rigorously tested in a safe environment with resistance.

There is often significant overlap between effective defensive tactics (DT) control techniques and those found in grappling arts such as wrestling, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo and Sambo. However, this does not mean that techniques effective for athletes in these sports can or should be directly incorporated into DT. Instead, certain principles must be considered before adapting these methods for law enforcement use:

1. Is the technique low risk and high reward? Officers should not perform techniques that, if executed poorly, leave them in a vulnerable position. For example, jumping down to their knees in a 180-degree spin to throw a suspect over their back might be effective for martial arts athletes, but it is unsuitable for police work. Techniques must minimize risk while maximizing effectiveness.
2. Can an officer of average age and fitness apply it? Officers should not be trained to execute moves like a low double-leg takedown. Most officers lack the knee health or fitness level for such techniques, not to mention the challenges posed by the environments they operate in and the restrictions of their gear and uniforms. A low double-leg is an excellent technique for young athletes on forgiving mats but impractical for law enforcement.
3. Is it too complex? If students cannot reliably use the technique the next day, it is not suitable. Techniques with seven or more steps are either poorly taught or inherently too complex for practical use. Training hours are too limited to spend on skills that require years of practice to become effective in the field.
4. Does the technique progress toward an arrest? A transition from a mounted position to an armbar might work in a competition that ends with a submission, but it is not a sound strategy for law enforcement. Abandoning a dominant position for one that is less stable and does not facilitate handcuffing undermines the ultimate goal of arrest and control.

Striking tactics

As with all use-of-force skills, striking techniques should be used only when necessary and with a clear outcome in mind. Striking can lead to success in the following ways:

1. The suspect is rendered unconscious from strikes. This is highly unlikely and, given the medical implications, often undesirable. The suspect may also recover quickly and continue fighting, albeit at greater risk for a significant head injury.
2. The suspect quits fighting due to fear, physical pain, or exhaustion. This is a favorable outcome, but much like pain compliance, it depends on the suspect choosing to stop fighting, making it unreliable. Striking for compliance without a plan to transition to control also risks becoming an unlawful overuse of force.
3. Transition to control tactics. In most situations, it is preferable for an officer to establish positional dominance on the ground rather than engage in what resembles a boxing match. Striking increases the risk of injury to both the officer and the suspect and creates far more chaos and uncertainty than effective ground control.
4. Transition to a higher level of force. When the threat requires a higher level of force, such as an impact weapon or lethal force, strikes can help create the necessary space for the officer to transition safely, reducing the risk of a struggle over equipment.

With #1 being unlikely and often undesirable, #2 good but unreliable, and #4 only applicable in higher-threat scenarios, #3 (transition to control tactics) emerges as the optimal outcome in most situations where striking is used. Consequently, training methods should reflect this reality. Training sessions that consist only of static drills, such as hitting pads, fail to prepare officers for real-world needs. Training must focus on integrating striking techniques with transitions to control tactics to maximize effectiveness and safety.

Transitions

The dynamic and unpredictable nature of use-of-force events necessitates that officers learn to seamlessly transition between all skill sets. Even when an incident unfolds smoothly, some degree of transition is almost always required. For example, if an officer performs a takedown, they should immediately move into a dominant ground control position. Pausing to “shift gears” in the new context can allow the suspect to get back up, forfeiting an opportunity to significantly mitigate danger.

If striking is not trained as a transition to a control position, an officer experiencing acute stress and perceptual distortions might continue striking even when it is both a poor tactical choice and potentially legally indefensible. Officers should never have to contend with avoidable training scars during a dangerous and rapidly evolving use-of-force event. Substandard training that fails to prepare officers for these realities not only puts their safety at risk but can also lead to unnecessary liability.

There is a lot to consider

This article provides only a brief overview of considerations for developing and improving your defensive tactics program. There are countless other important concepts and principles to explore, entire skill sets barely touched upon here, debates to engage in over specific technique choices, and reviews to conduct on use-of-force events to analyze what worked and what did not. Defensive tactics training is a field with unlimited potential for growth and progress, which can make it a daunting undertaking at times.

However, given the critical need for officers to possess the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in dangerous situations — and to return home safely at the end of their shifts — the effort is always worthwhile.