Gungrabs

The thing that separates dojo training and real life is that training in a dojo, ones partner rarely wants to get hit, and is going to feel pain when hit, so therefore striking techniques appear to be very effective. But in a real life violent conflict, the adrenaline levels of both parties are going to make it unlikely that either person is going to feel any pain. Strength is going to be increased, and fine motor skills are going to be diminished.

For that reason, I am a proponent of getting both hands on that gun too. First of all, my experience is that unless you knock the other person down, striking may not have much or any effect on your opponent. On a couple of occasions I have struck persons repeatedly with an impact weapon during a violent struggle and they have not even had a flinch reaction. Also, with fine motor skills reduced, your chance of missing grabbing the gun is increased if you are using one hand as opposed to two. If you can execute a technique correctly, using both hands to use you entire body's force against your opponents wrist, with the gun providing extra leverage, then it doesn't become a wrestling match, it becomes a successful gun takeaway or retention. Having said that, there are situations where you are probably will want to use a strike, especially if your opponent hasn't got a firm grip on the gun.

Last of all, while I think Krav Maga is quite a good system, being very simple and practical, I think making the argument that it is the last word in self defense because of the violent military situation in Israel is a flawed argument. I seriously doubt that they have any more incidents of gun retention or gun takeaways than law enforcement in the United States. Actually, due to the fact that because of the terrorist situation in Israel requiring them to start shooting far earlier in a potential lethal force situation than in the United States, they probably have less incidents of gun retention or gun takeaway type situations.

by the way, I will be doing some filming of a couple of related issues tomorrow in class:

1. The gun take away I promised last week

And

2. A nice fail-safe soft throw when both combatants (4) hands are on a pistol in a Judo-style grapple.

I will make them available privately upon request.

Hi chris,
Good stuff. I have no doubt your techniques and philosopy are very effective. Philosophy on how to deal with situations often come from where your comfort level is . Before I started Aikido. I trained for 20 years in a striking martial art. I do have grappling skills and feel I am quite well rounded as a martial artist. My instinct and reflex however is to start with a strike.

Gregg Block wrote: Hi chris, Good stuff. I have no doubt your techniques and philosopy are very effective. Philosophy on how to deal with situations often come from where your comfort level is . Before I started Aikido. I trained for 20 years in a striking martial art. I do have grappling skills and feel I am quite well rounded as a martial artist. My instinct and reflex however is to start with a strike.

Greg,

I do love a good Kenpo barage. My best timing with karame is 8 well places strikes in 1 second. I am much slower these days but much more accurate as well. Eyeballs will be hanging down someone's cheek, the larynx will be all but destroyed as will clavicles, ear drums and perhaps a blood vessel will be collapsed..

But on a gun grab and grapple note, I offer the following.
(whether I poked his eye out or not while "crashing his line" and getting my hands on his gun, it is Judo time.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wuweimonks

Best wishes from an aging bodyguard that cannot go toe-to-toe with the strong ones without a bit of the soft stuff (Mifune Judo and Aikijujitsu) to back me up. For those who are enfluenced by Sensei ledyard's stuff, I have to admit that finding the Ikkyo curve does make things softer.... even in Jujitsu technique.

Bill Danosky wrote: if she's going to be a street cop she'd better add a good dojo...

I finally got some time to add to the thread. First, thanks to everyone for all the comments and all the videos -- very grateful. They are all fantastic additions to a great conversation. I hope to get some stuff on film this weekend as well.

I'd like to address things in the order they were brought up in the thread -- please excuse my several posts.

I'd like to start with the PoliceOne article…

I'm not one for Monday-morning quarterbacking, but here's where I'm coming from...

1) The thread has debated the issue regarding the balance between tactics and strategies. I feel that issue can be further clarified by commenting upon the strategies the officer in the article used and/or did not use.

2) The officer in the article is herself engaging in the practice of reviewing her situation in hindsight. Thus, we would not be doing anything she is not doing herself.

3) The officer began her briefing with the phrase, "It found me," which I find to be problematic whenever you are supposed to be engaging in the practice of figuring out what effects our actions and thoughts played in what finally occurred. It will be my position that things did not "find her." In other words, she did not play so passive a role in what occurred. Granted this is a touchy area, because I'm not out to "blame the victim." However, debriefing situations that are reflective in nature are no good if they begin and end with the phrase, "It found me." This is my opinion.

