When restraint is applied from behind this way, the force of resistance is lateral rather than vertical. By jumping and bearing one's entire weight down on the Lung 7 point on the wrist, the grip can...
www.facebook.com
There's certainly plenty of bad technique being taught out there. Rather than just pointing and laughing, it might be more instructive to break down how this technique might have been created, what it gets right, and how it went wrong.
So ... the idea behind the technique being shown is actually a useful principle to understand. Leaving aside for a moment the faulty understanding of cuffing technique, the person doing the demo has their arms bent behind them, with upward pressure being applied to their wrists at right angles to their upper arms. This gives the person holding them a mechanical advantage. Not a huge advantage, given that the arms aren't fully bent, but enough that the defender probably can't force their arms straight without possessing superior strength. If only one arm was held, then the defender could rotate their body to change the angle of force, but with both arms being held, that isn't an option. So by jumping upwards, the defender is able to straighten their arm without fighting directly against the attacker's force. Once their arm is straight, then the attacker's upwards force is now travelling along the length of the arm rather than coming in at right angles to a bent arm and offers no mechanical advantage, making it easy to break free. This concept - moving in an unrestricted direction to change the angle of a limb so that it isn't vulnerable to control - is very useful in escaping submissions.
No, where it went wrong ...
Firstly, there's the lack of understanding of how cuffing procedure works. I've never worked in law enforcement, so I'm certainly no expert. But the way the attacker is holding the defender in this video doesn't seem particularly conducive to effectively handcuffing either a compliant or a resisting suspect. (Here, I started to speculate, then decided it would be smarter to just search YouTube for instruction in proper LEO handcuffing methods. Sure enough, none of them show anything like what the attacker using in the video and the demonstrated technique would be irrelevant or ineffective for any of them.)
Secondly, even if we leave aside the stated "resisting arrest" scenario, the demo fails to take into account what could happen if the attacker doesn't just stand there statically. If as the defender jumps upwards, the attacker raises their wrists to follow, then gravity will put the defender in a much deeper double hammerlock position and possibly injure them as they come back down.
Thirdly, putting aside any arguments about the
ethics of resisting arrest, the real world practicalities are that it rarely leads to improved outcomes for the person resisting. Possible results can range anywhere from being dogpiled and handcuffed in a much more painful way all the way to being shot dead. (In fairness, the video only shows a clip of the technique without explanation. It's possible that the instructor was actually just trying to demo a technique for escaping a poorly executed double hammerlock and whoever posted it to Facebook added the "resist arrest" headline as clickbait.)
So, what do we have? We have a legitimately useful physical principle (probably learned via techniques which have actually been properly tested) being creatively applied to a novel context, but without any attempt to investigate the realities of that particular situation or testing to see what flaws the new technique might have against a resisting opponent. That describes ... well, rather a lot of the bad techniques I see being taught by instructors who have some legitimate skills in other areas.
