Do gym owners have a moral obligation to train everyone? I posted something similar to this a while back. I was in Washington DC several years ago and dropped in on a gym that had a rule that they would not allow Law enforcement to train there. After class I straight up asked him “What is the story behind that? “ I wanted to know what the deal was. Almost all Jiu-Jitsu gyms (in the US) welcome Military and LEO. It came down to some political beliefs as well as standing by idea that as a private business owner he can determine who he wants to train and why. And in light of recent events…i want to through the question out again… Should a Jiujitsu gym be allowed to refuse training to law enforcement due to a moral obligation? Where is the line?

If you'd asked me last year, I would had found it totally ridiculous to ban law enforcement, but I would say all bets are off in the US now. At the same time, the last shooting could had been prevented if the 6-7 officers involved had been comfortable with controlling one person through grappling instead of shooting. Although it didn't look like the objective was to actually control, so perhaps increased non-lethal options wouldn't change anything anyways. Just looking at it objectively and not going into politics.

This situation reminds me a lot of the 'wedding cake' cases, where bakeries refused to make custom cakes for same-sex weddings based on moral/religious objections. I wonder how many people on each side will flip-flop on this principle depending on whose 'team' is being refused. If you believe a baker should have the right to refuse service because they shouldn't be forced to support an event that violates their conscience, then to be consistent, you have to support this gym owner's right to refuse LEOs for their own moral reasons. On the other hand, if you believe that a business open to the public must serve everyone regardless of the owner's personal beliefs, then you should technically be against the gym owner excluding cops. The legal and moral question is usually the same: Does a private business have absolute autonomy, or are they a public accommodation? Shouldn't we apply the same standard to the gym owner that we apply to the baker, regardless of our personal politics?

If you'd asked me last year, I would had found it totally ridiculous to ban law enforcement, but I would say all bets are off in the US now. At the same time, the last shooting could had been prevented if the 6-7 officers involved had been comfortable with controlling one person through grappling instead of shooting. Although it didn't look like the objective was to actually control, so perhaps increased non-lethal options wouldn't change anything anyways. Just looking at it objectively and not going into politics.

Do gym owners have a moral obligation to train everyone? Should a Jiujitsu gym be allowed to refuse training to law enforcement due to a moral obligation? Where is the line?

I hear what you’re saying, and I get that from the outside looking in, the U.S. can seem chaotic right now. But one thing that’s important to keep in mind is that the public only ever sees a tiny, edited slice of these incidents, usually the most dramatic few seconds. Those clips don’t show the lead up, the context, or what the officers were actually dealing with in real time. It’s really easy to Monday‑morning‑quarterback these situations from a distance, but my training in the military taught me never to judge anyone’s actions when they’re under pressure or under fire. Unless you were there, you don’t truly know what they were facing. Because of that, it’s hard to fairly judge the actions of the people involved, especially from another country where policing, training, and threat levels are completely different. I’m not saying officers are always right, but I also don’t think it’s fair to assume they were at fault based on videos that were cut and circulated specifically to shape public opinion. That’s why this whole question about gyms banning law enforcement is complicated. If we’re going to talk about moral obligations, then part of that is being honest about how limited the public information usually is. Most of what people see are short, edited clips released by media outlets or shared online, and both sides tend to massage those fragments to fit whatever narrative they already believe. When that’s the only lens someone has, especially from outside the U.S., it becomes really easy to draw conclusions that don’t match the full reality. And if anything, more training, not less, is what leads to better outcomes for everyone involved.

I've been in much worse situations as a security officer than together with six colleagues observing someone help a pushed over lady back up on her feet. But the Swedish way of handling these situations is a bit different. Fun to see this old video clip with Swedish cops on vacation breaking up a fight on the subway in New York. Just two guys on the one needing to be controlled and no need to punish him with pepper spray, bang hard metal objects repeatedly on his head or shoot him with a single bullet, even if he had a gun on him. Just calm control over the situation and not letting personal feelings take over. Simply law enforcement officers we would all be proud to have at our academy and trust to use BJJ for the right purposes. https://youtu.be/izdfnHBM[...]9k87xQLv2W

How do we know, if those tricky Swedes didn't have a little bit of that stinky fish, in their pockets? That would be against the Geneva Convention, you know....

