Slashing with knives vs stabbing

[Rich Parsons]

I think that knife defenses and knife disarms are 2 completely different animals. A former instructor once told me "don't look for a disarm, but if it presents itself to you, don't ignore it." Those are pretty wise words. If you hunt for a disarm, attempting to "Defang the snake" as people love to say, you're going to get cut. If in the course of combat an opening appears to you and your instincts say do it, do it!

My guide to knife defense:
Technique #0: Talk your way out! but since everyone knows how to talk, lets move on.

Technique #1: The "Nike" technique - While keeping your awareness on your attacker, take 5 steps backwards. In those 5 steps, rotate your torso and legs approximately 180 degrees, keeping lightly on the balls of your feet. When rotation is complete, firmly plant your lead leg, extend your lead arm and back leg forward in a vigorous motion, causing you to move away at an accelertated pace. Repeat until the attacker is no longer in sight.

Technique #2: "Smokescreening" - whatever small object available to you, pick it up. Dirt, change, a piece of wood, some garbage, etc, all make handy tools. Using an underhand (or sidearm if you feel more comfortable), project those loose objects into the face/eyes of the attacker. Then, refer to technique #1.

If you get to this point and the aggressor is still advancing, the only thing going to help you is actual training, so keep your arms in, tuck your chin, and hope the aggressor doesn't know what he/she is doing!

I agree with those wise words

As to item #0. Some can talk better than others. Hey Paul.

#1, this is really good. I am being 100% serious here. He even mentions within sight. This means keeping aware of your opponent. :asian:

#2, This works for anything you find. Including a can of tuna fish. I know that is what I found.

 

[Cruentus]

I agree with those wise words

As to item #0. Some can talk better than others. Hey Paul.

#1, this is really good. I am being 100% serious here. He even mentions within sight. This means keeping aware of your opponent. :asian:

#2, This works for anything you find. Including a can of tuna fish. I know that is what I found.

Paul and Rich's bar-fightin' strategy. Paul opens his big mouth and draws all the attention to himself, while Rich clubs them over the head with a can of tunafish.

:boing2:

 

[someguy]

Paul and Rich's bar-fightin' strategy. Paul opens his big mouth and draws all the attention to himself, while Rich clubs them over the head with a can of tunafish.
:boing2:

Uh huh gotcha. I'll have to try this one if I'm ever in a bar fight.
-#1 Don't be in a position for a knife fight.
Technique #0: Talk your way out! but since everyone knows how to talk, lets move on.
Also give up wallet or purse if needed.

 

[OULobo]

Wow, I guess now that I have finally read this thread after avoiding it all day I should chime in, so pardon me if I throw in some dated comments and ramble a bit.

First the Roman stuff, sorry Kaith I'm no expert, but if my memory isn't failing me, that was a horrible picture of a gladius. I'm sure it was because it was the best you could find on short notice. If I remember correctly, the blade should be straight without any taper until the last couple inches of the blade. Didn't the Romans use the short stabbing spear, pilum or hasta, as the standard anyway. Given, it was usually thrown, but often used in the "turtle" or phalanx maneuver to approach and gain access to the enemy.

Next to the switchblade comment (I don't expect much of an answer to this one, since he's gone, but, ehh). The switchblade was cheap steel crap, still is. It was a horrible slasher, had a tendancy to close on the users hand, and would bend or break if it struck leather. Why do you think black leather biker jackets became cool with gangs, because they were armour against switchblades. The outlawing of switchblades was only political. The gangs liked them because they were new, concealable, flashy and initially intimidating. Many Filipinos continued carrying balisongs because they were stronger, just as flashy and just as concealable. (PS most research points to the balisong not originating in the PIs [separate thread]).

On to the FMA descriptions as a sword based art. Some are, but many were influenced by the outlawing of swords (as stated). This means that they switched to sticks, but those don't kill as easily and they are hard to hide from occupiers. Solution: knives, fairly concealable (compared to a sword and stick) and very deadly, the Indonesians followed the same path. The FMAs then evolved into using the knife, not necessarily as a very short version of sword, but as a different weapon altogether with different tactics (ala the thread in the FMA forum about varying style from stick to sword).

