e-book Protecting Others: Self-Defense Strategies and Tactics for Third-Party Protection

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Protecting Others: Self-Defense Strategies and Tactics for Third-Party Protection file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Protecting Others: Self-Defense Strategies and Tactics for Third-Party Protection book. Happy reading Protecting Others: Self-Defense Strategies and Tactics for Third-Party Protection Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Protecting Others: Self-Defense Strategies and Tactics for Third-Party Protection at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Protecting Others: Self-Defense Strategies and Tactics for Third-Party Protection Pocket Guide.

In assessment situations where the candidate is offered a choice between oral questioning and written assessment, questions are to be identical. Supplementary evidence may be obtained from relevant authenticated correspondence from existing supervisors, team leaders or specialist training staff. The range statement relates to the unit of competency as a whole.

It allows for different work environments and situations that may affect performance. Bold italicised wording, if used in the performance criteria, is detailed below. Essential operating conditions that may be present with training and assessment depending on the work situation, needs of the candidate, accessibility of the item, and local industry and regional contexts may also be included. Legislative requirements may relate to:. Organisational requirements may relate to:. Factors may relate to:.

  • Account Options!
  • Law Enforcement.
  • The Forbidden Taboo 6.
  • A History of Organized Labor in Cuba.
  • Two Guys Desert Nudes (Two Guys Nudes Book 1).
  • Perdido Street Station.
  • Defensive Tactics for Unarmed Close Protection.

This unit contains employability skills. A person who demonstrates competency in this unit must be able to provide evidence of: Context of assessment includes: Resource implications for assessment include: The immediacy of the attack necessitated developing a system of defense that was quickly learned, easily retained, and highly efficient. Krav Maga was born in an environment of extreme violence and has been tested and improved under real-life conditions more than any other defensive tactical system. In the multitude of high-risk jobs and distinct units within the military, there are varying needs and applications for Krav Maga.

Defensive Tactics for Armed Close Protection

Every officer, soldier, and agent should be as well-equipped as possible to deal with escalating levels of conflict, and remain controlled and level-headed during violent confrontations. They should also be prepared to tackle violent situations with varying levels of force, especially during peace missions where the use of force should be heavily restrained.

KMF-AC trains military personnel to be physically, technically, tactically, and mentally prepared according to the needs and characteristics of their unique unit or sector. The priority is educating members and officers quickly and effectively, and creating efficient, capable, conscious fighters. Our team of expert instructors are qualified and knowledgeable to give the highest level of training and have worked with, among others:.

Special units require a unique and high level of training to optimally carry out their duties and tackle opponents rapidly and effectively in stressful, exhausting, and psychologically taxing situations of varying environments and terrain. Not only techniques but tactics, decision-making, and the mentality of a fighter are necessary components of special forces training. KMF-AC instructors have years of experience working with special units across the globe and can offer the highest quality of instruction to specialized personnel, such as:.

Intelligence officers who work in the field have various uses for Krav Maga combative, edged weapons, and firearms applications. Courses tailored to suit the unique needs of individual agencies are available by request. Please contact us for more information. Areas of Krav Maga law enforcement training include: Insults do not pose a danger.

Threats, even credible ones, do not constitute an immediate danger. Claiming to have a weapon is not an imminent danger. In addition, there is no imminent danger if the aggressor starts to get a weapon from his house or car. The client should not stand his or her ground; call the police and seek safety. However, drawing a weapon creates an imminent danger.

A more common problem arises when the client says he saw the aggressor reaching for a weapon, but no weapon was found. One possibility is that there was no weapon. If the client is looking the aggressor in the eye, and waits until the aggressor completes a sudden movement to see if the object in hand is a firearm or just a wallet, he could be shot at least twice before he can fire in response.

An untrained aggressor with a handgun in his waistband can draw the handgun, bring it to eye level, and fire in one-tenth of a second. The other possibility is that there was a weapon which was not recovered. Look at the time interval between the incident and the first police response to the scene. Look at how the responding police officers described the scene. Were there many people there?

Were there friends of the deceased present? Is it possible that someone removed the deceased's weapon before police arrived? Did police check the deceased's hands for gunpowder residue? Does the client have any injuries or defensive wounds? If it becomes clear that the aggressor was not armed and the client knew it, or a reasonable person would have realized it, the client who has used deadly force may still be entitled to a self-defense instruction. Testimony about the aggressor's character and threats that were known to the client before the incident is generally admissible, and need not be admitted through the client's testimony.

In many states the aggressor's reputation for violence may be admissible, even if it was unknown to the client, to show that the complainant was the first aggressor. Threats against the client which he or she does not know about may also be admissible to show that the person hurt or killed was actually attempting to carry out his threat. The attorney needs to be careful how he or she impeaches the character of the aggressor.

