Witnessing A Knife Fight

[bubba in ca]

"shoot the knife" Now thats funny!

Here`s a funnier one: shoot them both, Let God sort them out, and then shoot yourself. Save the lawyer fees!

Like most of the posts above, if you do not have all the facts and do not have a major reason to intervene, back off, call the cops, and be a good witness. What part of back off is not hard to understand. the Tueller drill says 21 feet MINIMUM and don´t forget your perp might be in football training and is much faster than you thought. 50 yards from a knife fight would be better.

Only if an unknown situation is obviously an affront to civilized society, like somebody taking a knife to a 6 year old kid, would I ever even think of intervening.

Bagging on Zimmerman also has nothing to do with this post.

 

[jahwarrior]

Bagging on Zimmerman also has nothing to do with this post.

I wasn't exactly bagging on Zimmerman, as much as I was presenting an example of what might happen when a person decides to go beyond self defense, and take it upon himself to investigate a suspicious situation, when they didn't need to. If I heard shots in my neighborhood, I'm not going to grab my gun, and go looking for the source. I'm going to make sure my kids are away from the windows, and that my doors are locked. I'm not going to intervene in a knife fight between two guys I don't know. I'm not going to follow some kid around my neighborhood, because he's wearing a hoodie. These are all in the same vein, in my opinion.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Well "burden of proof" has a very technical meaning in law. It will, in any case and in every jurisdiction, be your burden to produce evidence establishing prima facie that all the elements necessary to meet the legal standard for justification have been satisfied.

Well, actually, the way our judicial system is supposed to work, burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that you weren't justified. Not that it is that way in reality, just sayin'..........

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well, actually, the way our judicial system is supposed to work, burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove that you weren't justified. Not that it is that way in reality, just sayin'..........

How do you figure that's the way it's supposed to be? I suspect you're referring to the presumption of innocence that applies at a criminal trial. Do you know where that comes from?

In any case, the way things work in the legal realities of a plea of self defense (or defense of another) is the way it's supposed to be, because the way it is determined by applicable statute and case law.

 

[MachIVshooter]

How do you figure that's the way it's supposed to be? I suspect you're referring to the presumption of innocence that applies at a criminal trial. Do you know where that comes from?

This principle is supposed to include everything leading up to the trial. Unless I've missed something, if you claim self defense, it's supposed to be up to the investigators to collect/submit all evidence, and then the district attorney must be able to reasonably demonstrate that it may not have been if he is seeking ciminal charges.

Our "justice" system in it's entirety is purported to be one that treats all men as innocent men until there is sufficient evidence to the contrary which justifies arrest and prosecution. It certainly doesn't happen that way in the real world, but it should.

I've been through the wringer once. The burden of proof definitely lies with the accused/defendant. If they start to feel they have a weak case, they'll throw sweeter and sweeter plea deals at you whilst making threats and admonishments about going to trial until you finally give up/run out of defense attorney funds and take a deal. Prosecutors will do just about anything to avoid a dismissal/aquittal at trial. Sure would be nice if it worked the way it was meant to, though.

ETA:

after re-reading your last post, I think we are looking at this from two different perspectives that don't make either of our statements incorrect. You seem to be talking about all the elements of a lawful self defense being present (person making the right decision to act with lethal force), while I'm talking about a person who did make the right call being prosecuted for it, and where the burden of proof should lie in that event. Not two different things, but two aspects of the same event that occur at different points in time.

 

[9mmepiphany]

This principle is supposed to include everything leading up to the trial. Unless I've missed something, if you claim self defense, it's supposed to be up to the investigators to collect/submit all evidence, and then the district attorney must be able to reasonably demonstrate that it may not have been if he is seeking ciminal charges.

You did

Self defense is an affirmative defense. To used it you have to first admit that you committed a homicide. Then you have to present evidence that the homicide was justified under the law in your jurisdiction. If you can't, the DA already has your admission to the homicide. That is why defendants have to testify when you want to use self defense as justification.

The presumption of innocence is only applicable in court, not during the investigation leading up to that point...unless you have a local law that differs

 

[Frank Ettin]

...after re-reading your last post, I think we are looking at this from two different perspectives...

Well my perspective is that of a lawyer -- which I am.

Some background first. The presumption of innocence comes from the Common Law of England, the basis of our legal system.

As 9mmepiphany points out, self defense is an affirmative defense; and if you are charged with a crime and defend on the basis of justified self defense, it's up to you to plead it.

If you are claiming self defense, the prosecutor does not have to prove the core elements of the crime -- for example that you intentionally shot someone. If you claim self defense you will necessarily have to admit the core elements of the crime, for example that you intentionally shot someone.

But you will be claiming in your defense that your intentional act of violence was justified. So you will at least have to put forth evidence establishing prima facie that the elements necessary for your act of violence to have been legally justified have been satisfied.

If you successfully meet your burden of producing evidence, you will be entitled to a self defense jury instruction. The prosecutor will have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that your actions were not justified.

If you don't meet your burden of producing evidence, you will not be entitled to a self defense jury instruction. In that case, you will be in serious trouble because you have already admitted to committing an act of violence on another human.

