Target Sports

Israeli Secret Service Active Shooter Doctrine

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • scap99

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 10, 2010
    8,578
    31
    Cypress
    Sig, that is an amazing post. And like YG, I read it all. It took 3 settings, but I read every word. So much gold in them hills. Thanks for taking the time to do that.
    Agree ^^^

    I pictured Sig like this at the end.

    4c33cb5837cef93b252d166de078473e.jpg


    Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
    Capitol Armory ad
     

    karlac

    Lately too damn busy to have Gone fishin' ...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 21, 2013
    11,774
    96
    Houston & Hot Springs
    It may make for a great movie scene or tactical fantasy camp tough-guy talk, but doing so will almost certainly land one in a courtroom.

    It speaks to the amateur nature of the training and the lack of understanding of American jurisprudence.

    You left out condescending ...

    This blip from the intro to what passes as content of one of the links in this thread is nothing but:

    "The first point which separates the Israeli Combative Method from other teachings is the mindset with which it is employed. While American ideals on the Use of Force revolve around using the least amount of force in a conservative, defensive manner, the Israeli method is opposite this ideal. In the Israeli method, the intent is to bring the maximum amount of force into play in an offensive manner. The intent is to ‘attack the attacker’, to be more aggressive than the aggressor, to ‘explode’ and overwhelm the initial aggressor with violence of action."

    Wow, don't know we made it through repeated ground attacks, by doing just that fifty years ago, without that bit of wisdom ...

    The basic premise of this thread is akin to putting the playing of cowboys and Indians under a microscope, for profit.
     

    SIG_Fiend

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Feb 21, 2008
    7,218
    66
    Austin, TX
    Well still, there are always counter-points, corrections, revelations, etc. Plenty of ways to keep the conversation going, and possibly take it to new levels none of us may have considered.

    I looked around but, apparently the Ben Goldstein vids I was referring to have been taken down. Either way, here was a good assessment of one of them, and the comments are full of win, plus Ben started responding to the comments, and the fail boat really set sail. You can't make this stuff up. ;)

    http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/05/20/israeli-combat-training-asymmetric-derp-warfare/
     

    StevenC.

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2013
    304
    1
    San Antonio
    There are countless stories of Americans aggressively dealing with active shooters, only for them to commit suicide, or be killed. Do a little research before you judge indefinitely. Perhaps you'll find some clarity.

    I believe that active shooters have to be dealt with aggressively. But, only while that "aggression" is justified. You plow rounds into him mercilessly as long as he is an imminent threat. As you said, that aggressive response leads to ending their threat. But, that should always be your goal; stopping the threat. Maybe they are stopped because your shots kill them. Maybe your response motivates them to kill themselves. But, should your aggression lead to them being wounded and run over and shoot them in the noodle when they cease being a threat you are near certain to be charged.
     

    StevenC.

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2013
    304
    1
    San Antonio
    Let me preface the following with a statement. Don't mistake my being brief with being disingenuous. If you read through some of the posts I've created on this site, you would find that I've put massive effort into forming the opinions and beliefs I have, as well as in creating the content I've felt would benefit people. This is why you'll notice that, despite my being here since the beginning and co-founding this site, there are people that have only been here a year or two that have 2-3x the post count. Quality versus quantity. My energy for this has dropped off as of late, as it's rather disappointing spending hours writing a several thousand word series of well-thought out posts, only to receive a couple "great post!" comments and that's about it.


    That being said, I am a very busy person. My job happens to be serving as the primary organic marketing strategist for a site that sees roughly ~800 million visits per month. Needless to say, I don't have a whole lot of personal time anymore. Regardless, I'm going to give you an hour of my time, on the off chance that I'm mistaken, and you are genuine in your beliefs, and I appear to you to simply be a jerk. So here it goes...





