Scissors were used during infamous fatal stabbing in Fortitude Valley
A jury has been told Seyram Kwami Djentuh stabbed Lauie Tagaloa in the neck with scissors he bought minutes earlier for $3.90.
The two groups had been “eyeing each other off” and were keen for a fight, before Tagaloa punched a man in the other group and stomped at his head.
The confrontation continued before Djentuh stabbed Tagaloa once in the neck with scissors. Tagaloa died within moments.
Link to Brisbane Times article
This raises three issues:
The futility of the death
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.
Brawl and movement tactics
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.
Man’s leg slashed during brawl – terrible injury
A man’s leg is slashed during a brawl, resulting in a very serious injury.
Knives are easy to conceal and can be introduced into a fight without warning.
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:
- 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.
Two vs one – counter punches and leg kicks
A man – who VERY likely has a kickboxing background – successfully counter punches when attacked and uses a leg kick to discourage a second attacker.
Talk on the internet suggests this happened at an animal shelter in Ireland, however this is not confirmed.
Police officer stabbed to death moments after arriving on scene – Las Cruces PD
A stark and horrifying example of two things:
- The danger posed by knives, even when we are armed with a gun – you CAN bring a knife to a gun fight and win if you’re close enough.
- Not all situations involving mental health issues can be de-escalated verbally. Police have often been criticised in the media for shooting within seconds of arriving at the scene – this incident demonstrates the kind of situation which can lead to that happening.
Patrol Officer Jonah Hernandez was stabbed to death while responding to a trespassing call at the 300 block of South Valley Drive in Las Cruces.
A witness to the stabbing shot the suspect while another witness called 911 for help.
Officer Hernandez was transported to MountainView Regional Medical Center where he died from a knife wound to his neck.
The subject had a lengthy criminal record and mental illness.
Officer Hernandez had served with the Las Cruces Police Department for two years. He was survived by his wife and two sons.
7 vs 1 fight at a pool
A good illustration of the concepts I explained in this video.
- Rapid target switching
- Position and angles
- Range management
Terrible strategy on behalf of the group. All attacked from the front, terrible angles, hovered at the end of his striking range, did not close distance, did not control position.
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.