Don't tell them you know martial arts

[Hanzou]

As a matter of fact, I put a guy to sleep last night. Methamphetamines, cocaine, ecstasy and a bad attitude. He lasted about 15 seconds before he went out, but the circumstances of the takedown forced me to apply a less than perfect hold. And I generally release before they're actually completely out. They're wobbly enough that we can get them restrained, and that's what matters.

The possibility of brain injury starts immediately. The longer the hold is maintained, the higher the chances of brain injury.
It's possible that a blood choke can dislodge a chunk of plaque, and the person will have a stroke.
It's also possible (though again, it is unlikely) for the hold to cause a tear in the artery, causing the tunica intima to separate from the media. Blood flowing through this tear causes the intima to continue tearing loose from the media. This is a dissection. As the false passage gets bigger, the true passage gets smaller, which obviously is not a healthy thing. Dissections are a surgical emergency.
The more common brain injury from chokes are (as is likely obvious) caused by the simple fact that the hold restricts or halts the flow of blood to the brain. The lack of blood flow leads to tissue ischemia (inadequate oxygen levels), which is what leads to unconsciousness. The thing is, tissue ischemia is also exactly the same thing that happens during a (non-hemorrhagic) stroke. Exactly how long this will take is a crap shoot. If the persons perfusion is marginal to begin with (as can happen with various pulmonary or vascular diseases, for example) then tissue death will occur much sooner.
Within a couple of minutes, it is almost certain that there will be at least some degree of brain damage. How extensive and how significant is unpredictable. They might loose their ability to speak, or they might loose all memory of March 3rd, 1998 between noon and 12:04PM. By the time you reach the 3-5 minute time frame, the chances of having significant brain injury are very high, and death becomes a real possibility.

It's not a statistically valid sample, but in my own experience, I see more people brought to the ER because of strikes than from chokes. It's also true that strikes are more commonly used than chokes, so I cannot say what percentage of fights involving each will result in a trip to the ER. However, the notion that you can (as one poster claimed) apply a "gentle" choke hold is, in a word, idiotic.

"Gentle" because there are chokes that are applied where the person they're being applied on doesnt even know they're being choked. It's also gentle because it puts them to sleep with no damage being done to them.

By your own admission above you state that damage doesn't occur on the person being choked until minutes have passed. A trained practicioner isn't going to hold a choke nearly that long when it only takes usually 5-10 seconds to put someone to sleep with a properly applied choke. So I'm not seeing how my statement is "idiotic". We have a method where you can safely put an assailant to sleep that won't harm either party. How is that not gentle compared to punching or stomping someone on the face?

 

[Hanzou]

Lethal force is a specific definition. It is force which is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death. Multiple jurisdictions have held that choke holds are lethal force. You seem intent on ignoring this, and locked into your argument that "chokes are gentle." Dude -- chokes are chokes. You're depriving someone of something that is essential for life, whether breath or blood circulation. IF you release it early enough, you may not kill someone. Slip a couple of seconds, and maybe they wake up -- but they've suffered brain damage. I think most reasonable people would identify brain damage as a serious bodily harm... If I shoot someone in the foot, it probably won't kill them -- but the gun remains lethal force.

Again, absolute nonsense. There are millions of people around the world learning, applying, and getting chokes place on them. There are people who forget to tap and pass out from the choke. There are schools who purposely tell their students not to tap out so that they can get choked out on purpose and understand their limitations. And yes, people slip a few seconds, it happens.

This practice has gone on for over a century, and I honestly can't think of a single practicioner that has suffered brain damage or death, and if it has occurred the numbers are incredibly small. Your statement above simply does not line up with the facts.

Or a stomp to the skull -- if you can articulate it. Gee... seems an awful lot like what I already said.

So are you saying that a stomp to the skull is as "safe" as a choke or even a dislocation of a joint?

 

[K-man]

Why would I need to give a scenario? I'm simply comparing the inherent danger of finishing someone off with a choke, versus finishing them off with blows to their head.

Which of course was a red herring with no relevance to the current discussion. In an attempt to make it relevant I asked for context. My mistake.

