Grabs

[terryl965]

What type of quick grabs does your art teach you to control the opponet during an attack? If you do this how realistic is it for the actual street?
Would it not be better to hit get loose and get the hell out of there? I was just talking to a local Police officer and he said they are in the propcess of teaching women you get batter how to to this for there safety and I dis-agree, my philosophy is get away and not try to control someone like that until help comes. Just looking for other people opinion here?

[Andy Moynihan]

I both agree and disagree.

I disagree that locks or "control holds" should be used by beginning students(especially in this case of an obvious disparity of force) for self defense purposes( even if you do pull off holding them till the cops arrive there's now the lawsuits concerning the "citizen's arrest" myth that may come your way).

However.

Locks/grabs are a great way to keep someone rooted in place so that they cannot move, dodge away from, and "bleed off" the energy dumped into them by your strikes, and can set up a takedown so you can find a nice hard piece of street or floor to hit them with and then get away.

[Xue Sheng]

Locks and grabs are good but require a whole lot more training than a couple of self defense classes.

If you are teaching a defense class for battered women they would be better off teaching strikes ot the weaker spots of the body, eyes, throat, knees, instep kind of stuff.

A grab done wrong will just get them hurt

[terryl965]

Locks and grabs are good but require a whole lot more training than a couple of self defense classes.

If you are teaching a defense class for battered women they would be better off teaching strikes ot the weaker spots of the body, eyes, throat, knees, instep kind of stuff.

A grab done wrong will just get them hurt

I completely agree but the officer doing the courses say other wise.

[thardey]

When studying "Grabs and Locks" I often have to remind myself that these "locks" are often actually "Joint Breaks" They're only "locks" if the person submits to the pain, and threat of dislocation.

In that way they are aggressive techniques, in the same category of punches and kicks.

The idea is to trap and dislocate limbs, so that the attacker is disabled. If you apply these techniques to someone smart enough to realize that they should "tap out" then that's nice, but you can't plan on that. Break the wrist/elbow/knee and get away.

The idea of sitting on someone in an arm bar until the police show up just doesn't sound like a good move to me.

That's part of why I focus less on "Pain compliance" holds, which often involve pressuring some sensitive nerve, and more on actual joint manipulation, which can cause breaks if applied fully.

(Don't get me wrong, the nerves can be useful to distract, or cause an opponent to move, but nerve pain can be ignored unless the practitioner is very skilled at damaging pressure points.)

[Xue Sheng]

I completely agree but the officer doing the courses say other wise.

If they have decided to try and teach it then keep it simple and go for the weaker joints like fingers... Still not as easy as they think but much easier than going for a wrist or arm, particularly the pinkies those bend real easy.

[Explorer]

Nearly every fight I have encountered (in my youth) involved some type of grabbing or another. While I agree that tuite/chin na are higher level techniques, I believe they are a necessary part of a martial artists vocabulary.

I don't tend to use them as 'controlling' moves. I use them to move the attacker into a position where I can strike cleanly, with force. I want my attackers centerline pointed someplace other than at me ... so I employ grabbing or joint manipulation to move the attacker into an advantageous position ... for me. Once the bad guy is on the ground, I have more time to skedaddle!

[Deaf Smith]

Funny,

Most of my training has been how to get OUT of grabs, not grabbing others. Since most martial arts are defensive in nature, grabbing others is not all that emphasized.

Most of the come-alongs we use are basicly counters to grabs from others. Rarely do we start by grabbing others.

Deaf

[morph4me]

There's controlling an attacker in order to hold them and wait for help, there's also controlling an attacker in order to
a.) throw him
b.) break something,
c.) use him to shield yourself from other attackers.

For self defense for battered women I would agree with Terry hit them and get away, but with practice I would go with breaking something and then throwing him, preferably off something several feet off the ground, down a flight of stairs or into traffic.

[KenpoTex]

I completely agree but the officer doing the courses say other wise.

That's probably because many cops (who don't study MA or Combatives) end up trying to adapt their defensive-tactics material to self-defense for private citizens. Unfortunately (for the students) this material is often ineffective and inappropriate for dealing with violent encounters and is best left where it belongs...for dealing with resisting subjects in the context of an arrest situation.