Having trained police in martial arts and self defense, I can report that those who have proper training are much less likely to do serious harm than those who don't. Some people have the mistaken belief that having police in a school is intimidating to LGBT students, but my experience has not shown any difference between police reaction and the general student population at large. Some are prejudiced, and some aren't, but anyone serious about training needs to have a "we're all working in this together" attitude. It's fine in my book to eject someone from class who openly displays prejudice for any reason, be it racial, misanthropic, gender based or religious. But until demonstrably guilty, it is unreasonable to deny service based on generic perception. In doing so, one is demonstrating the same kind of bigotry and prejudice that they claim they are trying to prevent.

I've been in much worse situations as a security officer than together with six colleagues observing someone help a pushed over lady back up on her feet. But the Swedish way of handling these situations is a bit different. Fun to see this old video clip with Swedish cops on vacation breaking up a fight on the subway in New York. Just two guys on the one needing to be controlled and no need to punish him with pepper spray, bang hard metal objects repeatedly on his head or shoot him with a single bullet, even if he had a gun on him. Just calm control over the situation and not letting personal feelings take over. Simply law enforcement officers we would all be proud to have at our academy and trust to use BJJ for the right purposes. https://youtu.be/izdfnHBM[...]9k87xQLv2W

Judging an entire incident based on a few seconds of video, especially from another country with different laws, training, and threat environments, creates a distorted picture.

Mr. Pretti has been caught on camera previously acting like a rioter, disturber of the peace, and vandal, and one that is armed while doing so, which in many domiciles justifies escalated charges for same. I did not see him acting like a violent rioter in the videos at the incident where he is detained and killed. But, I do not have access to all the video footage. The narrative that he goes to these events as a non-combatant nurse to provide medical aid is demonstrably false, given the evidence of his violent criminal behaviors at recent previous events. In fact, his prior behaviors caught on multiple videos justify his being arrested for those prior behaviors at any time before the criminal Statute for prosecution expires, which is a matter of years. Now, if the police, who previously saw Mr. Pretti behave like a violent rioter, which was clearly caught on video in previous criminal acts, had merely arrested him on his way to or from work, after he had clearly had a track record of behaving in criminal riotous behaviors, that would have been lawful, and more elegant than allowing a known serial criminal rioter to go to yet another protest, since his track record was not one of peaceful protest, but of criminal behaviors, and escalating behaviors at such events. Also, if he conspires to collude or conspire with even as few as two other people to behave in such manners, with the a priori intention of doing so, in many States that is a qualifier for aggravated gang crime charges, or RICO, and the Federal government has its own mechanisms there, for gangs, organized crime groups, and terrorists, who use the old "there is no Mafia" defense, when criminals often in practice do deliberate collude and conspire to commit crimes. This enforcement of the law, regarding his prior crimes, and for them, rather than turning a blind eye to violent and property damage behaviors at protest or riot events and incidents, might also have avoided the moment of his death entirely. Would have - should have - could have. So, here we have two meta issues, before we consider the tactical details of his detainment, and being shot: 1) Pretti was a violent person, whose custom was to go to politically charged situations, behave in violent and property damage manners, while armed, which is often considered an aggravated criminal qualifier, 2) A very misguided policy of not arresting people, even after they are caught on video multiple times acting in clearly violent and property damaging manners - also while armed as well. So, in all cases, Mr. Pretti should have been arrested, and charged with serious crimes for his prior violent and property damage behaviors, while deliberately being riotous at politically charged events, while armed. Up until this point, prior to the last incident, the failures are on Pretti, and any deliberate policy of "don't subsequently arrest" people who engaged in violent or property damaging during "protests" or riots, because went things go violent, or their is property damage, that is no longer a peaceful protest, that is riotous and criminal behavior, not legal protest of any kind. Regarding the tactical details of this last incident on its own merits: need more footage. That footage should be carefully reviewed for what went right, what went wrong, and what can be improved tactically by law enforcement, for future situations. Regarding the outcomes of this event, those events have already happened, and there are clearly investigations being done.