And that is the way it's supposed to work and does work.

 

[evan price]

4. Be the first to post it on Youtube and get the ad revenue.

A CCW doesn't make you Batman.

Call the police, they get paid to accept the liability for anything happening.

If someone goes down and the other party runs away, would probably apply first aid as needed. If the other actor shows back up to finish them off, then I'd consider myself in danger and act as needed.

 

[MachIVshooter]

If you are claiming self defense, the prosecutor does not have to prove the core elements of the crime -- for example that you intentionally shot someone.

This implies a presumption of unlawful action. Self defense being affirmative defense does not mean that the defender comitted a crime and needs to justify that. He committed the act of homicide (or assault with a deadly, whatever it may be); Whether or not it was lawful or criminal homicide is where the presumption of innocence until proven guilty must be.

So you will at least have to put forth evidence establishing prima facie that the elements necessary for your act of violence to have been legally justified have been satisfied.

Would not the claim of self defense and your testimony be just that? From there, as you said:

The prosecutor will have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that your actions were not justified.

I know I'm wayyyyy oversimplifying the process. Where the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying lies is in your calling a justifiable homicide a crime and my calling it an act. It is not a crime if it is justified, and the prosecution has to prove that it wasn't. Or at least that is the spirit. Reality, I know, leaves the defendant proving that he was justified more or less in the form of refuting the accusations of the prosecution that would make it otherwise.

I guess my question to you, then, since you're the lawyer, is why are we calling it a crime rather than an act? There are many actions that are legal under some circumstances and not under others. To me, that indicates that if said act is comitted under the lawful circumstances, it is not a crime in any way, shape or form. If you are claiming self-defense, you have admitted to an act, not a crime. The prosecution must prove that the circumstances under which the act was committed were unlawful if they seek a conviction. If they cannot prove that, then you have not (in the eyes of the law) committed a criminal act.

If you don't meet your burden of producing evidence,

Once again, I ask, does not the claim meet that burden? Beyond your claim of self-defense, the evidence submitted will be that gathered by investigators and given in the form of witness testimonies (if any). The evidence will be there, the question is whether or not it matches your story. I just don't see that there's much for the defendant to provide beyond his claim of SD and testimony of events, which will then be scrutinized by investigators who will report and make recommendations to the prosecutor.

If you say in your testimony that a man threatened to kill you and then charged you with a knife, that would mean that you were in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, thus justifying the use of lethal force. The prosecutor would now have to prove that you were not in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death if he wants an assault/manslaughter/murder conviction. From there, either the evidence and witness testimonies support the self defense claim, or they don't. Again, I know I'm oversimplifying it. We all know that there is a tremendous amount of fancy footwork, legal mumbo jumbo and other minutiae that ensue with any such trial, especially when certain pieces of evidence or witness testimonies are allowed or disallowed/discredited (or "lost").

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

I wouldn't be around long enough "during the course of the fight" to see the knife come out. I'd have already gotten myself and anyone under my care well clear of the incident.

My inner sheepdog does exist, but responds better to a wolf vs lamb incident. The OP incident sounds like 2 rams butting heads.

 

[9mmepiphany]

This implies a presumption of unlawful action. Self defense being affirmative defense does not mean that the defender comitted a crime and needs to justify that. He committed the act of homicide (or assault with a deadly, whatever it may be); Whether or not it was lawful or criminal homicide is where the presumption of innocence until proven guilty must be.

I think you are confusing Homicide and Murder

A quick dictionary search turns up

Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable.

and a reference to English Common Law...from whence our laws come

English courts developed the body of Common Law on which U.S. jurisdictions initially relied in developing their homicide statutes. Early English common law divided homicide into two broad categories: felonious and non-felonious. Historically, the deliberate and premeditated killing of a person by another person was a felonious homicide and was classified as murder. Non-felonious homicide included justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. Although justifiable homicide was considered a crime, the offender often received a pardon. Excusable homicide was not considered a crime.

All Homicides are defined as crimes. Justifiable means the crime may be excused under certain circumstances...the crime may be justified. In simpler terms the act may be excused...just as we excuse the battery a surgeon inflicts upon a patient when he performs surgery.

It is an unlawful action until a court rules that is was justified...or a DA declines to file a criminal complaint

 

[MachIVshooter]

I think you are confusing Homicide and Murder

Funny........I was thinking the same thing about the wording used in Frank's post.

Murder is always homicide, but homicide is not always murder.

The very definition as Websters has it is exactly the definition I use, and says nothing of it being a crime:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/homicide

The definition you pasted also illustrates the point I'm trying to make very clearly:

Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable.

just as we excuse the battery a surgeon inflicts upon a patient when he performs surgery.

A surgeon's actions are not criminal to begin with, either. A district attorney doesn't have to decline to charge him or a court excuse his actions for them to be lawful.

I know it's semantics, but it matters.

 

[GEM]

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

AND

2. Intervene without drawing your gun?

Don't bring your mouth to a knife fight.

Intervention is complex and some on the Internet like to state that one should be a moral hero. But it's not always like that (as many pointed out before).

