Head Stomping

[Kchef]

I find this conversation very interesting.

While working security in a number of busy nightclubs, I am one of the unfortunate individuals who finds themselves involved in physical altercations usually on a weekly basis. Some weeks it might be 4 or 5, sometimes I may have a good month without anyone deciding to lash out at me, but the reality of potential conflict is always present.

Now, I've undertaken quite considerable training in the legality of self defense and combat and my clean record of never having used excessive force is something I take great pride in. As such, whenever possible I will use my judo background to put my attacker down and restrain him until police arrive. It looks much better on camera, and more importantly, no one ends up with serious injuries. I consider myself more skillful than the vast majority of people likely to attack me in a nightclub, and therefore I am able to maintain my calm and try to look after their wellbeing even if they are not concerned with mine.

With all that said, that goes out the window if I fear for my life or my livelihood. The second I see a weapon, or I realise I am far too outnumbered, I'll use whatever means necessary to eliminate the threat. I don't get paid enough to warrent taking 6 months off due to severe injuries, or even not going home at all.

As far as headstomping goes... well... any form of kicking (under Australian law, kicking someone is the same as striking them with a weapon) is a last resort for me. I draw back to my firearms training in which we were taught "You do not shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat." If I put him on the ground and he is no longer a threat to me, there's no need to stomp his head. However, if I put him on the ground and he's still trying to slash at my legs or holding my foot so his friends can attack me, I'll stomp until the threat has been neutralised.

I believe when it comes to self defense, you must be prepared for the worst case scenario. Just as you shouldn't point a gun at anything you're not prepared to destroy, you shouldn't stomp anyone you're not prepared to kill.

Thankfully, I've never been in a situation where I've had to take things to this extreme.

I believe every technique has some place in self defense under the right circumstance. The true art is knowing when it is needed.

Yours,

Joe Saunders

The act of being attacked or mugged is not a normal one and the odds of it happening to you are thankfully still pretty small, especially if you are aware of your surroundings and give off a sense of confidence. However, if it does happen you need to be prepared to deal with seriousness of the situation. As a bouncer, your dealings with your customers don’t reach the same level of seriousness as someone being mugged by one or multiple attackers.

There are a couple of points I’d like to make here:

If you are ever attacked, don’t assume that there will be only one attacker. If there is then you can decide how far you’ll need to go to be comfortable that the attacker can no longer harm you. The courts will look at it the same way. What would a reasonable person do in an effort to defend themselves? Courts and more importantly jurors understand that muggings can often have tragic outcomes and so as long as your actions match the aggression I wouldn’t get to worried.

If there are two attackers and you get one on the ground, you would be foolish not to try and take some steps to ensure that they won’t be getting back up to harm or kill you. A stomp or stomps to there ankle, back of the knee, hand, elbow or even the neck is very reasonable. Once one is down, don’t assume they can’t or won’t get back up and back into the fight. The other attacker seeing there buddy on the ground can sometimes shaken there confidence enough for them to consider stopping and then it is important to quickly decide to either flee or bring the fight to the one left standing.

You can’t compare what is reasonable for a civilian and what is reasonable for a cop. Cops I’m afraid are not given the same amount of levity as an unarmed civilian but their job is to apprehend the criminal and not kill them if it can be avoided. Cops have a tough job to do but that is the career path they have chosen and have to follow the rules they have been given. The average Joe isn’t armed and so if attacked they need to remember that it is often a them or me outcome. Obviously if you are in complete control you should stop with the fight and flee but in the heat of the moment it is important for you to know for certain that you are in complete control and have survived the attack. It would be a shame if you were shot walking away from a fight you really had already won.

As far as your comment on your fire arms training, I’m afraid you are off point as well. That may be appropriate for a cop or a security guard, but please don’t give that same advice to your teenage daughter or son. If someone breaks into their house and is coming up the stairs, they should shoot to kill not to just stop the threat. What constitutes stopping the threat is the important grey area and it’s that area that could get them killed. An average guy who gets shot in the shoulder will run away but what if they are on drugs and have a gun in their back pocket and they pull it out, kill you and rape you daughter? There isn’t then anyone left to argue the point on what constitutes stopping the threat. But I’ll play devils advocate for second and assume your shot to the shoulder did stop them and they sat down and waited for the police to come and arrest them. That’s all and good until they bring suit against you because they no longer have use of their right arm and are unable to work. They said that if you had only asked them to leave they would have turned around and left. Their gun wasn’t loaded anyway and they were only there looking for food to feed their 4 kids. Take my advice, if you ever have to use a weapon to protect yourself and your family, you shoot until you are certain they are dead and reload. Juries don’t take kindly to armed robbers coming into occupied homes. If your family is traumatized from it, you should bring suit against the attacker’s family and their assets. That may sound wrong to some, but it isn’t. Their relative ruined your family’s day, week, or month it’s not the other way around