In the end, I hold that the officer has what it takes to carry on the fight -- she proved that, easily. Where I found room discussion is not so much in what martial art she should train in, or how, or with whom, etc. Where I found room for discussion is in regards to her policing strategies.

As I stated earlier, it is my opinion that the given success rate of one's employed tactics is as equally based upon the talent, chosen architectures, conditioning, etc., of the officer (or person within a self-defense situation) as it is based upon the wisdom of one's strategies.

A word on police strategies: I'd like to point out that this discussion is not restricted to law enforcement personnel, as I'm just using this situation to talk about the interrelationship between strategy and tactics. This interrelationship, I feel, is relevant to anyone aiming at employing tactics within real life experiences. (e.g. self-defense)

Secondly, as is often said, "Police work ain't rock science." Meaning, strategies are based ultimately in common sense. Meaning, the understanding of strategy is open to everyone, as common sense implies everyone's understanding.

Here's what I (we) did: I brought this exercise to our law enforcement training group. Some background: Our group meets four days a week and we engage in training relevant to our experience as law enforcement officers. We are made up of members from County Sheriff, Harbor Patrol, City PD, University PD, and Forest Service. We have members with nearly three decades of experience, some with less than one year, members that are senior deputies, senior officers, SWAT officers, ARCON instructors, Field Training Officers, Awardees of Valor, etc. We are a diverse group.

As part of our continuing training, we participate in shared debriefings weekly. This week, rather than have folks share their own experience, I asked folks to look at the article and state what things they felt the officer in question could or should have done or done differently. Everyone that has participated in this exercise by the time of this post came up with the same exact things.

Now, it may be a product of us all training together regularly, or it may be a product of California police academies, but I think we all came up with the same elements because we are dealing here with things that are common sense. I think you will agree with that position once you read what follows -- because I don't think anyone is going to see these elements and say anything but, "Oh yeah, that makes sense." -- law enforcement or not.

Additionally, it was our group's position that had the officer tried even one of these strategies her success tactical success rate would have been greatly increase -- which is my main position here: Strategies and tactics support and/or negate each other.

Here is what we came up with:
(Note, when I write "She wrote," I'm referring to what was stated in the article. I'm trying to keep things simple here and not trying to raise issues of who said what, what's accurately expressed, etc. Again, this is not about blaming the officer, or judging her, etc., this is about demonstrating the interrelationship between strategies and tactics.)

-She wrote: A domestic, they figured…and kept going.

Strategy: Seek self-discipline and professionalism over complacency. Domestics are some of the more likely calls where officers get injured -- as they are usually emotionally charged. Additionally, domestics are calls where victims are more often injured as well. The call should have been handled with more awareness to the dangers involved -- e.g. it would have been wise to provide Dispatch (and others) with information regarding what they had, location, etc. Know the dangers of what you may be facing (as best you can) and act accordingly. If you are "asleep," or "asleep-like," for whatever reasons, by whatever means, no matter what you do, it's probably not going to work too well. If your Ikkyo kicks butt, but your awareness is slop, your Ikkyo will most likely range from being inefficient to being non-existent.

- She wrote: "It was going about 5 or 10 miles an hour," Milovich-Fitzsimmons recalls, "jerking back and forth like someone was jiggling the steering, and the horn was blowing like a maniac."…No brake lights signaled the stops, and the third time the vehicle abruptly halted the squad car rear-ended it.

Strategy: Utilize distance and note room for escape and for engagement and/or tactics relevant to ambush elements. They were following too closely in the incident; not prepared for the stop or the rear-ending attempt to set off the airbags in the patrol car, etc. He/she who controls the distance, like timing, has the higher chance of tactical success. Know what a given distance can and cannot do for you, and act accordingly. Maai!

- She wrote: Immediately upon the collision with the squad car, the gangbanger outside the Explorer and the one who'd been driving bolted. Milovich-Fitzsimmons radioed in a foot pursuit and beat feet after the driver. Blomstrand was delayed in exiting their unit because the crash had jammed his door.

