in this issue . . . Officer Down   Legal Considerations When Asking An Alternative Question   How Many Reps Was That? Again?

- Sponsored By -

ILEETA Use of Force Journal
WITH BRIAN MCKENNA

DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT

The late morning sky was deceptively clear. Despite the sunshine, the chill of the past few days, punctuated by a brisk winter wind, had not let up. The frigid weather seemed to be keeping traffic to a minimum, which suited Grant Jameson just fine. For no apparent reason, his enthusiasm for the job – never lacking before -- was at very low ebb. He just wanted to put in his eight hours and go home. 

The city swept past him at a steady pace as he guided his patrol car along the interstate. He had served on the State Highway Patrol for about six years, and was currently assigned to the metro unit in one of the state’s largest urban areas. The area’s population of 1.5 million often created a heavy workload, and Jameson was hoping it would stay quiet.

Trooper Paul Helms voice broke a long silence on the radio, "532, dispatcher. Suspicious occupied auto." He went on to say that the vehicle, a brown Plymouth, was failing to stop on westbound Highway 94 near Interstate 193. A few moments later, Helms notified communications that he was now in high-speed pursuit of the vehicle on southbound I-193. Jameson activated his roof lights and siren, and accelerated toward Helm’s location. He was less than two miles away when he heard Helms say the Plymouth was stopping on the exit ramp at Easton Avenue. Almost immediately, Helms added that the driver was fleeing across the highway toward a wooded area on the other side. Helms said he was holding the vehicle’s two other occupants. 

Jameson arrived on the scene within moments, and, after obtaining a description of the suspect from an off-duty police officer who had stopped to help, quickly determining that he was not needed at the scene, and began to search for the suspect. He turned left from the exit ramp, and crossed under the highway overpass toward the wooded area where the suspect had last been seen. As he emerged from under the overpass, he spotted a city bus picking up a passenger in front of an abandoned service station at the edge of the woods. The isolated stretch of road seemed like an unusual place for a bus to stop, and it was too close to the suspect’s last known location to be a coincidence. Jameson decided to check it out. He crossed over to the other side of the road, pulled up in front of the bus, and motioned for the driver to wait. 

Jameson called out his location, stepped out of his car, and moved up to the front door of the bus. As he started to board, he noticed a man meeting the suspect’s description seated directly behind the driver. The man’s breathing was rapid and deep, and his pants legs and hair were dotted with burrs. Jameson knew he had the right man, but as he quickly glanced around the bus he sensed a guarded hostility towards him from the other passengers. Nothing specific, but he felt it nonetheless. 

He turned his attention back to his suspect and, in a firm but calm voice, ordered him to turn around and lock his hands behind his head. The man -- later identified as Melvin Davis, a wanted parole violator -- just sat there and glared at him. After a long pause he started to argue in open hostility, "Whatcha pickin’ on me for?” he asked, his voice dripping with hostility, “I’ve been on this bus for at least a half hour. I didn't run from nobody." 

Jameson hadn't said anything about running. Any lingering doubts about the man’s guilt disappeared. "Officer," the bus driver interjected, "he just walked outa those woods." Jameson glanced at the bus driver, turned back to Davis, and repeated his command in a firmer tone. Davis hung his head in a gesture of apparent submission, and then rose. He turned to around as if to comply, but then took a step towards the aisle. As he moved, his hands moved towards the front of his waistband and disappeared from view. 

Jameson instantly alerted on the movement, but was reluctant to draw his gun because of the antagonism he sensed from the other passengers. Concerned that they might misconstrue his actions and become openly hostile, he left his S&W Model 66 strapped in his holster. Instead, to keep Davis from turning on him with a weapon, he grabbed him by the collar and waistband, and threw him face down on the seat. He followed Davis down onto the seat, grabbed his hands, and pulled them around back into a cuffing position. As Jameson reached around and unsnapped his cuff case with his left hand, Davis suddenly broke into a desperate struggle to free himself. Although short and slight in build, Davis was surprisingly strong and agile. Jameson managed to keep Davis' face down in the seat by thrusting all his weight forward on top of him, but had trouble maintaining his grip on the man’s sweat-slickened wrists. Gradually, Jameson began to draw Davis’ hands apart. But then, with an abrupt surge of effort, Davis pulled them free and buried them deep under his belly again. Jameson reached around and worked his hands down Davis forearms. Clamping his hands down as tightly as he could over the man’s wrists, he began the laborious process of trying to drag them out from under his body. Slowly, Davis' hands inched apart. Suddenly, Davis' right hand broke free from Jameson’s grasp and whipped back towards Jameson's groin. 