K. Allen

[Texasmic]

My father's advice on guns is this:
(& he teaches the classes for concealed handgun licensing in Texas)

Don't pull a gun unless you are going to shoot, don't shoot unless you are going to kill.

Don't even reach for a gun unless you have already made up your mind you are willing to kill the attacker / intruder.

Now, please don't come up with moronic "What if it is your teen aged child coming home from a party?" stuff.

I mean an actual attacker / intruder. If you are going to turn a gun on them you had better be willing to kill them if it comes to that.

[kiai]

If you knock someone down through a series of moves and it becomes obvious that you "know something", and then you let that person regain his feet to confront you again, he may draw the weapon he didn't think he needed before, and he may kill you.

Legally, you would have to know that he was going for a weapon (know he had a weapon, and actually see him going for it, or see the weapon itself) to justify deadly force at that point.

When there's an option to retreat, the legal obligation is to do so. The knee to ribs drop is easier to target than a head stomp for a face-up opponent. Even a stomp to the abdomen would likely immobilize an attacker. Another option might be a palm-heel to the nose -- enough for a break and disorientation. At that point, the best policy is likely to get away from the scene as fast as possible.

If the takedown leaves the attacker face-down, breaking the elbow/arm or dislocating a shoulder is probably a good call, followed by immediate retreat.

I think in any ground finish, it's probably essential to apply the finishing technique immediately so it is seen as part of the take-down, allowing for the "I slipped" defense (knee strike). A head stomp is a tough sell, and might have you doing time for manslaughter or second degree murder.

[Kchef]

Legally, you would have to know that he was going for a weapon (know he had a weapon, and actually see him going for it, or see the weapon itself) to justify deadly force at that point.

When there's an option to retreat, the legal obligation is to do so. The knee to ribs drop is easier to target than a head stomp for a face-up opponent. Even a stomp to the abdomen would likely immobilize an attacker. Another option might be a palm-heel to the nose -- enough for a break and disorientation. At that point, the best policy is likely to get away from the scene as fast as possible.

If the takedown leaves the attacker face-down, breaking the elbow/arm or dislocating a shoulder is probably a good call, followed by immediate retreat.

I think in any ground finish, it's probably essential to apply the finishing technique immediately so it is seen as part of the take-down, allowing for the "I slipped" defense (knee strike). A head stomp is a tough sell, and might have you doing time for manslaughter or second degree murder.

If you have the attacker subdued, search him before you get and leave to call the police. If you are attacked and you defend yourself you are pretty much covered legally. If the attacker was drunk and was of no real threat in the first place, then you should have just walked away. If you're not looking for trouble and trouble comes your way, try and run away, if you can't then fight. The one left standing is the winner. if it isn't life and death then the same rules obviously don't apply.

K. Allen

[Kchef]

I believe that teaching or learning stomping techniques to be used in certain serious situations is completely reasonable. No one is condoning using them in any non life threatening situation. When MA’s are taught they ask that when you punch or kick you should actually touch the persons Gi and not stop a foot away. Why? I assume it is because they want you to actually prepare and be able to hit them if and when it is necessary. If you always practice pulling your punches, you will never really be truly prepared. You can read it in a book all you want but if you don’t actually practice going through the motions of it, you won’t get it. Muscle memory…….yes?

Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think so.

K Allen

[Joe Saunders]

Mr Allen, I fear you generalise and assume too much in your otherwise well-made argument.

The act of being attacked or mugged is not a normal one and the odds of it happening to you are thankfully still pretty small, especially if you are aware of your surroundings and give off a sense of confidence. However, if it does happen you need to be prepared to deal with seriousness of the situation.