 

[Frank Ettin]

If you are claiming self defense, the prosecutor does not have to prove the core elements of the crime -- for example that you intentionally shot someone.

This implies a presumption of unlawful action. Self defense being affirmative defense does not mean that the defender comitted a crime and needs to justify that. He committed the act of homicide (or assault with a deadly, whatever it may be); Whether or not it was lawful or criminal homicide is where the presumption of innocence until proven guilty must be.

Actually, in a sense it does. You will have admitted that you intentionally shot someone. Intentionally harming or killing another human is in fact a criminal act.

To avoid criminal responsibility, you will need to show that you your act of intentional violence was legally justified.

So you will at least have to put forth evidence establishing prima facie that the elements necessary for your act of violence to have been legally justified have been satisfied.

Would not the claim of self defense and your testimony be just that? ...

No, it's not enough to just say, "I was defending myself." You must show that the legal requirements for justifying your act of violence have been satisfied. Exactly what those elements are will depend on the law of the jurisdiction in which the event took place.

For example, in Arizona, if you intentionally shot someone and claimed self defense, you would need to put on evidence that your act of violence satisfied Arizona Revised Statutes 13-404 and 13-405 (emphasis added):

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.​

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force......​

...since you're the lawyer, is why are we calling it a crime rather than an act? There are many actions that are legal under some circumstances and not under others. To me, that indicates that if said act is comitted under the lawful circumstances, it is not a crime in any way, shape or form....

The bottom line is that I have described how the law actually is and a plea of self defense actually works in the law. The law is as it is and grew to be this way over several hundred years of judicial decisions and statutory enactments.

What seems to you should be the way it is, is really beside the point.

For an excellent and more extensive discussion of the intricacies of defending a self defense case, see this article by Lisa Steele. Ms. Steele is an attorney and a member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

But we're now getting far afield from the subject of this thread. Any further discussions on this point would be better pursued in the Legal Forum in a new thread.

 

[9mmepiphany]

A surgeon's actions are not criminal to begin with, either. A district attorney doesn't have to decline to charge him or a court excuse his actions for them to be lawful.

A surgeon's actions are a battery, the only reason they are not criminal is that they have asked and received permission to commit it.

Homicides are criminal acts, otherwise they would not have to be investigated to see if they were justified

Edit: I'd forgotten where we were (S&T). This discussion really would fit better in Legal

 

[NavyLCDR]

NEVER bring a GUN to a KNIFE fight!

Oh...wait....that's not right, is it....

 

[Ashcons]

My first concern would be getting my wife and son to a safe position. My second concern would be going back to contact emergency responders and provide myself as a witness. I'm not Rambo, a comic book hero, magical, invincible, or a mind-reader and I am not going to fall into the morass of our legal system for someone else.

 

[easyg]

You are walking down the street, and witness a fight happening in front of you. During the course of the fight, one individual pulls out a knife, and attempts to stab the other guy. Assuming you're legally carrying a firearm, do you:

1. Draw your weapon, and order both men to stop? If the one with the knife doesn't, do you shoot?

2. Intervene without drawing your gun?

3. Do nothing, except call the police, and hope they get there before one guy gets injured or killed?

I would not have stopped to watch the fight in the first place.
I would have kept on walking.
Two adult males fighting each other is not my concern.

 

[Rexster]

Folks, I wear a badge, and would not necessarily use deadly force to stop the man with the visible knife, unless I were quite sure of the total dynamics of the conflict.

We should keep in mind that all too often, an apparently unarmed man actually IS holding his OWN weapon, that we cannot see. What looks like a mere fist might actually be holding a small, but still very deadly blade. This is especially true if the weapon is held in a "reverse" grip.

Example: Two of my colleagues were very badly cut-up when they intervened in what seemed to be a case of a man beating a woman; actually, the man had a small knife, and he quickly disabled BOTH of the officers's hands and arms when they intervened. Fortunately for the officers, the bad guy did not want to finish them, and fled.

Another of my colleagues died, in a separate incident, when a transient slashed the officer's throat with a very small, unseen box cutter.

Then, there is the possibility that either or both parties to a fight have allies. While I am focused on the fight, who is watching and defending MY back and flanks?

I am going to call a general BS on those who advocate using a mobile electronic gadget to record the proceedings. Who is watching the videographer's back and flanks?

Back to the possibility of the fighters having allies, seen or unseen. It is entirely possible that the two combatants may be fellow gang members, settling a personal squabble, and that both of them will attack one who tries to intervene. The same factor can occur if the two combatants are related to each other; remember that blood is thicker than water.

Now, to be clear, I did not say I would never intervene in the scenario presented by the OP. Indeed, I have intervened in such events, but it is a perilous situation in which to find one's self, indeed.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think Rexster nailed it.

We seem to be in nearly complete agreement that intervention is not a good idea, and we've had some good, educational discussion (again) about defense of justification.

Time to invoke the three page guideline, I think.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm with Kleanbore and don't see any reason to continue this discussion. The issues have been pretty well hashed out, and it's been generally productive and High Road.

I'm going to close this thread. If someone has something he thinks is significant to add, please PM me.