Drawing on a knifewielder- Escalation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Step one: To avoid any confusion in your own mind, have a friend with a painted rubber dummy knife charge at you and mark you before you draw and shoot him with an airsoft gun. Repeat several times.

Step two: Do the same experiment with your girlfriend watching so she can see how a man with a knife can kill you before you counter. Repeat several times.

Step three. Start the same experiment with girlfriend next to you, and rather than drawing your weaopn, grab her and throw her at the attacker, and scream, "Do it to HER!, Do it to HER!"

Drive ex girlfriend home, and find new girlfriend.

:evil:
 
Sometimes in solving a problem you have to play "role reversal." So let's play that out.

For the purpose of the debate, let's say that it's me holding the knife. In reality, a confrontation would definitely have me looking around for something sharp.

It is also reasonable to consider that a guy with a knife knows where to cut or stab to get the maximum injury in the quickest time. In my case, I took anatomy in college and my SIL is a nurse.

I might have a real nice knife in reality, but let's face it, you can buy anything I own over the internet. And the concept of "tactical knives" is well over a decade old. Strong blades with good edges are a dime a dozen.

See where I'm heading? In your scenario, you're facing a idiot with a cheap can-opener, and you simply assume the victory is yours for the taking. In that debate, someone might figure your actions are an escalation.

From my standpoint, you're behind the curve. You're standing flat-footed, confused on what to do, with your sidearm holstered. By your description, I'm closer to you than 21 feet and my knife is already out.

You are in peril. If you do not draw, and fast, with a quick, decisive action and a schooled double-tap from a well practiced "speed rock," then you are simply sushi.

It is very real, it is lethal, and you are in danger. Your action is reasonable.
 
I think it's pretty unanimous on this one. I do remember years ago when I did LEO training it was pretty simple: knife = deadly force = shoot the suspect, quickly.

Besides anybody who thinks a knife is less deadly than a gun hasn't looked carefully at a knife lately. The average knife would leave a much nastier wound track than even a large caliber hollowpoint would.
 
maybe, your girlfriend is underestimating the danger of a kinfe. a knife is a deadly weapon.

in texas, you can use deadly force when you fear for your life or serious bodily injury. serious bodily injury is permanent handicap.
 
I will qualify my response with a caution that I do not know what the laws in your state are, specifically. Nevertheless, I think your girlfriend has been grossly misinformed on this subject! All too often, CJ majors and Law students have great ideas of what the law is like, and no real practical working knowledge of it!

At least in my state, you are absolutely allowed to defend yourself with a gun if you are attacked with a knife. Justifying the use of deadly physical force is often much tougher for those of us in law enforcement (if only due to the nature of our jobs and interactions with crazy people). All the same, many of our officer-involved shootings have involved suspects armed with knives! I almost had one earlier this week!

In my state you also have a lot more leeway in the use of force within your own home (these are the so-called "castle doctrines" that many states have)

Just for sake of example, here is the exact text of Colorado's two statutes concerning the use of physical and deadly physical force against an assailant:

"18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.

Statute text
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.
"

"18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

Statute text
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

History
Source: L. 85: Entire section added, p. 662, § 1, effective June 6.
"
 
Three things need to be present: ability,opportunity and Intent. Abilty:He can physicly execute his action on you. i.e. not paralyzed. Opportunity: He is in close proximity (not standing across the street). Intent: He is communicating or showing furtive movements that would indicate he is going to attack you. All 3 present and you can shoot to defend. Period.
 
If I am 20-25 feet away with a knife, and you have a holstered gun, you are in trouble... However, while you only have a 1-2% chance of drawing and getting a proper shot in before I am on you, you increase this to about 45-50% if you begin to quickly move backwards as you draw and as I am approaching you.

If you are at anything under 10 feet, or within arm's reach, you're probably best off doing a disarming technique and taking possession of the knife.


Oh, and get a new girlfriend since it sounds like your current one is an airhead (no offense)... Not to mention you have no idea what she would do if you tried to draw a gun on an attacker. She might knock it out of your hands out of some fear that she'd go to jail for being an "accessory to your escalation" etc, blah, blah, blah...
 
About the shouting match where you throw a punch... In Ohio there are still provisions for withdrawal from mutual combat, and self-defense, etc...

If I am fighting you in a fist fight (regardless of who started it) and I want to "tap out" or get away, and I am trying to end the fight by getting out of it, and you suddenly have two friends jump in, you get a knife, you get a bat, etc, I am now legally justified in shooting you if I have a gun.



If I throw the first punch or push you, and you draw a knife, it may or may not be justified for you to shoot me. It would depend on a number of factors and would probably be settled by a jury.
 
I like your GF's idea

Now, I can carry a whole range of handguns.

BG "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you!"

Me "One moment, what type of gun is that?"

BG "it's a Lorcin."

Me "No, what caliber?"

BG "9mm."

Me "one second (thinks to self..lets see .22 in right front pocket, .38 SOB, S&W.500 ankle holster, 9mm left jacket pocket...) ...ahh yes here we go please proceed.."
 
So if Leatherface attacked me with a chainsaw, I would only be able to respond with a chainsaw and not with my .45?

The legal response is porportion in level of force, not exact match in kind. Girl friend and mom are wrong.
 
I'd be telling my ex-girlfriend and her idiot mother to save their legal advice until they finish law school, pass the BAR exam, and are attorneys. :rolleyes:

But then, I'm not a nice guy and don't take too kindly to fools claiming expertise they don't have.... :evil:



J.C.
 
If either of them is capable of being salvaged (inclined to listen to logic and read the law and accept what it says) then you are good to go...

If the girlfriend is but the mom is not, stay with her.