As far as grabbing/controlling, I'm not a big fan of trying to "submit" someone. However, I may try to "control" them so that I can manipulate their position or so that they won't be able to get away while I'm hitting them.
I really like using the clinch while throwing knees and headbutts. I also frequently use a one-handed clinch while throwing elbows, palm-strikes, hammerfists, or shovel-hooks with my other hand. Other simple methods are simply to grab the hair or lapel while beating the crap out of them.
My reason for hanging on to them is that I feel that since I've already "bridged the gap" into MY optimal fighting range, I don't want to hit them, knock them away, and have to close that distance all over again.

With regard to the women's self-defense context mentioned earlier, I agree that teaching some nasty strikes that will disable the attacker long enough for the intended victim to get away are the best techniques to teach.

[Kacey]

I teach both releases and controls - but the emphasis is on using the control as a lead-in to other attacks; there is always a way out of a control if you know how to do it. Holding someone for any length of time is iffy, at best; some people will struggle and hurt themselves trying to force their way out of the control, but those who have any idea how to get out will do so, as will some who just get lucky.

[thetruth]

As for battered women or any women just learning in a self defense course then strikes are the way to go. There are far too many variables that come into play when trying to put on a lock. Having said that a lot of arts perform grabs statically which is fine at a basic level but in a real situation they are anything but static and the dynamics of defense totally change. Also when they are performed as a static attack all of the assailants force is going in to the hold often making it unrealistically difficult to escape from. When someone grabs you there is always an intent whether it be to drag you away, rape you or whatever so the grab will automatically be weaker than when they perform just the grab in a static fashion making it easier to escape.

Performing grabs by standing face to face with your opponent and having them grab your wrist or lapel is just not a realistic scenario. If both of their hands are occupied in a grab then striking is the best option whether it be with your arms or legs as they are less able to defend as they have to perform 2 actions to defend themselves, the first is letting go of you and the second is to perform a defense against your attack which will take a lot longer than for you to hit them. If your arms are pinned or you can't strike against their grab who says you actually have to perform the defense at that moment. As i said before they are not just going to stand there and grab you there will be an intent so wait until a better opportunity arises.

Also due to the dynamic nature of self defense why not use their force against them. If a women is grabbed by the arms or wrists and is being dragged away why not resist like hell for a brief period which would result in the attacker pulling harder. Follow this by using their force against them, stop pulling and push them full force into a wall, some furniture or a window.

...and holding someone in a hold is extremely difficult and I defy anyone to be able to do it without performing any other techniques such as strikes or limb damage. If someone feels constant pain they will be highly resistant to being held as you are hurting them. The best way to hold someone id to hold them and when they resist to put the pain on and when they stop resisting to be able to keep the hold firm but reduce the pain. I am yet to meet anyone who can do this for any length of time (more than a minute or so).

Lastly in todays litigious society I would not want to be doing anything that reselbled a citizens arrest, I'd rather be done on a minor assault type charge or for fighting as chances are if they were committing a crime and you hurt them a bit they won't sue you but you hold them there and they get arrested they will be very pissed at you and will almost certainly sue.



Just some thoughts, my apologies if they are a touch disjointed but I just started typing.

Cheers
Sam:asian:

[MJS]

What type of quick grabs does your art teach you to control the opponet during an attack? If you do this how realistic is it for the actual street?
Would it not be better to hit get loose and get the hell out of there? I was just talking to a local Police officer and he said they are in the propcess of teaching women you get batter how to to this for there safety and I dis-agree, my philosophy is get away and not try to control someone like that until help comes. Just looking for other people opinion here?

I don't feel that a grab alone is enough to control someone. IMHO, the idea of control is to put the other person at a disadvantage. Simply grabbing their wrist or lapel isn't going to control the person. To an extent yes, but if you're going to go thru the trouble of grabbing, I'd think that you'd want to limit what they can/can't do.

There are a number of locks which can be applied to the person, to put them in an awkward position, and at the same time, limit movement and if necessary, cause pain. It is realistic, but it needs to be trained that way. Additionally, you shouldn't look for the lock, but wait until it comes to you. If you look at a lock flow, you'll see a long, drawn out series, things flowing from one to the next. The idea of that is to train the person to flow. You may not be able to do one lock because of the position of the other person, but something else may present itself. :)

Regarding teaching this in something like a womens SD course...IMO, I don't think its a good idea and heres why. The courses are short, either a few hours on one day or a short 2 day course. That is nowhere near the amount of time for someone to be taught, have them attempt to practice it, and attempt to retain it. Chances are, once the course is done, the people are not going to practice. Locks, controlling methods, and just about any other aspect of a martial art needs to be trained constantly. Think about how much time a serious martial artist puts into training, and cut that in half and maybe in half again, and thats what you'll get from the SD course. I'm a believer of the KISS principle when it comes to short SD courses. Simple, short but effective things, that don't really require a ton of practice is IMHO, whats best to teach.

