Witnessing A Knife Fight

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I hope no one ever has to witness that.

I don't know what would be worse...The dreams after having to shoot someone...or the dreams after watching someone die while you could have stopped it.

 

[foghornl]

I will NOT intervene in a knife fight.

A very long scar down my left arm from some foolishness has reminded me every day for the last 30+ years why.

 

[valnar]

What if one big guy is literally beating the pulp out of a little guy, to the point that he would probably kill him with his bare hands.

Stand by and do nothing?

 

[Frank Ettin]

What if one big guy is literally beating the pulp out of a little guy, to the point that he would probably kill him with his bare hands...

How do you know that the guy on the ground was not the original aggressor?

...Stand by and do nothing?

Calling 911, being a good witness, taking photos or video with your cell phone, etc., is not "doing nothing."

 

[mljdeckard]

Yell stop. Get your phone out, and be READY to draw. Just because you are being smart and being a good witness doesn't mean you won't act if you have to. If you happen upon a knife fight, you yell stop, and they ignore you, they probably aren't stopping for anything. Keep a safe distance, call the police, and stay ready.

 

[Fotno]

How do you know that the guy on the ground was not the original aggressor?

Calling 911, being a good witness, taking photos or video with your cell phone, etc., is not "doing nothing."

Precisely. Ask any law enforcement officer how difficult it can be to properly separate the good guys from the bad guys, and the consequences of being wrong.

Call 911.

 

[hso]

who thought that armed citizens have a responsibility to intervene in dangerous situations, a la Batman.

Armed citizens have absolutely NO responsibility intervene. Your friend needs to mature considerably. He has no right to impose his personal views on the rest of us.

Point him to the news article this thread discusses and ask him if he's 100% certain that he couldn't make the same mistake playing "Batman". http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=659914

 

[treg]

If at all possible leave the scene quickly and quietly, being glad I didn't need my gun. It's 2012, even dialing 911 can open a can of worms you never intended, BTDT.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Yell stop. Get your phone out, and be READY to draw.

There we go. Dial 911 and create space. Get behind a barrier if you can, to slow either combatant if one (or both) decide to come after you. Could happen.

And then yell. It might be that they won't even hear a yell (auditory exclusion isn't just for gun users), but it's still worth a try. What to yell? Maybe:

"STOP! We need the POLICE! STOP! I'm calling the POLICE!"

I think that counts as intervening without a gun, and I think it's a reasonable option, but not mandated.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I'm falling squarely on the side of don't intervene and call the police unless you know ALL the facts.

This. Unless you saw the whole thing unfold, are CERTAIN who the agressor is, and are reasonably sure you can control the situation, DO NOT get involved.

Furthermore, controlling the situation is an even bigger "if" than figuring out who's who. Barking at the combatants to cease while holding them at gunpoint might work, but it could just as easily cause one or both of them to turn on you. Or, one of them may have a friend in the observing crowd who decideds to attack you from behind.

Me? Even if I did know what was going on, I probably wouldn't intervene unless I had another armed friend with me who agreed to become involved in stopping the fight. There are just too many risks, and as much as I may want to help, I'm not willing to leave my girls without a father in the name of stopping a street fight. I'm not a cop, it's not my job, and I don't have the submission tools and back-up to effectively deal with two hostile people without putting myself in extreme danger.

 

[Jeremiah10:23]

the stated scenario is too vague for much of a response

I think this is precisely the point. If my family is in no danger I have no duty to be involved.

 

[CoRoMo]

Shoot the knife.






Posts #30 and #34 are wisdom.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Knife fights are really bad business. Generally both parties get cut up pretty badly. It is sort of like what happens when two tigers fight. One is killed and the other dies of his wounds a few days later.

 

[jdh]

BECOME INVISIBLE

Call police.

Observe the incident and what is going on around you. Do not concentrate on the incident. The bad guy may not be alone.

PREPARE TO EVACUATE

 

[steveracer]

The loser of most knife fights dies on the sidewalk. The winner dies later in the ER.
I would draw, and yell, and make clear that police are on their way. BUT, I'm not watching somebody getting killed when I can stop it. Period.
How many of us have read stories where someone was hurt or killed by an attacker in public, with people passing by, and asked ourselves, "why ON EARTH didn't someone HELP them?"
I don't want to be able to ask that of ME.

