What We Have Been Needing

[Kleanbore]

The argument that a cell phone can be used to fracture a skull and not even be damaged in the process is Jackie Chan-level silliness.

You seem to be overlooking several critical things about physiology, physics, and materials science. Don't kid yourself.

 

[bdickens]

Several better ideas. One is to have - and know how to use - an actual weapon. Another is to learn a few simple unarmed defenses - an elbow, for example, is much more dangerous than a cell phone, and is always with you. And yet another is to simply give an attacker what he wants and hope that is enough.

Frankly, just about anything is better than whacking someone with a few ounces of plastic in the hopes of some miracle occurring. The far greater likelihood is that you'll just piss the guy off and make a bad situation worse.

Have someone bash you in the throat or the eye with the corner of their phone and then come back and tell us how it feels.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Do you remember the old Pink Panther movies?

Inspector Cleseau would have Cato randomly attack him. That's how you learn situational awareness.

Ahhhh, yes!

"Beware of Japanese waitress bearing fortune cookies."

I remember it well!

And it WAS an interesting philosophy throughout the Pink Panther movies!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Thanks, @Kleanbore, I'll likely look into this later.

From your brief description, it looks like this course focuses a lot around HOW the mind works, which is an important aspect.

But it would seem that too many people are either confusing "how the mind works" with "tactics"...or at least allowing themselves to drift off this subject.

"Focusing on your surroundings" is an example of a "tactic". "Understanding human limitations on the ability to focus" is an example of "how the mind works".

We can talk about being in "Condition (color code)" all we wish, but the plain fact of the matter is that no matter how focused we may be, we can only HOLD that focus for a limited time. And that limited time is much, MUCH shorter than most people are likely to know or believe.

Like 45 minutes to an hour and a half MAX.

That's human nature. We cannot be 100% alert 100% of the time. In fact, we cannot be 100% alert for more than maybe about a hour, give or take. Our minds WILL drift or be distracted for a variety of reasons.

It's also interesting to not that being very focused can actually cause us to actually MISS things we might otherwise not have missed.

I'd be interested in seeing how this course deals with recognizing when this occurs and how to work with this human trait.

 

[.38 Special]

You seem to be overlooking several critical things about physiology, physics, and materials science. Don't kid yourself.

You seem to have not availed yourself to any realistic training. There are so many nonsensical assumptions behind the idea of cell phones as an effective fighting tool that I don't really even know where to begin. Never underestimate the power of self delusion, I guess.

 

[.38 Special]

Have someone bash you in the throat or the eye with the corner of their phone and then come back and tell us how it feels.

This is essentially the old "Well, if the .22 is no good for defense, then try standing in front of one!" canard. I'd rather not suffer a nasty rug burn if I can help it, but that does not mean that a carpet sample is an effective self defense tool.

But, in the spirit of the game, let's try this: find me an untrained fellow who can accurately target an eye or a throat with a cell phone, under the stress of mortal combat, and also find me a criminal aggressor who is willing to stand around motionless while it happens.

I am astonished by the amount of fantasy contained in this thread.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Oh, for crying out loud, this is getting ridiculous!

"You seem to have not availed yourself to any realistic training."

Do you REALLY think that is an appropriate statement to make, not only in general of another member but specifically with respect to the concept of a weapon of opportunity?

Would you think a roll of quarters in the hand would be adequate to punch someone with? That's 8 ounces. My phone and phone case mass just shy of 9 ounces.

And even if my phone/case only massed a fraction of that, it's construction is designed to be exceptionally tough and durable. Wacking someone with a rigid, light weight object of similar dimensions in the hand has distinct advantages over doing so bare handed.

The original comment made with respect to a phone in hand was obviously NOT intended to be an example of the best possible choice that could ever be made in the history of human self defense.

Yeah... maybe a railroad spike would have been a better choice. Or a hunk of polished hickory. Or a machete. Or a big ole Texas-style brass belt buckle of your name on leather belt strap.

