A safe effective weapon disarm that does not hurt the attaker

holyheadjch · Dec 19, 2014

Bujin_Budoka said: ↑

Fire extinguisher could be an option, however you run the risk of the student inhaling it. Powerful strobe light is a good distraction to temporarily blind the student, I've seen them in use as a weapon attachment but can be used alone. This does however need some preparation. There are no hands on techniques that don't have the potential to leave a mark.
Click to expand...

Both of those could lead to far more serious consequences than leaving a red mark on a pupil's arm.

FunnyBadger · Dec 19, 2014

Mitch said: ↑

You can be disciplined and sacked for all sorts of things that aren't illegal from all sorts of jobs.

Mitch
Click to expand...

Perhaps that wasn't quite the right thing to say but I think if they did sack you because you hurt a pupil disarming them as they stabbed another pupil then you would have definate grounds to appeal against that decision.

It's the actions of the other pupil that caused the situation and it's not any fault of the teacher, they are merely reacting to the situation.

Mitch · Dec 19, 2014

FunnyBadger said: ↑

Perhaps that wasn't quite the right thing to say but I think if they did sack you because you hurt a pupil disarming them as they stabbed another pupil then you would have definate grounds to appeal against that decision.

It's the actions of the other pupil that caused the situation and it's not any fault of the teacher, they are merely reacting to the situation.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, I wasn't having a pop.

I think that the issue would be that whilst you might have acted perfectly legally, you might not have complied with the terms of your contract and therefore might still be subject to disciplinary action.

Mitch

Hannibal · Dec 20, 2014

A safe effective weapon disarm that does not hurt the attacker?

This is a Philosophers stone

Alansmurf · Dec 20, 2014

Ideal scenario for a chi ball or Dim dum mak .....

matveimediaarts · Dec 20, 2014

I suggest looking to see if pepper spray is withing the law and school guidelines. doesn't always work against adults and 'roid ragers, but I reckon it's effective on school age kids.

Hannibal · Dec 20, 2014

Nope

ned · Dec 20, 2014

A sneaky kick to the "crown jewels" should give him something to think about and won't leave a visible mark-use a rolled up copy of the Times educational supplement(or similar)to fend off/distract the little hood.

Ben Gash CLF · Dec 20, 2014

Mitch said: ↑

I know what you mean, I wasn't having a pop.

I think that the issue would be that whilst you might have acted perfectly legally, you might not have complied with the terms of your contract and therefore might still be subject to disciplinary action.

Mitch
Click to expand...

However such disciplinary action would likely make them an accessory under the terms of the criminal law act, and would certainly be a violation of the human rights act, and such policies would also be in breach of the health and safety at work act.

Ben Gash CLF · Dec 20, 2014

Therefore you should knock the scissors down into the top of your thigh and sue your employer to the extent that you never have to work again

FunnyBadger · Dec 20, 2014

Sifu Ben said: ↑

Therefore you should knock the scissors down into the top of your thigh and sue your employer to the extent that you never have to work again
Click to expand...

Pretty extreme but certainly has its merits . . . Now where do I find a 'yoof' with some scissors ?

Hannibal · Dec 20, 2014

Manchester City Centre

Smitfire · Dec 20, 2014

Hannibal said: ↑

Manchester
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you Hannibal.

John Titchen · Dec 21, 2014

Tom bayley said: ↑

This however is not the view taken by education establishments. The teacher said that they were required to disarm the student without leaving any form of mark on the student.

/QUOTE]

This view is common in education establishments. It is also common among ofsted inspectors. It stems from a lack of understanding of the relevant legislation regarding the care and protection of children, the legislation regarding use of force in both self defence and in restraint, how these sit with DfE Guidance (which is not law but endorses the use of restraint and control as part of a school intervention policy), the practicalities of physical intervention, and the legal consequences for the school (not to mention the adults and the children involved) should an adult or child be harmed by the school failing to provide a framework where staff are empowered to act.

Restraint and holding (never mind distraction techniques which may shorten the time span involved and reduce the risk of injury or death to both child, staff member or third party) will cause bruising when the subject resists the hold.

If the teacher is particularly concerned then they should approach their union representative. I know my union has a very positive stance on this matter.
Click to expand...

