[brownie0486]

In todays Boston Globe there is a story about a stabbing over the weekend.

Seems our man was walking on the curb when a car pulled up with two occupants who alighted from their vehicle and started an altercation with this fellow.

He pulled a knife and stabbed one of them in the chest multiple times. The perp later died.

Our man with the knife wgo was walking on the curb has been charged with murder.

A lesson to be learned here:

Though there was disparity of force [ 2 0n 1 ], he escalated the situation by pulling a knife and stabbing one of them multiple times in the chest [ thereby becoming the aggressor].

Neither perp from the vehicle produced a weapon and it was only an unarmed fight until the man walking on the curb escalated it to deadly force by producing a knife.

All those on the forums who state in various threads they'll "stick em", etc should take notice that if you are attacked by an unarmed assailant that you stand the chance of being considered the aggressor if you escalte the unarmed assault to armed and create injuries to another.

This was clearly self defense until he stabbed the perp numerous times in the chest, thereby becoming the attacker.

If he had any training he would have used the knife to defend with and not to attack the aggressor and stab numerous times.
Defensive reverse grip techniques would have been suitable as when they reached into his "inner circle" he could have defended with the blade edge to block their punches.

Witnesses would have only been able to tell the arriving officers that the guy kept yelling "please don't hurt me" as he blocked their assault with his arm [knife reversed so they would be contacting the edge of the blade when striking].

A prudent person will remember this in the future if a similiar situation arrise with them.

Brownie

[Coltdriver]

If two people come after one person, the concept of "fair fight" is already out the window.

That some pansy politically correct prosecutor decides to punish a citizen for protecting his life is pure Barbara Streisand.

That it occurs regularly in some parts of the country is a comment on that part of the country, not a rule.

What do you expect for Boston?

I always thought it would be amusing to put one of these prosecutors in a position to take an *** whippin or defend themselves with what ever was at hand and see how they would act.

If the system the government set up to protect me fails, then I am under no obligation to be harmed so that the prosecutor can have employment security.

[Devonai]

You sure make it sound like you know exactly went down. I think I'll wait until during the trial to make up my mind. If he was outnumbered he had all the justification he needed to draw his weapon.

This went down in Cambridge, not Boston, so he's got even more working against him there.

[brownie0486]

Do you think a defensive posture would require multiple stabs to the perps chest?

Thats the one of the main reasons he is under arrest. He became the aggressor and will be hard pressed to deliver any reasoning behind having to stab the perp that many times.

Thats the point [ pun intended ] of the thread here.

You can defend but then you need to be cognizant of the situation should it turn around and they are no longer a threat where you continue to persue the issues thereby becoming the attacker.

There are lessons here for us to remember and thats why I posted the info.

Brownie

[Devonai]

The multiple stabs is going to be tough to explain away. Perhaps I'm just rooting too much for this guy. Thank you for posting the story; we'll have to see how it plays out.

[ahenry]

Our man with the knife wgo was walking on the curb has been charged with murder.

A lesson to be learned here: I believe the correct lesson to be learned is to not live in a place where self defense is not allowed.


he escalated the situation by pulling a knife and stabbing one of them multiple times in the chest [ thereby becoming the aggressor]. I disagree. Only in a place like NY or Boston would such be the case. Moreover, he has not actually been determined to be the aggressor. The DA alone has decided he was. And unfortunately for the defender, he lives in a poor place to try and get a understanding jury.

This was clearly self defense until he stabbed the perp numerous times in the chest, thereby becoming the attacker. Followed by, He became the aggressor He absolutely did not become the aggressor. He defended himself with the necessary force and an overaggressive DA is looking to make a point. It remains to be seen if the good people of Boston will allow him to do so.


All comments are based solely on the information provided. I reserve the right to be wrong pending additional information.

[brownie0486]

Multiple stab wounds does not make a very good case for defense against another in any jurisdiction.

If he had stabbed him once or twice the right to defend would kick in [and he may still have been charged ].

Can you give me any legal self defense scenario where as a defender with a knife you would have to stab your attacker a dozen times?

To continue to stab over and over does not make a case for self-defense, though it may have started that way, he became the aggressor.

Are multiple stab wounds resulting in death "necessary force"? --------or "excessive force"? Multiple stab wounds would probably indicate to a reasonable person that at least some of the stabbings were "excessive" in nature.

You are judged by 12 of your peers. Put yourself in this scenario and try to explain to us how you had to stab your attacker a dozen times, please, where you had to stab him that many times defensively.

You see, you can start out in the right, but if you lose your cool and stab an attacker that many times you will likely be charged like the DA is doing here in this case.

I don't think many other jurisdictions would be any more lenient on the face of the case. If you stab someone 12 times I would think most people would deem it being aggressive/excessive

If 12 stabs aren't aggressive/excessive what number would become so for you?

Brownie

[ahenry]

If 12 stabs aren't aggressive what number would become so for you?
I’m sorry but would you be so kind as to direct me to the location in the above posts where you stated that the person that was killed was stabbed 12 times? I believe the quote from you was “multiple times”, that would be anywhere from 3 to hundreds. Moreover, I can think of an easy defensive situation where multiple (12 or more) stabbings could occur. Suppose your “pocket knife” is a small little pen knife and the guy charges you and knocks you down. While down you start stabbing him until he stops beating you. A knife is (generally) a slow kill, no big surprise if you ended up having to stab the bag guy many times. In fact there are court cases where just such a thing happened and the defendant was exonerated.

[brownie0486]

I used a dozen as an example of multiple. If you don't like that number pick another somwhere over 5 as the case will show happened. The final number was not mentioned but I'm sure the coroner will have a report within a week.

See, laypeople will look at it on it's face value. If they were stabbed once or twice they would be done. They think this way about others as well when listening to testimony.

"unreasonable" comes to mind if you are a normal juror unfamiliar with the act of defense with a knife.

And of course someone may have been exonerated with that many stabs to an attacker but the norm would be deemed excessive at that level and suffer guilty verdicts in all probablility.

A small little pen knife would not have caused death as it would not be reaching deep enough. As he died from the stab wounds we will have to take it the knife blade was long enough to reach vital organs and cause enough damage and trauma to effect the end result [death].



Brownie

[Don Gwinn]

Folks, while we can all nit-pick the way Brownie made his points in the first post, I think we all know, too, what he meant. He's a teacher who deals with issues of deadly force and legality quite a bit, and he's thinking in terms of the law, not your personal sense of right and wrong. You and I may very well agree that 12 stabs with a knife is not necessarily excessive for a man who is set upon by two attackers, but that's not the point.

The point is, how do you stay out of prison? Brownie is trying to tell us that whether we like it or not, stabbing someone 12 times is not the way to keep yourself out of prison. And he has a point; you're fooling yourself if you believe this can only happen in Boston.

Can you honestly say that you don't think the defender would be better off today if he'd had the training and presence of mind to do what Brownie suggests? Although I have questions about the practicality of doing so, I can't deny that if the assailant had not been killed then the defender couldn't very well have been charged with murder.

[ACP]

Yo Brownie!

Are you the same Brownie who teaches the civilian day class at the S&W Academy? Same Brownie who "pointed" me in the chest with the dulled trainer neck knife that you so slickly pulled from under your sweathshirt? Same Brownie of the "Brownie pop" who carries two 3" folders?

He knows what he's talking about, folks, like it or not.

[Al Thompson]

Let me see if I have this right as a non-trained knife guy. If the guy with the knife had slashed defensively, he would be in a better position with public opinion? Seems that the stab wounds, while lethel, were not effective.

I do agree with that, more than once I've had to explain to folks that merely getting shot does not equal what hollyweird shows handgun bullets to do. Had a good friend think that the Diallo case in NY was an assassination as she had zero idea how fast a scared man can empty a Glock.

Lots of illiterates in the public that have to be taken into consideration.

[brownie0486]

ACP:

That would be me sir;)

Give me a PM here.

Good to hear from you on the forum.

Brownie

[Soap]

Thanks to El Tejon for first teaching me about what he calls "Problem #2". This situation just re-illustrates that point for me. Thanks for posting it Brownie! Its nice to fantasize that this could never ever happen in your state, but one day you might be in court shaking like a leaf while they read the verdict. Take caution everyone!

[Navy joe]

Definitely locality dependent. I agree that he should have tried to remain defensive, but sometimes saving yourself requires some offense. Many people have died from getting their head kicked in, it should be easy to argue that under a determined assault from one or more unarmed assailants that the defendant was in fear for his life. With the stabs he achieved the same final result as if he had been able to present a gun and shoot the man twice in the chest. Lethal force should have been authorized. He probably would have quit stabbing if the other guy had given up like on TV.

Problems:

The locality. Anything other than cowering with his head protected by his arms was going to get him in trouble with the DA.

People's bias against knives. It's a primal thing in that people have some really deep rooted fear of knives and on some subterrean level they think that anyone that uses a knife effectively is a sociopath. Further Bias. In my state I can carry pretty much any handgun of less than 20 rd capacity, but I can not carry concealed on or about my person, daggers, dirks stillettos, bowie knives, etc, ad nauseum. A holdover from the drinking and fighting days I suppose, but the legal system needs to recognize that if they are going to recognize the concept of legal lethal force it doesn't matter how it is applied.

What level of training will the state require to not prosecute you? I agree with Brownie in that had this man been better trained he might not have had to kill his attacker. The localities that allow lethal self defense don't require much training, it would be a really poor arguement to say that someone could have not killed if they had more training. I prefer to place the onus for lethal force not being used on the assailant; don't want to get killed by an undertrained person committed to their defense? Don't commit violent felonies against them then.

A good stabbing as far as I'm concerned with the info available. Charged with murder is different than convicted of murder and no self defense is pretty legally.

[ahenry]

I used a dozen as an example of multiple. If you don't like that number pick another somwhere over 5 as the case will show happened. The final number was not mentioned but I'm sure the coroner will have a report within a week. I know you have an inside track to the police report, so I’m sure you are more aware of what the police say happened than the rest of us. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement that pending as yet unknown information, just because a person has been stabbed multiple times does not mean the defender “became the aggressor”. As I stated above, it is easy to envision a self-defense situation where many stab wounds would occur. Moreover, there is court precedent for some of these situations as well.

"unreasonable" comes to mind if you are a normal juror unfamiliar with the act of defense with a knife. Uh, this is what you get expert witnesses for. Helps when you need to educate the “normal juror”.

