Suicidal crossed forearms knife defence tendon artery and internal organs wounds

Anyone interested in effective self-defence require practical realist smarts and to be honest with themselves in the evaluation of techniques and their individual capabilities to neutralise a formidable assaulter.

Common sense must prevail if you want to have the best and safest chances to incapacitate a formidable foe.

History did not always get it right when it comes to primary safest means and methods for self-protection and unfortunately in many cases some high risk low chance of threat neutralisation techniques are still on offer out there.

Military self-defence training packages are living, evolving means and methods of threat neutralisation and need to be to provide safe and effective means of combating or countering the most current types of threats including high risk threats.

True military close combat experts understand and accept that high level fighting arts and combat sport expertise take considerable training time to achieve and require ongoing training.

The amount of time required simply is not practical and as such the skills of mil CQC are based on highest level threat neutralisation means and methods to maximise objectives.

Skills must target delicate human senses, life support vital organs or destroy the integrity of extremities to reduce combative capabilities or decentralise and immobilise the enemy.

This is achieved by dirty and deadly foul unarmed and armed means and is very different to what is commonly seen in civilian self-defence where the techniques are based on traditional fighting styles and combat sports or hybridised versions of them.

In most cases, there is much greater likelihood of a civilian facing unarmed assault than an armed soldier.

The picture at the top of this file highlights the risks of staying in the kill zone and exposing tendons and arteries to a dagger in the hands of an armed violent assaulter.

This and many other high risk low likelihood chances of safely and effectively defeating threats of violence are unfortunately all too common.

Often people that’s self-defence capabilities are competition or traditional arts orientated simply don’t take into consideration gender and physical size and strength disparities and advantages and importantly violent assaulters fight capabilities and desire to do them grievous bodily harm.

You would think that they would be able to identify techniques that are suicidal at a glance or certainly by testing such means and methods under realistic threat in training.

Just considering why combat sports like MMA, boxing and wrestling are contested in age, weight and gender categories and divisions should make anyone think and understand the advantages a superior attributes and capabilities armed competitor has.

Violent offenders that have grown up tough and know how to street fight and use violence to get what they want are prepared for victims to fight back and will address ineffective self-defence actions against them with increased violence.

Unfortunately false belief in ineffective capabilities equates to dire outcomes for victims that are simply not street violence savvy or capable and have a false belief that their often newly learnt self-defence capabilities will enable them to stop a violent assaulter.

Looking at techniques capabilities with a practical realist open mind-set and asking yourself hard important questions, like would they really be safe in a high risk threat situation and would you have the physical capabilities to stop a bigger stronger violent assaulter in their tracks with your techniques, is a must to identify techniques positives and negatives including risks and dangers.

Ballerina type kicks where the victims of violence’s clothing, foot wear and importantly the assaulter realities like their huge disparities in size, strength and fight capabilities to his underdog target demand only the most proven deliberate means and methods of putting a stop to hostilities. The fact that under male assaults female, males know how to protect their genitals makes the likelihood of incapacitating a bigger stronger violent fight savvy aggressor very low.

Rising arm/arms suicidal techniques against violent unpredictable dagger armed assaulters

Rising arm or crossed arms blocking techniques against an ice-pick grip downward knife assault where bare fore arms are contacted with a sharp edged blade are suicidal and leave you open to secondary wounding with the weapon continuing its downward gravity assisted travel slicing the blocking arm/arms on its way to penetrating life support internal organs. Knife assaults are seldom static, can be unpredictable unorthodox and can consist of multiple stabbing or slashing actions. Those that are serious about their safety and self-protection need to identify techniques that increase risk and jeopardise safety. Statically exposing your arms as a means of direct contact defence/counter action against a dagger as well as exposing your life support vitals to being penetrated should ring alarm bells.

Surely anyone with practical smarts exposed to such suicidal techniques would want to know if the advocator of such techniques had ever used them to effectively disarm a violent knife armed assaulter. I have asked promoters of such life threatening techniques if they would be prepared to demonstrate them under formidable unpredictable aggressive shock actions.

When they have no control over the outcome the reality hits home and there actual lack of confidence in their techniques makes the decision for them.

Many seem to forget that a knife is always loaded and only has to touch you to not only achieve an autonomic reaction of self-preservation but also a definite wound response leaving you exposed to continued edged weapon assault.

The numbers of high-risk techniques like the previous I have observed or had to evaluate for effectiveness and advise on over my 40+ years of mil self-defence and CQC instructing career could only be described as considerable.