I hear what you’re saying, and I get that from the outside looking in, the U.S. can seem chaotic right now. But one thing that’s important to keep in mind is that the public only ever sees a tiny, edited slice of these incidents, usually the most dramatic few seconds. Those clips don’t show the lead up, the context, or what the officers were actually dealing with in real time. It’s really easy to Monday‑morning‑quarterback these situations from a distance, but my training in the military taught me never to judge anyone’s actions when they’re under pressure or under fire. Unless you were there, you don’t truly know what they were facing. Because of that, it’s hard to fairly judge the actions of the people involved, especially from another country where policing, training, and threat levels are completely different. I’m not saying officers are always right, but I also don’t think it’s fair to assume they were at fault based on videos that were cut and circulated specifically to shape public opinion. That’s why this whole question about gyms banning law enforcement is complicated. If we’re going to talk about moral obligations, then part of that is being honest about how limited the public information usually is. Most of what people see are short, edited clips released by media outlets or shared online, and both sides tend to massage those fragments to fit whatever narrative they already believe. When that’s the only lens someone has, especially from outside the U.S., it becomes really easy to draw conclusions that don’t match the full reality. And if anything, more training, not less, is what leads to better outcomes for everyone involved.

Let's stay with what's actually in the videos. Violent person? It there anywhere Pretti can be seen acting violently (link to video?), 11 days prior or just before he was shot? Don't try to switch the cards here. Destructive (towards objects) is not the same as violent (towards humans or animals). Also, I hope you agree that spitting at a car will neither damage the car nor physically hurt anyone inside of it, even if you don't agree with the behavior. On the video https://www.youtube.com/w[...]OVxlKPV7G0, i don't see any marked vehicle or visible law enforcement insignia (because of low resolution?) and I hear no one saying Pretti is detained or under arrest. Do you? About three officers wrestle him on the ground and more ready to join in, although most keeping an eye on the surrounding people who are clearly not the most quiet and calm. Not clear what the officers attempt to do as no one declares this and I see no hand cuffs out. Whatever they attempt, they jointly seem to abort and Pretti runs away. Was a warrant sent out for his arrest if observed again? Did anyone ID him on the scene 11 days later? What happened before the clip, that made Pretti react? Does this matter 11 days later? Would and could they have arrested him then and there if they had wanted to? Even if they didn't express that they intended to do this, considering the chaotic environment and short time span, it's not impossible that they would if they could but bailed out because of the surrounding people and to not agitate them further. But Pretti doesn't look very muscular and probably with no grappling experience as opposed to the officers who should at least have some basic experience. Purple belts and up could probably escape such an encounter in a similar time frame if opposed by three striped white belts. So Pretti escaping three unexperienced officers or at least making them reconsider and abort is not entirely impossible. Just before the killing, I've never heard any officer saying any of the two women or Pretti was detained or arrested. Did you hear that or see any sign of it? If we e.g. watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/w[...]LANxOh3tvI Pretti is standing in the middle of the street, filming and directing a car to drive past him (between him and the white car which is next to the pavement). Woman 1 & 2 (described later) seems to be on the opposite side, on the street Are they standing just outside of Officer Gray pants (described later), who is exiting the back seat of a vehicle? In that case, he is fresh out on the street and haven't spoken to Pretti yet. Nothing in front of the vehicle stopping it from leaving. Officer gray pants approaches woman 1 (brown jacket and boots) and doesn't make any apparent attempt to detain her, put on hand cuffs or make her come with him to the car he came from (also difficult to do while holding the canister with irritant in his hand). On the