And of course someone may have been exonerated with that many stabs to an attacker but the norm would be deemed excessive at that level and suffer guilty verdicts in all probablility. I disagree. What I think is more likely the norm is that most of the time a person stabs somebody “multiple times” the situation was already murder (or attempted or assault or some such charge). In other words, whether the person was stabbed one time or fifty times, the person would still be guilty of murder (or whatever). Since you seem to be trying to prove that an actual self-defense situation (one that you wouldn’t be charged with anything otherwise) suddenly results in a murder charge solely due to the fact that the person was stabbed multiple times, show us some actual instances. This one certainly doesn’t indicate that since there is ample evidence that the survivor escalated the situation even before the knife was introduced into the situation. In fact, if this is the situation I am thinking of, there is every possibility that the man would have been charged with a crime even if he only stabbed the other guy once. So, prove your point with credible facts. I’m happy to admit it if I’m wrong. I’m stubborn but not impossible. Show me credible facts and I’ll agree with you. Show me iffy ones and I’ll hold to my original view.

A small little pen knife would not have caused death as it would not be reaching deep enough. As he died from the stab wounds we will have to take it the knife blade was long enough to reach vital organs and cause enough damage and trauma to effect the end result [death]. Two inches or less is usually a sufficient blade length to cause death. If the dead dude was skinny, even less blade length is required. The heart doesn’t lie that far below the ribs. Puncture the heart and unless critical care is given in a dang big hurry, he ain’t gonna make it. Of course, I don’t actually think this guy had a small little two-handed pen knife, spyderco’s and their like are too common. My point still remains though, death by knife is relatively easy to inflict but instantaneous death by knife is not. Again, since the objective in a self-defense situation is to end the attack, it is easy to conceive of a situation where the true aggressor is stabbed many times. Especially if the person defending themselves is untrained. IOW, no concept of slashing extremities (or if you prefer, “pointing”), just flailing about and stabbing away until the threat stops.

[ahenry]

Folks, while we can all nit-pick the way Brownie made his points in the first post, I think we all know, too, what he meant. He's a teacher who deals with issues of deadly force and legality quite a bit, and he's thinking in terms of the law, not your personal sense of right and wrong. You and I may very well agree that 12 stabs with a knife is not necessarily excessive for a man who is set upon by two attackers, but that's not the point. You can call me by name, I don’t mind. You’re right though, I do know exactly what his point is and I disagree with it. Hence my posts. Look, I have no doubt that if Brownie and I ever faced off with knives, he’d carve me up for breakfast then chop up the pieces for lunch. That doesn’t change the fact that, 1) he is using the actions of a Massachusetts DA as an example of all DA’s. I’m often guilty of doing the same, but in my case I assume all DA’s are like the ones in TX. That doesn’t make such conclusions accurate though. And 2) his perspective is primarily an LEO one. Not that that makes him wrong, only that that makes his view slightly tainted. For instance, the posts of our resident lawyer are constantly full of “problem #2” and the certainty of its occurrence, primarily because his field puts him face to face with it, way out of proportion to its across the board occurrence. It is much the same with Brownie. Everybody views things through their own set of goggles. Sometimes those goggles happen to taint situations slightly inaccurately. In this case, I believe that has occurred.


Can you honestly say that you don't think the defender would be better off today if he'd had the training and presence of mind to do what Brownie suggests? Nope, and neither can you. Do you know, for instance, if the person charged with murder stabbed the aggressor once and then backed away but was charged again? And then again, and again, and again? This is actually a topic Brownie and I have discussed on the 1911forum. My contention is that working only to stop an attack is great 99% of the time. Lets be honest, if you are set upon by some perp, probably the mere presence of a knife and a solid defensive posture where it looks like you know what you’re doing is going to be enough to end the attack before it starts. However, real life can go from that all the way to the hopped up perp that doesn’t even know he is being slashed/pointed and the only end to the engagement is the death of one of the two of you. It is much the same as using a gun. Disregarding the possibility of some civil consequences, you could probably end 99% or more of all attacks with a bullet in one of the extremities of the perp. Does that mean it is a sound tactic to shoot for the knees? I think you would agree that it is not. Of course, with a contact weapon like a knife there is the additional factor of trying to hurt him without being hurt yourself. All else being equal however, shooting/stabbing to wound is a great way to get a face-to-face conversation with St. Peter.

[brownie0486]

Update in todays Boston Herald.

The man walking who had the knife goes to Harvard in Cambridge where this actually ocurred, not Boston as previously stated.

There are two sides to the story.

His was, he was walking on the sidewalk and an argument ensued over a comment about a girl. The Harvard boy was drunk leaving a bar and walking back to his domicile.

The survivors story [ in the car ] is that the Harvard boy started the altercation. They were parked and he walked up and opened the door to the drivers side [now deceased ], and challenged the driver to get out, again over a comment about a girl.

legalhack:
Let me know when yo are going to be in the area of Boston. We can hook up at that time and put you on the path to enlightenment where edged weapons are concerned. More than happy to barter.

It now appears that the Harvard boy could have possibly retreated and did not on the sidewalk. They are still trying to determine who the initial aggressor here was.

The paper reported that there were 5 stab wounds in the chest of the driver who died. One reached the heart and is deemed the cause the death.

They had a picture of the Harvard boy at arraignment yesterday. He looks like baby huey. Tall, stocky and certainly not a 90 lb weakling. They do not describe the physical attributes of the other two but they would have to be giants to be bigger than this guy.

Brownie

[Ol' Badger]

Boy, If I was going to kick some dudes butt and he stabbed me once I would want to leave quick like. But Multible times sounds alittle like over kill. that might be what gets his but in the Big House. But hey, he already is good with a shiv right?

[Don Gwinn]

Ahenry, sorry if I singled you out, I was addressing three of you.

I just see a certain amount of peril in dismissing these things as "locality dependent." After all:

1. It leads to people saying things like "prosecutors in Massachusetts vs. prosecutors in Texas." I'm sure that on average the prosecutors in Texas are more liberal about use of force and self-defense, but I bet the ten friendliest prosecutors in Massachusetts are less likely to prosecute a case of self-defense than the ten strictest prosecutors in Texas. There's a wide variation within all states. I come from Illinois, where the difference is pretty staggering, but I keep hearing about places like Austin ("Moscow on the Colorado.")

2. Do you travel? If so, this is still a problem.

However, if it turns out he could have retreated and didn't, and that's illegal in Massachusetts, then your original point is well-taken. He'd be prosecuted no matter how many times he stabbed whoever.

[Scott Evans]

Not enough information here to make a call, however; I will assume that the intent of the defender (i.e. the guy with the knife) was simply to save his own life.

If I were the attorney ….

First he was attacked, unprovoked, by multiple assailants.

Reasonably, because of the potential bodily harm to be delivered, surprise, posture, number and aggression of the attackers he is in fear of his life. As such deadly force in self-defense is justified.

Without warning, professional training or time to prepare this man is forced, by his assailants , into a desperate, life threatening situation that requires he physically defend his life with what ever is at hand and in any manner available. He did not ask for it … it was forced upon him. Because of the ferocity and determination of the oncoming goons he simply has no choice but to meet the advancing attackers with force sufficient to stop the assault. Make no mistake; time is a factor in his survival. Given a short span multiple attackers are most likely to overtake and over power an individual even if armed. Particularly if such attackers are not daunted by the initial show of, or wounds given by, the defenders weapon. The defenders weapon; a pocket knife, is a poor choice if an immediate stop of an aggressive, determined attacker is your goal, however; it is all that was available. Remember that the initial show of the weapon did not deter the attack … the hoodlums persisted. The initial strike did not stop the attack as they continued to pressed upon the victim. Again and again and near hopeless the victim strikes their advances as he pleads for life with each fearful, retreating blow. Finally one slumps down and relents. In typical bully fashion when left alone to face a determined resistor the remaining attacker flees in fear.

Cumulatively; these factors not only make the use of repeated blows by a small blade reasonable or likely but in this instance they were completely necessary to stop the attack.

One who attacks another must assume the risk that his intended victim may choose to defend himself rather then be severely injured or die. The attacker’s injuries and subsequent death were the result of his own actions and persistence to do harm to another.

Finally; the notion that an untrained civilian be required to assume a reverse grip posture and parry blows by multiple attackers with the knife edge in hopes that they may stop is silly. If the simple show or initial blow of the weapon dose not deter the advance then the attackers themselves have determined that their own physical impairment (via injury or death) is the only means prudent to end the altercation.

[Scott Evans]

:confused:

[Scott Evans]

:confused:

[ACP]

FYI, I believe this is the story:

By MARTIN FINUCANE
Associated Press Writer
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — One was a Harvard student walking home after a night of drinking and listening to reggae. The other was a young cook, relaxing after his shift, hungry for some pizza.
Their paths crossed early Saturday in a rundown section of town. They fought, and 18-year-old Michael Colono was killed. The student, Alexander Pring-Wilson, admits he stabbed Colono but says he acted in self-defense, said his lawyer, Jeffrey Denner.
Pring-Wilson, 25, of Colorado Springs, Colo., pleaded innocent Monday to murder. Pring-Wilson was ordered held without bail pending a hearing Friday.
Prosecutors say Pring-Wilson stabbed Colono, of Cambridge, five times outside a pizza shop in the city’s Riverside section.
Colono was sitting with a man and a woman in a car outside the shop when he and Pring-Wilson exchanged words. Prosecutors say Colono got out of the car and the two began fighting.
Colono’s friends tried to rush him to a hospital and briefly got lost. Eventually, an ambulance was called. Colono died at a hospital about 90 minutes after the stabbing.
Middlesex district attorney’s spokeswoman Emily LaGrassa said prosecutors expected to ask a grand jury to indict Pring-Wilson, the normal procedure in Massachusetts murder cases.
Denner, a prominent Boston attorney, has offered a spirited public defense. Denner has told reporters Pring-Wilson is a “gentleman” with an “impeccable” record who acted to defend himself. Neither Pring-Wilson nor Colono had a criminal record.
Colono’s family has also spoken out. About 20 relatives attended the arraignment, including Colono’s parents and four siblings, as well as his girlfriend, who is the mother of their 3-year-old child.
“Everyone’s talking about Harvard and all (Pring-Wilson’s) accomplishments,” said Marcos Colono, one of Colono’s brothers. “It’s irrelevant. Human nature will tell you, smart people still do stupid things.”
Colono said his brother was a high school dropout who earned his GED.
Michael Christopher, manager at Tavern on the Charles in Boston, where Colono worked, said Colono was well-liked and respected.
“He was a gentleman, a gentle man,” he said. “It’s hard for us to believe what we’re reading in the papers about him starting this.”
Denner has said that Pring-Wilson was with friends, drinking and dancing at a nightclub where a reggae band was playing. Pring-Wilson put the friends in a taxi and started walking to his apartment several miles away in Somerville when he met Colono.
Denner won’t provide details about the argument. But he said Pring-Wilson was being attacked by Colono and another man, not just by Colono as police alleged. Denner said his client pulled a pocket knife to get them to back off because “he was getting beaten very badly.”
“He did not instigate this. He did not pursue it,” Denner said.
Denner said Pring-Wilson had been drinking, but denied that it made him aggressive.
Pring-Wilson’s mother, a former deputy district attorney in Colorado, flew to Cambridge along with Pring-Wilson’s stepfather for the arraignment. Wiping away tears, Cynthia Pring told reporters, “He’s actually a son that would make you very proud.”
Pring-Wilson graduated with honors from Colorado College and planned to complete a master’s degree at Harvard’s Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies this spring. He had already been accepted to law schools, his mother said.
Cambridge Mayor Michael Sullivan acknowledged there might be tensions between working-class people and students of the world-renowned university.
“Invariably, you get some issues,” he said. But he said serious conflicts were rare.
Harvard spokesman Joe Wrinn said “there is tension in any university city to some level between the town and the gown. That’s true on every college campus.”
But he also said “nothing whatsoever to this degree” had happened in Cambridge in recent memory.

