Reasonable vs "Crash Out"

[Mallic]

Been a while since I posted here and if there is one thing I've comes to understand is that a lot of self defence advocates go under the assumption that any potential threat is going to be a crashout.

Now what is a crashout you may ask? It's basically someone who simply does not care about their own well being. Closer to a wild animal then a human.

My entire thought process when it comes to fighting was under the belief that most people even if they mean you harm will have some sense of self preservation and will act accordingly.

They can be reasoned with, scared off, bribed or surrender. Crashouts just don't give a damn and while I think assuming the worst isn't the best way to go cause you may get the wrong idea, I will wholely admit I would not know how to deal with someone like that. Because how do you deal with a person who does not care if they themselves die?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Been a while since I posted here and if there is one thing I've comes to understand is that a lot of self defence advocates go under the assumption that any potential threat is going to be a crashout.

Now what is a crashout you may ask? It's basically someone who simply does not care about their own well being. Closer to a wild animal then a human.

My entire thought process when it comes to fighting was under the belief that most people even if they mean you harm will have some sense of self preservation and will act accordingly.

They can be reasoned with, scared off, bribed or surrender. Crashouts just don't give a damn and while I think assuming the worst isn't the best way to go cause you may get the wrong idea, I will wholely admit I would not know how to deal with someone like that. Because how do you deal with a person who does not care if they themselves die?

The answer is self-evident...

 

[Mallic]

The answer is self-evident...

Don't be smart with me. Someone who does not care about their own life is wildly unpredictable is what I am trying to say. I know in your mind just gunning them down with no mercy is the obvious answer but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Plus there's also the whole thing about assuming they are in such a state without knowing for sure.

That's why I go by the "Everyone gets one" mentality. One chance to back off, see how they react. Course a lot of self defence types think that one warning is more of a courtesy then such sub human filth deserve.

I'm assuming you fall under that category?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think this comes from people trying to teach self defense without knowing how to de-escalate or do the verbal portion of self defense, so they just handwave it and pretend it doesn't exist. You also should theoretically not put yourself in a position where you don't have time for that. Situational awareness comes into play there, which is another thing some of them are not great at, though I admit that's a lot tougher depending on where you live.

That said, from experience of people that can't be talked down and really want to get at you, the answer (assuming you're not just "gunning them down") is submissions. you don't really want to duke it out with them, but if you can get them on the ground and take control properly, you should be able to hold them there no matter how hard they thrash. Then you can either try to de-escalate while they're there, wait for other people to notice/arrive, or call 911/your area's equivalent if you can.

 

[Mallic]

I think this comes from people trying to teach self defense without knowing how to de-escalate or do the verbal portion of self defense, so they just handwave it and pretend it doesn't exist. You also should theoretically not put yourself in a position where you don't have time for that. Situational awareness comes into play there, which is another thing some of them are not great at, though I admit that's a lot tougher depending on where you live.

That said, from experience of people that can't be talked down and really want to get at you, the answer (assuming you're not just "gunning them down") is submissions. you don't really want to duke it out with them, but if you can get them on the ground and take control properly, you should be able to hold them there no matter how hard they thrash. Then you can either try to de-escalate while they're there, wait for other people to notice/arrive, or call 911/your area's equivalent if you can.

So a strike test just isn't an option with these guys. I guess this is where judo would really come in handy

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So a strike test just isn't an option with these guys. I guess this is where judo would really come in handy

Yeah, you can strike, but it's risky. Unless you knock them out if someone's crazed (a crashout from your description would most likely be someone with serious rage issues, going through a psychotic episode, or on drugs), they'd just keep on going. One extra issue though, depending on what the cause is, is that they might not be receptive to pain issues. So while a throw followed by knee on belly should work, you might not have all that much luck trying any gatame's on them.

