Martial sacrilege (part 4)

[Finlay]

Trained to kill

Within your specific art how many lethal techniques are there and how are they dealt with?

I have come across this issue many many times through my martial journey. The balance between making a martial art effective and possibly lethal or to declaw an art and develop it into a sport.

Now, of course a simple punch can be used in many ways and there is a big difference between a punch in the stomach, which could kill but most likely would be accidental, to a punch in the throat. Is it the teachers responsibility to teach the difference and specifically drill specific targets while prohibiting others even in self defence syllabus.

In other systems maybe traditional or military based there are some techniques that could be seen as more lethal based. These would be thing like neck breaks, and attacks with weapons.

There is a whole spectrum inbetween of course.

When learning or teaching these types of techniques how do you approach them?

Do teachers ever have the right to promote such techniques?

Are they reserved only for very high ranks?

Are they generally not taken seriously and studied for knowledge and historical.value than for practical applied purposes?

 

[Anarax]

When learning or teaching these types of techniques how do you approach them?

I see them and start to analyze in what situations are these necessary, both from a personal and legal perspective.

Do teachers ever have the right to promote such techniques?

Of course they do, but they should be responsible

Are they reserved only for very high ranks?

Depends on the school, but I would hope so

Are they generally not taken seriously and studied for knowledge and historical.value than for practical applied purposes?

Again, it depends on the school.

 

[BrendanF]

Trained to kill

Within your specific art how many lethal techniques are there and how are they dealt with?

Most techniques in my art are designed to kill the other guy.

I have come across this issue many many times through my martial journey. The balance between making a martial art effective and possibly lethal or to declaw an art and develop it into a sport.

Sure. Not sure I agree that all combat sports are 'declawed', but of course any 'lethal' techniques will be outlawed in sports competition.

Now, of course a simple punch can be used in many ways and there is a big difference between a punch in the stomach, which could kill but most likely would be accidental, to a punch in the throat. Is it the teachers responsibility to teach the difference and specifically drill specific targets while prohibiting others even in self defence syllabus.

Have you ever seen someone killed by a punch to the throat? FWIW I've seen people punched full force in the throat, several times. Have been punched in the throat. Painful, sure. But without breaking the trachea not going to kill. Even then, unlikely.

In other systems maybe traditional or military based there are some techniques that could be seen as more lethal based. These would be thing like neck breaks, and attacks with weapons.

There is a whole spectrum inbetween of course.

When learning or teaching these types of techniques how do you approach them?

I practice a koryu weapons art - I teach the art the way I was taught.

Do teachers ever have the right to promote such techniques?

I don't see why not.

Are they reserved only for very high ranks?

No.

Are they generally not taken seriously and studied for knowledge and historical.value than for practical applied purposes?

They are taken seriously, if you want to study. Otherwise why be there?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Within NGA (as I see it - others define the bounds of the art differently) there are any number of potentially lethal techniques. I rarely teach them. Some come up during teaching specific situations or responses, and I'll stop and discuss (and possibly teach) them at that time, if the right people are in the room. From time to time, I'll actually stop and teach specifically on maim/kill moves.

I don't restrict them to higher ranks, but to mature people. I'd be unlikely to teach them to a 16-year-old, regardless of rank. For a mature (not age - personality) adult, I'd be okay teaching those types of techniques as soon as I think they can physically handle them (so not to most beginners).

All that said, most of what's in NGA isn't going to maim or kill unless you count the opportunities for breaking/destruction of joints.

 

[jobo]

Trained to kill

Within your specific art how many lethal techniques are there and how are they dealt with?

I have come across this issue many many times through my martial journey. The balance between making a martial art effective and possibly lethal or to declaw an art and develop it into a sport.

Now, of course a simple punch can be used in many ways and there is a big difference between a punch in the stomach, which could kill but most likely would be accidental, to a punch in the throat. Is it the teachers responsibility to teach the difference and specifically drill specific targets while prohibiting others even in self defence syllabus.

In other systems maybe traditional or military based there are some techniques that could be seen as more lethal based. These would be thing like neck breaks, and attacks with weapons.

There is a whole spectrum inbetween of course.

When learning or teaching these types of techniques how do you approach them?

Do teachers ever have the right to promote such techniques?

Are they reserved only for very high ranks?

Are they generally not taken seriously and studied for knowledge and historical.value than for practical applied purposes?

its very difficulty. For most people to actually kill most people, he human body is very resilient, and i suspect that most of the so called deadly techniques are not in most case s deadly. Certainly breaking someone's neck, is a) very difficult to do and b) won't result in them dieing in the vast majority of cases. I've seen upteen broken necks in rugby and no actual fatalities

all the strikes to soft tissue are very painful and effective but not by any means deadly and imas certain as i can be that strikes to pressure points do not end up with a,dead oppoinent.
perhaps better if you identify the fatal techneque you are thinking about and we go from there

 

[drop bear]

You hang on to that and they are dead.

