Irresponsible Gracie Jiu-Jitsu ad?

[drop bear]

the 90% thing is from police statistics somewhere. (i will see if i can find it)

the issue being if you are trying to arrest someone in a fight you generally take them to the ground. So the statistics may not be applicable.

here we go sort of. There are inserts of the report in this piece.

you could probably chase the rest of it down if you wanted.

Going to the Ground Lessons from Law Enforcement

 

[jezr74]

here we go sort of. There are inserts of the report in this piece.

you could probably chase the rest of it down if you wanted.

Going to the Ground Lessons from Law Enforcement

If I'm reading it right, it's around 60% and the statistics are derived from altercations with officers?

I think the vid is ok, well produced.

 

[Chris Parker]

Personally, I have no issues with the choke but here a choke on the street is virtually regarded as attempted murder. RNCs are right out so I imagine the collar choke wouldn't be far behind so to advertise it that something you are teaching may not go down well with those who don't understand martial arts.

If I'm on the ground, RNC is my preferred finisher.

Not quite sure about that… yeah, chokes aren't considered "legal" in many circumstances… but much of that is not in the self defence law, it's to do with security and law enforcement training and procedure. Additionally, while "chokes" are out, "strangulations" aren't… the difference in classification is whether it interrupts the blood flow (strangulation), or the airways (choke). A choke has the potential to cause some internal damage (swelling and bruising) which can close off the airway even after the choke is released… sometimes half an hour or more later… so are considered more "potentially lethal". Strangulations, on the other hand, don't have this potential drawback, so are considered "safe" to use and apply. A rear naked choke would classify as a strangulation in these terms, rather than a choke (despite the name), so is still "legal". Of course, in self defence, it comes down to a lot more than that… but I basically teach strangulations rather than chokes in the main to avoid such a potential legal battle occurring down the track. (Note: the definitions I have given are as I understand current Victorian law… medically speaking, the definitions are often a bit different, with strangulation being an external restriction on airflow [or blood flow], and choking is internal [such as choking on a chicken bone, for example]).

The technique featured in the video is a blood constriction… a strangulation… which would be fine, in the main. I do agree with the idea of not necessarily using it to advertise in that way, but that's a personal interpretation of the ad itself… it raises a few questions for me, but not worth getting into here.

 

[ballen0351]

True I had the wrong name, I hope "Brown Brown" was a typo and not a racial slight, that would be very disrespectful and show a serious lack of character. This would be the first I've heard of the heart attack in the ambulance, the issue has been discussed in depth on other martial arts sites but I havent visited them lately, perhaps its a new development.

I don't really want to bring politics into this, my intention was only to point out that choking out the wrong person could have more impact than you intend.

No should have been Brown. Brown I was starting a new sentence missed the period.

According to Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, an ambulance was immediately called to the scene and Garner was transported to Richmond University Medical Center. He had a heart attack in the vehicle and was pronounced dead approximately one hour later at the hospital.[47]

 

[ballen0351]

you are not suggesting they would need some sort of proof are you?

No I'm suggesting it's wrong. It's advertising it's allowed to twist the facts. It's ok as long as you understand what your looking at.

 

[K-man]

Not quite sure about that… yeah, chokes aren't considered "legal" in many circumstances… but much of that is not in the self defence law, it's to do with security and law enforcement training and procedure. Additionally, while "chokes" are out, "strangulations" aren't… the difference in classification is whether it interrupts the blood flow (strangulation), or the airways (choke). A choke has the potential to cause some internal damage (swelling and bruising) which can close off the airway even after the choke is released… sometimes half an hour or more later… so are considered more "potentially lethal". Strangulations, on the other hand, don't have this potential drawback, so are considered "safe" to use and apply. A rear naked choke would classify as a strangulation in these terms, rather than a choke (despite the name), so is still "legal". Of course, in self defence, it comes down to a lot more than that… but I basically teach strangulations rather than chokes in the main to avoid such a potential legal battle occurring down the track. (Note: the definitions I have given are as I understand current Victorian law… medically speaking, the definitions are often a bit different, with strangulation being an external restriction on airflow [or blood flow], and choking is internal [such as choking on a chicken bone, for example]).

