Self Protection Articles

[Darren Laur]

For those who are interested, Tony Manifold has posted all of my self defense artilces on his website which range from edged weapon defense to fighting multiple threats. These artilces are free for all to download, but if you are going to use any of the information, please give credit where credit is due.

http://members.shaw.ca/tmanifold/laur.htm



Strength and Honor

Darren Laur

[SanSoo Student]

I found the "fighting against a group of attackers" article to be very interesting.
I never noticed the silent communication facto when I fought against a group of people.

[Watchman]

Darren,

Thank you very much for your contributions.

Would you mind posting some biographical information on yourself to use when citing your material. I would like to use some of it in my college courses.

Thank you very much.

[Darren Laur]

I am a sergeant with the Victoria Police Department up here in British Columbia Canada. I have been studying combatives for 15 years, and teach a program called Integrated Street Combatives.


Strength and Honor

Darren Laur

[Watchman]

Thanks again Darren.

[SanSoo Student]

How would you defend against an armed robber with a gun point about 1-2 feet away from you? Would it matter where it is points at your body?

[Darren Laur]

TO answer your question in written form would be hard to describe !!!!!! Simple rule I teach; "If you can touch it, you can take it" Yes, the technique choosen (response) will be dictated on where the weapon is being held and pointed.(stimulus)

Remember, the situation dictates the response. If the robber wants my property, then I will give him the property rather than go for a weapon disarm. If however during this situation it becomes clear that the robber wants more than my property, then I will fight.

Strength and Honor

Darren Laur

[rovere]

One thing to consider is the fact that not all of the opponents are attacking (or can attack) at exactly the same time. There is always a time delay/break between the movements of opponet #1; #2 and so on. If you therefore consider multiple combat as one-on-one fighting (albeit in rapid sucession) it will help prevent you from being psychologically overwhelmed by a "superior" (at least in numbers) force.

[Darren Laur]

One thing to consider is the fact that not all of the opponents are attacking (or can attack) at exactly the same time. There is always a time delay/break between the movements of opponet #1; #2 and so on.

Swarmings, multiple attackers on one victim, have become a tactic of choice among our criminal element here in Victoria. I can share with you, through first hand knowledge, that these types of attacks do happen with multiple attackers striking at the same time. There is NOT always a time delay between the attacks from one opponent to another. This is why realistic scenario based training that accounts for this reality is a must. Having said this, using desirable tactics to fight the “Wolf Pack” MAY allow for your observations/comments to come to fruition.


Strength and Honor

Darren Laur

[rovere]

I think you missed the point. Enough said on my part.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by rovere
I think you missed the point. Enough said on my part.

Why? Why not try and make the point again. I've read enough of your articles to know that you're articulate and knowledgeable. So why take your ball and go home just because the response to your post wasn't simply "you're perfectly right, Dennis"? If you're not going to take the time to make yourself understood, why take the time to engage in online sulking?


Stuart B.

[StickyHands]

I dont see how multiple attacks at the same time from multiple opponets is not plausible. One, a person can attack you from the front, while the other is punching or stabbing you from the back. Plus, there's been many situations when one or more people held you from the back or locked your shoulders and arms, while someone would be pounding you from the front. I dont think reality works just as a Jackie Chan movie, lol, where one opponent cordially appears after another is defeated. But to make yourself think that you're fighting one oppoent at a time might also make you over-confident as less aware of sorroundings other than your current engaged opponet. It simply doesn't work, the moment you're not thinking of the worst possible scenario, the less resposible you become to yourself. Prevention of stress and anxiety and being cautious are too different things.

I'd like to hear what you have to say Darren on someone holding you up with a gun? Pick a specific point of target please.

[Darren Laur]

Stickyhands:

AS I stated in an earlier post, to try and describe a specific gun strip is difficult to do in written form. Again understanding that most robberies with a gun are just that, a robbery for property, I always recommend giving up your property first.

If the bullets are already flying, time to run, move, and find cover. Remember the hardest thing to hit is a moving target. In Michael Rand's Report to the Bureau of Justice Statistics:


Of the ((% of all violent crimes involving handguns where there were no fatalities, 87% of the guns were never fired, 85% if tge victims were not injured, 10% received minor injuries, and only 2% were shot. Of Those who were shot, only 21% were hospitalized for three or more weeks. (Food for thought)


If you can not run, and the subject is holding the weapon close enough so that you can touch it, then you can take it !!! The problem with many gun strips that I have seen, is that they do not take muzzle control into consideration, and many are to fine complex motor skill based.