John Titchen · Dec 21, 2014

In 2008 I wrote a short article on the topic of restraint in schools which I sent to the then secretary of state and shadow counterparts. This article predated the subsequent policy documents from the department under both the Labour and Conservative parties.

Here is part of that article:

A report on the need for clear ‘Use of Force’ policies within schools and the provision of appropriate training for staff

J W TITCHEN BA PGCE PhD

Introduction

The national news allows particularly horrifying accounts of local events to reach each and every one of us on a regular basis. Such constant exposure can lead to a distorted perception of the nature and prevalence of violent crime, but with the recent spate of violent assaults on young people in Britain and the increasing number of teenage deaths due to knives and gang crime, we cannot ignore the evidence that violent behaviour amongst school children is a national phenomenon. All staff working in education are affected by this. Schools are not islands of tranquillity in a sea of troubled youth and there are dimensions of school life that we will never see clearly. School staff are more likely than ever to have to either defend themselves or intervene to prevent an escalation of violence between pupils in their work places, it is thus vital that they know precisely what the law allows them to do and what training they are entitled to receive.

The Legal Framework

It is important to note that although Section 93 of the Education and Inspection Act 2006 clarifies the law, it does not really give teachers any powers (or information) that they did not already have under previous legislation and guidance. All it actually does is confirm the existing rights and obligations contained in Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (which remains the most important document for how much force anyone can use in any situation), Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which sits above all other statute law), the Children Act 1989, and Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child 1991.

Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.”
Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 states that “any person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in preventing a crime or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.”
Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention of the rights of the Child states that “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
Section 1.83 of Volume 4 of the Children Act 1989 states that “Physical restraint should be used rarely and only to prevent a child harming himself or others or from damaging property. Force should not be used for any other purpose, nor simply to secure compliance with staff instructions.”

Despite DCSF and union guidance, many staff in schools are still likely to be concerned about using physical force: firstly because of the risk of harming children; secondly for their own safety; and thirdly for fear of losing their job and being placed on the POCA list. The issue is not so much can teachers and school staff use force against pupils, nor when can they use force, but “how much force is reasonable in the circumstances?” What is reasonable force?

Reasonable force is not a fixed quantity and the law sensibly has not constrained it as such. Each case is weighed by the CPS and (if necessary) by a trial on an individual basis. Despite this a matrix has been built up from case law decisions that allows policy makers and trainers a clear framework from which to instruct staff. Any force applied must be both necessary and proportionate in the circumstances if it is to be considered as reasonable. According to Ashworth’s Principles of Criminal Law, “The standard of Proportionality is best defined as what is reasonably proportionate to the amount of harm likely to be suffered by the defendant, or likely to result if the forcible intervention is not made”. Many school policies still in existence (and current DCSF guidance) use the term “minimum force” but this term does not exist in statute or common law, nor is it mentioned in the Children Act 1989 or any subsequent legislation. Any policy referring to “minimum force” is more restrictive than the law requires and consequently risks putting staff (and children in their care) in danger, firstly by making them feel unable to act when the need for force arises, and secondly by resulting in an inadequate restraint or intervention being used that causes the injury of either a child or a member of staff. Such an unnecessary caution will increase the margin for error of judgement as it will make staff more concerned about disciplinary action by their managers rather than the best interests of the child. As a result such guidance falls foul of the obligation to promote life, the ability to use reasonable force and, importantly, the need to act in the best interest of the child.

Following an incident, school staff can be subject to more than one investigation should there be a complaint made with respect to their actions. The Police will investigate to ascertain as to whether the force used was reasonable or not and press charges if they are not satisfied and believe they can prove their case. The school itself is also likely to investigate the staff involved as part of a disciplinary hearing regardless of the CPS verdict. It is this internal investigation that makes it essential that school governors, Headteachers and senior management teams have had training with respect to the law. There have been instances of Headteachers recommending staff cleared of using excessive force by the CPS onto the POCA list because Social Services have recorded the individual as causing “significant harm” ( a criteria for establishing abuse) to the child. These actions that would not have occurred had they had enough legal training to be aware that “significant harm” is neither a criminal nor civil offence but a term used under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to commence care proceedings or to apply to a court under Section 31 of the same act to remove a child from its parents into care – neither of which have any application with regard to the use of force within schools. Fortunately a number of these falsely attributed Schedule One offences have been over-turned, but at unnecessary financial, psychological and social cost to the staff and schools concerned.

