Drawing on a knifewielder- Escalation?

[LegalAlien]

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. that blew my mind

Now that blew my mind as well.

Ask her if a 6'6" 300lb male bruiser attacks a 4'9" 100lb petite female with his bare hands, is she only allowed to defend herself with her bare hands?

That should make her think some.

 

[Wheeler44]

Recently in Vancouver WA. an off duty police officer was involved in an argument with a meat processor. It seems the butcher failed to put enough pepper flake on the officers jerky. When they were in the parking lot the officer thought that the butcher was going to hit him with the box of jerky and pulled his pistol. He was not charged with any crime in fact neither of them were.

So the lingering question is; whats more deadly fresh fruit or pepperless jerky?

 

[NG VI]

Ask her if a 6'6" 300lb male bruiser attacks a 4'9" 100lb petite female with his bare hands, is she only allowed to defend herself with her bare hands?

That should make her think some.

That type of disparity of force situation is one of the first things I brought up, even before I attempted to explain to her (and later her mom) that any deadly force is eactly the same as any other deadly force, there is not any difference in levels of dead someone can kill you.

As far as the comments about ditching her, they actually aren't out of line, we have very little in common now that I know her more and I am really getting worn out by being around her. It's just hard for me to follow through without feeling guilty for hurting her in some way.

And I do worry very much about what would happen if we were in a situation where someone needed immediate shooting, not so much because she might try to stop me, but because her first reaction to anything would be to grab me and start pulling on me, and in the heat of the moment I'm afraid that my only way to make her let go so I could deal with the incident would be to slug her. For obvious reasons I would never feel the same about myself after crossing that line.

We were having some difficulties this weekend and her response to me asking not to be touched was to start grabbing me, pulling on my face in directions I wasn't trying to look, grabbing my arms, all I had wanted was a little breathing room and her reaction was to not give me ANY. It was hairy for me.


Thanks guys, I'm glad I'm not a homicidal maniac interpreting laws however I please.

 

[Wetawd]

I was at a party my friend was throwing and and quite a few people were hammered. Anyway I was just sitting on the couch when my ex girlfriend at the time screamed for me to turn around, and as I did I see is an arm with a knife swinging at me in an overhand ark. I reached up and caught the arm and then pulled them over the back of the couch, it was a girl I didn't know so I just pinned her in my lap and asked her why she tried to kill me, she just smiled and said she didn't know. Anyway it turned out I did know her before for a short time and she was a little drunk so I let her go kept the knife after I recognized her (I still have it actually).

I've often looked back on that time and wondered would I have shot someone else with a knife... I would and asked a cop friend of mine what the legal ramifications of that situation are, he said that if it was obvious that she intended to kill me that I would be cleared for defending myself.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

No.



Knife = Deadly Force.

Gun = Deadly Force.


If they pull a knife and you pull a gun, your ok.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Drawing on a knifewielder- Escalation?
So I was talking to my girlfriend this weekend, and somehow the situation of someone assaulting me (or anyone else with a gun) with a knife, no particular situation, just any situation where a dude with a knife attacks someone who then draws and rightly fires on the individual.

She said that it would be illegal to draw or fire on the person since that would be "escalating the situation". as if deadly force is anything but deadly force. 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. that blew my mind. I asked her, "if some junkie or meth head were to stick us up and I drew on him, you're saying that I would be imprisoned and eventually found guilty of some crime?"

She honestly believes that I would be in the wrong, and that it would be "escalation", regardless of what the situation was.

Her mother a couple nights ago said the exact same thing, that it would be escalating the situation and that you would only be allowed to use the exact same implements to defend yourself from imminent lethal force.

This is scary, because not only do I know they are both wrong, my girlfriend is a Criminal Justice major and her mom is a Paralegal assistant of some sort!

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!

Uhmm.....wow.

She's completely wrong.....UNLESS she's talking about Britain. Where if someone enters your home it's your duty to let them kill you.


But, I'm finishing my last semester of a criminal justice career and she's completely wrong.

Here's another situation, your in your house and someone breaks in. They do not have a weapon, but they keep approaching you, even though your warning them. You have every right to shoot them.

 

[tpaw]

Valkman states:

As everyone has said deadly force is deadly force and can be returned on the attacker. Now if you were in a shouting match with the guy and punched him, then he drew a knife and you shot him, you'd go to jail for escalating the situation. You have to be "innocent" to shoot and if you escalate the situation then you've given that up.

