# you have taken away the weapon...now what?



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 5, 2007)

What happens once you take away the attackers weapon and they still come at you? One answer would be to use it. This might be ok given the weapon is a club or something similar, but what if it happens to be a knife or a gun? You couldnt just turn around and use it to defend youself, or could you? What would you do? Fight that person off with hands alone or use the weapon?

B


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 5, 2007)

That's one of those "what you would like to do" vs "what can you do".  As an LEO if someone is actively trying to take away my gun I can use lethal force to prevent that.  If they disengage and don't try to disarm me, I have to descalate at that point even though it would be nice to just shoot them.

I would check with an attorney and find out 1) what state laws are 2) what local ordinances are and 3) how does the prosecutor's office generally look at cases like that.

In most states as a civilian you can only use equal force to protect yourself.  For example, if he is using a weapon you can use a weapon to match the force he is using.  They will also look at "totality of circumstances" in each situation.  If you are a 5'0 90 lb. female and you use your keys as a weapon to defend yourself against a 6'5 350 lb. attacker the circumstances will dictate she was more than likely justified in her use of force.  So if you were to disarm your attacker, you have to consider what type/level of threat he is.  What would justify you using the weapon against him?  Is your life in immediate danger?  Did you take it away and they are now trying to get away?  What other circumstances would a reasonable person look at and say that they would do the same thing in your situation?  Are they trying to retake the weapon to use against you again? Which would put it back into a lethal force situation that you could use it on them.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 5, 2007)

punisher73 said:


> That's one of those "what you would like to do" vs "what can you do".  As an LEO if someone is actively trying to take away my gun I can use lethal force to prevent that.  If they disengage and don't try to disarm me, I have to descalate at that point even though it would be nice to just shoot them.
> 
> I would check with an attorney and find out 1) what state laws are 2) what local ordinances are and 3) how does the prosecutor's office generally look at cases like that.
> 
> In most states as a civilian you can only use equal force to protect yourself.  For example, if he is using a weapon you can use a weapon to match the force he is using.  They will also look at "totality of circumstances" in each situation.  If you are a 5'0 90 lb. female and you use your keys as a weapon to defend yourself against a 6'5 350 lb. attacker the circumstances will dictate she was more than likely justified in her use of force.  So if you were to disarm your attacker, you have to consider what type/level of threat he is.  What would justify you using the weapon against him?  Is your life in immediate danger?  Did you take it away and they are now trying to get away?  What other circumstances would a reasonable person look at and say that they would do the same thing in your situation?  Are they trying to retake the weapon to use against you again? Which would put it back into a lethal force situation that you could use it on them.


wow good answer.

If they were trying to take the weapon back, would it be justified to use it against them to stop the attack? (I understand the different laws but go by the ones in your parts just to answer the question). What about multiple attackers? If there were 2 or more could you use a weapon on them even if they dont have one? Even someone my size (6'4 260 lbs), would I be able to?

B


----------



## tellner (Dec 5, 2007)

Excellent advice, Punisher. 

Do what you honestly think you have to to keep from being injured or killed. Don't do any more just because the SOB deserves it and you're ticked at him. Once the threat is gone, don't keep fighting. Until it is gone do what's necessary. 

My wife's cousins' grandmother (her father's brother's mother in law) told us how the neighbor came by one morning and said "Your grandson took my manhood away." The old lady was a little taken aback and was probably thinking of something anatomical involving garden shears.

It turns out the neighbor had gotten drunk and disorderly the night before. He was outside waving a pistol around and generally making a nuisance. Tiel's cousin came out to see what the commotion was all about. He kindly but firmly separated the gun from the man, unloaded it. Took the slide, magazine and cartridges and told the neighbor to go home and go to bed. 

On the other hand, a very famous police officer was in an altercation with about half a dozen mobsters. There were several guns and knives floating around. He couldn't get to his. He figured he might need a gun, so he disarmed one of the bad guys only to find that he couldn't fire it. The man's finger was still in the trigger guard. If memory serves he hit a few people with the gun over the course of the fight. 

If "Mongo" out of the classic police training scenario lost control of a weapon and I got a hold of it I would not hesitate to turn him into a Mongo-lace doily. 

The scenario:

You have been called because an Emotionally Disturbed Person is causing a disturbance in an apartment building. As you climb the stairs you see the refrigerator come flying out the window of Mongo's apartment. As you near the door Mongo steps out dressed in bacon strips and a tinfoil hat. He picks your partner off the ground and head butts him into unconsciousness. Then Mongo turns towards you. 