Schools do not exist in a vacuum and comparative advice in the field of Care Homes may be of great use to school when formulating their policies. In 1997 the then Chief Inspector of Social Services, Sir Herbert Laming stated that “ the guidance in LAC(93) is clear that staff can and must intervene immediately to try to prevent young people leaving the children’s home when there are grounds for believing that they are putting themselves or others at risk or are likely seriously to damage property… …existing guidance is clear that in certain circumstances physical restraint can and should be used. It is also reasonable to bolt a door temporarily to restrict a young persons’ mobility, or in order to win some time to call for help from other staff.”

The Human Rights Act 1998 is the overriding legal document with respect to what can and cannot be done to another person. Article 2 outlines the right to life, Article 3 the prohibition of torture and Article 5 the right to liberty and the security of person. In the past there have been misguided attempts to use the Act to illustrate that physical intervention, restraint and the detention of children are illegal. The use of pain (as a last resort) as part of a process of restraint cannot be classed as torture if the restraint was legal. It cannot be classed as corporal punishment since the purpose of corporal punishment is to punish a person through physical force for an action that has broken rules, whereas restraint is the positive application of force to reduce injury to another person or to prevent an injury or criminal act occurring. In the case of Stewart v United Kingdom (1984) it was ruled that “The basis for any legal decision regarding the use of force will be its proportionate use with regard to the achievement of its permitted purpose.” So long as the force used is necessary and proportionate to the harm it is intended to avoid, there is no question as to whether it is illegal. Where the risk of harm is severe, the need to move from holding to pain compliance techniques can also be seen as consistent with the positive obligation to preserve life required by Article 2 of the Human Rights Act. In the instance referred to above by Lord Laming, detention of a child is justified because of Article 2, as is physical intervention, hence the stress that “staff can and must intervene.”

The Case for Physical Intervention, Holding, Restraint and Distraction Techniques

There is a clear justification for the use of physical intervention, restraint, and, in extreme situations, distraction techniques. I will draw three simple examples to illustrate the importance of physical intervention.

Example One
A fifteen year old male child (A) is sitting astride another child (B) hitting them in the face in a classroom during break time. A female member of staff on duty (C), in her mid fifties happens upon the scene. C is not strong enough to pull child A away (who due to his increased heart rate and adrenaline release is likely to have aural and visual exclusion), and even with the aid of a second staff member (D) is unable to pull A away. In fact A is likely (given his mental state) to attempt to hit C as she tries to interfere. As a result C applies a distraction technique (in this case a strike) to A’s thigh that allows her to gain a better hold on child A, thus shortening the time taken to achieve a safe restraint position for child A and thus reducing potential injury to herself and Child A, while also removing the danger to Child B.

If C had not intervened then she would be failing in her duty of care to the child and acting in breach of Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child and potentially contravening by omission Article 2 of the Human Rights Act as the life of child B could well be at risk. Research has shown that the longer a struggle continues the more harmful it is likely to be to the person restrained (with risks of exhaustion), therefore by applying a distraction technique C has reduced the risk to both herself and A. Such a distraction strike would be in keeping with the Criminal Law Act 1967. By intervening C has set a positive example to the other pupils, indicating that violence will not be tolerated and thus improving whole school discipline. She has also prevented a nasty situation escalating to a stage where criminal charges could be brought against child A, thus acting in the best interests of the child according to Article 3(1) the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Example Two
A fifteen year old female child (E) is about to spray a can of paint on a wall just outside the school when two teachers pass by. They ask E to stop but she continues to prepare her aerosol can. The teachers physically intervene and hold her, escorting her back to the school, confiscating her paint and contacting her parents.

The teachers’ actions here not only comply with the Children Act 1989, more importantly they address the best interests of the child since they have prevented her from getting a criminal record for property damage at an early age. If a young person is allowed by an act of omission to gain a criminal record, then the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has not been observed. We should not allow young people to ruin their lives by committing crimes if we are able to take safe and appropriate action to prevent the crime in the first instance.