Now, if someone is grabbing us, that changes things a bit. :) They have now committed one or both of their hands, so may as well take advantage of that. In that situation, I say pin their hand(s) to you and punish them. They will probably assume that you will attempt to remove their hands, not keep them pinned to you. Nothing like pinning the arms, and striking them with the intention to a) cause a break or dislocation, or b) overall pain. Now, keep in mind, we're not keeping them pinned forever....just long enough to cause some pain. :)

[kidswarrior]

... there is always a way out of a control if you know how to do it. Holding someone for any length of time is iffy, at best...And that's the problem, especially in the case of a 125-150 pound woman with a few hours of training vs. an adrenaline-hammered 180-250 pound punk.

Many have said it in different ways, but just to add my 2 cents, I teach striking to vital areas, and much later (minimum one year training) breaking joints. No one's gonna tap out, and a novice maintaining a hold for more than a split second is fantasy. So this officer is endangering people, imho.

[Mr G]

I have no idea how most street attacks / rapes go down. But, I have heard women express fear of being grabbed. I think most fights between males begin with a punch. But an attempted abduction or rape would (I assume) begin with a grab.

I wonder if the point of teaching grabs is to about learning to get out of them.

[still learning]

Hello, Learning how to escape from grabs/holds is a good idea...and using simple to remember techniques can be learn or taught to anyone. ESCAPING IS THE KEY OR GOAL

As for "locks" ...what happens after the person "taps" out and you let go? He is going to attack back for sure.....LOCKS is for less aggressive person or really a "SPORTING HOLD" ...AS fOR WOMAN..THEY SHOULD GO FOR THE BREAK! ...my opinion especially if ALONE!

In a real fight? ....locks may work and stop futher aggression...than again..the person may tap out and fight back again? .....NO two situtions will be the same....(this comes from guys in rough housings...they fight or keeping hitting till the person cannot get back up...too many times a person will give up early...than attack you again and again..)

Remember the story of the Jujutus expert who was attack by two robbers with a knife...the guy with the knife tap out and Jujutus guy let him go and got stab several times....

Like all fights there is several levels...grabs and locks can be in any level and it is something we all should learn to do and escape from....Aloha

[tellner]

What type of quick grabs does your art teach you to control the opponet during an attack?
When we teach self defense we do not teach grabbing to control the opponent. There are some throws. There is some groundwork. There are a few joint destructions. Some of them involve grasping, but we don't try for pain compliance or brute force to immobilize someone. Pain compliance assumes they're reasonable enough to stop. If they were reasonable they wouldn't be attacking you. And if you can rely on superior strength you're lucky; most of us don't get assaulted by smaller, slower weaker people.

In Silat class there are various ways of getting control of a person. Sometimes you hold onto part of his body. Generally it's a bad idea. When you grab it gives him a handle on you as much as the other way around. It means you can't use your hand to hold onto something else like an exotic sharp pointed thing. And there's a monkey tendency to maintain the grab at all costs.


If you do this how realistic is it for the actual street?
What do you mean by that?


Would it not be better to hit get loose and get the hell out of there?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you leave before it is safe to do so you can open yourself to a world of trouble like being dragged down from behind and having to do the fight all over again without the advantage of surprise. From the research I've seen and a good bit of anecdotal evidence a lot of people, women in particular, get in more trouble from stopping too soon than from stopping too late.

You come from a background that puts hitting above everything else. It's good in its way, but it's a very limited perspective. In the real world people will grab you and throw you onto the ground. Once you're on the ground they will follow you down or just stomp you to death. They will not stand at a polite kickboxing distance and trade strikes to big dots on the chest protector while the judges look for "trembling shock".

Hitting is a very useful tool, but it's only one tool. And playing knuckle-tag or footsie with someone who has you outweighed and outreached is a suicidally losing game. The old "Hit. Scream. Run away," is better than nothing. It is not a complete self defense strategy.

You have to be prepared to fight in very close or when someone has a hold of you. You have to be able to fall without losing your ability to fight. You have to be able to handle yourself when you are on the ground whether it means finishing the fight from there or getting back up. You need to be able to put him on the ground in a way which puts you at the advantage. That means takedowns of one sort or another.


