Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
You and your friends leave a comedy club (bar, casino, movie, etc) and your car is parked about a 1/4 mile away.
You know a shortcut thru an alley way and pass a garbage can when you suddenly realize you are being followed.
Some bum with a paper bag over a bottle is following you guys and walks behind you about 20 feet, you guys get concerned and turn around.
When you do the bum takes out a knife and demands your wallet.
You turn around to run away but realize his buddy is right behind you with another knife. So in front of you and behind you are one guy each with a knife.
What is the legal action to take here?

1) Pull out gun and threaten?
2) Show gun and threaten?
3) Threaten them with a gun but do not show?
4) Take out gun and go Dirty Harry style on them, haha just kidding?


I just wanna know whats legal, because Justice system is freaking crazy in this state of Washington of ours, but what in general is the legal thing to do in this type of sitution?
In the state of Washington this could be easily turned around with assault from the bum's point of view.
(remember in this state a burgular sued the home owners of a house he was robbing when he fell thru a skylight and landed on a knife and got injured, and HE WON???)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
fitznig said:
You and your friends leave a comedy club (bar, casino, movie, etc) and your car is parked about a 1/4 mile away
You know a shortcut thru an alley way and pass a garbage can when you suddenly realize you are being followed.
Some bum with a paper bag over a bottle is following you and walks behind you 20 feet, you get concerned and turn around.
When you do the bum takes out a knife and demands your wallet.
You turn around to run away but realize his buddy is right behind you with another knife. So in front of you and behind you are one guy each with a knife.
What is the legal action to take here?

1) Pull out gun and threaten?
2) Show gun and threaten?
3) Threaten them with a gun but do not show?
4) Take out gun and go Diry Harry style on them, haha just kidding?

I just wanna know whats legal, because Justice system is freaking crazy in this state of Washington of ours, but what in general is the legal thing to do in this type of sitution?

What happened to all your friends? :tongue:
 

·
1952 - 2006
Joined
·
1,371 Posts
What I would do is:

Move myself and my friends with my back to a wall, draw my CCW while one of my friends got on the cell phone to 911, I would declare that the police were on the way and if they didn't leave now I would shoot them. :yup:

Choice of verbage is optional here. :banned:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,009 Posts
read your state laws. I imagine you need to 1. be unable to flee 2. in fear of your life. I will not give legal advice, but tactically acparmed has it pretty well covered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,843 Posts
KNIFE ?? That's about as deadly as weapon as you can get. Does the BG(s) have the means to carry out the threat? Are you in fear of your life?

The BG has stated that If you did not hand over your belongings he would kill you/cut you/stab you ....... right ???

Then what acparmed said,remembering the 21'(or even less) rule. If he comes I'd be VERY ready !!

Heck,he just forgot the #1 rule of gunfighting>>>>> he failed to bring a gun. -------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
fitznig said:
You and your friends leave a comdey club (bar, casino, movie, etc)

1) Pull out gun and threaten?
2) Show gun and threaten?
3) Threaten them with a gun but do not show?
4) Take out gun and go Diry Harry style on them, haha just kidding?

What are you doing armed in a place where "alcohol is bought and consumed"?

Is that legal in WA?


????


.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,962 Posts
A LOT would depend on what State you lived in.

Some States do have a first obligation to attempt a retreat.

Ditto: Your friends (that you entered the alley with) have already taken off?

It should also be understood that "after the fact" of whatever the outcome some people of authority will question your initial lack of good judgment as to taking shortcuts through unknown alley ways.

I can only assume that this event is "going down" fairly late at night?

The drunken bum has already threatened you with a deadly weapon in hand.

You should be well within your legal rights to have your firearm drawn in response to that perceived deadly threat.

In that exact situation (as presented by you) you would have no positive way of knowing if the other individual presented his knife in order to stop his "buddy" from harming you or...if he was a second deadly threat to your life AKA the Number 2 attacker of a multiple threat.

Not enough information given there.

Gunning down multiple intoxicated winos should not be your forte.

In this case you should have already OC Sprayed them both with with your weak hand while having your firearm clear of leather.