 

[frank raud]

In judo, you are taught chokes from early on. If any choke is kept in place long enough, it is a killing technique. In the FMA, weapon use comes before empty hand. Very little knife work in the FMA is without deadly intent.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Trained to kill

Within your specific art how many lethal techniques are there and how are they dealt with?

All of them, with varying degrees of likelihood.

Is it the teachers responsibility to teach the difference and specifically drill specific targets while prohibiting others even in self defence syllabus.

The teacher should be teaching the difference but prohibiting nothing. As an example, in the form Koryo, one of the repeated techniques is an arc hand to the throat. This technique can be applied in two slightly different ways. Straight in, aimed at the larynx, it is used to fracture the larynx and would have to be considered a high-lethality technique. At a sightly different angle of attack, it can be brought up under the chin and jaw, and is used to unbalance an opponent and is either a takedown or the start of one. This would be considered a low-lethality technique (the risk of death would be more from, for example, head injury upon contacting the ground rather than the strike itself).
When teaching this strike, both applications are covered.
There are, of course, plenty of other examples.

When learning or teaching these types of techniques how do you approach them?

The same as I approach any other technique.

Do teachers ever have the right to promote such techniques?

At some point in their training, I have a conversation with my students about this subject. I basically want them to do a self-evaluation of what they are and are not willing to do. I encourage them to practice the techniques in ways they believe they could apply. If they are convinced that they could never kill another human being, then they should spend most of their time working on the lower-lethality applications. Very few of those who are training for self-defense have said that they would never kill.

Are they reserved only for very high ranks?

Not particularly. For me, it's more an age thing. With younger students, I teach the less-lethal versions. But, given how our system is structured, these younger students will inevitably be lower ranks.
The arc hand strike that I used as an example is trained in Koryo, which we teach at 1st Geup. Lower ranks will certainly see the technique done by more senior students.

Are they generally not taken seriously and studied for knowledge and historical.value than for practical applied purposes?

They are taken deadly serious.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Have you ever seen someone killed by a punch to the throat?

Yes. I have. A number of times, and not from particularly powerful strikes.

FWIW I've seen people punched full force in the throat, several times.

Which is one of the least effective throat strikes imaginable.

Have been punched in the throat. Painful, sure. But without breaking the trachea not going to kill.

The trachea doesn't break. The cartilage rings may collapse like a soda can, but not break. It takes a lot of power to collapse the trachea. However, this is not necessary and is not the goal of an effective throat strike.
The goal is to fracture the hyoid bone or the larynx.

The hyoid is tiny. And fragile. And very easy to fracture. Striking it requires a fair bit of precision, but it is quite easy to fracture. Ditto the larynx. Fragile enough that one or the other (more commonly the hyoid) is found to have been fracture in 10-15% those who are killed by strangulation, even though these constriction attacks are certainly not intended specifically to cause these fractures.

Even then, unlikely.

With ready access to the best medical care, hyoid fractures have a mortality rate of about 50% and laryngeal fractures about 80%. Without emergent intervention, the mortality rate for both is effectively 100%.
How do you define "unlikely?"

 

[CB Jones]

Truth is just normal punches to the head are probably the deadliest techniques of them all and accounts for the most deaths.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In BJJ, lethal techniques (chokes)* are taught from the very beginning and are used in sparring so that practitioners know for certain they can apply them under stress. A strike to the throat might kill someone - and the determining factors are not anything that can be reliably and safely practiced. A choke which is held past a certain time will kill someone.

In my experience, most BJJ schools don't focus a lot of attention on the lethal nature of these techniques. In a sportive environment with healthy individuals, tapping out and respecting the tap is all that is necessary for safety. Even in the occasional case where someone fails to tap out and goes to sleep, the choke is released in time to avoid any permanent damage.

Since my primary focus is on self-defense application, I do make a point when introducing chokes to explain relevant factors such as: how to recognize when someone has passed out, safety habits to avoid holding a choke too long, the difference between blood chokes and air chokes and why the latter are more likely to produce an unintentional fatality in a real fight, risk factors for unintentional death, and legal and moral issues.

*(BJJ also includes techniques which can potentially break a neck. Such a result is generally a worst case scenario and usually won't be fatal anyway. However, those techniques are discouraged in most schools for safety reasons. They usually won't break a neck, but they can result in lesser injuries.)

 

[jobo]

In judo, you are taught chokes from early on. If any choke is kept in place long enough, it is a killing technique. In the FMA, weapon use comes before empty hand. Very little knife work in the FMA is without deadly intent.

well yes, but its the long enough that's the issue, strangling someone to death isn't the quick thing you see in the movies, if you cut of the air supply for a couple of mins they will pass out, more than this and you can cause brain damage, actually killing them takes a good while longer, as breathing is an auto function, as soon as you take your hands of, it will start again unless they are,actual very dead

 

[Danny T]

well yes, but its the long enough that's the issue

Agreed

[/QUOTE]QUOTE="jobo, post: 1882018, member: 36477"]unless they are,actual very dead[/QUOTE]
“...actually very dead” LOL
Very dead? Compared to...dead?

 

[CB Jones]

Very dead? Compared to...dead?

Once had a snitch tell us the cartels...."super killed” a dude.....lol

 

[oftheherd1]

Yes. I have. A number of times, and not from particularly powerful strikes.



Which is one of the least effective throat strikes imaginable.



The trachea doesn't break. The cartilage rings may collapse like a soda can, but not break. It takes a lot of power to collapse the trachea. However, this is not necessary and is not the goal of an effective throat strike.
The goal is to fracture the hyoid bone or the larynx.

The hyoid is tiny. And fragile. And very easy to fracture. Striking it requires a fair bit of precision, but it is quite easy to fracture. Ditto the larynx. Fragile enough that one or the other (more commonly the hyoid) is found to have been fracture in 10-15% those who are killed by strangulation, even though these constriction attacks are certainly not intended specifically to cause these fractures.



With ready access to the best medical care, hyoid fractures have a mortality rate of about 50% and laryngeal fractures about 80%. Without emergent intervention, the mortality rate for both is effectively 100%.
How do you define "unlikely?"

Thanks for the informative answer. I seem to recall the majority of the strangulations deaths I have seen resulted in a fractured hyoid. The only one I recall that didn't was very unusual in that neither the hyoid nor the larynx was broken, and there was no classical bruising of the throat. I don't recall how the death was accomplished, but when we got in a highly trained and experienced forensic pathologist, he did a muscle by muscle resection on the muscles at the back of the neck, and found sufficient inter-muscle hemorrhaging to declare the cause of death to be strangulations, and the manner of death to be homicide.

I lack the experience you have so I didn't realize the hyoid being broken could be a cause of death, and thought of it as more of just an artifact of death by strangulation. I remember petechial hemorrhages where looked for in the eyes. If I ever saw a death from an injured larynx I don't recall it. I wouldn't have seen swelling causing death since the persons died almost immediately of strangulation, but I don't recall a pathologist ever mentioning it. But it has been over 30 years since I attended an autopsy, and that was for a death from falling from a 3rd story window,conducted by a Korean pathologist. Crude.

 

[jobo]

Agreed

QUOTE="jobo, post: 1882018, member: 36477"]unless they are,actual very dead[/QUOTE]
“...actually very dead” LOL
Very dead? Compared to...dead?[/QUOTE]
well yes, death is usually the heart stopping, if you choke someone till their heart stops and let go, there is a fairly good chance that it will start again on its own, you need to keep it going to the cns shuts down, which takes a while longer

 

[Dirty Dog]

well yes, death is usually the heart stopping, if you choke someone till their heart stops and let go, there is a fairly good chance that it will start again on its own, you need to keep it going to the cns shuts down, which takes a while longer

Ummm.... no. This is completely incorrect.
The heart is very unlikely to "stop" from a choke, unless it's held for a LONG time. If pulses are lost, it is far more likely that the heart has gone in ventricular fibrillation. From which it may be possible to recover, if there is rapid access to BLS and ACLS. But a "good chance" is untrue, and "on its own" is utter nonsense.
The survival rate for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with bystander CPR is about 12%. Even IN hospital it is only about 25%.

 

[skribs]

My Taekwondo school has mostly kids, and most of the self defense they learn is against a punch or a kick. We're not training the kids to kill a schoolyard bully.

The adult classes feature a few more self defense techniques, but most of what we teach aren't lethal. A lot of the higher belt stuff will leave you with a broken arm, though.

I don't think there's anything wrong with lethal techniques. My opinion is that when you violently attack someone you give up your right to safety until you stop the attack. How that plays out legally is going to be dependent on where you live, but I think that's a pretty good general rule of thumb.

My use for martial arts in a real world scenario is to stop the attack or get to a point where I can draw my firearm and use that to stop the attack.

 

[Danny T]

QUOTE="jobo, post: 1882018, member: 36477"]unless they are,actual very dead

“...actually very dead” LOL
Very dead? Compared to...dead?[/QUOTE]
well yes, death is usually the heart stopping, if you choke someone till their heart stops and let go, there is a fairly good chance that it will start again on its own, you need to keep it going to the cns shuts down, which takes a while longer[/QUOTE]
There you go again, making up your own definition. Just because one’s heart stops doesn’t make one dead, though death will follow in a short period of time if the heart does restart. Death is the loss of all vital functions not just the heart function.

 

[Buka]

I won't teach kill techniques unless the gym is properly stocked in t-shirts.