Q: What do you do?

A: Shoot Mongo as may times as you possibly can.​


----------



## Big Don (Dec 5, 2007)

With my safety and likely the safety of my son being in question? After disarming I'd try to either incapacitate the attacker and call the cops or just eliminate the threat permanently and then call the cops. 
If I couldn't easily tie or otherwise restrain the attacker, I'd probably hamstring him (if he had attacked with a knife) If I had been attacked with a gun, I'd probably shoot him (her) in the head and take my chances. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six...


----------



## tellner (Dec 5, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> wow good answer.
> 
> If they were trying to take the weapon back, would it be justified to use it against them to stop the attack? (I understand the different laws but go by the ones in your parts just to answer the question). What about multiple attackers? If there were 2 or more could you use a weapon on them even if they dont have one? Even someone my size (6'4 260 lbs), would I be able to?



Like the man said, "totality of circumstances". Do what you honestly believe is necessary. But like I always say "Know what you are doing and why you are doing it. Be prepared to articulate those reasons for the police, the Court and your own conscience."

There are lots of things that go into that. In general the more danger you are in, the more leeway you have. It's really hard to do hypotheticals, and very few of us are attorneys let alone _your_ attorney. 

Personally, I have had a lot of martial arts training. I'm not The Rock, but I'm not weak. I can not run quickly and have poor wind, so escape would be difficult. Due to my training and experience I firmly believe that I would be in serious and immediate danger of getting killed or badly hurt if I were attacked by two healthy adult criminals, especially if they had shown how serious they were by drawing on me during the attack. That would influence my course of action.

That course could change quickly depending on how things unfold. If they start running I wouldn't pursue. Well, if I knew that they had just raped a police officer and then shot him with his gun after beating and robbing a group of elderly nuns I might, but that's a different issue. If one had been disarmed, but they were still aggressive and my baby goddaughter was in the room I wouldn't let up until they were in full flight or incapable of hurting her.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 5, 2007)

As always good response. This is just one of those topics that I think about and dont really have anyone to ask (except my friends dad who is a LEO but I dont see him a lot). My aunts a lawyer but gives me that look like "You are stupid to work about it"

Thanks again

B


----------



## thardey (Dec 5, 2007)

Why does it matter whether the gun you have in your hands came from him, or your holster?

So what that you took it away from him? If it is the type of situation where you would otherwise be forced to shoot him with your own gun, then there is no difference in being forced to shoot him with his gun.

If it is the type of situation where you stop the attack by simply drawing your own weapon, then you are not in a legal position to shoot him. Same goes for his gun in your hand (or knife, or club, or sharpened chopsticks.)

In the end, the jury won't care who owned the gun in the first place, only who had possession of it _when the shooting happened_.


----------



## tradrockrat (Dec 5, 2007)

Depends on the attacker as stated above.  If, as you said, he/she is still attacking then yes, I will employ that weapon because as far as I'm concerned this is a life or death situation as soon as weapons become involved.  If I take the knife (as has happened once) and the attacker takes off running as soon as we disengage, then the fight is over.  I win.  Time to stop the bleeding...


----------



## Yari (Dec 6, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> wow good answer.
> 
> If they were trying to take the weapon back, would it be justified to use it against them to stop the attack? (I understand the different laws but go by the ones in your parts just to answer the question). What about multiple attackers? If there were 2 or more could you use a weapon on them even if they dont have one? Even someone my size (6'4 260 lbs), would I be able to?
> 
> B


 I also agree, but would you be able to not use the weapon, if it's in your hands. And would you throw it away to be able to defend yourself (and let somebody pick it up= wrong person)

/yari


----------



## Guardian (Dec 6, 2007)

_All good answers, justifiable force in a defense situation.  Alot of thoughts running through my head._

_I say that if I disarmed my attacker, I would use the weapon in a fashion that would end the confrontation the easy and safest way with the intention of doing the least amount of damage possible to my attacker (for legal reasons of course)._


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> What happens once you take away the attackers weapon and they still come at you? One answer would be to use it. This might be ok given the weapon is a club or something similar, but what if it happens to be a knife or a gun? You couldnt just turn around and use it to defend youself, or could you? What would you do? Fight that person off with hands alone or use the weapon?
> 
> B


 
Nice thread!   I would say that this is a touchy situation, because while you may appear initially to be the defender, you can suddenly appear to be the aggressor.  This is where knowing the laws is helpful.  The odds were raised as soon as the bad guy pulled a weapon, so IMHO, you're justified to pull one as well.  I would also think that you're justified to use deadly force.  As tempting as it may be, it may be best to not use it against them.  Of course, as others have said, if they're trying to take it back, then you may be forced to use it.  Could you disarm and throw the weapon?  Sure.  If they go to get it, thats when you turn around and get the hell out of there.