That is one advantage of always carrying Non Lethal OC in addition to a firearm.
Never leave home without it. Just my opinion on that.

Just a best guess that there should have already been an attempt (on your part) to either remove yourself from the scenario or to locate some physical barrier that you could get between you and the threat/or threats ??...if that was at all possible.
That should actually have been almost an ingrained/automatic reaction.

If that is not possible then (of course) you must react to the first aggressive deadly threat with a decidedly deadly response.

What would happen after that would depend on what the actions the second knife wielding individual decided to pursue. Is he trying to retreat or continue the attack?

That would determine your next immediate reaction.

In my opinion heavily intoxicated persons are easier threats to realistically deal with.
Even though their actions are guaranteed to be unpredictable they are usually only semi~coordinated and usually at least moderately clumsy.

So many defensive actions and options depend on what the exact threatening aggressive actions are.
Those need to be spelled out in addition to the distances of the threats and the width of the alley etc.

There are just So Many variables in any actual scenario that it's almost impossible to give an honest and concrete answer as to what the exact reaction should be...or would be - or if there are alternative possibilities that would exist "in real life" that cannot be known in a presented tale of "What If" -

I'm not trying to take an "easy way out" here but, just impossible to say exactly what I would do or you should do.

As is common in many Web Forum type scenarios...there is just not enough specific information presented.

For sure you should not act like a hunk of Bologna sandwiched between two knife wielding slices of bread wondering if you are going to be eaten or not.
Your level of firearm & Self~Defense training would predetermine if you had an ability to hit while moving or not.

What is your level of training?

I almost don't even want to try to answer this because it's nearly impossible with so many missing specific details.

It would be much easier to give a concrete reply & more definitive answers after viewing an actual Video reenactment of the event.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,352 Posts
All depends on your laws but of the places you listed i cant carry my Gun in any of them here so its a moot point for me..


But cutting though alleys isnt the best ideal in the world and what happened to your loser friend they split on ya?

Acparmed seems to have the best course of action again like rocky i wont give legal advice since laws vary greatly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
IANAL, but when faced with one guy with a knife, let alone two, in most jurisdictions deadly force is not overreacting. Here in FL, I am not required to attempt retreat in this situation (although retreat is obviously my first choice).

What's legal may not make a difference. Two BGs with knives inside your comfort zone, and your pistol is still concealed? If ONE guy with a knife can cross 21 feet and kill you before you can draw, you do the math.

Off the top of my head, I'd say #3 is the worst option:

You: Stop! I have a gun!

BG: STAB STAB STAB... I have a gun.

-Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
I guess I'm going out on a limb here, different from some others. Scenario sounds like you can't retreat (which is not necessary in WA anyway). The RCW says you can only use the amount of force necessary to defend yourself. Here we have 2 guys with knives, at least one is only 20 feet away. Clear to me I need to use my gun to defend myself.

Having time to think this through, sitting at a computer, rather than in alley, my actions would be draw, put 2 rounds in the first guy COM (first one being whichever one I am looking at when I draw). Then point the gun at the second guy and, assuming he is not advancing on me, give him very loud, clear verbal instructions that he will be shot if he does not drop the knife and run away. Don't forget to check the first guy behind you within a couple seconds.

I, personally, have a hard time with one guy holding a knife and being 20 feet away, let alone two from different directions. It matters not that they may seem to be drunk in my decision to use force. It may help (drunk people do irrational things) or hinder (he was drunk, didn't know what he was doing) my legal defense, but at this time, legal defense is not what I'm considering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
In the situation described, retreat isn't possible. Holding them at gunpoint isn't realistic for the same reason. It might be prudent to say something like "hey guys, we don't want no trouble here" and continue walking (with your hand on your gun and expecting an attack). The idea being that when you shoot them, you can show that you were attempting to de-escalate. Of course, this all depends on the "mood of the court" in the jurisdiction in question.