"He's got a gun!" 

The bus driver's outcry was punctuated by the crack of a gunshot. A red-hot poker seemed to sear its way through Jameson's lower left groin and out his left buttock. The warning had taken some of the edge off the surprise and shock, but Jameson had to fight back a surge of overwhelming panic. He let go of his adversary, stood, and started to back up toward the door, still fighting off the approaching panic. Then, as suddenly as it appeared, the growing fear was replaced by embarrassment, then anger. There wasn't time   Jameson instantly alerted on the movement, but was reluctant to draw his gun because of the antagonism he sensed from the other passengers to hesitate. He had to stop Davis before the man killed him or someone else. Jameson reached for his holstered .357 magnum. As his fingers wrapped around the familiar grips of the weapon, he saw Davis pushing himself up from the seat, his right hand clutching a small .380 autoloader. Jameson pulled on the gun, but it was wedged in place. In disbelief, he pulled on the magnum again as Davis spun to face him. Still, it wouldn’t budge. As he yanked yet again, the problem suddenly crystallized in his mind -- he had forgotten to release the snap. 

Like a surrealistic, slow-motion monochrome movie, the drama before him slowed to a sluggish pace and lost all color. At the same time, tunnel vision set in, shutting out everything except Davis and the gun. As he watched in desperation, Jameson could see his adversary square off in front of him, the deadly little auto coming around into firing position. He let go of the magnum, shot his hand down alongside the outside of the holster, and raked his clawed fingers upward. The snap opened, but Davis, the .380 now held in a two-handed grip, was thrusting the pistol up toward Jameson’s face. Jameson slapped his hand around the grip of the magnum again and pulled. “Why isn’t he shooting me?” Jameson wondered as he whipped the gun up to stomach level and fired. 

Despite his unfamiliar one-handed hold on the powerful magnum, Jameson barely felt the recoil. He was surprised to see Davis flinch only slightly with the impact. The muzzle of the .380 drifted downward. Davis shuffled to his right, then thrust the gun up and forward again. Jameson fired a second time. The effect was the same. Davis flinched, let the gun sag, stepped to his right, and raised it again. Jameson fired another round, again with the same results. As Davis lifted the gun, Jameson discharged his fourth round. This time, Davis collapsed. He crumpled down onto one of the bench seats, coming to rest on his right side He lay still for a moment, then raised his head and once more pointed the gun at Jameson. Jameson squeezed the trigger, discharging the magnum for the fifth and final time. Davis slumped back down onto the seat, and then rolled off onto the floor, face down. He lay there motionless for several moments, long enough for Jameson to be reasonably sure that he was no longer a threat. 

Everyone else was off the bus and Jameson was growing weaker. His hands were shaking too badly to reload from his regulation loop carriers, but he kept two speedloaders in his squad car (department regulations forbade officers from carrying speedloaders on their belts). He also needed to call for help, and his department did not equip its officers with portable radios. He decided to return to his squad car. 

Gingerly, he backed off the bus, staggered slowly to his car, and opened the driver’s door. He reached inside and removed a speedloader from over the sun visor. As quickly as he could, he popped open the cylinder, dumped it contents onto the ground, and inserted the fresh ammo. Only then did Jameson pick up his microphone and, in a surprisingly calm voice, call for help. 

With help now on the way, Jameson set himself to the exhausting task of waiting. Davis had appeared incapacitated -- perhaps even dead -- when Jameson left him, but there was no way to be sure. He had shown frightening resiliency to Jameson’s gunfire earlier, and he might still be alive. If so, he could pose a serious threat to others, but Jameson didn't have the strength to go after him again, nor did he think it would be tactically sound to do so. Wisely, he chose to take cover behind his open car door and cover the bus exits instead. The next few minutes seemed to drag on endlessly, as he grew weaker by the moment. He looked down and saw drops of blood collecting on the cold pavement under his feet. The upper left leg, crotch and seat of his uniform trousers were drenched in blood as blood trickled down his left leg. The blood loss worried him, but he refused to dwell on his injuries. He turned his attention back to the bus. 

The first assist officers to arrive were Troopers Ed Rush and Bill Atkins. Both were surprised by Jameson’s condition. His calm, measured radio broadcast had implied that his wound was a relatively minor one, but he didn’t look good. His blood-soaked trousers, trembling limbs, and ashen face and hands told them that shock and severe bleeding were taking their toll. They tried to convince him to move to a safer location and let them take over, but he refused to move until there was more help on the scene. 

