Training Police to Grapple

Why?

In this series of posts, I intend to make a case for training police officers in grappling arts and discuss the potential development of a police-specific grappling system.

Why Emphasize Grappling for Police Officers?

Let's start with the role of police officers in our society. As I've highlighted in previous discussions, police serve as the sanctioned force-wielders for the government. When someone is doing something that they ought not be doing and someone needs to stop them, you call the police. Stopping what ought not be occurring often necessitates the use of force, which, depending on the situation, can range from a simple order to a more drastic measure, like lethal force. Here, I present three key reasons advocating for grappling techniques over striking techniques: legal standards, the mechanism of control, and public perception.

1. Legal Standards

Legal mandates and rulings define the extent and nature of force a police officer can employ. These mandates often echo public sentiments, but are also shaped by the judiciary's understanding of real-time confrontational scenarios.

Force application should be proportional to the threat or resistance. Officers have been guided by various "use of force" models, which, over time, have evolved into more intricate wheels or matrices. Below is an example of one of these continuums, it categorizes force from officer presence, to verbal commands, soft empty hand control (like holding a suspect), hard empty hand control (striking the suspect), intermediate weapons (batons or tasers), and finally, lethal force (firearm use). Officers aren't strictly bound to match the suspect's force; they can generally use one level of force higher than the suspect’s resistance. For example, if a suspect attempts to punch a police officer, the officer can use his baton to stop the suspect’s attack.

Typically, grappling techniques slot into the soft empty hand control category—the lowest level of force involving physical contact. Striking actions, like punches or kicks, occupy a higher rung. Thus, in legal parlance, grappling is usually perceived as a lower force level, which could help insulate officers from allegations of excessive force.

2. The Dynamics of Control

Striking and grappling differ fundamentally in their objectives and outcomes. Striking seeks to control by inflicting pain or incapacitating—whether by knocking out, causing enough pain that the suspect yields, or inducing muscle failure (such as using an angle kick to give the suspect a Charlie horse that causes him to fall).

In contrast, grappling is about establishing and enhancing a physical connection. It focuses on restraint, not harm. With grappling, the objective is to progressively limit the suspect's mobility using leverage, balance, and physiological understanding. The goal is control, not injury. Often, as suspects recognize their limited movement, they cease resistance. This video gives an example of grappling to control a suspect.

3. Public Perception

When physical force must be used to stop an offender, we want police officers to utilize the lowest level of force possible. This idea goes all the way back to the origin of organized policing in the western hemisphere, when recruits for the first police department in the west (the London Metropolitan Police) were given general instructions to use the minimum amount of force that was necessary to achieve police objectives. Part of the reason for this instruction was Sir Robert Peel’s belief that the police must have the support of the public to complete their duties and that the unnecessary or excessive use of force would damage that support.

While we don’t have data on public preferences between striking and grappling, I posit that grappling is more palatable because it appears less aggressive than striking. We're actively exploring this hypothesis and will present our findings when we finish. Even without this data, public reactions to questionable uses of force, amplified in the age of social media, clearly show that people are very sensitive to what appears to be excessive use of force.

This is not to say the police officers should never use strikes or be taught striking. They should. Officers need to be taught striking at the very least to understand how striking works so that they can defend themselves effectively when someone tries to hit them. Additionally, there are situations when grappling may not be utilizable, such as when an officer is facing multiple assailants. What I am arguing here is that the foundation of police use of force training should be grappling. That foundation should be supplemented with striking.

In the next post, I’ll discuss the type of grappling training that officers should receive.