If the mom is but the girlfriend is not, dump the girlfriend and get with the mom.

Or you're feeling adventurous, work on correcting both, reason with both of them, and get with both of them.

:D :D :D


-Just kidding on that last one, well actually kidding on the last two, but specifically the last one, that was clearly just a joke since that's biblically forbidden, to know a woman and her daughter-


But hey, I make a good point, eh? If the mom can listen to reason and she is smarter than the GF, if she's not unattractive, ditch the criminal justice loon and get with the aspiring attorney. ;)
 
Anyone who doubts the lethality of a knife should see "Surviving Edged Weapons," A LE training video. All doubts will be banished forever. I also took Philipino knife fighting lessons, and the training video for that shows just how nasty a weapon a knife is in trained hands. If confronted by a knife I would not hesitate to shoot.
 
PAULREVERE:

"Intent" is no longer the word of choice in this context.

Yes, many older sources used to use the term "intent", until it was pointed out that the law does not require us to read men's minds or souls, which is the only way to determine unstated intentions.

As your description indicates, it's about what they're doing, rather than about what they're thinking.

--------------------------------

As for the rest, once your assailant has cross the line into lethal force, the door is open for you, as a defender, to use whatever lethal force you can muster, with no further consideration as to the comparative lethality of short knives, long knives, sword, guns, cannons, etc.

Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote in a United States Supreme Court decision, "Detached reflection is not demanded in the presence of an upraised knife."
 
She said that it would be illegal to draw or fire on the person since that would be "escalating the situation".

Is your girlfriend blonde?:)

she was saying that if someone attacks you, in any way, you are only legally "allowed" to use the exact same type of force in defense

The argument is called "proportionality", but she has misstated the argument. Under american law, when one is faced with a reasonable fear of death or grievious bodily harm, one may use deadly force to repel the threat. The standard "proportionality" argument rejects the grievious bodily harm element. Some countries in Europe adopt this rule, but none that I am aware of in the US. Ask her if she can use deadly force to fend off a rape... that may change her mind.

my girlfriend is a Criminal Justice major and her mom is a Paralegal assistant of some sort!

Even idiots can be Criminal Justice Majors or paralegals.:neener:

Somebody, LawDog, anybody, please ease my confused mind, I can't understand how they came to believe something so dumb! Please don't tell me they are correct! My head would explode!

I think they are confusing a mistaken application of the duty to retreat, mixing it up with a proportionality argument which has ano application in the US and arriving at a totally inane conclusion which has no foundation in law anywhere in the world.

How was that?:D
 
The legal standard in most states is based on "reasonable fear." Would a reasonable person in your position be in fear for their life or severe bodily harm.

If some drunk walks up and slugs you, that does not justify deadly force. If he breaks open a beer bottle and comes after you with it, that does.

If some guy twice your size says he's going to kick your ass, I think most people would have a rational reason to fear serious injury.

It is a little subjective, but that's why we have grand juries and juries.
 
Just about every jurisdiction (probably all jurisdictions) uses what is called the "deadly weapon doctrine." It is usually used by the prosecution to prove that a defendant had "intent to kill." Basically, if you use a deadly weapon in an assault, that you used a deadly weapon proves your intent to kill. This can then make you guilty of a higher degree of murder. The 2 classic weapons that qualify as deadly weapons are guns and knives because, get this, they're DEADLY! I believe this entire doctrine would carry over nicely to self defense. Here's a link verifying the substance of the deadly weapon doctrine: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0017-811X(196206)75:8<1565:TDWDCL>2.0.CO;2-L

Your GF is partly correct. You are only allowed to use the same level of force when defending yourself. Anything more does become escalation. However, once you have reached the level of deadly force, which the presence of a knife most certainly would, you are then permitted to use ANY form of deadly force in defense.

Ask your gf what would happen in the reverse. What if someone pulled a gun on you, and you pulled a knife on them? What you be liable for "escalating" the situation? Or would that, according to your gf, be "deescalating?"

She probably won't like to here this, but most jurisdictions also permit the use of deadly force when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. That means you can escalate to the level of deadly force when there is no threat to your own life. Of course, this sort of escalation is much more subjective. A 350 lineman being punched by a 3rd grader would be hard pressed to argue a threat of serious bodily harm. Whereas that same lineman being jumped by a group of highschool kids armed only with their fists would have a much stronger argument.
 
WayneConrad said:
I think the name calling has gotten out of hand.

I agree. The problem is that this conduct is the new face of what passes as a "debate." And, of course, unless you immediately agree, you're a heretic.

The aftermath of an attack is going to be scrutinized by the police. That's a given.

However, my take on the issue at hand was how the OP could discern or justify his conduct during an assault. And frankly it's a real concern. After all, could the OP fire if the aggressor used a rolled up newspaper?

And you know, the answer might be "yes" if the aggressor was a champion Filipino stick fighter. Such a man might easily maneuver behind you and choke you to death with The Wall Street Journal.

Maybe that argument will squelch the loud detractors. It's a hobbyist forum, not combat.
 
No one is being that simplistic. The decision on when to fire is very real. The issue of domestic tranquility is also real.

My wife doesn't agree with all of my decisions, either. Concepts like "kick her to the curb" are just sophomoric.
 
My wife doesn't agree with all of my decisions, either. Concepts like "kick her to the curb" are just sophomoric.
My first wife didn't want to hear it much less discuss matters either, so after the initial shock, she just got up, dusted herself off, stepped over the curb & hitched another ride. :p
 
So with their logic,,, once they kill you, it is perfectly fine for you to kill them back!??

I don't know but I've always gone by:

"If someone tries you kill you, you try to kill them right back!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top