Moments later, assist units from the city and county began arriving on the scene. Now confident that Davis was no longer a threat and realizing that he was too badly injured to help, Jameson relinquished his position and moved to the rear of his squad car. Once there, he held firm in his refusal to sit down and rest, fearing that he would die if he allowed himself to relax. Also concerned that he might succumb to shock if he gave in to a growing desire to check his injuries, he fought off the urge and made up his mind to let that wait until he got to the hospital. He would later learn that Davis’ bullet had entered his lower left groin, clipping his left testicle as it entered. After punching its way into his lower abdominal cavity, it had deflected off his left pelvic bone and exited his left buttock. Meanwhile, Rush and Atkins, assisted by several other officers, entered the bus in search of Davis. They found him, dead and lying face down in the center aisle. Even after being hit by Jameson's fifth bullet, he had managed to crawl several feet from the spot where he had fallen. 

The pistol was still within inches of Davis' right hand, a spent cartridge stuck in its ejection port. It was later determined that the pistol had been so close to Davis' body when it discharged that its slide had struck him in the back as it moved rearward. This had prevented it from fully ejecting its spent case, thereby causing the jam. Although Jameson had been unaware of the malfunction, Davis had to have known that the weapon would not fire. It is unclear, however, whether he knew it was jammed or made any effort to clear it. He may have simply continued to pull the trigger in a blind effort to get the gun to fire again. In any event, the malfunction didn’t deter him from continuing the attack. 

All five of Jameson’s shots had hit Davis. One bullet had struck him in the lower-left abdomen and exited his left buttocks, and another had hit him in the upper left chest, skimmed the outer surface of one rib, and exited without penetrating the chest cavity. Two other rounds had struck just below and left of center mass. One of these had passed through his liver, pancreas, and aorta before imbedding itself in his spine, and the other had ripped through his left arm, and then entered his chest, where it had penetrated his liver and heart. The last bullet had blasted through his right hand, and then traveled down his right forearm before exiting at the elbow. The toxicology report disclosed high levels of marijuana and cocaine in Davis’ system. Subsequent investigation revealed that Davis was wanted locally on a burglary charge, and out-of-state on a parole violation. The car he was driving had been stolen in an armed robbery ten days earlier, a robbery in which the victim had been severely beaten by an armed suspect meeting Davis’ description. Burglary tools, a ski mask, and several items of stolen jewelry and silverware were found in the car. Trooper Jameson recovered from his wound, and returned to full duty ten weeks later. Two years after the shooting he left the department to join a federal law enforcement agency, where he is still employed. 

QUESTIONS:

1. Jameson was concerned that Davis might be armed when the man locked his hands in front of his body, but he soon became so engrossed in his efforts to cuff him that he lost focus on the danger. This is a common problem when engaged in high-stress situations. How can we do a better job of training officers to avoid distractions and remain focused on safety concerns instead? 

2. It is very likely that Jameson could have avoided the shooting if he had backed off and drawn his weapon earlier, but he was concerned about possible hostility from the bystanders. In some instances, officers may also be concerned about possible complaints or the safety of others if they draw. One way to alleviate this problem is to order the suspect not to move as you draw, and then warn the bystanders that you believe he may be armed. This makes the reasons for your actions clear, cautions everyone of the danger, and will help to make allies of most onlookers. Do you agree? Why? 

3. It is very common for suspects to resist arrest by locking their hands in front of their bodies while lying on their stomachs, but, as is evident from this case, it can also be very dangerous,. One option is to pin the suspect in place with your body, and then deliver sinking hammer blows to his Suprascapular Nerve motor points to temporarily disable his arms. For officers fortunate to be armed with an electronic control device, another option is to discharge the weapon into his back, move it to another location on his back, and then employ a drive stun there. With sufficient cause to believe he is holding onto a weapon, deadly force is also an option. What other options can be used to deal with this potentially dangerous means of resisting arrest? Considering how often suspect resist in this way and the, are we really doing enough to address the problem? 

4. When suddenly forced to draw his gun, Trooper Jameson found that he was unable draw from his snapped holster, because, like many officers, he had tried to improve his range scores by leaving his holster unsnapped when on the line. Some officers who cheat in this way also find that, due to their lack of confidence in their ability to draw from a snapped holster, they habitually unsnap when approaching any potentially dangerous situation, thereby leaving themselves especially vulnerable to a disarming. What does this have to say about the importance of making sure that officers keep their weapons fully secured in their holsters at all times on the range, except when actually drawing? 