 

[jahwarrior]

Armed citizens have absolutely NO responsibility intervene. Your friend needs to mature considerably. He has no right to impose his personal views on the rest of us.

Point him to the news article this thread discusses and ask him if he's 100% certain that he couldn't make the same mistake playing "Batman". http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=659914

The guy I was debating this was a friend of a friend of a friend, hahaha. No one I'd associate with, especially after other remarks made in relation to this subject.

It turns out, the two men in question were involved in a road rage incident. The man with the knife was an "outlaw" biker, and the other guy cut him off in traffic. The biker caught up to him after he parked his car, and the fight ensued. The gentleman I was debating witnessed the incident, and claimed that he intervened without needing to draw his gun; I suspect he's a ninja master, personally.

The entire subject arose from an incident afriend of mine related to us; he was home, and heard gunshots coming from somewhere in the neighborhood. I asked him if he ducked and got away from the windows, and this other guy asked him why he didn't strap his gun on, and investigate, to keep the neighborhood safe. I replied that my friend had no duty to go and investigate anything; being an armed citizen, as others have already pointed out, doesn't obligate you to become a superhero, or a vigilante.

This began a debate on the responsibilities of armed citizens to their fellow man. Does being armed make you a sheepdog to the sheep? Does "self defense" only apply to self, or does it apply to society at large? I'm of the opinion that my gun is a means for me to get home safely to my family, and to protect them, as well as me. It's not for being a watchdog, or a hero. That's not to say I wouldn't intervene if I witnessed someone about to be raped or murdered, but I'm not going to go and investigate something suspicious, a la George Zimmerman.

 

[.338-06]

I think this is both a personal and legal question. In Alaska, you are able to use deadly force to stop someone from killing a third person, or to stop an arsonist from setting a fire to an occupied building.

Years ago a guy in Anchorage saw a guy knifing another guy, got out of his car and shot the knifeman. Perfectly legal.

The personal question of to get involved or not is harder.

 

[X-Rap]

If it escalated to other bystanders or appeared to be nothing but a random lunatic on a rampage then yes I would probably shoot to stop the attacks from continuing. If it was two bulls trying to kill each other outside a bar I think not, one has to assume some responsibility for their own predicaments. I would however call the police and try to be as good a witness as possible and be prepared to defend myself if needed.

 

[Psa1m144]

What if they guy drew his knife because the other guy kidnapped his kid and just threw the kid in his trunk. All you saw was one guy pulling a knife on the other guy but he was just trying to defend his family. These are matters for the police, do not intervene. Just make sure that you and your own are safe and call 911.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

The loser of most knife fights dies on the sidewalk. The winner dies later in the ER.


not even close
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surgery/GeneralSurgery/30544

 

[2zulu1]

The OP didn't provide enough information for me to draw my piece, 911 is called as soon as possible and I'll provide information to the dispatcher for as long as needed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...How many of us have read stories where someone was hurt or killed by an attacker in public, with people passing by, and asked ourselves, "why ON EARTH didn't someone HELP them?"...

Again, it's not a question of whether or not you help someone. It's a question of how you help him.

...In Alaska, you are able to use deadly force to stop someone from killing a third person, or to stop an arsonist from setting a fire to an occupied building...

How do you know that the person you stop with deadly force wasn't himself acting in justified self defense? How do you know that the building is occupied?

...Years ago a guy in Anchorage saw a guy knifing another guy, got out of his car and shot the knifeman. Perfectly legal....

The details matter. It might not have worked out well for the shooter if the guy he shot was acting in justified self defense.

The general rule everywhere in the United States is that one may be justified in using lethal force to defend himself or a third party when necessary to stop an immediate attack likely to cause death of grave injury. But one is justified using lethal force in defense of a third party only when the third party himself would have been justified using lethal force in his own defense (e. g., he was not the original aggressor). Do you really know?

 

[Slamfire]

The general rule everywhere in the United States is that one may be justified in using lethal force to defend himself or a third party when necessary to stop an immediate attack likely to cause death of grave injury. But one is justified using lethal force in defense of a third party only when the third party himself would have been justified using lethal force in his own defense (e. g., he was not the original aggressor). Do you really know?

The burden of proof would be on you, would it not, to prove that lethal force was justified.?

Assuming the liberal lynch mob does not get you first.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The burden of proof would be on you, would it not, to prove that lethal force was justified.?...

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.

 

[jimbo555]

"shoot the knife" Now thats funny!