I was just talking to a local Police officer and he said they are in the propcess of teaching women you get batter how to to this for there safety and I dis-agree, my philosophy is get away and not try to control someone like that until help comes. Just looking for other people opinion here?
Police are not always the best sources for things like this. They are trained to close and arrest. Immobilization holds of various sorts and department-specific lawyer-vetted force progressions are appropriate for their job. It is not our job as regular people to take down dangerous criminals and disarm, restrain, handcuff, search and transport them. It's our job not to be killed, raped or wounded by them. A lot of police-sponsored self defense courses have trouble separating the two sets of concerns. They are also lawyer-driven. Anything the department teaches opens it up for financial liability. That's why they're light on things that can be used to disable or injure attackers and never, ever include recommendations about (legal) weapons use.

The other thing you need to remember is that for women in particular the "hit and run away" strategy doesn't take the realities of their situations into account. Where do you run to if the husband or boyfriend who is hurting you lives in the same house? It's at least 90% odds that the rapist knows who you are and where you live. In fact, the victim's home is the most likely site for sexual assaults.

[tellner]

If they have decided to try and teach it then keep it simple and go for the weaker joints like fingers... Still not as easy as they think but much easier than going for a wrist or arm, particularly the pinkies those bend real easy.

And some of the really effective and not all that difficult ones involving the knee and the neck they just aren't going to teach.

[Xue Sheng]

And some of the really effective and not all that difficult ones involving the knee and the neck they just aren't going to teach.

Step on the knee... works everytime :EG: :uhyeah:

[championmarius]

I like to make a distinction between grabbing to manipulate and grabbing to control. I am with Kenpotex on this one. I worked damn hard to get to where I'm at with the BG, I don't want to have to chase him to give him another shot or two. But, trying to subdue or restrain? bad mojo. better to "trap & snap" than try for a pain compliance hold.
Hyper-extend an elbow or two, and make the knee bend all sorts of weird angles, and the fight pretty much goes out of any bloke. If not, it gives you the serious edge in the footrace game outta there.

I am a big fan of head and limb control, hooking, yanking, pushing, jerking, pulling, and twisting heads and limbs to give me all sorts of juicy targets and keep him very confused about what the hell is going on. I like confused. They're easier to hit.

As for self defense courses, stick to gross motor movements, balance, striking power (body emchanics, not musculature), and good targeting. Forget joint and limb locks, submission grappling, and the like. Teach 'em "What, Where, and How"

[Deaf Smith]

Also due to the dynamic nature of self defense why not use their force against them. If a women is grabbed by the arms or wrists and is being dragged away why not resist like hell for a brief period which would result in the attacker pulling harder. Follow this by using their force against them, stop pulling and push them full force into a wall, some furniture or a window.

...and holding someone in a hold is extremely difficult and I defy anyone to be able to do it without performing any other techniques such as strikes or limb damage. If someone feels constant pain they will be highly resistant to being held as you are hurting them. The best way to hold someone id to hold them and when they resist to put the pain on and when they stop resisting to be able to keep the hold firm but reduce the pain. I am yet to meet anyone who can do this for any length of time (more than a minute or so).

True. I agree using their own foced against them is a good trick, and I know from experience that once you apply pain they can freek out and have amazing strength you didn't expect them to have.

We also must keep in mind they may be on drugs (and thus pain won't affect them much) or just crazy (same result.)

As for citizens arrest, two of us once held a purse snatcher we chased down in the Virgin Islands. We got chears, not jears. And I used a wrist lock that definatly hurt him alot!

Here in Texas, if you assist an LEO, and he asked you to assist, you are covered just as if you were an LEO (but only in his presence, he cannot ask you to go by your self and do things.) And if in such places as Wal-Mart, with lots of cameras, you can cover yourself if you decide to stop some one from attacking another and hold them for police.

Deaf

[chinto]

we are taught to grab and bring them in controlling them so that they have a much harder time striking or other wise injuring you while you do as much damage as you can fast as you can.
On the street its survival time, and I want to put this attacker down hard as i can fast so I can disengage from the combat and get clear! I must assume and act on the fact that the person who attacks me with violence on the street may very well have homicide as his or her intention! So I will protect my life and well being as much as I can and get clear. I will grab and push when they pull and pull when they push and brake their balance and strike and brake and throw as quickly as I can to make it safe to brake contact with the attacker... in a multiple attack situation you can do a lot of damage to the attacker while keeping him off balance and between you and the other attackers. If the damage is severe enough and very rapid while this is happening the other attackers may brake off not wanting to be next.

