Daniel Penny: Ex-Marine defends NYC subway chokehold So turns out choking people for 3 minutes will kill them, it looks like the guy went out quickly, and then fitted, which the person choking misunderstood as continuing resistance. The video is online, but I won't be posting it here for obvious reasons.
Daniel Penny: Ex-Marine in court charged with manslaughter over New York subway death - BBC News And he's been arrested and arraigned in court. Looks like he was choking him for 3 whole minutes. Talking to some newish people from my gym, they knew you a RNC could kill someone, but weren't sure how long it would take. So that's a good coaching point to bring up in basics class.
I have a hard time believing a sergeant in the marines wouldn't know that choking someone for 3 minutes wouldn't kill them.
Most of the talk around this I've heard revolves around whether people should put up with being made to feel uncomfortable on public transport. The dehumanisation of homeless people is pretty sickening. Who needed defending in that situation? The homeless man having an episode on the train or the former marine who decided that scaring people is grounds enough to forfeit your life?
He could have pinned him instead of choking him. I don't understand. We see so many videos of mma fighters pinning aggressors calmly in non-sport environments, its basic grappling to pin someone.
The marine's defence is playing up the disturbed nature of the man he killed, but I have to wonder who is the more disturbed in this situation? Squeezing someone's neck until they die, when no-one has been physically attacked, seems like extremely disturbed behaviour to me. "Overreaction" is a huge understatement.
Not to mention that, according to reporting, the guy he killed was malnourished and not exactly an overwhelming physical threat that would necessitate choking/breaking over pinning/locking (giving the benefit of the doubt that he needed to be restrained).
After years of choking people I don't really know how long would be within "safe" time. It really seems down to the individual, better to just not do it. Restrain through pin seems a much better option, but the whole scenario seems like an overreaction from an over zealous enforcer. Recently there was a similar case around the corner from me, a homeless guy was caught stealing, the security guard punched him, he went down, hit his head on the floor then died in hospital. For both these cases I suspect malnutrition plays a factor in the outcome, but that actions leading to it seem clearly a choice by the person committing the fatal move. I recall that Geoff Thompson used to talk a lot about it in "self protection" choking people unconscious to make it easier to deal with them. It seems like you're a thin line away from jail with that method.
I'm not going to give any advice, as I've never choked anyone out. The closest I've come is practicing it to the seeing stars and feeling floaty stage to get an idea of the effects. It does depend on how clean the choke is. It could take minutes if they keep breaking the choke or you have poor position. But if it is clean, it's going to be seconds, not minutes. If you have control then you can loosen and see what they do. You should have a fair idea of their ability to escape from how easy it was to get their back and their reaction to the choke being applied. I'm sure marines are aware of, and practice, rear naked chokes. Even if this guy wasn't, he would have an idea of asphyxiation times through training water survival and rescue. It's not something I'd go to unless there was an overwhelming physical threat. Irresponsible use of choke holds was the reason US police forces banned their use.
I always thought the "rule" with an RNC (or any blood choke) was squeeze hard for a count of about ten (not ten seconds that's too long) and release it a little to see if they are out. If they're still struggling put it back on and squeeze again. If they're still struggling after that your choke (actually strangle) probably isn't on right (across the throat instead, not quite catching the sides of the neck, too much space, only one side, etc) so you need to adjust or go to something else. I think a number of things may have happened.... Time dilation whereby the marine bloke didn't feel it was held that long? Not sure that really flies as a count of ten then release a little is a LOT shorter than holding for several minutes. The marine interpreted the convulsions and spasms as continued struggling? I've not watched the video (and have no desire to do so) so not sure about that either . I think the most likely explanation is the marine got a taste of "righteous violence" (in his mind) and just went overboard and was determined to punish the guy. Maybe a lot of pent up anger (and racism perhaps?). Unfulfilled "hero fantasies" given an outlet?
"Righteous violence" to be sounds like the best description here. Definitely agree that seconds on any decent choke is time to lights out. I've been on both sides, going unconscious (in my over zealous younger days, I tap well in time these days), and a few times the other didn't tap in time, fortunately for them I always keep a close eye when applying any, particularly against the over zealous younger types . Any decent training routine should have a control position ahead ahead of applying a choke, this seems to be grappling 101. Even with a choke applied gently, you should still be able to control the position.
I'm sorry folks but I have to say it: The aim of a choke is to kill. The byproduct of a choke is unconsciousness before death. If you are choking someone unconscious then you are really stopping when you think they are unconscious but not dead. A choke is not safe under a certain time frame unless the person is conscious to tap or talk. Even short period of unconsciousness can lead to death. We should never view a choke as temporarily disabling anyone - the point of a choke is to kill, the point of an armbar is to maim so they can't hold a weapon, the point of a pin is to hold someone down until help arrives.
To clarify: the marine here was using a weapon (a choke) and missed a non lethal part (unconsciousness) and hit a lethal part. Why are chokes viewed as a low risk (to the chokee) go to option in so many scenarios? Why are so many people using techniques when they have no idea the actual mechanics of that technique (I'm also thinking of Derek chauvin and the positional asphyxiation of the pin, the was really another form of choke as it deprived oxygen from reaching George Floyd's brain) Your intent with technique doesn't matter unless you fully understand what you're applying and how to apply it appropriately
So, a lot of people have been using the acronym "LVNR" in defence of the marine. Having read around it a bit, I've discovered that RNCs are not banned by police forces. Restraints that affect the trachea are, but police are still receiving training in Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint. The company that trademarked that, and trains people to apply it, claim no death, serious injury or litigation from anyone applying their training in 40-50 years. Found a study from Calgary here: New study ranks risks of injury from 5 major force options The study found LVNR to be the second safest use of force, after pepper spray. The way it is trained, only a small percentage of incidents result in the suspect losing consciousness, and that is a last resort for the most aggressive resistance. More reading here: https://www.nletc.com/lvnr-lateral-vascular-neck-restraint BUT This acronym is being applied incorrectly by people using it in defence of this marine. Dude choked the homeless guy. He did not apply this company's trademarked training.
I think something to do with it is the frequency you can see chokes applied in things like Judo (which can have some ridiculously bad choke protocols), MMA and BJJ where there are no ill effects (afaik) after the person is rendered unconscious. IIRC it used to be somewhat of a tradition in Judo to be choked unconscious as a rite of passage (Brian Jacks doing it to Neil Adams for example). If chokes were routinely lethal this kind of thing would not being going on.
100% that training and practice makes a difference in how well you perform a technique. I don't know how anyone can defend this marine's actions. I don't know if there's a video, i won't watch it but there are many options from a back take that allow you to immobilise someone without holding the choke on.
Especially when there are multiple people around who could get involved, grab an arm, wrap his legs, etc. Just going to a seatbelt grip with hooks in or body triangle would be enough to hold many people long enough.
Yeah super different being choked unconscious by choking professionals hahaha. Chokes are routinely lethal when not done with professionals and referees/general safety oversight. Judo using chokes comes from styles that were using chokes to kill hahaha RESPECT THE CHOKE - first day submission grappling sport lesson.
Absolutely. And for law enforcement it is about making people comply. On a subway as a civilian you just have to hold onto them until the next stop. In this case there were other passengers holding the guy's arms, so it's not like being stabbed or shot by a concealed weapon was a concern (it wasn't a concern to begin with, as far as the reporting goes, but after the marine escalated the situation into physical assault, it could be a concern, though I don't know it could be viewed as self-defence).
There were then a ton of options that dont involve holding a choke for so long. He is liable but its another poor undesirable eliminated by a "hero" so there's probably a huge fundraising effort for him in the US.
