This influence is much appreciated if you are a civilian with a different threat level than ordinary civilians, such as a retired judge, state prosecutor, bodyguard, or bouncer. You can access some of the world’s best deadly force combat training without joining the military or becoming a law enforcement officer. However, if you are an ordinary civilian, the influence of deadly force training may put you at a disadvantage.
Let’s cover a few basic law enforcement foundations.
- Mentality: Law enforcement has a duty to protect the public. When a threat to the public surfaces, law enforcement will engage.
- Weapon Readiness: A law enforcement officer can be attacked at any time. As a result, their weapons are ready to operate as their life can depend on them. For example, they carry a round in the chamber.
- Weapon Complexity: Some public threats are experienced with violence. They may be former military members or accomplished violent criminals with weapon-based violence expertise. Excellent training in complex weapons may be required to deal with these threats adequately. These include semi-automatic weapons, Short Barreled Rifles (SBRs), suppressors, night vision, and the whole nine yards.
- Legality: In case of a mistake (e.g., an innocent person is killed in a shoot-out), law enforcement officers have extensive protections encoded in law. In addition, the full power of the police union is available to them.
Let’s cover how these foundations can become disadvantages for civilians.
First, an aspect of law enforcement mentality comes from unnecessarily involving yourself in public violence. Ask yourself this question: if your spouse and your kids are at a convenience store and someone robs it, do you want your spouse to involve yourself in that violence if your spouse or your kids are not directly threatened by it? If someone is after $200 at the local 7-11 and your spouse decides to shoot it out with him, the crook gets away, and your spouse is killed in front of the kids, was the right decision made? This reason is why I cover Varg Freeborn’s mission concept extensively (also – buy his book, Violence of the Mind). It will go a long way to help prioritize what is important.
Second, let’s look at weapon readiness. Because of the threat level law enforcement officers face, it is quite understandable that their weapons are ready for immediate action. This fact goes doubly true for advanced tactical teams like SWAT. However, the National Firearms Survey reveals that civilian defensive gun uses differ significantly from law enforcement. So different, in fact, that civilians should prioritize weapon readiness far less than they are.
Third, let’s look at weapon complexity. Many civilians are using very similar weapons to law enforcement and the military. However, research into civilian defensive gun uses where the weapon was discharged reveals that civilians rarely need complex weapons. They could hinder your ability to respond. In short, the simpler, the better.
Fourth, and finally, we look at legality. The combination of the first three items discussed is bad for civilians. It dramatically increases the chance of a civilian needing legal help unnecessarily. Weapon readiness and complexity can lead to negligent discharges and, in Arizona, a felony criminal charge with a mandatory prison sentence. While law enforcement is duty-bound to protect the public, if an accident happens and an innocent is killed while battling it out with a violent criminal, a law enforcement officer has extensive legal rights due to their public obligation. A civilian in the same circumstances will not have the same protections. This fact could mean prison time for a civilian.
Let’s change gears and cover missed opportunities. De-escalation training is one of the most significant opportunities for law enforcement training to influence civilian training. Law enforcement does this training as they only want to use the minimal amount of force necessary to stop the threat for the safety of everyone. It is far better to de-escalate a situation than to pull a Taser or a firearm. Unfortunately, I’ve never seen this training incorporated into common civilian self-defense training. It is unfortunate because de-escalation training is helpful in many aspects of civilian life. In short, real-life “de-escalation training” sessions (e.g., arguments with the spouse) happen much more frequently than violent encounters allowing practitioners to gain experience. Everyone benefits when a potentially violent situation is de-escalated. To understand its importance, remember over 50 % of violent crime is aggravated assault, and about 67% of the time, the victim isn’t injured. These situations are a big chunk of violent crime and look like civilian arguments that spiral out of control. Imagine the violent crime statistics if 50% of those situations were de-escalated.