Don't tell them you know martial arts

[K-man]

So when you start punching or kicking someone's face into the concrete, do you hold back, or do you go full force?

Well for a start you have provided a scenario where we are on concrete but you haven't given the circumstances. So, is the attacker armed, does he have accomplices, do I actually have to fight to get away or can I simply leave? Remember, this thread is about self defence.

But I will ask you, in any competition fight like the recent Mayweather/Pacquiao bout, if you asked them do they hold back or go full force what do you think they might say? That is in a competitive environment. Don't you think you fight go full force if your life is on the line?

As I stated earlier, in competition, in class, and in the street, you can tell when a person goes limp from a choke. When Ryan Hall choked out riff raff in front of a restaurant, he released him immediately, because he knew he had gone limp from the choke. Unlike most people being trained to stomp someone's face into the concrete until they're unconsciousness, Bjj and MMA exponents have actually choked out resisting opponents, and no the amount of force necessary.

I have yet to see anywhere, and I have quite a library of very violent DVDs, where anyone is training people to stomp on anyone once the danger is past and I can't recall even seeing someone stomping more than once. Like many other areas where you have very little knowledge, self defence is not your strongpoint, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing competition BJJ and MMA into the discussion.

 

[PhotonGuy]

i didn't even get into an argument in college. What the hell are you doing at college that you're getting into fights all the time?

I did nothing to get into fights in college except to be there. As for college being a zoo, this is why. College is full of guys in their late teens/early twenties who experience all this new found freedom and will sometimes, actually quite often, go quite wild. Also there is often booze and drugs at college. All too often, being turned loose the way they are, some people don't handle it responsibly and bullying takes on a whole new level, more so than in high school or before.

 

[K-man]

Nice straw man. I said that I advocate a gentle choke over continuously bashing someone's face into the ground in order to subdue them. If you enough time to start punching a downed target in the face, you have enough time for a choke.

Depends on context doesn't it? So in a dirty back alley where you have no idea of who you are fighting, whether they are armed or not and whether they have friends to come to his assistance, you are advocating a gentle choke. Mate, that is hilarious!

Multiple armed attackers? You're in a lot of trouble, regardless what your training is.

Yes you are, but that is why we continually train for the worst case scenario. At least I teach people to have a chance of escape. Your gentle choke is irrelevant.

Bludgeoning someone in the head over and over, and "striking until they are no longer a threat" is beating someone until they're incapacitated in both cases. I'm still not seeing how beating someone unconscious is more safe than a choke.

No one but you is suggesting otherwise. Any form of fighting, outside of training or the ring, has consequences. If my life is threatened I will do whatever is necessary even if I end up in court. I teach people to use proportional force, not excessive force so that is unlikely.

It's hilarious because someone actually thinks they can stop a takedown with a stomping kick to the chest.

Firstly, I didn't recognise it was a takedown being attempted and secondly it wasn't a stomping kick. What is hilarious is that you even thought it was.

 

[K-man]

So you're saying that Krav Maga and other street-based martial arts don't advocate punching and kicking a downed target on the neck or head "if necessary"?

No one has has suggested otherwise, the operative word being 'necessary'.

Then you're simply arguing semantics.

And you are not?

And an armbar isn't going to kill anyone. A stomping kick to the throat definitely could.

The relevance is? In a self defence situation you often need to escape from the location you are in. A disabling kick to the throat may help you accomplish that, an armbar will not.

The argument was that a choke is some super dangerous act that can kill someone in a matter of seconds. I was simply correcting that faulty logic. Especially since it was coming from people who are perfectly fine with punching or stomping someone in the face while they're on the ground.

Please show where anyone was stating that a choke will kill in seconds. There was no faulty logic because no one except you has brought up the idea. As for it coming from people "perfectly fine with punching or stomping someone in the face while they're on the ground", well just name one.

 

[Drose427]

No one has has suggested otherwise, the operative word being 'necessary'.


And you are not?