Most people though, can be de-escalated before you get to that point.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

That said, from experience of people that can't be talked down and really want to get at you, the answer (assuming you're not just "gunning them down") is submissions. you don't really want to duke it out with them, but if you can get them on the ground and take control properly, you should be able to hold them there no matter how hard they thrash. Then you can either try to de-escalate while they're there, wait for other people to notice/arrive, or call 911/your area's equivalent if you can.

Yeah, you can strike, but it's risky. Unless you knock them out if someone's crazed (a crashout from your description would most likely be someone with serious rage issues, going through a psychotic episode, or on drugs), they'd just keep on going. One extra issue though, depending on what the cause is, is that they might not be receptive to pain issues. So while a throw followed by knee on belly should work, you might not have all that much luck trying any gatame's on them.

My philosophy is that joint locks are only "submissions" in a sport context. In a street self-defense scenario their purpose is to inflict structural damage that will prevent the limb from functioning properly.

This is for a couple of reasons. The first one you already mentioned - someone under the influence of drugs, adrenaline, or a psychotic episode may not be responsive to pain. The second is that you can't exactly trust someone who just jumped you in the parking lot to shake your hands, say "good job", and walk away if you let them go after they tap to an armlock. (There are holds like the hammerlock which theoretically offer the option to hold someone for a while without committing to the break - but I wouldn't care to try maintaining such a hold at that balancing point of almost but not quite inflicting damage for half an hour while I wait for the police to show up.)

This has some implications for training.

First, if it's a non-sport setting and the situation doesn't justify breaking someone's arm or leg , then I shouldn't be going for the joint lock in the first place. I should be just controlling them with a positional pin. This is another reason (besides the normal position before submission mantra) to be good at controlling a resisting opponent strictly through position.

Secondly, students need to be aware of the potential for "false positives" when a training partner taps in sparring. It's possible to apply a submission well enough so that it hurts and could potentially cause some mild injury, but not well enough to cause the kind of structural damage that would immediately impede someone who isn't feeling pain. Obviously, we don't want people holding out to that point in day-to-day sparring because they will rack up incremental small injuries. So I teach my students to recognize the difference between a technique which is good enough to get the tap in friendly sparring vs one which is good enough to destroy a joint.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

My philosophy is that joint locks are only "submissions" in a sport context. In a street self-defense scenario their purpose is to inflict structural damage that will prevent the limb from functioning properly.

This is for a couple of reasons. The first one you already mentioned - someone under the influence of drugs, adrenaline, or a psychotic episode may not be responsive to pain. The second is that you can't exactly trust someone who just jumped you in the parking lot to shake your hands, say "good job", and walk away if you let them go after they tap to an armlock. (There are holds like the hammerlock which theoretically offer the option to hold someone for a while without committing to the break - but I wouldn't care to try maintaining such a hold at that balancing point of almost but not quite inflicting damage for half an hour while I wait for the police to show up.)

This has some implications for training.

First, if it's a non-sport setting and the situation doesn't justify breaking someone's arm or leg , then I shouldn't be going for the joint lock in the first place. I should be just controlling them with a positional pin. This is another reason (besides the normal position before submission mantra) to be good at controlling a resisting opponent strictly through position.

Secondly, students need to be aware of the potential for "false positives" when a training partner taps in sparring. It's possible to apply a submission well enough so that it hurts and could potentially cause some mild injury, but not well enough to cause the kind of structural damage that would immediately impede someone who isn't feeling pain. Obviously, we don't want people holding out to that point in day-to-day sparring because they will rack up incremental small injuries. So I teach my students to recognize the difference between a technique which is good enough to get the tap in friendly sparring vs one which is good enough to destroy a joint.

Submissions was the wrong word there in my first post. I meant controlling them, rather than an actual sub. Someone could wrench through what would be considered a sub, break something, and still attack you. There are a few different ones that I've learned to use for situations like this, though you would be much better suited to say which controlling positions/pins would be best.

 

[Mallic]

My philosophy is that joint locks are only "submissions" in a sport context. In a street self-defense scenario their purpose is to inflict structural damage that will prevent the limb from functioning properly.