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2007)

thardey said:


> Why does it matter whether the gun you have in your hands came from him, or your holster?
> 
> So what that you took it away from him? If it is the type of situation where you would otherwise be forced to shoot him with your own gun, then there is no difference in being forced to shoot him with his gun.


 
If he has a gun or knife and you have your own gun, then yes, I'd say you'd be justified in shooting.  But, would you be justified in pulling the gun and using it if he is empty handed?  Unless one can prove that they really feared for their life and there was no other options, I think it would look bad in the eyes of the court if you pulled and used a gun on an unarmed person.  

I think the main difference is once you disarm them, the initial threat has been removed.  Sure they can still come at you, but now technically they are unarmed.


----------



## INDYFIGHTER (Dec 6, 2007)

If someone comes at me with a weapon and I can't just run away for some reason and I am forced to disarm them and I'm able to pull it off successfully?  
If that ever happens, it will take a police officer with a taser to get me to stop beating that person senseless and they will have deserved it.  IMO


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 6, 2007)

MJS said:


> If he has a gun or knife and you have your own gun, then yes, I'd say you'd be justified in shooting.  But, would you be justified in pulling the gun and using it if he is empty handed?  Unless one can prove that they really feared for their life and there was no other options, I think it would look bad in the eyes of the court if you pulled and used a gun on an unarmed person.
> 
> I think the main difference is once you disarm them, the initial threat has been removed.  Sure they can still come at you, but now technically they are unarmed.


Thats a good point. 

Would you say that multiple attackes would justify the use of a weapon even if they are unarmed?  I might be inclinded to say yes.


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Thats a good point.
> 
> Would you say that multiple attackes would justify the use of a weapon even if they are unarmed? I might be inclinded to say yes.


 
I would say yes.  IMHO, any time the odds become stacked against you, then you should be able to use something to equal them.


----------



## ares (Dec 6, 2007)

I still think it's ok to use the attackers weapon against him *if *he's still the aggressor. You could use a non leathal stab wound (if it was a knife) and still be in the good. The jury could see that you _*could have killed *_him if you wanted to, but used just enough force to stop the attack and control the situation. Slicing his throat would be overkill. Same goes for a gun. A leg or shoulder wound is better then a  head shot in this situation. Scott


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 6, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> What happens once you take away the attackers weapon and they still come at you? One answer would be to use it. This might be ok given the weapon is a club or something similar, but what if it happens to be a knife or a gun? You couldnt just turn around and use it to defend youself, or could you? What would you do? Fight that person off with hands alone or use the weapon?
> 
> B


 
If they continue to attack after you've disarmed them, *they're still a threat*.  Use whatever you took from them to end the threat.  

Some people hold the opinion that to do what I recommend would be to commit assault as you now are using a "higher level" of force.  However, this is *not* the case.  You are authorized (in most places) to use whatever level of force you *reasonably* believe to be necessary in order to protect yourself from death or serious bodily harm.  
By attacking you with a weapon (use of a weapon generally is considered deadly force), your attacker _has demonstrated his intent_ to kill or seriously injure you.  *The fact that you now have his weapon does not mean that he is any less committed to achieving his goal*.  If anything, he is even more of a threat because he is [evidently] so serious about hurting you that he is attacking you while he is at a disadvantage.  Make use of the advantage that you now have neutralize the threat.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 6, 2007)

ares said:


> I still think it's ok to use the attackers weapon against him *if *he's still the aggressor. You could use a non leathal stab wound (if it was a knife) and still be in the good. The jury could see that you _*could have killed *_him if you wanted to, but used just enough force to stop the attack and control the situation. Slicing his throat would be overkill. Same goes for a gun. A leg or shoulder wound is better then a head shot in this situation. Scott


 
wrong.

Use of a gun or a knife (or most other weapons) constitutes deadly force.  If you say that you deliberately used the weapon to only wound your attacker, you're going to have a hard time convincing the prosecutor that you were really in enough danger to justify the use of a deadly force tool.


