The last several years have brought a spotlight to the glaring need to improve defensive tactics training for the modern law enforcement officer. Yet there is still a pervasive belief that a “Defensive Tactics Instructor course” certification is the gold standard for teaching defensive tactics in law enforcement. From the line level to the highest levels of police command, the first question is often the same: Are you a “certified” defensive tactics instructor, and if so, what “system” do you use?
In this article, I am not going to argue that “certifications” are unnecessary. I will, however, shed some light on what “certification” means and how, by itself, it is inadequate. This discussion will resonate with many trainers who have these conversations with their administrations on an ongoing basis. Moreover, I’m going to explain why a single Defensive Tactics Instructor course is valuable, but not enough on its own for the present or future of law enforcement.
| WATCH: Guardians of the Ground series from Tyson Kilbey
Let me explain
First, what is a Defensive Tactics Instructor course and a “certification”? Typically, it is a certificate from a private company, usually for a specific period (generally one to two years), that the holder has demonstrated an acceptable level of comprehension and proficiency in the system and, in most cases, an ability to teach it to members of their organization. In addition, most “certifications” provide the reassurance that the teaching organization will attest to the tactical and legal viability of its system, so long as the instructor holds a current certification and the techniques used are part of the system. If that sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. Let me explain.
The priority for an organization that teaches defensive tactics to law enforcement is protecting the proprietary information of its product — not employing the students who attend its courses. I have followed countless legal proceedings regarding use of force, and the points of contention are typically not the specific technique used, but the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions. As a result, testimony from a representative of a defensive tactics organization is extremely rare.
Conversely, an agency’s defensive tactics instructors almost always shoulder the responsibility of testifying in use-of-force cases.
While it may sound comforting in theory that an organization will send in a subject matter expert to testify for your agency, the reality is that it is an infrequent practice. Next, even if they did testify regarding a use-of-force incident, their overriding concern would be protecting their product. Any deviation in the officer’s or agency’s use of the system would enable them to defend their product at all costs, without providing any meaningful testimony to the agency or officers involved. The reality of use-of-force situations is that nothing in the field appears the way it does in the mat room.
A glaring flaw
The misconception about legal defense is not the only shortcoming of relying solely on instructor certification courses for your trainers. The most glaring flaw is the belief that a 40-hour instructor course alone produces someone capable of teaching defensive tactics effectively.
During an instructor course, some of the most essential principles of defensive tactics cannot be achieved to the level necessary to be an effective instructor. Timing, energy efficiency, weight distribution, and the ability to improvise based on prior knowledge and experience are achieved through time and dedication to the subject — well beyond a single week of training.
Those familiar with the value of ongoing, focused training know that an officer with one year of Jiu-Jitsu, or who wrestled at the high school level, would likely be able to physically control someone decisively whose only training was a defensive tactics course. There would be exceptions, but I would not get much realistic pushback from that statement. The truth is, completing an instructor course will give the student some basic techniques and concepts. Still, it will virtually never, by itself, give them the problem-solving ability to apply principles to real-world situations.
The case I am making is meant to address these long-held misconceptions about certifications. They are a snapshot, a crucial singular credential, but not a measure of the ongoing proficiency that is a necessity for law enforcement. Also, they are not the legal defense panacea that some believe they are. Objectively reasonable, well-articulated actions are the most important legal tools officers and agencies have, not certificates in a file. It is easy to be lulled into the box-checking comfort of certifications as the only tool to risk mitigation, but my point is that they aren’t enough for modern law enforcement.
| RELATED: Defensive tactics for police officers: Essential strategies for safety and control
The best way forward
Up to this point, it may seem that I am saying that Defensive Tactics Instructor courses have no value. The truth is that it is not the case. They are a valuable piece of the overall strategy.
In my opinion, to be an effective defensive tactics instructor, a candidate must attend a variety of instructor courses and train consistently on their own in a safe and systematic way that provides ongoing experience against resisting training partners. They must maintain excellent physical condition, not only for their own health but to serve as a positive role model for students, be well-versed in teaching and presentation methodologies that create lasting impact across a variety of backgrounds, closely follow use-of-force case law to understand evolving expectations, and possess an exceptional ability to articulate information both verbally and in writing.
The importance of articulation cannot be overstated, as the ability to convey decisions accurately under stress may be the primary legal defense and the most effective way to foster transparency on this critical topic. An effective defensive tactics instructor is a specialist position that requires hundreds of hours of focused, ongoing study of the craft.
The obvious rebuttal to my claims is that most agencies don’t have the time or money to invest in defensive tactics instructors as I prescribed. My reply is: What is the cost of not investing that time and money in this type of training?
While it may feel reassuring to send an instructor to get “certified” in defensive tactics and then have them teach four to 16 hours a year to check the required boxes, that approach often holds only until a serious incident occurs and someone is hurt.
If you are only to take one key concept from this article, it should be this: Defensive Tactics Instructor courses have value, but they are not sufficient on their own. Providing ongoing training and development opportunities for those responsible for training officers in the principles of defensive tactics is the best way forward.