Attacking the deceased or injured can backfire. Courts are not sympathetic to the "he needed killing" theory of self-defense, although it may be a viable tactic with some juries. When his back is to the wall, and the question is whether he shall die or his assailant, he may slay his assailant to preserve his own life; but, if he has probable means of escape without doing so, he must resort to such means before he is justified in killing his adversary. Human life is too sacred to be taken unnecessarily.

Unless the client is in his or her own dwelling confronting someone unlawfully within that home, many states impose a duty to retreat from a potential confrontation if the client can do so without increasing his or her own peril. He or she must continue to retreat until there is no probable means of escape.

A growing number of states do not impose a retreat requirement. Indeed, Colorado holds that, if the defendant is not the initial aggressor or engaged in mutual combat, he "is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose; and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life.

If the state does not require retreat, as a practical matter it may still be useful to explain to the jury why retreat was not practical or why the client was unaware of an escape route. If retreat is required, the attorney needs to put on evidence about why it was not possible or safe. Appellate courts sometimes offer odd ideas about possible avenues of retreat. The attorney needs to establish the client's physical limitations, if any. Reasonable retreat for a young, healthy person may not be so for someone who is overweight, injured, or disabled.

The attorney should establish whether or not the client knew, or should have known, that a possible avenue of retreat existed.

  1. Gemas Que Matan (Spanish Edition)?
  2. A Report on the Afterlife of Culture?
  3. Drumming Up Dialogue: The Dialogic Philosophies of Martin Buber, Fred Iklé, and William Ury Compared and Applied to the Babukusu Community of Kenya.
  4. Classifications;
  5. Secrets of a Perfect Night!
  6. How To Start Your Off-Campus Living in 8 Steps.
  7. In addition, the attorney should establish whether the avenue of retreat was available at the moment the duty to retreat arose. In some jurisdictions, it does not arise until the immediate necessity to use deadly force arises. Under those cases, a client need not retreat until he or she is actually in peril. At that moment, it may not be possible for a client to turn his or her back on the aggressor and flee, especially if there is a firearm involved.

    As noted earlier, reconstructing the crime scene for the jury will be very important. The attorney should carefully examine photographs, videotape and sketches. The prosecutor may try to reconstruct the movements of the combatants using witnesses, trace evidence, and blood spatter analysis. Challenge the technical evidence using Daubert and defense experts if necessary. Challenge witnesses' estimates about distance with expert testimony or, if eyewitness experts are not allowed, with assertions of common knowledge that witnesses are not good at estimating distances. It is not clear whether the client must give an attacker a verbal warning before using deadly force.

    Police officers are required to give "some warning," "where feasible" before using deadly force on a dangerous escaping suspect. It is a good idea for the defender to give a warning, and for counsel to show why a warning was not feasible when none was given.

    Stepping Into Third Party Encounters Takes Skill - Active Self Protection

    However, counsel should resist allowing the prosecutor to create or imply a warning requirement. Displaying or brandishing a weapon without firing it is often unwise. It may be construed by a prosecutor or a jury as illegally threatening the use of the firearm or weapon, i. It is also tactically unwise because it may encourage the aggressor to attempt to disarm the client.

    There is no reason for a client to fire a warning shot. It would be contrary to public policy for the courts to require, or even encourage, warning shots. No one should be encouraged to place a bystander at risk by firing such a shot. Second, even if there is an appropriate surface at which to shoot, the client has to take his or her eyes off the aggressor at least for a moment to choose an appropriate target.

    afeditamyb.tk - CPPSECA - Protect self and others using basic defensive techniques

    During that time, the aggressor can attack the client before he or she can bring the firearm back on target. If the client is justified in shooting at all, he or she is justified in shooting at the aggressor. If the client initiates the attack, he or she is the "initial aggressor. Some jurisdictions hold that a defendant who deliberately places himself in a position where his presence will provoke trouble is a kind of initial aggressor and cannot claim self-defense.

    In states that have not adopted this view, attorneys should be wary of prosecution claims that the client was looking for trouble. In order to use self-defense, the initial aggressor must abandon his attack and give the then-defender reasonable notice of his retirement from the conflict.

    At that point, the client's right to defend himself is restored. If the client draws a weapon and merely hesitates, the then-defender may not be privileged to attack in self-defense. In some states, if the client agreed to a fight with the aggressor, he cannot claim self-defense unless the character of the fight deviates from the agreement. The "mutual combat" preclusion is not found in the Model Penal Code; however, it is found in several state statutes.

    The client is still required to retreat, if possible. If the client appears to agree to the raised stakes, however, he may not claim self-defense. In common law jurisdictions, mutual combat may reduce murder to manslaughter by means of provocation. Mutual combat is most likely to be a difficult issue in cases where the aggressor and the client have a history of disagreements or are members of rival gangs or similar groups. The case may turn on a convoluted history of disagreements and feuds between the parties, and on membership in amorphous youth groups. Attorneys should also be wary of prosecution efforts to interject prejudicial gang membership evidence into the case in the guise of rebutting self-defense using mutual combat.

