At point did I mention the threat being gone? You misunderstood by what I mean "don't let it go" I also clearly stated "depends on the situation" There was no inference when it comes to your reply.
Would this work?
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
- Status
At point did I mention the threat being gone? You misunderstood by what I mean "don't let it go" I also clearly stated "depends on the situation" There was no inference when it comes to your reply.
Yeah, with the scenario as shown with the bad guy practically with his hand on the gun it gets real hard to do much of anything effective in time. At that range getting hold of the weapon arm and trying to control it seems like it might be the best you could hope for. When you said that grapple attempts failed, did you just mean they failed to stop the bad guy from reaching the gun or that there was no luck in controlling the weapon arm?
You mentioned varying the distance to the gun - how far away did it have to be before the situation got more manageable?
OK... so, can you describe circumstances under which a person might NOT try to end a self defense situation as rapidly as possible?
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
Apparently I wasnt the only one that misunderstood. As DD asked can you explain what you meant please
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I would assume if you had already knocked the guy down and removed the gun from his hand you would have the upper hand to continue the attack. You would be closing distance as he was falling down and attacking before he was able to get his wits about him to find the gun.
This is a good point. The scenario starts "mid stream" (cue bathroom joke...), which takes a bit of the "reality" out of RBSD...
Maybe start with "what could I do to a gun-wielding attacker that would result in their ending up on hands and knees with the gun right... THERE... and then play it out.
We were talking about how the situation came about but apart from the guy slipping and dropping the weapon.
What was certain though, and was pointed out by an ex-cop, was your assessment where you suggested you would use your own gun. That was the only irrefutable solution.
Simply put, if you are facing someone down intent on fighting you, you turn it around. You get in their head, you delay it long enough while back up is coming. You tell them that back up is on the way. You tell them if they do not back down, then are going to get hurt. If they kick off, then so be it. Over here we can't afford to go loco, we have to wait until they strike. As doorman, we have little choice other than to look weak, or get in their head. It is evasive SD that we have to do. Rapid SD would involve putting them down, and you know what, we in essence cannot use traditional SD. That is why we delay. Understand that or not, you have to be in a position where you dealing with coked up morons, morons carrying bladed credit cards, shanks, knifes and the worst, morons wielding broken bottles. Hey, battering the crap out of someone is not the only form of SD. Using a palm strike etc. is not the only form of SD. Using your brain and being clever about is also a form of SD. You also use their narrow frame of reference on how you defend yourself, they expect you to fight. Using that against them is also SD. Anything to get yourself home safely. The ultimate SD, you don't get arrested. My take, take it or leave it.
Grappling attempts failed to stop him bringing the gun to bear. None of us claims to be any more than practical when it comes to grappling so a highly skilled person would obviously have more options than we do. But that is what guys like Tim Larkin are about, that is what Krav is about. We are not training people to grapple. The person being trained to use these techniques is likely to have little, if any, previous training and we have found when they do have some training, often it is not of much benefit.
In terms of distance, if the gun was even 6 inches further away it gave you time because bad guy had to reach further and couldn't just grab and roll.
Another question was, how was he on the ground and we were so close? Hard to explain unless it was the end point of the scenario where we are rushing in while bad guy is scrambling for his weapon. In that case your momentum would enable you to do much more. A second option could be that we were previous engaged, something happened causing him to drop the weapon and he is diving for it. Then you question why wouldn't you have pushed him away or dived for the weapon yourself.
I think it's easiest to say what is being shown is an illustration of what you might do in that situation rather than a drill that is practical in a situation that is completely variable.
We don't have to wait until they strike, that's a myth. The law here says that if you are in fear of your life you can strike first and you can use a weapon if you have something you can use.
contrary to what many believe no one has ever been prosecuted in this country for legitimately defending themselves, the CPS even put out a statement proving this. My instructor is a head doorman in Newcastle and they do use traditional SD in fact they use TMA techniques to 'defend' themselves. It's one of the toughest places in the UK to do the doors, they don't delay, they get rid of asap. It doesn't always have to be 'fighting' though but you can if you have to.
the law on self defence. If you look under pre-emptive strike you will see there is no law that says you have to wait to be hit!
Self Defence Legal Guidance The Crown Prosecution Service
There is also a bit that covers security guards and doormen and such under 'public duty'.
Good points all around.
I'd probably feel more comfortable trying to control the weapon arm than relying on the kick, but I've got thousands of hours of grappling experience. For someone without that background, the kick might offer better odds.
Interesting to hear that having the gun even six inches further makes such a difference. Distancing really is hugely important.
So... I'm not seeing anything there about not ending it as quickly as possible. I see stuff about deescalating, I see stuff about redirecting. And I agree with all that, especially since I do deal with "coked up morons, morons carrying bladed credit cards, shanks, knifes and the worst, morons wielding broken bottles" as well as people with guns.
