Reverse edge ?
This is a discussion on Reverse edge ? within the Defensive Knives & Other Weapons forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The entire less than lethal edged weapon use argument is based on the assumption that using a knife to destroy the function of an attacker's ...
June 10th, 2009 03:45 PM
The entire less than lethal edged weapon use argument is based on the assumption that using a knife to destroy the function of an attacker's limb will be treated by a court differently than other uses of a knife.
Slicing up someone's arm to the degree you destroy functionality is, under NY law, Deadly Physical Force.
"DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE means physical force which,
under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of
causing death or other serious physical injury.3
[Serious physical injury means impairment of a person's
physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death, or
which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement,
protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of
the function of any bodily organ.4]
3. Penal Law § 10.00(11).
4. See Penal Law § 10.00(9)&(10)."
That's part of the jury instructions for incidents involving the use of a knife in the manner you describe.
You are either justified in the use of deadly force, or you are not. I'm still waiting to see documentation to the contrary.
June 10th, 2009 03:45 PM
June 10th, 2009 04:22 PM
That is not my argument.
Originally Posted by 2edgesword
I am saying you cannot verbalize this as a trained, attainable goal outside of a surgical suite.
All major vessels run parallel to and between muscle groups. tendons (barring the Achilles and the passage of the flexor tendons between the radial and ulnar arteries) are all deeply nestled within/below muscle.
...cutting through the muscles and flexor tendons of the forearm...
Point being: "de fanging" may cause an individual to break off an engagement; it is exceeding unlikely to diminish their ability to do injury to the extent that many trainers indicate. This is akin to the "Golden Bullet" philosophy, whereby the firing of a single round causes assailants to combust. Ie, if the assailant is determined, there needs to be a plan "B".
The consequence to the above is this: students incorrectly believe that "technique X" is both highly effective and non-lethal. In reality, it is most likely to be either/or.
If the technique is executed properly(speaking to any tained method taught as "The Way"), but is not effective, this throws most into an OODA circle that they are unlikely to recover from.
Equally, students need to know that using a blade and stopping a fight generally means "killing the other guy." It may not, but the individual using the knife in defense has already had a failure of situational awareness and been judged "takeable" by the offender. If it is given that the student has had SA and SD training, this indicates that A) the BG is really stupid (one might be lucky) or B) the BG is both very violent and confident. If the situation is B, as indicated by numerous studies, primarily LE-oriented, LTL concepts are too far behind the curve to provide much chance for survival.
Belief paradigms play a large part in crisis resolution and onset of PTSD. Telling a student that an assailant won't die using techniques that cannot be fully controlled is a recipe for legal and mental failure.
Using a knife is never LTL, regardless of the training program.
Simply be aware of the trade-offs: using "less damaging" targeting is less likely to be fatal; it is also less incapacitating and assumes the fight will not go to the ground. It is impossible to get someone off you in a clutch, without going for the torso- that's the only direction you can go without going into yourself or the ground.
Get more training. With lacerations(trapping injuries) you are incorrect.
If an ER Doc is attempting to tell me that the mortality rate for individuals that come into his ER with knife wounds to extremities is the same as those that come into his ER with knife wounds to the throat, abdomen or thoracic region I tell him he needs to find a new profession.
June 10th, 2009 05:48 PM
I'm definitely interested in information, facts, common sense and rational thinking.
Originally Posted by MitchellCT
Are you backing away from the "no grey area" regarding laws and litigation respecting DPF?
June 10th, 2009 06:01 PM
"I am saying you cannot verbalize this as a trained, attainable goal outside of a surgical suite."
And I'd disagree.
You CAN train to target particular targets that are less potentially lethal then other targets.
"All major vessels run parallel to and between muscle groups. tendons (barring the Achilles and the passage of the flexor tendons between the radial and ulnar arteries) are all deeply nestled within/below muscle."
Again, you err in lumping together major vessels. The major vessels of your forearm cannot be lumped together with major vessels in your neck, abdomen or thoracic region. Not only do they carry different volumes of blood they supply different organs and present different levels of difficult in treating them. Severing these different vessels does NOT present the same level of lethality or difficulty to treat but you continue to try to make this point in an effort to support your argument.
