Knife attack questions

[Jesse 8]

Hey all, I just purchased a ka-bar TDI and plan to incorporiate it into my EDC. My question is this; if I'm involved in a SD scenario with an attacker coming at me with a knife, would the BG'S lawyer have justification in claiming that I used excessive force if I went straight to my CCW instead of pulling that small TDI first. Thanks for your time and patience

 

[Sam1911]

Couple of thoughts...

1) In your initial trial you won't be facing the bad guy's attorney, but the state prosecutor. If there is a following civil trial, then you'll be talking to the bad guy's attorney or his family's attorney.

2) The prosecutor or the plaintiff's attorney in the civil suit can try to make whatever claim they want. Nothing says they can't try to say you used lethal force when such was not justified by a reasonable fear for your life.

3) An attack with a knife is absolutely, unquestionably, a lethal-force assault. That is plenty upon which to try and establish a self-defense claim. If you can show that the attacker had the ability, and opportunity to put you in jeopardy, and showed a clear intent to do so, then a reasonable person would decide they had to fire their weapon or face death or grievous injury.

3) Meeting a gun with a knife is not "excessive" force. You don't have to meet step-for-step up and down a force continuum. If you're faced with a potentially lethal attack, meeting it with lethal force of your own is reasonable.

4) No shoot is a "good" shoot, until the DA or jury declare it to be so ... so no one can say that you will definitely be exonerated of wrongdoing after a hypothetical violent encounter. You just never know.

 

[USAF_Vet]

The fact that you had the option to use a different form of lethal force means nothing. The justification of lethal force is not limited to type of weapon. So long as you had the justification, you could use a knife against knife, gun against knife, Louisville slugger against knife, etc. But it's up to the prosecuting attorney to determine if the justification of force was necessary.

I don't know about Utah, but I'd assume they have a Castle doctrine/ Stand your ground clause that pre-empts a civil suit as long as a criminal case either ends in acquittal or no charges filed to begin with. I know Michigan does. A good shoot (as determined by the DA) will protect me from a civil suit by the victim or their next of kin.

 

[Jesse 8]

I'll have to look into the term 'good shot' yes we have the stand your ground clause, I was just mainly concerned with the state, thanks mr mod, or civil defence lawyer making the fact that I had a knife an issue. Thanks again, lethal force is lethal force. God bless and keep up the good work

 

[scramasax]

The appropriate response to a knife welding attacher is RUN! I have taught/practiced blade fighting for most of my life. NO ONE wins in an edged scenario. If you cannot run away and the knife welder is facing you, shoot them until they stop moving. Now that I have lived long enough to be in the crippled category. I have no option to protect myself with a firearm.

Now about the blades. The tdi is a good last chance get off me knife, Not one to be used very effectively in a knife fight. That is a whole other thread.

Cheers,

ts

 

[mljdeckard]

Word for word what Sam said.

There are no guarantees in the legal system. The most black and white law will be interpreted and processed through humans. Under the very best of circumstances, you are looking at a highly likely maybe.

I carry a knife with my regular accessories, and I would use it under some circumstances. But I mostly carry it because I am going to have to cut a lot more things than I am going to have to shoot in life. For self defense, I don't plan on bringing a knife to a gun fight, but there may arise circumstances where I need to draw the knife first. for example, if the bad guy is facing me, and tries to grab the gun on my strong side, I am going to try to lock his arm and reach for the knife on my weak side. Situations like that.

 

[DaisyCutter]

BG'S lawyer have justification in claiming that I used excessive force if I went straight to my CCW instead of pulling that small TDI first.

The BG's lawyers would likely attempt to use that claim in a civil suit.

Criminally, both your knife and gun are lethal instruments, and so is the BGs knife. IF the situaion allowed it, I'd attempt to retreat or move behind an obstacle before pulling the trigger, just to show that you extended all your "other options" before shooting.

A criminally justified SD shooting can still be the target of a civil suit. Anything can be a target for a civil suit.

 

[USAF_Vet]

A criminally justified SD shooting can still be the target of a civil suit. Anything can be a target for a civil suit.

While this is true, many states will throw it out once it gets in front of a judge. In my state, I would still have to retain a lawyer for defense in a civil matter, but secure in the knowledge that it should be dismissed. I can counter sue for the legal expenses.

there is no absolute get out of trouble free card. While you will probably win over all in the long run, it may take awhile to get there.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I have taught/practiced blade fighting for most of my life. NO ONE wins in an edged scenario.

I'm with scramasax. Even people who really know what they're doing with edged weapons can get badly hurt in very short order by lucky novice criminals. It may be worth while to bear in mind on average, knife attackers do more serious damages than criminals with guns.

Living in fear of lawyers is a sign of cultural cowardice.

 

[Jesse 8]

Mil, that's the main reason I got the knife, weakside defense if strongside weapon is attacked. Run, take cover, shoot until threat is neutralized. Thanks again guys

 

[lemaymiami]

some good info in this thread... Jesse, you might want to read this one as well...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=608985

 

[RatDrall]

NO ONE wins in an edged scenario.

People, who know what they are talking about, generally avoid absolutes like "No one ever..." because there is always an exception. I was told that "Nothing is Anything All of the time".

Plenty of people have "won" an edged scenario.

It would shock and amaze most gunnies if they realized they're just as likely, to get shot to pieces if they pull out their "CCW" and go toe to toe with a thug who's been to the two way shooting range more than the legal carrier, as they are to lose a knife fight.

Living in fear of lawyers is a sign of cultural cowardice.

