Closed the distance vs blunt weapon

Aside from maintaining enough distance to not get hit, closing the distance against a blunt weapon is the best option. Moving into a clinch removes most of the advantages for the weapon.

Conversely, stepping away keeps you at the effective range which is very bad. The victim here was slow to respond and took a lot of damage, but ended up in a better position toward the end of the video where it ends without a satisfying conclusion. The aggressor even threw away the stick when he realised that it may now be used against him.

Man threatens another with baton, gets knocked out

The man holding the baton made some errors:

  • Allowed his opponent to close the distance when he had a tool which needs more range.
  • Range can be managed by movement – he’s completely stationary.
  • Flat posture, straight back, very likely standing with knees locked straight, does not appear to be in any kind of stance which would prepare him to respond in the split second required to move, defend or attack. His opponent constantly adjusts.
  • Allowed opponent to grip his wrist. Difficult to swing baton effectively when grappling starts. The grip even from this position may allow opponent to stay off-centre when the baton swing comes.
  • Furtive glance made by opponent is a huge warning sign. He has already decided to attack at this point and is looking for witnesses, other enemies or allies which may factor in to his decision to go ahead.
  • Even if he decided to use the baton, it’s a poor weapon. Law enforcement use this as a method of pain compliance, and often need to move to other methods when it fails. Striking the legs is unlikely to instantly shatter kneecaps unless you’re very lucky/unlucky to hit that spot. You’re only starting the fight, not ending it. Swinging to the head would be a different matter.
  • Compare the above (pain compliance) to the punches thrown to the head (incapacitation).

Baton man seems to think intimidation is enough to keep him safe. The baton is like some kind of force field, everything else can be ignored.

From this position, when would he decide to use it? Once the fighting starts? Too late, too close. When the man fails to step back? This may be considered unjustified assault. Baton man then made a threat to seriously harm, which prompted an aggressive response. He put himself in a situation which is very difficult to win.

Knife disarm via punch to head and control on ground

Rather than reaching for the knife when it is drawn as many people tend to do, this security guard punches the man, and as they go to the ground he and controls the hand holding the knife. He extends the hand away from the body which prevents the man from reaching for it with the other hand. Bystanders step in and assist. Excellent instincts.

Man is stabbed in stomach, knocks out attacker

Knives do not immediately incapacitate – often, a person who has been stabbed is able to continue fighting for long enough to successfully retaliate, even if they die soon after. This makes knives both a poor choice for self defence, and a good choice for murder. A horrific way to fight since ancient times.

An important point to learn from this video: striking is an effective response to a knife attack, assuming that you are a capable striker. Many people tend to focus on the knife and fight to control it, not realising that this is as good a time as any to punch the face.

How the knife can win vs the gun at close range. The 21 foot rule, also known as the Tueller Drill.

This video demonstrates some of the lesser-known mechanics of close-range combat between knife and gun.

Wikipedia:

The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.

Sergeant Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake City Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, “How Close Is Too Close?”[1][2]

A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being accused of murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a “danger zone” where an attacker presented a clear threat.[3]

The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[4]

  1. The (simulated) attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the “attacker” sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
  2. A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
  3. If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.

MythBusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode “Duel Dilemmas”. At 20 ft (6.1 m), the gun-wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot.[5]