Protecting Others

[Alex Haddox]

(received permission to talk about this)

I spent the day doing a photo shoot for Jim Wagner's new book: Protecting Others. The book will be published by Black Belt Magazine sometime late 2010. I am in the book demonstrating some of the techniques.

The material covers every-man techniques to protect family and loved ones from various types of attacks. The book will be published in full-color. We took over 1,000 photos today and continue with more in the morning. It will be highly detailed and descriptive.

Since this is a subject that is often discussed on this forum, I figured y'all might find it interesting. I also want to point out that my Episode 100 (Self-defense with Children Under Your Immediate Care) was out and in the public before I knew about the book! 

[Dave.45]

Thanks for the info. Alex. And thanks again for the great podcast. Would you mind giving this thread a bump (with order information) when the book hits the shelves? I assume that you will know it when the day comes. I would be interested in picking up a copy.

[Alex Haddox]

I will certainly do something when the book finally comes out. I heard today that they are expecting it in August 2010, so I will probably just create a new thread on it.

We did more photography this morning, and a bunch of shots to go along with Jim's monthly column in Black Belt (High Risk).


Tomorrow we are taking a fun day and Jim is going to run us through tactical handgun and rifle drills at a private range. 

[rolsby]

I was going to post this in its own thread, but...

A bouncer puts a choke hold on a guy and waits for police.  Suddenly a random drunk guy tries to interfere.  Fortunately, a patron (who I don't think is an employee) verbally diverts random drunk guy until he loses interest.

Just an interesting situation for study and analysis.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/vvQXjh-NnLM&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/vvQXjh-NnLM&rel=0</a>

[rolsby]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/oH3GV7EmzI4&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/oH3GV7EmzI4&rel=0</a>

Philosophy of a guy on YouTube.

[rolsby]

I'm surprised that these replies didn't garner any discussion.  Am I missing the mark here or moving the conversation in an unrelated direction?

[gitt1]

Easy to check the boards for new messages in a few minutes which we all have, but to start a 22 minute video without a preface is not going to be ideal.
We know who you are from previous posts.  If you say it's worth watching & why it will get more attention.  Thanks for your activity on the boards!
Larry

[SirBrass]

"Close to Engage," video:

Is this guy serious?

I'm not trying to be sarcastic.  Is this video meant to be an actual presentation of proven active shooter response techniques?

I don't think so.  He's pretty clear that this is his own personal opinion.

My biggest objection isn't the "sheepdog concept", as much as what he thinks it entails.  Basically, intervening when you can see to the safe escape of yourself and your loved ones is foolish and could get you killed by the good guys.

I remember my instructors at gunsite telling us that the purpose of self defense was to be able to get away alive.  Responding with deadly force when appropriate, even if total stoppage was not achieved, enough to get away safely was the goal.

I will see to the safety of myself and mine first.  Or if the perp is right there and I can end it there, then I might..... can't say whether I would or not without actually being there.

Basically playing hero and riding to the sound of the guns without a badge is a great way to get shot and killed by LEO's doing the same thing.

[SirBrass]

On a practical and marketing note, isn't that why we carry defensive ammunition in our sidearms (and are more adamant to call it that than to refer to the sidearm as the firearm instead of weapon)?  Or why Hornady Critical Defense FTX is selling better than Winchester PDX1?  The first is primarily defensive and is probably the best for the civilian sheepdog while the later is aimed at those who may in the course of their duties need to go on the offensive and shoot through light cover (ie, LEOs).

And yes, his personal opinion could use a tune up.  However, it's his right to stand on his soapbox, and as long as he's not advertising himself as a professional self-defense instructor, people should only treat his philosophy as his own personal speculation.  IMO, he becomes criminally liable when he starts letting people refer to his ideas as if they were the words from a professional instructor.

[rolsby]

Not going to defend the vid.  However, I just want to mention that during the Texas tower shooting, one of the responders was a civilian who was given a gun.

[Alex Haddox]

Rolsby,

That was a different time and place. It would never happen again.

[SirBrass]

Rolsby,

That was a different time and place. It would never happen again.

Not entirely.  There was the case in the Tyler Courthouse shootings when a civilian engaged the BG with his firearm.  He failed to take down the BG and lost his life, but his actions took the heat off of the cops under fire and saved their lives, and also kept the BG from murdering his own son.

Basically, if he hadn't gotten involved, yeah he might still be alive, but quite a few more people would have died that day.

[tokkan]

As long as we have people who are willing to carry weapons for self-defense, there will always be those who will find themselves in a situation where they will be forced to use those weapons to defend others. That said, police are NOT going to allow armed civilians to provide backup in any but the most desperate situation. Current doctrine and training do not allow for it. Whether this is right or wrong can be debated, but the fact remains.

I have to admit that at my core, I would love to think that I would rush to save a bunch of folks from the big bad guy. We, as sheepdogs, are generally good people and we despise those who would do evil. Unfortunately, we live in the real world. That means getting you and yours out, save as many as you can, and engage threats as they present themselves to the level of force they warrant. The force ladder that Alex has talked about is an excellent tool for that last bit.

[SirBrass]

As long as we have people who are willing to carry weapons for self-defense, there will always be those who will find themselves in a situation where they will be forced to use those weapons to defend others. That said, police are NOT going to allow armed civilians to provide backup in any but the most desperate situation.

The case I cited was indeed one of those desperate situations.

Indeed, because of how my mind works, I have thought through what I would do if I was in a lethal force situation but had to factor in the cops.

And I reasoned that lethal force would be employed as necessary when it was the only option available to save life and limb of those I am protecting.  And to disengage or not engage at all when cops are on the scene, unless absolutely necessary in the gravest extreme.  My reasoning isn't b/c of the police doctrine, but simple self-preservation.

Cops don't KNOW right off that I'm a good guy.  I start firing without informing them or without there being an immediate threat to my life or those immediately around me, then I may easily be shot, and it would be an "oops" for the cop.  Justified shoot.

Current doctrine and training do not allow for it. Whether this is right or wrong can be debated, but the fact remains.

I have to admit that at my core, I would love to think that I would rush to save a bunch of folks from the big bad guy. We, as sheepdogs, are generally good people and we despise those who would do evil. Unfortunately, we live in the real world. That means getting you and yours out, save as many as you can, and engage threats as they present themselves to the level of force they warrant. The force ladder that Alex has talked about is an excellent tool for that last bit.

Agreed.  Especially with, "That means getting you and yours out, save as many as you can, and engage threats as they present themselves to the level of force they warrant."  <---- Bingo!