But there's more to self defense than just the best possible choice of weapon. There's response time, access to any given weapon, training, deploying multiple weapons as opportunity allows, etc.

It's the totality of all these things which make for an effective defense.

If a person is attacked, they should defend themselves with whatever is immediately at hand right away, and continue defending themselves as best they can until the attack is stopped.

Would you punch somebody in the face or shoot them if attacked?

Rest assured, no matter what answer you give to that question I could jump all over it with a reason or circumstance why your choice was flawed.

Let's let this rest. It's definitely not high road.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Do you remember the old Pink Panther movies?

Inspector Cleseau would have Cato randomly attack him. That's how you learn situational awareness.




If you're not expecting a threat every time you walk out your door you haven't been paying attention to the news for the last year or so.

I'm not trying to say this to sound like a badass because I'm not but I live in the town that I used to work in.

Right after I retired there was two or three weeks where every single night there was a news report of a shooting or a robbery or a body found or a fight or a fire caused by a "homeless warming fire" and every single one of them was a place where I had a security check and about half of them occurred in the time frame that I would have been there.

There are very few places in my town that I can go where I don't have some kind of war story.

It does a pretty good job of keeping me on my toes

My old neighborhood in Cali was like that. Every day I am thankful to have left.

 

[Kleanbore]

There are so many nonsensical assumptions behind the idea of cell phones as an effective fighting tool that I don't really even know where to begin. Never underestimate the power of self delusion, I guess.

As I said, the idea of using a sell phone as aa defensive weapon was new to me when Rob mentioned it in the class. It was rather a surprise, but it really shouldn't have been, and I am certainly not skeptical about it.

Think about it: the force per unit area imparted by the corner of a cell phone is many times that which can be delivered by a punch or by the edge of a bare hand. And that is what impact weapons are all about.

The original comment made with respect to a phone in hand was obviously NOT intended to be an example of the best possible choice that could ever be made in the history of human self defense. ... If a person is attacked, they should defend themselves with whatever is immediately at hand right away, and continue defending themselves as best they can until the attack is stopped.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell.

Keep in mind that using the cell phone as a striking weapon constitutes the use of deadly force, and should only be used when deadly force is justified.

Here is one of many demos on the subject.

 

[.38 Special]

Oh, for crying out loud, this is getting ridiculous!

"You seem to have not availed yourself to any realistic training."

Do you REALLY think that is an appropriate statement to make, not only in general of another member but specifically with respect to the concept of a weapon of opportunity?

Would you think a roll of quarters in the hand would be adequate to punch someone with? That's 8 ounces. My phone and phone case mass just shy of 9 ounces.

And even if my phone/case only massed a fraction of that, it's construction is designed to be exceptionally tough and durable. Wacking someone with a rigid, light weight object of similar dimensions in the hand has distinct advantages over doing so bare handed.

The original comment made with respect to a phone in hand was obviously NOT intended to be an example of the best possible choice that could ever be made in the history of human self defense.

Yeah... maybe a railroad spike would have been a better choice. Or a hunk of polished hickory. Or a machete. Or a big ole Texas-style brass belt buckle of your name on leather belt strap.

But there's more to self defense than just the best possible choice of weapon. There's response time, access to any given weapon, training, deploying multiple weapons as opportunity allows, etc.

It's the totality of all these things which make for an effective defense.

If a person is attacked, they should defend themselves with whatever is immediately at hand right away, and continue defending themselves as best they can until the attack is stopped.

Would you punch somebody in the face or shoot them if attacked?

Rest assured, no matter what answer you give to that question I could jump all over it with a reason or circumstance why your choice was flawed.

Let's let this rest. It's definitely not high road.