The technique featured in the video is a blood constriction… a strangulation… which would be fine, in the main. I do agree with the idea of not necessarily using it to advertise in that way, but that's a personal interpretation of the ad itself… it raises a few questions for me, but not worth getting into here.

I think you might find that strangulation includes both compression of the arteries and compression of the trachea. I'm not 100% sure of Victorian law but certainly it is out for security guys.

A recent article on the subject.

http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_36/slr36_2/SLRv36n2DouglasFitzgerald.pdf

Attempts to choke or strangle carry up to 25 years jail in NSW but it must be in the course of committing an indictable offence. You may be able to claim self defence but the issue is, you may well be finding yourself in court if you elect to use a choke/strangle on the street.

Even in the US chokes are under scrutiny.

Law makes Choking a Felony - Gracie News

 

[Hanzou]

Eric Garner not Brown Brown was shot. And Garner died from a heart attack in an ambulance 15 to 20 min after the "Choke" was let go. It also wasnt really a choke but thats what the media is calling it

Actually it really is a choke;

I know cops call it a vascular neck restraint, but that hold does the exact same thing a RNC, Triangle Choke, Cross Collar Choke, or an Anaconda Choke does.

That said, Garner didn't die from the choke, he died from several cops piling on him.

 

[Chris Parker]

I think you might find that strangulation includes both compression of the arteries and compression of the trachea. I'm not 100% sure of Victorian law but certainly it is out for security guys.

A recent article on the subject.

http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_36/slr36_2/SLRv36n2DouglasFitzgerald.pdf

Attempts to choke or strangle carry up to 25 years jail in NSW but it must be in the course of committing an indictable offence. You may be able to claim self defence but the issue is, you may well be finding yourself in court if you elect to use a choke/strangle on the street.

Even in the US chokes are under scrutiny.

Law makes Choking a Felony - Gracie News

That's an interesting article, but it doesn't actually speak to anything I mentioned… it's about the indication of potential future domestic violence indicated by such assaults as strangulation, but not really anything to do with self defence law, or legal usages in security and law enforcement. In addition, page 243 and 244 have the following passages:

In South Australia and Victoria there is no offence that refers specifically to strangulation or choking.

In Victoria, two relevant endangerment offences provide that a person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in danger of death98 (or serious injury)99 is guilty of an indictable offence.

The key word in the second quote is "lawful excuse"… security officers, properly trained and licences, as well as law enforcement officers can be seen as having lawful excuse in this sense.

 

[ballen0351]

Actually it really is a choke;

I know cops call it a vascular neck restraint, but that hold does the exact same thing a RNC, Triangle Choke, Cross Collar Choke, or an Anaconda Choke does.

That said, Garner didn't die from the choke, he died from several cops piling on him.

I understand what a Choke is thanks.

 

[Hanzou]

I understand what a Choke is thanks.

 

[Buka]

I taught a lot of cops. City police, county sheriff departments and Feds. Mostly Feds the last ten years of my career. I taught cardiovascular restraint holds, mostly RNC and collar chokes, to all the Feds. The key to doing it is obviously to do it properly, but as important - knowing the rules, how they are written and how to write up a training procedure (which then is run by the legal department of your agency) and how to write a report.

Two things you go by. Your department's Use of Force Policy, and your department's Force Continuum policy. As to the later - law enforcement are legally allowed to "up one" in the continuum. (He picks up a two by four, you draw your weapon) Key to teaching cardiovascular restraints is to teach them as part of deadly force. (first level in the continuum is Officer Presence. Last is Deadly Force) This is a big part of CYA. (cover your ***)As to the holds themselves, you need to spend as much time pointing out the wrong way as you do the right way. An officer has to feel the difference between a blood choke and a "holy ****, you're crushing my throat"

Time has to be spent on this with every single officer you teach. And it has to be trained with a "struggling" training partner so as to show how the hold can go from perfect - to "his throat is now in danger because your hold shifted in the scramble. And scrambles happen all to often. I've never had any of the DT we use come back to bite any of the officers I trained. Thank God.

