Don't tell them you know martial arts

[K-man]

If a person has an aneurysm, damaged trachea, weak heart, or a brain issue, I seriously doubt they would be attacking you in a street encounter in the first place.

I seriously doubt you know what an aneurism is. If you did you would not have written what you did.

Again, I've applied numerous choke holds in my time within Bjj against a wide variety of people. In some cases, people were actually choked out because they didn't realize that the choke had been put on before its too late. To date, there's been no deaths, and no one has suffered any long term brain damage.

And nothing here has anything to do with self defence. In training I have done the same. It proves nothing.

In the end though, its better to be judged by 9 than carried by 6.

Poor advice I'm afraid. You will be unlikely to find anyone who teaches self defence saying that.

 

[K-man]

Any instructor that advocates kicking or stomping a downed foe on the head or neck is telling you to commit a felony. That is not legal self defense. At all. Ever.

Not true. You are entitled to use commensurate force and there are circumstances where it is justified.

 

[K-man]

You're talking to the choir my friend. I advocate a gentle choke over bludgeoning someone in the head over and over again.

Savage (and hilarious).

So when you have multiple attackers, potentially armed, you advocate a gentle choke over a violent encounter that gets you away safe?

I'm sorry, I teach, particularly against weapons (where I don't normally recommend trying to take the weapon immediately), that you continue striking until the danger no longer exists. You are not "bludgeoning someone in the head over and over again." You are attacking them until they are no longer a threat. That is where self defence ends.

You have a strange sense of humour if you think the clip above is hilarious and no understanding at all if you think retaliation against an attack is not savage.

 

[PhotonGuy]

No nobody deserves to "get pounded"

So people that try to rape and murder, they shouldn't be pounded? From what I know, in most places you are justified in using deadly force if you are in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Murder is self explanatory in that you're going to be dead if the person succeeds at it, rape falls under the category of grave bodily harm so both cases justify not only pounding the would be assailant but using deadly force too.

unless they say something you dont like then they a bullies and need pounding

No. When did I ever say that?

No once you are no longer in danger and continue to "teach" them a lesson your a criminal and are no better if not worse then the other person.

Well at that point it becomes excessive but using any level of force necessary to stop the bully when you are in danger shouldn't get you in trouble.

No it wouldn't there are many reason why people become bullies. Your simplistic view of punch a bully in the face and they go away just isnt true its just something you tell kids to help their confidence but in real life its not that simple. Fact is some people are just bad or evil standing up to them wont change that and will lead to more violence

That's why you need to use sufficient force to stop them which could go beyond punching them in the face. Sometimes you might even have to use deadly force.

 

[PhotonGuy]

↑
So punches to the head, or foot stomps to the head are not being advocated in this Krav Maga self defense video?

Any instructor that advocates kicking or stomping a downed foe on the head or neck is telling you to commit a felony. That is not legal self defense. At all. Ever.

From what I know, Krav Maga was developed for military use in which case you would be taught to kick or stomp or in any way you can to finish off a downed opponent since that's what you would do on the battlefield. On the street kicking or stomping a downed opponent might be excessive.

 

[Hanzou]

Just curious... Did you actually read my post? Did anything I wrote say that it was automatically okay, or even generally acceptable? I don't believe so. I believe I said that there could be circumstances which would justify extreme moves. And, incidentally, I'll again note that a chokehold stands a VERY high likelihood of being found to be lethal force in many circumstances.

How would it be found to be lethal force if the assailant isn't harmed in any way from it? Further, how would bludgeoning someone with your hands and feet while they're on the ground be a more favorable, or humane option than a choke that can have the assailant unconscious and unhurt in a matter of seconds?

In the clip you've got here, you wouldn't be justified in choking the guy on the ground, either. He's down, not posing any further threat.

You wouldn't need to. From that position you can pin him with your legs and his trapped arm, and make sure he's no longer a threat. However, a choke is still an option, if you deem it necessary.