Not true. It would be a cross complaint. The punch is harassment unless there was bodily injury. Drawing a knife is menacing. Shooting him an assault.
You would both be guilty of a crime, however, shooting him would be justified if you had "probable cause to believe that you or another were in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death."
The fact that you punched him first, does not warrant him pulling a knife. He escalated the situation further and you shot him to protect yourself from being seriously injured or possibly killed. Because you punched him first does not mean that you have to stand there and become his pin cushion.

 

[Zoogster]

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. that blew my mind

She understands the premise of the law, but not the law itself, or other factors that change things.
Deadly force is deadly force. A knife is deadly force. A rock is deadly force. A 2x4 is deadly force. A baseball bat is deadly force. Essentialy any weapon which is not intentional made for use as less lethal force, and can inflict lethal injuries is deadly force.
If you believe yourself to be at risk of immediate life threatening injuries you can use your weapon.
That does not mean they simply have the weapon, but that they are actualy going to use it immediately.
There is also a disparity of force to be considered in some situations.

The same circumstances also change in different states, and in different locations. Someone breaking into your house for example would be held to a lesser criteria than a guy on the street. You can presume an armed intruder to be a lethal threat in most places, and even an unarmed intruder many places.
On the street you need to actualy feel the individual is likely to use it, and be in fear for your life. So some cases would be clear cut, but others might not be.


Now what she said is still worth thinking about if applied to someone with lets say pepperspray or a taser commiting a robbery or attack.
If someone pulls out or uses pepperspray or a taser on you and you have a firearm, can you or should you reply to non lethal force with lethal force while you still can.
A LEO would, but LEO policy is to use one level of force higher, not to match with equal force.
Or should you allow yourself to succumb to the effects over time and the other person gain the upper hand, possibly gaining control of or taking possession of the firearm themselves in the course of the robbery or attack when you no longer have that discretion.

You also need to know right and wrong. The law is not a substitute for morals, even though many would like it to be.

 

[Valkman]

Not true. It would be a cross complaint. The punch is harassment unless there was bodily injury. Drawing a knife is menacing. Shooting him an assault.
You would both be guilty of a crime, however, shooting him would be justified if you had "probable cause to believe that you or another were in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death."
The fact that you punched him first, does not warrant him pulling a knife. He escalated the situation further and you shot him to protect yourself from being seriously injured or possibly killed. Because you punched him first does not mean that you have to stand there and become his pin cushion.

That's total BS according to what I've learned, but you escalate and get out of it as you see fit and hopefully you'll have a great attorney.

I love this place - the more you try and give people the benefit of what we've learned from trained people or experience someone that knows it all always says "not true". I'll keep my 30+ years experience to myself and let the know-it-alls tell like they think it is. If you think you can escalate a situation and shoot and get away with it then you obviously know WAY more than I do.

 

[JerryM]

Use deadly force if you are fearful of death or great bodily harm, and if the "attacker" has the opportunity, capability, and indicates the intention to carry out the attack. It can be put in different ways, but that is the gist of it.

Suppose the person under attack is 70+ years old, has heart problems, and cannot fight or run due to his heart. He can resort to deadly force if attacked by even small persons if he believes he is in danger of death or great bodily harm. Of course that is disparity of force. It has nothing to do with using the same amount of force or same type of weapons.

Jerry

 

[coloradokevin]

QUOTE:
"Now what she said is still worth thinking about if applied to someone with lets say pepperspray or a taser commiting a robbery or attack.
If someone pulls out or uses pepperspray or a taser on you and you have a firearm, can you or should you reply to non lethal force with lethal force while you still can.
A LEO would, but LEO policy is to use one level of force higher, not to match with equal force.
Or should you allow yourself to succumb to the effects over time and the other person gain the upper hand, possibly gaining control of or taking possession of the firearm themselves in the course of the robbery or attack when you no longer have that discretion."

These situations probably involve some careful articulation as to the reason for the application of deadly force. Also, my department's policy does not dictate that we use "one level of force higher". It isn't to say that you can not do that, but our policy is more spelled out to the use of each individual piece of equipment (ie: our taser policy requires "active aggression" from the suspect, whereas our pepper spray policy is spelled out pretty much as "as needed". The use of the carotid compression technique requires "aggravated active aggression" around here, which is a deadly force encounter).