The relevance is? In a self defence situation you often need to escape from the location you are in. A disabling kick to the throat may help you accomplish that, an armbar will not.

Please show where anyone was stating that a choke will kill in seconds. There was no faulty logic because no one except you has brought up the idea. As for it coming from people "perfectly fine with punching or stomping someone in the face while they're on the ground", well just name one.

He was referring to where I said a "few extra seconds" in another post

And assuming everyone passes out at around 10 seconds.. When in a clip I posted, and in the article here How Do Rear Naked Chokes Work University of Calgary Study Explains - Bloody Elbow there were people who didnt even begin to tap at or until the 25 second mark. Waiting till they go limp, and a few seconds after that, is dangerously close to hitting that one minute mark where damage starts occuring

 

[K-man]

In some cases you can. If you're in danger of death or grave bodily harm you can use deadly force.

Yes, but that is not what bullying is normally about. A bully is one who picks on a person who for one reason or other can't stand up for themselves so the bully comes back time after time. That is why the advice you often see is to stand up to the bully and the bully will stop. It may be good advice in some cases but is not likely if you are at a physical disadvantage. A bully normally doesn't pick on people bigger or stronger than themselves. Also, a big proportion of bullying is verbal. The likelihood of a bully killing the victim, outside of domestic violence, is probably low so to suggest that you would use deadly force against a bully is not realistic.

 

[jks9199]

How would it be found to be lethal force if the assailant isn't harmed in any way from it? Further, how would bludgeoning someone with your hands and feet while they're on the ground be a more favorable, or humane option than a choke that can have the assailant unconscious and unhurt in a matter of seconds?

Lethal force is a specific definition. It is force which is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death. Multiple jurisdictions have held that choke holds are lethal force. You seem intent on ignoring this, and locked into your argument that "chokes are gentle." Dude -- chokes are chokes. You're depriving someone of something that is essential for life, whether breath or blood circulation. IF you release it early enough, you may not kill someone. Slip a couple of seconds, and maybe they wake up -- but they've suffered brain damage. I think most reasonable people would identify brain damage as a serious bodily harm... If I shoot someone in the foot, it probably won't kill them -- but the gun remains lethal force.

You wouldn't need to. From that position you can pin him with your legs and his trapped arm, and make sure he's no longer a threat. However, a choke is still an option, if you deem it necessary.

Or a stomp to the skull -- if you can articulate it. Gee... seems an awful lot like what I already said.

So tell me Mr. LE officer, if given the choice, how would you finish off an assailant that had to be subdued? Would you choke him into unconsciousness, or would you beat him into unconsciousness?

Bluntly -- I'm going to try to avoid either. However, if I must use force, I will balance the force I use against the likelihood of injury vs. obtaining control. It's not a black & white bright line equation. But, since my agency and most in my area, classify chokes as lethal force... if I can't articulate justification to support lethal force, I'm not choking them. Honestly, I like the Taser (C). If all goes tolerably well, it results in control of the subject with minimal risk of injury to either of us. If I go hands on, it's typically a combination of tactics including various locks (but not chokes) and strikes.

 

[K-man]

Mild Brain damage can begin to seep in in as little as one minute without blood flow to bring it oxygen, I've seen very few people start to pass out in bragged 3-5 secs. Its nearly always closer to 20-25, even at the gracie school I go to every now and then.

Also note how I said "extra seconds" because you know, not letting go after they already passed out was what I was talking about, not overall choke time.

I've taken one of my guys out in about 3 seconds. I wasn't expecting it and he didn't tap. I've not seen anyone last more than about 10 seconds from when the choke is applied.

As to the time for the brain cells to be damaged, well again Dirty Dog might be the best to refer to but I would suggest that under most conditions three to five minutes would be more the time frame. I'm not saying damage couldn't happen sooner, just unlikely.

 

[jks9199]

Yeah I saw it being effective in that video. And the results of complacency in its use.

It is better to have one and not need it than need it and not have one.

