Category: Articles

What is proportionate self defence?

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.

Male violence and gendered violence

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.

https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359

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:

  1. Improved socio-economic conditions, including employment opportunities, better education, economic stability
  2. 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
  3. Demographic changes, because we have an aging population who is less likely to commit crime
  4. 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.

Man taken to ground in street fight, brutal armbar follows

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 standing vs ground debate in martial arts

The critical relationship between training and play

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.

Published
Categorized as Articles

Defense against blunt and edged weapons – a basic guide

Click here to watch video on Youtube

REDDIT DISCUSSION

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.

Some of the clips used in video

And here’s an extra:

Also, check out other videos categorised under weapon disarms on this website

A real cop took my advice – and it worked

TRANSCRIPT

I’ve been contacted by a viewer who is a police officer in the USA.

His department practices methods like wrist locks and armbar takedowns, the kind of stuff I’ve talked about here quite a bit. My opinion is that these techniques are legitimate but they have a fringe use case, to the point that they are rarely seen in combat sports, and are certainly not a foundation from which to learn grappling. It’s the kind of thing I would teach as a low priority, as an option for very specific situations. And yet, for many years they’ve been at the core of police training for many academies around the world.

You might have heard it’s the hands that kill, and yes, it’s true, you need to control the hands, stop them from reaching for weapons and so on, yes. But if you don’t have overall positional control, and you just grab at the wrists and don’t do much else you might end up with control over nothing.

This police officer who contacted me, tells me that he attended a domestic violence situation where he had to arrest someone. He started by grabbing the wrist, and the offender quickly pulled away and punched the officer.

He said this:

In that moment I remembered your video critiquing police training. Further, I had a trainee with me who was about to experience their first use of force, so I was essentially on my own. I told myself I should control the person entirely before I try to control their appendages. With that I grabbed their body and hip tossed them to the ground. Once gaining control of them fully, which they understood as well, the arms were easier to manipulate and the arrest was successful.

I have no formal martial arts training. But just remembering that notion made the arrest much smoother, much faster, with less damage to me or the arrestee. Without having recently watched your content, I definitely would have tried to drag them to the ground with just their arm alone.

This officer did not receive any additional training or retraining to do this. All he did was reverse his priorities. Instead of working from the extremities to control the body, he established control of the body to work on the extremities.

In Brazilian Jiu Jitsu they talk about position before submission, but in a policing context it’s more like position before handcuffing. Cops can probably come up with a more snazzy, tactical sounding phrase, they’re good at that. But anyway it’s all essentially the same idea.

Of course, I’d prefer that police underwent training starting back at the academy where they would be wrestling each other and working toward restraining holds and handcuffing positions with experienced supervision for safety.

You really don’t need to sign up for the Gracie Combatives program or commit to something similar. We just need really basic skills and clear tactical objectives.

I’m starting to wonder if there is a way to develop a kind of broad open source template that people can adopt and run with on their own and use local expertise to plug in their own skills, instead of creating a by-the-numbers curriculum and trying to get contracts. I have no idea where to start with something like that.

Anyway, in this case, simply suggesting a different general approach lead to a better result, and it’s quite gratifying for me, to get a message like this. It reminds me of how I felt years ago when I was teaching martial arts, and a student would occasionally tell me that something I taught them helped in a real situation. This is the reason I started the channel in the first place.

Published
Categorized as Articles

Eye gouges, groin strikes, bites, scratches, throat strikes, hair pulling: why “fighting dirty” is not enough in reality

Click to watch video on Youtube

Reddit discussion and video

Groin strikes, eye gouges, and other “dirty” street fighting techniques are often overestimated in their effectiveness, and are not reliable substitutes for fundamental fighting skills.

The key issue with these techniques is that they rely on pain to influence behavior, rather than directly incapacitating or controlling an opponent. Real fighting scenarios (see videos) show that people can endure severe injuries, including serious maiming, and still continue to fight. This resilience is especially true when the stakes are high.

Gaining a controlling position increases the effectiveness of any technique, including those banned in sports. Without a dominant position, attempts at “dirty” tactics are more likely to fail.

Consideration must also be given to what happens when these tactics fail. In a fight, once a certain level of violence is introduced, it can be reciprocated, potentially leading to more severe consequences.

Real-life examples illustrate these points. Fighters have continued to compete even after sustaining significant injuries like broken limbs or blindness. The effectiveness of these tactics is unpredictable and can vary greatly depending on the situation and the individuals involved.

While “dirty” techniques can be part of a fighting strategy, they are not reliable or decisive. Effective fighting requires a combination of skills, including striking, grappling, and a strategic approach to positioning and control. Simply relying on pain-inducing tactics is insufficient for real combat scenarios.