If someone wrestles my Taser from me at work I will likely shoot them.

The reason is clearly because I know how a Taser works, and I know that I'll be completely immobilized if I'm hit with it under normal circumstances. As such, a suspect could easily get my gun from me and kill me while I'm being subdued with the Taser. Therefore, in my mind, if someone attacks me with a Taser while I'm on-duty, they have made it into a deadly force encounter. On the other hand, I might take a different approach with the pepper spray on duty. I know that I can fight through the pepper, and it won't leave me completely helpless like the Taser will.

These are each gray areas, and I won't attempt to give you a concrete answer. Just know that you need to decide for yourself about how you will react when confronted with that amount of force. And, be sure you know the laws for the use of deadly force in your state!

For us, we were taught Jeapordy (to you), Opportunity (by the attacker), and Ability (by the attacker) as the criteria for determining whether deadly force was appropriate.

 

[tpaw]

Valkman states:

That's total BS according to what I've learned

Obviously you did not do your homework. Read the Penal Law/Code in your state. I'm sure you will see that what I said is not BS. I'm not is the habit of making up the law, I enforced it and taught the Penal Code.
This is from your states Penal Code:

NRS 200.300 Injury not resulting in permanent injury; defendant may be convicted of assault. Whenever upon a trial for mayhem it shall appear that the injury inflicted will not result in any permanent disfiguration of appearance, diminution of vigor, or other permanent injury, no conviction for maiming shall be had, but the defendant may be convicted of assault in any degree.

[1911 C&P § 153; RL § 6418; NCL § 10100]

There's more on the subject if your interested, but I hope you get the point. It's not cut and dry as one would think. You are both guilty of crimes, however, you would have been justified in using your firearm if a retreat were not possible.

NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

[1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]

Tell Sheriff Tony DeMeo that Juris Prudence said hello.

 

[benEzra]

No. Drawing on a guy who is waving his hands and yelling at you would be escalating. Drawing on a guy who is threatening to kill you with a lethal weapon is not, assuming the other criteria for justifiable self-defense have been met.

Anyone who doubts the efficacy of knives should watch that Cold Steel demo video...<shudder>

 

[rainbowbob]

You cannot respond to force with deadly force, in general.

A man can push you to the pavement and fracture your skull in a heartbeat. A violent attack is a felony against your person and can legally be met with deadly force. At least where I live.

 

[TexasRifleman]

A violent attack is a felony against your person and can legally be met with deadly force. At least where I live.

You still cannot respond to force with deadly force in general.

Deadly force is generally defined as a level of force which is inherently likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

The "inherently likely" is where you get into trouble potentially if you shoot someone who shoved you.

Just because you MIGHT hit your head and die does not mean it's INHERENTLY LIKELY.
You are not going to last long out of prison using deadly force to defend against anyone that pushes you on the off chance that you'll hit your head and die.

That's when you hope you have a good attorney and a sympathetic jury.

A violent attack is a felony against your person and can legally be met with deadly force.

And then you are back to the definitions. A violent attack that is likely to cause death or great injury is not force, it's deadly force and you may respond in kind with your firearm.

Your state law says deadly force is justified when:

In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

And for regular force it says:

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

So same thing, back to the "inherently likely" case. Your state has defined being the victim of a felony as being "inherently likely" to cause death or injury so you are still responding do deadly force with deadly force. The statutes then go on to give a list of felonies which, shockingly enough, are generally inherently likely to cause death or serious injury.

Your own state statutes do not allow for the use of deadly force to counter only force and I've never seen a state that does allow that.

 

[rooter]

Teuler Drill: an exercise wherein students find out the hard way that an attacker with a knife, starting 21 feet away, can KILL YOU before you can draw and shoot.

And new data suggests that the 21 ft rule is incorrect, the threat distance is even farther away.

 

[CNYCacher]

Ask her if she can use deadly force to fend off a rape... that may change her mind.

By her logic, women are not equipped to fend off rape






wait for it . . .



there it is!