June 10th, 2009 07:03 PM
Your purported grey area RE - deadly force, as per post #95:
Originally Posted by 2edgesword
"But if a question arose regarding whether my use of a knife in self-defense was justified (given the grey area that can exist in the determination of whether the attack constituted the use of DPF against me)"
Does not exist. The actual force used by the attacker is not the issue.
"Under our law, a person may use deadly physical force upon
another individual when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably
believes it to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone
else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of [unlawful2] deadly physical force by such
The defender's belief that such force exists, and that belief's subjective and objective reasonableness, and the reasonability of the response to the perceived force is the issue.
Self defense allows for a deadly force response if the person using such force subjectively believes they are being attacked with deadly force, and a finder of fact determines that belief to be objectively reasonable - REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL FORCE USED BY THE ATTACKER.
"On the question of whether the defendant did reasonably
believe that deadly physical force was necessary to defend
himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably
believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify),
it does not matter that the defendant was or may have been
mistaken in his/her belief; provided that such belief was both
honestly held and reasonable."
(NY State defines the subjective/objective test as follows:First, the defendant must have actually believed that (specify) was using or was about to use deadly physical force against him/her [or someone else], and that the defendant's own use of deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself/herself from it; and
Second, a "reasonable person" in the defendant's position,
knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same
circumstances, would have had those same beliefs.)
Your fictional grey area, were a mythical court and fictional jury try to determine if the attacker was really using deadly force or not, and how it impacts the defender's response in terms of justification, is intellectual a dead end. Even if you master the issue, it's still getting you nothing of value.
The subjective view of the person being attacked, the first factor, is judged by many things such as life experience, training, education...and the reaction to the attack.
I can get numerous doctors, professors, edged weapon gurus and law enforcement trainers to come into court and testify that under stress people loose fine motor skills and thinking ability, and that while under the impression they are going to get killed or seriously injured, they tend to go ballistic on an attacker.
People who are experiencing life threatening assaults do not take the time to try to avoid injuring their assailants. To assume otherwise is not logical.
I do not want to attempt to tell a prosecutor that someone was in fear of their life or grave injury, but instead of reacting like most people do under those situations and doing their best to kill the guy trying to kill them...they chose to attempt to cut them in a humane way.
That defies logic.
Their is a term for the cuts to the forearm you are describing in addition to defanging the snake and the biomechanical terms such as de-animating the limbs:
Defensive Wounds - typically something inflicted on the victim by the attacker.
It is easier to sell to a prosecutor that a person being attacked reacted like a monkey with a sharp stick than a surgeon.
Such a reaction bolsters the subjective prong of the accused's defense of self defense - that they were in fear for their life.
I'm not backing away from anything I've written previously.
June 10th, 2009 07:51 PM
You mentioned awhile back "1000s of hours" spent training others in defensive knife use.
I really hope you're not teaching anyone "less than lethal" techniques.
You're gonna land yourself or someone else in prison.
June 10th, 2009 09:37 PM
"The actual force used by the attacker is not the issue...a deadly force response if the person using such force subjectively believes they are being attacked with deadly force,"
The words "reasonable" and "subjectively believes" are used in the description of what constitutes the use of deadly force, and when a deadly force response is appropriate. You also used the word "judged". These words are a very clear indication that this issue is mired with huge grey areas with the potential for a wide range of interpretation by judges, lawyers, members of the jury.
You statement that these grey areas do NOT exist is to putting it kindly...ludicrous. If these grey areas did NOT exist we wouldn't have verdicts overturn, there would be no need for appeals courts and there never be a split decision by a court and little judgement would be required.
It's time to back away from that statement. But it does require some humility to admit when you've overstepped the boundaries of logic and common sense.
June 10th, 2009 10:11 PM
My opinion here is that if you use any deadly weapon against someone, you should be in a situation in which lethal force is justified, even if you end up just wounding them.
It is similar to the idea of "shooting to wound". If you should shoot / stab / cut to wound, you should do so only as an alternative to using the weapon in a definitely deadly manner, when either would be legally justified, because you will be the only one who really knows that you were attempting to exert less than lethal force.