[Scott Evans]

Well great … after my defense …:rolleyes:

It would agree with the murder charge and a trial based on the more in-depth story now posted.

In general though; (as I was referring in my post above) the simple fact of delivering multiple wounds to an attacker is not sufficient in and of itself to charge the use of excessive force particularly when the defenders weapon is a knife.

[brownie0486]

I can agree that the circumstances are always different and certainly different jurisdictions across the country will prosecute or perhaps file a lesser charge of manslaughter.

There is no question Massachusetts DA's are very aggressive in their prosecutions, and certainly not as forgiving as others have stated.

Scott Evans: I don't expect many will be practiced in the art of reverse grip defense with a knife.

Having the training through the academy does help with issues on the streets as I have been in the position to arrest in similiar circumstances of defense.

As a layperson myself now, I have the advantage [ if you want to call it that ] of both views. That of the layperson/civilian and that of LE. They are different mindsets without question.

It does help to know how you will be viewed by the DA's, LE's upon their arrival at the scene and what facts they will need to exonerate or charge you with at that time.

The knife had to be at least 3 1/2" long to reach the heart and probably longer would be my guess here. Most pocket knives [ nailnicks types ] don't have a blade that long.

We have not even covered the area of escalating the scenario by pulling the knife out on two unarmed assailants. The article said he was being beaten pretty badly but the photo of him in the paper this morning doesn't show any tell tale signs of violence in or about his facial area from the picture.

There is perceived threat and there is actual threats to your person. I have no data on the size of the two in the car [1 deceased now ] but the Harvard boy is no slouch. Looks to be about 6'0" and 250-270 from the picture.

Disparity of numbers does not necessarily automatically equate to using deadly force against them. This was a fist fight with some disparity of force/numbers [maybe, depending on the size of the other two ].

The point being if you are attacked by superior numbers you do not gain a right to kill someone from that fact alone [ disparity of numbers]. Of course if the numbers were 5 to 1 or even more the courts may look more favorably.

What the courts and LE's don't want is for someone to get the idea if they are outnumbered by unarmed assaillants that you may stand your ground and automatically may defend [ escalate ]with lethal force of your own.

The Harvard kid did not try to evade or escape and apparently had the opportunity to do so. He chose to stand and fight [ ego, drink ? ] these two and that goes to mindset. The admission he was under the influence of alcohol will play into the sceanrio when it comes to trial as well. If he had not been drinking he may have chose to leave/retreat but due to the alcohol he had consumed his judgement had been inpaired in determining he was about to suffer death or great bodily injuries for the self defense doctrine to kick in here.

Lets ask this question as get some comments and thoughts from others here on this subject while we are visiting this scenario.

If you are threatened with bodily injury through actions or verbal threats by two apparently unarmed people on the street do you have the right to escalate that situation to deadly force continuum by producing a knife or other weapon?

When do you think you would be right in escalating this situation?

In Massachusetts you have the right to defend yourself if you meet these criterias.

1. You have been threatened with death or great bodily harm.
2. They have the visible means to carry out that threat.
3. They are within a distance that dictates they are close enough to be capable of carrying out the threat immediately.

In other terms:

2. The means [numbers diparity/weapons ]
1. The motive [the threatening of harm/death to you ]
3. The opportunity [ the threat stated is capable of being carried out immediately do to the proximity at the time of the threat].

If any three of these are not met, no self defense can be a defense in this state. Seems simple enough really. If you are being threatened with physical harm through verbal communication you need to be able to articulate he had the means to carry out the threat [ a weapon , numbers disparity, etc ] and that the distance between you and the threat would allow a prudent person to feel the threat could be carried out immediately.

And then there will be the question, did you have the opportunity to exit the area? If the means to escape were there and you chose to stand your ground would your subsequent actions be justified in using lethal force?

Lets here what others have to say about the sceanrio and what they believe to be lawful, not what their ego would do but what a prudentand reasonale person would likely do in the same circumstances.

This will get interesting I'm sure and something we should all be clear on one way or the other.

Brownie

[Navy joe]

Well, maybe he thought he was defending himself, but being drunk I retract my arguement in this specific case. He might as well have signed his sentence and handed it to the DA.

I guess first, don't get into fist fights. I don't, I know they can kill. Most recent I can think of was hockey dad who killed another grown man with one blow to the head. Lethal force can be justified against an unarmed attacker. The two problems I see are how do you judge capability and how will others judge you?

On how others judge you. I've got it tough. I can still get my head kicked in like anyone else, but being 6'1" 210lbs and 28 yrs of age I better damn well be able to prove I knew they could outfight me, meant to do me serious harm, and there was no way I could get away. If you are older, smaller, can't run due to disability you get a much easier pass in court. Another factor is as Brownie mentioned how you employ the knife, in that more skillful use can sap the attacker's will to continue without poking holes in their pericardium. This should be seen in court as trying to employ restraint.

Judging capability. Ideally you should decide whether or not to employ lethal force before the fight starts. What if the attacker is similar size, but halfway into the deal you find out he knows what he is doing and is going to hurt you bad? It gets easier if your attacker is about 6'6", 350lbs with no neck and growls that he is gonna rip your head off your pencil neck. Also easy is if one or more attackers uses words to the effect that they have a black belt in whatever and are going to kill you mother :cuss: Usually bluster, but much as the person who sticks you up with a replica gun, their bad choice, a competent attorney should be able to show you made deadly force decisions based on the information available at the time. Much as you don't have time or possibly expert eyes to determine if the gun is fake, no one can expect you to be psychic and know if your assailant is BS'ing. Further, it is not a good plan to let him wail on you a little and then try to produce a weapon. If he is what he said, you may be in serious trouble and trying to pull a weapon in the middle of an *ss-whupping already in progress never seems to work well for the whipee.

My short view. Anyone landing good blows to my head means to kill me. I want to make them stop ASAP. If I don't I may be braindead. If I do I will be in court but alive. Considering that I try to not be around bad people, not put myself in places with only one way out, and generally defuse conflicts.

Brownie, when you doing any classes in the Mid-Atlantic region, I want to attend one?

[Bruz]

Trail results...the rich Harvard kid will get no jail time, the cook will get no second chance.

[Didorian]

Has anyone thought to consider, that the man may have been afraid??

Fear will cause many people to do things that are in no means normal. He may have simply been carrying a knife.... "Just in Case". And he more likely than not didn't know anything about self defense.... So as far as this man was concerned, he was simply going to stab the man until he no longer felt threatened..

[brownie0486]

I wonder how many people can continue to attack another while taking stabs to the chest?

Seems after a few [ he might not feel the first maybe the second ] he'd be attempting to relieve himself of that situation. Hence one could possibly also conclude that if this is a distinct probability and predictably normal, that the last two or three stabs were while the original supposed perp some attempting to move away [ and consequently no longer a threat ].

Nothing has been mentioned in the paper about the second vehicle occupant to date though it was reported tha it was two from the car on one.

Fear can turn to anger quickly or be present at the same time. There are lessons here for all of us to think about when we carry a knife which we know may be called upon to defend with.

Training in defensive knife tactics if we are serious about knife defense and carry with that possibility in mind takes a commitment no less than one who carries a firearm would be expected to be profcient with his weapon of choice.

As I instruct professionally in defensive knife I would be held to a higher standard than the grad student in this thread. It becomes a two edged sword:uhoh:

No less so than a swat officer is held to a higher standard as he has been more highly trained and expected to act on a higher level than the general population.

The positive edge of that sword is knowing that if you can retrieve the knife in time to actually use it in an attack on your person you stand a fair chance of surviving the encounter without having to make someone cold forever and then dealing with the aftermath.

Brownie

[ahenry]

I just see a certain amount of peril in dismissing these things as "locality dependent." I agree, but I believe the fact remains that the number of times a person is stabbed in a self-defense situation is way down on the list (if on there at all) of factors that cause a DA to charge the defender with a crime. Making a political point rates much higher I believe.

[ahenry]

It does help to know how you will be viewed by the DA's, LE's upon their arrival at the scene and what facts they will need to exonerate or charge you with at that time. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

The knife had to be at least 3 1/2" long to reach the heart and probably longer would be my guess here. Most pocket knives [ nailnicks types ] don't have a blade that long. Far be it from me to challenge that :D, but the information I have read and been told is that two inches or less is usually sufficient. Its been quite some time since I worked in an ER or rode in an ambulance but I believe we have a few doctors and ER personal on the board. Perhaps one of them is reading and could clear this up?

We have not even covered the area of escalating the scenario by pulling the knife out on two unarmed assailants. I’m still waiting for you to show us that pulling a knife (or rather a tool for self-defense purposes...gun, knife, pepper spray, etc) when confronted with two assailants is escalating the situation. To the best of my knowledge, almost every local has some form of a law that states deadly force is authorized when (sometimes among other things) a reasonable man is in fear of imminent bodily harm. I don’t care how big you are, two people can cause serious bodily harm in a big hurry.

Disparity of numbers does not necessarily automatically equate to using deadly force against them. This was a fist fight with some disparity of force/numbers [maybe, depending on the size of the other two ]. If I could reduce that point to an absurdity, a grown man set upon by several 5 year olds, then I would certainly agree with the statement. Bringing the discussion back to reality, a grown man set upon by two other grown men, then I would tend to say that it does indeed equate to using deadly force. Even the biggest of men (except the Andre the Giant types) can be in serious trouble when faced with multiple assailants.

What the courts and LE's don't want is for someone to get the idea if they are outnumbered by unarmed assaillants that you may stand your ground and automatically may defend [ escalate ]with lethal force of your own. First and foremost, what the courts and LE want is not necessarily what they get. I’m far more concerned with dealing with the problem at hand than I am with pacifying my friends the cops or my potential adversary the DA. Secondly, and I know this is heavily dependent on locality, but it is not necessarily the case that a person cannot stand his ground. The wisdom of doing so is suspect, but the legality of it can be there depending on where you live.