CNY "En Garde!" Cacher

 

[tpaw]

I think some of you guys are missing the point here.
The key words are: "You have probable cause to believe that your life or the life of another is in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death"
If a man is beating you or someone else with his hands to the point where you know that it could lead to your unconsciousness or death, and you have any weapon, pipe, knife, gun, garden rake, you name it, you can use it to stop the assault. The law does not say that you have to be someone's punching bag until you are brain dead or physically dead.

 

[sacp81170a]

And new data suggests that the 21 ft rule is incorrect, the threat distance is even farther away.

The whole point of the Tueller drill is that you don't give the BG a break by standing in the same place and attempting to draw while he closes the distance. 21 feet gives you a rough estimate of what your "danger zone" is. If someone approaches you with a contact weapon from within that rough distance, your first order of business is to move off the line of attack rather than attempting to draw your weapon and shoot.

 

[KenW.]

Is there a "duty to retreat" anywhere? Not in my state I know.

Don't bring a knife to a fistfight, or a gunfight. In fact, in my state issueing a verbal threat with a show of force like drawing a knife IS assualt if the person has the capability to use it. Defend yourself.

 

[tpaw]

Quote:
Teuler Drill: an exercise wherein students find out the hard way that an attacker with a knife, starting 21 feet away, can KILL YOU before you can draw and shoot.

Rooter, you are quite correct with your statement below.

And new data suggests that the 21 ft rule is incorrect, the threat distance is even farther away.

While working as a police officer in New York City, our sergeant was killed by a single stab wound that hit his heart. The culprit was about 35 feet away when the sergeant drew his weapon and proceeded to fire as the culprit ran towards my sergeant. Although being hit by my sergeant multiple times, the culprit still managed to stab my sergeant as the culprits body fell forward into my sergeant. The guy was like a freight train, full speed ahead, out of control. It happened so fast that my sergeant did not have the time to move to either side and possibly avoid bodily contact. This was some years ago when .38 revolvers were the issued weapon.

 

[tpaw]

sacp81170a states:

The whole point of the Tueller drill is that you don't give the BG a break by standing in the same place and attempting to draw while he closes the distance. 21 feet gives you a rough estimate of what your "danger zone" is. If someone approaches you with a contact weapon from within that rough distance, your first order of business is to move off the line of attack rather than attempting to draw your weapon and shoot.

Sometimes things happen so fast in the street that circumstances don't always allow a person to take evasive action. Your surroundings, conditions, and many other stress factors come into play.
Every situation is unique in and of itself. It's comforting to be in the confines of your home thinking what you should and would do, but when faced with a real life spontanious situation in the street, things are much different.
There were times when I and my partners could not fire on someone due to innocent pedestrians behind the culprit. That's just one of hundreds of examples. Reality is quite different from non threatening drills. I'm sure other officers who post here would agree. Twenty years with the New York City Police Dept. has taught me that.

 

[Siaharok]

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm

As a martial arts instructor, I have been keenly interested in the Tueller Drill for years. This is why I believe that a firearm is only one piece of the self defense puzzle. Interestingly, it was the Tueller Drill that inspired me to learn how to shoot. I've trained with fists and blades for years, so I understand that side of the equation. I learned to shoot because I wanted to understand the other side of the equation.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to fully understand the legal ramifications, but I know full well that a man with a blade is a lethal weapon. Believe it or not, in the martial arts world we face a similar issue as those carrying firearms.. There have been cases where an attacker drew a knife on a martial artist and was subsequently maimed. The martial artist was sued for "excessive force" despite using only his hands.

 

[The Tourist]

our sergeant was killed by a single stab wound

I'm very sorry for the loss of his life.

If anything good can come from this, it is the knowledge that we are not helpless in the hands of a maniac with a firearm. We joke about "a knife to a gunfight," but in reality we are well armed if we gather useful survival info like any other discipline.

I hope that you have had the good fortune to deal with this loss and I thank you for your contribution to our safety and security.

 

[zxcvbob]

She honestly believes that I would be in the wrong, and that it would be "escalation", regardless of what the situation was.

Her mother a couple nights ago said the exact same thing, that it would be escalating the situation and that you would only be allowed to use the exact same implements to defend yourself from imminent lethal force.

This is scary, because not only do I know they are both wrong, my girlfriend is a Criminal Justice major and her mom is a Paralegal assistant of some sort!

No, it's scary because if a crooked D.A. decides prosecute your righteous self-defense shoot to advance his career, plenty of *jurors* will believe it.