June 10th, 2009 10:21 PM
OK, the lethal force versus non lethal force argument is IMHO a moot point.
IF I feel the situation is desperate enough that I must resort to any action other than retreat or negotiation then I must decide whether lethal force is justified. Whether said lethal force is administered with a handgun or a knife is immaterial.
IF I use a knife or gun in my defense I will act to neutralize the threat. If the BG lives, so be it as long as I walk away. The same goes for if the BG expires. The health, or lack there of, of the BG in the aftermath has no bearing on whether I used lethal force or not.
This is not to say that training in specific techniques is not a good idea. Just as with a handgun a knife should be deployed with at least a modicum of skill or left at home.
June 10th, 2009 10:28 PM
The foundational premise of the training is using an edged weapon to defend yourself against someone that is about to use deadly physical force or force sufficent to cause serious bodily injury to you or another innocent individual.
Originally Posted by unloved
The question and cause of contention in this thread seems to be whether making that judgement (are you being threatened with DPF) is always crystal clear. Do the words "reasonably believes" mean a grey area of interpretation does exist.
A further point of debate is whether, in the mist of making judgements by a jury regarding this grey area, the fact that your training was geared towards a (relatively speaking) less then lethal response (versus cuts/stabs to the throat, abdomen and thoracic region) would have a bearing on how your actions would be judged.
June 10th, 2009 10:31 PM
I don't think the debate is with respect to those situations where it is crystal clear that lethal force is going to be used against you but rather those situations where it may not be so clear or if in the middle of a confrontation the situation should suddenly change.
Originally Posted by luvmy40
June 10th, 2009 11:29 PM
Temp closed for review....
June 11th, 2009 12:20 AM
What a cluster this has turned out to be....
First off, I'm no expert on knife related matters, but a couple things seem abundantly clear to me and a few points need to be made that may not have been focused on or even thought about.
1: Less than lethal does not equal non lethal. If if it did, it would be called non-lethal. Less than lethal still has lethal potential.
2: Deadly force: I will refer to Wikipedia's definition:
Using a knife to slash tendons and muscle IS SERIOUS BODILY HARM, I don't give a rats ass if you (no one in particular) didn't intend to kill the guy, if you sever tendons, muscle, veins and arteries, that's deadly force regardless of intent. "I didn't mean to" probably doesn't play well in court, I know it didn't work as a kid, and it sure as hell didn't work in the service, let alone in a combat zone, thinking that it will past muster in the court room if you kill some one with what was supposed be a non lethal blow is one step up from a fairy tale IMHO.
Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force in which a person uses for the purpose of causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm
. The use of Deadly Force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Deadly Force can only be employed under one or more of the following conditions:
Also, the topic of this thread was about blade type and it's been totally hi-jacked into this ridiculous debate of knives being used in a non-lethal manner. I won't delete the posts as there is some good info there, but ******* matches like this is what gets threads closed.
Furthermore, if anyone has an issue with a particular post, rather than a PM use the REPORT POST feature located on the left side of a post, it looks like this:
That's what it's there for. A reported post starts a thread in the staff section where all staff members can read it. A PM may or may not reach your desired recipient in a timely manner.
While I tend to disagree with the less than lethal aspect of this thread and tend to agree with "the experts" it is still one members view point and is not contrary to forum rules, we do allow differing opinions.
As this thread seems to be running in circles and going nowhere fast, I think it's best to remain closed until the rest of the staff can comment on it.
By KRLY in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
Last Post: June 8th, 2010, 08:10 PM
By paramedic70002 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: October 13th, 2009, 01:35 AM
By wendywc in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 02:40 PM
By Pete in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: March 11th, 2007, 11:32 PM
By Deke45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: May 21st, 2005, 08:13 AM
Search tags for this page
bob malvagno bio
left handed reverse edge bowie knife
reverse blade bowie knife
reverse bowie knife
reverse edge bowie
reverse edge bowie knife
reverse edge knife
reverse edge knives
reverse edged bowie knife
shivworks disciple for sale
Click on a term to search for related topics.