Example Three
A thirteen year old boy (F) has forced open a window of a third floor building and is threatening to jump. The boy is agitated and the threat appears genuine to the teachers (G and H) who have come to the scene to try and talk the boy away from the window. As the boy turns to jump teachers G and H lunge for the boy and a fierce struggle ensues as the F attempts to break free and jump. G and H attempt to hold the boy, but this is proving ineffectual so G applies a wrist hold that applies pressure and pain to the joint. G succeeds in restraining F.

G and H’s use of force against a distressed child may seem extreme, but we can see that they acted in the best interests of the child and took positive steps to preserve his life. Their use of force was therefore in line with Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Section 1.83 of Volume 4 of the Protection of Children Act 1989. Child F was in real danger of dying or sustaining a crippling injury and thus in context G’s use of pain to restrain him can be seen as both necessary and proportionate.

These examples are not flights of fancy. Young people will be tempted to vandalise classrooms or property as a way of expressing frustration. Children do fight in schools. Young people do attempt to commit suicide. Given the disparity between the age range, health and physical ability of children in the secondary sector of education and the probable age range, health and physical ability of the staff, it is clear that staff may need to employ distraction techniques to help them bring a situation under control. The issue is not whether holding, restraint and distraction techniques should be used, and it takes very little understanding of the law and common sense to see when they should be used, the issue is more what techniques should be used.

The issue here is obviously the one of causing physical pain to the child either through restraining or through pain compliant techniques in restraint. Is the use of pain, is striking a child, corporal punishment? Once again we must look at the context that we envisage these acts taking place. In each case the force is being applied to effect a positive purpose – the safety of a child or the prevention of a crime that might harm a child. Even if teacher G had accidentally broken the wrist of child F in the struggle, the action would have been in the best interests of the child. If teacher G had been able to apply a distraction technique such as causing pain by hitting the thigh, that teacher may have been able to secure a less painful hold (with less risk of breaking a wrist) on child F.

There are a number of holds, restraining methods and positions and distraction techniques that are safe and easy to use. There are a number of techniques that are effective but risk injury to the person applying the technique. Further still there are holds, restraints and distraction techniques that are no more effective than those first mentioned but risk causing unnecessary injury to the subject. As a result, when education staff are trained, it is important that their training is legal and risk assessed to prevent instances where children suffer avoidable injury. It is furthermore important that staff are not only authorised to use force by their school polices, but also trained and assessed on how and when to use force on a regular basis by qualified and competent coaches. Without training staff are likely to make inappropriate, inadequate or unsafe intervention which may lead to injury either to themselves or children.

The Case for Staff Training in the Education Sector

As can be seen from the examples above, staff need to be able to hold and restrain children on rare occasions if they are to fulfill their obligations to the child. On rarer still occasions the strength or state of the child may be such that they need to use distraction techniques to enable them to get a safe hold or restraint in place. It is important therefore that techniques that have been shown to be unsafe (such as striking to the face and in particular the nose) do not form part of their syllabus. It is dangerous practice, not the use of restraint, pain compliance and distraction techniques, that needs to be the subject of a review. To call for the removal of all painful restraint techniques because of a minority of occasions where improper use and improper knowledge has had terrible consequences is akin to calling for a removal of the requirement on motorcyclists to wear helmets since that has not always stopped them from receiving head injuries in accidents. If, as the Joint Human Rights Committee suggest, restraint is used roughly 3000 times a year in care homes, the proportion of deaths caused by improper use (or lack of awareness for the need for clear airways or of the dangers of positional asphyxiation) must be around 0.03% - and that assumes that a child dies every year, which is not the case. Better education and training for those involved in child care is the answer, reducing the ability of people to restrain children will only result in a massive upsurge in child injuries and criminal records.

Under Section 2(2)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 employers should provide information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary (do everything physically possible, regardless of cost) to ensure the health, safety and welfare of staff whilst at work. Under this statute and Section 3 of the Health and Safety Act 1974, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1991, schools that do not have appropriate policies in place for physical intervention, restraint or breakaway, or provide training for staff to allow them to effect those policies competently, are at risk of prosecution should an investigation arise.

