Video deleted...
Sorry
In 
Sub
creepy, fear based, and ineffective..
there is no way a kid that small is going to effectively resist and really do you want to practice something like this? Your teaching a child he can fight an adult which isn't a good thing ever. Your kids more likely to get hit by lightening than get forcefully abducted.
You may as well teach the kid Dim Mak while you're at it.
Wow. This vid is straight out of the TMA playbook. Claiming a technique is "very effective" because it looks good with a compliant partner runs contrary to the spirit of BJJ. All techniques and drills need to be tested against live resisting opponents to demonstrate effectiveness.
How many kids have actually put these techniques into practice? How many abductions have they prevented? How many lives have they saved? If you can't answer these questions, then you shouldn't make empty claims that they're "very effective."
I would not teach these techniques to my kid. And I don't think they would prevent abductions.
Paging Dr Shen, come in Dr Shen.... What is your take on kid's self-defense stuff? Do you ever take in courses on that, or do you just stick to the adult stuff?
Holy shit .... this kind of thing is why I hate the concept of "martial arts."
The whole purpose of this drill is to cause a commotion so that someone will take notice of the abduction.
So after the abduction has occur, there might be eye witness that can help the police identity the suspect.
This is better than doing nothing.
Like 90% of stuff taught to kids there is no way a child can fight back against an adult.
So I apologize if this video offend some of you guys.
Please show me a better solution.
Best thing a child could do is either run away, or kick the abductor in the nuts, then run away. Also scream at the top of their lungs while this is going on.
While giving kids the perception they can fight and "defeat" an adult is crazy, giving them the instint to resist, fight back, and attempt to escape at every opportunity is dead on, IMO. I saw the vid before it was taken down...while the yelling "help, fire" thing wasn't super convincing, I liked the idea of having the kids resist being lifted and resist being put in a car by kicking away. I would rather my kids do that than do nothing for sure. I have heard stories of kids successfully getting away by resisting abductors. I am pretty sure statistics support the idea that once the abductor has you in a vehicle and takes you somewhere else, your chances of survival plummet. This video may not have been ideal, but I think it raises some important questions about how we should teach and train our children. Like all true self-defense, awareness and avoidance is 90% of it (I loved the vid you posted Judo Scott, wish I could show it to my kids class :)), but when it comes to physical techniques or strategies against abduction, how DO you train your child?
As a father of two young boys who cringes every time he watches the news and sees another missing kid, this is of interest to me.
We teach kidSAFE which is 90% verbal!
joe_mama - Paging Dr Shen, come in Dr Shen.... What is your take on kid's self-defense stuff? Do you ever take in courses on that, or do you just stick to the adult stuff?
Yeah, I teach self-defense for kids.
There are a lot of sick people out there, but the ones most likely to harm kids are clearly the people they see everyday; family, family friends, neighbors, teachers, coaches, hired caregivers, etc.
There's a whole lot one could say about this topic, but one important thing is to make sure you focus on teaching kids about BEHAVIOR rather than about STRANGERS. You tell a kid, "don't talk to strangers" then they see the guy from the grounds-crew at the soccer field they play at see every weekend and he's not a stranger to them. He's Gus, the guy who cuts the grass. So, the whole "stranger-danger" type approach is riddled with holes.
Kids need to be educated in what is "acceptable" behavior and what is not, and they need to be given permission to break rules, when in those situations. Kids often have intuition or gut-feelings, just like anyone else, and they need to know it's OK to listen to it and that they won't get in trouble. It's really sad to hear kids report they thought their mom or dad would get mad at them if they didn't do what their teacher/coach/ "Gus" the groundskeeper told them to do.
And they need to practice it.
The verbal is where it's at, but as far as the physical stuff, a person who wants to harm a kid generally wants privacy & control. He doesn't want a "non-compliant" kid. If the kid is too much trouble, generally he'll simply bail. That is the goal to make the kid an "undesirable target" on every level. If there is a box of kittens and you want to pick one up but it bites and claws and scratches, you'll say "screw that I don't want to hold it that much" and you'll put it down & pick up a more sedate one. You teach kids to be the wrong kind of kid to pick.
shen -Really excellent. Do you have specific curriculum for this? I've been guilty of preaching the "Stranger Danger" thing in my kids classes, knowing full well there were a lot of ideas and scenarios I was leaving out, but felt they were too taboo or complex to address, i.e. uncles, priests, teachers, etc. :(joe_mama - Paging Dr Shen, come in Dr Shen.... What is your take on kid's self-defense stuff? Do you ever take in courses on that, or do you just stick to the adult stuff?
Yeah, I teach self-defense for kids.
There are a lot of sick people out there, but the ones most likely to harm kids are clearly the people they see everyday; family, family friends, neighbors, teachers, coaches, hired caregivers, etc.