What I don't see is anything remotely connected to not ending it as quickly as possible. What you said came across as meaning extending the encounter longer than absolutely necessary. That's entirely different to what you're saying here.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
So we're fraud busting now huh?
Maybe. I don't personally care for the elbow strike to the solar plexus from that position. The angles are bad, and you're likely to end up striking with the entire forearm, which spreads out the impact too much. I'd more likely use a fist or palm heel.
Not really. I've seen people with far more dramatic reactions to real life strikes. And I've seen people with far less reaction. It's a reasonable demo.
K-man it is nice that you had the opportunity to put the scenario into play in your training. Very cool.
One thing I have found interesting in training drills and scenarios is to have a weapon/tool come into play spontaneously or out of the blue. (ie. thrown on the floor, placed on a shelf, drawn from a concealed location, etc.) The dynamics of the training rapidly shift to working to getting control of the tool or preventing the other person from getting control of it. When done out of the blue without anyone knowing about it the reactions are interesting. Whoever reacts quickly to the unexpected stimulus of the tool placement has potentially a great advantage. I have seen people react immediately, delayed reaction and someone have an "oh ****" moment because they didn't react and the other person did. Interesting training for sure!
One thing I have found interesting in training drills and scenarios is to have a weapon/tool come into play spontaneously or out of the blue. (ie. thrown on the floor, placed on a shelf, drawn from a concealed location, etc.) The dynamics of the training rapidly shift to working to getting control of the tool or preventing the other person from getting control of it. When done out of the blue without anyone knowing about it the reactions are interesting. Whoever reacts quickly to the unexpected stimulus of the tool placement has potentially a great advantage. I have seen people react immediately, delayed reaction and someone have an "oh ****" moment because they didn't react and the other person did. Interesting training for sure!
Obviously different where you are then. Down here, you can't do nothing like that. Two of my fellow doorman got arrested after a code black. Got jumped by 10 aggressors, but they got suspended for three months without work. I got in trouble just for hauling some idiot out of Oceana, just because he alleged assault. The jumped up inspector wanted to view the CCTV. I had my head door come down to see me, and when he told I could not believe it. Nah, we cannot preempt anything down here, if we do, it has to be a dangerous threat. The only thing we do is push. The criminal protectection society do not like door staff. We have justify everything sadly. Door staff getting arrested after a code black says it all.
Transk you can disagree with me but I've told you what the law actually is. It is not a different law where you are, it still stands. I assume none of the incidents you mentioned have gone to court?
Firstly, why wouldn't the inspector want to look at the cctv? An allegation of assault has been made, of course he's going to look at it, it will prove whether you or the person making the allegation is telling the truth. Are you upset that the inspector didn't believe you immediately?
Arresting someone doesn't actually mean much, it's likely to happen to anyone involved in a violent situation, when the police arrive at the scene and there's allegations flying everywhere they cannot just pick a side to believe so everyone gets arrested, very easy to de-arrest, it separates people up for a start so that statements can be made. It is hard if you feel you are being arrested for nothing but can you tell who is telling the truth is you arrive at a fight scene? Any police officer will tell you the same. You can't assume that anyone is telling the truth or in fact lying. I assume that the cctv actually cleared you?
Do you feel you shouldn't have to justify anything? Police officers have to justify what they do ( and they do have to trust me) why shouldn't doormen?
Firstly, why wouldn't the inspector want to look at the cctv? An allegation of assault has been made, of course he's going to look at it, it will prove whether you or the person making the allegation is telling the truth. Are you upset that the inspector didn't believe you immediately?
Arresting someone doesn't actually mean much, it's likely to happen to anyone involved in a violent situation, when the police arrive at the scene and there's allegations flying everywhere they cannot just pick a side to believe so everyone gets arrested, very easy to de-arrest, it separates people up for a start so that statements can be made. It is hard if you feel you are being arrested for nothing but can you tell who is telling the truth is you arrive at a fight scene? Any police officer will tell you the same. You can't assume that anyone is telling the truth or in fact lying. I assume that the cctv actually cleared you?
Do you feel you shouldn't have to justify anything? Police officers have to justify what they do ( and they do have to trust me) why shouldn't doormen?
I think the question should always be 'could this work?'
Reactions like this are important to set up the next technique, so I disagree that his reactions are over the top. You can't strike someone full on the throat in training so there will always be a compromise,mbut you already know that because you have dismissed it as unrealistic training in previous threads.
So could it work? Certainly. I like the neck strike and the body movement behind the strike and I like the groin strike with the shin. In between we have the elbow strike which like Dirty Dog, I would question.
My biggest concern though is how often is the person going to train for this situation? Unless she is going to train it enough for it to become instinctive, I have concerns as to how effective it would be in a real situation.
Well, line up a row of paedophiles and allow her to practice on the as many times as needed for it to become instinctive? The way we are going here we will have a long enough line for most women to practice on, all 'famous names' too including Rolf Harris, now sitting in prison.
- Status