This brings us to the next issue. It is just as impossible, in my opinion, to compare stab and slash as to do the whole "which art is better?" thing. No art can be validly argued as perfectly effective or superior if you take all the things that were in it's environment that made it valid away. They evolved that way for logical reasons. Rapiers are light, long-ranged peircers because they were legally carried dueling blades for unarmored opponents, add other examples as you will (separate thread). That is not to say that some evolved traits wouldn't match in other environments only that they won't necessarily be the best choice. NHB styles are good if you are in a cage with no weapons, no armor, decent knuckle protectors and plenty of time (an art evolved to it's environment, a regulated cage), but if you put it in the woods against a guy with a katana or a broad sword, it doesn't work as well.

Next the semantics of slash. I won't get too picky, but slash as it has been used here already, could be a draw cut, a hack or a true slash. The effectiveness of the blade will depend on the attack type, and usually that depends on the environment (the katana is a great draw cutter, but only a mediocre hacker).

and finally, to touch on the pros/cons subject,

stab pros:
infection
organ failure
compressed internal bleeding (sucking chest wounds)
sneaky unnoticed shots possible
stabbing weapons are easily improvised (pencils, screwdrivers, ect)
easily repeatable attacks (rapid succession stabs)
generally harder to defend against
hard for doctors to treat (in comparison)

stab cons:
little visible damage (less initial shock)
sometimes hard to retain weapon
less than effective against non-vital targets
closer range for effective targeting

slash pros:
blood visible to cause shock
everything is a viable target
viceral cavity collapse from internal pressure. . .
. . .lets opponents innerds get in the way
no weapon retention issues against bone
severing tendons/ligaments can cause muscle failure
generally allows for survivability (pro?)

slash cons:
harder to get a fast kill shot
bleeding someone out takes time
weapon needs to have a good edge
some clothing can act as armor
causes heavy scarring (con?)

ughhhhh. . . .did I leave anything out?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

First the Roman stuff, sorry Kaith I'm no expert, but if my memory isn't failing me, that was a horrible picture of a gladius. I'm sure it was because it was the best you could find on short notice. If I remember correctly, the blade should be straight without any taper until the last couple inches of the blade. Didn't the Romans use the short stabbing spear, pilum or hasta, as the standard anyway. Given, it was usually thrown, but often used in the "turtle" or phalanx maneuver to approach and gain access to the enemy.

There were several different patters of blade. The one pictured is from the site I got the text from and is I believe a Mainz (sp) type. I'll be putting something on Roman weapons up in the swords forum shortly. The blade you describe is a Pompei style.

 

[MJS]

I've posted this before, but here are my steps to knife defense:

#1. Run. By far the best option, and prefered if you are able too. You have the best chance of survival if you can run.

#2. Draw your weapon or pick something up. Aim to disable your attacker from using his weapon, shield from his weapon attack, or buy time for option #1.

#2. Do something right away that will disable the knife. An immediate disarm of the knife, an immediate interception and control of the knife hand, or an immediate attack resulting in the attacker being completely immobilized would be an example. The problem with this is you can't screw this up at all; if you do, your chances of being cut to pieces rise dramatically. Furthermore, this requires a committed attack; the less committed and telegraphed, the less likely your chances of pulling this off. And finally, to do this option requires an extreme amount of proficiency on your part.

The biggest problem with this is that no matter how much you have trained, a sharp blade will always cut your flesh on contact, but your technique will not always work on contact. He has a sure thing in his hand, where as your technique is neer a sure thing. This is how the odds are always against you, no matter how trained you are.