5. Despite the fact that his firearms training stressed a two-handed hold and use of the sights, Jameson fired one-handed without using his sights. This is a very common occurrence in close-range gunfights, because we instinctively realize that speed - - not pinpoint accuracy -- is the key to winning at close range, and usually start firing as soon as the weapon clears the holster. What does this indicate about the need to make our training congruent with human instincts? Should officers be trained to shoot one-handed without using their sights at closer ranges? 

6. What else could Jameson have done besides trying to outdraw his assailant? The author believes that the most effective response is to grab or block the weapon first, and then follow up immediately by charging hard into the attacker while drawing and shooting into his body. This removes the officer from the line of fire, makes it much harder for the assailant to maneuver his weapon into firing position, puts the assailant on the defensive, and physically knocks him off balance while delivering devastating gunfire to his vital organs. Do you agree that this is an effective technique? If so, what is the best way to train officers to use it? How important is situational awareness in preparing officers to respond quickly to contact-range attacks? 

7. Trooper Jameson backed off the bus and returned to his patrol car partly because he felt that his condition prevented him from reloading without speedloaders. Interestingly, he was wearing a backup gun on his ankle, and could have used it instead of reloading his duty gun. He later remarked that he didn’t think about using the backup gun at the time, because he had never considered the idea before. He explained that his only reason for carrying a backup gun had been as a defense against a disarming attempt. Should officers be trained to consider all the various potential uses for backup guns and other equipment? What does this have to say about mental flexibility in stressful situations? How can we help officers enhance their mental flexibility? 

8. Trooper Jameson refused to dwell on his fears, the severity of his wound, or the apparent hopelessness of the situation. Instead, he stayed focused on winning, persisted, and overcame his opponent even when the odds seemed to be stacked against him. In addition, he had also prepared himself mentally to defend his life in mortal combat. Rather than pretending that it would never happen, he faced up to the possibility, and made up his mind to remain calm and fight back no matter what happened. What can we trainers do to help develop these winning attributes in our officers?   

The incident recounted here is true, but the names of persons and places were changed to ensure the privacy of those personally involved. Likewise, in order to preserve confidentiality and clarity, some facts may have been altered slightly, but the essential elements of the story remain unchanged.   

Brian McKenna recently retired after 30 years with the Hazelwood (MO) Police Department, where he was assigned to the patrol division as a shift supervisor (lieutenant), and also served as an inservice trainer and lead firearms instructor. He is a certified police instructor and holds a Master’s Degree in human resource development. Brian authors Street Survival Magazine’s “Officer Down” column, a regular feature that analyzes officer involved shootings for key learning points. He also teaches officer safety courses and consults for Winning Edge Training. This article was derived from an article that originally appeared in “Officer Down.” Email Brian at BrianMcKenna@ileeta.org,.

 