The Harvard kid did not try to evade or escape and apparently had the opportunity to do so. He chose to stand and fight [ ego, drink ? ] these two and that goes to mindset. The admission he was under the influence of alcohol will play into the sceanrio when it comes to trial as well. If he had not been drinking he may have chose to leave/retreat but due to the alcohol he had consumed his judgement had been inpaired in determining he was about to suffer death or great bodily injuries for the self defense doctrine to kick in here. As I alluded to earlier, in this situation I think the guy was an idiot. This supports my earlier point that even if he had only stabbed his assailant one time (and for arguments sake lets say that one stab didn’t kill the guy) he would likely still be charged with a crime. Again leading me to ask you to show us some credible instances of multiple stabbings where a person was charged with a crime but would not have been if he had only stabbed his assailant one time.

[brownie0486]

See below how another was able to come out of a similiar situation in Kentucky and not only survived the encounter but the legal aftermath.

You can argue the points all you want but when you are charged with some degree of assault or murder and spending 10's of thousands on legal team defense with the prospect of being broke and in jail or just broke and lucky to be exonerated of all potential charges.
_________________________________________________

tna55 posted the info contained in the link supplied below about the defensive reverse grip move he taught his son which is the same technique I have mentioned I would use in this situation. His son also came up against two assailanlts and won the fight and was not charged so he won on two fronts.

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1514738#post1514738

3 1/2 " to the heart is the norm. Look at an anatomy chart with distances to targets and times required to incapacitate [ they can be found on the web ].

Your own ideas of what constitutes disparity of force may not be inline with the courts and LE/DA types. They will be the ones scrutinizing yoru actions and filing charges according to how they preceive your actions.

If you can articulate your disparity theory well enough the jury may buy it and you walk, but if you can't convince the jury the disparity required escalation which caused anothers death you surely will have time to contemplate what you may have been able to do different which would have changed the outcome for you personally [ jail vs no jail time ].

As I carry a knife with defensive purposes in mind I should be prudent to acquire some skills which may then allow me not to have to flail away, stab away repeatedly in an attempt to escape my antagonists [ they are only antagonists as in this scenario they have no weapons ].

If you escalate force and cause the death of another you surely will be asked why you did not consider other less lethal means of defense. If you are carrying a knife other than grandpaws oldtimer [any of the gentre of tactical folders ] you could be deemed premeditative in nature and painted with that brush to a jury as well.

Headlines read something like this-------

Man charged with murder after being physically assaulted by two unarmed men. Mr. so and so has been charged with murder 2 as he was found to have carried a folding knife specifically designed for personal defense. DA so and so states Mr. so and so was carrying a knife specifically developed for personal defense and when confronted by two other men used the knife to kill one of the attackers. DA so and so stated " The act of carrying that type of knife specifically designed and sold as a personal defense weapon makes clear his prior intent was to use an instrument of lethal force in a possible defense of his person. Clearly he could have chosen any of the other less than lethal means of personal defense available to the public such as mace, pepper spray, etc, but instead chose to carry a knife designed for injuring or killing another."

How would I be able to show anyone that pulling a knife is escalating to deadly force? If you produce a lethal weapon and kill another you escalated an unarmed assault [ less than lethal ] to lethal force. It is quite clear that fist as less than lethal [ though they have been lethal in some situations it is not the norm ]. And yes, a jury is going to look at what would noramlly be expected in an unarmed confrontation. The expectation of death just is not there in a fist fight.

You can't change the fact you escalated the scenario to deadly force as the facts stand on their merit. What you are doing is asking the jury to buy your defense about "I know you can be killed if you are punched, it's happened before so I was being threatened with deadly force in a fist fight". Not many juries are going to side with you about expecting to die in a fistfight. If you are willing ot hang your A## on the line with a jury with this thesis I wish you all the best when "Bubba" greets you at the gate with a big grin.:p

It's not imminent bodily harm, it's " in fear of severe bodily injury or death". Imminent bodily harm could be any circumsance where you may suffer some type of injury. That could occur by being slapped. If you were slapped you suffered bodily injury but it is not presumed you would have been in imminent danger of great bodily harm by the slap. If you pulled a lethal weapon you escaltated that situation didn't you? Were you justifed? The courts won't think so.

AHenry states "First and foremost, what the courts and LE want is not necessarily what they get. I’m far more concerned with dealing with the problem at hand than I am with pacifying my friends the cops or my potential adversary the DA. "

If you're more concerned about "dealing with the problem at hand" is true I would expect you to have trained religously in self defense with the knife you carry. Hard to try to convince another, let alone 12, that you were so concerned with not being killed that you carried a knife but then took no action previously to the incident which may have given you acquired skills that allowed you not to have to use deadly force with the tool you chose to carry.

The number of times someone is stabbed is very relevant to any case of self defense. If it were not relevant the courts would not hear testimony regarding this issue. It may not be relevant to you but it most assuredly will be to the courts, DA and a jury of your peers.

Brownie

[Scott Evans]

Amazing the transition of individual world view in our society. We come from the place of expecting it to be a duty of men to be prudently armed and trained to defend themselves and their families to a point of selecting implements of protection in hopes that if it is ever necessary to employ them that the government will think their purpose was something other… that the availability of such to us in a time of need was simply an “accident”.

Likewise; those who have developed skills through training, for the good and honorable purpose of being able to defend against evil, have the additional burden of reducing the danger a would be attacker may be exposed to.

IS THAT NUTS … or what! :banghead:

Violent crimes against others should indeed be risky business.

Certainly in many cases so called defenders contribute in part or fully in creating a deadly force situation. Such behavior should be prosecuted. Simply being competent in martial ability and prudently armed should not be.

[brownie0486]

Scott Evans:

Though I agree with your assessment we do need to work within the confines of the criminal justice system or suffer consequences that may not be to our liking.

I feel if you are carrying a nail nick old timer like grandad had and used it in self defense somehow you would not be scrutinized as much as if you had done the same with a tactical folder.

We are responsible for our actions and accountable for their results [good or bad]. If we take it upon ourselves to carry a tool [whether it be a gun, knife or other tool] we are held accountable for that decision, when we are involved in a potentially dangerous encounter, to be proficient with our tool of choice. Anything less is not prudent and may be deemed nonfeasance on our part.

Without some rudimentary training at the very least we set ourselves up if we have to use the tool we chose for that possible purpose for charges of misfeasance. You made a mistake through lack of training which otherwise may not have possibly happened resulting in a death of another.

No less so for those who choose to carry a firearm in possible defense of oneself or others. If you have a firearm and not the least bit of training in safely handling and utilizing the tool you are deemed negligent if and when you injure another with that tool.

You chose to possess and carry a deadly weapon which you did not have training on. Thats why the cops have a minimal standard they all pass as they negate the chances of being painted the same way. The PD's learned the hard way through lawsuits over the years when their officers made mistakes which injured others.

Can we expect not to be held to the higher level as bladesmen?

Brownie

[ahenry]

Bownie,

Let us know when you come up with some credible instances of a justifiable self-defense situation that ends up being unjustified solely due to multiple stabbings or the “escalation” of the situation by a defender pulling his knife when faced by more than one assailant. Until then you’re really just blowing hot air. I’m not trying to say you don’t know what you’re talking about, but color me a skeptic. I like proof. I’ve researched the issue and come to a conclusion that I think is more than reasonable. If you want somebody to accept your view, you should be prepared to offer facts to support it. So far it would appear that the extent of your research is opining over a quality brew with some police buddies, and that the limit of your facts are instances of borderline justifiable self-defense situations. To be honest you sound like somebody that insists using your own hand loaded ammunition in a self defense situation will get you sent to prison for premeditated murder in an otherwise justifiable self-defense situation. Possible, but after much search I haven’t found one single solitary instance of such a thing happening. All I ask is for you to provide some facts here. Shouldn’t be hard if what you say is actually the case...

[brownie0486]

AHenry:

I have not been connected with a PD for two years.
Opining with the bros? No, but

Lets see, who better to know cases and trials than the cops testifying in them and involved professionally with them. They sure wouldn't have any idea about how the courts look and rule on such matter would they?

There are all kinds of precedent in the courts on this. It would not be researchable as the criteria you are asking for is not catalogued as such. A law student may be able to research over months and months of reading self defense verdicts which were both not guilty and guilty but I don't think your intent was to have me spend the time or money to perfrom such tasks.

You stated "I’ve researched the issue and come to a conclusion that I think is more than reasonable"

Though you did not state how you performed your research in the above line, or what the research criteria was when you started, what the objectives were, etc. please take the opportunity to show the forum just what that research entailed and how extensive a database you limited your research to.

If you already have the data through the proper research that counters what I have said I'm willing to listen on the condition that your research is deeemed valid through statistical analysis and state and case numbers which can be verified, otherwise I would still be interested in how you performed the research whether it is deeemed valid or not.

You appear through your comments to have issues with police officers for some reason that has not been brought to the forefront here on this forum.

Having been a civilian/non LE for 40 years before going on a dept for 9 and now back to nonLE status I can speak on issues from both sides of the fence with some sense of how both groups view each other in general [LE vs nonLE] and at times how these two groups have personal issues with each other.

I feel no need to have to prove anything to you and you are more than welcome to walk the streets thinking you can stab someone multiple times in a defensive situation against two or one. A man in control of his emotions and some training as in tna55's kids defensive play against two asailants recently vs the title thread we are discussing here and the two different outcomes has lessons if you look closely.

Harvard kid:
No training, multiple stabs that resulted in death
Charged with murder

tna55's kid: good defensive knife tactics, and a presence to stay focused and utilize a defensive technique that works
No charges filed

In both scenarios the knife person survived the two person attack. I'm not sure which one YOU would choose. You may not have a choice as I do not have any knowledge of the extent of your defensive training and background on the streets and in the courts.

Whether you agree or disagree with is irrelevant to the facts. They would be:

Stabbing is offensive in nature, not defensive.
You may stab someone in a fight who is rushing you and halt the attack or kill him in seconds. If you continue to stab someone you have then taken the offensive. If he halts the attack you are required by law to stop yourself, otherwise you are now deemed the attacker. Thats the law, clearly written in most states under the their various self defense doctrines and statutes. Easily looked up in any states law books unless you dispute this as well.

Lets assume you know this and do not dispute it.
If the attacker has backed away from you [retreating] after being stabbed upon his initial contact and you move forward and continue stabbing him you would be arrested when witnesses gave their statements about what you did.

You have a right to defend until the threat of imminent bodily harm or death has passed. The courts translate that to mean you will not pursue or continue any further actions against the attacker.
The moment he stops the attack self defense is not a valid defense to continuing to stab him multiple times.