Absolutely -- the Taser can fail. When I teach the Taser Operator Course -- I stress that. I stress the need to have a plan for if the Taser fails. That doesn't mean that it's not a very reliable force option with less chance of serious injury to either the subject or the officer. (Yeah, folks, cops are NOT required to get hurt. In fact, my chief kind of prefers that we don't. Workman's comp is a lot of paper work for an on duty injury...)

 

[Dirty Dog]

I've taken one of my guys out in about 3 seconds. I wasn't expecting it and he didn't tap. I've not seen anyone last more than about 10 seconds from when the choke is applied.

As to the time for the brain cells to be damaged, well again Dirty Dog might be the best to refer to but I would suggest that under most conditions three to five minutes would be more the time frame. I'm not saying damage couldn't happen sooner, just unlikely.

As a matter of fact, I put a guy to sleep last night. Methamphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy and a bad attitude. He lasted about 15 seconds before he went out, but the circumstances of the takedown forced me to apply a less than perfect hold. And I generally release before they're actually completely out. They're wobbly enough that we can get them restrained, and that's what matters.

The possibility of brain injury starts immediately. The longer the hold is maintained, the higher the chances of brain injury.
It's possible that a blood choke can dislodge a chunk of plaque, and the person will have a stroke.
It's also possible (though again, it is unlikely) for the hold to cause a tear in the artery, causing the tunica intima to separate from the media. Blood flowing through this tear causes the intima to continue tearing loose from the media. This is a dissection. As the false passage gets bigger, the true passage gets smaller, which obviously is not a healthy thing. Dissections are a surgical emergency.
The more common brain injury from chokes are (as is likely obvious) caused by the simple fact that the hold restricts or halts the flow of blood to the brain. The lack of blood flow leads to tissue ischemia (inadequate oxygen levels), which is what leads to unconsciousness. The thing is, tissue ischemia is also exactly the same thing that happens during a (non-hemorrhagic) stroke. Exactly how long this will take is a crap shoot. If the persons perfusion is marginal to begin with (as can happen with various pulmonary or vascular diseases, for example) then tissue death will occur much sooner.
Within a couple of minutes, it is almost certain that there will be at least some degree of brain damage. How extensive and how significant is unpredictable. They might loose their ability to speak, or they might loose all memory of March 3rd, 1998 between noon and 12:04PM. By the time you reach the 3-5 minute time frame, the chances of having significant brain injury are very high, and death becomes a real possibility.

It's not a statistically valid sample, but in my own experience, I see more people brought to the ER because of strikes than from chokes. It's also true that strikes are more commonly used than chokes, so I cannot say what percentage of fights involving each will result in a trip to the ER. However, the notion that you can (as one poster claimed) apply a "gentle" choke hold is, in a word, idiotic.

 

[K-man]

Not here. At most affray. And even then in a practical sense no one would bother.

Not really. The reason it is affray, not assault is that assault can be verbal and whether it is truly assault depends on distance. It used to be 'assault and battery', now it would be 'assault causing actual bodily harm'. That's good for a two year holiday sharing the shower with your new best friend. Affray is a different offence for as little as a minor scuffle but ranging to all out violence. Penalty in NSW is up to 20 years for affray.

 

[K-man]

If only the USA would become more like Australia in the use of force.

Except the basic premise is not right. Our law is much the same as yours. What Drop Bear is referring to is what is called a 'consensual violence'. That is where two guys agree to fight. As long as no one is injured and no property damage occurs the protagonists might not be charged, at the discretion of the police. However, to the best of my knowledge it is not the same as the Washington state law that the police stood back and allowed a fight to occur. That wouldn't happen here and it wouldn't happen in the rest of the U.S. if my understanding is correct.

 

[K-man]

The never go to ground is a classical street sport distinction.

The solution seems to be head stomping to a fairly major extent.

For something that is never used it sure gets demonstrated a lot.