In the case of two competitors, I would imagine that it would be full force, since their goal is to knock their opponent out as quickly as possible.

So in a competition where your life is not at stake the competitors are going full force but you question the right of someone in fear of their life to use full force and finish the altercation as soon as possible. Not up there for logic I'm afraid.

But they do train to stomp on them correct? They do train to stomp or punch on them until the "danger has passed" correct? Further, they are trained to stomp or punch the head and other vital areas while the person is down correct?

First sentence ... yes, and you might even have learned it in Shotokan if you had stayed around longer. I have difficulty believing a black belt in Shotokan was never have been taught kakuto geri but there we are.

Second sentence is deliberately misleading. In the same vein as your MMA fighter keeps punching until his opponent is defeated we teach that you continue to strike until the danger has passed, especially when your attacker has a weapon. But of course we teach restraints as well so if at any time you feel that ii is appropriate you can choose another option.

Third sentence is again being misleading. Yes, if the threat remains after the attacker is down, we train to continue striking. That doesn't mean we always have to take that action and whatever action we takes may be tested in court later. I have never taught anyone to stomp more than once and mostly the stomp is to temporarily disable by stomping on the ankle.

Why do you twist everything we say to mean something that you must know is totally different?

Please let me know if any of that is an inaccurate portrayal of your training methods.

As usual, it is totally unrepresentative of our training methods and yes, an inaccurate portrayal.

 

[Hanzou]

Which of course was a red herring with no relevance to the current discussion. In an attempt to make it relevant I asked for context. My mistake.

It was actually very relevant since various posters were making inaccurate and wild claims about chokes.

So in a competition where your life is not at stake the competitors are going full force but you question the right of someone in fear of their life to use full force and finish the altercation as soon as possible. Not up there for logic I'm afraid.

Where did I question someone's right to do what they deem necessary to get out of a bad situation? Like I said, better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6. Again, I'm simply pointing out that punching and kicking someone's head is far more dangerous than a choke.

First sentence ... yes, and you might even have learned it in Shotokan if you had stayed around longer. I have difficulty believing a black belt in Shotokan was never have been taught kakuto geri but there we are.

FYI, Kakuto geri is an axe kick, not a stomping kick.

Second sentence is deliberately misleading. In the same vein as your MMA fighter keeps punching until his opponent is defeated we teach that you continue to strike until the danger has passed, especially when your attacker has a weapon. But of course we teach restraints as well so if at any time you feel that ii is appropriate you can choose another option.

So in other words the answer is "yes". How is that deliberately misleading when that's exactly what you do, and how you're trained?

Third sentence is again being misleading. Yes, if the threat remains after the attacker is down, we train to continue striking. That doesn't mean we always have to take that action and whatever action we takes may be tested in court later. I have never taught anyone to stomp more than once and mostly the stomp is to temporarily disable by stomping on the ankle.

I never said it was an action you had to take, simply that you were trained to take that action. Additionally, I simply don't believe that you or one of your students would choose the ankle over the head or throat. Just saying.....

Why do you twist everything we say to mean something that you must know is totally different?

As usual, it is totally unrepresentative of our training methods and yes, an inaccurate portrayal.

How is it totally unrepresentative of your training methods when you confirmed everything I asked? Granted, you guys aren't killers looking to brutalized people, but you are trained to purposely stomp or bludgeon someone who is laying on the ground, and to keep doing so until YOU deem them to be no longer a threat.

And yet for some reason, people feel that that is "safer" and more humane than putting someone to sleep in a matter of seconds with a choke? I find that quite interesting.

 

[drop bear]

Well for a start you have provided a scenario where we are on concrete but you haven't given the circumstances. So, is the attacker armed, does he have accomplices, do I actually have to fight to get away or can I simply leave? Remember, this thread is about self defence.

But I will ask you, in any competition fight like the recent Mayweather/Pacquiao bout, if you asked them do they hold back or go full force what do you think they might say? That is in a competitive environment. Don't you think you fight go full force if your life is on the line?