Strategy: Apply oneself in light of the considerations that are present, and, if with another, be sure to communicate one's intentions and/or one's understanding of the considerations that are present. At the point of the collision with the suspect vehicle, (a) Milovich-Fitzsimmons either assumed there were four suspects in/at the car, or (b) three suspects and one victim, or (c) two suspects and two victims, or (d) she didn't assume anything and just out of habit ran after the driver that was running away. Out of these options, Milovich-Fitzsimmons either (a) Left her partner facing up to three suspects, if she expected him to stay behind with the suspect vehicle, (b) left up to two victims at the scene without checking with or providing for their welfare, if she expected her partner to follow her and back her in the foot pursuit, and/or (c) expected to go on a foot pursuit by herself, after a suspect that had 90 lbs on her. The short of it: Milovich-Fitzsimmons put herself, her partner, and the victim(s), at this point, at the least, in further danger. The better course of action here would have been: (a) Stay with the vehicle, then (b) radio for additional units -- having "x" number arrive at your scene and "x" number be provided with description and direction of travel information regarding the two fleeing suspects, then (c) perform a high risk stop on the remaining suspects/victims in the vehicle, being aware of the fleeing suspects possibly doubling back. This works to secure the scene, which in turn would more immediately allow her to see to the medical needs of the possible victim(s). In self-defense situations, self-preservation is the only victory that counts. Everything beyond this is romanticism.

-She wrote: First she caught up with him on a parkway along the street and shoved him to his hands and knees. She had hold of his coat but before she could get a body grip, he pushed up, easily pulled out of the jacket and took off again. "That's why gangbangers never wear their coats closed," she told PoliceOne. "And they tend to wear a couple, so if they wiggle out of one they still have an outer garment." The foot chase continued down an "extremely dark" gangway between two bungalows. Milovich-Fitzsimmons caught the driver again in an alley behind some garages and pushed him against a wrought-iron fence. "Get down on the ground!" she yelled. Instead, "he whips around and starts fighting." During the tussle, her shoulder mike popped off, swinging around her legs out of reach for calling for help.

Strategy: Weapons, not "martial arts," are the great equalizer. Martial arts provide leverage - at the most. Leverage only guarantees an efficient mechanical design, not sufficiency and thus not equality, in terms of workload. She knew she was out weighed here, felt he was a gang-banger (e.g possibly armed, possibly skilled at street fighting, etc.), and still felt she could out-wrestle/grapple him. Additionally, this seems to be the problem of using past experiences to determine future experiences -- which is a type of complacency in where you never ask or relate to the "what if," particularly, "What if it doesn't go like all the other times?" She should have taken his balance, or left him against the fence, regained the appropriate distance, drawn down on the guy, (draw her taser too, if she had one), ordered him into the prone position (or taser him prone), radioed in her location and request more officers, waiting for their arrival before putting the suspect into cuffs.

- She wrote: Through a decade's experience, the 39-year-old, trim, blond officer with a tough-but-fair reputation was accustomed to scrapping with suspects and had never encountered a situation she couldn't control.

Strategy: Know your limitations and the limitations of your resources and act accordingly. Scrapping out of your weight class, by choice, and because "you've never encountered a situation you couldn't handle before," speaks of a false confidence, which always speaks of unnecessary risk and being a danger to others and yourself. There is no place for bravado - Tombstone Courage - in self-defense. There is only violence and its simplistic purity of "either/or."

- She wrote: "I was thinking very clearly, giving basic commands to myself to stay in the fight," she recalls. "I couldn't understand why he was so violent, though."

Strategy: Do not analyze your adversary's state of mind. Leave his/her psychological issues to when the scene is secured -- after the violence - if you "have to" think upon such things. Leave violence to its "mathematical" purity. She should not need to know or want to know the reason why a suspect would be so violent before she prepped herself for the possibility. Such considerations, in light of the purity of violence, is preoccupation.

-She wrote: Unaware of the kidnapping, she thought she was dealing just with a run-of-the-mill hot car.

Strategy: Know what you know. "Run of the mill" - ? She should have treated felony stops, like felony stops; should have chased felons like she was chasing a felon; should have chased gang members like she was chasing a gang member.

-She wrote: At a point when Milovich-Fitzsimmons grabbed her adversary by the shirt, he tripped and fell to the ground. "Stay down!" she yelled. He raised his hands for a moment, "teetering on his ass" and looking beyond her, evidently checking for her partner. Then he lunged toward her, grabbed the butt of her holstered S&W 9mm and used it as leverage to pull himself up.