contrary, he gives her a big push, so she ends up in front of the white car (with a driver in it) and just outside of the pavement. Just next to Pretti, whom she places her arm around the waist of (and Pretti seems to put his own arm around her waist). Pretti, who we still haven't seen or heard in any interaction with gray pants officer, is now himself pushed by gray pants, who doesn't seem to communicate why and what he wishes Pretti to do. Move a couple of feet more so he and the woman are both on the pavement and off the road? Woman 2 (gray jacket, orange back pack) walks towards Pretti and woman 1 and thus in the direction towards the pavement but on the way there turns towards Officer gray pants but without really stopping walking. Officer gray pants gives her a hard push, which it is difficult to see the purpose of, since she was already walking in the direction of the pavement and an arrest wouldn't be increasing the distance but decreasing it and making her follow him to the car (and you would still not make an arrest while holding the canister in your hand, would you?). Woman 2 falls to the ground by the front right side of the white car, with feet dangerously close to the wheel and where the driver can't really see her well. Pretti steps towards the car and inbetween woman 2 and Officer gray pants. It seems like a reflex reaction to the shove and it's unclear if his left hand makes contact with the officers elbow, but he immediately raises it and shows he is not holding anything in it, while he keeps filming with his other hand. Still placing himself between Officer graypants and woman 2, who is getting help to get up by woman 1. Here, Pretti's placement also makes it less likely that the white car driver starts driving, so woman 2 (and 1) can get hurt from this. He is getting sprayed a lot by Officer gray pants and turns away from him, not doing anything aggressively (or does anything he does seem like a threat?). He instead tries to assist woman 2 to get up (something that is necessary to get out of the white cars way, whether continuing to the side walk or back out on the street - no one can know her intentions here, but in who's interest is it that she remains on the ground in front of the white car with a driver in it?). Pretti is now rushed by 6 more officers taking him to the ground and piling up on him, where one seems to remove and leave with his gun (leaving a total of 6 officers on him, while I haven't been able to hear any directions given to Pretti or any intention expressed of them making an arrest or whatever else. Pretti looks as if he is on his knees and elbows (difficult to pull a gun in that position or even to hurt anyone piled up on you). No one is giving the two woman any attention anymore (if they wanted to have clear way to make an arrest, now would otherwise be their chance). Woman 1 is continuing helping woman 2 get out of the way of the white car and up on the side walk (which makes it likely that this was where they were heading all along, together with Pretti and didn't need to be pushed violently). Pretti is allowed up in a kneeling position and is shot around 10 times while unarmed. Woman 1 and Pretti attempts to help her up (unclear if they would then move to the pavement or not, but helping her up from the dangerous spot seems like the decent thing to do, wouldn't you agree?). Pretti places his left arm around her waist and continues filming with his right hand. What COULD have happened before the clip that would excuse what the officers did? It's easy to point to unknowns, but really, we don't know what happened before the clip with the Swedish police officers on the NY subway either, with only two people controlling someone who is much more agitated than we see Prett being in the video. That person HAD been violent and they didn't know if he had any weapon on him or infected syringes. So why should people who are unable to do what the Swedish officers did be allowed to pull and use a gun or even irritant spray? If only two of them could had done what the Swedish officers did, it would be an easy task to put on hand cuffs and frisk him. Is it really that difficult to do when you are so many officers together? Perhaps try an experiment with six white belts with stripes students starting with you (or a colored belt) in bottom turtle. Would even a black belt get out and be able to make a gun pulling motion or in any other way threaten the others, without a large size advantage? If we just look at the situation, not what led up to it and who's wrong or right in the situation before.

Let's stay with what's actually in the videos. Violent person? It there anywhere Pretti can be seen acting violently (link to video?), 11 days prior or just before he was shot? Don't try to switch the cards here. Destructive (towards objects) is not the same as violent (towards humans or animals). Also, I hope you agree that spitting at a car will neither damage the car nor physically hurt anyone inside of it, even if you don't agree with the behavior. On the video https://www.youtube.com/w[...]OVxlKPV7G0, i don't see any marked vehicle or visible law enforcement insignia (because of low resolution?) and I hear no one saying Pretti is detained or under arrest. Do you? About three officers wrestle him on the ground and more ready to join in, although most keeping an eye on the surrounding people who are clearly not the most quiet and calm. Not clear what the officers attempt to do as no one declares this and I see no hand cuffs out. Whatever they attempt, they jointly seem to abort and Pretti runs away. Was a warrant sent out for his arrest if observed again? Did anyone ID him on the scene 11 days later? What happened before the clip, that made Pretti react? Does this matter 11 days later? Would and could they have arrested him then and there if they had wanted to? Even if they didn't express that they intended to do this, considering the chaotic environment and short time span, it's not impossible that they would if they could but bailed out because of the surrounding people and to not agitate them further. But Pretti doesn't look very muscular and probably with no grappling experience as opposed to the officers who should at least have some basic experience. Purple belts and up could probably escape such an encounter in a similar time frame if opposed by three striped white belts. So Pretti escaping three unexperienced officers or at least making them reconsider and abort is not entirely impossible. Just before the killing, I've never heard any officer saying any of the two women or Pretti was detained or arrested. Did you hear that or see any sign of it? If we e.g. watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/w[...]LANxOh3tvI Pretti is standing in the middle of the street, filming and directing a car to drive past him (between him and the white car which is next to the pavement). Woman 1 & 2 (described later) seems to be on the opposite side, on the street Are they standing just outside of Officer Gray pants (described later), who is exiting the back seat of a vehicle? In that case, he is fresh out on the street and haven't spoken to Pretti yet. Nothing in front of the vehicle stopping it from leaving. Officer gray pants approaches woman 1 (brown jacket and boots) and doesn't make any apparent attempt to detain her, put on hand cuffs or make her come with him to the car he came from (also difficult to do while holding the canister with irritant in his hand). On the contrary, he gives her a big push, so she ends up in front of the white car (with a driver in it) and just outside of the pavement. Just next to Pretti, whom she places her arm around the waist of (and Pretti seems to put his own arm around her waist). Pretti, who we still haven't seen or heard in any interaction with gray pants officer, is now himself pushed by gray pants, who doesn't seem to communicate why and what he wishes Pretti to do. Move a couple of feet more so he and the woman are both on the pavement and off the road? Woman 2 (gray jacket, orange back pack) walks towards Pretti and woman 1 and thus in the direction towards the pavement but on the way there turns towards Officer gray pants but without really stopping walking. Officer gray pants gives her a hard push, which it is difficult to see the purpose of, since she was already walking in the direction of the pavement and an arrest wouldn't be increasing the distance but decreasing it and making her follow him to the car (and you would still not make an arrest while holding the canister in your hand, would you?). Woman 2 falls to the ground by the front right side of the white car, with feet dangerously close to the wheel and where the driver can't really see her well. Pretti steps towards the car and inbetween woman 2 and Officer gray pants. It seems like a reflex reaction to the shove and it's unclear if his left hand makes contact with the officers elbow, but he immediately raises it and shows he is not holding anything in it, while he keeps filming with his other hand. Still placing himself between Officer graypants and woman 2, who is getting help to get up by woman 1. Here, Pretti's placement also makes it less likely that the white car driver starts driving, so woman 2 (and 1) can get hurt from this. He is getting sprayed a lot by Officer gray pants and turns away from him, not doing anything aggressively (or does anything he does seem like a threat?). He instead tries to assist woman 2 to get up (something that is necessary to get out of the white cars way, whether continuing to the side walk or back out on the street - no one can know her intentions here, but in who's interest is it that she remains on the ground in front of the white car with a driver in it?). Pretti is now rushed by 6 more officers taking him to the ground and piling up on him, where one seems to remove and leave with his gun (leaving a total of 6 officers on him, while I haven't been able to hear any directions given to Pretti or any intention expressed of them making an arrest or whatever else. Pretti looks as if he is on his knees and elbows (difficult to pull a gun in that position or even to hurt anyone piled up on you). No one is giving the two woman any attention anymore (if they wanted to have clear way to make an arrest, now would otherwise be their chance). Woman 1 is continuing helping woman 2 get out of the way of the white car and up on the side walk (which makes it likely that this was where they were heading all along, together with Pretti and didn't need to be pushed violently). Pretti is allowed up in a kneeling position and is shot around 10 times while unarmed. Woman 1 and Pretti attempts to help her up (unclear if they would then move to the pavement or not, but helping her up from the dangerous spot seems like the decent thing to do, wouldn't you agree?). Pretti places his left arm around her waist and continues filming with his right hand. What COULD have happened before the clip that would excuse what the officers did? It's easy to point to unknowns, but really, we don't know what happened before the clip with the Swedish police officers on the NY subway either, with only two people controlling someone who is much more agitated than we see Prett being in the video. That person HAD been violent and they didn't know if he had any weapon on him or infected syringes. So why should people who are unable to do what the Swedish officers did be allowed to pull and use a gun or even irritant spray? If only two of them could had done what the Swedish officers did, it would be an easy task to put on hand cuffs and frisk him. Is it really that difficult to do when you are so many officers together? Perhaps try an experiment with six white belts with stripes students starting with you (or a colored belt) in bottom turtle. Would even a black belt get out and be able to make a gun pulling motion or in any other way threaten the others, without a large size advantage? If we just look at the situation, not what led up to it and who's wrong or right in the situation before.