Patrick Henry
Member
When we consider when "lethal force" is justified under our laws, we are usually thinking of guns.
But I think there is no dispute that, properly employed, a knife is a lethal weapon. There is a common statistic that about 60% of knifing victims die of their wounds while only about 40% of gunshot (pistol) victims die.
Modern society is gun-paranoid. There are restrictions placed on the use of guns which do not apply to other weapons. For example, every jurisdiction has laws against brandishing a firearm, but few I think have brandishing prohibitions against other weapons. Even pulling a gun in self-defense to prevent an attack from taking place can get you charged with brandishing. The law doesn't seem to appreciate that producing a gun has the potential to stop violence before it escalates to deadly levels.
The question that occurred to me is this: assuming you were carrying a knife, and you were violently attacked by someone using only his fists, would you be legally justified in using the knife? I think in that same situation, though one's life may be in danger (it is quite easy to kill someone with bare hands), you would be prosecuted for even producing a gun, because the assailant was "unarmed."
In other words, you are in fear for your life and use your knife to stop the attack by the unarmed attacker . Generally speaking, do you think you would get in as much legal trouble as if you had used a gun?
But I think there is no dispute that, properly employed, a knife is a lethal weapon. There is a common statistic that about 60% of knifing victims die of their wounds while only about 40% of gunshot (pistol) victims die.
Modern society is gun-paranoid. There are restrictions placed on the use of guns which do not apply to other weapons. For example, every jurisdiction has laws against brandishing a firearm, but few I think have brandishing prohibitions against other weapons. Even pulling a gun in self-defense to prevent an attack from taking place can get you charged with brandishing. The law doesn't seem to appreciate that producing a gun has the potential to stop violence before it escalates to deadly levels.
The question that occurred to me is this: assuming you were carrying a knife, and you were violently attacked by someone using only his fists, would you be legally justified in using the knife? I think in that same situation, though one's life may be in danger (it is quite easy to kill someone with bare hands), you would be prosecuted for even producing a gun, because the assailant was "unarmed."
In other words, you are in fear for your life and use your knife to stop the attack by the unarmed attacker . Generally speaking, do you think you would get in as much legal trouble as if you had used a gun?