Hopyard

Its going to take a few sentences to lay out the questions for you all.
Not even sure this is quite the right forum, because it is a little more about martial arts than knives.

Scenario--you are unarmed and confronted by a knife wielder; or perhaps you are armed with a handgun and confronted with a knife wielder.

You see an opportunity to disarm and after a one second encounter you are now holding the knife; maybe you've broken someone's finger too.

In one martial arts style I was taught the instant follow through would be to use the knife you now hold and finish your assailant off.

Today, I was taking some Krav lessons, not the art I started with, and the instructor made a comment along the lines of, " in some schools they teach to use the knife instantly on your opponent; we suggest you try to break it off while you are holding the weapon and leave."

Well, that got me thinking. Lethal force is OK to stop the threat.

Would the threat be considered over when you are holding the knife? I think not. Or at least not necessarily. The guy might just continue to attack with bare hands and brute force.

With our handguns, the rule seems to be that if the opponent is holding a weapon, or there is a disparity of force, you can use lethal force to stop the threat. But in the scene I just outlined, the instant you gain possession of the knife, the disparity of force shifts in your favor, and the grave lethal threat against you has stopped, or at least diminished.

So, what do you all think is lawful in these hand to hand situations--go ahead and plunge the knife in the split second you get hold of it, or
what? What are you to do if you feel the fight is going to continue?

I guess ideally you would want to use a martial art skill to so damage the assailant that he couldn't recover the knife; but that isn't something you can ever be sure of pulling off.

What say you guys and gals? Is it lawful to use a knife you have just taken from an assailant on an "unarmed" and perhaps injured BG?

(Answers should assume this all happens in seconds with no time to dance around and do a victory wave while holding the knife above your head yelling "I won.")

miklcolt45

Hopyard,

As always, the answer depends on your state/laws, but IMO, and with the laws of FL (my state), I would say 'no' to finishing someone off. If he is subdued, and the threat is no longer imminent, walk away.

If the fight starts back up, it's on until the threat is stopped.

__________________
Mike

In God we trust. Everyone else,
keep your hands where I can see them.

jtyler05si

couldn't have been said better.

automatic slim

Miklcolt45 is right, jurisdiction is the key. In Tuscon I would say finish him, in NYC I would say run like hell before HE calls the cops and charges you with larceny.

__________________
"First gallant South Carolina nobly made the stand."
Edge of Darkness

dukalmighty

In Tx I would say finish the threat,you are in a life or death battle and during the dfight he was stabbed with his own knife

__________________
I like Poetry,Long Walks On The Beach,And Poking Dead Things With A Stick

BikerRN

It sounds to me like you have a smart Instructor.

You were justified in using lethal force to stop the attack, but scenarios are dynamic and change. You now have the "upper hand" so to speak and are giving the badguy a chance to change his or her mind. I say her because I was attacked by a woman in her 70's with an 8" knife.

Knives are thought of as weapons of hoodlums and hooligans, not the law abiding good guy or gal. While we may use one out of necessity, there can be and has been a lot of "political" baggage that can come with using a knife.

Attempting to break off the fight when you hold the "upper hand" is a good thing to do. Not from a "tactical" standpoint, but rather from a courtroom survival standpoint. You can equate it to issuing a verbal challenge to a home intruder from a position of cover. If the challenge works, great you now get to hold a badguy for the responding LEO's or he flees. If not, you at least gave him the opportunity to correct his erroneous ways.

Biker

__________________
If I knew I was going to get in to a gunfight I most ceratinly wouln't bring a handgun or two, and I don't know any smart person that does.

highoctane

Great question. Ill be watching this thread. I would guess that if the threat stops when you get the knife its over. If he continues to attack then you have to do what you have to do.

ccw9mm

If attacked, I believe anything to survive it is justified, up to the point the threat is eliminated. If that involves "plunging" the knife into the attacker, so be it. Though, if the threat has terminated prior to that point, so be it. Depends on the situation's flow.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Deal with evil through strength. Affirm the good in Man through trust.
NRA. GOA. OFF.

PaulG

I guess I feel a little differently about the legalities.

The laws in my jurisdiction will have very little to do with what my reaction is.

My rule is that I will use lethal force ONLY when I judge that it is ABSOLUTELY unavoidable.

If I feel that I am going to be seriously injured or killed, I certainly am not going to break off the attack because the state says I can't continue.

Also, just because the state says that I am justified in killing someone, I am not going to do it unless there is no other way.

Appying this to the original question: if after I disarm the guy, I feel that he is strong enough, skilled enough, etc to retake the knife AND it appears to me that he will try to do it, then I will try to reduce his ability to do so with what ever means I have, including using his knife on him.

If I feel fairly confident that I am in a superior position, i.e. skill, strength, ability, etc., I will definitely back off and give him a chance to break off his attack.

__________________
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo (resolutely in action, gently in manner).

Rob72

Having had a brief stint in Corrections, and talked with many officers who survived shanking attempts, the most significant difference is the obligation to subdue.

If you successfully disarm a mugger and he breaks contact, it will be pretty clear they are escaping. If they are facing you and not running, an/or are holding on to you, they want to finish you off.

One officer I worked with was asked in trial, on an "excessive force" complaint, why she had bitten off one of the convict's nipples and ruptured one of his testicles. Her response: "Your honor, I was fighting for my life. I bit, wrenched and hit anything he put close to my body."

Clear 'nuff?