Interesting side story -
In the eighties, The United States had a city Law Enforcement exchange program with Japan. Two Japanese police officers were sent to each state in the continental U.S. They lived with a city cop for one year at their homes and went to work with them every day. Here in Boston only one came, his partner breaking his leg the day before the trip. Shinji (pardon the spelling) lived with my buddy Paul. Paul was in the anti gang unit at the time. A third of that unit trained at my dojo, I also had most of them in the academy when they were cadets.Shinji came to the dojo most days - telling me that back home (I believe it was Yokohama) each police station had a dojo in the basement where local kids trained for free in Judo as part of a community program. I thought that was awesome.So....I used to go along with the gang unit a lot of nights, "to study the use of force as it applies to proper training procedures" but in reality, it was just a lot of fun. I'd usually head out at 9 at night after the dojo was done. I wore a jacket that said "Observer". One night we had been talking about choke holds used in Japanese police actions. (Shinji also taught DT in Japan) later that night turned out to be a zoo, lots of gang wars, robberies and assaults. The boys had their hands full and were really busy. I had pointed out that Shinji wasn't necessarily bound by the same restraints the Boston guys were - if the situation put him in imminent danger. Which it conveniently did. We had screamed up to a rumble in several cars and jumped into the fray making arrests. One of the gang members ran right by Shinji, who clotheslined him and put him to sleep in a standing RNC. Before that night was over he chocked out three different bad guys, all of whom were arrested, none of whom bitched about the chokes. (things were so much easier back then) He did that standing RNC, an arm triangle on the ground and a nifty collar choke on the ground as well. (It was so hard not to break down laughing)Shinji started out as a homesick, shy young guy. By the end of the year he was almost clawing the tarmac at Logan airport to stay. I hope he's doing well.

As to those two ads - I loved them.

 

[Paul_D]

BJJ has great benefits but it isn't designed for SD, in fact if you were devising a system for SD that last thing you would do would be to base it around taking things to the ground. Why not instead promote your system based on it's actual benefits, not it's made up ones? That's like building an F1 car and then trying to sell it based on it's off roading abilities.

 

[Hanzou]

BJJ has great benefits but it isn't designed for SD, in fact if you were devising a system for SD that last thing you would do would be to base it around taking things to the ground. Why not instead promote your system based on it's actual benefits, not it's made up ones? That's like building an F1 car and then trying to sell it based on it's off roading abilities.

Really? The LAST thing you would do?

What if the guy is bigger and stronger than you? Are you going to stand there and trade punches with him or try to hit vital spots while he's pulverizing you? What if they take YOU down to the ground? Are you going to try to fight your way back to your feet?

I can think of numerous situations where taking someone to the ground, or learning how to fight on the ground is a very good idea. Is it optimal against multiple armed attackers? Probably not. However, if you find yourself in a situation where you're unarmed, alone, and having to fight off several armed attackers, no martial art is going to be optimal.

You also messed up a long time ago.

 

[K-man]

That's an interesting article, but it doesn't actually speak to anything I mentioned… it's about the indication of potential future domestic violence indicated by such assaults as strangulation, but not really anything to do with self defence law, or legal usages in security and law enforcement. In addition, page 243 and 244 have the following passages:

The key word in the second quote is "lawful excuse"… security officers, properly trained and licences, as well as law enforcement officers can be seen as having lawful excuse in this sense.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I couldn't do a cut and paste so I just quoted the article. The relevant bit was the second page that was pointing out that legally there is no difference between a choke and a strangulation because the definition of strangulation includes both vascular and air choke.

Strangulation, sometimes referred to as choking or garrotting, is defined as the obstruction of blood vessels and/or airflow in the neck leading to asphyxia.

An additional danger can be damage to the Vagus nerve causing ongoing heart problems.

Then the next point regards 'indictable offence'.

Whosoever:
by any means attempts to choke suffocate or strangle any person, or

by any means calculated to choke suffocate or strangle, attempts to render any person insensible unconscious or incapable of resistance,

with intent in any such case to enable himself or herself or another person to commit, or with intent in any such case to assist any person in committing, an indictable offence, shall be liable to imprisonment for 25 years.

