Here is surveillance camera video of a fatal stabbing at a UK university from the recent past.
There is no audio with this video. I’ll reserve my comments on this clip until you’ve had a chance to post yours. (Hint: Be careful from which perspective you make your comments on this act of violence. I’ve covered my thoughts on how to view these items in my book and other past posts.)
Also, if you see what appear to be 2 videos below, just click and watch the first one. The second is just a picture and is occasionally popping up in some browsers.
Reply to comment
nick
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
In both cases, the victims were taken completely by surprise. It seems to be human nature for victims to be unable to accept what just happened to them, after they've been attacked. This, then, leaves the victims open for the attackers to finish their attack, while the victims are still stunned. In both cases, there were moments in time where they could have counterattacked… How to avoid being "punked" and then stunned by it, instead of launching an immediate counterattack? Merely better "situational awareness" ?
Bob
Reply to comment
Strike 1 had momentum, but the targeting may have been better aiming for either the chin or back of neck, rather than the head, and he stepped offline as he hit, dissipating the kinetic energy somewhat – as such he could have got an electrical knock out, but instead got a dazed target.
The stabbing had no bodyweight but there was no resistance, and targeting looked better, with the kidney shots probably being the lethal aspect.
As with other comments above, there was bags of intent and definite planning which sets it apart as an a-social situation with death being the object. Chilling.
Reply to comment
Just being down and hurt means nothing as was hoped for. Being chased by a knife by 75 he wanted no part of this. It was interesting to see 75 crouch down low when he rushed lame duck, now all alone.
When the three first started approaching those 2 guys, no red flags went up. They did not even watch them as they were approaching. Notice how 1st guy kind of swaggers over to him on his blind side. There was no need for the 3 to pass by close. The second guy that got chased off stood there and watch everything happen. He could see them starting to come their way. They did not even move and should have. Or he could have said something like, "I think we got trouble". In my book, they were both lame ducks & did not have a clue that anything would happen. After all, they were not doing anything to attract attention except stand there and look like weak lame ducks. They should have spotted them as soon as they came into view. From what was shown, the way the 3 of them were walking & coming towards them was a dead give away.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
BTW, I find the term "asocial assholes" used by some of the readers to be unintelligent. Such people as those in the video are properly pathological criminals, not "assholes." Criminals: people who have no scruples in doing what normal human beings regard with horror.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
this ,just like the first one, shows how even untrained there success usueing violence, it worked, sort of.If either one of the victims had the proper training in use of violence , all 3 attackers would have been maimed, crippled or killed, you pick.The first victim was not unable to move and also had a chance to survive.As always violence is never the answer but when it is its the only answer
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
act of violence.
just my observation since i don't
have the book…..
Reply to comment
My comments will be about the victims. First of all, the guy with the keys was obviously getting ready to do something. Victim white shirt had his back to the attacker and did nothing to stop the attack. He could have turn and shift his weight and and hit the attacker with his forearm in the neck before he got punched and keep hitting the attacker's target until he dropped injured.
Victim green shirt could have stopped attacker black shirt with an open palm blow to the chin of the guy. This would had stopped him in his tracks. Victim green shirt would follow up with other presented targets until the guy was injured and out of combat.
Attacker sweat shirt was going after victim green shirt with his hands down before hitting him. Victim green shirt instead of stepping back, he could have stepped in with an elbow blow to the solar plexus of the guy and keep hitting targets until the attacker was injured and out of combat.
The three attackers did their work in approximately 18 seconds. If these two victims would have been trained with the TFT methods the three attackers would have been crippled, maimed, or even dead in this same time or probably even less, turning the plate on the attackers.
I can see what Tim Larking want us to learn with these videos. We have to be in the perspective of the victims and study what could have been done to avoid or stop the attackers.
This is my opinion on how these three attackers could have been stopped. There were other targets that could also be used in the same circumstances in the video. For example, the eyes, groin, knees, ribs, etc.
Eq
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Driver
While this seems like a solid strike with intent and follow-through, the actor's path, the recipient's fall and the bike rail make this questionable. The recipient is stunned, but is able to catch himself and is rising 3 sec. after impact. Quite distinct from a complete collapse due to knockout. Not an injury, c.f. non-functionality. The bike rail prohibits the actor from full body weight extension and rotation. Note how his vector of force is away from the recipient.
2) 'Arm-bar' at 2:35:08 to 2:35:13
Grey-shirt
The only reason this even remotely works is the passivity of the recipient. The actor has only one point of grip and does not follow through on the leverage position he has from 2:35:09 to 2:35:12/13. He does not bar the shoulder or elbow, and the recipient has positive control of the angle of the arm throughout. There is no indication of the arm being locked, either by rotation or extension. Note that the recipient is holding himself in an almost seiza position.