Strategy: Utilize distance and room for escape and engagement routes and/or tactics relevant to ambush elements. She is too close if I guy can be sitting and lunge forward and touch her. Additionally: It's easier to disengage than to engage, easier to come down than go up. Why is her weapon holstered? Didn't he run away already? Did she know what he was running for? Not really. So, should she not be prepped to defend herself as well as to perhaps address the fleeing felon rule should more information come her way? Answer: Yes. If she didn't want to draw her firearm, why not her baton? Pepper spray? Taser (if she had one)? Why not get your radio back into place/operation. Why stand there unarmed?

- She wrote: "I could feel the top strap unsnap and the holster open,"

Strategy: Fight in light of your equipment/resources and have your equipment/resources exist in light of how you fight. Wearing a level II holster (which really only has one level of retention, because no one should ever count that retention screw as a real retention level) on duty, and, worse, wearing a level II holster on duty while not acting according to the tactical limitations of that mechanical design (i.e. grappling and/or placing oneself in grappling range while wearing a level II holster) equals BIG MISTAKE. If you are going to grapple, get a higher retention holster, or just get a higher retention level holster.

- She wrote: Finally she managed to break away from him and pull her gun….Blood streaming down his face, the attacker grabbed again at Milovich-Fitzsimmons' semiauto.

Strategy: Again: Make your weapon appropriate to its range of operation and/or make your range of operation appropriate to your weapon. . She was too close when she drew the weapon. If she got away, she should have sought distance along the spiral formation -- taken the shot (i.e. kept shooting till he dropped) while on that path of action.

- She said: Milovich-Fitzsimmons holstered and secured her S&W, took out her cuffs and went after him. When she caught up to him, he'd fallen to his hands and knees. "I thought, 'Game over' and I moved in to take him into custody. Color me wrong.

Strategy: Why re-holster? Didn't she (in her head) just face a gun retention attack and have justification for employing lethal force? Additionally, if you are going to run after someone, why run with your cuffs in your hands? Finally, if you are going to cuff someone, you shouldn't pull out your cuffs till you have established control over the suspect. Be skilled at weapon selection and the logic behind selection.

- She said: "We grappled all over the place," she says. "I was punching him, kicking him in the face and chest, twisting his balls for all I was worth. He never flinched…just got angrier." She drew her gun but couldn't get a shot. Seven inches taller and outweighing her by nearly 90 pounds, the suspect pinned her, smashed her in the face and fought again for control of her weapon.

Strategy: If you are attempting to kick the crap out of him, and nothing is happening from your best efforts, what makes one think you can win a gun retention battle under those same conditions? Again, she drew her weapon only to put herself in more danger. Look to sweep and/or reverse your position in a ground-fight prior to drawing your weapon. Distance, weapon selection, range, etc.

FYI: Here's what an approximate 90 lbs. weight difference looks like:

Gregg Block wrote: George L wrote -My objection to most retention or takeaway systems is that they do not utilize enough impact technique. If you take a gun away from someone and you haven't struck them, you are almost certainly now grappling for that weapon. All of the best retention and takeaway systems I have seen involve serious impact and preferably balance breaks thereby giving you the time to bring the firearm to bear on the assailant. Aikido - Aiki jutsu derived techniques are great for this but you need to have major atemi and you should train to shoot the assailant as part of the takeaway Thank you George. You are right on here. Krav Maga stresses these very points in gun take aways (in fact in all aspects of their self defence system)

I'm not one to say "never" about anything relevant to life/death situations (e.g. self-defense, gun grabs, etc.), but I'm prone to looking to control the weapon over striking. A little bit more: I'm prone to controlling the weapon through movement over wrestling for it. This is where I often tend to depart from the striking camp - because they often employ little movement when striking. Most of it prescribes just standing in front of someone, hitting them, they always being affected by your strikes, never forcing a ground-fight, etc. Can't say that has matched with my experience.

Chris Parkerson wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklVq_AWBY4

This is so freak'n cool of you! I can't wait for all threads to be of this kind of posting. thanks!

Mark Kruger wrote: http://totalprotectioninteractive.co...Portland02.wmv and http://www.vimeo.com/1072283

Same thing! So cool of you - many thanks!

Peter Ralls wrote: But in a real life violent conflict, the adrenaline levels of both parties are going to make it unlikely that either person is going to feel any pain...my experience is that unless you knock the other person down, striking may not have much or any effect on your opponent.

This is a very good point - and it's also demonstrated in the PoliceOne article.

Chris Parkerson wrote: by the way, I will be doing some filming of a couple of related issues tomorrow in class: 1. The gun take away I promised last week And 2. A nice fail-safe soft throw when both combatants (4) hands are on a pistol in a Judo-style grapple. I will make them available privately upon request.

Failsafe Gun Takeaway that has gross movement, strong control postures, maximum combat efficiency value, and a built-in continuity plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgSy5n07rbo

Failsafe Throw with 4 hands on the gun and the assailant has recessed his elbow. Recouping Kote Gaeshi when the arm shrinks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS9ghzkz9Lg

Belly to Belly Gun Grab

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWomz2l6guM

David,

Actually any good striking art (eg Krav,) preaches making a defensive body movement to get yourself out of harms way prior to striking. Also when did I say controlling the weapon wasn't important? Its Priority number one. The idea is hit him with a crushing blow so he doesnt get a second chance to use the weapon asuming you have thwarted the inital attack/situation.
The idea that it is "unlikely that either person is going to feel any pain" is a little over the top for me. I've had to clear the "cobwebs" from my head more than once from a well placed strike to the nose and I know what to expect when being hit. How much more unraveling would It be for someone not hit before?
We could argue this til we are blue in the face but again It comes down to a deference of Philosophy. I respect you opinion It just doesnt happen to be mine because of where my comfort level lies. You have to know your strengths, weaknesses and limitations.

David Valadez wrote: I finally got some time to add to the thread. <snip> FYI: Here's what an approximate 90 lbs. weight difference looks like:

Hello David
I hope you are not going to take that the wrong way.

Having been at the receiving end of a freeze profanator of mother whilst I was walking back from a pizza place after 10 in Austin Texas, by two police cars with two officers each, all that on the ground that a geezer that did not even remotely looked like me had robbed a dinner at gun point for a grand total of something over 100 $.
Which I find quite hilarious on its own because, save my underwear, I did not wear a single item of clothing under 100$.
That being said things are expensive in the UK


Don’t get me wrong there was moments I still remember fondly like
-“It is a fake passport it is not blue”.
-“Where does all that money come from?
As the back and the recipe says from Heathrow airport.
Or when after being cuffed and driven to crime scene for a on the spot identification, the tiller said "no that ain’t the dude”.

Or when one of the guys in charge asked me if I wanted to lodge a complaint against the officer that semi arrested me. (I say semi because the book him Dano never happened, so technically I suspect that I was never arrested)

Obviously after I replied to said freeze with a I beg your pardon in an inimitable French accent. It was quite clear that being shot becoming a more remote possibility, though getting a Rodney was still a distinct options, with a night in a cell with Austin finest to boot.

(It was just before the current president won his first election so being for being from a country that almost made it to the axis of evil, getting a night flight to Egypt or a holiday in Cuba was not on the table at the time).

Basically I am quite happy that some officer still see thing as a run of the mill and do not always assume that I was the Phil “froggy” the drive-in terror, funding member of the madfrogs gang in Fayetteville. espcially since i was about 30 kg heavier than the said officer.

phil

Philippe Willaume wrote: Basically I am quite happy that some officer still see thing as a run of the mill and do not always assume that I was the Phil "froggy" the drive-in terror, funding member of the madfrogs gang in Fayetteville. espcially since i was about 30 kg heavier than the said officer. phil

Well, I hope it's not coming across that I'm advocating "over kill." I'm not. I'm suggesting things be treated as they are: domestics as domestics, carjackings as carjackings, felonies as felonies, etc. I felt the officer in the debriefing did not list this as one of the contributing factors that led to where she found herself, though she herself mentioned she had such things in mind.

d

Gregg Block wrote: David, Actually any good striking art (eg Krav,) preaches making a defensive body movement to get yourself out of harms way prior to striking. Also when did I say controlling the weapon wasn't important? Its Priority number one. The idea is hit him with a crushing blow so he doesnt get a second chance to use the weapon asuming you have thwarted the inital attack/situation. The idea that it is "unlikely that either person is going to feel any pain" is a little over the top for me. I've had to clear the "cobwebs" from my head more than once from a well placed strike to the nose and I know what to expect when being hit. How much more unraveling would It be for someone not hit before? We could argue this til we are blue in the face but again It comes down to a deference of Philosophy. I respect you opinion It just doesnt happen to be mine because of where my comfort level lies. You have to know your strengths, weaknesses and limitations.