To be a valid defense where you stabbed him multiple times it would have to be demonstrated that the attacker continued to attack you and did not desist [spelling?] in his aggression toward you while taking every one of those stabs.

YOU may deem yourself justified to continue but the law deems you not justfied and thats where you will stand if it ever happens to you.

Two real world examples are given with similair circumstances and very different actions on the victims part have produced charges in one and a no bill on the other.

The person who can not control his emotions, gets angry and vents that anger on an attacker after they [ the attacker] has stopped their aggression toward you will be spending a lot of money on attys: and may regret their actions later while contemplating them in a cell.

To stab someone other than one who fell on your knife takes action on your part. You are moving the hand toward the attacker. As long as he is attacking , [that may not be the best posture to take with a knife but would be valid] reaching out and stabbing him with the knife is a reflexive defense. Your reaction was meant to counter his action of aggression. He stops his attack and you stab him again- you have now [ by stabbing again ]
broken the law and may pay the consequences of those actions if the facts are supported by witnesses and/or forensic evidence. Hence the reason the cops/DA and courts will look heavily at your actions if there are multiple stab wounds.

Oh ya, a few more things. I don't drink. I have been a professional researcher since 1977 as a PI in my own business. Consequently I know how much effort it would take to research on your request properly. As a paid professional I'll be able to determine if your research is valid and has merit to discuss further on your expected reply about your findings.

Brownie

[JShirley]

The best defense is a good offense.

There are a limited number of ways to stop a machine:

Electrical failure
Hydraulic failure
Structural failure

Hydraulic will take the longest, and it can take a lifetime of cold sweat to wait for your attacker to bleed out to unconsciousness.

I'll wait for the trial to make my judgements, but from what I've heard, I wouldn't be prosecuting, were I the DA.

John

[ahenry]

You crack me up Brownie. You come to the board and post a somewhat radical belief (that multiple stab wounds in a self-defense scenario will land you in the slammer, all else being equal) then get all bent out of shape when you are asked to present some credible proof supporting your hypothesis. I’m not asking you to do a nation wide study incorporating all case law and provide us with the resulting statistics. I’m asking for something incredibly simple, and I know it is simple because I have done it, just give us a few cases supporting your view. There are more than a few websites available that provide cases from across the nation and that are searchable and readable. Peruse them and provide us something more than “I think”.

Lets see, who better to know cases and trials than the cops testifying in them and involved professionally with them. They sure wouldn't have any idea about how the courts look and rule on such matter would they? Police are often the absolute worst resources for understanding the law. Nothing against them at all, that primarily comes from dealing with true scum day in and day out. As you yourself have said on more than one occasion on this board and others, officers often are not aware of all the law. If I’m not mistaken you even recommend carrying a pocket copy of the pertinent potions of the law for ready reference if so needed.

You stated "I’ve researched the issue and come to a conclusion that I think is more than reasonable" Though you did not state how you performed your research in the above line, or what the research criteria was when you started, what the objectives were, etc. please take the opportunity to show the forum just what that research entailed and how extensive a database you limited your research to. The burden of proof is with you my friend. I did not post a thread asserting a somewhat controversial perspective on knife use in a self-defense situation, you did. I merely asked you to provide the factual backing to your assertion. We are still waiting by the way.

If you already have the data through the proper research that counters what I have said I'm willing to listen on the condition that your research is deeemed valid through statistical analysis and state and case numbers which can be verified, otherwise I would still be interested in how you performed the research whether it is deeemed valid or not. While I appreciate your attempt to discredit what I have found before I even provide it, as I said before, the burden of proof is on you. I would very much recommend you avail yourself of the myriad of legal resources readily available to all. As I said before, I’m not asking you to compile vast sources of data all reduced to something some sort of statistical analysis can be readily made against. Just provide some credible court cases that support your assertion.

You appear through your comments to have issues with police officers for some reason that has not been brought to the forefront here on this forum. Absolutely not. There are at least four members of this board (that were on TFL as well) that could verify my great liking for law enforcement personnel. Rather than drag them into anything, I’ll just send you a PM.

I feel no need to have to prove anything to you and you are more than welcome to walk the streets thinking you can stab someone multiple times in a defensive situation against two or one. You are correct sir, I am welcome to my own view of how to defend myself. I appreciate your recognition of that fact. I did not solicit your advice on what my tactics need to be in a self-defense situation. I only asked (repeatedly) for you to back up your hypothesis. As yet you seem unable to do so. I must confess that this does not make me more inclined to believe you have a solid handle on the situation. I may well be wrong, but you haven’t done much to show me that I am.

A man in control of his emotions and some training as in tna55's kids defensive play against two asailants recently vs the title thread we are discussing here and the two different outcomes has lessons if you look closely. I do believe that the Harvard kid would be in jeopardy of prosecution regardless of the number of stab wounds his assailants received. Versus tna55’s kid who would most likely not be in jeopardy of prosecution even if he had stabbed his assailant several times (at least given the very small description of events we have available).

You may stab someone in a fight who is rushing you and halt the attack or kill him in seconds. If you continue to stab someone you have then taken the offensive. If he halts the attack you are required by law to stop yourself And if he doesn’t die or halt in seconds and you continue to stab you somehow “become the aggressor” (your assertion since the start of this thread)? I must disagree. Have you shown us yet that this individual continued to stab his assailant after his assailant stopped the attack? Nope, you sure haven’t.

If the attacker has backed away from you [retreating] after being stabbed upon his initial contact and you move forward and continue stabbing him you would be arrested when witnesses gave their statements about what you did. Have you shown that this is what happened, that the attacker backed off after the first stab wound? Have I suggested you can chase after the person stabbing as you pursue? No, to both questions. I even provided a “hypothetical” situation where the attacker continues to attack and the defender is forced to continue to stab.

The moment he stops the attack self defense is not a valid defense to continuing to stab him multiple times. When did the attacker stop attacking? Come on Brownie, you can’t just assume because a person got stabbed once the perp disengaged. As I said in my first post here, I figured you had some inside information, do you? Otherwise you’re basing you view of required action on a situation that you don’t really know what transpired and could well have been fully justified.

To be a valid defense where you stabbed him multiple times it would have to be demonstrated that the attacker continued to attack you and did not desist [spelling?] in his aggression toward you while taking every one of those stabs. That is what I have been saying from my very first posts. Go back and read them. Read my “hypothetical” situation. Tell me that I haven’t been saying this from the beginning.

Your reaction was meant to counter his action of aggression. He stops his attack and you stab him again Shesh! Show us that this is what transpired. Its all I’ve been asking for umpteen posts now. :rolleyes:

[brownie0486]

My views and experience with the courts in Mass. are not radical at all. They are based on the law.

I was speaking gernerally and not about the Harvard kid situation when reiterating the law as to when you are required to stop defending in general after the attacker has ceased his/her aggressivieness toward you.

Where's your research data? You didn't support your hypothesis when the datas has been compiled according to a previous tread.

Burden of proof on me? Only if you say so I guess. I am not surprised you didn't supply the forum here with your findings though. You would not be just addressing these findings through yoru research to me but to the forum as a whole which my just help one of them in a future situation they may find themselves in.

What effort to discredit what you have found? I find it interesting that you haven't supplied your research to the forum for scrutiny by others. Nothing could be discredited until it is presented [which you conspicuously have not done to date after telling us you have research data]. One is not capable of discreditiing until the supposed data is available for review.

My impression is that you would have presented the data to refute anything I may have said if you actually had any data to present us with. I actually sent you an open invitation to produce the data which you haven't done. One thing to say you have it and quite another for you to present it ot the forum members for their review.

Your beliefs about the Harvard kid and his being charged regardless of the circumstances certainly pulls a lot of weight here with the DA's and police I'm sure but then beliefs are not facts of the case. And inversely, the other kid who did well not being charged even if he had acted like the Harvard kid based on his geographical location? Where the crimes occured has a small bearing on the law and how it's interpreted.

Back up my hypothesis? What hypothesis is that? I wasn't aware I was hypothesizing here. If you'll reread the postings and not interpret and attempt to put words in my mouth you would be able to recognize that I did not say "that multiple stab wounds in a self-defense scenario will land you in the slammer, all else being equal"

I have explained quite well how a self defense scenario works in the court system. You interpretaion of the law and what should be right [morally or legally] isn't sound and certainly not based in facts but your own interpretation [ possibly through your research result I'm sure ].

Officers know basically the types of cases they work on regularly. They are not lawyers so are not expected to know the law with the exception of when they are involved in a case, but they do see how the courts deal with various scenarios and the outcomes of these trial they are involved in first hand.

Your request to research is complicated at best. I believe unless you have personally researched for the last 30 years on various cases as I have that you may not quite have a handle on the work involved in gathering the data to support either position.

That begs the question of how your own research and subsequent results/findings will hold up here. If you think it was easy to research these facts you are better at it than I am and must have an extensive background to provide us here as I have.

My background is here for any and all to readily see. It should pretty much speak for itself. I am not sure I have ever seen anything about your professional experiences on the streets or for that matter your background which could possibly give your voice more weight through similiar years of experience with these issues. Can you expound further so we may know your background as well?

What you believe I said [ radical belief ] is your own interpretation of my postings relative what is and isn't allowed in a defensive situation. Again, I never said multiple stab wounds would get you charged. I stated what the law considers self defense and when you are no longer deemed the defender and become the aggressor [ as written in the law ].

Two classic real world recent examples with different results have been presented. These are not hypothetical but recent situations from two different geographical locations in the US.

You comments about the Harvard grad who in your opinion would have been charged anyway, no matter what the facts show later, goes a long way to uncovering your subjective views about geographical locations and possible prejudices as well. If you can not stay objective you won't appear credible. Some of your comments/views seem very subjective in the way they are presented and not based on written law.

I have explained how stabbing someone is offense in nature and why. You apparently have issues with whether the act of stabbing someone is aggression/offensive in nature. The facts are the Harvard kid stabbed the attacker 5 times. That may or may not have been justified but it will up to his atty: to prove it was necessary to stab the guy multiple times which will be difficult at best.

Then we have the other kid who was not charged [ but according to your views he would not have been charged due to his location? and not his actions? ]. Charges are files based on the facts as known at the time of investigation and have nothing to do with location or state in which it ocurred.

I don't believe you will post your research findings here at this time to support your stated position. I would still be interested in seeing the data from your research and as well, how it was obtained along with the results to support your views. After all you already have the data put together right? Why not share it with us and show the world that your views are not based on what you think is right [morally or legally ] but in youir research of same.

If you found the research was easy as stated I would question the data presented as I do know something about research having done much in that area over the last 30 years. It would not be easy [ to be thorough ] for me so you must be at a higher plane in this venue and have an extensive background in data retrieval from reliable/credible sources.

As well, he [ the harvard kid ] will probably be found guilty of some charges as he was under the influence of alcohol [entered into facts already and not disputed ].