#3. Dodge and evade until you can run or grab something to aid you in your defense. This is preferable if you are not trained well, and you can't run. It is also your only option if #2 fails (and you can't run). You can always try #2 again, but remember that your chances of being cut are greater with each failed attempt, and they weren't in your favor to begin with. Problem with this is that once again, the longer your in the situation, the greater your chances of being cut. Furthermore, he can close on you faster then you can retreat just like he can win a running race against you if you run backwards while he runs forwards. Also, action is faster then reaction. Another disadvantage is that if you are able to pick something up, chances are it won't be lethal enough to stop him, thus prolonging the incident and greatening your odds of being cut.

This solution is extremely problamatic, but must be used if it is all that is available to you.

#4 Spaz out, rush in on him, and barade him with attacks while you are trying to control his knife or subdue him. This isn't quite the same as #2. #2 means your first move immediately subdues his ability to cut you; This is more of a rush where you are trying to overwhelm him with attacks. If you are trained, this may be a better option for you then #3, but this one is even more problamatic then the first three options. Even if you are trained well, you have put yourself in a spot where you will either overcome your attacker, or die trying, period. With #2 your attacker is subdued, with #3 you are at least buying yourself time for an escape, or for an object in your hand that will put the odds in your favor. By rushing in with every technique you know to stop him, you have no chance of surviving if you are not successful. Even if you are successful, you will most likely take serious wounds in the process.

This is not recomended, and definatily not as a 1st choice. If you try to run and are unsucessful, you can try options 2-4. If you try option #2, you may be able to try another option if your not dead. If you try #3, you may be able to survive with only non fatal cuts as you buy yourself time to run or subdue. With this option, option 4, failure assures your death. Retreating to another option is not really possible with this choice.

#5. Stand there and let your attacker kill you. This is an option, but it is not a good choice for anyone.

:asian:

Paul- First off, I'd like to thank everyone for keeping the thread going with the great replies that we've had so far! :asian: Yes, you've definately given some good advice. For the first few pages of this thread, it seemed like all we did over and over and over was discuss what was better, the stab or slash, and IMO, it was really going nowhere!!! Thats the main reason why I attempted to change the direction just a little.

Great adivce!!

Mike

 

[MJS]

I think that knife defenses and knife disarms are 2 completely different animals. A former instructor once told me "don't look for a disarm, but if it presents itself to you, don't ignore it." Those are pretty wise words. If you hunt for a disarm, attempting to "Defang the snake" as people love to say, you're going to get cut. If in the course of combat an opening appears to you and your instincts say do it, do it!

As for the defanging part...I guess where I was going with that was rather than attempt an empty hand disarm, which puts you in more contact with the knife, use something to your advantage to attack that weapon hand. For example, taking the FMA approach, using something such as the stick to hit the knife hand, hopefully causing him to drop the blade.

My guide to knife defense:

Technique #0: Talk your way out! but since everyone knows how to talk, lets move on.

True. Then again, if someone was coming at me with a blade, I dont know how much talking I'd be doing.

Technique #1: The "Nike" technique - While keeping your awareness on your attacker, take 5 steps backwards. In those 5 steps, rotate your torso and legs approximately 180 degrees, keeping lightly on the balls of your feet. When rotation is complete, firmly plant your lead leg, extend your lead arm and back leg forward in a vigorous motion, causing you to move away at an accelertated pace. Repeat until the attacker is no longer in sight.

Definately the first thing that is coming to my mind!!!

Technique #2: "Smokescreening" - whatever small object available to you, pick it up. Dirt, change, a piece of wood, some garbage, etc, all make handy tools. Using an underhand (or sidearm if you feel more comfortable), project those loose objects into the face/eyes of the attacker. I would refrain from using an overhand throw since it takes a bit more time to ready, and telegraphs your intent. Then, refer to technique #1.

Good examples of the equalizers that I'm always talking about.

If you get to this point and the aggressor is still advancing, the only thing going to help you is actual training, so keep your arms in, tuck your chin, and hope the aggressor doesn't know what he/she is doing!