People have plenty of reasons to be afraid of our culture, between lawyers and Law Enforcement. Every "law abiding citizen" is so only until a law enforcement officer, DA, or judge decides that they are not anymore, at which point you could lose everything you've worked for, along your basic "rights".

 

[TexasRifleman]

There is a concept of "Force Continuum" (Sam mentioned it above) that's a good example to use in this case.

Police use this as a guide, and it seems to make sense for non LE as well, as far as appropriate responses to acts against you.

Keep in mind it's for Police so it's not 100% for us, but not a bad guide, even the "physical presence" portion.

Note that the move to deadly force doesn't require an equal weapon. You don't see cops going for their knife when a knife is pulled on them.

All that said, Sam1911 is right. At the end of the day all that really matters is what your jury believes.

As far as juries go, do some reading on "Tueller Drill". This is a reference work/demonstration that is often used to show juries why a gun is an appropriate response to a knife, especially at distance. If you DO ever end up in court make sure your attorney knows of this.

 

[Ole Coot]

Interesting case in Logan, WV concerning SD. A man was choked down from the rear at WalMart and relieved of his money, just cashed his paycheck. The attacker dropped the man and was shot by the man who had a CCW license. The state is charging him with murder. Will be interesting because a local tv station's poll was 92% justified shooting.

 

[USAF_Vet]

At that point, if the robbers is walking away and is no longer as threat, deadly force is not justified. 92% of public opinion means nothing. If public opinion trumped the rule of law, this nation, this world would be a very different place.

 

[Sam1911]

The state is charging him with murder.

Wow, that's a tough one!

You can't shoot someone because he attacked you.

You can shoot someone because he is attacking you.

A lot depends on the exact way the case happened and what statement the victim made to the police.

"He grabbed me, took my money, and ran -- and so I shot him..." would be kind of the worst possibility.

Some credible indication that there was a continuing threat would be extremely important for the self-defense case.

...

Of course, juries have been known to ignore the strict letter of the law in some cases when the clear victim of a serious crime carries the fight a little beyond a legally defensible point, but that's a terribly fickle thing to hope for. (Ask Jerome Ersland...)

 

[HOOfan_1]

At that point, if the robbers is walking away and is no longer as threat, deadly force is not justified. 92% of public opinion means nothing. If public opinion trumped the rule of law, this nation, this world would be a very different place.

In this case...I would have to say it would be a better place...

 

[Sam1911]

Ahhh, yes, the world would surely be a better place if we could just kill those who did us wrong.

Judge Judy and Executioner, as they say.

 

[RatDrall]

92% of public opinion means nothing. If public opinion trumped the rule of law, this nation, this world would be a very different place.

Ever heard of a jury trial?

 

[Sam1911]

Ever heard of a jury trial?

I think you're referring to "jury nullification" which is what I mentioned in Post 16, but that is a very, VERY rare thing to see in practice. Usually the jury is educated on the law and instructed to decide whether or not the accused broke the letter of that law. And usually, that is what they do -- yes or no.

Sometimes, every once in a blue moon, they take it upon themselves to ignore the question of whether the law was actually broken and aquit the accused based on their opinion that the law is incorrect or inappropriate in this case.

Most juries have no idea they even CAN do that. And even fewer juries actually do so.

 

[Jesse 8]

@ lem. That video posted on that thread answered all my doubt. Close range with a knife is too quick to not go straight for my firearm. That video puts knives into a completely different context than I hap previouslly viewed them under. Thank you for waking me up to their danger.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

No matter what you do or don't do, I would expect it to be painted in the worse light possible if it goes to court.

 

[Jesse 8]

Exactly. Just one more reason to watch what you post on THR and exactly how you word what you wish to convey. They'll paint you as a murderer, every damning piece of evidence they can come up with will show up in court. Thanks everyone for educating me on this topic

 

[Cosmoline]

would the BG'S lawyer have justification in claiming that I used excessive force if I went straight to my CCW instead of pulling that small TDI first.

No. There is no doctrine, in civil or criminal law, that you must match knife to knife, sword to sword or firearm to firearm. Deadly force is deadly force. That doesn't mean some bozo plaintiff lawyer or DA hasn't made arguments along these lines before, but they are not justified. If you are about to be killed, use the biggest baddest weapon you can lay hand on to keep from being killed. It about continuing to draw breath, not about giving your would-be murderer a fair fight.

I question whether it's even possible for a person to try the blade then the firearm if being attacked by a knife wielding assailant. There simply isn't going to be the time or opportunity to go from one form of self defense to the other. It will be over within seconds one way or the other.

Please also note that the referenced incident in Logan WV has nothing to do with the hypothetical in the first post.

Once Abbot took the wallet, he began to flee the scene, police said. However, at that point, Canul allegedly pulled out a gun and fired at Abbot.

http://wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=47308

An unarmed robber is fleeing and the fellow shoots him down. The report could certainly be wrong, but the issue here is whether the criminal was presenting an imminent threat of unlawful deadly force when he was shot. Once the threat is no longer imminent the justification is gone.

But a guy coming at you with a blade? Yeah, that's pretty imminent!

 

[alsaqr]

When attacked by a man with a knife you had better shoot the guy and be fast about it. Otherwise, he will cut your guts out.

These Nicaraguan cops did not take this guy seriously and he killed two of them.

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh44oh9wTL1t11XJKD

If you are 21 feet away from a criminal with a knife, you are potentially 3 seconds away from being cut.

This LEO thought he could man handle a man with a knife. Graphic.


http://blogidaho.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-cops-shoot-guys-with-knives.html