The facts of the case won't be known until trial so I can not provide you your request in that area as well, nor can anyone as that is to be determined by evidence from both sides and the juries determination of the facts. If you were familiar with how the court system works you would know this.

I can't dicredit or give credit until I hear, see the data you present from your stateed research. Why you would ask for me to produce what you already have done and then not post the data for everyone to see bolstering your own position is a mystery right now. Can you assist in solving this for the forum members?

Brownie

[brownie0486]

JShirley:

The Harvard boy had been drinking at a bar before the altercation. Would that change your view as he was impaired in his judgement and cause death?

The defendant says one thing the remaining perp from the car says another. Which are you to believe without charges filed so that a court and jury may determine the facts and sentence or no sentencing accordingly.


Brownie

[ahenry]

Since our “point and counter point” posts are getting pretty long, I am going to try and boil yours down to succinct comments I can respond to. If I miss something please feel free to let me know.

1) I disagree with your point and have supplied no research data to back up my disagreement.

2) I said I did the research yet have not supplied the data.

3) You have no need to supply proof to your assertions; your experience should be sufficient proof of the accuracy of your claim.

4) My interpretation of the two self-defense situation (Harvard student and Glocktalk) is incorrect. IOW, they are identical situations (except for the number of stab wounds), yet one resulted in a criminal charge and one did not.

5) Actually doing real research on this issue is too difficult and time consuming, so you don’t want to do it.

6) I am “misinterpreting” your comments. It is not your view that multiple stabbings will result in prosecution, all else being equal. Rather you have said that multiple stabbings will move you from the position of defender to that of aggressor.

7) I just don’t know what I’m talking about. ;)

Did that get everything?

1) I disagree with your point and have supplied no research data to back up my disagreement. Yes, I disagree with your point, and I do not plan on providing research data to substantiate my view. I didn’t start a thread entitled, “stab somebody all you want, you’ll never go to court for it”. Rather you posted a thread stating that multiple stabbings equates to an escalation of force (see title). My requests for something to back that up have been numerous. My challenge is rather simple: You present a belief, so far the extent of your proof of validity of that belief is a newspaper article and your extensive experience as a LEO, civilian, researcher, and PI. I don’t wish to cast a pallor on your experience, I am sure it is more than most of us here, I merely ask you to provide something more than your “expert opinion” (even though I am sure it is an “expert opinion).

2) I said I did the research yet have not supplied the data. I don’t plan on providing any data (for a couple of reasons). The most important one being my research was done for my use only. It was based on my locality, and my laws. It was informal and was not done as an extensive study, but only as an aid to myself for my own self-defense decisions. It incorporates personal views on self-defense and laws, I have no wish to try and convince others to make the same decisions I have. The purpose of it was merely an aid to me in my decision making. You should note, that I have not tried to convince others that they should or should not do something, whereas you have.

3) You have no need to supply proof to your assertions; your experience should be sufficient proof of the accuracy of your claim. We all know your knowledge is extensive, but even the most expert of people can make mistakes. I admit I am playing a real devils advocate here, but the request for you to show us more than your “expert testimony” is not unreasonable. Perhaps if you do not wish to compile (or even start to gather) such data, a simple “this is based solely on my personal experience, take it as you will” type of comment would serve you well.

4) My interpretation of the two self-defense situation (Harvard student and Glocktalk) is incorrect. IOW, they are identical situations (except for the number of stab wounds), yet one resulted in a criminal charge and one did not. Very possible. But then, how exactly is it that you know your interpretation is correct? As far as I am able to tell, neither one of us have more than a tiny amount of information here. In my opinion, neither of these instances support either of our views. I personally would be leery of basing my belief on either one of these instances. Again, this leads me to my request for you to give us something more substantial to back your claims. I mean no disrespect, but you’ll forgive me when I say that I (and many others here as well) appreciate more than somebody’s opinion on how all self-defense situation will be interpreted by other people.

5) Actually doing real research on this issue is too difficult and time consuming, so you don’t want to do it. Extensive and exhaustive research certainly would be. Again, I’m not asking for that. I merely ask you to show is something, and at this stage of the game just one court case backing your assertion would be an impressive divergence from your proof so far.

6) I am “misinterpreting” your comments. It is not your view that multiple stabbings will result in prosecution, all else being equal. Rather you have said that multiple stabbings will move you from the position of defender to that of aggressor. I apologize for misinterpreting you. I did my best to understand what it was your were saying, and apparently came to the wrong conclusion. However, my overall point remains. Multiple stabbings do not necessarily make you the aggressor (or necessarily result in prosecution), and I would appreciate your providing something to backup your assertion that it does.

7) I just don’t know what I’m talking about. Always a possibility but then, I’m not the one trying to tell other people how to defend themselves. Especially in a way that might (as you believe) put the defender on more solid legal footing, yet leave them on more shaky ground in surviving the self-defense situation.

[brownie0486]

From your own statements the database you used would not be valid except in your locale [maybe].

Yes, to do this research correctly requires a time consuming effort and reading too many case files through all the transcripts. Thats what it would take to be a valid database of research.

Research data is objective and doesn't support ones views, if valid, it only provides facts.

There was an escalation of force scenario in Cambridge and thats why he has been charged. I didn't deem it so, the cops and DA have. In the final anaysis we may have a guilty verdict as his being intoxicated doesn't bode well for the defense team to prove self defense as clearly his decision making would have been altered by the booze to some degree.

My view is that multiple stabbing wounds will bring a closer scrutiny of ones actions by the LE community and the DA's office. They go on experience with other cases before that shows in these situations the attacked may have overstepped his defensive rights and turned offensive in nature thereby possibly precluding his self defense claims [even if they were justified to begin with ].

In this case from Cambridge they have enough information initially to charge him with murder. That may be from witnesses or a combination of other sources and even statements he may have made at the scene.

If they had info that showed he was continuously attacked again and again after numerous stabbings they would not have charged him in all liklihood [ though I know your geaographic specifics may not be in line with this thought process ].

If your research validates your views you should provide the rest of us with that data so we are better informed. We would owe you much for providing any data in this regard. Even if it is geograhically specific to your area, there may be others here from your area.

I am not atempting to convince you or anyone of my views one way or the other. I am relating the experience I have through court proceedings having worked for defense attys: for over 30 years as well as being at the same time for 9 years. After that much time you do get a feel for the flavor the courts take on certain actions by others and can certainly predict the direction the courts will take based on their initial information provided by the DA's.

I'll admit readily when I have made mistakes in all areas of life [we all make them, and I have certainly had my share], but I am not citing opinions, I'm citing facts of the two cases brought to the forefront in this thread.

The facts are the Harvard kid is charged by stabbing repeatedly into another which initially started as probable self defense on his part but then turned to something else based on his probable continuation after he was not allowed to do so by law. Hence the charges.

The other sceanrio is where the kid also got his knife on the attacker and made cuts at least twice but was deemed a clearly self defense situation and was not charged.

If you stab someone numerous times whether you are vindicated or not later you will likely be charged with few exceptions [especially after the witnesses come forward and recount your actions after the perp ceased his aggression toword you.

Stabbing someone requires an effort on your part to move toward the attacker. As long as he is continuing his aggression, fine, but when he stops if you reach out to stab again you have become the attacker.

Being cognizent of these facts of law and keeping a clear head will keep you on the correct side of the bars.

No two sceanrios are identical in all aspects. These two are in the fact that it was two on one, the one had a knife and defended initially woth the knife.

From there we see differences including the outcomes. One arrested and spending big bucks to defend and the other going home to have dinner.

Neither probably has any extensive training in defensive knife tactics but the kid with a few techniques from his dad prevailed, didn't kill anyone in the process and acted strictly ion self defense. Thats why he was allowed to go home and have dinner.

The Harvard boy killed another human being. He will now have to prove to many that his actions were justified to continue to stab the man that many times. These defenses do not go well for the defendant as a rule with laypeople who can never imagine being stabbed that many times unles they were being attacked. These are the same people who will judge your own actions. His actions are eemed aggressive and possibly excessive in anture and so he will be given the opportunity to prove his case at great expense.

You take your chances on the streets based on your views which are based on some research performed which is extremely limited in scope, and I'll continue to train in defensive tactics which negates the justice systems biased to prosecute about everyone for anything.

Err on the side of caution. You may not be charged if you rush in and stab someone for any reason multiple times but those are not the odds I look for. I want better odds through training and strictly defensive techniques that work and are clearly defensive in form. We see one of the techniques I have taught for years which is purely defensive has now actually been employed and so the technique has been validated by a real world event in our lifetime.

I think if I have a choice I will not cause actions which are questionable and get me arrested until a jury decides. Costs too much money and time, and then even more time if you are not exonerated.

Too bad you won't provide the research, I'd really like to see it.

Brownie

[ahenry]

Yes, to do this research correctly requires a time consuming effort and reading too many case files through all the transcripts. Thats what it would take to be a valid database of research. Please pay attention, I have said this many times but I’ll try one more time to get it through to you. Please show us one instance that supports your assertion (although I must confess that it has bounced around so much in the course of this thread that I’m hard pressed to even know what it is anymore). No need for exhaustive research, just one credible court case would be nice for us to read. So far you appear to be basing everything on your opinion and some newspaper articles of a situation that would probably not be deemed self-defense even if he did use “defensive knife techniques”.

There was an escalation of force scenario in Cambridge and thats why he has been charged. Or just as probable, there was an altercation started by the man that is now charged, which ended up with him killing a person. Moreover, the possibility that he was drunk and perhaps even that there was no other individual involved in the altercation is surely a factor in the DA’s choice to prosecute. Such a situation can easily get one charged with murder no matter how “defensive” the knife tactics are.

My view is that multiple stabbing wounds will bring a closer scrutiny of ones actions by the LE community and the DA's office. That is not what you started out saying my friend. Had you started with this, I doubt any of us would have disagreed. Rather you started out with the assertion that, “This was clearly self defense until he stabbed the perp numerous times in the chest, thereby becoming the attacker.” Followed by, “Thats the one of the main reasons he is under arrest. He became the aggressor and will be hard pressed to deliver any reasoning behind having to stab the perp that many times.” These statements are a far cry from “such and such actions will result in a closer scrutiny of your actions by the police and the DA”. I think many here would agree with the latter view but not the former, myself included.

If they had info that showed he was continuously attacked again and again after numerous stabbings they would not have charged him in all liklihood Not necessarily. As you yourself have said of Massachusetts DA’s, they go after self-defense situations rather aggressively. Can you show us all here, how you know for a fact that these multiple stab wounds were not self-defense in nature? As I have said before and you have agreed, it is possible for multiple stab wounds to be inflicted in a genuine self-defense situation. How do you know such was not the case this time?