Yes, I think it was a perfectly appropriate response to someone suggesting an utterly unrealistic method of self defense. Nobody who has had any sort of training in the matter is going to believe that he can use a cell phone to fracture someone's skull, and it's frankly irresponsible to suggest it. It's got nothing to do with "the best possible method" but rather whether it's remotely reasonable to think that it can be used to stop a sudden, violent attack. It's fantasy.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Yes, I think it was a perfectly appropriate response to someone suggesting an utterly unrealistic method of self defense. Nobody who has had any sort of training in the matter is going to believe that he can use a cell phone to fracture someone's skull, and it's frankly irresponsible to suggest it. It's got nothing to do with "the best possible method" but rather whether it's remotely reasonable to think that it can be used to stop a sudden, violent attack. It's fantasy.

Really? You're still going there? WHAT, exactly, is "utterly unrealistic" about that particular move? And WHO said ANYTHING about "fractur[ing] someone's skull"?

You keep going on about "nobody who has had any sort of training in the matter", and yet for those of us who HAVE had at least SOME level of actual training on the matter you're own comments fly in the face of practical reality.

What a preposterous statement of your own on this subject! Self-defense should be initiated with whatever is at hand to the the best possible effect.

I don't understand why you stick to this. One of the purposes of THR is to learn and expand our knowledge on subjects such as this. Lord knows I've had misconceptions of my own which were corrected here. There is nothing to gain, and much to lose, by adamant refusal to learn and correct our deficiencies.

 

[.38 Special]

Really? You're still going there? WHAT, exactly, is "utterly unrealistic" about that particular move? And WHO said ANYTHING about "fractur[ing] someone's skull"?

You keep going on about "nobody who has had any sort of training in the matter", and yet for those of us who HAVE had at least SOME level of actual training on the matter you're own comments fly in the face of practical reality.

What a preposterous statement of your own on this subject! Self-defense should be initiated with whatever is at hand to the the best possible effect.

I don't understand why you stick to this. One of the purposes of THR is to learn and expand our knowledge on subjects such as this. Lord knows I've had misconceptions of my own which were corrected here. There is nothing to gain, and much to lose, by adamant refusal to learn and correct our deficiencies.

Kleanbore wrote that he believed a cell phone could be use to "fracture an eye socket", which is part of the skull. I reject the idea that anything short of full acceptance of this claim is "refusal to learn and correct my deficiency" - and in fact I do not understand why you have become so upset by my replies.

Regardless, here is one reason why I am "sticking with this":



A cell phone simply is not a very strong object, and the belief that it will hold up when slammed into someone's skull is optimistic at best.

 

[Howland937]

Kleanbore wrote that he believed a cell phone could be use to "fracture an eye socket", which is part of the skull. I reject the idea that anything short of full acceptance of this claim is "refusal to learn and correct my deficiency" - and in fact I do not understand why you have become so upset by my replies.

Regardless, here is one reason why I am "sticking with this":



A cell phone simply is not a very strong object, and the belief that it will hold up when slammed into someone's skull is optimistic at best.

I don't believe the question is about the durability of the phone or the expectation that it would be useable when you try to call 911 after. Having seen firsthand, multiple times, the damage that can be done when non-weapons become weapons I'll call the cell phone smack plausible. Especially if you read about people who've been injured by flying cell phones falling from rollercoasters and why you're not allowed to have phones out on them.

I don't much care what the object is. If someone needs hit, whatever is in my hand is what they're getting. If it's a phone, ok. No special training required really, you just gotta mean it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Kleanbore wrote that he believed a cell phone could be use to "fracture an eye socket", which is part of the skull.

Yes, I did meniton the fracture of the bony orbital as a possible example if it were struck.. Parts of that, and other facial bones, are relatively fragile. Ask your doctor, or an emergency room nurse.

That would not be a deliberate target. Persons with even rudimentary instruction in martial arts might have their own ideas about where to strike--and any of them would prefer the cell phone to bare hands, except for reasons concerning a defense of justification.

A cell phone simply is not a very strong object,

n aluminum or steel smart phone is extremely strong, as it is designed for durability and for the protection of the screen and electronics when dropped on hard surfaces.

