A man who is dying from positional asphyxiation will not speak at a normal, conversational pace.
He will speak in short, repetitive statements that fade and trail off at the end, in an obvious rhythm matching their short breaths; they are unable to breathe deeply enough to construct a longer sentence.
Typically, they panic and start pleading, their voice cracks and changes pitch, display acute fear and become less coherent over time.
They may make nonsensical statements, begin asking for help from people who are not there, ask for their mother, and so on.
When sudden tranquility follows vigorous resistance, there is an extreme risk of death.
These things emerge consistently during positional asphyxiation, but they are often disregarded or not recognised by police and other workers.
This can happen despite education and training on the matter.
However, the signs are easy to identify once you’ve observed the pattern across multiple incidents in real time and heard it for yourself.
For training and education purposes, this video depicts several instances where men have died in custody after being restrained. Viewers will hopefully notice a pattern emerging in each instance.
On Tuesday 27th May 2025, 24YO Kumanjayi White was arrested after allegedly stealing food and assaulting a security guard who’d confronted him inside a supermarket in Alice Springs. He died in custody a short time later. What really happened, and who is at fault?
Handcuffing is hard, and real encounters are dynamic and unpredictable. So why is police training scripted and linear?
This video looks into what makes the process of handcuffing both distinct and similar to the challenges we face in martial arts, the problem with current models of training for police, and how we should be training our police instead.
Shocking vision has emerged of police trying to subdue a woman who was threatening drivers with a large knife in the middle of one of Australia’s busiest highways.
A 52-year-old woman will face court on Wednesday, charged over allegedly threatening drivers and causing traffic to come to a halt on the M1 Motorway near Taree.
At about 4pm on Tuesday (26 November 2024), emergency services were called to the motorway at Koorainghat following reports of a concern for welfare.
Police vehicles descended on the area with uniformed and plain clothes officers surrounding the woman in an attempt to subdue her and remove her from the roadway.
Officers attached to Manning/Great Lakes police district confronted the woman who was armed with the knife and threatening other drivers who were speeding by.
Police blocked the northbound lanes of the Pacific Highway and negotiated with the woman who allegedly threatened officers with the knife.
After calls for her to put the knife down and move away from the roadway, a taser was used to slow here progress toward officers as another can be seen tackling here from behind and pinning her to the ground in the middle of the motorway.
The knife was wrestled from her grasp as a group of police officers fought to subdue her and place her in restraints.
She was taken to Taree police station, where she was charged with attempt stalk/intimidate intend fear of harm (personal), common assault, possess or use a prohibited weapon without permit and use knife in public place – cause person to fear for safety.
The woman was refused bail to appear before Taree Local Court on Wednesday.
There is a lot of debate around the difference between “sport” and “street” fighting, and what effect things like eye gouges, biting and knives have, particularly when it comes to ground fighting. Too much of the discussion is based on theories and assumptions.
I think the martial arts community can learn a lot from the infamous Ukraine knife fight video:
“Dirty” techniques work better from a dominant position, and will not reliably overcome your lack of skill and situational awareness.
The decision to take a fight to the ground is a tactical consideration and could happen by your choice, your opponent’s, or purely as a matter of circumstance / by accident.
All knives are lethal, but knife design is critical in combat.
Pain compliance is unreliable.
Control is paramount.
First, the idea you should never take a fight to the ground. This discussion is usually oversimplified and misunderstood.
You take the fight to the ground when it is tactically appropriate, and you do everything possible to keep off the ground when it is appropriate. Saying NEVER is a brain dead response. It depends on the situation.
Neither man seemed to have a plan of ending up on the ground. The Ukranian was forced to close the distance because it was the only option left when he was caught without his own firearm. There was nowhere to run.
For a moment, it worked – he disarmed the Russian and was able to force him down, before the Russian drew a knife.
In my opinion, the Ukrainian appears to have fixated on taking possession of the knife at this point, and conceded top position to get it.
Meanwhile, the Russian worked to take a controlling position on top. This was a critical moment in the ground component of the fight.