You have no idea of self defence. A head stomp could only occur if you are in position to head stomp. As to how many times you see it in practice? Well for a start I would say not often. Why? Well not many styles teach it and the great majority of people learning it are not going to be involved in street fights in the first place. I also teach other potentially lethal techniques and you won't see many of them being used either. Why? Well we teach that you cannot use disproportionate force. Using a potentially lethal technique out of context will land you in jail.

 

[K-man]

Depends where you're at. If you're in college fights are almost guaranteed. As I said earlier, college is a zoo.

You keep repeating this but when I was in college, and here I am talking a residential college in a university, I didn't see even one fight in three years. I never even heard of one.

 

[K-man]

Why in the world would a striking style ( or any non-newaza style for that matter) NOT teach staying on your feet?

Unless you have BJJ or submission training its suicide..... its got nothing to do with Street sport.

Where exactly are you thinking its demonstrated a lot? XD

I agree with the point you are making but can I call BS on this video? It contains one move in particular that will never work as shown. I tell everyone that if anyone ever shows it as a viable SD move, leave immediately. I don't believe any of the moves as demonstrated will work against a stronger non compliant attacker.

 

[K-man]

I just call it like I see it. And yes too much tool reliance. Not enough common sense.

The 'common sense' training you are talking about caused more injury and compensation claims in the Police Academy than violence on the street. Hence the training now is move back and use your 'tools'. Makes for far less injury to police, particularly now with the ice epidemic.

 

[K-man]

In addition to what I said before I would like to say this. Duty to retreat is ridiculous. If Im in a public place I have as much as a right to be there as he does and I shouldn't have to leave. It is just outright absurd that I should be required to run.

No, it is common sense. It is easy to be dead right, like stepping onto a pedestrian crossing in front of a speeding truck. You have very 'right' to cross the road. It doesn't mean it was the sensible thing to do.

 

[K-man]

I don't have the credit for bulk YouTube at the moment. I just assume you found videos without head stomps.

But then from an image on the first on we are going to ground. I assume the relevant ground skill is taught and that wasn't a technically terrible knee ride?

You really are confused! The first video was of police arrest tactics. Nothing to do with self defence.

 

[Hanzou]

He was referring to where I said a "few extra seconds" in another post

And assuming everyone passes out at around 10 seconds.. When in a clip I posted, and in the article here How Do Rear Naked Chokes Work University of Calgary Study Explains - Bloody Elbow there were people who didnt even begin to tap at or until the 25 second mark. Waiting till they go limp, and a few seconds after that, is dangerously close to hitting that one minute mark where damage starts occuring

Uh if you read your own article, it says that the mean time for being choked out was 9.5 seconds. Yeah, there were four guys in the study who didn't pass out until after 20+ seconds, but a medical examination noted that they were in the same condition as those that had been choked out much faster. Their anatomy was simply different than the other participants.

Additionally, the study also said this;

The researchers conclude by saying something along the lines of "Within the confines of this study, this choke hold is a pretty safe way for police to put people to sleep or get them subdued.

 

[Hanzou]

Well for a start you have provided a scenario where we are on concrete but you haven't given the circumstances. So, is the attacker armed, does he have accomplices, do I actually have to fight to get away or can I simply leave? Remember, this thread is about self defence.

Why would I need to give a scenario? I'm simply comparing the inherent danger of finishing someone off with a choke, versus finishing them off with blows to their head.

But I will ask you, in any competition fight like the recent Mayweather/Pacquiao bout, if you asked them do they hold back or go full force what do you think they might say? That is in a competitive environment. Don't you think you fight go full force if your life is on the line?

In the case of two competitors, I would imagine that it would be full force, since their goal is to knock their opponent out as quickly as possible.

I have yet to see anywhere, and I have quite a library of very violent DVDs, where anyone is training people to stomp on anyone once the danger is past and I can't recall even seeing someone stomping more than once.

But they do train to stomp on them correct? They do train to stomp or punch on them until the "danger has passed" correct? Further, they are trained to stomp or punch the head and other vital areas while the person is down correct?

Please let me know if any of that is an inaccurate portrayal of your training methods.