Irresponsible Gracie Jiu-Jitsu ad?

[Hanzou]

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.

Just going by what they posted in that thread Ballen.

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[drop bear]

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

mate of mine did two years. For breaking a guys teeth in a fight. When he wrestled him to the ground. Because he grabbed around the guys neck it became a major component in convicting him.

 

[Chris Parker]

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 choking5 or garrotting,6 is defined as the obstruction of blood vessels and/or airflow in the neck leading to asphyxia.

Yeah, I got that… in fact, I'd already pointed out the medical definition that stated as such ("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]")… of course, it's not quite that simple either… for example, it lists "garrotting" as an alternate (comparative) term… although that refers to using some apparatus to achieve the strangulation, which is not necessary for the "strangulation" definition. Additionally, the footnote to the definition of "choking" on that page continues to define "choking" as affecting the airways exclusively ("Note, ‘choking’ is actually a blockage of the windpipe by food or other object: see Gael Strack and George McClane, ‘How to Improve your Investigation and Prosecution of Strangulation Cases’ (National Family Justice Center Alliance, 1998, updated January 2003 and September 2007).")

The part I was focusing on in your comments are where you state that you're not 100% on Victorian law regarding such methods and techniques, but that it was "certainly out" for security guys… however, neither of the articles linked had anything to do with that at all, as they were both focused on domestic abuse (and the NSW Law article pointed out that Victoria's laws are different to NSW's). I'm also not sure that it's "certainly out" for security guys… it's far from the go-to that it might have been previously, but that's not to do with legalities… it's more to do with what looks good on security cameras… which is becoming (has become) a big part of what determines the training these days.

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

Yep, true.

Then the next point regards 'indictable offence'.

Yep, which was a way of demonstrating that the act itself was not, in the strictest definition, the criminal act by itself. Honestly, I find that rather unsettling… but feel that the assault laws can be applied to the act without it necessarily preceding (or intending to precede) another indictable offence.

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.

Absolutely.

'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.

Yeah, it is (a vague term)… many such definitions are, mainly to not exclude something unusual, and have someone hide behind "it's not strictly illegal…" The more definitive the terms are, the more is excluded, which can be exploited. Of course, the downside is that the definition can get so vague as to be almost meaningless, leaving it up to the individuals in question to figure out their own application of the term(s).

Again, though, the security guys haven't taken it out due to any legal requirements, it's to prevent the security personnel (and the people they work for) from being open to the very situations you're describing.

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.

I wouldn't say "potentially legal", so much as "potentially legally defensible"… but again, I'm not teaching security guards, I'm teaching in the realms of self defence… which is less focused on how things look on camera (although that does get addressed a relative amount).

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.

Sure.

Firstly, medical definitions, as they go against the way you've heard it. http://www.janedoe.org/site/assets/docs/Learn_More/DV_Homicide/JDI_MediaGuide_Strangulation.pdf

Choking
 Definition: internal obstruction of the airway.
 Correct: Children can choke on hard candies.
 Incorrect: The victim was choked by her ex-boyfriend.

Strangulation
 Definition: external force by the hands, arms, legs, or ligature that results in restriction of oxygen intake and blood flow to the brain
 Correct: Mr. Smith was arrested during a previous incident when he strangled Mrs. Smith to unconsciousness.

Is choking the same as strangulation

Question: Is choking the same as strangulation?

Answer:

No. Both choking and strangulation refer to a restriction of air (asphyxiation) caused by something other than a disease process, but choking comes from inside the throat and strangulation comes from outside.

As far as usage of terminology within security, my information came firstly from my Chief Instructor, who is government accredited to create and write Security Industry Training Programs (as well as others), and is supported by the following thread on an Australian Security Industry Forum (note: the definitions I'm dealing with, when it comes to security applications, are very much the ones used locally here… in the US it may vary greatly, or not at all, or anywhere in-between, and indeed, may vary from State to State, as it does here. That might account for you understanding a different interpretation):

Australian Security Workers Forum - Choke out

Some relevant quotes are in post #16 ("The general problem with choke holds or strangulation holds (which are two different techniques - one cutting off the air, one cutting off the blood) is legally defining them as "reasonable force.""), and post #9 ("The Vascular Neck Restraint and Shoulder Pin are very effective techniques for dealing with difficult and/or dangerous restraint situations however the Vascular Neck Restraint is generally not recommended as it can easily become a 'Respiratory Neck Restraint' aka 'choke hold' especially when attempted by someone who has not learnt the technique correctly and has not practiced the technique regularly. It is also seen by bystanders as a choke.").

