Note: there is some adult language and I'm not sure whether the site this is hosted on has objectionable content, so open with care around work or family. However if you can turn up the audio it is helpful in understanding the situation at times.
http://www.break.com/video/baseball-bats-don-t-win-fights-2611867
The situation apparently may have kicked off with mutual verbal escalation but when the smaller man comes back with a ball bat, the larger man would likely not have been viewed in most jurisdictions as a "mutual combatant" - that's my understanding of the law and I'm NOT a lawyer. Point is we can all agree he should he deescalated first , but there are other important lessons here and I feel it is totally applicable to the audience here (law abiding armed citizens).
Have a look if you have time then come back here...
I'll riff and point out a few things from my perspective.
-many people view a baseball bat as an effective equalizer, but here the guy with a good skill base won the day
-effective use of grappling is an excellent way to shut down many different weapons (if done properly, which does take training)
-a good understanding of timing and range were critical here, and those attributes take a LOT of training to build and maintain
-effective use of the environment (vertical surfaces like cars) and physical pressure from the hips and torso in addition to "tie ups" to control the hands/arms is very effective; the assailant responded as most people without the right skillset would have, and it resulted in his being helpless
-the skills mentioned in the previous bullet point (as opposed to the one before it) actually don't take a ton of time to learn; the state of the art ECQC class from Craig Douglas/Southnarc imbues hundreds of (previously untrained ) students each year with precisely those skills in a single intensive weekend.
-the ball bat constituted lethal force, but the bigger guy's skillset saved him a lot of trouble compared to responding by shooting, and arguably might have also worked better to decisively end the fight, and more safely with regard to bystanders
-the level of force used was appropriate to subdue the assailant but not excessive at any point; the defender did not strike or kick the man from a totally dominant position or once the small man was unconscious
-the stand up grappling techniques allowed the defender to stay conscious, mobile,and upright, and was used to the opposite effect on his attacker
-big guy stuck around and called cops first, and kept an eye on the downed man ALL with his head on a swivel checking for anyone else who might be coming down the fire escape etc
-there were several witnesses and at least one came upon the action midway through. I would argue some of the big man's actions as outlined above probably made clear to witnesses he was not the aggressor nor looking to hurt the small man. He also communicated calmly and effectively with at least one witness who engaged him after the fight ended.
http://www.break.com/video/baseball-bats-don-t-win-fights-2611867
The situation apparently may have kicked off with mutual verbal escalation but when the smaller man comes back with a ball bat, the larger man would likely not have been viewed in most jurisdictions as a "mutual combatant" - that's my understanding of the law and I'm NOT a lawyer. Point is we can all agree he should he deescalated first , but there are other important lessons here and I feel it is totally applicable to the audience here (law abiding armed citizens).
Have a look if you have time then come back here...
I'll riff and point out a few things from my perspective.
-many people view a baseball bat as an effective equalizer, but here the guy with a good skill base won the day
-effective use of grappling is an excellent way to shut down many different weapons (if done properly, which does take training)
-a good understanding of timing and range were critical here, and those attributes take a LOT of training to build and maintain
-effective use of the environment (vertical surfaces like cars) and physical pressure from the hips and torso in addition to "tie ups" to control the hands/arms is very effective; the assailant responded as most people without the right skillset would have, and it resulted in his being helpless
-the skills mentioned in the previous bullet point (as opposed to the one before it) actually don't take a ton of time to learn; the state of the art ECQC class from Craig Douglas/Southnarc imbues hundreds of (previously untrained ) students each year with precisely those skills in a single intensive weekend.
-the ball bat constituted lethal force, but the bigger guy's skillset saved him a lot of trouble compared to responding by shooting, and arguably might have also worked better to decisively end the fight, and more safely with regard to bystanders
-the level of force used was appropriate to subdue the assailant but not excessive at any point; the defender did not strike or kick the man from a totally dominant position or once the small man was unconscious
-the stand up grappling techniques allowed the defender to stay conscious, mobile,and upright, and was used to the opposite effect on his attacker
-big guy stuck around and called cops first, and kept an eye on the downed man ALL with his head on a swivel checking for anyone else who might be coming down the fire escape etc
-there were several witnesses and at least one came upon the action midway through. I would argue some of the big man's actions as outlined above probably made clear to witnesses he was not the aggressor nor looking to hurt the small man. He also communicated calmly and effectively with at least one witness who engaged him after the fight ended.
Last edited:
