A safe effective weapon disarm that does not hurt the attaker

You are legally correct, but it is easier for a school to intimate to the teachers that their carers are in jeopardy and that they should therefore avoid physical conflict at all costs than to make them confident of support and risk they and rebellious students will test the boundaries. No school wants the cost and distraction of taking the matter to court.

And depending on the maturity of whichever police officers intervene it could go one way or another to begin with, however it eventually plays out in court.

There is considerable establishment hypocrisy at play, here.

 

Yes

 

True not KM but equipping yourself with your own weapon is advised by many military instructors including W.E Fairburn. Chairs are good because they provide distance and you could use it to coral the attacker.

Agreed, in principle that's why I came up with an alternative. In practice in this case the scissors were sharp.

Don't agree entirely on this one. The child was big enough to be difficult to physically restrain and prone to lashing out in anger. Sharps can kill very easily. A weapon in the hands of a child can be dangerous simply because they do not know how dangerous it is. Personally I think that when weapons are involved it becomes significantly more difficult to assess the threat by considering age of the attacker

Good point. Having one hand grip the forearm while the other applies the pressure should make it easier to control the amount of force used. But none the less Good point.

That's a good technique. Personally, however, I prefer to rely on mechanical compliance rather than pain compliance. I find that pain is too variable between individuals and even for different techniques on the same individual. Pain compliance does not always work, even when applied correctly.

Given that different people have different mobility in joints and soft tissue mechanical compliance is also variable. However with mechanical compliance I can feel what is happening in the opponents limbs and adjust accordingly. Mechanical compliance always works when applied correctly [unless correctly countered].

 

I would say that equal force is acceptable using locks would be appropriate for you can control the pressure to your opponent but there is no such thing of manoeuvre that is none hurtful to your attacker.

 

You do enough to stop the attacker, you might not get a second chance so make the first time a good one.

 

I've had to remove a pair of scissors, a rounders bat and an iron file (long woodwork one) from the hands of teenagers who were having violent meltdowns before. On top of a multitude of unarmed physical restraints.

I never received any training from the institution on how to go about this.

In all instances, limb control and mechanical compliance were used but the primary skill set was a soft and empathetic tone repeating soft and empathetic words over and over to sooth the frustration of being physically dominated and the months and months of prior relationship building.

Hitting a kid with a chair will see you jobless and possibly in court.

Edit: to clarify context this was in a poorly funded city comprehensive, in a very rough, predominantly white benefits class area, with high crime and unemployment; working in both a behavioural unit on site and with children with challenging behaviour in the mainstream section. A teachers was kicked through a plate glass window a year before I started.

 

If someone is attacking me for whatever reason, you use as much force as necessary to stop the attack. If that means cracking their skull with a baseball bat fine, if it means taking them to the ground and immobilizing them fine...I'd go with too much force than not enough force.

 

If you are fighting for your life in the street, then that is arguable - though proportionality should still guide our actions.
If you are dealing with an overwrought teenager in a school, then caution and self-restraint are usually more appropriate.
In my experience you can get the desired response without having to nail them (especially if they know that you can).

 

Better to go with appropriate and reasonable force.

 

And who is to decide what is reasonable force? I don't mean you chase someone down a street or hallway and pound on them. But if using your fists doesn't stop the attack, use whatever you can, a chair, a bat, whatever...defending yourself is your first priority, not kid gloving some kid who's upset because his girlfriend dumped him. If they are physically attacking you, use whatever force is necessary to end the confrontation. I don't train in it but as I understand it Krav Maga trains you to destroy the opposition first then worry about their feelings afterwards. Always protect yourself first.

 

It's my understanding that US courts use the "Reasonable Man" standard. If anyone knows the details of how it works nowadays, I'll be following the thread. :hat:

 

That would be the courts. In our system it goes mostly by case law or you get a new ruling but you do not want to be the one to step in that steaming pile first.

Self defence is a very case by case thing. The force has to be reasonable to the circumstances. A bat might make sense if you're a 120 lb person facing a 250 lb person. It could still be excessive force depending on the circumstance and how you use it and it seriously sounds like you're recommending excessive force.

