justification for lethal force with knife???? - Page 3

2edgesword · July 21st, 2009, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

So, when working on defending against a knife, where do (should) you put your effort, on ending the threat with the assailant's own knife, breaking away and maybe having to use your gun. I'm sort of thinking take the dang knife and throw it as far as you can and run like h. Though frankly that isn't as self-satisfying as plunging it into something soft.

My first priority if being attacked by someone with a knife is to avoid suffering a devastating/debilitating wound. My second priority is gaining control of the weapon (this does not necessarily mean taking the weapon from the attacker) and in a lot of situations both of these occur simultaneously.

Again, controlling the weapon does not necessarily require taking the weapon from the attacker. It can also be accomplished via controlling the limb that is welding the weapon while working various strikes, joint locks/breaks in an effort to minimize/eliminate the attackers ability to weld the weapon.

The question of when does the threat cease to exist isn't a matter of fine tune sensitivity. When a bone or elbow in the arm of the hand holding the knife or a knee supporting the attackers weight goes "crunch", or when he goes limp after you've planted a knee in his head/jaw it's somewhat of an indication that the threat might be over.

If somehow I happen to actual take possession of the knife during the attack but the attacker continues with the attack my assumption (reasonable in my opinion given the initial deadly force attack) is he very well could be trying to regain control of the knife to finish what he started.

KenpoTex · July 21st, 2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2edgesword

The threat is not over simply because you are holding the knife.

If the attacker takes off after you have gained control of the knife then you're not justified in chasing him down and stabbing him.

But what if the attacker continues the fight he could very well be attempting to regain control over the knife? Would the attackers attempt to regain control of the knife be considered a further attempt to use deadly physical force against you?

Are you justified in shooting someone if they are attempting to disarm you of your firearm? I believe the answer to that question is yes and I would imagine the same would hold true with respect to a knife you have taken from a knife welding attacker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2edgesword

If somehow I happen to actual take possession of the knife during the attack but the attacker continues with the attack my assumption (reasonable in my opinion given the initial deadly force attack) is he very well could be trying to regain control of the knife to finish what he started.

pretty much my thoughts on the matter...

MilitaryPower · July 21st, 2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenpoTex

pretty much my thoughts on the matter...

I concur.

MinistrMalic · July 22nd, 2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

In a way my question is as much about training issues as about legality.

Do you practice the disarms with the assumption that the fight isn't over and a strike will be the next move of the general flow of the situation, or do you practice breaking away. (I know, work on both.)

I was looking at the video posted here a couple of days ago; the one where there is a back of the hand block of the knife followed simultaneous with a palm down arm bar so the guy falls forward where you can step on his other hand and get away. In that video it is pretty clear you could pull a gun and fire because the assailant though down, maybe with hand mashed and jaw bashed by your knee, got up, though he is still holding the knife. A completed disarm is a different situation.

So, when working on defending against a knife, where do (should) you put your effort, on ending the threat with the assailant's own knife, breaking away and maybe having to use your gun. I'm sort of thinking take the dang knife and throw it as far as you can and run like h. Though frankly that isn't as self-satisfying as plunging it into something soft.

Well, Hopyard, the answer you've already ferreted out is "work on both." In Kenpo we work on controlling the knife first, as it is your most dangerous threat. That control will no doubt involve a lot of pain and injury to your attacker. Once that knife is subdued, it is all about the situation. If I had broken a few of his ribs, ruined his elbow and wrist, taken his knife and left him writhing in pain I would probably draw my firearm and then get the you-know-what out of there, then call 911 as soon as I was in a safe place. They should be able to find the guy at a hospital.

If I had a different environment then that would change. If he was not subdued, or if there were multiple attackers, or if there were other circumstances that made me still feel in danger for my life, then deadly force would still be justified.

In Kenpo, the very center of our art is the ability to choose. I choose where to be, why I am there, and what I do in defense of my person and others. And choice comes down to environment, what stage of conflict I am in, what position I find myself and my attacker in, etc.

flor1 · July 22nd, 2009, 02:28 PM

I think you have to walk away when you have control of the knife. But that being said I'd be sure to kick him in the head first.

psychophipps · July 22nd, 2009, 02:52 PM

This discussion is exactly why I typically (please note the qualifier) have zero interest in taking their weapon away from them for my own use when using unarmed combatives. You can control a weapon without taking it up yourself and by not doing so you remove any doubt as to when or if the assault turned into you having lethal force while the initial assailant did not and all that long and wide legal gray area that opens up.

