Is there a technique too brutal for you to use?

[Kung Fu Wang]

Are you talking about the inverted heel hook?

It's definitely one of the most destructive submissions out there. But like any move, there are counters. In fact there are multiple video instructional sets on how to set it up, counter it, counter the counter, counter the counters to the counter, and so on.

It's the same principle as the move in your video. But it's used in stand up wrestling. The concept is to bend your opponent's knee side way while force his body to be vertical. If your body can bend along with your leg, you may escape out of it. But if your body is forced to be vertical (such as your opponent has head lock on you), there is no way to release that pressure on the knee joint (if your opponent has strong leg twisting power).

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Your right leg twist on your opponnt's right leg. You use whole body weight to force his right knee to bent inward while his right foot is on the ground and cannot move. You won't kill your opponent. But you will damage his knee joint.

Just stand in horse stance (with bending knee) and use your own right hand to push your right knee inward while keeping your upper body verticle. You will get the feeling.

Oh, you're talking about standing, using a shin-to-shin lock to apply pressure to the knee? That's certainly counterable in a number of ways. Of course, the counter ideally starts before the person applying the technique has it fully locked in. Otherwise it's a bit like asking, how do you counter a punch that's already landed.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Of course, the counter ideally starts before the person applying the technique has it fully locked in. Otherwise it's a bit like asking, how do you counter a punch that's already landed.

Another move that I can think of is the firemen's carry. When you lift your opponent over your shoulder, there is no counter after that.

IMO, the word "counter" can be misleading. If you can run faster than your opponent, none of your opponent's technique can work on you. So running can be counter for all MA techniques.

 

[wab25]

Your right leg twist on your opponnt's right leg. You use whole body weight to force his right knee to bent inward while his right foot is on the ground and cannot move. You won't kill your opponent. But you will damage his knee joint.

Just stand in horse stance (with bending knee) and use your own right hand to push your right knee inward while keeping your upper body verticle. You will get the feeling.

Looks like an osoto gari variation:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Looks like an osoto gari variation:

It's leg twist. Instead of using right leg to twist on your opponent's left leg, your use right leg to twist on his right leg. In training, you may release your twisting early to protect your opponent.

As far as I know, the leg twisting is not allowed to be used in Judo tournament.

 

[skribs]

One of the things in using a gun in self-defense is that your objective is neither to wound nor to kill your assailant, but rather to stop the attack.

• If I draw my gun, and my assailant gets scared and runs, then I stopped the attack without shooting.
• If I aim at my assailant's leg and shoot him, then I am more likely to miss (legs are smaller than center-of-mass), and I am still putting him at high risk of death if I hit the femoral artery.
• If I aim at my assailant and hit COM, I am very likely to stop the attack. If he dies as a result, that is unfortunate (but better than the alternative).
• If I hit my assailant with birdshot or a .22 and he kills me, and then bleeds out 30 minutes later, then I failed to stop the attack.

As with @Tony Dismukes , if I am willing to use a gun in self-defense, I'm willing to use any other technique. The result of any other technique is likely going to be less permanent and less severe than the result of actually using a gun in self-defense.

 

[drop bear]

One of the things in using a gun in self-defense is that your objective is neither to wound nor to kill your assailant, but rather to stop the attack.

But a gun is basically going to kill or wound.

If you didn't want to do precisely those two things. You would be using something else.

 

[drop bear]

Looks like an osoto gari variation:

There are hack way's to osotogari that will ruin a leg.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I think perhaps explaining the nuances to this, will take a bit more articulation. There is a giant massive, mammoth world of difference between being willing to kill or seriously damage someone in theory. Versus using a particular technique on a specific person, given a specific set of circumstances, under time contrains. That's a lot harder, and that's the real trick.

Real encounters are not theoretical, they are highly contextualized, and unbelievably specific. In that realm I have often found myself in a position to legally do something, but I wasn't morally ready to do. Even though there was a moral justification. And this was not a safety concern, it was something that was justified, but not in my opinion something that needed to happen yet.

When I come across something I perceive to be potentially crippling, at least by my definition devastating, it warrants in my mind where this technique fits into not just my technical strategy, but my moral decision making in a confrontation.

 

[Jared Traveler]

As with @Tony Dismukes , if I am willing to use a gun in self-defense, I'm willing to use any other technique. The result of any other technique is likely going to be less permanent and less severe than the result of actually using a gun in self-defense.

This makes sense in theory, but often not in application.

