There are a lot of misconceptions about knives and blades.
One thing I find frustrating is that people often believe purely aesthetic decision choices, or features that might improve everyday quality of life for the weapon, actually make a knife more lethal.
In reality, two pointy metal objects with a sharp edge, of a similar size and shape, will have a very similar injury profile. If you stab someone to the neck with a butterfly knife, it will have the same practical effect as the blade on a pair of scissors.
Ultimately, this means two things:
All sharp, pointy metal objects are lethal and must be treated that way; police, for example, are equally justified in using lethal force whether the subject is armed with a balisong or a pair of scissors.
Banning particular kinds of sharp, pointy metal objects does not make the street safer, because they can be substituted for other sharp and pointy metal things which are equally lethal (balisong -> kitchen knife or scissors for example).
Kitchen knives are used in many fatal stabbings. They are just as effective as knives “designed” for killing.
Most knives are small, simple, easy to use, easy to conceal, fast to deploy, and very effective. The qualities many people worry about are superfluous to their function, or merely improve quality of life and comfort. Much of it is about style and aesthetic concerns.
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY – CONTENT MAY DISTURB AND OFFEND, VIEWER DISCRETION IS STRONGLY ADVISED.
See bottom of this post for download links to the complete video and printable diagrams.
I give permission for the video and attached documents to be downloaded, played, modified and printed anywhere for free – only for the purpose of education.
TOPICS
00:00 – Intro 03:50 – Excited delirium 05:19 – Why are police involved in the first place if we’re talking about medical issues? 06:12 – Death in custody and sudden unexplained death 07:26 – Monitor your own state of mind when dealing with the patient 08:48 – De-escalation 09:54 – “Super Human Strength” 11:01 – Ability to absorb punishment 11:50 – Pain compliance 12:18 – Pain compliance loop 13:21 – Tasers 13:55 – Positional asphyxiation 14:25 – Do not lay prone for too long 14:55 – “I can’t breathe” 18:07 – Banning pressure – my opinion 19:06 – Examples set by martial artists 19:32 – A personal anecdote 20:12 – Restraint-resistance loop 20:51 – Sudden calm 21:22 – Do not make calmness a condition of your use of force 21:44 – Piling on 22:33 – What we lack in training 22:58 – Minimum force in minimum time 23:34 – Access to risks 24:06 – Caution with handcuffs 24:50 – Biting 25:11 – Position in cell/transport – monitor constantly 25:36 – You are always being recorded 26:31 – You are at the mercy of the world 27:24 – Final thoughts
Text wall incoming: I would like to add some comments here. I am a paramedic in the urban U.S., so I do not know the training or the things that are taught to LEO, but I would offer some alternative perspective. This was a well thought out video, but I would also add some tools/methods that I have used/seen used to help expedite the process.
This was a very thoughtful video, and succinctly emphasizes your position when dealing with psych/overdose/mental health patients in delirium. Which is, in between a rock and a hard place. These people need medical evaluation and intervention, which often Law enforcement is ill equipped to provide. It then becomes a matter of how quickly can you get the ambulance to you to assist. Normally, EMS will not go into active scenes because our defense profile is much less robust than yours. But getting on the radio quickly will ensure that once you have compliance, or even 60-75% compliance, the ambulance is already on the way. Even on your way to the call, if your call notes describe someone who will need an evaluation, just start us. If we get pissy when we get there and its not super serious, thats on us and I hope you dont have that kind of working relationship with your EMS agency, because thats a junk attitude for us to have. Better an easy evaluation and refusal than a cardiac arrest.
There were many clips in this video that show prone positioning, and the continued struggle. OP did a good job of alerting to the cycle of “movement/restraint” that so many of us get into, and how that leads to bad outcomes. If you have to prone someone, then do that, but if the ambulance is coming, there are also safer ways to restrain once we get onscene. The primary intervention is sedation. We all want that person to stop thrashing, so we have to get our drugs onboard. However, once we get there, you now have force multipliers. Do not shy away from using us as help to restrain while the medication takes effect. Limb joint restraint, waist and shoulder control can all be had while prone if need be, and take pressure off the chest. And to be clear, even pressure on the lower back where the abdomen would be can cause asphyxiation, by not allowing proper expansion of the diaphragm.