What's this 21 foot "rule" business? Is there some law that says that if you shoot them at 21' 6" it's not ok, but at 21' even it is? What if they were each 50 yards away when they challenged you? Would you totally ignore them until they got to 21'?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
grnzbra said:
What's this 21 foot "rule" business? Is there some law that says that if you shoot them at 21' 6" it's not ok, but at 21' even it is? What if they were each 50 yards away when they challenged you? Would you totally ignore them until they got to 21'?
Of course you wouldn't totally ignore them, but a guy with a knife at 50 yards gives you a lot more options/time to deal with him. Two guys at 20', especially in opposing directions, leaves no time or options, IMO.
 

·
1952 - 2006
Joined
·
1,371 Posts
Here is an article that helps to explain "The Rule"

21 Feet Is Way Too Close!!
By: Frank Borelli


It is common knowledge that a suspect, armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat. Why? Because the "average" man can run that twenty-one feet in about one-point-five seconds; the same one-point-five seconds it will take that police officer to recognize danger, draw and point his weapon, and then pull the trigger. Even if the officer manages to get the shot off, and even if it hits the suspect; even if it instantly disables the suspect, the blade is going to be so close to the officer that the suspect's momentum may continue forward with enough force for the edged weapon to end up injuring the officer anyway.

The information contained in the above paragraph has long been accepted in police and court circles. "If a man has a knife and is within twenty-one feet, he presents a deadly threat and the use of deadly force against him is justified." Here is the question then: How far away does that suspect, armed with an edged weapon, have to be before he's not a deadly threat? A gentleman named Magliato shot a "bad guy" who was armed with a baseball bat and standing thirty-two feet away. The courts convicted Magliato claiming that at a distance of thirty-two feet, the suspect with the baseball bat could not present deadly force against Magliato; perhaps they were wrong.

If it takes a man a mere one-point-five seconds to run across twenty-one feet, how long would it take to go thirty-two feet? The simple answer would be to add half, right? If thirty-two feet is about one-and-one-half times twenty-one, then one-and-one-half times the time of one-point-five seconds should be correct. Wrong. That one-point-five seconds for running twenty-one feet is from a dead stop. To assume that thirty-two feet would take fifty percent longer would be a mistake because you would have to assume that the bad guy started, stopped at twenty-one feet, restarted and then reached thirty-two feet. Reality is quite different. If you accepted that logic, the time would be about two-point-two-five seconds. In reality it would be less than two seconds.

Even if we worked with that two-point-two-five seconds as a realistic number for covering thirty-two feet, how many feet per second is that? It's an average of fourteen-point-two feet per second. Now accepting that, let's consider the cop with his gun holstered and the bad guy thirty-two feet away with an edged weapon or other form of lethal force. He starts running at the cop. The cop recognizes the danger, draws, brings the weapon on line and fires. The bullet hits the bad guy when the bad guy has traveled about twenty-two feet or is about ten feet away from the officer. In less about two-thirds of a second after the bullet impact to his body, the bad guy will get to the police officer and begin his attack.





Two-thirds of a second: Even if the officer fires two shots and gets good hits with both of them, the bad guy may have enough oxygen and adrenaline in his system to keep moving, in complete control of his motions, for another six to fourteen seconds! As mathematics just proved, the bad guy could run well over thirty-two feet in far less than six seconds, and we all know that the officer can't run backwards even half as fast as the bad guy can run forwards.

Sure, someone reading this is saying, "That's why we run in an arc so that as they lose control of their system, their momentum will carry them forward and we'll no longer be there." Ask yourself this: Have you tried running backwards, constantly moving in an arc, trying to keep a weapon tracking on someone who is attacking you with a knife or other deadly weapon for more than fifteen or twenty feet? Give it a shot some time. Have a fellow officer run at you hard for fifteen and a half seconds (did you forget the first one-point-five seconds?) while you try to run at an angle backwards. Do this in a soft area so that you don't hurt yourself when you fall backwards as the "bad guy" plows over you.

With regard to this issue, there is more thinking and math to do. If you accept that the average man can run more than thirty feet in about two seconds, how far can he run in that fourteen seconds after your bullets have struck him and done serious damage to his vital organs; after he has begun to bleed out? At thirty feet per two seconds, that's about two-hundred-ten feet: seventy yards! More than two thirds of a football field is how far you would have to run backwards in an arc to consider yourself safely away, and even then you're assuming an average man with lethal injuries who has not consumed any substances that would affect his performance.