There's a whole lot one could say about this topic, but one important thing is to make sure you focus on teaching kids about BEHAVIOR rather than about STRANGERS. You tell a kid, "don't talk to strangers" then they see the guy from the grounds-crew at the soccer field they play at see every weekend and he's not a stranger to them. He's Gus, the guy who cuts the grass. So, the whole "stranger-danger" type approach is riddled with holes.
Kids need to be educated in what is "acceptable" behavior and what is not, and they need to be given permission to break rules, when in those situations. Kids often have intuition or gut-feelings, just like anyone else, and they need to know it's OK to listen to it and that they won't get in trouble. It's really sad to hear kids report they thought their mom or dad would get mad at them if they didn't do what their teacher/coach/ "Gus" the groundskeeper told them to do.
And they need to practice it.
The verbal is where it's at, but as far as the physical stuff, a person who wants to harm a kid generally wants privacy & control. He doesn't want a "non-compliant" kid. If the kid is too much trouble, generally he'll simply bail. That is the goal to make the kid an "undesirable target" on every level. If there is a box of kittens and you want to pick one up but it bites and claws and scratches, you'll say "screw that I don't want to hold it that much" and you'll put it down & pick up a more sedate one. You teach kids to be the wrong kind of kid to pick.
This video is somewhat similar to the original, for discussion:
Yeah, the company I work for has a set curriculum that has gone through MANY changes over the last 20 years. (I believe it was based originally on something called the "Safe Child Program" by Rene Van Der Zant). I think it's actually pretty good, and FWIW(similar to the clip) we DO teach kids to yell:
"I NEED HELP!"
"THIS IS NOT MY DAD!" (or mom)--That's really important because NO ONE wants to get involved with someone having a fight with their own kid.
We do a whole segment on (inappropriate) touching, where the student makes the bad person stop touching them. We have multiple instructors & assistants and do roll-playing. Of course, we do NOT ever touch kids inappropriately, but we do things that annoy them like untying their shoelace, or pulling on their hair, something they don't like and want us to stop doing. (We get their input on what that might be). So then we teach HOW to make someone stop touching you in a way that you don't like. They feel like they are learning a "practical" skill so if someone at school tickles them or whatever they feel like they can stop it.
Here's an example of how we do it:
The student tells the "bad person" to stop touching them.
(If the bad person doesn't stop)
The student stands up looks the bad person in the eye and tells them loudly and clearly "STOP TOUCHING ME!" (We coach them with things like, "If you don't tell people to stop touching you loudly and take it serious --no smiling--, they might think you're kidding and not listen to you.")
IF the behavior continues...
The child says to the bad person, "IF YOU DON'T STOP TOUCHING ME, I WILL TELL!"
Then the students PRACTICE TELLING someone playing their parent (or whoever the child picks as the person they would tell in a real situation). We throw them curves like we ignore them by being busy reading a paper or on the phone and they have to get their full attention.
We do that type of roll playing a few times --oddly the kids LIKE it!
Then we also cover the fact that the "bad person" might bribe or threaten the kid and we have strategies & rules for them to follow for dealing with those.
--It's a class held for a couple hours each day for two days (often a week apart).
Conceptually, we don't make a big distinction between your classmate pinching you and an adult putting their hand under your clothes. It's ALL "unwanted touch" and we try to give them skills to deal with it that will work well against the type of adult who does such things. The idea is to make them capable of speaking up, acting, telling.It's not just a skill if some adult tries to do something to them. We find it's easier for kids to understand if you make it more relateable like that, rather than if you bring kids into a class and make it all about, "OK, some day an adult may touch you in a way you don't like". THAT, on the other hand, tends to be very confusing.
I definitely understand and empathize with squeamishness about getting into areas where someone might be a priest or family member. But, I think in much the same way we teach kids to look both ways when crossing the street without getting into detail about what happens to the body of a 7-year old when it's struck by a car, so too hopefully we can give kids skills to help protect them from the possibility of sexual abuse without getting into graphic detail about what might happen to them.
Shen, thank you very much for taking the time to write all that, I am going to be saving and utilizing all this info!
Oh, and voted up once again!
zeerebel -
The whole purpose of this drill is to cause a commotion so that someone will take notice of the abduction.
So after the abduction has occur, there might be eye witness that can help the police identity the suspect.
This is better than doing nothing.
Like 90% of stuff taught to kids there is no way a child can fight back against an adult.
So I apologize if this video offend some of you guys.
Please show me a better solution.
My problem with the video is not the intention. It's with the hype. If you suggested the video was "potentially useful" then I would be okay with it. But calling it "very effective"? To me, that's problematic. If it's not proven, then you shouldn't call it very effective. Because, for all you know, it's actually very, very ineffective.
The scientific process says you develop a hypothesis, you test it out, you get repeated results, you draw a conclusion. Here, you have already drawn a conclusion without ever testing it out.
Very good stuff shen. Thank you 
Shen crushed it