Skip to comments.Former Gurkha detains knife-wielding mugger despite having blade embedded in his arm
Posted on 02/03/2013 5:03:24 PM PST by PotatoHeadMick
An ex-Gurkha forced to defend himself when attacked by a man wielding a knife only realised afterwards a six-inch blade was embedded in his arm.
Mr Phlamachha was out for an evening walk with his wife Asha, 38, when they stopped to have a look in the window of a health shop, in Maidstone, Kent.
Suddenly Mr Phlamachha was thrust up against the wall and allegedly told to 'hand over the money', or get stabbed.
The former soldier and black belt in karate and taekwondo, said 'yes' - then calmly warned the attacker: 'First you should know who I am.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Is it any wonder that the Gurkhas are the only people in the history of Britain who the public launched a massive campaign demanding the government allow them to settle in the country as immigrants?
A few more Gurkhas and a few less of other types of immigrants and all would be well with Britain in a couple of years.
I recall when Britain was expelling their ex-military Gurkhas, they were granting wholesale asylum to Middle Eastern Muslims, some with terror ties.
He was also lucky that he didn’t remove the blade. He would have bled at a greater rate.
How could this happen? I thought the UK had strict knife control?
Funny story although I guess having a knife embedded in your arm is not all that amusing.
The crook should have had a better quality knife and attacked a poorer quality citizen.
If he wasn’t a martial arts expert he would have been killed. Guns level the playing field for those of us not world class fighters.
Just a bump for later
Ten years...with a possibility of only 7...for attempted murder? I suppose the English police are afraid of being short of thieves and thugs, thus endangering their government jobs. And this incredibly brave man waited for 15 minutes for them to show up. Shameful.
Amen! A few of them were stationed on a base near me in the UK. Used to come into the shop where I worked. Good guys.
That is certainly true.
When I worked for civil service, we had a national champion Karate Instructor give us some very basic self defense training.
One question we asked him was what if the guy has a gun. He told us the best thing would be to just do whatever he told you to. If you knew he was going to try and kill you, then he said he would at least attempt something.
Guilty: Jamie Hall, 39, stabbed shop owner Taitex Phlamachha, 38, so hard he buried a whole six inch knife in his arm. He has been sentenced to 10 years jail.
Don’t screw with the Gurkhas, you will lose....badly.
True, but when warned that the "victim" was an ex-military Gurkha, the "assailant" should have immediately apologized and run like hell. They have a well deserved reputation of being some of the deadliest fighters in history.
This event happened last October, as the article itself states. Why the Daily Mail is publishing it now, I don’t know. It was post4ed and discussed on FR in October when it happened.
Don’t mess with Gurkhas. They will hurt you!
I had a great-uncle (may God rest his soul) that was stationed in Burma during WWII where he worked with and got to know a lot of Gurkhas. He even had one to give him a Kukri blade. He used to say they were some of the kindest, most honorable people on Earth. But they were not to be trifled with-at all. He was glad they were on our side.
He’s probably going to be in a raft of legal trouble for defending yourself.
I saw an interview on TV back when Britain still controlled Hong Kong. A British officer there who commanded Gurkha guards or maybe troops really liked them.
He said they were pleasant with their own but deadly with their enemies.
I suspect that he was either advised by his lawyer to say that, or he was smart enough to say it after the fact. He didn’t actually get chatty during a fight for his life.
It’s part of the legal dance you have to do in Britain after defending yourself. “And then I said, ‘Sir, you should not hold your knife pointed at my face, because that could be interpreted as a hostile act’”. Utter b.s., but then again, so are their self-defense laws.
Fortunately, in much of the US, you can rely on Tuco’s rule.
“When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.”
A Gurkha like this guy might have lived another 25 years before noticing this knife imbedded in his arm.
There are NO X-Marines and there are NO Ex-Gurkha.
I still think we need to hire a regiment to police our Southern Border with Mexico. That would stop the “traffic”.
Gurkha are some tough little soldiers. Few words, much action. I salute them.
If the attacker had any clue what the tool of the trade for Gurkha is, he would have run for his life.
With a Kukhari the little Gurkha would have made quick work of this.
Sword ping indeed... Kukri is close enough. :-)
ping Another badass shows his stuff.
Unless you’re tired of living or just plain stupid, a Gurkha warrior, like a Sheik is not a man to be trifled with. If I were the Gurkha I would have told the stupid wanker who I was after I kicked his ass.
You probably meant Sikh (India), and not sheikh (Arab / Muslim), the ones the former ended up overthrowing.
I’m a GURKHA...... B10TCH!!!!!
I don't normally use a blade, but when I do, I appreciate some extra length and sharps. For door-to-door pests, I keep this out of their view, along side the doorway.
While Cold Steel calls it a tomahawk, the 19" handle tells me it's more of a battle axe. And they are now making a trainer, with a rubber head rather than steel. I'll now be able to practice my "repel boarders" defenses without risking anything worse than knocking over a lamp. Anybody who practices mixed weapons training might want to see how the trainer stacks up. :)
I saw one of those tomahawks in the “Cold Steel” catalog”
They say it was popular with U.S. troops in Viet Nam.