I too was surprised by the suggestion that a smart phone can be effectively used as a defensive weapon. I simply had not thought it through. I would have been reluctant to strike with such an expensive instrument, but that does make a lot more sense than putting one's elbow or knuckles at risk.

I don't much care what the object is. If someone needs hit, whatever is in my hand is what they're getting. If it's a phone, ok.

Yep. That's the whole point.

In the course linked in the OP, Rob Pincus, who is a very well known trainer, points those things out. .38, have you taken the class?

 

[Howland937]

https://www.nj.com/ocean/2016/05/why_video_recording_your_roller_coaster_ride_may_n.html

Here's an article about a guy that got hit in the face by a cell phone that caused pretty serious injuries. Quick google search reveals a few similar instances, in case there are doubts whether getting hit by a phone would hurt or not. Bear in mind, nobody's advocating carrying a phone as your sole means of self defense...just that it can be utilized. As can the water bottle, key ring, or whatever else occupies your hand.

 

[Zerodefect]

I'd be more afraid of the cellphones glass screen, cutting my own arm up, badly. If you need to use deadly force, consider a knife instead.

A guy my size doesn't need a phone or whatever, if my fist has a clear path to somebodies head. A fractured skull around the eyes is actually quite regular.

As for the weight bit, a roll of quarters only makes my hand slower. No more positive effect than an empty hand.

Most of the improvised stuff, like a lock on a bandanna, has some huge drawbacks. If you're a fit man, you might be better off working on your regular skill level instead.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you need to use deadly force, consider a knife instead.

Rob does cover the use of a knife.

The knife has to be drawn, of course. No one in his right mind would draw a cell phone for defensive use. The idea is that you may use it, if you have to, when it is already in your hand.

 

[Zerodefect]

I'd rather drop it and just use my hand. Stick to what we're most trained with.

My phone's covered in a rubber Otter box. It would only make a squeaky toy noise, if I pinged someone's nugget with it.

 

[fastbolt]

Sorry, not buying it. A big aluminum clipboard, maybe. A D-cell Maglight, sure - assuming you're trained in that style of combat. But the idea that we're going to successfully - even lethally - counterattack a violent criminal with precise and powerful strikes of... a cell phone? It's magical thinking, and it should never take the place of actual training, actual weapons, or actual strategy.

So, using your line of thinking, it would be useless - or magical - to think to use a folded fingers or straight (curved) fingers hand strike to vulnerable anatomical areas during a dynamic encounter? Yes, my 50+ years of martial arts study have influenced me quite a bit in this regard.

Does the concept of field expediency fall outside your ken? Imagine what can be done with a boxed deck of playing cards. Or a small tablet device.

The circumstances of the moment, including what's immediately at hand when exigent circumstances force themselves upon you without warning (obviously), may dictate what you have that can be utilized in the quickest, most effective manner. Your hands, even if filled with a cellphone, may be closer to the incoming physical attack than thinking to drop the phone (how many people will do that??) and take the time to reach for some concealed 'weapon'. Sometimes the hands are faster for first contact, while you try to buy time... and hopefully gain some distance.

Now, this is also one of those conundrums where the answer vary change on the turn of a dime. For example, in some arts it's been said that an untrained person wielding a blade may easily erase any perceived advantage acquired in the first 5 years of someone's empty hand training. A sharp edge or point doesn't care what it cuts or perforates, or how it's introduced to the anatomy. This would probably be the hope of someone who buys a nifty folding lockblade to clip to their front pocket, or maybe they'll pay to an 8hr class (or, to be generous, even a weekend seminar of class instruction), and feel confident they can access, wield and effectively utilize it ... when suddenly caught by surprise and confronted by an attacker who may have acquired their 'training' using jail/prison shanks, or fighting other violent criminals who aren't concerned about the niceties of justifying the amount of force they use, etc. They might even have some knife scars that make them a bit less concerned about a 'good guy' pointing a nifty folder at them.