Please continue to be observant. Many times, once EMS arrives on scene, the police tend to lower their security posture because “EMS is onscene” and it is a medical patient. But I have been stabbed by a patient with APD standing next to her because they were talking to themselves while I was doing my thing. Anyone who needed EMS and is hyperactive is by definition unstable. Please be ready to jump back into the fight. We may also have to use you as our own force multipliers.
The pathophysiology of these patients is unpredictable. The reason why these people suddenly arrest with seemingly no pressure is because of whats happening inside the body. Extremely simplified basically, the drugs/psychosis/etc are causing an unregulated adrenaline dump, giving them their super strength, or their resistance to control techniques and the like. Once their body uses up all of their adrenaline, they’re going to arrest. Our sedation medications add onto that effect, especially if we have to give a double dose because of their extreme adrenaline dump. Which means that predicting when they stop fighting is a nonstarter. Once you go hands on, at any point in time, they may run out of energy and go into arrest, ems or no ems assistance. Look for the signs, and act appropriately.
Thank you OP for not saying that Ketamine from paramedics kills these people.
Sorry for the long wall, I’ve been a paramedic for 11 years-ish now and teach both LEO/EMS team patient control, and basic resuscitation to the police I work with. You guys got the short end of the stick in dealing with these patients, and I dont want any of these cases to happen to you guys.
The situation was entirely preventable. These are young men seeking to prove themselves to their peers by showing bravery and demonstrating their prowess and composure in a fight. They were seeking confrontation, with one man arming themselves when they knew a physical confrontation was about to kick off.
We can minimise this kind of outcome by providing opportunity, role models, purpose and discipline to young men, and an outlet to prove themselves and achieve self-worth. Suppressing competitive behaviour in boys and denying them these opportunities is how you amplify toxic masculinity. Their energy has to be directed into productive and benign pursuits. If they aren’t provided a positive group of peers and role models, they will find their own who may be antisocial in nature.
Scissors are lethal weapons
Secondly, this demonstrates just how lethal any type of blade can be. The next time you hear about police shooting someone after they attempted to stab someone with scissors, go back and watch this video, and remember what just a pair of scissors can do.
Bans on specific types of blades are fruitless
Where I live, we have banned the following types of knives:
Flickknife
Ballistic knife
Sheath knife
Urban Skinner
Trench knife
Butterfly knife or “balisong”
Star knife
Zombie Knife
Any object made of strong material with a point can be used to stab, and any hard material with an edge can be used to cut.
Banning any type of blade only results in the use of blades which are not prohibited, especially kitchen knives. Kitchen knives are typically made of steel, have a long sharp blade and a point, with a full or partial tang, and ergonomic handle.
These attributes make kitchen knives more effective as weapons than many of the banned knives, which are mostly designed for their appearance.
Knife designs can increase reliability and practicality, but they are all lethal, including cheap scissors purchased from a late-night corner store.
Laws which prohibit the carrying of blades and other weapons in a public place have more merit and real effect on outcomes, depending on the area and cultural context.
This clip (courtesy of World Star Hip Hop, of course), illustrates several concepts I’ve covered in detail in a previous article and video, which you can find at the bottom of this post.
In the video we’re looking at today, a topless black male in blue jeans performs exceptionally well in terms of managing multiple opponents.
After knocking down his first opponent, he sees another male stepping forward and crossing the line of bystanders. He identifies this as someone who intends to intervene in the fight.
Typically, the plan of the bystander is to attack from the side while their target is focused on someone else.
Our main character immediately target switches. Target switching is a key component of fighting multiple opponents. He hasn’t completely taken the first man out of the fight, but he now has to prioritise the man who is moving forward because that is now the most serious threat.
As he approaches the second man he takes a wide angle, keeping the rest of the crowd in his peripheral vision. This avoids having the crowd behind him, completely out of sight.
At this moment, a third man approaches, but he’s on the side of our main character, and they form a line standing roughly shoulder to shoulder.
Main character sees his first opponent coming back to attempt a flank while he’s focused on the second man.