3) Head punch at 2:35:14
Grey-shirt
Jab, not strike, probably to ear or temple (recipient raises open palm to side of head). No projection of body weight, no rotation, no injury. He also drops the arm bar to strike rather than follow the arm bar through to injury.
4) Four stabs at 2:35:15 to 2:35:16
Black-shirt
First two apparent stab targets blocked by recipient's body. Could be opposite sides of throat or trap/neck area. Third stab appears to be in the scapular region, fourth stab somewhere in the lower rib cage. Other than lung and spleen, where's the target? Liver is on right side, and kidneys are lower on the back, along the spine. Possibly the descending aorta, but is the weapon long enough for that reach? No projection of bodyweight, no extension through target (the third and fourth strikes occur as the recipient is falling away from the actor). The four stabs look like flicks, not deep penetration wounds with intent.
At 2:35:31 the recipient is capable of moving his entire arm, though it is not clear the extent of injury.
The actors never act in concert, excepting the stabs, and the second recipient is never injured. Unlike the gangbanger fight in the 1st lecture of the monthly series, where the recipient was lucky to be alive, due to poor targeting, here, the actors lacked targeting and follow-through. THEY were lucky the recipients weren't clicked-on.
Since the distance and angle of the camera prohibits specificity, could the moderators indicate the fatal injury? Did the stabs hit right enough for the recipient to bleed out before medical attention?
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
BG#2’s attacks were almost totally ineffective and untargeted, he swipes at Victim #2 half-heartedly chases him, and then returns to Victim #1 where it looks like he taunts him, does something to his hand and then slaps him and the chases Victim #2 again. It looks like Victim #1 could have done some serious damage to BG#2, if he had the proper mindset and skillset.
BG#3’s attack—multiple short, fast stabs to the face and body—were effective, evidentially as this is what probably killed Victim #1. The stabs don’t looks like they were particularly well-targeted though.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
The attackers moved confidently and purposefully (like I do). They executed a potent first strike (like I do). They didn't stop there (I don't either). They inflicted further serious strikes and then got out of there (like I do).
I live in London, UK and deal with these gangs every day and night of the week and have done so for the past fifteen years. I'm just like them – only much more so. That's why I've survived every encounter.
TFT has been a key factor in ensuring I stay well ahead of gangs like this.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
"SECURITY CAMERA' follows the action.
Warren
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
I have one set of your videos and it appears that you have to be the aggressor in order to prevent serious harm to you.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
A secondary point/question I would like to make is that I wonder if being MORE SOCIAL would be helpful in such a situation, at least to get a second or two to size up the situation. In other words, rather than ignoring strangers approaching in the middle of the night, why not look them in the eyes and say: "Hey! What's up guys?" Maybe, that would make you look more aware and like less of a target(?)… Just a thought.
Looking forward to Tim's or Chris's or Torin's response.
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
BTW, the date stamp is interesting–this is the UK, right? Context is usually excuse for the Alex and his droogs types, but is there information that there is more to this than a random prowl and stab? From a vigilance POV, I wouldn't be lounging around on the night of a hot football game, nor would I be inattentive the day after 7/7.
Reply to comment
There's no guarantee that you will be able to see the weapon or be aware that you are in a fight for your life. The time in which you can react and change the situation is very very small.
Which is why changing the dynamic as soon as possible is vital. Wait too long and the opportunity will have passed.
Also, the attackers weren't all that worried about being attacked. Of course they weren't. They were confident they had control of the situation. To the point where the black guy that threw the punch did a lunge and deliberately turned his back (after connecting or missing).
When it comes to the OODA cycle, all these variables are all jumbled together. Searching for context by way of attempting to verify some hypothesis or observation, may end up simply wasting time. And time is not something that you can recover in a war.
It's important to have a context to fit all these things in, so that you have a very simple priority list of what to do and when to do it.
But the priority list depends on what your ultimate goal is. Oftentimes diplomacy or social communication is used as if this was the goal in and of itself. But it isn't. Sustained living and existence is the goal, social forms are just one means to get it.
People should not forget that the social niceties are not an end in themselves, they are only a means to an end. Thus they should not allow those means to interfere with the ultimate end goal of survival. But without the adequate observational context, most people figure this out way too late.
Reply to comment
Black shirt gets initial good effect with strike to back of head, but go my eyes poor use of body weight, no penetration, rotation, and further injury by him….kick to spleen, face, neck, then stomp head or grab head and smash into concrete might have been the next steps.
Grey and 75 shirt working in concert…75 with a strike to head from FAR out, thought he uses the bar to swing his weight around, connects with a wide roundhouse of sorts (weapon out here or later when chasing green shirt?), but backs right off (no penetration), then realizes he's had little effect, closes in again on cue from grey shirt, who also closes poorly. However they achieve a result when green shirt retreats…but green could have advanced when grey and 75 turned their attention back to white shirt.