[The Boar Man]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If you leave before it is safe to do so you can open yourself to a world of trouble like being dragged down from behind and having to do the fight all over again without the advantage of surprise. From the research I've seen and a good bit of anecdotal evidence a lot of people, women in particular, get in more trouble from stopping too soon than from stopping too late.

Good point. When someone runs away unless they have disabled their atttacker (in some manner) to keep them from running them down they can be in even more trouble. Turning your back and running away waving your arms trying to draw attention to yourself can also turn on the aggression of the attacker even more, kind of like in the animal world the predator and prey.



Hitting is a very useful tool, but it's only one tool. And playing knuckle-tag or footsie with someone who has you outweighed and outreached is a suicidally losing game. The old "Hit. Scream. Run away," is better than nothing. It is not a complete self defense strategy.

But it is a simple basic strategy that can be easily taught to a group of students for a quick self defense course.



You have to be prepared to fight in very close or when someone has a hold of you. You have to be able to fall without losing your ability to fight. You have to be able to handle yourself when you are on the ground whether it means finishing the fight from there or getting back up. You need to be able to put him on the ground in a way which puts you at the advantage. That means takedowns of one sort or another..

I agree for a full fledged self defense course to be taught these are areas that need to be covered. But for a battered womens course (if it is a short one, which most courses I have seen are) than I believe the time is better spent teaching striking skills and releases from common holds and getting away.



Police are not always the best sources for things like this. They are trained to close and arrest. Immobilization holds of various sorts and department-specific lawyer-vetted force progressions are appropriate for their job. It is not our job as regular people to take down dangerous criminals and disarm, restrain, handcuff, search and transport them. It's our job not to be killed, raped or wounded by them.

Excellent point.



A lot of police-sponsored self defense courses have trouble separating the two sets of concerns. They are also lawyer-driven. Anything the department teaches opens it up for financial liability. That's why they're light on things that can be used to disable or injure attackers and never, ever include recommendations about (legal) weapons use.

Excellent point. And this is what instructors really need to think about so we don't make the same mistakes. The courses should be designed with the student in mind not just what we think they need to learn.



The other thing you need to remember is that for women in particular the "hit and run away" strategy doesn't take the realities of their situations into account. Where do you run to if the husband or boyfriend who is hurting you lives in the same house?

Somebody elses house? A neighbor, a friend's, coworker's, Local Church, battered womens shelter, etc. etc.



It's at least 90% odds that the rapist knows who you are and where you live. In fact, the victim's home is the most likely site for sexual assaults.

I don't know if this is quite true or not. There is the rapist of opportunity who strikes whenever the opportunity arises beit in a parking lot, a park, your house (basically any place that is secluded and he feels he can commit the crime and not get caught. So it makes sense that he woould target homes since they meet the requirements.

However the stalker (stalker rapist) or the obsessive type of prevert criminal they would be the ones to know where their intended victim lives, works etc. etc. But they are different types of criminals who commit crimes with overlapping types of crime scenes.

[The Boar Man]

Tellner brought up a good point about the objectives of the LEO in teaching restraint type holds to battered women. I'm not saying that there is any ill intent in teaching these types of techniques because of course these are the type of things they have been taught and have to rely on in doing their job, and they get more than enough OJT applying these types of techniques and putting them to good use.

And granted the LEOs are at least trying to help solve a problem that they see more reguarly than most of us do. So everybody should be thankful that someone has taken the incentive to teach this material.

But should grabs (locks, restraint techniques) be taught as a basic type of self defense tool for women? I disagree with the officers here.

Genreally I think locks should be taught as a transition technique after I have first hit the person to distract them and to cause them pain. Then I could release their hold on me (hopefully) and in so doing if I wrenched a joint, bent a finger back, hit a locked out elbow, etc. etc. as I released their grab, then all of the power to it. Now while they are distracted by the pain if I stomp on their foot, raked their shin, kneed their thigh, kneed their groin, and basically reduced their ability to come after me then all of the better. After any of the above I am not going to drop to the floor and put an arm bar lock on them to submit them and wait for the police. Nope, I'm getting the heck out of there.

Also we need to keep in mind that generally we are lulled into a false belief on the training room floor that the stuff we teach isn't quite painfull enough in real life. It is. Remember we teach restraint in the technique so we can practice it again with our partner, and besides it is their turn next to apply the technique to us right?