Main character correctly switches back to him, prioritising the opponent who is approaching from a dangerous angle.
This is exactly what I talked about in my multiple opponents video. An excellent demonstration of target switching.
The second man then crosses the line, which is often a big mistake because it exposes the flank, but main character was not in a position to take advantage of it.
It then becomes two individual fights which is a very common occurrence in a brawl.
While you’re dealing with your own problem however, you should try to remain aware of what the others are doing, because one of them is going to transfer over to your side when their problem is dealt with.
Which is what main character does. When he gets the chance, he transfers to the hoodie and blindsides him in exactly the same way they were attempting earlier but didn’t have the skill to pull it off.
And here you have the contrast between one man who could remain situationally aware enough to target switch, and another man who could not.
The other failure is wearing a hoodie in a fight, which can be for control in grappling.
This is why I advocate for spending at least some time grappling and sparring in a gi. People do wear jackets and other clothes that can be gripped in a fight.
Another video I’ve made which is relevant to this is about issues around bystanders, you can also find that below.
Street fights and self defence scenarios are often discussed in the most extreme terms, which leads us to the most extreme conclusions, such as:
There are no rules in a street fight, therefore I will use every method which is commonly banned in sports such as eye gouging, biting, groin strikes, weapons; I will never take the fight to the ground because I will get stomped by several people, and there are needles and glass and lava on the ground; I will maim and kill and rip and tear.
In reality, violence and confrontation run the gamut from imposing body language to nuclear weapons, and then there’s everything in between.
When we are defending ourselves, the laws in most places expect that you will use a proportionate level of force if you need to defend yourself.
If you’re a strong young man, and a 75-year-old woman tries to slap you, it might be considered reasonable and proportionate to hold her wrist to stop the slap. Biting her nose off would be considered disproportionate in most places.
So much conversation around self defence lacks nuance; here’s an example of a situation that might help us think about it.
This man was eating at a restaurant and another man has tried to steal his phone. But the victim trains jiu jitsu (this has been confirmed), and he resisted, held onto the phone and they end up in a short grappling match before the victim throws him on the ground, and then that’s it. The offender realises he’s outmatched, he submits, and just walks away.
You hear people say ridiculous things like never grapple in a street fight. Never take someone to the ground because 10 of their friends are going to appear and stomp you. If someone attacks me I’m going to bite and eye gouge and hit em with furniture and stab them etc., etc.
There might be times when those things are reasonable, but they’re often not. Maybe you can put them on the ground and it resolves without any injury at all.
If your local laws permit, maybe you can consider a citizens arrest if you can be bothered going through the process of holding him there until police arrive and providing a statement, showing up at court and so on.
You might want to check them for weapons before you let them up. And once they leave the area, you should probably leave also, in case they decide to return with a weapon. Those are things to consider.
Self defence laws usually revolve around a proportionate level of force to protect yourself and your property. Using more force than is reasonably necessary to get the job done could be considered excessive, and this is where people get into trouble.
With this scenario where I live, if the victim had done exactly the same thing and the offender is on the ground not moving and saying OK I give up I’m sorry, then the victim kicks the man in the head, he’d probably get charged with assault.
Think about what it would achieve in terms of the objective of self defence. Yes, he tried to steal your phone but he’s not any more. He’s not attacking you, or threatening you, he’s stationary on the ground in the moment. Using force was reasonable while he was trying to take the phone but that stopped.
“He deserves it, there should be revenge, he needs to learn a lesson, he should be punished,” these are not justifications of self defence, these are excuses to assault someone after a self defence situation has already resolved.
There would be other circumstances where a head stomp would be reasonable, for example he sees the man pull out a knife while he’s laying on his back there, it might be reasonable to kick him, knock him out. These situations are fluid and change moment to moment, and you have to react to what is in front of you.
If you use force, you will later have to explain why. To what end? What was your objective, was it reasonable, was it necessary? Because if you could have used a lower level of force, or done anything else to protect yourself, then it wasn’t necessary.
It’s all fine in hindsight, yes, but that’s why I’m using the term “reasonable” so often. Would most reasonable people in the same situation believe that your actions were reasonable, and necessary, and proportionate?
