17 year old girl knifes 30 men to death

Alhazred wrote:

If the marker had been a real knife, you'd be bleeding out of every single one of those marks. To make matters worse, because you're in a fight-or-flight situation, your heart is beating like there's no tomorrow. Which means you'll be gushing blood from those cuts even faster than you would be normally. The effects of blood loss would hit in a few seconds, and you'd probably pass out in under a minute.

I'd say the real value in that exercise is emphasizing just how often you can expect to be cut, rather than determining how badly, if that makes any sense. Most people probably envision one graze when going for the disarm, after which point they'll have the upper hand. (Ever notice how disarming bad guys instantly makes them a non-threat in movies?)

The really aggravating thing about trying to determine what happens in a "knife fight" with any kind of reliability is that there are too many variables. Some people will fight on with a serrated blade lodged in their shoulder. Others will panic and crumple at the first injury, inviting further attack. Still others have to bleed out to slow down.

Psy-4 wrote:

video

That's cool and all, but it goes back to that fundamental martial arts flaw when it comes to dealing with knife attacks: The assumption that they're going to politely present the knife and square off. That and the attacker always leads with the knife. It's a lot harder to respond properly if they lead with a fist. Then when you're dealing with that first attack, they stab you.

Penguin wrote:

Alhazred wrote:

If the marker had been a real knife, you'd be bleeding out of every single one of those marks. To make matters worse, because you're in a fight-or-flight situation, your heart is beating like there's no tomorrow. Which means you'll be gushing blood from those cuts even faster than you would be normally. The effects of blood loss would hit in a few seconds, and you'd probably pass out in under a minute.

I'd say the real value in that exercise is emphasizing just how often you can expect to be cut, rather than determining how badly, if that makes any sense. Most people probably envision one graze when going for the disarm, after which point they'll have the upper hand. (Ever notice how disarming bad guys instantly makes them a non-threat in movies?)

That's kinda what I was trying to get at with the remarks about how long they're likely to be and how many you're likely to have. Even if you can't say any number of them will be deep enough to be good bleeders, I'd rather be wrong about that assumption than be wrong about assuming the opposite.

Quote :

The really aggravating thing about trying to determine what happens in a "knife fight" with any kind of reliability is that there are too many variables. Some people will fight on with a serrated blade lodged in their shoulder. Others will panic and crumple at the first injury, inviting further attack. Still others have to bleed out to slow down.

A bit of a backhanded consolation, but if you're defending, you probably don't have a knife yourself to worry about this with. Not that this is particularly comforting, and while I could say something about how an empty-handed defense stacks up to the same idea, the bottom line is that it's still just as uncertain. I'm glad my instructor was aware of things like this, though. "Now, just because I landed THIS punch doesn't mean I'm not going to repeat it four times in quick succession...you know, just to be sure."

Quote :

Psy-4 wrote:

video

That's cool and all, but it goes back to that fundamental martial arts flaw when it comes to dealing with knife attacks: The assumption that they're going to politely present the knife and square off. That and the attacker always leads with the knife. It's a lot harder to respond properly if they lead with a fist. Then when you're dealing with that first attack, they stab you.

Keep eye contact instead of looking at their limbs, don't commit more than one limb to stopping a single attack (easier said than done, of course, since the natural instinct is going to be to look at their fist.) Even hard blocks that meet force with force instead of re-directing it shouldn't require two arms at once, blocking is really all about positioning in such a way that physics work for you.

Not that there's any real answer for dealing with an attack in your blindspot, though. The best you can do is be conscious of the fact that your peripheral vision should extent to almost ninety degrees at either side, and to pay attention to movement going on there. There's a lot to be said for situational awareness.

Alhazred wrote:

To make matters worse, because you're in a fight-or-flight situation, your heart is beating like there's no tomorrow. Which means you'll be gushing blood from those cuts even faster than you would be normally. The effects of blood loss would hit in a few seconds, and you'd probably pass out in under a minute.

Lacerations cause vasoconstriction. This makes passing out about as likely, but is also the reason why people "left for dead" often get back up. Unless said lacerations are numerous or severe, blood loss will usually be at a survivable level. Of course, this has no real bearing on the tactical value of "accepting cuts," since there is no way to know that an attacker isn't knowledgeable and determined enough to finish the job, or angry enough to commit what they believe to be overkill. Still bears mentioning, though.

Thanks for all the tips, guys.

*grabs knife and heads out*

Not to mention that a knife cut hurts like a motherfucker. Pain is distracting. Some people can focus through it. Others have a predictable reaction of panicking, because, hey, they just got a knife stuck in their arm. Two seconds distraction and an instinctive attempt to stop the bleeding will give your attacker more than enough time to put that knife where it counts.

Lapin wrote:

Not to mention that a knife cut hurts like a motherfucker. Pain is distracting.

It can, but a fight's a lot different from accidentally cutting yourself in the kitchen. Many have reported being unaware of being cut until after the fight's over and they see the blood. After firefights, soldiers check each other for wounds they might not feel yet. Adrenaline's a funny thing.

Really? I just think about a knife going in me as being really prominent in the forefront of my mind.

Our bodies are so weird.

Penny wrote:

That's cool and all, but it goes back to that fundamental martial arts flaw when it comes to dealing with knife attacks: The assumption that they're going to politely present the knife and square off. That and the attacker always leads with the knife. It's a lot harder to respond properly if they lead with a fist. Then when you're dealing with that first attack, they stab you.

However, most dumbasses with no martial arts training are probably going to lead with the knife just out of instinct.

This is all moot anyway. The best course of action when involved in a knife fight is to pull a gun.

More to the point. While it's possible she killed thirty people with a knife, I don't think it's very likely: what happened to the bodies? How come nobody noticed? The article (granted, in The Sun) said that it was thought to be gang-related, and gangsters generally have no problem administering justice on their own if the system drags it's feet. Moreover, by coming out and confessing, she's painting a big, fat bullseye on herself. Not exactly the brightest move for someone canny enough to be a mass murderer before they're old enough to buy cigarettes.

^
It's Brazil, I imagine she could buy cigarettes at age 12.

In Federative Republic of Brazil, underaged girl knifes YOU.

The way I read it, she confessed to unsolved murders that were on the books. So the bodies were found, they just didn't know who killed them.

Chaltab wrote:

The way I read it, she confessed to unsolved murders that were on the books. So the bodies were found, they just didn't know who killed them.

What did they do just plonk a book of unsolved murders in front of her and she picked out the ones she did?

"Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. No but that is impressive knife work, very clean. Yes. No. No."

Somath Cegem wrote:

Chaltab wrote:

The way I read it, she confessed to unsolved murders that were on the books. So the bodies were found, they just didn't know who killed them.

What did they do just plonk a book of unsolved murders in front of her and she picked out the ones she did?

"Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. No. No but that is impressive knife work, very clean. Yes. No. No."

Or her confessions matched murders that the police were aware of and they checked what she said against the facts they had in order to confirm that she wasn't lying? I mean, maybe it's just me, but that's how I'd do it.