    1:09 - This is what we'd typically refer to as a #2 ready position. Mandating a 90deg position of the gun in the #2 is too restrictive, IMO. I can think of many scenarios where one might need to have the gun in a different #2 position, based on surroundings and circumstances. For example, are you moving through a crowd of mostly innocent people, attempting to get clear and take a shot on an active shooter? If so, a position more like the "Southnarc" method would probably be more responsible and more appropriate. The Southnarc method utilizes a thumb-pectoral index, muzzle depressed roughly 45degrees. Depending on your proximity to non-threats, you can elevate your elbow to increase the angle and further reduce the risk of muzzle sweeping an innocent. 90 degrees at all times in #2 is restrictive and potentially negligent, depending on the circumstances, though as with all things, it may have its time and place in the right circumstance.


    2:20 - Your description of "The American Doctrine" on slicing the pie is a bit simplistic, and by no means actual "doctrine" in common practice across the majority of the domestic training industry. That's basically the 70's or 80's foundation of slicing the pie, but it has evolved since then. The description of the "Israeli technique" in slicing the pie, as demonstrated, has several flaws, IMO. Again, it appears to be absolute in that, "If you're doing an offensive clear, you MUST do it this way." At least, that's the gist I took away from it.


    The actual modern thinking and training on clearing and "slicing the pie" has become far more dynamic, and less absolute. I'll speak about it in terms of "clearing". You have slow methodical clears. You also have faster and more aggressive, offensive clears, which for the average civilian are likely inadvisible in most situations, with a lot of potential downsides. It's entirely situation dependent. You have varying degrees of angle, height of stance, proximity to cover or concealment, funnels, elevations, elevations with intermediate landings, portals, intersections.... I mean the list goes on. One technique to rule them all, or even 50%, would be preposterous. Depending on the situation, a slow, methodical clear, as you appropriately stated, might be more appropriate, safer, and providing the greatest advantages in terms of maximizing use of angles, cover, and concealment to identify threats as early as possible while exposing as little of yourself as possible. The other option, if it is one depending on the circumstances, is to barricade yourself and never have to do a clear in the first place...


    The other side is of course a fast-paced offensive clear. Yes, we can all think of realistic or at least plausible circumstances where this could be necessary. Maybe your child's bedroom is positioned between your room and an entryway, or is simply on the other side of the house. If a loved one is potentially at serious risk in that scenario, and there is distance between you, it is up to you to make the call to go offensive, ready to faceshoot some fools. It's not a choice everyone has the mental capacity to make, with a winning mindset, but it is an option.


    So to summarize, the modern training and thinking on clearing, slicing the pie, or whatever, is one of simply managing angles, distance, cover, concealment, and speed in the most advantageous and performance-oriented manner for the given situation. The "performance" part of that might sound a bit arbitrary, but I figure that's sufficient enough to summarize it (performance of safety, speed, accuracy, etc.)


    6:40-7:00 - Please link us to those FBI statistics. Claims like that demand proof. I can't remember ever seeing FBI stats that would support those claims.


    7:00-8:00 - To summarize, in effect, they (or at least that school) are basing their training around the Pareto principle of "20% of something does 80% of the work". There is kind of a failure in deductive reasoning in going that route, as it encourages a low capacity for competition and low capacity for improving performance. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with emphasizing the percentage of items that stand to benefit people the most (when supported by legitimate and/or peer-reviewed data). That being said, truly successful people delve into that remaining 80% to continue pushing their skill level far beyond the average person only using 20%. This concept is the reason you will typically not see any quantifiable and measurable performance standards from a lot of training schools, as it can often demand that a person put a little more effort than just the bare minimum.


    10:47 - Sorry, the reality is, in pretty much any state or jurisdiction, that description will get you convicted of murder. Depending on what your intention was with the description in the video, it's either a potential conflict of terminology and alluding to a winner's mindset, or its advocating what would legally be considered murder in any and all self-defense situations.







    1:00 - Fine vs. Gross motor skills argument has been thorougly debunked, and is not a valid excuse for demanding rigid adherance to specific techniques. If you can draw a gun at speed, if you can align small posts, if you can press the trigger, if you can press the mag release, if you can draw a mag and insert it at speed, if you can press a slide release lever.... you can do pretty much anything. I wonder what Michael Schumacher would have to say about fine motor skills "degrading" under stress?