This is for a couple of reasons. The first one you already mentioned - someone under the influence of drugs, adrenaline, or a psychotic episode may not be responsive to pain. The second is that you can't exactly trust someone who just jumped you in the parking lot to shake your hands, say "good job", and walk away if you let them go after they tap to an armlock. (There are holds like the hammerlock which theoretically offer the option to hold someone for a while without committing to the break - but I wouldn't care to try maintaining such a hold at that balancing point of almost but not quite inflicting damage for half an hour while I wait for the police to show up.)

This has some implications for training.

First, if it's a non-sport setting and the situation doesn't justify breaking someone's arm or leg , then I shouldn't be going for the joint lock in the first place. I should be just controlling them with a positional pin. This is another reason (besides the normal position before submission mantra) to be good at controlling a resisting opponent strictly through position.

Secondly, students need to be aware of the potential for "false positives" when a training partner taps in sparring. It's possible to apply a submission well enough so that it hurts and could potentially cause some mild injury, but not well enough to cause the kind of structural damage that would immediately impede someone who isn't feeling pain. Obviously, we don't want people holding out to that point in day-to-day sparring because they will rack up incremental small injuries. So I teach my students to recognize the difference between a technique which is good enough to get the tap in friendly sparring vs one which is good enough to destroy a joint.

I mean I guess they can't really do much with a broken arm or leg right?

 

[Hot Lunch]

Been a while since I posted here and if there is one thing I've comes to understand is that a lot of self defence advocates go under the assumption that any potential threat is going to be a crashout.

Now what is a crashout you may ask? It's basically someone who simply does not care about their own well being. Closer to a wild animal then a human.

My entire thought process when it comes to fighting was under the belief that most people even if they mean you harm will have some sense of self preservation and will act accordingly.

They can be reasoned with, scared off, bribed or surrender. Crashouts just don't give a damn and while I think assuming the worst isn't the best way to go cause you may get the wrong idea, I will wholely admit I would not know how to deal with someone like that. Because how do you deal with a person who does not care if they themselves die?

While not 100% foolproof, here's how I distinguish "reasonable" vs "crash out."

Guy you were chatting with at the sports bar takes things too far when you say something about his team that he doesn't like. Guy gets aggressive when, from a distance, he thought you were flirting with his girlfriend.

Generally, these aren't bad people. They're not criminals. They simply let petty things get the better of them - and, often times, they'll realize that themselves. All you need to do is help them get a face-saving exit.

Then there's the crash out: these guys are looking for someone to commit an act of violence against, or to use the threat of violence in order to get something out of someone. They're also fully aware of the inherent risk - to limb, life, and even freedom - that comes with the act of violence that they intend to commit. These guys are criminals. They accept the consequences of their actions as a small price to be paid for the way they choose to live. There's no deescalating with these guys.

 

[Mallic]

While not 100% foolproof, here's how I distinguish "reasonable" vs "crash out."

Guy you were chatting with at the sports bar takes things too far when you say something about his team that he doesn't like. Guy gets aggressive when, from a distance, he thought you were flirting with his girlfriend.

Generally, these aren't bad people. They're not criminals. They simply let petty things get the better of them - and, often times, they'll realize that themselves. All you need to do is help them get a face-saving exit.

Then there's the crash out: these guys are looking for someone to commit an act of violence against, or to use the threat of violence in order to get something out of someone. They're also fully aware of the inherent risk - to limb, life, and even freedom - that comes with the act of violence that they intend to commit. These guys are criminals. They accept the consequences of their actions as a small price to be paid for the way they choose to live. There's no deescalating with these guys.

I would argue there's more of a nuance to that. Because I do genuinely believe that a lot of the people you talk about generally only go after people they won't think will fight back they means they start to get cold feet the moment they realize they are in over their head. So where was de-escalation won't work a show of force will.

Aside from that however I do agree that they are just actively looking for problems in which case yeah don't hold back.