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.

Hmm, that's not the way I read Cercei's thread… it was more about how to determine when to apply lethal force, rather than "how do we deal with a grappling attacker". I also didn't read anything that suggested she was thinking of getting a blade herself based on the email she got from a mailing list (the second half of the OP)… or anything that really suggested she was concerned overly about a grappling attacker as opposed to any other. And, honestly, if I was around when she first posted that, I would have pointed out some big errors in the email she got, as there are some real gaps in reality there (not unsurprising in a largely propaganda mail out, honestly).

Really, learning BJJ might have been a good idea, in the hypothetical and unsupported (from anything I've seen) claims of what a mugger would commonly do, but frankly, that would only be one of a number of options that could be considered equally valid and beneficial.

 

[drop bear]

Regarding going to court. How exactly do you prove the difference between a choke and a strangulation?

arm around the neck could be anything. So of course a victim of it will say he was unable to breath and fearing for his life.

a guy did this to me from a standing head arm triangle. And i don't think you can cut off a persons air from that position.

i really will stress this again. A judge generally knows nothing about being in a fight.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yep. That's really the big issue… the number of cases where the judge or magistrate in question has levelled a sentence or verdict based on a lack on knowledge about violence, martial arts, or similar are sadly numerous. This is the biggest reason such methods are discouraged in many areas (not illegal, but not really something that is preferred…), as it's very much a case of he said, he said… and who has the better lawyer…

 

[Transk53]

Yep, we don't need to pull guard, we actually know how to throw people.

Here's another vid, but its more tongue in cheek;

Damn, will be showing that to my Sister.

 

[K-man]

Yeah, I got that… in fact, I'd already pointed out the medical definition that stated as such ("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]")… of course, it's not quite that simple either… for example, it lists "garrotting" as an alternate (comparative) term… although that refers to using some apparatus to achieve the strangulation, which is not necessary for the "strangulation" definition. Additionally, the footnote to the definition of "choking" on that page continues to define "choking" as affecting the airways exclusively ("Note, ‘choking’ is actually a blockage of the windpipe by food or other object: see Gael Strack and George McClane, ‘How to Improve your Investigation and Prosecution of Strangulation Cases’ (National Family Justice Center Alliance, 1998, updated January 2003 and September 2007).")

I think you are trying to read too much into what I posted. The law doesn't care about medical definition. Under the law if you restrict blood flow or air supply it is viewed as strangulation. Now martial artists make what I believe to be a valid differentiation but that doesn't occur under the law. If you use one of these techniques then I would assume the situation would be similar to NSW law.

What the police must prove:
To convict you of an attempts to choke charge, the police must prove each of the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. You, with the intention of enabling yourself or some other person to commit an indictable offence or assisting any person to commit an indictable offence.
2. Either:
   1. (a) attempted to choke, strangle or suffocate any person.
   2. (b)
      1. (i) By any means calculated to choke, suffocate or strangle.
      2. (ii) Attempted to render any person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance.

Attempts To Choke - Assault - Criminal Law Articles

And as I said, even if you beat the criminal charge you may still face civil action.

Australian Security Workers Forum - Choke out

I think it's relevant to look at that entire post as it is pointing out the same information I was trying to impart.

The general problem with choke holds or strangulation holds (which are two different techniques - one cutting off the air, one cutting off the blood) is legally defining them as "reasonable force." This comes down to two main reasons, with a lot of other subsequent problems.

1. Authorised, Justified or Excused by Law.

2. Was this use of force "reasonable."

Dealing with the first point is relatively black and white until you start digging. Look up your relevant statutory and caselaw requirements. Usually these revolve around your powers to prevent Breaches of the Peace, or Powers of Arrest (which hintity hint hint: are not very powerful). A general rule is that you have to power to prevent harm to others and yourself using proportionate force to the danger presented (this is found at common law: McCleland v Symons [1951] VLR 157 and many others).

The act of rendering someone unconscious is generally seen as one step below Grievous Bodily Harm (which is in turn only a little below Manslaughter). By rendering someone unconscious, you are removing their ability to give consent, make decisions and defend themselves from harm. If harm happens to an individual you have rendered unconscious, you can generally be held liable. In very real cases I have read, this is not limited to: Rendering someone unconscious and them subsequently falling and breaking bones, Rendering someone unconscious and them falling into cardiac arrest or respiratory arrest, Officers continuing to apply restraint to an unconscious person causing them unnecessary injury.

