I just got back from teaching GUNTING @ FLETC- Federal Law Enforcement Training Center...the GUNTING fits right into the force continuum that our federal agencies use.
They were very impressed with its ability to go from non-lethal to less than lethal to lethal ( in the live blade case) all in a flow..and within the flow of usage ..ie combative situation.
They were also impressed that it wasn't rocket science and that they too could use the GUNTING & DRONE after only a few hours of instruction...BAM!( sorry Emeril!)
There was a lot of emphasis put on non lethal and less than lethal usage of the GUNTING system..OUCH! it really hurt..
The guys were real happy when Andy put the hurt on me a few times...
We worked on cover and get away moves that went directly to the BG's center and when trapping the limbs put the BG right onto the ground..
They showed me the Federeal use of force chart and how the GUNTING system actually allowed them to use more of the areas of force than just about any tool they used..and that Kin-Op ( kinetic Opening) really paved the way to get from one level to the next...
Thanks Sal n SPYDERCO for giving me a chance to have the GUNTING System....
GUNTING & the force continuum
Exactly why I love the "G".
A great choice for defensive minded civilians, but for LEO's, it's the cat's meow in a control tool/tac-folder.
Will MBC be adopting a set Use of Force Model as part of the official curriculum, or allow the individual agencies/jurisdictions to determine the usage within their own?
I can see a UoF Model being useful for Non-LEO people that require an understanding of the relevant legal issues.
Steve
A great choice for defensive minded civilians, but for LEO's, it's the cat's meow in a control tool/tac-folder.
Will MBC be adopting a set Use of Force Model as part of the official curriculum, or allow the individual agencies/jurisdictions to determine the usage within their own?
I can see a UoF Model being useful for Non-LEO people that require an understanding of the relevant legal issues.
Steve
The color chart "Use of force Continuum" compiled by S.Faulkner, and utilized in Ohio, is under study by the feds.If the FBI goes to this continuum, it will probably be used nationwide.It is a simple escalation of force system backed by the opinions of thousands of officers through the use of a survey to compile statistics.
The Gunting fits into this continuum in several areas (Lethal and less lethal).
In some ways, the Gunting can be compared to a PR-24.Both tools can be utilized as lethal ,or less than lethal force.
It is a great knife to have on your duty belt.An officer can use it for utility purposes,for pressure point control, as an impact weapon (especially for weapon retention) or for deadly encounters.
The Gunting fits into this continuum in several areas (Lethal and less lethal).
In some ways, the Gunting can be compared to a PR-24.Both tools can be utilized as lethal ,or less than lethal force.
It is a great knife to have on your duty belt.An officer can use it for utility purposes,for pressure point control, as an impact weapon (especially for weapon retention) or for deadly encounters.
You should consider the issue of getting away from the "continuum" concept and simply refer to the options as a "level of response" or "level of control".
One problem that we have had in the courts is the idea that if use of force is taught as a "continuum", it suggests that one must go up and down the ladder step by step. This has opened officers up to questioning and scrutiny when, do to the circumstances, they "skipped" steps.
Now, legally, you are clearly allowed to "skip" steps based on what you face. Someone cannot be expected to go through the presence/verbal commands/oc/impact weapon steps to get to deadly force when someone is already using deadly force against them. Unfortunately, defense and civil attorneys being what they are, it has been argued that going up those steps is exactly what is required based on "continuum" training.
Listing levels of control, with no progression, or using the "pie chart" approach of listing the levels, has helped to diminish these types of challenges.
Just a thought.
Be polite and professional, but have a plan to kill anyone you meet
One problem that we have had in the courts is the idea that if use of force is taught as a "continuum", it suggests that one must go up and down the ladder step by step. This has opened officers up to questioning and scrutiny when, do to the circumstances, they "skipped" steps.
Now, legally, you are clearly allowed to "skip" steps based on what you face. Someone cannot be expected to go through the presence/verbal commands/oc/impact weapon steps to get to deadly force when someone is already using deadly force against them. Unfortunately, defense and civil attorneys being what they are, it has been argued that going up those steps is exactly what is required based on "continuum" training.
Listing levels of control, with no progression, or using the "pie chart" approach of listing the levels, has helped to diminish these types of challenges.
Just a thought.
Be polite and professional, but have a plan to kill anyone you meet
I'll chime in on this one too, although it will mostly be a repeat of what has already been posted.
