Are the Close Quarter Combat Techniques Portrayed in This Video Useable? A Look at Their Practicality in Real-World Scenarios
In today's age of social media and viral videos, one common debate revolves around the portrayal of close quarter combat (CQC) techniques in various forms of media. Many video content creators showcase their skills, showcasing moves that seem thrilling and dramatic. However, these demonstrations often fall far short of real-world scenarios and may not be as efficient or practical as one might think. This article delves into the practicality of the techniques depicted in recent videos, exploring their effectiveness in real-life applications and whether they are used by law enforcement or special forces.
Are These Techniques Effective and Commonly Used?
Many viewers wonder whether the close quarter combat techniques demonstrated in videos can be learned and used effectively in real-life scenarios. In most cases, the answer is a resounding 'no.' These techniques seem flashy and thrilling on screen but can be highly impractical and dangerous in real-world events. For instance, one such video where individuals use a method of rolling over a roof for extraction poses no practical benefit and is often seen as more dramatic than practical.
Do Law Enforcement Agencies or Special Forces Use These Techniques?
Disillusionment often sets in when it becomes clear that these techniques are not standard practice in law enforcement or special forces. In fact, attempting to handle individuals in the manner depicted (e.g., close-distance takedowns) would likely result in the unfortunate outcome of police and citizens being killed, leading to cities and departments being sued. Such perceptions of exaggerated techniques should be questioned critically, as they often serve more as advertisements to showcase the characteristics or features of the equipment being used.
Realistic vs. Unrealistic Demonstrations
The video under scrutiny portrays a highly unrealistic scenario, where the arrestees have shown no immediate threat, necessitating such a high level of force. In reality, suspects would only be subjected to such levels of force if at least one of them was armed, as the individual in black is shown to be.
The extraction method from the vehicle is another example of the video's contrived nature. The presenter's own 8-year-old vehicle is better fortified than the one depicted in the video. The doors automatically lock upon starting and only open when the car is at a standstill. Hence, manually ripping open the passenger door is not possible, and similarly, the kick-through to force the driver out would be impeded by the vehicle's console and seats. Such details indicate a high level of artificiality in the demonstration.
Additional Realistic Considerations
Carjacking is a severe issue in certain regions, such as South Africa, where vehicles are often installed with under-door LPG flame-throwers to deter potential carjackers. Window security features, like tint films, further complicate the extraction process. In such conditions, even if a window is shattered, its security film maintains the glass's structural integrity, making it extremely difficult to use as a passage into the vehicle.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Note
While certain elements in the video, such as the police response to stop a fleeing vehicle, are depicted in a relatively realistic manner, the overall portrayal of combat techniques is highly exaggerated and impractical. The entry and extraction methods shown in the video are not only dangerous but also nonsensical in a real-world context. Quantity and quality are not always synonymous, and flashy demonstrations often fall short of practical applications. It is important to critically evaluate such content to separate entertainment from realism.