I have yet to see anywhere, and I have quite a library of very violent DVDs, where anyone is training people to stomp on anyone once the danger is past and I can't recall even seeing someone stomping more than once. Like many other areas where you have very little knowledge, self defence is not your strongpoint, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing competition BJJ and MMA into the discussion.

Should you be stomping on people at all?

 

[drop bear]

Lethal force is a specific definition. It is force which is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death. Multiple jurisdictions have held that choke holds are lethal force. You seem intent on ignoring this, and locked into your argument that "chokes are gentle." Dude -- chokes are chokes. You're depriving someone of something that is essential for life, whether breath or blood circulation. IF you release it early enough, you may not kill someone. Slip a couple of seconds, and maybe they wake up -- but they've suffered brain damage. I think most reasonable people would identify brain damage as a serious bodily harm... If I shoot someone in the foot, it probably won't kill them -- but the gun remains lethal force.

Or a stomp to the skull -- if you can articulate it. Gee... seems an awful lot like what I already said.

Bluntly -- I'm going to try to avoid either. However, if I must use force, I will balance the force I use against the likelihood of injury vs. obtaining control. It's not a black & white bright line equation. But, since my agency and most in my area, classify chokes as lethal force... if I can't articulate justification to support lethal force, I'm not choking them. Honestly, I like the Taser (C). If all goes tolerably well, it results in control of the subject with minimal risk of injury to either of us. If I go hands on, it's typically a combination of tactics including various locks (but not chokes) and strikes.

Ok. But standing punches kill people as well. Throwing people. We yet yelled at for pushing people.

Mostly because every now and then someone ups and dies. But it makes life very hard to defend yourself with safe techniques.

My view on the choke is you control the amount of force and you control where the head goes. You can't do that with striking.

 

[drop bear]

The 'common sense' training you are talking about caused more injury and compensation claims in the Police Academy than violence on the street. Hence the training now is move back and use your 'tools'. Makes for far less injury to police, particularly now with the ice epidemic.

I have seen the police use tazers twice. In all the physicals that I have seen the police involved in.

So meh tazer is hardly a factor. Hand to hand control is still the most common response.

 

[K-man]

Should you be stomping on people at all?

Should we be choking anyone at all? Should we be hitting anyone at all? Maybe we should all take up knitting instead.

 

[drop bear]

Should we be choking anyone at all? Should we be hitting anyone at all? Maybe we should all take up knitting instead.

Sounds fair. As now all of these life and death deadly streets have turned into responsible use of force with rules and a ref.

Isn't assault by kicking singled out as an extra offence?

 

[Transk53]

Sounds fair. As now all of these life and death deadly streets have turned into responsible use of force with rules and a ref.

Isn't assault by kicking singled out as an extra offence?

Not sure, but a kick would almost certainly be construed as being a deadly move with the intent to seriously injure or worse.

 

[K-man]

It was actually very relevant since various posters were making inaccurate and wild claims about chokes.

Which is a red herring.

Where did I question someone's right to do what they deem necessary to get out of a bad situation? Like I said, better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6. Again, I'm simply pointing out that punching and kicking someone's head is far more dangerous than a choke.

And exactly who are you arguing with?

FYI, Kakuto geri is an axe kick, not a stomping kick.

And FYI kakuto geri is a heel kick. The axe kick is a variation, Japanese of course. Heel kick could be fumikomi but that is more of a thrusting heel than a downward heel which we know as kakuto.

So in other words the answer is "yes". How is that deliberately misleading when that's exactly what you do, and how you're trained?

It's about as accurate as saying MMA is all about kicks to the head. Your taking on small part and claiming it to be a major event. For what it's worth, I managed to get through an entire class tonight without getting anyone to stomp on their partner.

I never said it was an action you had to take, simply that you were trained to take that action. Additionally, I simply don't believe that you or one of your students would choose the ankle over the head or throat. Just saying.....

And as is so often the case, you would be wrong. You have no idea how or what I teach so either accept what I say, come and see for yourself or simply shut up.