This was brought home to me in several ways over the years. I once asked GM Remy Presas if he could show me a over the shoulder takedown with the two finger lock. When he applied the lock and took me down he did it with control and intention and my fingers where in extreme pain (I never knew they coould bend that far back). Another time a student at another school that I taught at (once a month) confided in me that when I showed a strike to the elbow to the class the month before that I had connected with his elbow and it bothered him several days after the class. I wasn't demostrating a strike to the elbow, in fact I was demostrating an arm bar and just in passing showing that "in real" you could strike there. I thought I lightly tapped it.

So I believe with adrenaline flowing through your body if you hit the person and rip their arm/hand away from you, you'll be doing it with intention behind it and it can work.

But this is a different mindset than one of control and restraint.

[tellner]

But it is a simple basic strategy that can be easily taught to a group of students for a quick self defense course.
It certainly is. A good teacher can do better even in a short course. One of the things we really liked about AWSDA's approach was that it stressed a winning mindset. Even in their four hour rape prevention course the whole idea was to take control of the situation and prevail according to your own goals and standards.


I agree for a full fledged self defense course to be taught these are areas that need to be covered. But for a battered womens course (if it is a short one, which most courses I have seen are) than I believe the time is better spent teaching striking skills and releases from common holds and getting away. How long a course are you talking about? You can do quite a bit in a twenty hour course. You can set the seeds in a four hour introduction. And honestly that's all anyone can do in that short a time.


Somebody elses house? A neighbor, a friend's, coworker's, Local Church, battered womens shelter, etc. etc.
I'm always leery of dependence-based self defense. The social scientists' experiments have confirmed the anecdotal wisdom: You can't count on anyone saving you. People will just stand there and watch you die. c.f. Kitty Genovese. The shelters are under-funded, over-booked and have waiting lists. The last two times we intervened the victim was banging on doors, and nobody would help. The fact that we did was nice, but we're a pretty strange couple who have made a conscious decision to put ourselves at potential risk for people we don't know. That's pretty darned rare. Is anyone at the church? Do you know? How much time are you willing to waste standing out there? What happens if they don't help?

And so on.

If someone helps, that's nice; the fundamental principle is Your safety and survival begin and end with you. I wish it weren't that way. But I've seen no evidence to the contrary.


I don't know if this is quite true or not. There is the rapist of opportunity who strikes whenever the opportunity arises beit in a parking lot, a park, your house (basically any place that is secluded and he feels he can commit the crime and not get caught. So it makes sense that he woould target homes since they meet the requirements.

However the stalker (stalker rapist) or the obsessive type of prevert criminal they would be the ones to know where their intended victim lives, works etc. etc. But they are different types of criminals who commit crimes with overlapping types of crime scenes.

That whole constellation of rapist types was a fad from the 1970s. There were all sorts of different scenarios and sets of strategies that were supposed to work depending on whether it was the Compulsive Rapist, the Confused Rapist, the Sadistic Rapist, the Obsessed Rapist, the Opportunistic Rapist, the Psychotic Rapist and so on. There was never any real data to support the typology. And the psychiatrists who had the criminals on the couch for years in prison can't tell which category the convicts fall into. A woman who's trying to avoid being forcibly sodomized can not be expected to do a field diagnosis. The only sort she should be worried about is Unsuccessful Rapist. And for my money Dead Rapist is the absolute best sort.

As to the 90% figure, it's probably actually a little conservative. It's generally accepted in criminology that rape by acquaintances is under-reported. Prosecutors are reluctant to pursue it. Police are often leery and not sure who the criminal is or whether there's been a crime at all. Judges and juries are not likely to convict. Even so, and even with the old laws that put the victim on trial more than the rapist about 80-85% of founded rape reports involve acquaintances according to the best research I was aware of when I studied the subject in depth.

Stalkers are a whole different subject that deserves its own treatment.

[chinto]

look folks, the cops have to bring them in for trial.. that is their duty and mandate.
A private citizen has no such duty, their duty is to be alive and as unhurt as possible.
If anything a cop should be held to a much higher standard of conduct then a private individual! you as a non Law Enforcement Officer should have only one duty, be as uninjured and survive by what ever means possible. if the attacker does not survive, so sad.. to bad! worry about the cops and law after you are not dead or in ICU or other wise crippled for life!!
so if you grab the attacker, do not go for control, go for put the attacker down hard so you can brake contact and get clear unhurt and healthy!