Your first point is very subjective to where you live. Perhaps this is the case in Virginia, but what about in parts of South Africa? South Auckland? Rio? Indonesia? For some unlucky people, being mugged or attacked is a likely occurrence.

As a bouncer, your dealings with your customers don’t reach the same level of seriousness as someone being mugged by one or multiple attackers

I think this statement is very misinformed. 2 months ago I had a drugged up young male come into the club I was working with a 6 inch hunting knife, looking for me because I had kicked his brother out 2 weeks prior. Not long before that I was lunged at with a broken glass. And just a few weeks ago I had a guy swinging a heavy steel bollard (the posts that hold the red velvet rope) at my head. And I honestly have no idea how many times I've been punched, headbutted or swung at because someone decided they didn't want to leave when I told them they had to. These incidents FAR outweigh anything I've encountered as a civilian. You say this isn't the same level of seriousness as being mugged? I say it's more serious. If you're being mugged, there's a chance that if you give them what they're asking for, you get away unharmed. If someone comes looking for you with no other purpose than to do you harm, that option isn't there. To say I don't deal with the same level of seriousness is an insult.

As far as your comment on your fire arms training, I’m afraid you are off point as well. That may be appropriate for a cop or a security guard, but please don’t give that same advice to your teenage daughter or son. If someone breaks into their house and is coming up the stairs, they should shoot to kill not to just stop the threat.

Perhaps this point of disagreement is due to a conflict in our laws. In Australia you are not allowed to possess a firearm for the purpose of self defense. The only people with firearms are those requiring them for their occupation (cops, security, farmers) and those requiring them for sporting purposes. Even then, the type and calibre of gun you can have is heavily regulated. As for my training, I was trained in security firearms by an ex-South African SWAT operator, so it was most definately shooting for law enforcement, not for self defense. As outlined above, there is no shooting for self defense in this country unless your job requires you to carry that weapon.

What constitutes stopping the threat is the important grey area and it’s that area that could get them killed. An average guy who gets shot in the shoulder will run away but what if they are on drugs and have a gun in their back pocket and they pull it out, kill you and rape you daughter? There isn’t then anyone left to argue the point on what constitutes stopping the threat.
...

Take my advice, if you ever have to use a weapon to protect yourself and your family, you shoot until you are certain they are dead and reload. Juries don’t take kindly to armed robbers coming into occupied homes. If your family is traumatized from it, you should bring suit against the attacker’s family and their assets. That may sound wrong to some, but it isn’t. Their relative ruined your family’s day, week, or month it’s not the other way around

K. Allen

Stopping the threat is when you no longer have reasonable grounds to feel threatened. For me, with considerable training on my side, that might be much sooner than for a traumatised teenage girl. Regardless, that's the definition. I'm not sure how the US laws look at what you just said, but I guarantee that if you go into an Australian court and said "I wanted to/intended to/shot to kill him." you'll have much less chance of going home to your family than if you said "I shot to stop him." If you shoot him twice and he drops, then you proceed to empty the rest of your magazine in him, you're going to have a very hard case to answer and will probably be looking at a murder charge.

Perhaps our differences in culture, laws and experience provided this point of disagreement, but I think you should be careful not to generalise.

Nice chatting with you.

[Kchef]

Mr Allen, I fear you generalise and assume too much in your otherwise well-made argument.



Your first point is very subjective to where you live. Perhaps this is the case in Virginia, but what about in parts of South Africa? South Auckland? Rio? Indonesia? For some unlucky people, being mugged or attacked is a likely occurrence.



I think this statement is very misinformed. 2 months ago I had a drugged up young male come into the club I was working with a 6 inch hunting knife, looking for me because I had kicked his brother out 2 weeks prior. Not long before that I was lunged at with a broken glass. And just a few weeks ago I had a guy swinging a heavy steel bollard (the posts that hold the red velvet rope) at my head. And I honestly have no idea how many times I've been punched, headbutted or swung at because someone decided they didn't want to leave when I told them they had to. These incidents FAR outweigh anything I've encountered as a civilian. You say this isn't the same level of seriousness as being mugged? I say it's more serious. If you're being mugged, there's a chance that if you give them what they're asking for, you get away unharmed. If someone comes looking for you with no other purpose than to do you harm, that option isn't there. To say I don't deal with the same level of seriousness is an insult.