Arm bar looked interesting (perhaps white shirt had a weapon), but even if he had one grey could have effected and series of chest, back, neck, face, head injury instead from his close-in position. Slaps to face distract white shirt instead, and 75 (apparently using a knife) gets in several stabs to neck (appears somewhat anterior though, so may not have gotten significant nerve or arterial injury etc)…doesn't look like he went far back enough for the spine). His stabs to the thorax (spleen, kidneys) were well-placed – he might have put more body weight behind these as well to improve penetration, though I think he managed to sink the blade in as far as possible with each thrust (increasing probability of significant internal damage).
I assume that white shirt died and I would like to hear what the post-mortem showed.
Reply to comment
I will be interested in Tim's response as it looks kind of hopeless from the victim's point of view.
Although, I have two green belts in separate martial arts; Shotokan and Goju Ryu,- and in addition to BJJ, judo, and Krav Maga training, – - – I have many of Tim Larkin's videos,- yet
the hardest thing to do is see myself as the person causing the injury! That is why Tim is the most innovative ,cutting edge instructor, I have ever come across and as this video shows, it is very very nasty out there in the civilian world these days!!
I know I need to get to a live training session from Tim and Chris soon!
Reply to comment
"The kid who died had a fractured jaw, as did the one who got away. Both were stabbed, both injured but the one who lived did so because attacker did not have intent, where as the killer had all the intent in the world (and a low IQ). I read about it in the Newspapers."
Can you give a link that provides this information, or any more details about the actual circumstances of this case, so that I can find more about this myself on the internet? Thanks
While useful, the problem with this video that that it is really not clear what actually has occurred, and, therefore viewer assessments are based on what "we think we see," than on reality.
Reply to comment
You said you'd comment on this video. Please do. Thanks.
Reply to comment
As I've said before, I live in London and have to compete with gangs like this regularly. People who look down on these gangs do so at their own peril. They're very good at what they do. That's because they do it all the time, every day and every night. They have an impressive body of knowledge about what works in violence. They have to, otherwise they wouldn't survive against rival gangs, never mind the specialist police units set up to combat them.
Don't ''dis'' these gangs. Don't EVER underestimate their lethal potential. Utilise everything you've got – including TFT – against them. You'll need to, believe me.
Reply to comment
Maybe compared to their peers, that might be true.
Against other standards, no. They're not very good. Not because they can't get the job done, but because they play around too much.
Reply to comment
When they returned to the first injured person, they had all the time in the world to finish what they started. They could have just as easily punched, kicked, stomped, clubbed or shot the person in their own time, because they got their first injury.
Besides the good example of injury on the first person, the other good lesson here is what happened to the second person attacked. They did not get an injury, he retreated and they left him alone. If we make that mistake with our life on the line when using violence, that person can easily turn around and give you bullets, lead pipe, kicks, punches, or a rock to the back of the head.
Reply to comment
The majority of the comments on this post discuss many things that are not relevant to the study of asocial violence. Topics like whether it was fair or not, or discussing that the attack was unprovoked are barriers to learning; the fact is the event occurred.
To attempt to figure out anything from the perspective of the victim (eg: how to counter the attack, etc..) is a very flawed strategy and mentally identifies you with the victim end of the violence equation. That can prove fatal if you continue to opt to look at acts of violence from that perspective.
Some of you looked at it from the successful side of the equation and critiqued the attack from the angle of targets, intent, or whether or not bodyweight was employed.
That is the recommended POV when viewing any act of violence. This viewing process is discussed in just about everyone of my DVD's, manuals and in my new book "How To Survive The Most Critical 5 Seconds of Your Life".
I personally like this video because many people upon first view think the 3 young men coming out the of the building are going to be attacked and are then "shocked" that they are the attackers.
Reply to comment
As has been pointed out, once an injury has been put in the attacker is in command. But before that stage (the first injury) there is no victim and no attacker, at this stage it is valid to look at the situation from any of the players point of view, isn't it?
It is from here that some are looking for ways not to become a victim of the surprise attack, the one without an initial confrontation. Is being aware of your surroundings your only option at this point?
Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Don't be.
Reply to comment
In answer to your question I would say that 'being aware of your surroundings' is not the only option. I think you must also be giving out signals to everyone (including potential attackers) that you are physically and mentally confident – the way you walk, the way you focus, your pattern, your rhythm, etc.
I call it being 'on form'. The opposite is being 'off form', where you are unfocused, hesitant, apprehensive, etc. Not good signals to be giving out.
How do you get to be 'on form'? That's a whole new question. Later.
Reply to comment