If your research validates your views you should provide the rest of us with that data so we are better informed. We would owe you much for providing any data in this regard. Even if it is geograhically specific to your area, there may be others here from your area. If I feel like trying to convince others of something you can rest assured that I will provide more than ample information to back up my assertion. I’m still waiting for you to do so. Why won’t you even make the attempt to? Is it possible that there isn’t such evidence to support your assertion?

I'm citing facts of the two cases brought to the forefront in this thread. Actually you’re citing newspaper articles and drawing conclusions from them, and we all know the news is never wrong. :rolleyes: Additionally you’re changing your conclusions from post to post (from first post, “This was clearly self defense until he stabbed the perp numerous times in the chest, thereby becoming the attacker.” To last post, “My view is that multiple stabbing wounds will bring a closer scrutiny of ones actions by the LE community and the DA's office.”).

The facts are the Harvard kid is charged by stabbing repeatedly into another which initially started as probable self defense on his part but then turned to something else based on his probable continuation after he was not allowed to do so by law. Now, here you go again jumping to conclusions that the “facts” don’t support. Do you have information from the DA or the police that say that this man would not have been charged if the deceased had only been stabbed one time? Cause short of that inside information, there is no way you can accurately draw the conclusion you did based on the information provided. There is more than ample implication of wrong doing on the part of the defendant to suggest that he could have been charged with crime regardless of the number of stab wounds.

The other sceanrio is where the kid also got his knife on the attacker and made cuts at least twice but was deemed a clearly self defense situation and was not charged. Again, you can’t draw that conclusion from the information provided. Man, for somebody that has experience with court proceedings and worked with defense attorney’s for “over 30 years”, you seem to jump to a lot of conclusions that the available information doesn’t support.

If you stab someone numerous times whether you are vindicated or not later you will likely be charged with few exceptions [especially after the witnesses come forward and recount your actions after the perp ceased his aggression toword you. Finally! You say something that makes sense. If you notice, from the beginning I have said that multiple stab wounds do not in and of themselves, mean a person became the aggressor. You even agreed that there could be situations in which a perp would justifiably be stabbed more than once. If you would have just said this in the first place you wouldn’t have had people disagreeing with you (and you should note that more than just myself have disagreed with you).

The Harvard boy killed another human being. He will now have to prove to many that his actions were justified to continue to stab the man that many times. Since you have such vast and all-encompassing experience with the court system I want to ask you something. Be honest now, if everything thing else happened exactly the same, but the Harvard boy only stabbed the other person one time and that one stab killed the guy, would he have been charged with murder? Keep in mind how you have portrayed Massachusetts DA’s in the past. I think the chance is more than substantial that he would still be in the exact same situation he is in now.

Err on the side of caution. Absolutely. Either one of these guys could have left the scene. Because neither of them did one is dead and the other might be found guilty of murder (and might very well be).

Too bad you won't provide the research, I'd really like to see it. Soon as you show me yours and I’ll show you mine. Why do I think that ain’t gonna happen?

[Don Gwinn]

Gettin' kinda deep in here, boys. Keep it polite, please.

[brownie0486]

As the moderator has asked to keep it polite I'll say this to your last post.

One instance you want from me would require the time invested to locate it. You may only want one but the research is necessary in time to meet the request as I have stated before. It requires the same time to find the fisrt one whether you continue on with the research or not after that. Your one instance request still will be time consuming as much so as if you were starting with the intent to find many. No shorter to find the first one at any rate which leads me to believe you don't know much about research.

Yes, we may learn the man started it after all when the facts are known to the courts. And yes, if he had stabbed him once when he was initially attacked the scenario of charges would be at least somewhat different to the courts and his self defense would have a stronger case for such.

My view and commments on multiple stabbing situations bringing more scrutiny of ones actions was not related to this specific case. It was an overall view and correct for the reasons I have stated before.

Ma. DA's make you prove the self defense plea. They don't take much for granted unless clearly cut and dry. Thats just the way the state operates here. If you have stabbed someone numerous times your defense of your actions will be harder to convince a jury that they were ALL necessary and in self defense.

If the evidence in the Harvard case was clearly self-defense based on their information at the scene initially through witnesses he would have been charged with the lesser crime of manslaughter and or wrongfull death. As he was charged with murder the evidence obviously did not support in totality his self defense claim. His drinking has been established by his own statements at the time of arrest [as reported to the public]

Again I'm not trying to convince anyone here as well. I'm stating positions you may be involved with that can hurt you if you are involved in a situation where you stab someone numerous times.

A conclusion can certainly be drawn on the other kids case as he was not charged with a crime. The evidence supported his self defense claim. It has been concluded by the authorities and there are no charges. Conclusions certainly can and should be drawn based on a no bill finding that he violated no laws of that state.

As reported it started as self defense and turned to something else as he was charged in Cambridge with murder. Don't need evidence that he would not have been charged with one stab and not multiples as the other circumstances leading to the death are whats relevant to the charges. His defense would be stronger had he only stabbed him once however. He has a hard road to travel convincing 12 he needed to stab him 5 times. He probably would not have been charged with murder with one stab in defense of his person. He would have in all liklihood been charged with manslaughter [ a lessor charge ] and easier to convince 12 it was self defense.

The available info supports the other kid was clearly in a self defense situation and acted prudently in his defense[ no charges]. Otherwise he would have been charged with something.

Of course there could be a situation that warrants 5 stabs in your own defense resulting in death, but you had better have some mighty good witnesses who clearly can articulate at the scene how that perp kept on coming at you after taking that many chest shots everytime he came within range.

It isn't going to happen that I do any research that requires many hours and funds to acquire same. You are right about that.

Here is what I suggest, you go on thinking you can stab someone multiple times and not be charged claiming self defense. I'll continue to train in defensive tactics that negate me having to stab someone that many times to survive and can clearly demonstrate just how he was cutting himself when he reached in with intent to harm me [ like the kid whose father showed him the technique ].

That kid did it right [he wasn't charged], the Harvard kid can't say the same thing and about now I would guess he would agree as he has lots of time to think about his actions.

Lessons come hard to many and others never learn.

I know what I know through 30+ years dealing with criminal and civil investigations in the Comm. of Ma. And you know what you know through something not yet determined.

It's apparent we can go round and round on this forever and get nowhere fast so I'll ask the moderator to close the thread.

Brownie

[brownie0486]

Update:

I have had private conversation with AHenry and I wanted to let the forum know that I now believe he does not have issues with the law enforcement community.

Though it may appear the two of us are antagonistic towards each on this forum, I want to let you folks know he himself is a professional and likes playing devils advocate.;)

Brownie

[Navy joe]

Here's another interesting incident from my locale. A locale known for being pretty self defense friendly and not very liberal at all. No coincidence, the VaBch area shakes out as one of the safest large metro areas, even w/ all us wild sailors. This case is a good stabbing in my book, in the judge's book it was worth at least a truncated prison sentence.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=52939&ran=194454

Norfolk woman is sentenced in husband's killing
By MICHELLE WASHINGTON, The Virginian-Pilot
© April 18, 2003
Last updated 9:44 PM Apr. 17

NORFOLK -- Savina Ashby grabbed the knife to make her husband stop hitting her that day in September.
It had worked before.

But on Sept. 27, Ashby said in court Thursday, her husband punched her until she plunged the knife into his heart.

She pleaded guilty in February to voluntary manslaughter in Anthony Ashby's death. At her sentencing hearing Thursday, she told a judge that the fight started when her husband struck her 13-year-old sister's foot and made it bleed.

That made the fight different from others.

``Usually it's just me and him,'' she said. ``Not usually the kids.''

Ashby's four young children also were in their apartment in East Ocean View. ``He wasn't going to hit her in front of her children,'' according to a police statement in court records.

Ashby said her husband smashed her head into a wall and threw a package of frozen bologna at her. She threw it back, then splashed a cleaning solution in his face.

``I was scared. I was tired of getting hit,'' she said through tears in court. ``I wanted him to stop hitting me. I picked up a knife to scare him away.''

In her statement, Ashby said she intended to ``poke'' her husband with the knife. Prosecutor James Felte said that poke pushed the knife past Anthony Ashby's rib cage. Ashby died eight days later. He was 25 and had been married to 28-year-old Savina Ashby for three years.

``I would rather it have been me than him,'' she said Thursday. ``I wonder if I'm going to wake up from all of this, and he's going to be there.''

Felte painted a different picture of lovers who often fought after drinking together. Savina Ashby had fixed them both glasses of Senator's Club whiskey with Pepsi that night, Felte said. In a report to a court officer, Felte asked, ``Hadn't she said she got drunk nearly every weekend? Hadn't she previously stabbed her husband?''

She said her husband once filed assault charges when she tried to stop him from driving while drunk. She had stabbed his hand during another fight, she said.

The killing was the culmination of a history of domestic violence and alcohol abuse, Felte said.

``It was a tragic situation,'' Felte told the court. ``But it was no accident.''

Karl Doss, Ashby's public defender, said she has worked to better herself in jail by taking classes to improve her self-esteem. She works with a jail pastor, who wrote a letter to the court in which he called her a leader. She also wants to take college classes to become a domestic-violence counselor after her release.

Doss asked Circuit Judge Joseph A. Leafe to suspend prison time and release Ashby on probation.

``The court commends you for the efforts you appear to be making to get your life back on track,'' Leafe said. But, he added, taking a life has consequences.

Leafe sentenced Ashby to eight years in prison. He suspended five years and 10 months of the time. Ashby must serve two years and two months and undergo substance-abuse and anger-management classes.

Ashby's children, ages 6 through 10, now stay with her mother.

[Sir Galahad]

Having had the joy of living in a couple neighborhood where being out after dark is a very bad idea, I've witnessed a number of knife fights. First off, if you think a couple pokes is going to stop a guy, you better think again. If you think a slah or two will stop anyone but some skinny-butt part-time tweeker, you better think again. If you think a drunk man can't take a stab wound to the chest and go on to smack your head on the curb until you die, you better think again. Training? I got the best training in the world. I got to see real people trying to kill each other a number of times. I learned from their mistakes. It is a mistake to deploy a knife unless you're going to use it right off the get go. It is a mistake to think you can do a couple less-lethal slashes to get a guy to change his mind. It is a mistake to enter a knife fight without the inention of fighting to win and kill your opponent. It is a mistake to think you can employ some classroom training of knife fighting while butt-covering to save butt legally on a street where dirty tricks and no quarter is the rule. If you try to save-butt with the DA in a knife fight, you will lose. If you try not to kill your opponent, you will lose. If you are not prepared to do what is necessary to save your life, to include stabbing a guy in the frickin' eyes if you have the chance to, you are not going to survive. Say what you want, but I've seen it plenty of times. Guys that balked rode away in ambulances that didn't have sirens on. Guys that won got arrested or just got away and no one saw anything if you know what I mean. Another thing. A slash is great if the intent is to disembowel the guy. But a slash at a hand is a way for you to miss and the guy to grab your wrist. Nice going. A slash is to kill or severely wound by loss of blood. Not defend. Forget "defend"! You're in this to live and that means you have to win. To win, you must kill or wound the guy so bad, he CANNOT do anything but lay there and bleed to death. This is not a gun where you can stand a little back and pop the guy. You have to get close and getting close means he's close. Telling people there is some "magic number" to the amount of times they can stab a guy in a knife fight might sound good in class. But I will guar-un-darn-T you that no baddie on the street is going to are how many times he stabs you. The question is, are you willing to ante in to this game or not? You might have to stab a guy several times to get him off you. Seen it myself.

