Break Or Lock?

[Cujo]

Just another leo thought.

The minimum force needed to control the situation. We will all be held accountable for the force that we use against another, so just make sure that you respond with that in mind. To respond to an attack by a stumbling drunk with lethal or maiming techniques would be crimminal.

Pax
Cujo

 

[MJS]

Doc, if we are having to use our techniques to defend ourselves is it not wise to destroy what we can get ahold of? Is this not what we must do or is it taking defense to the extreme? In your opinion would there ever be a situation that would warrant breaking? I am very interested in your views on this.

This is why its so very important to exercise proper judgement as well as having an understanding of self defense laws. I've used the example of Lone Kimono in the past. For a simple lapel grab, I can't see breaking or hyperextending the elbow when there are other options to choose from.

Just my .02

 

[jdinca]

Actually destruction is not the answer. Anatomical Restrictive Body Positioning and manipulation works just fine. The problem with most "locks" and "hold" is they are based on pain compliance. This is a mistake. "Any technique that relies wholly upon pain to be effective will ultimely fail." - Ed Parker.

Your goal should be "control" not pain, or even destruction. Pain and/or destruction should at the most be a vicarious byproduct of your actions not your goal. This one of many mandates to Kenpo Locks as it was dictated to me.

Destructive is probably not the best term. My answer was more along the lines of dealing with someone whacked out on pcp, where the pain threshold is almost nonexistent, which can decrease the ability to "control". Someone in this condition will fight a hold, even if it means breaking or dislocating something. Hence the six to one ratio.

Your point is well taken in other situations about control v. damage. Properly done, pain from most locks should be a result of the person in the lock fighting it, not the lock itself. This is also how I am taught. Thank's for your input!

 

[Doc]

Destructive is probably not the best term. My answer was more along the lines of dealing with someone whacked out on pcp, where the pain threshold is almost nonexistent, which can decrease the ability to "control". Someone in this condition will fight a hold, even if it means breaking or dislocating something. Hence the six to one ratio.

Your point is well taken in other situations about control v. damage. Properly done, pain from most locks should be a result of the person in the lock fighting it, not the lock itself. This is also how I am taught. Thank's for your input!

Consider the possibility of a person under the influence of a mind altering drug with no pain response, being anatomically misaligned and incapable of significant movement or hurting themselves or you.

 

[jdinca]

Consider the possibility of a person under the influence of a mind altering drug with no pain response, being anatomically misaligned and incapable of significant movement or hurting themselves or you.

You've given me thought for another thread regarding law enforcement training in this area. I've worked with many agencies and there's a lot of inconsistency in the level of training in this respect.

Thanks for your thoughts. :asian:

 

[Doc]

You've given me thought for another thread regarding law enforcement training in this area. I've worked with many agencies and there's a lot of inconsistency in the level of training in this respect.

Thanks for your thoughts. :asian:

As a 30 year law enforcement professional in the public sector, as well as an academy instructor, to say "inconsistency" is being kind. Give me a shout whn you start the new thread.

 

[searcher]

Thanks Doc. I am glad you to take the time to answer. It is great post.