Strength and Honor

Darren Laur

[rovere]

"One thing to consider is the fact that not all of the opponents are attacking (or can attack) at exactly the same time. "

To clarify: Not all of the opponents can or do attack at the same time. If there are say, 10 or 12 people swarming, how can they all land a punch or kick on the "victim" at exactly the same moment in time? They can't. If the "victim" takes a step to the right or left does this disrupt the timing of the attacker's? Will the crowd automatically adjust their timing en masse to defeat the movement and hit the victim all at the same time? Does this mean that if the victim moves between two attackers then I can still be hit simultaneously by all the the attackers? Not.

I did not say that you could never be hit by more than one opponent at the same time. However, even if you analyze these situations you will see that the strikes most likely landed with say, a 1/30 of a second difference (hypothetical time example). So my point was if you consider the attacks as being discontinuous (even for those small fractions of a second) then this will help keep you from being mentally overwhelmed i.e., thinking that all of these attackers will converge on you and deliver these blows as an organized unit.

As for the comment about missing the point, I think it was. Not because of any lack of knowledge but simply because people do not take the time to correctly read what is written. I was "taking my ball home" not because anyone failed to say I was perfectly right but because I don't think anyone really understood my point.

I wasn't writing to slam the article, I thought it was good. I was simply trying to give another reality based view point on the subject.

Does that claify my comment?

[StickyHands]

Of course it does clarify! You were being intentionally laconic. If I choose to say this world is gonna end soon. lol. We all know that, but how, and why, and when, and way too many possible answers. One might disagree, ah I dont see it ending. I get your point about having 12 people pound on a one person might be overexagerrating and tad bit not possible. But by the statements you were making, you didn't go into an explicit example. But, frankly, 2 or 3 people CAN pound on you at the same time, and even that, is too many. 1/30th of a second, do you think the common decent man would be able to utilize that little trick into battle and move that fast? We are not talking about Matrix here. Regardless, a strategy is needed from any perspective you perceive is from.

[rovere]

a. I did not say that 2 or 3 attackers could not strike at EXACTLY the same time ( I think highly unlikely as a co-ordinated effort -- more by fluke -- considering closing distance and combat not being static; or they have you on the ground and "let's kick on the count of 2" situation) If they can do it consistently then the "wolf pack does know how to fight" and fighting the wolf pack is now really difficult.

b. The point I was making was not about the physical fight but the mental thought process. Instead of "here is a CROWD intent on harming me" think "here is 4 or 5 INDIVIDUALS trying to gang up on me." So the matrix moves you mention don't enter the equation.

BTW I was taught to always consider the attacker(s) as skilled.

[apoweyn]

rovere,


As for the comment about missing the point, I think it was. Not because of any lack of knowledge but simply because people do not take the time to correctly read what is written. I was "taking my ball home" not because anyone failed to say I was perfectly right but because I don't think anyone really understood my point.

I wasn't writing to slam the article, I thought it was good. I was simply trying to give another reality based view point on the subject.

Does that claify my comment?

Yes, it does. But as an educator, I think you could probably stand to give it another go. Nobody was being dismissive, as far as I could tell. So why not simply have another go at making yourself understood.

Your call. Not mine. I'm not going to drive this into the ground.


Stuart B.

[StickyHands]

-_- Yes I know you didnt say 2 or 3 people, but you did state distinctly that multiple opponents cannot attack you at the same time. Well 2 or 3 people seems more than one to me. No, no one goes on the count of 3, go, but they just keep pounding regardless. As for psychological purpose, you did not mention that in your first post either. But to consider your fighting one oponent at a time, I think it decreases reflex and senses. What you're saying reminds me of Rorouni Kenshin, where Kenshin was teaching this kid how to beat hoards of trained expert samurai swordsman. First he was told to run, and whoever caught up to the kid first, he would beat him. But even in the show, in the end things didnt turn out too well with that plan.

[rovere]

"it will help prevent you from being psychologically overwhelmed by a "superior" (at least in numbers) force."

I specifically mentioned psychologically overwhelmed in my first post. As for the rest, I really do think you are missing the point and I really don't know how I can explain it to you. As for the movie references, I'm not sure how they keep getting entered into a "reality based" (whatever that is?) discussion.

what more can I say?

[StickyHands]

Im missing the point? Ok. lol. Next time Ill remember fighing 12 people is fighting one opponent 12 times. lol. With consecutive rules and regulations and elapses in between.

[rovere]

Stickyhands: Your quick witted response only helped to reinforce my points about not being able to read and not understanding what is being said. Your comments are totally off anything I even attempted to explain. Perhaps more real world experience on your part would help temper your responses.

LOL

Dennis Rovere

[StickyHands]

Your lack of wit to accept my sarcasm and mindless argument says it all. Not to mention the lack of explanation of your part and mindless irrelevant comments, without again, reading what I or others said about multiple opponets attacking at the same time. I agree psychologically, "anything" is possible, but I tried to adhere to the physiological concepts here. Meaning.... multiple opponents do and are able to attack at the same time. I cant probably prove your point because you have none. lol. Peace.