When one sees "Principles of Control" or "Principles of Subject Control" listed in a defensive tactics course including those presented by commercial trainers, one is seeing the results of our innovation. In 1981, we developed "Principles of Control" training, due to the lack of basic user and instructor level understanding concerning:
biomechanics - how the body works (mechanically) to attack / defend / control / resist. Officers who are smaller or unaccustomed to dealing with physical violence especially need to understand practical body mechanics;

cognitive psychology - what and how humans perceive, pay attention to, remember, learn, and decide - especially in acute stress and emergency conditions;

1. trauma psychology - what happens during and after critical incidents; and
2. practical use of force theory.

This material is presented in an understandable way and serves to help the officer avoid panic and make beneficial split second tactical decisions.

In the early 1980s, we developed "Speedcuffing." We were dissatisfied with existing handcuffing methods. As is our practice in all developmental endeavors, we started with the basic question, "What is the purpose for teaching officers to handcuff in a particular way?" The answer we accepted was - specific procedures for handcuffing must improve the officer's probability of controlling a subject if he attacks or resists while being handcuffed, otherwise they are irrelevant. Therefore, handcuffing procedures must improve the officer's ability to appropriately neutralize both resistance and attack, or why waste time on pointless training?

We proceeded to put all known handcuffing methods to this test and none proved practical. They did not seem to generate improved ability to overcome resistance, stop attack, or facilitate escape as necessary.

We subsequently used body mechanics, movement dynamics, cognitive psychology, historical research, and our collective experience to develop our physical procedures. We then organized these procedures and necessary knowledge according to situations that the officer may encounter into a systematized method, "Speedcuffing." We published a book, Speedcuffing, A Tactical Handcuffing System. By its nature, Speedcuffing is situational and tactical.

Quickly, commercial trainers adopted and taught versions of Speedcuffing, using our book Speedcuffing as the information source. One can now find versions of "Speedcuffing" taught by commercial training concerns.

Incidentally, the term "Speedcuffing" does not refer to uncontrolled fast action, but to efficiency and the ability to react quickly to deter and otherwise prevent loss of control during critical events.

We developed and introduced systematized extendible baton training within the United States and advised the first U.S. manufacturer of extendible batons. Our information still appears in the written material accompanying new batons.

Our straight and extendible baton course is more practical, realistic, and effective than courses provided by baton manufacturers. Unlike a firearm, the effectiveness of a baton depends more on the user and the method of use than on the baton itself.

The user of a firearm, no matter how big, strong, agile, or aggressive, must simply pull the trigger while pointing at the target. The firearm will supply the predetermined quantity and quality of force in a predictable way.

The baton, however, depends on the user to provide power, strength, agility, and motivation at relatively close range. Consequently, probable success does not depend on the instrument, such as the firearm / ammunition combination, but upon the user and the way the baton is used.

The effects of the baton can range from insignificant to brutal, depending on the way in which it is used. With the baton, training is of paramount importance. The baton training we developed is realistic to the degree that injuries must be prevented.

In fact, we initiated the concept and basic design of several pieces of "Redman" protective equipment in order to conduct safe, but realistic baton training. Recognizing the need, we went to Macho Products with design suggestions for certain pieces of protective equipment. This equipment is now standard, but our baton training remains state of the art. We have been adapting and improving it continuously for over ten years.

The extendible baton, itself, does not have increased efficiency over other impact weapons, but with realistic tactics, it does offer advantages over them.

Use of the baton and other less-than-lethal weapons, must be considered in light of other technology, such as OC (pepper spray). Training in the baton, for example, must be accomplished in conjunction with other alternatives, where appropriate, so that the officer is trained to decide as well as perform techniques.

John Desmedt developed the practical and adaptable system used by the U.S. Secret Service for close proximity protection.  It includes original concepts and methods to deal with situations found in the wide range of executive protection responsibilities.  The training is complete and integrated - it all works together.  Unlike the usual executive protection courses, this training includes all the theory, tools, and practice so that, no matter what size team or the extent of resources, graduates will perform as cutting edge professionals.

Because so much of law enforcement work is comprised of open skills (e.g. handcuffing, using a control instrument, interviewing suspects, etc.), we have developed an entire instructional theory for open psychomotor skills. This theory is recognized nationally, and has been applied to areas of critical skill training unrelated to defensive tactics. Skill training material, which we were instrumental in developing is taught at Michigan State University College of Education.

The theory, as it relates to defensive tactics, is all inclusive. It addresses design, development, training protocols, correction, coaching, simulation, injury prevention and management, debriefing, and the several necessary forms of testing. All components are interrelated.

The background of our instructional theory is complicated, but its purpose is to make learning as simple as possible for the trainee, and to allow the trainee to learn more fully. This theory extends to the way that we teach instructors to treat trainees.

We do not emphasize competition. We emphasize teamwork, responsibility, and organization. We do not work to place trainees in "no win" situations. They may work themselves into "no win" situations, but then we ensure that they have learned the solution by allowing them further practice. We do not harass trainees. We make them competent to think and stand-up under pressure. We challenge trainees, but first we train them how to meet the challenge. They know what it takes and they are taught to recognize when they are missing the prerequisites for success.

Early in our developmental stages, we identified the absence of and the need for valid and defensible testing methods. We developed a theory and procedures for testing all necessary components of use of force training. We then submitted our methods and procedures to Dr. Robert Singer, Florida State University, a pioneer in the field of Movement Science, and to Dr. Stephen Yelon, Michigan State University College of Education for critique and enhancement. We also subjected our evaluation protocols to an inter-rater reliability study. Subsequently, Dr. Yelon studied our methodology for an extended period of time and helped develop our psychomotor skill training theory.

When contacted by the FBI Academy, Firearms Training Unit, to present an expert session to FBI Instructors on the development of psychomotor skill training as it relates to firearms training, Dr. Singer referred Quantico to us.

More information on our testing methods can be found in the "Testing and Certification of Instructor Candidates" section.

Back to the top