    1:20 - That's just $#@!ing ridiculous.


    1:40 - There is no legitimate or necessary reason to do that. Under stress, when those fine motor skills degrade....you're going to flap your arms like a bird and practically rack the slide off of your chin? Shit is range theatrics with no quantifiable or measurable performance advantage.


    1:51 - Point and fact. A typical modern drawstroke (feel free to call it the "American dogma" or whatever) will normally have the gun going straight from the holster, in a relatively straight line, at a 45 degree angle straight up to the target. This is of course assuming for that draw that you did not have a need to instead draw to a ready or retention (#2 or #3) fire position, based on circumstances. Tomer states that their drawstroke assists with keeping the gun on target ("better" is the implication) throughout the drawstroke. If you look at the demonstration, and it is consistent with the Israeli drawstroke technique I have seen taught by a number of other instructors, the arms and gun are actually travelling in a CORKSCREW motion... So a corkscrew is more consistent than a straight line? NO, it's not. Period.


    Additionally, another American method different from the traditional "straight line" method (I just made that up), is what some refer to as the "press out" method. Todd Green and a few others are proponents of this method. It can have some advantages in certain circumstances, such as drawing close to cover. That being said, I have personally found myself to be SIGNIFICANTLY less consistent with it, even after devoting significant training time to trying to improve my performance with it (used throughout several training classes and a solid year's worth of IDPA matches and my own personal training). Regardless, some people like Todd and some other noteworthy shooters have achieved respectable performance with it, though this is much more likely due to individual physiological differences, individual training, and depth of training. Case and point, even though most instructors would no longer advocate wrapping an index finger around the trigger guard, Eric Grauffel, one of the best pistol shooters in the world, does it...and has been winning things for a good 20 years.


    2:30 - "We do not use sights" Let me just put this one to bed right there. If you have time and opportunity to have the gun at full extension, you have time and opportunity to use the sights. If you don't have time and opportunity to use the sights, you should NOT be at full extension, but should instead be at either some degree of partial extension and/or a #3 position (chest ready), or a #2 position. No argument, he's just plain WRONG. Anything less is simply negligence.


    2:50 - A discussion about finding a balance between time and accuracy, that apparently does not include using a shot timer, is simply not sufficient, and arbitrary at best. In short, a person doesn't know what they don't know, unless they measure it. I'm done with this video.


    Good post...
     

    StevenC.

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2013
    304
    1
    San Antonio
    You left out condescending ...

    This blip from the intro to what passes as content of one of the links in this thread is nothing but:

    "The first point which separates the Israeli Combative Method from other teachings is the mindset with which it is employed. While American ideals on the Use of Force revolve around using the least amount of force in a conservative, defensive manner, the Israeli method is opposite this ideal. In the Israeli method, the intent is to bring the maximum amount of force into play in an offensive manner. The intent is to ‘attack the attacker’, to be more aggressive than the aggressor, to ‘explode’ and overwhelm the initial aggressor with violence of action."

    Wow, don't know we made it through repeated ground attacks, by doing just that fifty years ago, without that bit of wisdom ...

    The basic premise of this thread is akin to putting the playing of cowboys and Indians under a microscope, for profit.

    I noted that, too. It struck me as either an intentional straw man argument or worse, the author truly misunderstands American use of force-- he is arguing against his own misunderstanding.

    It occurred to me that the Isreali Combat Method may actually believe it is training people for war, not to use deadly force in under the restrictions of American law. Or, maybe when the "SHTF" and the "end of the world."
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 24, 2015
    82
    1
    I noted that, too. It struck me as either an intentional straw man argument or worse, the author truly misunderstands American use of force-- he is arguing against his own misunderstanding.

    It occurred to me that the Isreali Combat Method may actually believe it is training people for war, not to use deadly force in under the restrictions of American law. Or, maybe when the "SHTF" and the "end of the world."

    Unequivocally
     
    Top Bottom