By John E. Reid & Associates An investigator is asking a great deal from a guilty suspect to confess to a crime which may potentially involve substantial punishment. For this reason, the suspect must be allowed to make his first admission of guilt with as few words as possible and also in a way that allows him to save face. In the Reid Nine Steps of Interrogation, this is done by asking an alternative question. An alternative question is one in which the suspect is offered two incriminating choices concerning some aspect of the crime. As an example, in a theft case a suspect may be asked the following alternative question;"Did you take that money and blow it on drugs and booze or did you need it to help pay bills? It was to help pay bills, wasn't it?" If the suspect nods his head in agreement with the investigator's question, the ice has been broken to obtain a fully corroborated confession. Of course, other than accepting the two alternative choices presented by the investigator, every suspect has a third option which is to say that neither choice is true. There are a number of skills involved in presenting an alternative question during an interrogation. These include selecting the proper question, asking the question at the proper time, and asking it in the proper way. Of paramount importance, however, is that the alternative question must be phrased in a legally acceptable manner. In essence, a properly formulated alternative question must not offer a promise of leniency to the suspect nor threaten the suspect with inevitable consequences. When presenting an alternative question the following guidelines should be followed: (1) The alternative question should not make any mention of legal charges An alternative question that violates this guideline, and is therefore improper, is,"Did you plan on killing her, in which case it will mean first degree murder and life in prison, or did this just happen in the heat of passion which would just be manslaughter?" This suspect is essentially being told that he will face reduced charges if he confesses to manslaughter rather than first degree murder. A proper alternative question to ask in this case is, "Did you plan on doing this since the day you got married or did it pretty much happen on the spur of the moment because of the fight you had?" With this latter question, no mention whatsoever of a possible consequence is made. (2) The alternative question should not threaten inevitable consequences A suspect must be able to reject both sides of an alternative question without fear of facing adverse real consequences because of that decision. During an interrogation these negative consequences are often presented as a threat of inevitable consequences, e.g., confess to me or suffer this negative consequence. An improper alternative question that threatens inevitable consequences in a non-custodial interrogation is, "Do you want to cooperate with me and confess or do you want me to lock you in jail where you can sit for the next two or three days?" The choice this suspect faces is to either confess or lose his freedom; he is not being offered the choice of rejecting both sides of the alternative question without facing a real negative consequences. A proper alternative question to consider in this case may be, "Are you sorry this happened or don't you care?" Another example of an improper alternative question that threatens an inevitable consequence is, "If you don't tell me about the sexual contact you had with your daughter your kids will be taken away and you will never see them again." One of the guidelines governing confession admissibility is that the confession must be essentially the product of the suspect's free will. When the impetus for confessing is to avoid a jail cell or to be able to see one's children, the statement is clearly the result of compulsion. A good rule to follow in this regard is to use alternative choices that address some aspect of the crime, e.g., "Did you force your daughter to touch your bare penis or did she do it on her own?" (3) The alternative question should not offer a promise of leniency Courts have consistently ruled that a confession obtained in conjunction with a promise of leniency was improperly obtained. Therefore, the following alternative question is improper: "If you've done this dozens of times before, that's one thing. But, if this was just the first time it happened I can explain that to the prosecutor and work out a deal for you." Not only is it psychologically improper to bring up legal terminology during an interrogation (possible charges, the judge or prosecutor), but the mere mention of legal issues may invite a claim of an actual or perceived promise of leniency. A proper way to ask the previous alternative question is, "If you've done this dozens of times before that's one thing. But if this was ust the first time it happened that would be important to establish." In conclusion, the use of an alternative question to obtain the first admission of guilt during an interrogation often makes the difference between a successful or unsuccessful interrogation. However, an improperly asked alternative question may also cause an otherwise voluntary confession to be challenged during a suppression hearing. The choices presented to a suspect should not offer a promise of leniency in exchange for a confession nor threaten inevitable consequences if the suspect chooses not to confess. Furthermore, the alternative question should avoid mention of legal consequences such as possible charges, length of sentence, or a jury's perception of the suspect's crime.

  

LEETA Use of Force Journal
By HOCK HOCHHEIM I

How Many Reps Was That Again? I was watching a gun training DVD last week and the featured, world famous instructor issued the statement, "It takes 3,000 to 5,000 repetitions to burn a movement into your body's muscle memory." There were those magic numbers again, I thought. "3,000 to 5,000." Again and again. It has become muscle memory chakra just to regurgitate those very stats. I've heard those numbers repeated hundreds of times. In the week before, I read these words of Officer Tom Crydell (I've changed the name) writing in a tactical journal, "Excellence then is not an act, but a habit. It has been said that it requires 3,000 to 5,000 repetitions to develop "muscle memory" or a subconscious response to an external stimuli. While we know that our brain is the only part of our body that has the ability to retain memory, the consistent application and practice of these active listening skills allows us the ability to incorporate them into our daily communication patterns and ensure that they are available to us during critical hostage negotiation processes." In this example, Tom has extrapolated these numbers to audible listening skills. He suggests we practice... listening... 5,000 times? To what exactly? How exactly? Then we hear the numbers again from hundreds of martial arts instructors, I fear they have heard police quote the stats and they think that we are some reliable source. But the numbers also transcend law enforcement, military and martial fields into sports. A famous golf instructor said, "It has also been determined that it takes between 3,000 and 5,000 repetitions of a movement pattern to learn an exercise."