I also think things have come to a pretty-pass if a man has to have "training" as some sort of legal firewall in case he uses a knife n self-defense. I don't doubt the value of training, but some of the best is training you don't pay for with cash.

[brownie0486]

Sir Galahad:

Couple of points for you.

Street thugs rarely have any formal training in defensive knife.

The best trainign in the world is not watching others participate in a deadly encounter. What you saw were street thugs.

A trained knife fighter would not be making the mistakes these fellows make on the street though that isn't to say I won't be cut in a fight with knives, I won't be reaching into their zone until they have opened themselves up for it.

Rememeber I'm only defending in self defense. We actually teach the mistakes you mention you see them make on the street and students learn not to reach into the others zone or reach out to "block" an attack either with or without their knife as it opens them up. This takes some much practice as the tendancy is to keep their blade away from you instinctively. That will get you killed.

You didn't mention whether you had any formal instruction yourself or whether your experience is just watching others involved who would be at the bottom of the food chain to a trained professional.

Kinda like a babe ruth baseball player in high school vs. an Americam league professional. They use the same equipment but one won't make the mistakes of the other and if they are made they are reduced in number considerably.

Or like a banger on the street with a gun who has not training or practice in defending properly with that tool.

I've seen bangers shoot until empty and hit nothing at contact distance. A competant shooter won't be prone to the same tactics nor miss quite so often through training and practice.

In the deep south in the mid 1800's everyone carrried a Bowie knife. Schools were established to train people how to use them effectively. The ones who carried them with no training and practice usually didn't survive the duels of the day.

Speaks volumes about trainign and understanding the weaknesses and strengths and when to utilize them and when to wait. The bangers don't have that luxury.

Brownie

[JShirley]

I agree with almost everything Sir Galahad said, though I would probably say It is a mistake to enter a knife fight without the inention of fighting to win , and leave it at that. Much like "shooting to stop" vs. "shooting to kill", we know that a dead perp cannot continue physically attacking you, the righteous and peaceloving defender. We will still most assuredly tell the police and everyone else thereafter and prior that our goal was to stop the attack.

brownie, it has been postulated that there are few "trained knife fighters", but quite a few decent knifers. A knife is not what one brings to stop a knife attack, but rather either an offensive close-range weapon for experts, or a tool pressed into service as an expedient weapon. One should *never* use a knife to defend when one has defensive options that will let you defend outside knifing distance. Sticks, chairs, anything not bolted down and light enough to be thrown, you name it, should you be caught without your firepower. Don't close that distance with a knife in your hand unless you are prepared to act decisively, and you have little other choice, if you want to live, or at least die on your feet.

John

[brownie0486]

Ah Yes, Unconventional weapons
They are always in the mix.

You do not close on a knife regardless of what you know.

We don't want people to think a knife is an offensive weapon. It's a tool pressed into service. If the anti's got ahold of that all folders [ knives ]would be banned from carry.

If you discount the dojo knife training which for the most part is where people get any knife instruction at all, there are few [ civilians] trained outside the special units of the US military. They get their instruction and training from real world people as they deal in a real world environment affording them access to the best techniques.

Outside that group and the folks who have specific training from these same people and a few others in the country, very few have the knowledge necessary to use one effectively while minimizing or negating the injuries suffered by themselves.

Most won't commit the amount of practice necessary to stay "timed" in an altercation with knives. Distance and timing between players as well as good techniques cuts the risk.

As well as your point on the three things that will eventually stop the attack, add the most important, which is "change his thought process".
The attack doesn't stop until your three unless you redirect his thought process which stops the attack immediately. Get them off their game plan.

Brownie

[Sir Galahad]

Brownie, you know, you were also on here saying there is basically some magic number to the number of times you can stab a person. Not trying to be didactic, and perhaps you were referring to an unarmed person being stabbed. But a common thing to do is underestimate an opponant. Being as you were not at the scenes of the fights and I was, you cannot safely assess what went down. You assumed what happened or what the training level was. And, you underestimated the level of those people. Being trained doesn't mean you will remember that training when the chips are down. Training cannot inculcate falling back on that training when you are actually in fear of your life. Until you've been in a few knife scraps, your training is what you're hoping will work against someone who may have already used a blade once or twice and already drawn blood. I agree that defensive training is good. But it is not the last word in knife fighting, either. The liberals already consider knives to be offensive weapons, by the way. That's why carrying a fixed blade concealed is a felony in many states and why some states forbid double-edged knives,butterfly knives, and autos.

[brownie0486]

I don't believe I said it was the last word [training] but without it you don't stand much chance against a knife. Even with the proper training you stand good chances of getting nailed, you just cut the risk of same.

I never said there was a magic number [ thats your assessment], just that there will be a number where the courts will scrutinize more closely your self defense claims and that people need to be cognizant of that fact whether they like it or not.

Training in defense of ones person with a knife is no different than training with a firearm in theory. The ones who take the time to develop say "swat skills and house clearings" and practice these and other advanced skills sets techniques using a pistol/SMG have a higher success rate of survival than a regular line officer when performing those tasks. No different with any high level training, if you are diligent in continuing to keep the skills level at optimum performance.

Having worked 30 years undercover and in covert ops and having combat experience with the US military and other paramilitary orgs from different locales in far away places I don't speak from a training view but from real world as well. I wasn't there to watch others, but to perform functions others find distasteful for the most part, giving me a perspective others don't have. The training does get you through these "events". Others less so usually were shipped home in BB's.

I don't underestimate the oppponent. If the opponent is a gang banger smoking crack all day or any of the other great sports they enjoy they are unlikely to have a level of skill that will match a formally trained knifer. Working the streets and training for 30 years does give one persepctive/experience/background not enjoyed by the masses. This doesn't preclude you getting your a## handed to you by an unknown with no skills however, as you mention. Have seen that also and it was determined our guy did in fact underestimate him and paid a high price for that attitude.

With knives it is not only technique but the developed timing and ability to wait for the opponent to make a mistake. These aren't learned on the streets, per se.

If you were under the impression I was speaking from some cerebral level and not a participant in real world events your assumptions were inaccurate which is understandable. I would agree that the people who only instruct others with no real world experiences combatively are suspect. I usually find these types in dojo's. BTW-I am in the dojo's to give students defensive knife tactics they don't get otherwise from that venue. I have never been a martial artist.

Brownie

[Sir Galahad]

Understood.:D

[banditele]

glad i am not in that guys shoes

[Byron Quick]

The main thing I've learned from this thread is something I already knew: don't go to the People's Republics,i.e, Massachussetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, California, etc.

Boy was stupid for not retreating. If he had, and had been followed and did this, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Penforhire]

Brownie, I appreciate your bringing us this thread and others in its vein.

I remain concerned about the primary issue, to me: if I was assaulted by two adult males I would not consider the presentation and use of my folder to be escalation, merely proper defense. Yes, I can see how multiple stabs might cause me some legal grief unless I can prove how he kept coming. But to employ lethal force seems reasonable in the foreknowledge that a beating can be fatal and I WOULD be in fear for my life.

If that is not true then I guess I'm a furture perp waiting to happen.

[Anthony]

He never would have been charged down here in Texas.

- Anthony

[brownie0486]

Read the article Keating wrote a few threads down form this at the moment offered by HSO.

Thanks HSO, I suppose you have figured out I share the same views as Jim.

Brownie

[hso]

Yep

Had a knife pulled on me, been jabbed with a screwdriver, had a MUCH larger guy grab me by the throat in a 2 to 1 situation, had a 4 to 1 "encounter". Never pulled my knife, much less use it, and each time that I didn't talk or run may way out of the situation I defaulted to training and came away with no or minor injuries (scewdriver).

[Melvin-Purvis]

I'm with hso on this one...it's simply amazing how many times you can get punched in the face, hit in the head, kicked about, beat on by multiple assailant's, etc. and still come out on top without ever pulling a knife, OC, or a gun... (BTDT, x2)

Now, that's not to say that I don't carry a defensive knife, OC, and/or gun...I do. The only thing is, I've never had the opportunity to use them. If I'd had the time, I would've. ;)

Brownie, your personal 'sitchashun', based on your past employment, contacts, demeanor, and current job, might be a bit different than that of most folks, so to some degree your advice may be just a little skewed to the 'right'. (ya think?)

That possibility notwithstanding, the simple reality is that to appease through passiveness is a sure-fire way to get screwed, and to thereby screw everyone that comes along after you.

Ugly as it may seem; active participant resistance with extreme prejudice is IMNSHO the only answer when confronted with implied harm in the form of aggression...come 'hell or high water'.

That's my read anyway, YMMV

Mel

p.s. My personal views on 'self-perseverance' should in no way be misconstrued as informed, just as they shouldn't be considered confrontational...live well, be safe, cover your six. :scrutiny:

[brownie0486]

Melvin-Purvis:

Agreed.

Brownie

[Sir Galahad]

I've inadvertantly discovered, for myself, the "stinkbug defense". In nature, insects that are brightly colored are colored that way to show birds that they are not good to eat. Birds that have tried to eat them got a blast of chemical from the insect and know from then on not to eat those brightly colored insects. You'll laugh, but since I've collected a lot of tats on both arms, people generally leave me alone. The younger snot-noseds of the wanna-be hood world don't know where I got the tats and don't want to find out if I got them while serving a sentence for beating a guy half to death or not. Looking like you're not going to be a victim is enough to convince most street hoods to leave you alone. A lot has to do with the way you carry yourself. Chin up, walk like you own the place, and watch everyone out of the corner of your eye. Guy approaches you and starts mumbling, don't even look at the guy, just keep on walking. But watch the shadow on the sidewalk for the guy behind you. Lots of "getting rolled" starts with guys asking the time, for spare change, or for a light. In the gas station, you've got a de facto flame thrower in your hands as you refuel your car. Nothing takes the wind out of some POS thug's sails faster than a spray of gasoline all over him and whipping out a Zippo. Word of things like that gets around, too, and they know you're a crazy mofo and leave you alone. Works for me.