As part of consultancy, client information requests and general public questions we get many of the same threat category means of self-defence questions as to whether such techniques are safe and could possibly work under serious threat situations.

This is because even those with no prior knowledge that are practical realists have self-doubts as to the techniques effectiveness and safety and can’t understand why they are being taught techniques that do not make them feel confident and safe .

You could understand those that are young, naive or have no experience or knowledge of the risks and realities of urban violent assault and military close quarters actions on, not being able to distinguish between effectively proven means of threat neutralisation and techniques that cause increased risk and low level chances of defeating formidable foes, but when you consider such life and limb risking techniques are often being promoted and instructed by people claiming to be self- defence instructors, it is very concerning.

Surely you think they would have a duty of care to provide primary proven means and methods that provide as safe and effective chances of threat neutralisation, but this is often not the case.

There are many common life or limb risking techniques that our military self-defence and close combat instructors would identify immediately as tactically flawed and bin that are still promoted in the public domain.

Some such common dangerous practices include.

1. Instructing take on fight techniques over dirty tricks means of incapacitation that provide the best chances of stopping a formidable foes in their tracks.
2. Employing techniques that have no chance of threat neutralisation against a bigger more physically capable violent assaulter.
3. Promoting ground fighting for the street or battlefield where aggressors could be armed and where their comrades are standing above ready to kick or stomp not to mention the environmental risks of the concrete jungle.
4. Dropping down to escape the old full Nelson and risking ones spinal cord that could result in paralyses or death.
5. Clinching with an aggressor that could be and should be presumed armed that does not have to abide by any rules and has access to your delicate human sensors or life support vitals that would stop a clinching/grappling option in an instant and cause injury or worse.
6. Turning ones back on an aggressor to apply a technique and by doing so exposing the nape of the neck and throat to methods that could render you unable to defend yourself.

The Full Nelson puts forced leverage on the spinal column/cord that any sudden dynamic dropping action by the victim could sacrifice their spinal cord or be fatal

These and the other risky means of dealing with the realities of violence are but some terminal errors identified in observations and evaluations of techniques being promoted as effective self-defence when they are in fact the opposite.

If instructors promoting drop down raised arms escape of the Full-Nelson hold had actually tried it under careful controlled conditions against a stronger, bigger, formable enemy training partner that knew how to apply the hold, I don’t understand why they would continue to promote such a high risk low chance of success technique.

Would you want to grapple with someone that was gouging your eyes, biting your nose, crushing your airway or even worse was armed?

So why would you want to train in such dangerous techniques and why would anyone instruct them to the vulnerable?

May be because they know no better as their knowledge is based on sport or traditional ancient arts.

Maybe they have never had to fight to save their life or limbs in the street or on the battlefield in a close quarters combat actions on.

While they may have good intentions providing self- defence training that promotes less than primary proven means of stopping modern day violent assaulters in their tracks, shows a lack of know how practical smarts and real life experience in defeating violent aggressors.

The realities and risks of throwing techniques of violent assaulters of considerably greater physical size and strength

As per the above picture of a much smaller target of violence trying to throw someone that is considerably bigger and stronger with bad intentions is tactically flawed and risk increasing so are many other life and limb risking techniques that should never be taught for real life self-defence where your aggressor should always be considered a dangerous threat to you.

Common sense and tradecraft smarts have proven to be absent in many instances and this equates to the users of less than primary proven effective means of threat neutralisation chances of defeating an assaulter with bad intentions being reduced by considerable.

The problem is the techniques are often based on traditional styles or sport codes that are age, weight and gender contested competition or art form practices. Such practices are seldom effective for under-dogs being assaulted by violent more formidable over-dogs. Military close quarters combat or urban/domestic specific violence threats are very different to practising traditional arts or sporting codes where there are codes of conduct and respect as well as rules and officials to enforce them in safe environments.

Instructors must know that they are not training highly skilled fighters that in an unarmed threat situation are capable of defeating an assaulter; they are training people seeking best self-defence capabilities because they feel vulnerable and want to prepare themselves should they ever face a violent threat.

They usually only have minimal available training time and do not want to fight in competition or take up traditional fighting arts and as such are only interested in the most proven safe and effective practices possible.

Rape or murder could not be described as traditional threats and as such are hard to neutralise by traditional or hybridised means and methods.

For someone with no expertise or background to consider techniques to be useless for their self-defence while instructors promote them as the best way to take care of an attacker should raise alarm bells for all concerned.

The following is a simple means of evaluating and making decisions as to whether techniques will provide the required capability to defeat a physically superior, skilled violent assaulter.