Apart from the criminal law element there is civil law. Even if you applied a choke to prevent an indictable offence or in self defence you could still be liable for damages.

'Lawful excuse' is a very vague term. Step slightly to one side slightly and you are outside 'lawful excuse'. That is why the security guys I know have taken it out of their tool bag. Some smart lawyer is going to have them in civil court potentially costing huge money.

Now nothing here has anything to do with sport grappling as that is seen as 'consensual fighting' under Victorian law, so it is perfectly legal to teach it within that context, but there is no way I would be teaching one as potentially legal and one as not.

 

[Buka]

BJJ has great benefits but it isn't designed for SD, in fact if you were devising a system for SD that last thing you would do would be to base it around taking things to the ground. Why not instead promote your system based on it's actual benefits, not it's made up ones? That's like building an F1 car and then trying to sell it based on it's off roading abilities.

I completely disagree. Not with the part about F1 cars.
I've been a karate man a long time. Bjj is one of the best SD trainings I've ever experienced.

 

[ballen0351]

I completely disagree. Not with the part about F1 cars.
I've been a karate man a long time. Bjj is one of the best SD trainings I've ever experienced.

And Ill disagree with you LOL

 

[Steve]

Not quite sure about that… yeah, chokes aren't considered "legal" in many circumstances… but much of that is not in the self defence law, it's to do with security and law enforcement training and procedure. Additionally, while "chokes" are out, "strangulations" aren't… the difference in classification is whether it interrupts the blood flow (strangulation), or the airways (choke). A choke has the potential to cause some internal damage (swelling and bruising) which can close off the airway even after the choke is released… sometimes half an hour or more later… so are considered more "potentially lethal". Strangulations, on the other hand, don't have this potential drawback, so are considered "safe" to use and apply. A rear naked choke would classify as a strangulation in these terms, rather than a choke (despite the name), so is still "legal". Of course, in self defence, it comes down to a lot more than that… but I basically teach strangulations rather than chokes in the main to avoid such a potential legal battle occurring down the track. (Note: the definitions I have given are as I understand current Victorian law… medically speaking, the definitions are often a bit different, with strangulation being an external restriction on airflow [or blood flow], and choking is internal [such as choking on a chicken bone, for example]).

The technique featured in the video is a blood constriction… a strangulation… which would be fine, in the main. I do agree with the idea of not necessarily using it to advertise in that way, but that's a personal interpretation of the ad itself… it raises a few questions for me, but not worth getting into here.

Can you provide some support for this? You may be right, but this is exactly the opposite of what I've always been told.

Strangle is attacking the wind pipe. Choke restricts blood flow to brain. Never heard it otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Danny T]

To strangle is to choke by compressing of the air way or to interfere with breathing.
To choke is to restrict. On a human it can be blood or air flow.
One can die from being strangled by a choking of the throat. Or one can die by being choked by an arm wrapped around the neck restricting the blood flow to the brain.

 

[Hanzou]

I completely disagree. Not with the part about F1 cars.
I've been a karate man a long time. Bjj is one of the best SD trainings I've ever experienced.

I thought this thread was interesting;

Grappling attacker Using a knife and gun for self defense MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

...from a poster who was concerned about being grappled to the ground by a mugger (according to some report she read, muggers like to take their victims to the ground). She considered buying a knife to deal with a grappler, instead of learning grappling herself.

Seems like in a situation like that, knowing Bjj would be a very good idea.

 

[ballen0351]

I thought this thread was interesting;

Grappling attacker Using a knife and gun for self defense MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

...from a poster who was concerned about being grappled to the ground by a mugger (according to some report she read, muggers like to take their victims to the ground). She considered buying a knife to deal with a grappler, instead of learning grappling herself.

Seems like in a situation like that, knowing Bjj would be a very good idea.

I've taken alot of robbery reports over the last 15 years I don't know of any where a suspect grappled a victim to the ground. The closest would be knocking them down. Or hitting them and they fall. Usually if the suspect is armed they never even touch the victim they order them to hand over the property and they usually do.