Agreed!! Making sure you're keeping your training alive is gonna help. Using something like a marker, or applying something like lipstick to the edges of your traiining knife will help to show your 'cuts'

Mike

 

[OULobo]

There were several different patters of blade. The one pictured is from the site I got the text from and is I believe a Mainz (sp) type. I'll be putting something on Roman weapons up in the swords forum shortly. The blade you describe is a Pompei style.

Thanks for the clarification, it just seems that the first example was a little exaggerated.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Thanks for the clarification, it just seems that the first example was a little exaggerated.

I've got a replica...its an interesting design, IMO.

 

[loki09789]

There is nothing in the penal code that Requires a victim to use less lethal responses first to a lethal attack. There is generally a philosophy of 'duty to retreat' as long as it doesn't put you in further danger.

If there is time and space, get out of dodge. Other than that, if the attacker is using a deadly weapon (in this case a knife), and demonstrating the reasonable (get to know your local courts for how they specify reasonable) intent to kill you (attacks you, verbally threatens, refuses to let you leave...) then you use the appropriate level of force to stop the attack - up to and including deadly force.

IMO, screw trying to disarm the knife. I might bang on his hand with a stick or improvised weapon to 'disarm' him before he can close with me, but I am not going to focus on a disarm during the real deal. Guiding, sticking, controlling the weapon so I know where it is as I do my thing, but disarms are not something I am focused on, stopping him from hurting me is.

 

[MJS]

There is nothing in the penal code that Requires a victim to use less lethal responses first to a lethal attack. There is generally a philosophy of 'duty to retreat' as long as it doesn't put you in further danger.

If there is time and space, get out of dodge. Other than that, if the attacker is using a deadly weapon (in this case a knife), and demonstrating the reasonable (get to know your local courts for how they specify reasonable) intent to kill you (attacks you, verbally threatens, refuses to let you leave...) then you use the appropriate level of force to stop the attack - up to and including deadly force.

IMO, screw trying to disarm the knife. I might bang on his hand with a stick or improvised weapon to 'disarm' him before he can close with me, but I am not going to focus on a disarm during the real deal. Guiding, sticking, controlling the weapon so I know where it is as I do my thing, but disarms are not something I am focused on, stopping him from hurting me is.

Good points Paul. Question for you. I know we've had this discussion before, but I seem to have forgotten. I recall that we were talking about the levels of force, including deadly. I remember you and I went back and forth over the use of that. Isnt it going to be frowned upon in the courts?? I may be wrong here, but I've talked about deadly force in a deadly attack and it seemed that we were not seeing eye to eye on some things. Can you refesh me on that??

Not trying to re-open the can of worms, but just asking a question!

Mike

 

[Cruentus]

Good points Paul. Question for you. I know we've had this discussion before, but I seem to have forgotten. I recall that we were talking about the levels of force, including deadly. I remember you and I went back and forth over the use of that. Isnt it going to be frowned upon in the courts?? I may be wrong here, but I've talked about deadly force in a deadly attack and it seemed that we were not seeing eye to eye on some things. Can you refesh me on that??

Not trying to re-open the can of worms, but just asking a question!

Mike

Different Paul answering here, but hey...you said Paul! :boing2:

Seriously, pulling a knife is considered deadly force, regardless of wounds. If Deadly force is justified, then technically in the penal system there is nothing saying that you can't kill the guy. That is basic law 101, but there are several factors to consider in application of the law.

For one, if you are apprehended by the police, you will have to defend yourself in court, regardless of what took place. The odds are not in your favor if you a. "won," or came out less harmed then your attacker, and b. if you were carrying a knife in the first place. Keep this in mind. Now, consider also that you will have an easier time defending an assult charge over a murder charge. In either case, you need to prove that deadly force was justified, but regardless, a murder charge is far more serious then something else. It is not in your best interest to kill the guy. Another thing to consider; even though the penal system technically doesn't dictate how to use your "deadly force" if it justifiably, it will be far easier for you to defend yourself if your entry wounds demonstrate that your intent was to escape, keep him away, defend yourself, and NOT to kill him. There are plenty of other factors to consider, but these are just a few to think about.