Crook said “I’m in trouble now.” Yep. Messed with the wrong guy. Good job, sir! Crime is indeed everywhere. I was in Maidstone several years ago when my daughter was touring England as a solo act. Beautiful small town.
‘Utter b.s., but then again, so are their self-defense laws.’
No, they arent. The ignorant crap I have to read on these pages about UK laws and rights IS, however.
10 years is about the norm here. I agree, it should be higher.
‘I thought the UK had strict knife control?’
Love the Gurkhas. Fierce, loyal, brave, and did I mention fierce?
Yes I did, thank you for the correction. Years ago in my hometown for a time my family had a doctor who was a Sikh. It was how I learned about them and their culture. A very proud and noble people.
Because the trial has only just happened.
The trouble is that the law is muddy, far too open to whimsy and opinion of the particular case, instead of an objective standard.
I compare that to the clarity of a newly elected Maricopa county prosecutor, back in the 1970s, when home defense was a big issue nationally. At his first press conference, he was asked “What should you do if someone breaks into your home?”
To which he replied, “You shoot the son of a bitch!” And for all intents and purposes, that was and has remained the law since then. No room for judicial whimsy, cunning rhetoric by ambitious defense counsels, or a lack of impartiality or prejudice on other accounts.
The homeowner may be an ugly old black man, and the robber an attractive blonde cheerleader, yet he will not even be charged. There is justice and fairness before the law.
Can Britain claim that?
There is a myth in America that the Brits have no right to self-defence, that they cant protect themselves. You read it here all the time.
This is bunkum. And as I have posted here many times, I myself (Sept 2008) actually have personal victim experience of this issue (attempted burglary and assault).
Whilst it is true that the US has more leeway than the UK (because many householders carry guns), the British have the right of self defence, to death if necessary (as we saw in a case last year). And the last two govts have in fact STRENGTHENED the law on behalf of victims/homeowners on self-defence.
From the report:
He then threw the attacker off him and disabled him with a kick.
My guess is that he landed the kick in a more sensitive part of his anatomy.
While I agree that it has been strengthened of late, Americans have two perspectives, of the horror stories that came out of mostly England for years; and the other is the relative ease by which Americans can smite villains without significant legal threat in many cases.
This relativity is important, as in the case of Germans who for many years drove on much of the Autobahn at speed, and embraced that ability as a precious right, to whom the 88.5km speeds of America’s freeways felt like driving in a parking lot.
That is, from here, Britain looks like a dangerous place.
I hear you... but the problem is borne out in the link given above that discusses the British law and some case history. The law is monstrously complex when it doesn’t need to be. My main complaint with the British approach to self sefense is that it must only be ~reasonable~ and ~proportionate~ to the threat. The defender can use more force than the attacker, but only just barely enough more. It’s then the burden of the defender to prove that they didn’t use too much force in their own defense.
The presumption should always lie with the defender that they did what they needed to do, without any second-guessing by juries or prosecutors that weren’t there.
And when he walks, “Clang! Clang! Clang!” chime his b*lls of iron.
Don’t - DO NOT - f*ck with a Gurkha.
It's indeed unfortunate that this impression has taken root in the U.S. as widely as seems to be the case. There seems to be little that those of us who know better can say in response which won't be summarily dismissed. Illustrate with personal anecdote, and we're accused of burying our heads in the sand, ignoring the reality around us, being blind to what's happening elsewhere than in our little safe enclave etc. etc. Respond with statistics or explanation of the law, and we're accused of hiding behind generalisation and abstraction, selectivity in the choice of statistics or even of quoting questionable evidence etc etc. In truth, I suspect that the only way anybody who holds this view might be convinced is by spending time here - and by that I mean a substantial period of time, not the snapshot observations of a tourist.
...but here's my personal experience, anyway. I've lived in England nearly 70 years now, not a particularly sheltered life, in many different areas (north, west midlands, south, southwest), in big cities, medium-sized towns, and in the countryside.
During those neat 70 years, have I ever experienced or felt in imminent threat of physical violence of any kind?
Have any of my immediate family or friends ever been subject to or threatened by physical violence?
Not that I'm aware of.
Has a violent incident ever taken place within the near neighborhood of my home?
Not that I can recollect, or at least not affecting anybody I have known personally, even if only by sight.
Have I ever felt that owning a handgun might be desirable or useful?
Has any of my family, including past generations, ever owned a handgun, even when there was no legal obstacle to doing so?
Not that I'm aware of.
Do I know anybody who owns a gun of any kind?
Plenty. All shotguns or a variety of sporting rifles. All owned for farming or sporting purposes. All owned without interruption through the various stages of gun control legislation.
Have any of these ever expressed to me a wish to hold other kinds of gun, including handguns, if it were legal to do so?
No, although the subject has occasionally been discussed in my presence when gun crime happens to be in the news.