How is it totally unrepresentative of your training methods when you confirmed everything I asked? Granted, you guys aren't killers looking to brutalized people, but you are trained to purposely stomp or bludgeon someone who is laying on the ground, and to keep doing so until YOU deem them to be no longer a threat.

Your reading skills are abysmal. I countered everything you said yet you call that confirmation. Strange! What you have written here is a gross exaggeration. As well you talk about 'bludgeoning' someone. Of course a bludgeon is actually a weapon and no, we don't actually train to bludgeon anyone.

And yet for some reason, people feel that that is "safer" and more humane than putting someone to sleep in a matter of seconds with a choke? I find that quite interesting.

Where on earth did you get this from? It is totally irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[Hanzou]

Which is a red herring.

Not if it was being talked about before I entered the thread.

And exactly who are you arguing with?

The people who previously argued that choking could cause brain damage in a matter of seconds. I would further argue that punching or kicking a downed target in the head is far more likely to cause brain damage or death than a choke would.

And FYI kakuto geri is a heel kick. The axe kick is a variation, Japanese of course. Heel kick could be fumikomi but that is more of a thrusting heel than a downward heel which we know as kakuto.

Well first off its Kakato geri, not Kakuto geri. Thanks for helping me misspell it.

Secondly, Kakato geri looks like this;

Which seems to be a rather superfluous motion to hit a downed opponent in the head. Fumikomi looks like this;

Which is more akin to the stomps I saw those Krav guys doing. I don't know where you get the idea that one is a variation of another. The two are quite different from each other in about every respect.

It's about as accurate as saying MMA is all about kicks to the head. Your taking on small part and claiming it to be a major event. For what it's worth, I managed to get through an entire class tonight without getting anyone to stomp on their partner.

It appears to be the go-to finisher for Krav and similar arts. I never said that its the only thing you do, but it is a pretty clear characteristic of such styles. In every Krav vid I posted, the demonstrator finished with a stomping kick or punch to the head area. I'm sure if I bothered to look, I'd find far more. In the absence of chokes, such moves make sense. Again, I'm simply pointing out that a kick or punch to the head against someone who is laying on the ground can have lethal consequences. Far more lethal than someone passing out from a choke.

And as is so often the case, you would be wrong. You have no idea how or what I teach so either accept what I say, come and see for yourself or simply shut up.

And what exactly are you saying? That you only perform these techniques when necessary? Okay, where was I disputing that?

Your reading skills are abysmal. I countered everything you said yet you call that confirmation. Strange! What you have written here is a gross exaggeration. As well you talk about 'bludgeoning' someone. Of course a bludgeon is actually a weapon and no, we don't actually train to bludgeon anyone.

So agreeing with what I stated is "countering" me? That's an interesting way of looking at it.

BTW, Bludgeoning is simply beating something. And yes, you can bludgeon something with your fists and feet. Those are weapons too you know.

 

[Drose427]

Uh if you read your own article, it says that the mean time for being choked out was 9.5 seconds. Yeah, there were four guys in the study who didn't pass out until after 20+ seconds, but a medical examination noted that they were in the same condition as those that had been choked out much faster. Their anatomy was simply different than the other participants.

Additionally, the study also said this;

4 in 24 is 1 out of 6.

That isnt some miniscule number bub.

If you go to any public space you're usually gonna be surrounded by far more people than that,

Anyways you really proved the point I was making, that it all comes down to anatomy and the 10 second rule doesnt apply to everyone.

They were in the same condition, their brain simply went longer without oxygen. 22 seconds in and they didnt pass or tap. You wait till they pass, and youre sending them coloring books for Christmas.

 

[Hanzou]

4 in 24 is 1 out of 6.

It's also 16%.

That isnt some miniscule number bub.

If you go to any public space you're usually gonna be surrounded by far more people than that,

I guess you missed the part where the researchers stated that the people who got choked out at the 20 second mark sustained the same level of "damage" as the other participates. Their anatomy simply made them more resistant to chokes than the general population.

Anyways you really proved the point I was making, that it all comes down to anatomy and the 10 second rule doesnt apply to everyone.

The average was still 9.5 seconds, so the rule applies to the general population.

