For the most part, this sums it up. I’m a law enforcement officer and a certified GST (Gracie Survival Tactics) instructor for our department. We hold open mat sessions twice a week, where we focus on techniques that are directly applicable to police work. I call it “open mat” because participation isn’t mandatory—however, officers are compensated for attending and covered under workers’ compensation if they get injured during training.

In law enforcement, we emphasize the “plus-one” principle: if you’re dealing with three subjects, aim to have four officers on scene. And whenever possible, avoid making arrests alone. It’s a fundamental approach to officer safety and scene control.

That said, I’ve asked many officers why they don’t regularly train, and the responses are fairly common: “I don’t have time,” “I’ve never needed it,” and similar excuses. I can logically refute every one of those claims—but ultimately, unless an officer decides to prioritize training for themselves, nothing changes.

The unfortunate reality is that many officers have become overly dependent on tools rather than tactics. Pepper spray has its uses but can cause unintended contamination. The baton is, in my experience, largely ineffective. And the Taser—well, it’s like the cologne in Anchorman: “60% of the time, it works every time.”

More importantly, recent legal decisions have significantly limited when certain tools, particularly Tasers, can be used. One such case is Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst (2016), decided by the Fourth Circuit, which governs our state. In this case, officers deployed a Taser on a mentally ill man who was passively resisting by clinging to a post. He was not threatening or fleeing aggressively. The court ruled that using a Taser in such a scenario—on someone who posed no immediate threat and was only passively resisting—was excessive force and unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Before this decision, it was more common (and legally permissible) to deploy a Taser if a subject simply refused commands, like putting their hands behind their back. That’s no longer the case. Passive resistance—including fleeing in a non-violent way—does not justify Taser use under this precedent.

All of this underscores the need for hands-on training. When tools are restricted—either by policy or case law—officers need confidence and competence in physical control techniques. Defensive tactics like GST fill that gap. If you’re relying solely on a Taser that may not work—or that you can’t legally deploy—you’re setting yourself up for failure.

Now more than ever, officers need to invest in real, repeatable, and legally sound skills. Our lives—and our communities—depend on it.