But if your first attack doesn't do anything you're likely on the back foot and knee deep in a pile of hurt anyway. You don't get to ask them to stop for a second while you regroup and arm up and it's very difficult to grab a weapon while being battered or positionally controlled or both.

Whatever reasonable force. That means no more than is necessary. If that's too hard for you to handle your training sucks and you need a new instructor and/or style.

One of the many reasons Krav makes horrible self defence instruction.

 

And very good answer except for the final comment.
I always remind my students about reasonable force. I did at every class this week.

My instructors did to me and Imi Lichtenfeld is quoted as telling people about control and compassion.

 

A British court would deem that you are supposed to know what is reasonable. It means proportional. No more than you honestly thought was necessary.

Krav Maga does not teach you to destroy the opposition when it is not necessary. Thoughtless instructors who want to be considered tough and uncompromising do that.

Technique and control will allow you to gauge how much force you are using and how much an attacker needs to absorb before the situation degenerates from you being a defender exercising his legal rights to you being the aggressor of a now relatively harmless individual.

Though locks are not the biggest component of Krav Maga, they are what I used most when I was in the police. I never destroyed anyone nor have I ever encouraged my students to do so - unless it was proportionate and reasonable to do so.
E.g. if a grown man is trying to stab you with a lethal sharp and you punch them in the throat and he suffers the consequence of his action, that is may well be reasonable.
But,
If a light teenager is waving a sharp object about and you kick him in the abdomen and he crumples up, it is not reasonable to then slam him in the back of the neck with your forearm, risking his unnecessary death.
And if two adults are controlling him so that he can no longer swing the knife about it is probably not even reasonable to strike him at all.

 

Ring the police.

when I did my training for courts, we were shown a type of restraint, unlike the goose neck that was for use on minors, as it doesn't use pain compliance and pressure on the wrist. apparently that's bad for kiddies, they seemed to lose interest when some one pointed out most 16 and 17 year old offenders are as big as most of the adults anyway.

funnily enough that same 'child lock' or 'escort' very similar to the one taught in MAPPA is the one now taught on the door supervisors course.

 

I think I know the hold you mean - it only worked if the kid's feet were in the ground, if they ran up a corridor wall it did not.

As far as the police were concerned,
1. In certain schools you simply can't involve them all the time otherwise the kids would use it as a way of getting out early.
2. Even when the situation is serious adults need to take charge to protect themselves, each other and the students who aren't involved in the commotion.

Most police are not great at dealing with this sort of situation, the custody sergeant would curse you if you kept bringing in juveniles, etc.
Adults need to take responsibility.

 

and I forgot to mention both are a minimum of a two people on one restraint and preferably 3 with a third person to observe, witness and deal with anyone trying to intervene.

any custody staff or ex custody staff with young offender experience would probably be the best to comment if we got any about on here?

 

It was more of a general statement regarding usually instantly excessive force and lack of force continuum seen in most Krav schools, on top of the things nearly all martial arts schools are lacking in terms of self defence instruction.

 

In the situations I've worked in (challenging behaviour/PRU/mainstream) its not often you have three or even two adults spare to restrain one child. It's an unfortunate by product of underfunding/staffing that the ideal amount of staff for both child saftey and educational development are not there.

I described my strategy earlier but to recap it was essential some form of over unders/double unders/two on one arm control/body lock used to carry/control the pupil to a safer area for verbal deesculation.

I also had to use a modified kimura to put a 16 year old student on the floor when they attempted to strangle me from behind while I was seated. But that was a pretty anomolous situation and one I think I would have got into a lot of trouble for if anyone had found out.

Once I was shown a sort of 'side carry' as a form of recommmednded restraint, which I think would have been easily escapable by an angry kid, but luckily this was in a school setting where I never even had to put a hand on a pupil in restraint as it was a very safe rural mainstream secondary.

 

Sounds like the same reasoning as having a no gun zone. Just tell them they can't do it and of course they'll stop....

I'd rather use too much force and walk away than not enough and end up dead.