The reason for this is simple. Violence against teachers and similar incidents in schools involving children (or their parents) are now so common, that in failing to provide training so that staff are able to make informed decisions and undertake competent responses, schools are now almost certain to be seen as having failed to provide duty of care to both their staff and their pupils. In 2005-6 there were 221 attacks on teachers in England resulting in at least three days being taken off work, and 87,610 pupils were excluded from England's secondary schools for physical or verbal assaults on teachers, the equivalent of 2.7% of all pupils. In 2004 272 teachers took at least three days of work due to attacks and figures from the Health and Safety Executive indicate twice as many teachers suffered such severe injuries that they needed to be resuscitated or kept in hospital. In contrast to this there are approximately 1300 fires requiring the attendance of the fire service in schools in England and Wales each year, of which only a third occur during the school day. All staff and pupils practice fire drills every term and many staff are trained to use extinguishers as part of INSET, but how many schools rehearse their alarm policies for intruders on site, or train their staff to manage these and other violent incidents? Given the prevalence of the problem of violence against pupils or staff, and the potential seriousness of any incident, there is no sound legal defence for schools not having policies and staff training in place. Headteachers and governing bodies should be aware that in addition to the previously mentioned legislation, under the new Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 they can be prosecuted where there has been a failing in the management of health and safety that has resulted in fatal consequences.

Any school, union, or local education authority that is in the process of formulating policies for its staff with regard to the use of force should be aware that there is a broad legal package that needs to be assessed to ensure that they can, if necessary, justify themselves in a court of law and provide their staff with the support they deserve. Any policy created by a school and subsequent training package needs to show a competent and accurate understanding of the legal implications, an informed assessment of the risk involved and a knowledge of appropriate and effective methods of intervention. This need for proper training was stressed in the companion residential care environment by the Department of Health document Guidance on Permissible Forms of Control in Children’s Residential Care-LAC(93)12, Section 5.2 which states “The proper use of physical restraint requires skill and judgement as well as knowledge of non-harmful methods of restraint.” There is a clear requirement for all schools to have policies in place that give staff the confidence and freedom to act, and all staff, students and parents should be made fully aware of their school’s policies. Furthermore, to reduce the risk of injury to staff and children, all staff should receive appropriate training in physical intervention and restraint. Due to the sheer numbers of staff in many schools this will be difficult to implement overnight and many schools will have to run regular training programmes as part of their INSET. Schools may find that they need to be more flexible in their use of INSET with groups of staff training at different times to coincide with examination invigilation or residential trips. As Martin Pilkington, the head of ATL legal services stated, “the provision of training is essential and should be compulsory for all relevant new and current members of staff, and should be updated and refreshed on a regular basis.” The NHS has a very well publicized policy of Zero Tolerance for violence and verbal abuse against its staff. It is a policy that ensures that helps ensure staff safety, staff confidence and the respect of the general public. It is a damming indeed that no such policy is advertised or enforced in our schools. What subliminal message on the importance of education do we send out to the next generation when education staff are not afforded the same clear protection as their peers working in the NHS? What effect would clearly advertised Zero Tolerance policies and staff training have on the behaviour and habits of our young people both in and out of school?

There may be teachers who find themselves in workplaces that they believe are unsafe due to the lack of support or training provided by their management. For those who find themselves in this position Section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 may be of use. Section 100 gives employees the right not to be dismissed for any of the following:
• Taking appropriate steps to protect either themselves or others in circumstances of serious or imminent danger.
• Leave or propose to leave the workplace, if there is believed to be some serious or imminent danger which could not be averted, and,
• Refusing to return whilst the danger persists.
There are many schools that might be deserted by their staff if they were aware of this legislation. It is vital that Headteachers in this country take positive steps and provide their staff with the training they need. Doing so is not only likely to improve discipline by giving staff more confidence, but also likely to save money by reducing staff illnesses, injuries and early retirements. When a teacher projects confidence, when pupils know that a member of staff can act and will act (and in doing so will be supported by their school and LEA), discipline improves, negative disruptive acts decline and as a consequence teaching and students improve. It is possible that a more positive attitude within schools may have a gradual effect on the wider community.

Training should not be exclusive to teachers and teaching assistants. School inspectors are expected to assess every aspect of a school. If they have not had training in the law with regard to the use of force, or the physical application of force, they cannot be qualified or competent to pass judgement on a school’s policy with regard to the same. If a school is required by an inspector to change its policy on force, and that change results in an act of omission that in turn causes severe injury to a child, the inspector will be liable for prosecution as well as the headteacher.
Click to expand...