So, the bottom line is that if you successfully deploy your 3 and a half inch folder with a lovely half serraded edge that your not carrying for utility purposes other then defense (which will look like a tool of death in the eyes of a jury), close the gap skillfully, and excute a wonderful assasination-like stab that you practice in your knife tactics class, and kill the guy, then you have bought yourself some jail time. Doesn't matter whether it was justifyable or not. This is my opinion on the subject, anyways.

So, since we are talking about slashes vs. stabbing, this is where your slashes (especially your non-lethal-looking folder that you should be carrying for utility) as a civilian trying to defend yourself comes in handy. If you are trying to get away, slashes to the limbs as your attacker trys to close on you is a good defense, and it will show a Jury that you indeed were not trying to murder anyone.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[MJS]

Different Paul answering here, but hey...you said Paul! :boing2:

Seriously, pulling a knife is considered deadly force, regardless of wounds. If Deadly force is justified, then technically in the penal system there is nothing saying that you can't kill the guy. That is basic law 101, but there are several factors to consider in application of the law.

For one, if you are apprehended by the police, you will have to defend yourself in court, regardless of what took place. The odds are not in your favor if you a. "won," or came out less harmed then your attacker, and b. if you were carrying a knife in the first place. Keep this in mind. Now, consider also that you will have an easier time defending an assult charge over a murder charge. In either case, you need to prove that deadly force was justified, but regardless, a murder charge is far more serious then something else. It is not in your best interest to kill the guy. Another thing to consider; even though the penal system technically doesn't dictate how to use your "deadly force" if it justifiably, it will be far easier for you to defend yourself if your entry wounds demonstrate that your intent was to escape, keep him away, defend yourself, and NOT to kill him. There are plenty of other factors to consider, but these are just a few to think about.

So, the bottom line is that if you successfully deploy your 3 and a half inch folder with a lovely half serraded edge that your not carrying for utility purposes other then defense (which will look like a tool of death in the eyes of a jury), close the gap skillfully, and excute a wonderful assasination-like stab that you practice in your knife tactics class, and kill the guy, then you have bought yourself some jail time. Doesn't matter whether it was justifyable or not. This is my opinion on the subject, anyways.

So, since we are talking about slashes vs. stabbing, this is where your slashes (especially your non-lethal-looking folder that you should be carrying for utility) as a civilian trying to defend yourself comes in handy. If you are trying to get away, slashes to the limbs as your attacker trys to close on you is a good defense, and it will show a Jury that you indeed were not trying to murder anyone.

Just a few thoughts.

Paul-- Thank you for the reply. As always, you bring up excellent points!! As for the slashing vs stabbing.....I couldnt agree with you more. :asian:

Thanks again,

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Good points Paul. Question for you. I know we've had this discussion before, but I seem to have forgotten. I recall that we were talking about the levels of force, including deadly. I remember you and I went back and forth over the use of that. Isnt it going to be frowned upon in the courts?? I may be wrong here, but I've talked about deadly force in a deadly attack and it seemed that we were not seeing eye to eye on some things. Can you refesh me on that??

Not trying to re-open the can of worms, but just asking a question!

Mike

The disconnect had more to do with how you verbally justify your actions during the 3rd battle arena phase (legal system) in my little construct.

If you say that 'you were only matching his killing force with your killing force' it can bite you later because someone will jump on that phrasing of 'killing force' and try to make you look like a bad guy instead of a defender.

Remember that self defense is a Justification for the use of force - which means that you have to present an air tight demonstration (with consistency of wording, explanation and deed) that you were always and only motivated by a desire to stop the threat and escape. ANY hint that you were enraged, intended to kill or anything else can be used against you in a court of law (as stated in the Miranda stuff).

Back to the story at hand....

When I am reading the description of some of the responses here (including yours) about 'how I would defend...' I am NOT seeing force continuums being described, but procedures.

The difference is that you have to start at step x and follow all the steps to get to the end in a procedure.

With a continuum, if the situation is such that you start at point x, you don't have to follow any steps in order but can jump in and out as the situation and your assessment of it change.