A baseball training academy said, "Hitting instructors have noted that it takes between 3,000 and 5,000 repetitions to ingrain the muscle memory needed to hit a baseball." I have even read about a horse jockey school applying these mysterious numbers to training horses! I await news from the flea circus! These are some common examples of how the "3,000 to 5,000 reps" concept has permeated and fermented into the professional training psyche. Sounds like a lot of reps, even for horses and fleas. But it can get worse; one of my student's physical trainers told him it took 8,000 repetitions to adequately learn a new physical move. Now we are up to 8,000! I know not this mysterious trainer or from where this new number originates, just that he is out...working and proselytizing. For a common citizen, this seems like an unimportant statistic except for sports coaches to ponder, but to a professional trainer of police, soldiers, and security specialists the idea of implementing 3,000 or more repetitions is overwhelming given the budgetary constraints on training time and money. Expectations are lowered. Courses are dumbed down to ape man level, all under the crushing idea that a single physical tactic will take 3,000 to - now even 8,000 - repetitions to become effective. Quote these figures to many training administrators and some will throw their hands up in anguish, toss in the towel and surrender to the inept stupidity of man. 

The curse of the layman.

 "Layman" means a person who is a nonexpert in a given field of knowledge. While one might be the king of the rifle range, a trophy winning pistol shooter, or might be able explain the chemical mixture of pepper spray in a rainstorm, or win a UFC fight, most of us are laymen in the related fields of psychology, physiology and motor skill learning.

As you can see from these oft given examples, the 3,000 to 5,000 stats follow the opening layman remarks, "everyone knows that...," or "it has been said," or "It has been determined." All warning flag statements to me. Well, I had to ask myself, "Where do these magic numbers actually come from?" Ever the skeptic of dogma, I took a deeper look. I learned that while many laymen hear these numbers regurgitated, few if any know the true story and facts behind them, and guess what? When you do discover the truth, almost every layman is wrong. The root study, the industry standard research that experts refer to comes from a 1941 book called Motor Learning by Doctors Richard Schmidt with Craig A. Wrisberg, followed by Schmidt's consistently updated book editions called Performance and Motor Control And Learning with Dr. Timothy D. Lee, along with a rotating collection of new research studies. I urge everyone in the training industry to read these books. The good doctors have many medical and psychological eggs to fry in these volumes as they cover lab tests, sports, injury recovery, performance enhancement and challenges involving the handicapped. They are often used as college textbooks.

In Motor Learning, Dr. Schmidt states with a flurry of charts and studies that it requires approximately 300 - 500 repetitions to develop a new motor pattern. Conversely, once bad or inadequate habits are already in place, he states it takes about 3,000-5,000 repetitions to erase and correct a bad motor pattern. Lay readers and regurgitators please take note, 300 to 500 repetitions. Not thousands, but hundreds. For some reason, many trainers and writers have latched on to a reverse misunderstanding of this study. 

Approximately. About. Most. Three words always gingerly placed in and around all statistical studies. Next comes my anecdotal approximate/ about/most position based my own personal teaching experience. I shall start with the aforementioned, warning-flag phrase, "everyone knows" but I do strongly believe that "everyone really does know" that people come in all shapes and sizes, strengths and skills. In the last two decades I have taught hand, stick, knife and gun tactics to thousands of people worldwide. As I look over a crowd of practitioners in seminars now, I am well aware that each student will have a different learning repetition ratio. One might really "get" something with only 75 reps, another person may take 6,000. Another, even 10,000. Thus, these statistical means and averages are created inside a broad continuum. I myself, with black belts in several martial arts, have noted that I can obtain a healthy, working knowledge on a new takedown or movement within about 150 exercises. But, start me on ice skating and it will take decades. No matter how much time it requires to first burn a pattern into one’s muscle memory, all skills are perishable and need to be exercised with some frequency that is, once again, different for each person. Generalized means studies for the masses may be established as general guidelines for such refreshment. Remember, the "Masters" – be they in golf, cooking, baseball, piano, or karate – practice forever. The Masters lose count and just practice for practice’s sake. That's why they are Masters. Do I believe wholeheartedly in these Schmidt numbers? No. I think they are high for both new and corrective training. But, such individuality aside, we have learned here that some respected experts report 300 to 500 repetitions are needed to learn something new, not 3,000 to 5,000. I remain fascinated that no one questioned these low or high numbers and I remain fascinated that so many people picked the wrong end of this study to quote and re-quote! Look at the pessimistic results of their error. Yes, you can train new people, or people new to a certain movement, with a mere ten percent of time and effort than the previously abused lay figures suggest. Ten Percent! Trainers! Start your engines! You may now pick up the towels you've previously tossed in abject surrender!  

W. Hock Hochheim is a military, police and martial arts vet, who teaches hand, stick, knife and gun seminars in nine allied countries around the world. He can be reached at hockhochheim@ileeta.org and www.HocksCQC.com.

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page