----------



## Yari (Dec 7, 2007)

In Denmark, if I took a weapon away from an agressor and used it. I'll probaly go to jail. By taking the weapon away I've shown that I can handle a situation that is not in my favor. Way should I then use a weapon to defend myself when the agressor is without a weapon?

This is the legal thought.... it's completly different what I feel about it. My feeling is that I'll stop the agressor with all the means possible.

But if I'm good enough to take the weapon away, I shoud be good enough to stay out of jail ;-)

/Yari


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 7, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> wrong.
> 
> Use of a gun or a knife (or most other weapons) constitutes deadly force.  If you say that you deliberately used the weapon to only wound your attacker, you're going to have a hard time convincing the prosecutor that you were really in enough danger to justify the use of a deadly force tool.


This is a good point. What sucks is that with the legal system we have you could get attacked and injured, not seriosly but injured. In the altercation you could (with or without a weapon) cause injury to the attacker that might disable him in one form or another. When everything is all said and done you could come out looking like the bad guy. 

With that being said, if the situation like I mentioned in the beginning arises then by all means use what is necessary to stop the attacker, if that doesnt work use the weapon, because in the end you are more than likely going to be blamed one way or another. 

its a sad situation.

B


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2007)

Hmm...some interesting points.  Now that I think about it, I can think of quite a few weapon techniques in which the weapon is used against the attacker in the process of the disarm.  

As always, the situation will dictate what we do.  Some interesting things I found. 

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm
*



			Physical Force in Defense of Person
		
Click to expand...

*


> A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
> Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:
> 1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer's directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;
> 2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or
> ...




http://www.usadojo.com/articles/use-force-ladder.htm

Jim Wagner certainly brings up some fantastic points IMHO.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 7, 2007)

MJS said:


> Hmm...some interesting points.  Now that I think about it, I can think of quite a few weapon techniques in which the weapon is used against the attacker in the process of the disarm.
> 
> As always, the situation will dictate what we do.  Some interesting things I found.
> 
> ...


good post but one thing I dont get, #2

*surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own*

does this mean someone can come up to me with a weapon and say "thats my car" and if I feel threatened just decided to hand over the keys, distract the aggressor and then attack him to end the situation.

If that were to happen it seems that #2 is saying I would be in the wrong...I know I cant have that right

B


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 7, 2007)

The key word(s) are "reasonably believes."  

As I touched on before, if a person comes at you with a weapon, or if the attacker is significantly larger or stronger than you, or if there are multiple attackers (or, worst case, all of the above).  Then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that "great/serious bodily harm" is about to be inflicted upon you.  
Logic would seem to dictate, as I said earlier, that your attacker has clearly demonstrated his intent to cause great bodily harm (or death) by attacking you with a weapon.  I'm not saying that the presence of a weapon automatically signifies intent to do great harm, just that it makes it very easy to articulate why you felt the need to engage him with deadly force.
His intent can be presumed to be the same if he continues to attack after you have disarmed him.  
As long as you can articulate the "big 3" (opportunity, ability, and intent/jeapordy) you have justification.


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> good post but one thing I dont get, #2
> 
> *surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own*
> 
> ...


 
Good point and upon initial read it is a bit confusing.  I believe in this case though, they're referring to the use of deadly force, not any force at all.  Personally, and this is just my opinion, but I'm not going to put my life in the hands of the bad guy.  Everyone says to hand over the car keys.  After all, a car can be replaced, your life cant.  Ok..but where is the guarentee that I'm still going to have my life?  Whats to say that after I hand over the keys, he doesnt turn around and blow my head off?  So, in either case there is a chance you can die.  Hand over the keys and die, don't hand them over and die.  I'd rather go down with a fight.  Additionally, we need to take into consideration anyone thats with us.  I'm not leaving my wife behind, even if I decided to run.  What if she can't run as fast as I?  

I say take your chances and fight.  Again, this is just my opinion.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 7, 2007)

MJS said:


> Good point and upon initial read it is a bit confusing.  I believe in this case though, they're referring to the use of deadly force, not any force at all.  Personally, and this is just my opinion, but I'm not going to put my life in the hands of the bad guy.  Everyone says to hand over the car keys.  After all, a car can be replaced, your life cant.  Ok..but where is the guarentee that I'm still going to have my life?  Whats to say that after I hand over the keys, he doesnt turn around and blow my head off?  So, in either case there is a chance you can die.  Hand over the keys and die, don't hand them over and die.  I'd rather go down with a fight.  Additionally, we need to take into consideration anyone thats with us.  I'm not leaving my wife behind, even if I decided to run.  What if she can't run as fast as I?
> 
> I say take your chances and fight.  Again, this is just my opinion.


