Would this work?

[Tez3]

insurgents i think or at least performing their role as soldiers. I don't believe he meant off duty pub brawls.

i have heard of hand to hand occurring during building raids. Iraq has a famous one during faluja.

and the Australian commandos have at least 1 documented one in Afghanistan. I have linked that one before. With Paul cale.


so it defiantly does happen.

It happens, but not 'thousands' of times. If it happens with commandos and SF then it's because it's being done on an operation by them not as a matter of course with the troops.
The policy of the insurgents is not to engage in CQF, they lay down IEDS because they know they injure our troops not kill them, this is deliberate, they want injured soldiers because they know then that our countries will have to continue paying and looking after them for years, they know that the sight of injured soldiers will continue to hurt us for years to come. When the limbs of our soldiers are blown off by these IEDs the Taliban collect them and hang them in the trees to taunt our troops.
They will mortar a school killing the children because they know our troops will come to help even knowing it is a trap. There are occasions where the insurgents will attack directly of course but this is rarer than some will make out. I've heard boasting about fighting hand to hand before but it's usually just that, boasting.

 

[jks9199]

insurgents i think or at least performing their role as soldiers. I don't believe he meant off duty pub brawls.

i have heard of hand to hand occurring during building raids. Iraq has a famous one during faluja.

and the Australian commandos have at least 1 documented one in Afghanistan. I have linked that one before. With Paul cale.


so it defiantly does happen.

Going hands on during building/room clearing is quite a bit different than "fighting with hand to hand." I'm not personally aware of any sort of extensive or pervasive fights a la a Chuck Norris or the fight scenes in The Expendables (any of them).

 

[Fog565]

Number one...I would never kick someone that is on the ground in that position. I also teach my students that. Will kicking somebody in the throat work?? That's a show stopper! Tony D is right about the legal issues. A kick to the throat could cause major injury or death that could land you in the clink. BUT....if there is a gun involved and they are reaching for it, do what you have to in order to stay alive or keep a by stander from getting shot. You were in fear for your life and they had a deadly weapon. Deadly force is legal in that aspect. Any law enforcement people please correct me if I'm wrong. Rich

 

[Hanzou]

The scenario in the video is hilarious. Basically the guy is just looking for an excuse to beat the crap out of a guy while he's down on all fours.

 

[Fog565]

I agree, Hanzou! The video suggests nothing other than kick somebody in the throat while they are down. Not a good example video IMO.

 

[ballen0351]

I agree, Hanzou! The video suggests nothing other than kick somebody in the throat while they are down. Not a good example video IMO.

Yeah forget about the gun thing and all

 

[Hanzou]

Yeah forget about the gun thing and all

Doesn't that scenario begin with the idea that you've already knocked the armed assailant on the ground and he dropped his gun in the process? If you did that to him standing up, does he really pose that much of a threat to you while on all fours and unarmed?

 

[ballen0351]

Doesn't that scenario begin with the idea that you've already knocked the armed assailant on the ground and he dropped his gun in the process? If you did that to him standing up, does he really pose that much of a threat to you while on all fours and unarmed?

Hes going for the gun thats laying right there. So yes hes still a threat. Thats the whole point

 

[Hanzou]

Hes going for the gun thats laying right there. So yes hes still a threat. Thats the whole point

Okay.

 

[Transk53]

Okay.

You a bit skeptical here?

 

[Hanzou]

You a bit skeptical here?

Just a bit.

I don't buy the notion that this is a defense against someone reaching for a gun. Why would you kick someone in the throat, watch them hilariously roll over onto their back, and continue to pummel them instead of just going for the gun after you kick them?

 

[Transk53]

That is a good point. Someone may well pick it up and turn your head into a canoe.

 

[K-man]

Doesn't that scenario begin with the idea that you've already knocked the armed assailant on the ground and he dropped his gun in the process? If you did that to him standing up, does he really pose that much of a threat to you while on all fours and unarmed?