If you are choosing to use these techniques, the legal obligations under my First point are whether you were Authorised to do so (e.g. you did this technique as a part of a sport or Martial Art training), Justified (e.g. you were able to use the technique to conduct a lawful arrest or activity) or Excused by law (e.g. Self Defense).

The legal ramifications from my Second point are if you were Authorised, Justified or Excused, was the force you used "reasonable" which in turn leads to "proportionate to the danger" which is where most security officers come unstuck. Because the techniques generally have a high risk of danger, and generally aim to render unconsciousness, then the actions of the person must be seen as likely to cause bodily harm to themselves or others and that there was no other way to control said person.

You will have a tough fight trying to prove latter part (especially to a Jury) who will usually conclude that you probably had a plethora of other techniques you could have used. Most Police Services now discourage (or ban) the use of these holds, which makes it hard to justify why a Security Officer should need to use them.

Ultimately, only use this technique if you are confident you have no other option, and you have exhausted all other options below lethal force.

And as usual, do your own research and proper training before even considering them.

I'm not saying it's illegal to use these techniques but it may well be more trouble than it's worth. Hence when my friend, who also trains and manages security guards, tells me his guys don't use them any more for the reasons I have given, I believe him.

 

[Chris Parker]

I think you are trying to read too much into what I posted. The law doesn't care about medical definition. Under the law if you restrict blood flow or air supply it is viewed as strangulation. Now martial artists make what I believe to be a valid differentiation but that doesn't occur under the law. If you use one of these techniques then I would assume the situation would be similar to NSW law.

The law is rather vague… and NSW law is a bit different to Victorian here (as noted in your link earlier). And, for the record, I was primarily looking at training terminology (general terms for Vascular Restraint being "strangulation", and Respiratory Restraint being "choke")… the strict legal definitions are another question… honestly, I don't think there's any actual one, looking into this…

And as I said, even if you beat the criminal charge you may still face civil action.

Yep, agreed.

I think it's relevant to look at that entire post as it is pointing out the same information I was trying to impart.
I'm not saying it's illegal to use these techniques but it may well be more trouble than it's worth. Hence when my friend, who also trains and manages security guards, tells me his guys don't use them any more for the reasons I have given, I believe him.

Cool, then we're agreed on this.

 

[Hanzou]

Hmm, that's not the way I read Cercei's thread… it was more about how to determine when to apply lethal force, rather than "how do we deal with a grappling attacker". I also didn't read anything that suggested she was thinking of getting a blade herself based on the email she got from a mailing list (the second half of the OP)… or anything that really suggested she was concerned overly about a grappling attacker as opposed to any other. And, honestly, if I was around when she first posted that, I would have pointed out some big errors in the email she got, as there are some real gaps in reality there (not unsurprising in a largely propaganda mail out, honestly).

Well she discusses the issue of when to use lethal force because of the email she is quoting from. The email makes the following claims;

1.Muggers tend to be wrestlers and prefer to grapple their victims to the ground.

2.The best defense against grapplers is the blade, because it's easier to conceal than a gun.

Her entire thread revolved around that premise.

Really, learning BJJ might have been a good idea, in the hypothetical and unsupported (from anything I've seen) claims of what a mugger would commonly do, but frankly, that would only be one of a number of options that could be considered equally valid and beneficial.

"Might" infers that it may also not be a good idea. In what way would a woman learning Bjj for self defense be a bad idea?

 

[Chris Parker]

"Might" infers that it may also not be a good idea. In what way would a woman learning Bjj for self defense be a bad idea?

A bad idea? I don't think I said that… I simply said it was one of a number. I'm not turning this into an art vs art debate… honestly, BJJ is one of the biggest suggestions I give for female self defence, for a variety of reasons… but that doesn't mean I think it's the best, most optimum, or anything else. Bluntly, I think what I offer is far superior… but then again, if I didn't, I probably wouldn't teach it.

 

[Transk53]

2.The best defense against grapplers is the blade, because it's easier to conceal than a gun.

I guess over here the Knife is the only thing to worry about. It is not unheard of for undesirables to carry credit cards with Stanley blades. Found one once, very nasty and easily concealable.