Perhaps this point of disagreement is due to a conflict in our laws. In Australia you are not allowed to possess a firearm for the purpose of self defense. The only people with firearms are those requiring them for their occupation (cops, security, farmers) and those requiring them for sporting purposes. Even then, the type and calibre of gun you can have is heavily regulated. As for my training, I was trained in security firearms by an ex-South African SWAT operator, so it was most definately shooting for law enforcement, not for self defense. As outlined above, there is no shooting for self defense in this country unless your job requires you to carry that weapon.



Stopping the threat is when you no longer have reasonable grounds to feel threatened. For me, with considerable training on my side, that might be much sooner than for a traumatised teenage girl. Regardless, that's the definition. I'm not sure how the US laws look at what you just said, but I guarantee that if you go into an Australian court and said "I wanted to/intended to/shot to kill him." you'll have much less chance of going home to your family than if you said "I shot to stop him." If you shoot him twice and he drops, then you proceed to empty the rest of your magazine in him, you're going to have a very hard case to answer and will probably be looking at a murder charge.

Perhaps our differences in culture, laws and experience provided this point of disagreement, but I think you should be careful not to generalise.

Nice chatting with you.

Thanks and I understand you points. I really didn't give much thought to what might be acceptable in other countries. In the USA, a typical civilian is given a pretty decent amount of leeway, especially when it comes to the ownership of guns. I'm sorry that all countries don't have a similar law. I truly think it makes a difference in ours. Criminals understand here that if they break into a house that is occupied, they may have to deal with the armed owners. It is a deterrent. Even if someone believes otherwise, armed citizens have the ability to protect themselves. I understand that in some countries that isn't possible or at least legal. That statement about unloading the gun on the is a bit of bravado with a bit of USA legal advice thrown in as well.

I sympathize with what a bouncer has to deal with, but it is what you have chosen to do. I guess my point was differentiating between a drunk trying to beat you up to prove something to himself or his friends and an actual mugger thinking about or trying to kill you for you watch. As a bouncer, depending on the club and the people in it, I’m sure you have your work cut out for you. I recommend changing careers to that of the bartender instead. It pays better and is a lot better for your health.(excepting the smoke)!

Good luck

K. Allen

[Texasmic]

I have not traveled extinsively "over seas" in years, but I was in Milan Italy in 1994, and I was truely amazed and how secure people felt they had to make their homes.

The doors were steel, with a steel door frame that had bolts that went into all the sides of the door frame like the door to a vault. They had steel shutters that rolled down and covered the windows.

And this was on the 5th floor!

The walls were cinder blocks.

You don't see many American homes built like this.

[Joe Saunders]

Thanks and I understand you points. I really didn't give much thought to what might be acceptable in other countries. In the USA, a typical civilian is given a pretty decent amount of leeway, especially when it comes to the ownership of guns. I'm sorry that all countries don't have a similar law. I truly think it makes a difference in ours. Criminals understand here that if they break into a house that is occupied, they may have to deal with the armed owners. It is a deterrent. Even if someone believes otherwise, armed citizens have the ability to protect themselves. I understand that in some countries that isn't possible or at least legal. That statement about unloading the gun on the is a bit of bravado with a bit of USA legal advice thrown in as well.

I sympathize with what a bouncer has to deal with, but it is what you have chosen to do. I guess my point was differentiating between a drunk trying to beat you up to prove something to himself or his friends and an actual mugger thinking about or trying to kill you for you watch. As a bouncer, depending on the club and the people in it, I’m sure you have your work cut out for you. I recommend changing careers to that of the bartender instead. It pays better and is a lot better for your health.(excepting the smoke)!

Good luck

K. Allen

Thank you, Mr Allen.

As I suspected, our differences are largely due to different culture and environment.

Believe me, bouncing is not an occupation anyone should do for a long time. I enjoy the job of protecting people. My preferred line of work is bodyguarding, but unfortunately there isn't enough work in this country to really sustain a full time bodyguard, so those of us with mortgages have to look elsewhere between contracts. Even so, I do find the job fulfilling at times and feel that I am providing a valuable service. I only need to look at what happens on nights when we are understaffed and cannot adequately control the chaos for proof of this.

But yes, your point is well made. It is not a career for the feint of heart or the weak of character and we accept the risks that go with the job.

All the best to you and yours, Mr Allen.