Obviously some disparity exists here. A man thirty-two feet away, holding a deadly weapon, didn't present an immediate and deadly threat to Magliato, but a man seventy yards away can present a deadly threat to you, an armed and trained police officer? Think about it for just a moment and consider this: there is certainly no way that a man seventy yards away with a knife, bat or other contact weapon can immediately harm you. However, if that same man starts running at you with the obvious intent of doing you bodily harm, one would think it prudent not to wait for him to reach the twenty-one foot mark before firing your sidearm. It would probably be even more prudent to keep obstacles between yourself and the threat so that the time it takes him to close distance is even greater.





Finally, we can all foresee the juror who says, "How much damage can an injured man armed with a knife do against an uninjured police officer armed with a gun?" Well, you all know that bullets do not instantly stop anyone unless you achieve the more-than-rare central nervous system hit. As all officers are trained to shoot for "center mass" since it is the largest target and therefore presents the best chance of actually hitting the armed assailant, there is little chance that the rounds, if they hit the assailant, will pass through his body exactly on center to impact his spine and immediately stop his threatening actions. So, excepting that central-nervous-system, you know that the assailant can function as described above, for another six to fourteen seconds or until his system finally runs out of oxygen and adrenaline.

At contact distance, in a time span of six to fourteen seconds, what can you do as a police officer with a firearm? Shoot him several more times increasing the amount of tissue damage done and reducing the amount of time it will take him to "bleed out". By the way, you have to do that while fending off whatever attack he presents. What can the assailant, armed with a knife, and within contact distance do to you in that same time span? Common sense suggests that he could stab you anywhere from twelve to twenty-eight times, everywhere he can reach, substituting slashes for stabs as he sees fit. That doesn't sound like a good time. Further, no where in any cop's job description does it say you have to fight an assailant with a knife since you are specifically equipped and trained to avoid getting into that situation.

So, you say to yourself, if there is no specified distance at which you can readily assume an armed assailant is too close and deadly force on your part is justified, how do you know when it's okay to shoot? Just as with the use of deadly force against any threat, four factors must exist prior to your response with deadly force. 1) Opportunity: your assailant must have the opportunity to bring killing or crippling power to bear. This is the factor that is most affected by distance. A man with a knife can't do you harm at fifty feet, but at contact distance he definitely can. How quickly he can close that distance and how quickly you can stop him has a direct affect on his opportunity to do you, or others, harm. 2) Ability: the assailant must have the ability to bring killing or crippling power to bear. Ability can exist in a number of forms such as weapons, overwhelming size, physical strength, force of numbers (in the case of more than one assailant) or special knowledge on either part. If the assailant has a gun or knife, that creates his ability. His size and/or strength can also create his ability to do you, or others, harm. If there is more than one assailant, together they stand a better chance of doing harm than when alone. Special knowledge is a two edged sword. You can have special knowledge of the assailant's proven intent or skill; such as he's a professional heavyweight boxer. That skill in heavyweight boxing is special knowledge that he possesses that makes him a greater threat. 3) Imminent jeopardy is the third factor and must exist prior to your deployment of deadly force. If the assailant does not present imminent jeopardy to you, or others, you cannot justify the use of deadly force. To some extent, "imminent" is controlled by distance. Again, that guy at fifty feet may not be presenting an imminent threat, but when he starts to move toward you, the threat he produces easily becomes imminent.