If you have a procedure of:
1.verbal
2.control
3.disarm
4.less than lethal
5.lethal

then you, based on the fact that procedures are instructional steps that have to be take in sequence, are training yourself to 'stick to the plan' even if the law or the situation isn't requiring it of you, and even if sticking to the plan will put you in further danger because the situation is not moving in a logical procedural process. Following a step procedure may put you in further danger, which is NOT what penal laws are designed to do. Penal laws dealing with force are designed to make sure that actions taken are socially/civically responsible and that actions that are not are punished.

If you have a continuum of
verbal ---- control ---- disarm --- less than lethal --- lethal (imagine these points in a big circle instead of a straight line)

There is a general flow that you try to work with, but the situation will dictate what point you start at and where you go to next. It is more responsive and less restrictive.

the continuum/procedural criteria I have laid out are just for discussion example. This isn't my process exactly it was just what came to mind as I was typing.

 

[MJS]

Paul--Thanks again for the clarification!!! :asian:

Good points and I'm understanding what you're saying....a little slow, but I'm getting it!! :boing2:

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Paul--Thanks again for the clarification!!! :asian:

Good points and I'm understanding what you're saying....a little slow, but I'm getting it!! :boing2:

Mike

I uzta not bee aibl to spl englisch teecha, now i are juan!

I am not the brightest bulb in the pack at times either, welcome to the club.

 

[Flatlander]

slash pros:
blood visible to cause shock
everything is a viable target
viceral cavity collapse from internal pressure. . .
. . .lets opponents innerds get in the way
no weapon retention issues against bone
severing tendons/ligaments can cause muscle failure
generally allows for survivability (pro?)


ughhhhh. . . .did I leave anything out?

All I would add to this list is the capability for attack continuity, i.e; that the blade need not be removed from the target. Kind of like "sticky knife" (I just made that up), continuing along whatever cutting pattern(s) that work.

 

[MJS]

All I would add to this list is the capability for attack continuity, i.e; that the blade need not be removed from the target. Kind of like "sticky knife" (I just made that up), continuing along whatever cutting pattern(s) that work.

I agree. That was the point I was trying to get at when I was talking about the upward block defense against a knife. VERY poor! Once that contact is made, the knifer is going to continue his slash right down the persons arm and then possibly his body. Here you have contact made, and there is nothing stopping the knife!

Mike

 

[loki09789]

All I would add to this list is the capability for attack continuity, i.e; that the blade need not be removed from the target. Kind of like "sticky knife" (I just made that up), continuing along whatever cutting pattern(s) that work.

Contour cutting, pressure cutting and ripping thrusts come to mind for me with the 'sticky knife' idea. I do most/all of the cooking in my house. That combined with fishing/hunting and cleaning/butchering game really is good eye opener to the various ways that knives can damage flesh. I think that the hunter/warrior link is a good one to emphasis as well because that is were most of our 'warrior/martial' skills were really developed first and later were translated and isolated to strictly combat/defense use. One of the interesting things about earlier warrior cultures that isn't so common now was the emphasis on self reliance skills (woodscraft, fishing, hunting, food prep, clothing making/mending...). They, at one time were what made up a 'complete' fighter. As hobbiests and enthusiasts of martial arts, it is sometimes forgetten that martial skill (punching,weapons....) is only an aspect of the whole fighter training.

 

[MJS]

While we are on the subject of knife defense, I thought I'd post this for a little comedy relief!!! The below is a quote from the lonepuppy. It was taken from another forum regarding a knife defense. The funny part, is that this is exactly what he was trying to pass off with that 'wonderful' gun disarm.

Any second rate martial artist knows that if you try to do it against someone who resits, fat chance you will get the armbar. Plus while you are concentrated on the armbar you expose yourself to punches from the perps free hand.

Gee, didnt we mention this at some point, only to be met with comments telling us we didnt know what we were talking about. How he contradicts himself!!! :boing2:

Mike