agreed and that is why I added a word of caution
..better to be judged by twelve then be carried by six...I totally agree with that sentiment.
You're fortunate. Life situations often are changed by adrenaline or unexpected reactions to being subdued.
I'm familiar with the gentleman and his credentials are excellent. My point wasn't with him nor with training but rather how the practice of choking is viewed by those who judge/jury law enforcements actions.
Actually I thought I was responding to the use of the technique on a subject not on ones self. In defense of ones self, I'd rather break someones arm or limit their mobility before resulting to rendering them unconscious by using a strangle hold (sic).
About the buffet thingy, I'm not sure.
However, as a jiu-jitsu (yes I know about the spelling) practioner and licensed Sensei for decades, I am most assuredly familiar with chokes, etc. It's just that you and I see their use differently. I'm a tad more concerned with the litigiousness of society and choose other techniques before "the last resort".
....fall easy
I can assure you, using the technique we're discussing right now, that you are MANY TIMES more likely to get successfully sued for striking someone in the groin with ANY degree of force than using an approved neck restraint. That's reality.
I've never seen one injured or killed by a neck restraint, and while it's certainly possible, people die from peanut allergies as well. You are FAR more likely to rupture a testicle with a groin strike of any power, and that will cost you individual or an agency TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars IF you settle out of court.
Courts don't view the techniques positively or negatively unless there is injury....neck restraints done properly DO NOT cause ANY injury, not even the appearance of injury. You break an arm or even a JOINT on the other hand and you'll pay TENS OF THOUSANDS in settlements....for a technique with a FAR LOWER degree of success in bringing compliance.
I've been a law enforcement trainer for several years, and the fear of a given technique or tool by the public is generally not based on reason but instead PURE emotional reaction. But we CANNOT build our logically constructed defensive tactics program on irrational beliefs.
If we use logic and reason as a primer for a program we save officers lives.....even if we have to defend our rationale against emotionalism and idiocy......we do that.
IF, however, we try to build our program around what the lowest common denominator in the public might 'feel' upon seeing a technique we build a program that's ineffective and will ultimately get an officer hurt or killed......AND, ironically, will result in MORE LAWSUITS that we lose because the techniques will FAIL resulting in the officers needing to use HIGHER LEVELS OF FORCE to defend themselves and accomplish the job.
How that works is like this.....I take Officer Smith and teach him some politically correct but highly ineffective control techniques tested in front of the Civilian Review board to get their (uneducated) seal of APPROVAL! Officer Smith confronts Joe Bob Dirtbag on a traffic stop, and Joe Bob decides he's going to fight........Officer Smith uses his departmentally taught Civilian Review Board approved tactics on Joe Bob, and not only fails but gets in a seriously compromised position with Joe Bob where he ends up fearing for his life and has to SHOOT JOE BOB! Now the department is being sued.....and the FAULT rests firmly in the hands of the faulty defensive tactics program.
Same scenario but instead we have given Officer Smith the TOOLS and TRAINING to deal with Joe Bob.....Officer Smith has options, and when Joe Bob gets out of hand, Officer Smith applies the departmentally approved LVNR technique, gains control of Joe Bob, handcuffs him and takes him to jail...ZERO INJURIES! Everyone lives, nobody dies and Officer Smith is injury free for the next call.