They were in the same condition, their brain simply went longer without oxygen. 22 seconds in and they didnt pass or tap. You wait till they pass, and youre sending them coloring books for Christmas.

Except your very own article disproves that very argument. The people who went out at 22 seconds were no different than the ones who went out at 5, 10, or even 1.5 seconds.

 

[jks9199]

Again, absolute nonsense. There are millions of people around the world learning, applying, and getting chokes place on them. There are people who forget to tap and pass out from the choke. There are schools who purposely tell their students not to tap out so that they can get choked out on purpose and understand their limitations. And yes, people slip a few seconds, it happens.

This practice has gone on for over a century, and I honestly can't think of a single practicioner that has suffered brain damage or death, and if it has occurred the numbers are incredibly small. Your statement above simply does not line up with the facts.



So are you saying that a stomp to the skull is as "safe" as a choke or even a dislocation of a joint?

I don't care what goes on in a sporting environment. I don't care what happens in a training hall. I am telling you that, if you choke someone in the street, you'd better be ready and able to defend that action as a use of lethal force. Or be very prepared to go into the courtroom, and successfully educate the jurors (or judge, in a bench trial) that it is not lethal force. Because multiple jurisdictions have repeatedly held that it is -- because you are depriving someone of something essential for life.

But I'm really starting to feel that you don't care what anyone says. You "KNOW." I can't top that, anymore than I can change your religious beliefs. And I'm really starting to wonder if simply disrupting these discussions is your primary goal...

 

[jks9199]

Ok. But standing punches kill people as well. Throwing people. We yet yelled at for pushing people.

Mostly because every now and then someone ups and dies. But it makes life very hard to defend yourself with safe techniques.

My view on the choke is you control the amount of force and you control where the head goes. You can't do that with striking.

"Lethal force" is a legal definition. It is force which is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily injury or death. Serious bodily injury is generally defined along the lines of significant impact and restriction on normal life functions. A punch to the chest is not generally likely to cause death -- but it may in a freak chance. An arm lock is not typically likely to cause permanent loss of the use of the limb -- but freak nerve damage can happen. Hell, you can choke on a feather and die. A pillow fight isn't a lethal force event -- because it's not something that a reasonable person would foresee as a likely outcome.

Chokes certainly have a place -- so long as you can justify the action and its potential outcomes. The Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint is a carefully designed and taught technique authorized in some departments. It's your classic sleeper hold. There are a few other versions being taught, from various origins, but the article I linked spells out what separates it from a choke hold pretty well. And the majority of departments still aren't too accepting of it...

 

[jks9199]

By the way -- I'm not saying simply using a choke hold will kill someone. But the courts will view it as a potentially lethal use of force. The two things are very different...

 

[Dirty Dog]

"Gentle" because there are chokes that are applied where the person they're being applied on doesnt even know they're being choked. It's also gentle because it puts them to sleep with no damage being done to them.

I have never been choked without knowing it was happening. Nor have I ever known anybody who didn't notice they were being choked.
And there absolutely IS damage being done. It may be an insignificant amount, but it's there. Just because the stroke from the plaque you knocked loose doesn't happen instantly doesn't mean you didn't cause it.

By your own admission above you state that damage doesn't occur on the person being choked until minutes have passed.

Go back and read what I wrote. Ask someone for help if you don't understand it. Because this is most definitely NOT what I wrote.

 

[Hanzou]

I have never been choked without knowing it was happening. Nor have I ever known anybody who didn't notice they were being choked.

I Love BJJ - Have you ever been choked unconscious or done... Facebook

From the mouth of various horses.

And there absolutely IS damage being done. It may be an insignificant amount, but it's there. Just because the stroke from the plaque you knocked loose doesn't happen instantly doesn't mean you didn't cause it.

So all those people I just linked to are going to be retards at some point?

 

[pgsmith]

I Love BJJ - Have you ever been choked unconscious or done... Facebook

From the mouth of various horses.

So all those people I just linked to are going to be retards at some point?

Probably not, but it seems pretty obvious to me that getting choked out too often does seem to cause a serious lack of reading comprehension.