    Things become more complex when a defender attacks an aggressor to protect a third-party. In some states, the defender stands in the shoes of the defendee. If the defendee is, for example, an initial aggressor or involved in mutual combat, then the defender acts at his or her peril.

    In at least one state, the defender may reasonably defend someone who he reasonably believes to be in danger regardless of the defendee's rights. Counsel will need to look carefully at the relationships between the parties and state law. If the law is unclear, counsel may argue that a rule allowing a defender to act reasonably, rather than discouraging a defender by fear of criminal prosecution for his or her good deed, is the best policy for society. Excessive force issues appear to allow the jury and court to distinguish between kinds of deadly weapons if the client had multiple options available.

    This is a place where the common law may differ from the Model Penal Code and from other states which do not distinguish between different kinds of deadly or dangerous weapons. The attorney needs to clearly establish the speed with which the client made his or her decision about what kind of force to use, and the consequences if he or she used a lesser amount of force which did not stop the aggressor. If the client has met the AOJ criteria described above, then the evidence should support the client's decision.

    As noted above, if the client used a deadly weapon, especially a firearm, to defend himself against an unarmed attack, the attorney will have a difficult time convincing the jury that the client acted in self-defense. If the client is armed with a firearm, and the aggressor is aware of the firearm and tries to close in on the client, the client is justified in firing before the parties begin wrestling over the firearm.

    Many police officers are killed with their own firearms. Police react to an effort to grab an officer's handgun as an attempt to kill the officer with that handgun; the client should be able to do so too. Police use-of-force doctrine also allows officers to shoot unarmed aggressors running towards them. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted: Our recitation of these events is a discussion in slow motion of an incident that took place in a matter of seconds.

    The attorney should research the weapon and ammunition the client used. Ask the client why he purchased and carried that specific weapon. Research its self-defense uses. The client will be in the strongest position if he or she used a firearm and ammunition similar to that issued to local police departments. Many police departments issue semi-automatic pistols chambered for 9mm or larger caliber with jacketed hollow-point JHP ammunition.

    If the client has used hollow-point ammunition, the attorney should understand and be able to quickly explain to a judge or jury why JHP ammunition is widely recommended for self-defense use. If the prosecutor is arguing that your client should have been shooting to wound the aggressor or aiming for a limb, he or she has seen too many Lone Ranger episodes. The client is reacting immediately to a life-threatening situation.

    He or she is not an actor on a set. There are two problems with shooting to wound. The first is actually hitting the target. Under life-threatening stress, some trainers say that the client's aim will be diminished by stress hormone affects on his or her fine muscle control and vision. As discussed above, there is a small reaction gap between deciding to fire and doing so. The second problem is over-penetration.

    The client is responsible for every shot fired. Bullets recommended for police work and self-defense are generally designed to reliably penetrate 12" of flesh covered with light clothing.

    Defending the Self-Defense Case by Lisa J. Steele

    Limbs and hands are much thinner. A bullet which strikes a limb or hand is likely to pass through with enough force to penetrate any standard building material behind the aggressor -which endangers the public at large. Police aim for the center of mass the torso ; the client should not be faulted for doing the same. Although lawful possession of a weapon is not a formal requirement for self-defense, many court opinions mention the reason the defendant was armed.

    Unit of competency details

    This is an important question to discuss with the client, especially if the client will testify at trial. If the client armed himself or herself in anticipation of the fight, this can be evidence of premeditated murder. A prosecutor might also argue that bringing a weapon to a confrontation is evidence of mutual combat or that the client was an initial aggressor. Self-defense or necessity generally will not protect the client from being convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm or other weapon, but the possession charge is a small price to pay for avoiding death or serious bodily harm in a genuine self-defense situation.

    Law enforcement officers cannot protect citizens at all times. The right of citizens to protect themselves is critically important to our society. It is a right, enshrined in many state constitutions, that needs to be zealously protected by the vigorous efforts of criminal defense attorneys. If the right becomes uncertain, murky, or counter-intuitive, citizens will be reluctant to take action to protect themselves and others for fear of criminal prosecution.

    That fear, and the consequent passivity, will "lead to the alienation of people from one another, an alienation symbolized for our time by the notorious Genovese incident. To the fear of 'involvement' and of injury to oneself if one answered a call for help would be added the fear of possible criminal prosecution. The right of self-defense is most endangered when it is inadequately defended in cases where the client is unsympathetic, has a long criminal record, or is a gang member or narcotics dealer who defended himself in a quarrel with a rival gang or dealer.