Tom bayley · Dec 22, 2014

To me it seems that most teachers do not believe that their establishments would back them up. This lack of belief can have potentially life threatening consequences. If a teacher thinks that acting could cost them their job, or possibly their career, they will hesitate. Hesitation in a self defense situation increases the risk of injury, as JWT points out above.

One possible solution for this is to decide in advance to trust your own judgement and join a union. Trust that if you ever have to take physical action you will be doing it for the right reasons. Trust that, if you have to, you will be able to justify your action in an industrial tribunal. If you make this decision, and believe it, you will free yourself to act when necessary.

Smitfire · Dec 22, 2014

To me it seems that most teachers do not believe that their establishments would back them up.
Click to expand...

With very good reason. Because they probably won't!

John Titchen · Dec 22, 2014

PASmith said: ↑

With very good reason. Because they probably won't!
Click to expand...

Understandable, and yet current DfE guidance is very clear on the matter.

Martin Pilkington, the head of ATL (Association of Teachers and Lecturers) legal services stated about PI and restraint training: “the provision of training is essential and should be compulsory for all relevant new and current members of staff, and should be updated and refreshed on a regular basis.”

Smitfire · Dec 23, 2014

My missus has never had any training with how to deal with violence at all. And she's been a teacher for 15+ years.
Luckily she works in rural school with barely any violence at all but she's also worked in inner city Nottingham (when that city was known for gang and drug related shootings) and didn't get any training then either.
Schools aren't concerned with protecting teachers (or educating pupils as far as I can see).
Their only concern is the A-C grade stats at the end of the year because that, seemingly, is the only thing government cares about.

Remi Lessore · Jan 4, 2015

Tom bayley said: ↑

A teacher recently asked me how to disarm a 12 year old student who attacked another student with a pair of scissors. The student was not responding to voice instructions. I said pick up a chair and hit them with it.

I personally believe that one should not be obliged to put one’s own life at risk in order to protect the well being of an attacker.

This however is not the view taken by education establishments. The teacher said that they were required to disarm the student without leaving any form of mark on the student.

Given this unrealistic requirement I suggested the following: The student is holding the scissors in their right hand.

Move to the students outside right. With your left hand lightly slap down the students forearm. Allow friction to bring your hand to rest near the student’s right wrist. Grip the wrist. This provides enough control for you to grip the wrist directly with the other hand. This double grip allows you to control the students arm.

The left hand should continue to grip the wrist. The right hand should transition from wrist to the student’s hand. The right hand should push on the back of the student’s hand. The student’s hand should bend inward towards them. Increasing the pressure should force the hand to open allowing you to remove the weapon.

I recommended this approach because the teacher has no martial arts experience, so it has to be simple, because the technique begins by first establishing control over the weapon and because it has a small risk of causing injury to the attacker.

What approach would you recommend?
Click to expand...

I think that's pretty good biomechanically and will open the student's hand. You first answer being to plant him with a chair makes me wonder if you are not a km student.
Still it is a but excessive given the attacker's age and the general bluntness of school scissors.
Be careful pushing his wrist as described as you could hyper extend it. ABH. But he should behave better, shouldn't he?
If someone can grab the other arm, pushing the tip of his thumb into the base if his thumb can cause enough pain compliance to encourage him to give up. Again, slowly.

Log in or Sign up

A safe effective weapon disarm that does not hurt the attaker

holyheadjch Valued Member

FunnyBadger I love food :)

Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

Alansmurf Aspire to Inspire before you Expire Supporter

matveimediaarts Underappreciated genius

Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

ned Valued Member

Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

FunnyBadger I love food :)

Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

Smitfire Cactus Schlong

John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

Tom bayley Valued Member

Smitfire Cactus Schlong

John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

Smitfire Cactus Schlong

Remi Lessore Valued Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

A safe effective weapon disarm that does not hurt the attaker

holyheadjch Valued Member

FunnyBadger I love food :)

Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

Alansmurf Aspire to Inspire before you Expire Supporter

matveimediaarts Underappreciated genius

Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

ned Valued Member

Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

Ben Gash CLF Valued Member

FunnyBadger I love food :)

Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

Smitfire Cactus Schlong

John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

Tom bayley Valued Member

Smitfire Cactus Schlong

John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

Smitfire Cactus Schlong

Remi Lessore Valued Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches