# I'd Like To Know More On This Disarm



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 22, 2016)

Two men arrested in conjunction with Arnold gunshot incident

"According to the release, the two suspects gained access to a townhome in the Mill Woods community on Manuel Road in Arnold when they asked the victim if they could use their home telephone.

Once inside, the two pulled out the firearm and attempted to rob a 31-year old male victim who law enforcement declined to identify. The resident attempted to execute a martial arts technique to disarm the man, but multiple shots were fired. One of the rounds struck a suspect."

I wish I knew more about what happened.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 22, 2016)

Ah, here's more...

Police: Home invasion victim didn’t report crime to avoid negative story about pot


----------



## Buka (Dec 22, 2016)

I'm curious about the details of the disarm, too. I like disarms, trained them a lot.

But, gee, I ain't letting anyone into my home that I don't know. I'll gladly make the call for them after I call the authorities. 

But when I saw the photo of the first guy shown, I mean, c'mon. Yes, I'm profiling - don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to realize he's shaky at best. Not the second guy, but that first one looks like he came straight out of a B movie.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 23, 2016)

Ideally, a weapons disarm should take away an opponent's weapon in a manner that the victim is not hurt by the weapon, and the opponent is immediately separated from the weapon with no ability to cause harm.  Sometimes even better are those disarms that cause the opponent to be a victim of his own weapon. 

Since there is no apparent description of the technique, it isn't possible to determine what went wrong.  But like Bill and Buka, I sure would like to know what happened.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 23, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Ideally, a weapons disarm should take away an opponent's weapon in a manner that the victim is not hurt by the weapon, and the opponent is immediately separated from the weapon with no ability to cause harm.  Sometimes even better are those disarms that cause the opponent to be a victim of his own weapon.
> 
> Since there is no apparent description of the technique, it isn't possible to determine what went wrong.  But like Bill and Buka, I sure would like to know what happened.



Yeah but it was a fight. And even the best disarms dont go according to plan.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2016)

Most disarms either work immediately (you get the gun) or they fail and you're struggling for control of the arm. In the dojo, they are fantastically effective, but I'm with DB on this one - this is the kind of stuff that happens.


----------



## Tames D (Dec 23, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but it was a fight. And even the best disarms dont go according to plan.


Absolutely. Everyone has a plan until they find a gun in their face. The best disarms get ugly when the **** hits the fan.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 25, 2016)

I am not a fan of disarms, I'd prefer to control the arm then take out the attacker with strikes in the same way I would if he was unarmed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> I am not a fan of disarms, I'd prefer to control the arm then take out the attacker with strikes in the same way I would if he was unarmed.


Do you normally strike while maintaining complete control of one of their arms?


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Do you normally strike while maintaining complete control of one of their arms?


I didn't say "complete", but yes I do practice seizing one arm and striking with the other.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> I didn't say "complete", but yes I do practice seizing one arm and striking with the other.


Interesting. Our focus is on controlling the arm, when there's a weapon in it, striking when there's an opportunity that doesn't sacrifice that control. When there's not, we might choose to use more strikes. Disarms are focused on controlling that weapon. My philosophy is that if there's a knife (for instance), I cannot afford to focus on anything else unless the knife is out of play. So, if I've controlled the armed arm sufficiently (even for a short period), then I can strike. I'd rather have control of the arm/weapon and not be striking, than to be striking while they still have the ability to use that weapon. 

Mind you, none of that can be absolute. If I can't get control of the weapon arm, then strikes might be my method of getting there, which will probably look more like what you're referring to.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. Our focus is on controlling the arm, when there's a weapon in it, striking when there's an opportunity that doesn't sacrifice that control. When there's not, we might choose to use more strikes. Disarms are focused on controlling that weapon. My philosophy is that if there's a knife (for instance), I cannot afford to focus on anything else unless the knife is out of play. So, if I've controlled the armed arm sufficiently (even for a short period), then I can strike. I'd rather have control of the arm/weapon and not be striking, than to be striking while they still have the ability to use that weapon.
> 
> Mind you, none of that can be absolute. If I can't get control of the weapon arm, then strikes might be my method of getting there, which will probably look more like what you're referring to.


Yes, I've done it that way too.  It seems to be the way most people do it to be fair.  Good to try different ways and find which you are most comfortable with.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. Our focus is on controlling the arm, when there's a weapon in it, striking when there's an opportunity that doesn't sacrifice that control. When there's not, we might choose to use more strikes. Disarms are focused on controlling that weapon. My philosophy is that if there's a knife (for instance), I cannot afford to focus on anything else unless the knife is out of play. So, if I've controlled the armed arm sufficiently (even for a short period), then I can strike. I'd rather have control of the arm/weapon and not be striking, than to be striking while they still have the ability to use that weapon.
> 
> Mind you, none of that can be absolute. If I can't get control of the weapon arm, then strikes might be my method of getting there, which will probably look more like what you're referring to.



The issue is double dipping. So I grab the arm and miss and then get into this mindset of chasing the arm. Which gives stab guy all the time in the world to adress my attack.  And then you basically have to deal with a sewing machine attack.

You have to keep momentum up so that knife guy is reacting to you. Not the other way round.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The issue is double dipping. So I grab the arm and miss and then get into this mindset of chasing the arm. Which gives stab guy all the time in the world to adress my attack.  And then you basically have to deal with a sewing machine attack.
> 
> You have to keep momentum up so that knife guy is reacting to you. Not the other way round.


That's one potential problem. It can be trained around.


----------