Maybe, just maybe, there's a whole world of self defense beyond chokes and BJJ. Maybe there are a lot of issues beyond the mere physical technique used in any use of force. I mean, it's not like I'm not just slightly knowledgeable in the issues of use of force. Being an instructor in LE firearms and LE defensive tactics, as well as an experienced officer and field trainer.,

So tell me Mr. LE officer, if given the choice, how would you finish off an assailant that had to be subdued? Would you choke him into unconsciousness, or would you beat him into unconsciousness?

 

[K-man]

Well at that point it becomes excessive but using any level of force necessary to stop the bully when you are in danger shouldn't get you in trouble.

That's why you need to use sufficient force to stop them which could go beyond punching them in the face. Sometimes you might even have to use deadly force.

Um. No, just no! You can't go around killing bullies because they deserve it.

I think you need to look at exactly what constitutes bullying. In the most extreme case it probably is present in domestic violence and yes, occasionally the victim has killed the perpetrator.

In Australia we have just got rid of the defence of provocation where the bully has killed his victim because allegedly the victim provoced the bully. In effect that is what you are advocating in reverse.

 

[Hanzou]

Perhaps you should turn the volume on when you watch these videos, that is assuming you watched it at all. The guy did say to use two punches to the head to finish 'if needed'. Now obviously you have not taught self defence or been taught self defence. If you had any experience in that field you would know that you can use commensurate force, and you can take whatever action is necessary to remove the threat. That is exactly what was advocated.

So when you start punching or kicking someone's face into the concrete, do you hold back, or do you go full force?

In sports with referees there is little danger from chokes. In the real world there is every chance you will go to jail if you use a choke inappropriately.

As I stated earlier, in competition, in class, and in the street, you can tell when a person goes limp from a choke. When Ryan Hall choked out riff raff in front of a restaurant, he released him immediately, because he knew he had gone limp from the choke. Unlike most people being trained to stomp someone's face into the concrete until they're unconsciousness, Bjj and MMA exponents have actually choked out resisting opponents, and no the amount of force necessary.

 

[Drose427]

So when you start punching or kicking someone's face into the concrete, do you hold back, or do you go full force?



As I stated earlier, in competition, in class, and in the street, you can tell when a person goes limp from a choke. When Ryan Hall choked out riff raff in front of a restaurant, he released him immediately, because he knew he had gone limp from the choke. Unlike most people being trained to stomp someone's face into the concrete until they're unconsciousness, Bjj and MMA exponents have actually choked out resisting opponents, and no the amount of force necessary.

You keep saying "punching or kicking someones face into the concrete" but nobody else in this thread has endorsed, or stood by doing so for SD, not sure why you're making an argument based on a point nobody has made. XD

In combatives, yes it would be normal to "stomp into the concrete"

On the same coin, nobodys letting go of an armbar in combatives either XD

Even when K-man explained, you would be repeatedly beating them over and over, because theyd no longer be a threat long before that, you keep clinging to that argument.

You're trying to look for an argument, thats apples to oranges and nobody has made, using a youtube video so you can brag about BJJ.

if you're gonna contribute and ask for explanations pay attention to the ones given

 

[ballen0351]

So people that try to rape and murder, they shouldn't be pounded?

No they should be arrested taken to trial convicted and punished accordingly.

From what I know, in most places you are justified in using deadly force if you are in danger of death or grave bodily harm. Murder is self explanatory in that you're going to be dead if the person succeeds at it, rape falls under the category of grave bodily harm so both cases justify not only pounding the would be assailant but using deadly force too.

true but pounding someone because they deserve it is different then defending yourself. I have no problem with self defense. I have a problem with your belief you shouldn't get in trouble for beating someone you deem deserved it

No. When did I ever say that?

Multiple times on multiple threads you believe you have the right to punish people for bad behavior.

Well at that point it becomes excessive but using any level of force necessary to stop the bully when you are in danger shouldn't get you in trouble.

No not ANY level of force but an appropriate level to stop the threat your correct.

That's why you need to use sufficient force to stop them which could go beyond punching them in the face. Sometimes you might even have to use deadly force.

nobodys said anything otherwise

 

[ballen0351]

So tell me Mr. LE officer, if given the choice, how would you finish off an assailant that had to be subdued? Would you choke him into unconsciousness, or would you beat him into unconsciousness?