Besides, this way only your attacker's fingerprints are on the weapon for when the CSI weenies get to doing their thing and when was the last time you saw a goblin with a decent blade anyway?

Hopyard · July 22nd, 2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psychophipps

This discussion is exactly why I typically (please note the qualifier) have zero interest in taking their weapon away from them for my own use when using unarmed combatives. You can control a weapon without taking it up yourself and by not doing so you remove any doubt as to when or if the assault turned into you having lethal force while the initial assailant did not and all that long and wide legal gray area that opens up.

Besides, this way only your attacker's fingerprints are on the weapon for when the CSI weenies get to doing their thing and when was the last time you saw a goblin with a decent blade anyway?

I think that is a great point-- if you can control the knife arm and do some good damage, at least your prints won't be on it and if you
need to shoot you will still be justified.

I don't know if I'd have the thought process down any time soon, because I've concentrated on disarms. Now I need to think about the control thingy some more and work on that with my instructor.

psychophipps · July 23rd, 2009, 12:12 AM

My experience is that most "disarms" lean towards controlling the weapon arm and using the manipulation of that limb to cause the removal of the weapon as a threat. While going for the weapon isn't bad, I have often thought during such drills that if your assailant is already getting the good news via joint/limb manipulation (grappling and/or striking) then you might as well just get to banging and/or cranking until they're a non-threat instead of potentially giving up a position of dominance to get your hands on their weapon for your own use.

MinistrMalic · July 23rd, 2009, 01:09 PM

It's a great point...very difficult to take a knife away from someone for your use without using the blade which is dicey at best. With clubs we work on disarming and using it, but with knives it is mostly focusing on ending the threat and controlling it rather than taking it. Cause lots of pain and injury as you do to get him thinking about anything but that knife and then make it unusable.

2edgesword · July 23rd, 2009, 01:27 PM

In my opinion a knife disarm is going to be incidental to controling the limb welding the weapon and/or otherwise doing damage to the attacker. If you bounce the attackers head off a wall, table, car or other object of opportunity you may very well get a disarm.

July 23rd, 2009, 01:09 PM	#29
MinistrMalic Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 485	It's a great point...very difficult to take a knife away from someone for your use without using the blade which is dicey at best. With clubs we work on disarming and using it, but with knives it is mostly focusing on ending the threat and controlling it rather than taking it. Cause lots of pain and injury as you do to get him thinking about anything but that knife and then make it unusable. __________________ "...whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." (Luke 22:36) Here is my blog if you're interested :)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 22nd, 2009, 02:28 PM	#25
flor1 Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: florida Posts: 70	I think you have to walk away when you have control of the knife. But that being said I'd be sure to kick him in the head first.

July 22nd, 2009, 02:52 PM	#26
psychophipps Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Washington State Posts: 383	This discussion is exactly why I typically (please note the qualifier) have zero interest in taking their weapon away from them for my own use when using unarmed combatives. You can control a weapon without taking it up yourself and by not doing so you remove any doubt as to when or if the assault turned into you having lethal force while the initial assailant did not and all that long and wide legal gray area that opens up. Besides, this way only your attacker's fingerprints are on the weapon for when the CSI weenies get to doing their thing and when was the last time you saw a goblin with a decent blade anyway?

July 23rd, 2009, 12:12 AM	#28
psychophipps Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Washington State Posts: 383	My experience is that most "disarms" lean towards controlling the weapon arm and using the manipulation of that limb to cause the removal of the weapon as a threat. While going for the weapon isn't bad, I have often thought during such drills that if your assailant is already getting the good news via joint/limb manipulation (grappling and/or striking) then you might as well just get to banging and/or cranking until they're a non-threat instead of potentially giving up a position of dominance to get your hands on their weapon for your own use.

July 23rd, 2009, 01:27 PM	#30
2edgesword Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: New York Posts: 397	In my opinion a knife disarm is going to be incidental to controling the limb welding the weapon and/or otherwise doing damage to the attacker. If you bounce the attackers head off a wall, table, car or other object of opportunity you may very well get a disarm.