No, the scenario starts with a guy on the ground and Larkin does some very nasty things to him. When the inappropriateness of the techniques is pointed out the gun is introduced with the express proviso that he is reaching for the gun.

As I said earlier, I've seen a lot of Tim Larkin's work. I find it excellent material and, to me, this is spot on. Wrestle over the gun and you have a good chance of being shot.

 

[drop bear]

That is a good point. Someone may well pick it up and turn your head into a canoe.

the point to take home here is the situation is not real. So in a hypothetical you can make anything happen.

lets take this a step further and suggest i was teaching torture as a self defence method.

i am basically grasping at straws if i come up with this idea that he could have a bomb and i have to find the location before he kills all the puppies.

 

[Hanzou]

No, the scenario starts with a guy on the ground and Larkin does some very nasty things to him. When the inappropriateness of the techniques is pointed out the gun is introduced with the express proviso that he is reaching for the gun.

As I said earlier, I've seen a lot of Tim Larkin's work. I find it excellent material and, to me, this is spot on. Wrestle over the gun and you have a good chance of being shot.

I didn't say wrestle over the gun. I said kick the guy in the face, let him roll 10 feet away onto his back, and then you grab the gun. The chest stomp, and the neck crank are silly and unnecessary.

 

[Transk53]

i am basically grasping at straws if i come up with this idea that he could have a bomb and i have to find the location before he kills all the puppies.

Guess it would depend on what type of puppies you are talking about

the point to take home here is the situation is not real. So in a hypothetical you can make anything happen.

Yeah that I agree with. Hypothetical though can become all too real when you least expect it. There must be something you have larked about with, only for it to manifest itself before your eyes and turn into a what the hell situation.

 

[drop bear]

Guess it would depend on what type of puppies you are talking about



Yeah that I agree with. Hypothetical though can become all too real when you least expect it. There must be something you have larked about with, only for it to manifest itself before your eyes and turn into a what the hell situation.

yes. But i am not earning a wage by teaching people to kick other people in the throat.

it does seem like an attempt at badassery that when called on is getting rationalised.

 

[ballen0351]

I didn't say wrestle over the gun. I said kick the guy in the face, let him roll 10 feet away onto his back, and then you grab the gun. The chest stomp, and the neck crank are silly and unnecessary.

Then what? You kicked him you grabbed the gun but he's still coming toward you? What do you do next?

 

[Transk53]

yes. But i am not earning a wage by teaching people to kick other people in the throat.

it does seem like an attempt at badassery that when called on is getting rationalised.

Yeah guess it is looking at that way. Violence don't tend to be rational unless calculated. Then again even then.

 

[K-man]

I think we should look at what yo actually wrote.

The scenario in the video is hilarious. Basically the guy is just looking for an excuse to beat the crap out of a guy while he's down on all fours.

You have a warped sense of humour if you find this hilarious. Larkin gave an example of an over the top response and put it into context. Within the context of the grab for the gun there was no over the top response, just the kick to the neck.

Doesn't that scenario begin with the idea that you've already knocked the armed assailant on the ground and he dropped his gun in the process? If you did that to him standing up, does he really pose that much of a threat to you while on all fours and unarmed?

No, the scenario didn't start that way. The gun was introduced half way through the video.

I don't buy the notion that this is a defense against someone reaching for a gun. Why would you kick someone in the throat, watch them hilariously roll over onto their back, and continue to pummel them instead of just going for the gun after you kick them?

You must have watched a different video. There was nothing after the kick in the scenario with the gun.

I didn't say wrestle over the gun. I said kick the guy in the face, let him roll 10 feet away onto his back, and then you grab the gun. The chest stomp, and the neck crank are silly and unnecessary.

The chest stomp and neck break were an illustration of over the top action that was later put into context. Was it unnecessary? Sure in this instance. Could there possibly be a situation where it is appropriate? Certainly.

But exactly where did you say anything about kicking him in the face, letting him roll ten feet and grabbing the gun? I've reread the thread three times and missed it each time.