Drunk and on drugs

Applying restraint techniques is the principle in controling a threatening person on drugs, whose body obviously turned aneasthetized. well, but how do we approach him while avoiding making the situation turn physical? Any possibility of getting an instructional video or a link to better apply the self defense part of this principle?.

thanks.

Krimo

The first question is, why do you need to approach him?

Ace Ventura wrote:The first question is, why do you need to approach him?

Let's assume that the guy is inside your space and not already violent but you feel the need to preempt after failing to deescalate the situation.

krimo wrote:

Ace Ventura wrote:The first question is, why do you need to approach him?

Let's assume that the guy is inside your space and not already violent but you feel the need to preempt after failing to deescalate the situation.

pre-emption may be the last thing on the list of action but it IS still on the list.

What you are describing is simply a situation where the aggressor has already worked his way through the stages which result in a physical intervention on your part.

I question why you are approaching him rather than retreating from the situation? I make it a rule to move in the opposite direction to freaks and geeks

If you MUST approach him then why are you looking to restrain him rather than make him safe? (if the decision has been made to go physical then attempting restraint is an illogical option compared to other physical possibilities). You aren't going to wrestle around with anyone you don't have to if you have any sense.

If you have approached him and he is EDI, Drunk or High then you really have restricted the potential for soft skills and defusion. Again, management of the situation via non physical means is vastly more difficult.

If he isn't listening and has no rational thought process running then you have to act accordingly and move from threat and soft skills to physical and hard skill options.

Don't over-complicate things. If the guy is in the red zone and he passes all the tests for someone who has to physically go then act accordingly. It largely doesn't matter what he does and doesn't understand. It doesn't matter what state he is in. It only matters what he is DOING. Act in accordance with the threat posed and handle it.

Impossible to give any more detail than that. Conceptually you have the idea.

Chris wrote:

krimo wrote:

Ace Ventura wrote:The first question is, why do you need to approach him?

Let's assume that the guy is inside your space and not already violent but you feel the need to preempt after failing to deescalate the situation.

pre-emption may be the last thing on the list of action but it IS still on the list.

What you are describing is simply a situation where the aggressor has already worked his way through the stages which result in a physical intervention on your part.

I question why you are approaching him rather than retreating from the situation? I make it a rule to move in the opposite direction to freaks and geeks

If you MUST approach him then why are you looking to restrain him rather than make him safe? (if the decision has been made to go physical then attempting restraint is an illogical option compared to other physical possibilities). You aren't going to wrestle around with anyone you don't have to if you have any sense.

If you have approached him and he is EDI, Drunk or High then you really have restricted the potential for soft skills and defusion. Again, management of the situation via non physical means is vastly more difficult.

If he isn't listening and has no rational thought process running then you have to act accordingly and move from threat and soft skills to physical and hard skill options.

Don't over-complicate things. If the guy is in the red zone and he passes all the tests for someone who has to physically go then act accordingly. It largely doesn't matter what he does and doesn't understand. It doesn't matter what state he is in. It only matters what he is DOING. Act in accordance with the threat posed and handle it.

Impossible to give any more detail than that. Conceptually you have the idea.

Thanks Chris for the details above. What I am really after, Chris is the right and effective hard skill technique to subdue this kind of people if need be, bearing in mind that a strike on the head or face may often prove ineffective due to the effect of drugs.

Chris, applying the priciple of cutting air or blood flow to the brain is the principle of taking down a freaked out person?

I think I see what you mean Krimo,

Yes, a strike may be less effective against someone who is an EDI/Drunk or High. Less effective because of the pain-killing effect and or the increased aggression and or the lack of inhibition.

Strikes are still effective, they are just sometimes less effective because of the additional issues mentioned above.

My personal view. Don't even attempt any type of control and restraint unless you have five guys working in a team. Just don't do it.

Strikes can work but be ready to transiton to a choke or strangle. Personally I work from the "what is the least that can be expected" and if that strike is then nothing more reliable than an opening to transition to a choke or strangle then so be it.

Chokes and strangles are pretty conclusive. Problem being is that you are up at the top end of the risk scale so they should be used accordingly.

As always, it's about balancing the risk and the response. Do what you have to, not what you want to. That's the best way to not end up behind bars or carrying the guilt of an unnecessary event. Any physical action is a risk, Chokes and Strangles are certainly at the "more" risky end of the scale.

Chris wrote:I think I see what you mean Krimo,

Yes, a strike may be less effective against someone who is an EDI/Drunk or High. Less effective because of the pain-killing effect and or the increased aggression and or the lack of inhibition.

Strikes are still effective, they are just sometimes less effective because of the additional issues mentioned above.

My personal view. Don't even attempt any type of control and restraint unless you have five guys working in a team. Just don't do it.

Strikes can work but be ready to transiton to a choke or strangle. Personally I work from the "what is the least that can be expected" and if that strike is then nothing more reliable than an opening to transition to a choke or strangle then so be it.

Chokes and strangles are pretty conclusive. Problem being is that you are up at the top end of the risk scale so they should be used accordingly.

As always, it's about balancing the risk and the response. Do what you have to, not what you want to. That's the best way to not end up behind bars or carrying the guilt of an unnecessary event. Any physical action is a risk, Chokes and Strangles are certainly at the "more" risky end of the scale.

That's a convincing answer Chris. My "puzzle" is now put together. Thanks so much, mate.

It's also a question that has been asked on me when I teach

If you can take away their ability to breath, or see (with an eye jab for example) it wont matter how dunk or high they are
if you can't breath you pass out, if you can't see you wont be able to do anything agressive which allows time to get away

totaly agree with Chris never try to restrain unless A) it's your job and you are built like the Big Show, and B) if you do 5 guys minimum all well trained in restraint

combatnige wrote:It's also a question that has been asked on me when I teach

If you can take away their ability to breath, or see (with an eye jab for example) it wont matter how dunk or high they are
if you can't breath you pass out, if you can't see you wont be able to do anything agressive which allows time to get away

totaly agree with Chris never try to restrain unless A) it's your job and you are built like the Big Show, and B) if you do 5 guys minimum all well trained in restraint

Yes, taking away the ability to see can seriously be a fight stopper. bright idea mate.