I just wish there was an easier way to determine whether someone just had a psychotic breakdown vs someone who just doesn't give a damn.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I would argue there's more of a nuance to that. Because I do genuinely believe that a lot of the people you talk about generally only go after people they won't think will fight back they means they start to get cold feet the moment they realize they are in over their head. So where was de-escalation won't work a show of force will.

Personal experience, and industry training, disagree with you. It comes down to ego a lot of the time. If you do a show of force, they get embarrassed, which leads them to becoming angry. If you calm them down, but give them a small win to save face, that's a different story.

This is referring to the people who think you're hitting on their girlfriend, or insulted someone/something they care about, not someone trying to attack or mug you.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I would argue there's more of a nuance to that. Because I do genuinely believe that a lot of the people you talk about generally only go after people they won't think will fight back they means they start to get cold feet the moment they realize they are in over their head. So where was de-escalation won't work a show of force will.

It looks like we've come to the same conclusion - but I can tell you that many of these criminals have survived prison bids where they had no choice but to engage in fights - even the ones they knew they stood no chance of winning. They even have scars from stabbings and gunshots on the streets.

Sure, you may have "fake tough" guys out there, but they're more likely to be in the first group that I described, rather than the criminals.

 

[Mallic]

Personal experience, and industry training, disagree with you. It comes down to ego a lot of the time. If you do a show of force, they get embarrassed, which leads them to becoming angry. If you calm them down, but give them a small win to save face, that's a different story.

This is referring to the people who think you're hitting on their girlfriend, or insulted someone/something they care about, not someone trying to attack or mug you.

So you can't rely on the idea that most muggers and the like are cowards looking for an easy mark?

 

[O'Malley]

Personal experience, and industry training, disagree with you. It comes down to ego a lot of the time. If you do a show of force, they get embarrassed, which leads them to becoming angry. If you calm them down, but give them a small win to save face, that's a different story.

This is referring to the people who think you're hitting on their girlfriend, or insulted someone/something they care about, not someone trying to attack or mug you.

Yup. Social violence vs predatory violence.

So you can't rely on the idea that most muggers and the like are cowards looking for an easy mark?

As a general rule, I wouldn't rely on assumptions when dealing with threats to one's physical integrity. Even if you're dealing with a coward, there's no guarantee he's not going to follow through for whatever reason (doesn't want you to report him; feels threatened; adrenaline; etc.).

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So you can't rely on the idea that most muggers and the like are cowards looking for an easy mark?

I was specifying that my comments were actively not referring to muggers/people looking to commit some sort of crime for the getgo. But like o'malley said, you can't rely on any assumption.

I also wouldn't necessarily call them cowards. They could be, they could also be desperate for money and this is the last option, or they could be under the influence of a substance and looking for more.

 

[Hot Lunch]

So you can't rely on the idea that most muggers and the like are cowards looking for an easy mark?

If you say "coward" in the sense that they lack certain attributes that are necessary in order to obtain the things that they want and need the right way, sure.

But if you're saying it to mean that, behind some phony exterior, they're actually fearful of the potential results of the violent situations that they start... I wouldn't bet on it. In the highly unlikely event that they are cowards in that regard, the pressure to make good on their threats will likely outweigh any fear they may have. Think about the stupid things we've done as children because our friends dared us and called us "chicken." Same thing here.

 

[Mallic]

If you say "coward" in the sense that they lack certain attributes that are necessary in order to obtain the things that they want and need the right way, sure.

But if you're saying it to mean that, behind some phony exterior, they're actually fearful of the potential results of the violent situations that they start... I wouldn't bet on it. In the highly unlikely event that they are cowards in that regard, the pressure to make good on their threats will likely outweigh any fear they may have. Think about the stupid things we've done as children because our friends dared us and called us "chicken." Same thing here.

...do we ever truly grow up?

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

So you can't rely on the idea that most muggers and the like are cowards looking for an easy mark?

Depends on where you are in the world.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

...do we ever truly grow up?

Nope. I am living proof of that.