Many of us assume that if we end up on our back, “dirty” techniques like eye gouges should cause our opponent to react in pain and fall off. Or if we stab them, they will quit the fight or be injured/killed and unable to continue. And yes, this is a possible outcome.
Another possibility is that your opponent is determined to kill you, willing to fight through serious injury and pain, and has achieved a dominant position. Poking them in the eye or even stabbing them might not work without hitting a large artery.
Many have noted that the Russian bit the hands of the Ukrainian. This indeed happened several times.
A very important detail many have missed: almost every time the Russian would bite, it was in response to the Ukrainian reaching up to eye gouge him. However, the Russian was able to move his head and avoid most of the damage.
The reality is that just like strikes and submissions, “Dirty” techniques and weapons work better from dominant, controlling positions.
They stabbed each other. The attacked each other’s eyes. The (smaller) man fighting from a top position was able to do this more effectively.
Another point many have missed is that the Russian used biting not just to cause pain and injury, but for control: he held one hand in his teeth, which allowed him to use two hands to fight against the Ukrainian’s one.
He was also able to scan the environment and look for improvised weapons. He picked up three pieces of rubble, one being a shard of roof tile which was stabbed into the Ukrainian’s eye. Stuck on his back, the Ukrainian was unable to move his head to avoid this.
Knife design played a significant role. The knife lacked a pommel or guard, which would have greatly reduced the risk of hands sliding off each end of the knife. Both men lost control of the knife and were injured by the blade incidentally when their hands slid off at various times.
They also both grabbed at the blade intentionally which worked in terms of delaying attacks and fighting for control of the knife. One of the more stomach-churning aspects to watch, but they really did not have much choice.
Much has been made of the Ukrainian’s last words, asking the Russian if he could leave him to die peacefully. Personally, I don’t believe the Ukrainian gave up on survival.
I think it’s more likely that he understood he had lost the fight and was about to be stabbed a lot more, and his request to be left alone to die peacefully was a tactical decision more than anything; he was hoping that although severe, his injuries might be survivable at that point if the Russian stopped. His last words were “don’t do it” as the Russian placed a grenade under his vest.
Finally, pain compliance is unreliable, because it is not direct control. Compliance might be a secondary effect of pain, or it could cause more resistance. Control and position must be of highest priority in a fight.
In this instance, we see both men fighting through gunshot wounds, stab wounds, eye gouging, biting.
Both men were equally aggressive and willing to do anything to win the fight.
In the end, the fight was won by situational awareness, adaptability, improvisation, and positional control.
This is absolutely the most brutal – in the truest sense of the word – combat footage I have ever seen.
Watch this at your own discretion, and I recommend that you first read the short summary below to decide if you would still like to watch.
A second angle was also filmed by a drone:
A Ukranian solder, wearing a GoPro, approaches a structure and takes fire through a window. He was possibly hit, blood is visible.
He falls, returns fire, gets up and attempts to throw a grenade through the window.
The Russian soldier exits the building at the same time and approaches the corner where the Ukranian is standing. They both step around the corner and run into each other, clinch and fight over the Russian’s gun, before they end up on the ground.
They fight hand to hand with knives, teeth, and eye gouges. Both are drenched in blood.
The Ukranian is stuck on his back, while the Russian is able to cause more damage due to his dominant position on top of him.
Translation of the final moments below, from 6:40 in the video:
Ukrainian soldier: That’s it, mum, goodbye. Wait, let me die in peace. You’ve opened everything (meaning critical blood vessels) in me. Let me catch my breath. Very painful. *unclear*. Let me pass away in peace. Just don’t touch me. Let me die. Don’t touch me, let me die. Please go away. I want to pass away on my own. Thank you. You were the best fighter in the world. Goodbye. You were better.
In this video I break down the errors made by police before the shooting of Elroy Clarke.
Some viewers may find this content disturbing. This video is not intended for entertainment, but for education and training purposes only. My objective is to prevent violence and trauma, not to glorify, encourage, or incite it.
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.