Many years ago when I struggled with creating a force continuum for my department and then instructed it, I was always frustrated by the lack of overlap in tools and techniques. One of the very first things I realized about the Gunting was its ability to move up and down the force continuum like nothing else I had ever been exposed too, what I call "cradle to grave coverage". Great in and of itself, but the Gunting has one more advantage. Where do most problems start for the LEO on the street? At "in your face" range. The baton is limited at this range, as well as policy bound, SHB is similarly handicapped. OC-10? Yes, I've been sprayed with it and experienced it on the street, though it only came into use at the end of my career. I'm dubious about its ability to stop close range attack. A firearm is very difficult to employ at this range. The Gunting was born for this type of work however.
It's kind of like running a horse race in the rain. When the track is hock deep, put your money on the mudder. The Gunting is a mudder (or as some of you will agree, a "mother" when Bram puts you through the Gunting break dance!) ... as I said, the Gunting is a mudder and as all of us in LE know, baby it's always raining, and it all runs downhill don't it? My bet is on the Gunting!
Greg R. Beeman Si Vis Pacern Parabellum Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
Many years ago when I struggled with creating a force continuum for my department and then instructed it, I was always frustrated by the lack of overlap in tools and techniques. One of the very first things I realized about the Gunting was its ability to move up and down the force continuum like nothing else I had ever been exposed too, what I call "cradle to grave coverage". Great in and of itself, but the Gunting has one more advantage. Where do most problems start for the LEO on the street? At "in your face" range. The baton is limited at this range, as well as policy bound, SHB is similarly handicapped. OC-10? Yes, I've been sprayed with it and experienced it on the street, though it only came into use at the end of my career. I'm dubious about its ability to stop close range attack. A firearm is very difficult to employ at this range. The Gunting was born for this type of work however.
It's kind of like running a horse race in the rain. When the track is hock deep, put your money on the mudder. The Gunting is a mudder (or as some of you will agree, a "mother" when Bram puts you through the Gunting break dance!) ... as I said, the Gunting is a mudder and as all of us in LE know, baby it's always raining, and it all runs downhill don't it? My bet is on the Gunting!
Greg R. Beeman Si Vis Pacern Parabellum Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
While I was training the Federal guys..I was made aware that the GUNTING fits three catagories ..non lethal, less than lethal and if needed lethal...
and they showed me the great color flow chart..cool chart!!!!
oops sorry if this is a repeat of my original posting.. I got carried away trying to respond BEFORE I go...
well off to Israel..
Edited by - BRAM on 5/17/2001 7:51:44 PM
and they showed me the great color flow chart..cool chart!!!!
oops sorry if this is a repeat of my original posting.. I got carried away trying to respond BEFORE I go...
well off to Israel..
Edited by - BRAM on 5/17/2001 7:51:44 PM
crecy,
Contact the Ohio Peace officer's Training Academy:O.P.O.T.A.
P.O. Box 309
London Ohio 43140
1 800 346 pota
Ask for the computer disk "Use of Force" by Samuel Faulkner.This continuum does not use confusing terms, but ,easy to understand wording.This is great not only for our officers, but also for the Grand Jury.This continuum has been used to protect our officers in quite a few court cases.
Samuel Faulkner is a great asset for Ohio Law Enforcement training issues and use of force incidents.I'm sure he can better answer any of your concerns.
Contact the Ohio Peace officer's Training Academy:O.P.O.T.A.
P.O. Box 309
London Ohio 43140
1 800 346 pota
Ask for the computer disk "Use of Force" by Samuel Faulkner.This continuum does not use confusing terms, but ,easy to understand wording.This is great not only for our officers, but also for the Grand Jury.This continuum has been used to protect our officers in quite a few court cases.
Samuel Faulkner is a great asset for Ohio Law Enforcement training issues and use of force incidents.I'm sure he can better answer any of your concerns.
Unfortunately, I don't have anything in file format. Basically, instead of putting the levels in order and emphasizing moving up and down the ladder...you instead tie the level of response to the actions of the subject.
It's simply a matter of where the emphasis is..."if bad guy is doing this, you are at this level of response", not "try this, and if it doesn't work move up to the next level".
You're just trying to take away what is often confusing for both rookies and lawyers who think that you have to move up and down in order, rather than using the appropriate level of response based on the actions of the subject.
Be polite and professional, but have a plan to kill anyone you meet
It's simply a matter of where the emphasis is..."if bad guy is doing this, you are at this level of response", not "try this, and if it doesn't work move up to the next level".
You're just trying to take away what is often confusing for both rookies and lawyers who think that you have to move up and down in order, rather than using the appropriate level of response based on the actions of the subject.
Be polite and professional, but have a plan to kill anyone you meet