A rule of thumb is that when the threat stops, you stop.
Learn about the laws in your area and what is considered self defence, you might be allowed to do a lot more than what I’ve described, but you need to understand what you can and can’t do legally. Otherwise, you might start as the victim and end up being the one who goes to jail.
There is a popular belief in Australia that domestic violence, and violence generally, is getting worse. However:
If homicide is the yardstick by which the level of violence in society is measured, then the belief that violence is increasing in Australia cannot be substantiated.
Most discussion has centred around women as victims of homicide, however, men account for about 70% of homicide victims. Over the last 30 years, all homicide has been falling.
Women are certainly over-represented in intimate partner homicide, but these numbers are falling along with the overall count:
The likely cause of the drop is due to the following factors:
Improved socio-economic conditions, including employment opportunities, better education, economic stability
Public health initiatives to address mental health issues and substance abuse – we know that people with mental health drug abuse issues are over represented as homicide offenders
Demographic changes, because we have an aging population who is less likely to commit crime
Improved law enforcement and judicial response, with more effective strategies, crime solving, community policing and prevention measures assisted by technological advancements
Further pursuing these issues will ensure that homicide continues to fall; conversely, a decline in our standard of living, and public health services, could result in more violence in the long term.
Also missing from the conversation is the fact that men are victims of male violence at a higher rate. If we want to prevent the murder of women, we have to protect men also.
All these points and more are discussed in the above video.
According to the source of the video on Reddit, this fight started after the drunken older man had been arguing with a group for about 10 minutes and was given many chances to leave.
The man wearing the ADCC hoodie (Abu Dhabi Combat Club, a prestigious submission grappling tournament) kicked off his footwear shortly before the video starts. Then:
Strikes -> clinch -> takedown -> mount -> armbar -> head stomps from armbar -> mount -> elbows.
Bystanders offered to call an ambulance for the older man following the fight, however he refused and kept saying that a bunch of “homeless guys” had attacked him.
As I’ve explained in a previous post, the standing vs ground debate is a red herring. Sometimes going to the ground is the optimal strategy, sometimes it’s not. In all cases, grappling skills are necessary whether you want to stay standing or not.
Saying “never go to the ground in a street fight” is idiotic, and at best a misguided oversimplification.
In this instance, the man who performed the armbar was not jumped by a group, was not stabbed, there was no glass and AIDS needles and lava on the ground.
It also starkly illustrates the effectiveness of join locks. This is not a submission, he did not wait for his victim to tap. He just destroyed that arm.
None of this is to say that his behaviour was justified, that’s up for you to decide. Where I live, it would be considered excessive and serious charges would follow. Make sure you understand local laws before using force.
The entire standing vs ground, and striking vs grappling debate in martial arts is a red herring.
Use whatever is the best approach for the given situation, which will often involve a mix of skills. This also means we need to train in a mix of skills.
The above video is a response to Jesse Enkamp’s video below, “Why sparring is DEAD”, and a discussion around the concept of play as it applies to martial arts and police training.
The below video is a discussion between police officers and a Navy SEAL who now trains police officers in tactics and how to better perform under stress. This highlights the points I made in my response that Jesse missed in his video – training must involve play, it also should involve high stress occasionally.
This video covers unarmed defense against both blunt and edged weapons, highlighting the importance of understanding range to either deny attackers their advantage or impose our own.
Yes, you should never fight someone who is armed, and running away is a good idea. However, there are some scenarios where evasion isn’t an option and hand-waving comments like “just run away” do not help. Strategic positioning, range management and movement are the foundation of dealing with weapons.
We start with understanding the nuances of unarmed striking, the significance of maintaining an appropriate stance for mobility and reaction, and the concept of “lunging distance” which is critical for both offense and defense.
Then we move on to managing distances to either escape harm or close in, underlining that effective defense involves being either out of reach or too close for an attacker to utilise their weapon effectively.
The guide also touches on the specialised considerations for dealing with different types of weapons, from long and short blunt instruments to edged weapons, stressing the need for speed, control, and tactical awareness.