There are some simple evaluations that can be undertaken not only of the techniques but also of the means and methods of training in the techniques in regards to not only effectiveness but if both the technique and the training means and methods will best provide the user with safest and most effective means of defeating a formidable foe.

There are also self-evaluations that someone seeking self-protection training must undertake to determine if they have what it takes physically and mentally to effectively and safely neutralise a violent assaulter.

Unarmed threats considerations.

• Would the techniques be a best means to neutralise a much bigger stronger and physically capable violent aggressor?
• Would the techniques be the safest and best means of stopping a skilled assaulter that is physically superior in their tracks?
• Would your techniques as a female under male sexual or domestic violence assault enable you to effectively and safely neutralise the threat?
• Would you as a smaller male with no fight background be able to incapacitate a bigger, stronger violent aggressor with bad intentions?
• Do the techniques require high level physicality capabilities or greater physical size and strength than your aggressor?
• Are the techniques fine motor skills techniques that are complex or overcomplicated?
• Do the techniques favour someone of a different body type as in bigger, stronger, more athletic or supple?
• Does the training include anti-preventative tactics and skills or just take on fight techniques?
• Are the techniques supported by strategies that provide changes in threat or situation contingency option capabilities?
• Do the techniques actually increase risk or simply don’t work in training?
• Could you physically and mentally use the techniques to incapacitate a violent assaulter of superior physical attributes and fight capabilities?
• Is the training practical and realistic to the realities of specific violence and violent assault threats neutralisation?
• Do you take into consideration violent aggressors don’t just fall over when you tap them and if this is happening in your training it’s not best preparing you for the realities of real life violence?
• Are your self-defence techniques based on threat neutralisation/incapacitation or on take on fighting sparring/sport/traditional arts methods?
• Is the training unrealistic as in training partners simulating being defeated including pre-determined choreography.
• Do your training partners fall down or give in when you have barely contacted them or attack or seize you will low to no level of force?
• Has the instructor ever fought for real having to defend themselves against a violent assaulter using the promoted techniques to effectively defeat them?
• Did your training include anti encounter preventative tactics to reduce the likelihood of ending up under violent assault?
• Did the teachings include mental toughness enhancement for self-protection as all the techniques prowess amounts to little if you do not have a mentally tough mind-set?
• Did your self-defence make you feel confident and capable of defeating a bigger, stronger violent aggressor?
• Are you afraid to ask questions of the techniques and instructors use of them in real life situations?

While many people looking for self-defence training have little or no idea of the realities of dealing with violent threats, simply being honest with yourself will soon identify if the provided techniques and your personal attributes/capabilities could enable you to defeat a violent assaulter or not.

Assessing the techniques and not just taking their effectiveness as promoted as gospel and asking important questions and getting satisfying answers is very important.

Placing one’s trust and safety in the hands of someone simply because they tell you they are highly qualified and the techniques they teach are the very best may not ensure you are trained in the required means and methods to deal with urban and domestic violence dangerous threats.

The realities of military close quarters combat in war are that it may come down to kill or die and under civilian violent assaults in these ever increasing violent times, murderous and sexual violence threats are all too common and equally life threatening.

Some techniques simply make no sense if you want to overcome threat realities as safely, quickly and effectively as humanly possible.

Nothing is 100% guaranteed in the neutralisation of unpredictable ruthless violent assaulters, however, starting out with skills that are not made to incapacitate/neutralise physically superior, skilled and armed assaulters gives you little chance of achieving safe effective threat neutralisation.

The following considerations should be taken into account when evaluating techniques effectiveness.