Again, I'm not against striking, or knowing and practicing whatever you can for self-defense, etc. What I tend to disagree with is not that first defensive/crushing blow and the first foot maneuver taken for reasons of deviation/defense, it's what I often see that happens afterwards: little to know movement with the only prevention against things like a ground-fight/takedown are the ability of the strikes to promote unconsciousness/deterrence. I'll try and do a search on youtbue.com to find an example of this. I think it is a very common understanding/application of striking in self-defense situations, etc.

For me, I think that's a lot to ask for from strikes, period. Moreover, I really think it's a lot to ask for from strikes when the person defending themselves is a lot smaller than the aggressor, etc. - yet, such striking arts that adopt such an understanding of striking never announce themselves as "arts for when you are the same size or bigger than your attacker."

Again, I'm all from striking, but I like to see movement throughout it's application and/or if one does adopt a semi-stable platform, it should be so from the rear of the opponent and/or when their base of support and thus their rate of travel has been negatively affected. Here's what I think that looks like, as I understand it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgF623TxWSI

I know didley about this field, but David, that was a spot on analysis as far as I could tell, and I really appreciated how much of it fits into an aikido terminology/paradigm.

Best,
Ron

David Valadez wrote: Same thing! So cool of you - many thanks!

Your welcome. I think most of folks see too many of the techniques demonstrated under ideal conditions and not under pressure with a resistive attacker. Things change quite a bit when "losing" means pain (simunitions leave wonderful bruises) in training and serious injury or death in real life.

I don't count on my strikes having that much of an effect on my opponent. After taking the ECQC course, similar to the links I posted, and watching the MMA guys go at it, I get the feeling that very few people can pull off a single crushing blow with a high probability of success. While the occasional hit puts the other guy down, it just doesn't happen often enough to be a reliable tactic. The strikes may hurt and degrade the other guy's performance, but it unlikely to be a show stopper.

On the other hand, I can't rule out that one of the hits the other guy gets on me won't be the one that puts me down.

The best strategy, in my opinion, is to seek a superior position, one where you can deploy your tools (arms, hands, feet, elbows, knees, knives, saps, firearms) more easily than the other person can deploy theirs. Aiki principles and techniques are one way of achieving this positional superiority.

Respectfully,

Mark Kruger wrote: Your welcome. I think most of folks see too many of the techniques demonstrated under ideal conditions and not under pressure with a resistive attacker. Things change quite a bit when "losing" means pain (simunitions leave wonderful bruises) in training and serious injury or death in real life. I don't count on my strikes having that much of an effect on my opponent. After taking the ECQC course, similar to the links I posted, and watching the MMA guys go at it, I get the feeling that very few people can pull off a single crushing blow with a high probability of success. While the occasional hit puts the other guy down, it just doesn't happen often enough to be a reliable tactic. The strikes may hurt and degrade the other guy's performance, but it unlikely to be a show stopper. On the other hand, I can't rule out that one of the hits the other guy gets on me won't be the one that puts me down. The best strategy, in my opinion, is to seek a superior position, one where you can deploy your tools (arms, hands, feet, elbows, knees, knives, saps, firearms) more easily than the other person can deploy theirs. Aiki principles and techniques are one way of achieving this positional superiority. Respectfully,

Couldn't possibly agree more.

I'm not really talking about ARTS here - it's more about tactics, which no art monopolizes and no art is captured by.

Again, my thing is not liking strikes that overly rely upon their desired effect for one's overall success. I'm with Mark here: I like to count for things not working, so I like lots of redundancy and the one I like to add the most to everything is simply not being on the line of the attack, EVER.

When I see most striking tactics that overly rely upon their desired effect for one's overall success, I always see a permanent or temporary absence of moving off the line of the attack.

Additionally, as a result of this assumption, a lack of true penetration is often choreographed into the training (i.e. the attacker never really looks to occupy the defender's space - attacks are lobbed in from the outside).

The ironic part is that the reverse of this is often the chief criticism of Aikido training (i.e. the attacker "over penetrates"). For me, in my experience, having done both training regimes, training for a lack of penetration is further away from what one sees in true aggression. In matters of true aggression, over penetration is not only common, it's the rule.

I like the Krav Maga, or any art, that works this redundancy of a continuous angle of deviation with it's striking into its training, but I do not like the Krav Maga, or any other, that does not. So, I can't say I'm a fan of this video (see below), as folks here are demonstrating what I call an over-dependence on the affects of one's strikes, while they, at the same time, have the attacker not seeking to occupy the defender's space (which in my experience is uncommon in matters of real aggression). If you have the strikes not achieve their desired effect, all you are left with is one guy standing on the line of attack. If you put back in the over-penetration one is likely to see in matters of true aggression, you got a ground-fight.

I experienced this long ago when we used to used blitz tactics against TKD/Karate folks, but the Gracie's proved it to the world in the UFC.

Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg8Dfzr5vpY

d

Sorry for the typos in the last post - haven't had much time for writing and editing...

Here's what I'm referring to in the last post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hAbOMEn25o

David Valadez wrote: Sorry for the typos in the last post - haven't had much time for writing and editing... Here's what I'm referring to in the last post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hAbOMEn25o

Under penetration and over penetration has been an issue since techniques were used to define and demonstrate martial arts.

If scrimmage solely defined martial arts, we would either not have many lethal techniques or we would have players with very short careers.

While the early UFCs were an excellent study in free for all fighting, there were still rules. No fighter really wanted to do the really nasty stuff, i.e. Eye gouging, fish hooking, standing and flying knee breaks. But, as you say, they sure test one's angling, zoning and penetration (crashing the line) skills.

My issue with karate demonstration distance in technique demonstrations is that the techniques have been "do-ized" and thus are not the real nasty stuff. Thus, the kicks and punches probably have a low "fight stopping" probability.

I hear there is a form of Krav Maga that strictly uses lethal stuff.
now that is probably worth looking in to, but not for police work.

Fast and nasty. Two examples of Kenpo striking with fast barages into vitals, soft tissue, floating ribs, nerve points, blood vessels and joints.

Paul Mills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDd9Y...eature=related

Larry Tatum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU1CZ...eature=related

David Valadez wrote: Well, I hope it's not coming across that I'm advocating "over kill." I'm not. I'm suggesting things be treated as they are: domestics as domestics, carjackings as carjackings, felonies as felonies, etc. I felt the officer in the debriefing did not list this as one of the contributing factors that led to where she found herself, though she herself mentioned she had such things in mind. d

No I do not think you are advocating overkill.
I can see where you are coming from, but there is a massive flip coin to that.
What I was trying to say is that all the point of what you say is to set you level of alertness and expectation according to the situation and use you training to respond accordingly.

And that is where the bug bear is I could very well ended up like Mister Stanley here, Bacillary armed police was called to stop a man with a shotgun.
Unfortunately the guy they shot had a table leg in plastic bag.
The officers went in with the information that the guy had a shotgun and re-acted accordingly.
They dealt with a felony like a felony; the problem is that there was no felony to start with.

(http://cms.met.police.uk/news/policy..._cps_decision).

phil

phil

Unfortunately, I'm unable to read the story - the site isn't letting me.

From what I'm gathering, however, the difference for me is that in this case the officer herself saw what she considered to be felonies. She wasn't responding to a "be on the lookout".

I would like to read the story - is there anyway you can gain access to it or allow me too? I had a BOL response that sounds a bit similar, and I'd like to know what happened in the article to see if it will allow me to make these points a bit clearer by sharing more.

Philippe Willaume wrote: .....What I was trying to say is that all the point of what you say is to set you level of alertness and expectation according to the situation and use you training to respond accordingly. And that is where the bug bear is I could very well ended up like Mister Stanley here, Bacillary armed police was called to stop a man with a shotgun. Unfortunately the guy they shot had a table leg in plastic bag. The officers went in with the information that the guy had a shotgun and re-acted accordingly. They dealt with a felony like a felony; the problem is that there was no felony to start with. ...

And your solution to this problem would be?

When I see techniques demonstrated with a lot of striking I often think it's like a hockey fight- They stand there and brawl. Why do these guys not want to evade or get control of an arm so they can stop getting punched?

My question's relation to the thread, by the way, is this: When there's a weapon involved, you need the most decisive waza in your repertoire. IMHO, Mark is right- the stunning power of strikes is too unreliable for this kind of situation.