Here we have a man arguing with police, and he throws a knee to the groin. You can see the officer’s hips move back as the energy from the strike transfers to his body. The officer responds with a punch which knocks the man unconscious. This is a stark illustration of the difference between doing something that simply hurts a lot, and something that takes away your capacity to fight completely.
A jeweller is stabbed and attempts to stop the attacker by using groin strikes and eye gouges, which have no effect. Neither man is able to clearly dominate the fight before the stabber eventually gives up and walks away.
This man entered an MMA gym and challenged them to a fight. When he gets caught in a guillotine choke, he attempts to eye gouge his opponent, who continues to choke the man unconscious.
In Japan 1995, 5’7 Yuki Nakai fought 6’5 Gerard Gordeau in an MMA bout. Gerard illegally eye gouged Yuki, which left him permanently blind in his right eye. Yuki continued to fight with one eye, and won by heel hook in the fourth round. He never let officials know that he’d been blinded.
Full fight where a man’s ear is bitten off, and the biter loses by submission when he is unable to escape from a bad position, demonstrating the importance of basic grappling skills no matter the rule set.
A man’s lower lip is bitten off in a street fight; however, by the end of the video he is keen to continue fighting, while it is the biter who walks away.
Man has his ear bitten off in a street fight and does not stop – by the end of the video he is in a dominant position and continues to fight without issue.
A man who is allegedly a pedophile according to onlookers, attempts to bite and eye gouge while underneath the mount of his opponent, which fails. His opponent – the man in a controlling position – eye gouges and blinds the other man, demonstrating the importance of positional control no matter what rules of lack thereof.
Two men are fighting on the ground, one has his eye gouged out – however, he continued to fight and at the end of the video, he is in a controlling position and is now gouging the eyes of the other man.
Multiple unanswered strikes to the groin which appear to have no effect
Source of video thumbnail – by MMA photographer Esther Lin
“After the fight, Werdum said the poke didn’t hurt or affect him – and even if it had hurt, he might have lied to the ringside physician and said he was fine out of concern the bout would be stopped. Werdum, who won a unanimous decision, says he thinks some fighters embellish the severity of a poke to get out of the fight and that offends him to some degree.”

https://www.espn.com.au/mma/story/_/id/27850706/danger-mma-problem-eye-pokes

The limits of pain compliance

Click image or click here to watch video

Pain compliance is quite literally the use of pain as a method to achieve compliance, and discourage resistance and aggressive behaviour. It’s an integral part of any police use of force continuum policies. However, its effectiveness varies greatly depending on the individual’s pain tolerance, mental state, and the intensity of the situation.

Individuals under the influence of drugs, experiencing a mental health crisis, or in a state of excited delirium might not respond as expected to pain compliance techniques. Adrenaline and other physiological factors can significantly diminish pain perception, leading to less effectiveness in gaining compliance and potentially escalating the situation to more extreme uses of force.

Pain compliance is not a substitute for physical control. It should not be seen as a primary strategy but rather a part of a broader set of tactics aimed at safely controlling and detaining individuals.

It’s crucial for law enforcement to have a clear objective when employing pain compliance and to be prepared to shift tactics if it’s not effective.

Continuous application of pain without gaining control can be perceived as excessive and lead to public scrutiny and distrust. In extreme cases, it can lead to serious injury and death, particularly when the subject is of poor health.

Training, skills, fitness and teamwork are the only answer.

The public’s perception of pain compliance is increasingly critical. With widespread access to information and a growing emphasis on police accountability, the use of force is under more scrutiny than ever. Law enforcement agencies need to ensure their personnel are well-trained in a variety of techniques, understand the implications of their actions, and are capable of making judicious decisions in the heat of the moment.

In conclusion, while pain compliance can be a part of law enforcement’s toolkit, it should be used judiciously and in conjunction with other tactics aimed at safely and efficiently resolving confrontations. Continuous training, public engagement, and a commitment to ethical practices are vital in maintaining public trust and ensuring the safety of both officers and those they serve.

How the ancients reduced violence and maintained public order in the first cities

The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the oldest stories known.

Gilgamesh, the protagonist and king of Uruk, imparts only three pieces of advice to his city’s elders before embarking on an adventure to kill a monster. These guidelines, though succinct, encapsulate essential principles for societal stability.

I’m impressed at how relevant these points are today.

Law and Order: Gilgamesh cautions against youths gathering in the streets, hinting at the risk of increased crime and unrest, particularly among young men. Historical data supports this view, showing that young men are often both perpetrators and victims of crime. Addressing street-level crime and providing purpose and guidance to the youth are vital to prevent societal discord.

Impartial Legal System: Gilgamesh emphasizes fair judgment for the weak and poor, highlighting the need for an unbiased legal system. Impartiality in legal matters ensures faith in institutions and prevents people from seeking vigilante justice.

Preventing Exploitation and Inequality: The third advice speaks against allowing the strong and wealthy to exploit others. This principle is about addressing extreme inequality to prevent social unrest and potential revolutions.

Watch the video above for a more details analysis.

Published
Categorized as Articles