• An overview of the methods of training is also important to ensure it is specific to violent threats neutralisation and is not just choreography or submissive practices for no other reason that a feel good effect when in reality the enemy training partner is simply acting by taking a fall.
• Is this technique derived from a competitive code that is contested in gender categories or age or weight divisions and if it is, then it is more than likely not the best means of incapacitating a superior assaulter.
• Does this technique involve time-consuming clinching, grappling or ground fighting with a physically superior aggressor that may well be armed which would put you in immediate weapon threat range.
• Does the skill require unrealistic throwing techniques that are contested in weight divisions and under the safety of fitting environments, rules and under control of officials?
• Presuming that your aggressor is wanting to do you serious harm and has superior fight capabilities as well as being bigger and stronger should in most cases count out high kicking techniques as an effective means of violent assaulter neutralisation.
• Would the techniques practiced in fitting training attire be able to be effectively executed in restrictive clothing and less than appropriate footwear?
• Importantly, do you think taking a superior assaulter on with ancient traditional fighting arts techniques or competitive codes techniques that are contested under gender, age and weight divisions is more effective than best of battle proven dirty tricks brigade tactics and skills specifically developed for enemy incapacitation.
• Is the training you are partaking in more like choreography and are the training partners more cooperative than combative?
• Do you realise that when your cervical vertebrae/spinal cord is under forced manipulation that your sudden dropping of your centre of gravity combined with the assaulters leverage momentum is prone to causing paralysis or a fatality as in a full nelson hold?
• Do you understand how tactically flawed it is to take on a bigger, stronger, fitter, faster, trained fighter that wants to do you serious bodily harm with fight techniques that they are well versed at combating?
• Do your instructors tell you what to do including outcomes that are predetermined over effectively achieved?
• Do you test your techniques under duress to determine if they will fail or succeed?
• Does your training regime training/partner provide actions on realism resistance and make every effort to prevent you achieving your objective in a controlled but deliberate manner?
• Does your training provide a plan B and emergency combat or counter options?
• Does your training include a most important focus on your mental toughness enhancement?
• Have you been inoculated against the effects of contact to ensure your plan does not disappear when you get punched in the face?
• Do you best know how to reduce your target mass, increase your stability and maximise your expedient action initiation in the execution of combat and counter actions as well as escape and evasion?
• Do you understand that techniques that have no effect on your training partner in a controlled environment will not incapacitate a formidable and capable foe in a real life assault and will increase your chances of losing?
• Do you understand the importance of having effective enemy party in training to best prepare you for the realities of no rules in a hard surfaces and protrusions environment?
• Do you ask practical realist family members or friends that are physically capable to be an independent home training partner for you so you can determine techniques and your personal attributes capabilities?

Non ballistic armed threat neutralisation (street weapons).

• Do you understand that in a situation where there is no out option and you are facing a street weapon, that you do not defend against the weapon but must either escape and evade or disarm and disable the assaulter?
• Do you believe that the technique you have been taught against sharp edged and bludgeon type weapons are the safest and most effective means of disarming an armed violent assaulter?
• Would you be confident to use the techniques you have been taught against not just a training knife in training but in a real life attack against a real blade under life threatening assault?
• How confident would you be to use stationary defence techniques against a real blade in the hands of an aggressor stabbing and slashing multiple times?
• Do you understand that even the most minimal contact with a real blade will cause wounding or death?
• Would you be prepared to use any static blocking techniques against a violent assault with knife in hand?
• Do you understand that flesh, tendons and arteries exposed to blades will be destroyed and that penetration produces fatal injuries to life-support vitals?
• Do you understand that a sharp knife is always loaded and requires minimal force to produce fatal wounds?
• Do you understand that flesh on flesh blocking of a knife holding arm/hand where the knife holding hand/wrist hand is not secured leaves you exposed to stabbing and slashing, knife directional changes and increased gravity enhances stabbing and slashing?
• With no immediate out option if your disarming and disabling strategy does not include evasive/escape clearing of the kill zone do you understand you are a static exposed target?
• Do you understand that in bludgeon including long bludgeon weapons assaults clearing the kill zone is a primary requirement to prevent contact injury including fatal injuries?
• Do you understand that you must make every effort to clear every part of your anatomy off of the contact point as a committed strike with a bludgeon weapon even to an extremity can be devastating and will certainly leave you somewhat disabled and less capable of saving yourself?
• Do you understand that blocking techniques arm to arm against a weapon holding hand can provide a guided line of travel of the weapon holding arm along your blocking arm to your bodily life support systems?
• Have you been trained in the importance of undertaking pre actions on decision-making assessments and ongoing real-time assessments to ensure you maximise your safety?
• Are you competent in risk reduction, assessment and decision-making to ensure you have the best escape and evasion or disarming and disabling options at your disposal?
• Have you been trained in situational awareness in relation to your position, escape options, effective pre-actions on evasive and disarming ranges?
• Do you understand the importance of your tactical footprint, environment, identification of hazards, secondary threats and anything that could hinder your capability to disarm and disable your assaulter or neutralise the threat by escape and evasion.
• Are you familiar with using improvised objects in disarming and incapacitating armed assaulters?
• Are you aware that the best means of neutralising weapons threats is anti-threat tactics that ensure you do not end up in such a threat situation or can tactically/safely get yourself as far away from a weapon threat as possible?

The previous are based on our mil CQC trade-craft training practices by undertaking self and skills assessments to determine how capable you are to safely and effectively stamp out threats of violence against you.