My advice on multiple attackers....

[Watchman]

G-I: yes it is. I knew some guys from Phoenix that trained together to do "takedowns" and "shakedowns" on people that owed money to drug dealers, and to do home-invasion robberies on indie meth labs.

Oldwolf: the dynamics you're talking about wouldn't work with these guys. They aren't going to approach you with the whole "We're macho and we're going to kick your ass! I'm the mouth so hit me first and the rest of my homeboys will fold." They work flanking tactics around the lead guy, and won't just stand there in abject fear while you're scooping his eye out with your thumb.

[Braden]

Every time this discussion comes up, the consensus seems to be to go for the biggest guy/leader first.

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. What gets you killed in a multiple opponent scenario is getting tangled up with someone. So your answer is to head straight for the guy who is most likely going to tangle you up?

Doesn't make any sense to me.

Also, I wouldn't go for groin, eye or similar attacks. You want something very basic which is going to take their balance and knock them back even if it doesn't work out the way you planned.

[UberShaman]

Thats why I carry a Glock 23 :)

[oldwolf]

Thats why I said usually the mouth but not always. Part of the line up process is to out flank the flankers.
The biggest problem in situations like this is tunnel vision as the cortex focuses on the percieved threat, ie misses the flanking movement.

This is a system tried and tested, not just by me and I'm still here so far.

Braden: you take out the biggest threat first then the next etc, you don't stop till there is no more threat. forget the eye jabs, groin strikes, knock outs only to jaw line.

"And the crowd called out for more"

[Braden]

I agree. But the biggest threat is no single person, it's the fact that you're outnumbed. You get rid of that threat by taking out as many as you can as quick as you can. You do that by hitting the people you know for sure you can take out fast. By definition, those are going to be the weakest. You say that taking out a "leader" will scare the others. What happens if you don't take him out so fast? After all, he is your toughest single opponent here. On the other hand, violently dropping one of the "followers" will also frighten the others, and is much more likely to happen in a manner which is in your favor.

But besides all this, you rarely get to choose who you attack. Your surroundings and the position of your opponents dictates this for you. Typically, the "leader" will by in front of you and in the middle of the "pack." This is the very last person you want to go for if you're planning on out-flanking the group.

[Highlander]

I hate to bring the law into this, but we are talking street and reality here. If one person is talking and making threats and everyone else is just standing there, you may not have a legal justification to strike anyone except the person talking sh1t. Feeling intimidated isn't justification if the person hasn't said or done anything to validate those concerns. Then again "it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" so we do what we have to, but I just thought I'd point this out. :(

[oldwolf]

What about the legitimacy of a pre emptive strike, I may be talking out a hole in my head but I believe this has a precedence in British Law, where Peter Consterdine and Geoff Thompson wre used as expert witness, and they may have cited Thatchers sinking of the 'Belgrano' as the legitimacy. But I may be mistaken. :D :D

"And the crowd called out for more"

[Highlander]

I'm no expert on the law, especially British law, but I can tell you from experience that you can't assume that just because someone is standing with an agressor, that they are going to jump in. I was faced with a situation a few years ago against three people. They were football players from the local University and any one of them could have kicked my butt. One was very verbal and tried to get me to make the first move. I didn't. After a couple of minutes his friends jumped in and talked him into going back to their table. They actually defused the situation enough for me to leave.

Looking back on it I was sure I was going to get jumped by all three, but now I think the other two would have been the ones to break it up if it had gone to blows. But what would have happened if I had just started attacking all three. And wouldn't two of them have been within their rights to claim that they didn't do anything, I just attacked them.

[oldwolf]

Good result, I think each situation has to be dealt with, and read individually, I think both morally and legally, had you considered yourself to be in a state of fear, and believed that all three were going to do you damage, you would be justified in pre emptively taking them out. had it transpired that the two buddies were only with the aggressor and not backing him, it would prove the adage 'If you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows'

"And the crowd called out for more"

[Weapon-Maker]

I was going to answer the question,but Jerry Love answered it for me.

[Losttrak]

If there its too late to remedy the situation? Try to rip off an ear/tear his cheek open/or disfigure the nearest person in some way. Most people under the sway of the mob mentality see combat as something like in the movies. If you attempt to fair fight it will fit into the motif and they will swarm you. Once they realize the permenance of what happened to their friend, the illusion will fade.

[JerryLove]

This is an unrealistic view of mob attack. Real fights are far more chaotic than you presume. A group of people is unlikely, while focusing on getting to you, to notice what you did, whose blood, etc. Further, getting in position for what you suggest without getting massacred is not a trivial matter. I particularly oppose trying to "tear his cheek out" in any attack situation, espically a multiple-attacker one. Very easy to get a finger bit off for trying. BTW, have you ever tried? Getting some gum tearing is not that difficult (goot pain-compliance technique) but actually tearing live skin is not a trivial as your suggestion makes it sound.

[rogue]

Good stuff.

By the way, some of you guys talk as if you have a whole lot of time on your hands and a lot of room to move during a street fight. Consider yourself lucky to get one maybe two moves or shots in once it starts, and you better make them good ones. Doing anything less than a real fight stopper will get you butt stomped.

Adventure is just a romantic name for trouble. It sounds swell when you write about it, but it's hell when you meet it face to face in a dark and lonely place.
Louis L'Amour

[Losttrak]

I wont rate cheek tearing on a scale if difficulty but I am pretty sure you can pop an eyeball without too much effort. Anyways, its the concept that matters. It seems that most multiple attackers are usually the opponent and his friends. Most get a little squeemish when someone gets really hurt. I know from one case that in retrospect after the first guy went down it seemed I was fighting half as many people after that. Apparently, it counted for something. Whatever it takes to even the odds...

[JasBourne]

Didn't somebody mention the "Jackie Chan defense against multiple attackers" technique on another thread? I like that one - it's simple.

1) take in the fact that you are outnumbered, smile, and RUN LIKE HELL.
2) if one of the attackers gets too close, without stopping grab whatever is handy and throw it at his face (dirt, empty soda cup, trash can, stray dog, innocent bystander - anything that will disrupt their forward movement) and RUN LIKE HELL.
3) repeat steps 1 and 2 until you've escaped.

:D