 

[skribs]

This makes sense in theory, but often not in application.

A gunshot wound is much more likely to result in death than anything I do with my bare hands. A gunshot wound is much more likely to result in hospitalization than anything I do with my bare hands.

 

[Jared Traveler]

A gunshot wound is much more likely to result in death than anything I do with my bare hands. A gunshot wound is much more likely to result in hospitalization than anything I do with my bare hands.

I don't disagree with that. That is not what I'm referring to. I'm trying to express that just because you are willing to use lethal force in one situation, given a specific set of theoretical circumstances, does not mean you are going to be willing to use a different, even lessor level of force, given a completely different, real specific situation.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

During the ancient time, there is a set of techniques that you use against unfriendly challenger. It's called "black hand". The purpose is to cause perminant damanage on your opponent's body, so when bad reputation has been spread out, people will consider twice before challenge you. Since personal challenge is no longer popular today, the term "black hand" may disappear from the human history forever.

Examples of black hand.

 

[skribs]

I don't disagree with that. That is not what I'm referring to. I'm trying to express that just because you are willing to use lethal force in one situation, given a specific set of theoretical circumstances, does not mean you are going to be willing to use a different, even lessor level of force, given a completely different, real specific situation.

But that's part of the theory, that there are situations that it's appropriate and situations that aren't.

 

[Jared Traveler]

But that's part of the theory, that there are situations that it's appropriate and situations that aren't.

Exactly. It depends on the circumstances. In one scenario for instance I would shoot a 5'2" woman, in a nother scenario I wouldn't even push her, even if she really deserved it. Each situation is unique.

 

[Holmejr]

“…violence is almost never the answer. But when it is, it is the only answer, and we all need to be prepared for it.” Larson.

If confronted with deadly force, I would see no choice.

 

[Jared Traveler]

“…violence is almost never the answer. But when it is, it is the only answer, and we all need to be prepared for it.” Larson.

If confronted with deadly force, I would see no choice.

Holmejr, reference my original post. I hope if your goal is to seriously injure or kill someone it is a conscious moral decision? The same way I don't think of using a gun, in the same manner I think of pinning someone to the ground. One takes (or should take) a very intentional decision, based on a very specific situation. The other I have more grace with applying and is not quite the mammoth moral decision.

I think Larson, or any respectable use of force instructor would agree that pulling the trigger should be a conscious, deliberate decision in the moment, based on the totality of the situation. I don't think casually about drawing and firing a gun at another human, neither do I think casually about hitting them with a spinning elbow.

I will post my original verbage here for reference:
Ever, it's probably a strong word use. But certainly this particular technique is so harsh, and brutal that it's not one of your go-to moves, because using it would require a serious moral decision on your part.

For me one of those techniques is the spinning elbow. It just seems so unbelievably devastating, and potentially life-altering that I do not think of it in my mind like throwing other elbows. It is something special, horrible, tricky and beautiful. I would never throw it without making a conscious moral decision that somebody deserved that technique in particular.

Note: I think we are in agreement.

 

[Jared Traveler]

One of the things in using a gun in self-defense is that your objective is neither to wound nor to kill your assailant, but rather to stop the attack.

• If I draw my gun, and my assailant gets scared and runs, then I stopped the attack without shooting.
• If I aim at my assailant's leg and shoot him, then I am more likely to miss (legs are smaller than center-of-mass), and I am still putting him at high risk of death if I hit the femoral artery.
• If I aim at my assailant and hit COM, I am very likely to stop the attack. If he dies as a result, that is unfortunate (but better than the alternative).
• If I hit my assailant with birdshot or a .22 and he kills me, and then bleeds out 30 minutes later, then I failed to stop the attack.

This is all true and we'll stated. And part of this process is making a decision at that moment and selecting a method or technique.

None of the above is inconsistent with my original post.

 

[drop bear]

But that's part of the theory, that there are situations that it's appropriate and situations that aren't.

I think you might be hard pressed to beat a guy to death. Regardless of the motivation to do so.

 

[skribs]

This is all true and we'll stated. And part of this process is making a decision at that moment and selecting a method or technique.

None of the above is inconsistent with my original post.

This is the question from your original post:

Have you ever learned something, so effective, and brutal that you question the morality of ever using it on another human being?

I do not question the morality of ever using any of my techniques, up to and including pulling the trigger on a firearm. I do base my decision on what level of force to use based on the situation, but I do not question the morality of using everything in my power if needed.