The fourth, and final, factor is preclusion. Any prudent person will normally make an attempt to escape or avoid the situation, which may lead to the use of deadly force. Police officers don't have a requirement to retreat, and certainly conditions can exist wherein the police officer has no choice but to stand his ground. The duty to protect others may mandate that you face the threat without the option of running from it. The statement "preclusion is the fourth factor" truly means that avoiding the situation has been considered and is not a viable option. The officer must be able to articulate, along with all three other elements, why he didn't, or couldn't, avoid this deadly force confrontation. In the case of a man with a knife, bat, or other deadly contact weapon, once he (the bad guy) starts charging you (the police officer), his ability to close distance and deliver a killing or crippling injury is far greater than your ability to escape or stop his attack. If he is within the distance we typically train at with our handguns (twenty-five yards or seventy-five feet is usually the maximum distance), then preclusion is removed as soon as he begins his charge. All the mathematics above should have adequately demonstrated that he can close seventy-five feet in less than six seconds and that, even if you score good disabling shots while he closes, he may still have plenty of operational time remaining in which to do you potentially fatal harm. Therefore, it is maintained that, if he is within trained handgun distance, seventy-five feet or less and is armed with any type of killing or crippling contact weapon, imminent jeopardy exists and preclusion, as an option, has been removed. At that point, all four factors exist for your justified use of deadly force in defense of yourself or others under your protection.

To review: it's takes one-point-five seconds or less for an armed bad guy to close twenty-one feet and do you bodily harm. It takes less than two-point-two-five seconds for that same bad guy to close thirty-two feet and do you bodily harm. After you've shot the bad guy, he has enough oxygen and adrenaline in his system to close another two-hundred-and-ten feet (seventy yards!) and do you bodily harm. The next time you are in an "Edged Weapons Defense" class, bear this in mind. The next time you pull up on the scene of a violent domestic and that guy has a hammer in his hand in his front yard, bear this in mind. The next time you decide to park you cruiser within twenty feet of a vehicle on a traffic stop, and you officers on the street will all have to do exactly that, bear this in mind! You rarely know who the bad guy is, and you never know what the bad guy is bringing to the fight. As an instructor friend of mine is so fond of saying: "You always want to bring a gun to a gun fight. What do you want to bring to a knife fight?" Many of the people in the classes he teach respond with, "A knife." He smiles a knowing smile and says, "No; a gun."
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,962 Posts
I sure am aware of the 21' "rule" & everything related to it but, I have a problem with the Intoxicated Knife Wielding Drunk part of this scenario.

Maybe because I worked - passed by - walked around so many heavily intoxicated Back Alley Alcoholic types for so many years when I worked Smack In The Ammonia Hole of Pittsburgh.

I think can read them pretty well.

I would have an extremely difficult time automatically "dropping" two Intoxicated Schmuck Pity~Case Life Losers...provided there were any other reasonable/workable alternative.

A Lot would depend on how obviously crocked and wicked the actors were.

If they were the staggering slowly approaching heavily intoxicated typical broke ass decrepit wino types...then the 21' rule would not be "Etched In Stone" for me personally.

If forced to then especially In A Deserted Back Alley I believe that I shoot well enough & decently quick enough that I could terminate a Malicious Intox in less than 21' -
Just my opinion on that & I can only speak for myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
QKShooter said:
...then the 21' rule would not be "Etched In Stone" for me personally.
That's the problem. For some people, calling it a "rule" may very well etch it in stone. (Such as the courts in the Magliato case that Frank mentioned in his article. If one finds oneself in such a case as a defendant, one had better be familiar with the realities Frank mentions and be able to articulate them to the jury.)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
143,962 Posts
I freely admit that I have never ever been too overly impressed with the predatory skills, dexterity, and "killer instincts" of the vast majority of our Pittsburgh Pi$$ Laden Inebriated Street Urchins. :blink:

The majority would likely be considered agile & highly adept if they could cover 21 feet in as many seconds...which would probably seem vaguely reminiscent of shooting ducks in a kids swimming pool to me. :biggrin2:

Honestly...for me...a LOT would depend on the actual event and how exactly it looked like it was going down.
That would determine how I would act.

I would not hesitate to react with deadly force if I thought it was necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
IMO, and just IMO, I would at least pull my weapon and make it know that I have a weapon. If these guys have an ounce of sense they will quickly realize they are out gunned. Hopefully that will end it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,260 Posts
The alleged "21 foot rule" comes from the Tueller Drill (named for Sgt. Dennis Tueller, Salt Lake City Police) which shows that a BG armed with a knife in hand will hurt you if he is in a circle 21 feet or closer... even if you draw and shoot him.

Remember: Action will always beat Reaction.
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top