 

[ballen0351]

Just going by what they posted in that thread Ballen.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Im not shooting anyone just responding to what was posted. Id do it there but its like 10 years old. Most robberies are what we call Strong armed which means the suspected didnt have a weapon.Most of those are snatch and run. Basically run up grab a purse or phone shove the victim and run. The other thing we have had alot of is aversion of the knock out game where all of a sudden they punch you in the face to knock you down then go into you pockets take your stuff then run. Grappling takes time and they want to hit and run

 

[RTKDCMB]

What if the guy is bigger and stronger than you?

Someone bigger and stronger than you is going to be a problem to overcome either way. As for striking, the bigger they are, the harder you hit them.

Are you going to stand there and trade punches with him or try to hit vital spots while he's pulverizing you?

In a self defence situation you would not want to be trading punches and you would want to hit him in his vital spots before he pulverizes you.

What if they take YOU down to the ground? Are you going to try to fight your way back to your feet?

Yes, I would be trying to get to my feet (which I have done before) because on my feet I have mobility, on the ground I do not.

 

[Hanzou]

Im not shooting anyone just responding to what was posted. Id do it there but its like 10 years old. Most robberies are what we call Strong armed which means the suspected didnt have a weapon.Most of those are snatch and run. Basically run up grab a purse or phone shove the victim and run. The other thing we have had alot of is aversion of the knock out game where all of a sudden they punch you in the face to knock you down then go into you pockets take your stuff then run. Grappling takes time and they want to hit and run

No argument here Ballen. Again, I'm just using the thread as an example of a woman's very real concerns. Concerns that many woman probably have. As men, we don't have to worry that much about some random guy coming up and grabbing us from behind and dragging us to a dark place to assault us. Women do, simply because its more likely to happen to them. So if a woman came to me with that email and was looking for some answers, I wouldn't tell her what you said above.

 

[Steve]

So, it sounds like, medically speaking, a choke is caused by an obstruction. Something in your throat blocking air.

Strangle is external, either blood or air. Do I have that right?

Either way, common usage in BJJ is what I described, fwiw.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Hanzou]

Someone bigger and stronger than you is going to be a problem to overcome either way. As for striking, the bigger they are, the harder you hit them.

Force against force? Interesting.

In a self defence situation you would not want to be trading punches and you would want to hit him in his vital spots before he pulverizes you.

And when you hit those "vital spots" and the guy is still pulverizing you, trading punches is exactly what you end up doing. Better to have another option if plan A doesn't work. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would be trying to get to my feet (which I have done before) because on my feet I have mobility, on the ground I do not.

Actually you won't need to try if you learn how to fight from that range. You control the tempo, the positioning, and the momentum. So instead of having to fight some clown off of you, you simply gain the dominant position and get up, or maintain standing position while dominating him in a downed position. The best way to get off the ground is to control it.

Additionally you do have a lot of mobility on the ground. You just need to learn how to move once you get there.

 

[ballen0351]

So, it sounds like, medically speaking, a choke is caused by an obstruction. Something in your throat blocking air.

Strangle is external, either blood or air. Do I have that right?

Either way, common usage in BJJ is what I described, fwiw.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Yes legally as well. If you tell me you were choked by an attacker. In my report I'd write you were strangled but I know what you Mean when you say you were choked. Kinda like saying the word robbed. People tell me all the time their house was robbed. I know what they mean but you can "rob" a house your house was burglarized not robbed

 

[tshadowchaser]

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?

Thats is when you run like hell, poke peoples eyes knee the groin and pull every dirty trick using whatever you get your hands on till you get to your feet and then ( oh ya here it comes) run like hell.

edited: sorry folks saw the above and thought i was on page 3 then realized I was on page 2

 

[Steve]

Yes legally as well. If you tell me you were choked by an attacker. In my report I'd write you were strangled but I know what you Mean when you say you were choked. Kinda like saying the word robbed. People tell me all the time their house was robbed. I know what they mean but you can "rob" a house your house was burglarized not robbed

Makes sense. If anything, the legal definition is a lot more *elegant {edit: relevant, not elegant} to a self defense discussion than a medical definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

No argument here Ballen. Again, I'm just using the thread as an example of a woman's very real concerns. Concerns that many woman probably have. As men, we don't have to worry that much about some random guy coming up and grabbing us from behind and dragging us to a dark place to assault us. Women do, simply because its more likely to happen to them. So if a woman came to me with that email and was looking for some answers, I wouldn't tell her what you said above.

Honestly the chances that will happen to a woman are also pretty slim. Most woman are attacked in their homes or vehicles. The rapist hiding in the dark ally are kinda rare. Not saying it doesn't happen but if your playing the odds your much more likely to be attacked as a female in your home