Now, my DT training in my LE career was oriented more toward restraint and control, which is appropriate for maybe 99% of what cops need to utilize to do their work. Sure, less lethal impact weapons (batons, ASP's, PR24's, riot batons and even nunchaku, at times, etc) could certainly be employed as lethal force, as could the old steel and aluminum-bodied flashlights, and even the newer plastic-bodied lights. Ditto the short lights, with their points, crenulated notching or their sharp "DNA gathering surfaces" (someone's tongue-in-cheek advertising ). Then, there's always the 'tactical pens' and other 1-handed self defense gadgets (presuming they're legal in any given location).

My point? Everyone needs to decide for themselves what "actual training, actual weapons, or actual strategy" consists of, for them, and whether they are able to use it. Having invested all of my adult life in studying various martial arts, as well as having received assorted DT training in my LE career, and having been a LE firearms instructor for many years, I'd not be in a rush to think to gainsay someone who thought they could teach someone to use a cellphone (already in the hand) as a field expedient defensive tool under the right circumstances. I'd even be willing to keep it in mind, myself. (And hope my carrier insurance covers loss of the phone due to damage, or being taken as evidence. )

It's not magical if it's realistic and practical, even if it might produce seemingly magical results.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'd rather drop it and just use my hand.

Same force in total, but far less concentrated than when striking with the phone.

The circumstances of the moment, including what's immediately at hand when exigent circumstances force themselves upon you without warning (obviously), may dictate what you have that can be utilized in the quickest, most effective manner. Your hands, even if filled with a cellphone, may be closer to the incoming physical attack than thinking to drop the phone (how many people will do that??) and take the time to reach for some concealed 'weapon'. Sometimes the hands are faster for first contact, while you try to buy time... and hopefully gain some distance

Exactly.

I stay off the phone in public. But if one decides to report an accident or a suspicious situation, that action may cause an immediate attack to occur to take the phone and prevent the call, and the phone would become the likely tool of immediate choice, because it could be brought to bear more quickly than a gun in a holster or even a pen in a shirt pocket.

 

[.38 Special]

So, using your line of thinking, it would be useless - or magical - to think to use a folded fingers or straight (curved) fingers hand strike to vulnerable anatomical areas during a dynamic encounter? Yes, my 50+ years of martial arts study have influenced me quite a bit in this regard.

Does the concept of field expediency fall outside your ken? Imagine what can be done with a boxed deck of playing cards. Or a small tablet device.

The circumstances of the moment, including what's immediately at hand when exigent circumstances force themselves upon you without warning (obviously), may dictate what you have that can be utilized in the quickest, most effective manner. Your hands, even if filled with a cellphone, may be closer to the incoming physical attack than thinking to drop the phone (how many people will do that??) and take the time to reach for some concealed 'weapon'. Sometimes the hands are faster for first contact, while you try to buy time... and hopefully gain some distance.

Now, this is also one of those conundrums where the answer vary change on the turn of a dime. For example, in some arts it's been said that an untrained person wielding a blade may easily erase any perceived advantage acquired in the first 5 years of someone's empty hand training. A sharp edge or point doesn't care what it cuts or perforates, or how it's introduced to the anatomy. This would probably be the hope of someone who buys a nifty folding lockblade to clip to their front pocket, or maybe they'll pay to an 8hr class (or, to be generous, even a weekend seminar of class instruction), and feel confident they can access, wield and effectively utilize it ... when suddenly caught by surprise and confronted by an attacker who may have acquired their 'training' using jail/prison shanks, or fighting other violent criminals who aren't concerned about the niceties of justifying the amount of force they use, etc. They might even have some knife scars that make them a bit less concerned about a 'good guy' pointing a nifty folder at them.