Id break out the Taser

 

[Hanzou]

So when you have multiple attackers, potentially armed, you advocate a gentle choke over a violent encounter that gets you away safe?

Nice straw man. I said that I advocate a gentle choke over continuously bashing someone's face into the ground in order to subdue them. If you enough time to start punching a downed target in the face, you have enough time for a choke.

Multiple armed attackers? You're in a lot of trouble, regardless what your training is.

I'm sorry, I teach, particularly against weapons (where I don't normally recommend trying to take the weapon immediately), that you continue striking until the danger no longer exists. You are not "bludgeoning someone in the head over and over again." You are attacking them until they are no longer a threat. That is where self defence ends.

Bludgeoning someone in the head over and over, and "striking until they are no longer a threat" is beating someone until they're incapacitated in both cases. I'm still not seeing how beating someone unconscious is more safe than a choke.

You have a strange sense of humour if you think the clip above is hilarious and no understanding at all if you think retaliation against an attack is not savage.

It's hilarious because someone actually thinks they can stop a takedown with a stomping kick to the chest.

 

[Hanzou]

Id break out the Taser

You're unarmed.

 

[ballen0351]

You're unarmed.

then Im in my bed since thats just about the only time Im unarmed. And in that case IM not detaining anyone

 

[Drose427]

It's hilarious because someone actually thinks they can stop a takedown with a stomping kick to the chest.

A downward elbow strike or good old rabbit punch stop my grappling friends dang near every time, usually before I really need to even start sprawling.

if the guys already on his back (in the way from your clip) hes not taking anyone down, nor was that implied in the clip, so idk where youre drawing that conclusion from

 

[Hanzou]

You keep saying "punching or kicking someones face into the concrete" but nobody else in this thread has endorsed, or stood by doing so for SD, not sure why you're making an argument based on a point nobody has made. XD

So you're saying that Krav Maga and other street-based martial arts don't advocate punching and kicking a downed target on the neck or head "if necessary"?

In combatives, yes it would be normal to "stomp into the concrete"

Then you're simply arguing semantics.

On the same coin, nobodys letting go of an armbar in combatives either XD

And an armbar isn't going to kill anyone. A stomping kick to the throat definitely could.

Even when K-man explained, you would be repeatedly beating them over and over, because theyd no longer be a threat long before that, you keep clinging to that argument.

What?

You're trying to look for an argument, thats apples to oranges and nobody has made, using a youtube video so you can brag about BJJ.

The argument was that a choke is some super dangerous act that can kill someone in a matter of seconds. I was simply correcting that faulty logic. Especially since it was coming from people who are perfectly fine with punching or stomping someone in the face while they're on the ground.

 

[pgsmith]

It's hilarious because someone actually thinks they can stop a takedown with a stomping kick to the chest.

Spoken with utmost confidence as someone that has obviously never had to fight for their life. You should listen to those that know much more than you do. It's the only way to grow intellectually as a person.

You're unarmed.

I would be willing to bet that he is never in that situation. As proven by the post he made while I was writing!

 

[drop bear]

f a person has an aneurysm, damaged trachea, weak heart, or a brain issue, I seriously doubt they would be attacking you in a street encounter in the first place.

No. They still do. And ironically can include massive steroid pumpers.

 

[Hanzou]

Spoken with utmost confidence as someone that has obviously never had to fight for their life. You should listen to those that know much more than you do. It's the only way to grow intellectually as a person.

Speaking as a person who has quite a bit experience stopping takedowns, I can assure you that you're not stopping a DLT attempt with that kind of kick.

If anyone on here believes that they can, then they clearly don't know more about that than I do.

 

[Hanzou]

No. They still do. And ironically can include massive steroid pumpers.

Well in that case there's nothing you can really do. Anything done physically to a person like that could kill them, much less a choke.

A downward elbow strike or good old rabbit punch stop my grappling friends dang near every time, usually before I really need to even start sprawling.

An elbow strike and a rabbit punch is the same as performing a front stomping kick while someone is trying to tackle or DLT you?

if the guys already on his back (in the way from your clip) hes not taking anyone down, nor was that implied in the clip, so idk where youre drawing that conclusion from

Yeah, you misread what I wrote.