Now, my DT training in my LE career was oriented more toward restraint and control, which is appropriate for maybe 99% of what cops need to utilize to do their work. Sure, less lethal impact weapons (batons, ASP's, PR24's, riot batons and even nunchaku, at times, etc) could certainly be employed as lethal force, as could the old steel and aluminum-bodied flashlights, and even the newer plastic-bodied lights. Ditto the short lights, with their points, crenulated notching or their sharp "DNA gathering surfaces" (someone's tongue-in-cheek advertising ). Then, there's always the 'tactical pens' and other 1-handed self defense gadgets (presuming they're legal in any given location).

My point? Everyone needs to decide for themselves what "actual training, actual weapons, or actual strategy" consists of, for them, and whether they are able to use it. Having invested all of my adult life in studying various martial arts, as well as having received assorted DT training in my LE career, and having been a LE firearms instructor for many years, I'd not be in a rush to think to gainsay someone who thought they could teach someone to use a cellphone (already in the hand) as a field expedient defensive tool under the right circumstances. I'd even be willing to keep it in mind, myself. (And hope my carrier insurance covers loss of the phone due to damage, or being taken as evidence. )

It's not magical if it's realistic and practical, even if it might produce seemingly magical results.

Actually, I do discount things like finger strikes to the eyes, with a few exceptions. The problem is that they're a lot more difficult than it would seem, and carry significant - near certain, in some cases - risk to your hands. Get out your BOB dummy and see if you can actually stick your finger into his eye with both speed and accuracy. Then add in some force and see how long it takes for your fingers to approach the level of injury. Now imagine you're suffering under the effects of an adrenalin dump, and that your opponent is actually capable of movement. It's just not very realistic. (The same, in my experience, goes for any technique requiring significant precision and/or fine motor control. It might seem cool in the dojo, with a compliant training partner, but inject enough stress and reality and it turns into a joke.)

Beyond that, it is not enough to just do your opponent mild or moderate damage. In a lethal struggle, it's possible if not likely that such injuries will have no impact. In a real fight, you can only count on winning through major structural damage, or significant impact on the CNS. Teaching people that they can just whack somebody with a phone - or a deck of cards - and then go home safe... It may indeed happen just that way, but I wouldn't count on it.

Beyond that, I think I'm done here. This all strikes me as perilously close to "Destroy your opponent with this one secret trick" business and I'm not sure why I've spent so much time debating it.

 

[bdickens]

Teaching people that they can just whack somebody with a phone - or a deck of cards - and then go home safe... It may indeed happen just that way, but I wouldn't count on it.

That's not what is being taught.

 

[Howland937]

That's not what is being taught.

I don't recall anyone, anywhere, ever saying that carrying a weapon of any sort is guaranteed to deliver us from evil. I also don't recall ever hearing an instructor recommend grabbing a phone or deck of cards and go on the offensive.

Your initial response doesn't have to result in devastating injuries. Yes, if the seconds (or less) you get to prepare allow you enough time to thwart or stop an attack, great. If not, then creating a bit more distance or buying an extra second or 2 in order to retrieve a better weapon is highly recommended.

 

[Kleanbore]

Actually, I do discount things like finger strikes to the eyes, with a few exceptions.

Off topic.

(The same, in my experience, goes for any technique requiring significant precision and/or fine motor control.

Not what Rob was talking about. He mentioned trying to strike the temple or parts of the face at extremely close quarters.

In a lethal struggle, it's possible if not likely that such injuries will have no impact.

Physiology, physics, and materials science tell jus that it can work. Necessity dictates whether one should try it.

In a real fight, you can only count on winning through major structural damage, or significant impact on the CNS.

That's for a physical stop. See Howland's comment: "Our initial response doesn't have to result in devastating injuries. Yes, if the seconds (or less) you get to prepare allow you enough time to thwart or stop an attack, great. If not, then creating a bit more distance or buying an extra second or 2 in order to retrieve a better weapon is highly recommended."
Have you taken the class? Have you researched other sources on the use of improvised weapons for self defense?

 

[Kleanbore]

One other thing: The class supplement "The Myth of Situational Awareness" .pdf file that comes with the class is worth reading--slowly, and at least twice.