I totally agree. In most cases these people are weak (not physically but mentally) and they will run if someone fights back. They are only looking for the easy way out. Though every once in a while there will be someone who has nothing else to lose and these are the really dangerous people. That being the case I to will go down with a fight and if I go down and take him with me thats ok because its one less person like that in the world

B


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 7, 2007)

ares said:


> I still think it's ok to use the attackers weapon against him *if *he's still the aggressor. You could use a non leathal stab wound (if it was a knife) and still be in the good. The jury could see that you _*could have killed *_him if you wanted to, but used just enough force to stop the attack and control the situation. Slicing his throat would be overkill. Same goes for a gun. A leg or shoulder wound is better then a head shot in this situation. Scott


 


kenpotex said:


> wrong.
> 
> Use of a gun or a knife (or most other weapons) constitutes deadly force. If you say that you deliberately used the weapon to only wound your attacker, you're going to have a hard time convincing the prosecutor that you were really in enough danger to justify the use of a deadly force tool.


 
The actual definition of lethal force is "force which is a likely to cause *serious bodily injury* or death."  If you use force that is likely to cause serious bodily harm, even if you "only wound" them -- you're still using a deadly weapon.  You'd stand a good chance of being charged with somethng like Assault With a Deadly Weapon or Aggravated Malicious Wounding or even Attempted Murder.  

If you're assaulted, and you take the attacker's weapon away -- you have to be very, very careful.  You may no longer be justified in using significant force against that person; after all, they're no longer capable of using that weapon on you, right?  If they are not continuing the aggressive actions, you may not be justified in using any force against them!  Just because you just got attacked, you don't get the right to commit a new assault against the bad guy who's running from you.

And, of course, I'm not providing legal advice or guidance.  There are numerous classes in use of force for civilians available.  It's a really good idea that anyone studying martial arts for self defense take at least one...


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 7, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> good post but one thing I dont get, #2
> 
> *surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own*
> 
> ...


That's basically covering repos, shoplifter detentions, and similar situations.  I would suspect that someone making a claim that they were recovering their own property, and so you weren't justified in defending yourself would be required to show that they had a reasonable belief that they had ownership of the property.


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Dec 7, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> What happens once you take away the attackers weapon and they still come at you? One answer would be to use it. This might be ok given the weapon is a club or something similar, but what if it happens to be a knife or a gun? You couldnt just turn around and use it to defend youself, or could you? What would you do? Fight that person off with hands alone or use the weapon?
> 
> B


 
If I had to I would. Someone that has a gun or knife in their hand are not there to pick a fight, they are there to take something from you. 

With that being said, I would only use a deadly weapon as a very last resort, if I could restrain him with joint locks or grappling then I would.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 7, 2007)

jks9199 said:
			
		

> The actual definition of lethal force is "force which is a likely to cause *serious bodily injury* or death." If you use force that is likely to cause serious bodily harm, even if you "only wound" them -- you're still using a deadly weapon. You'd stand a good chance of being charged with somethng like Assault With a Deadly Weapon or Aggravated Malicious Wounding or even Attempted Murder.


 That was exactly my point.  Deadly Force/Lethal Force, same idea, different terminology.



			
				jks9199 said:
			
		

> If you're assaulted, and you take the attacker's weapon away -- you have to be very, very careful. You may no longer be justified in using significant force against that person; after all, they're no longer capable of using that weapon on you, right?


  They may not be capable of using the weapon against you, but if they're still attacking they're still a serious threat.  Furthermore, if they succeed in regaining their weapon, they're going to present an even greater threat (all over again) and you're right back where you started.



			
				jks9199 said:
			
		

> If they are not continuing the aggressive actions, you may not be justified in using any force against them! Just because you just got attacked, you don't get the right to commit a new assault against the bad guy who's running from you.


agreed.  When did I ever say anything about using the weapon or continuing the use of any kind of force if they ceased their attack?


----------



## SKB (Dec 9, 2007)

If you go with what Kenpotex is saying you will be in the right most of the time. Why most of the time? See if you happen to be over six foot, weight over 200 and have any past which woud lead people to think you can handle yourself, you are at a disadvantage. A jury will think you should of been able to do somthing else! Big fellas need to keep that in mind! 

Use the least amount of force necasary to gain control of the situation. If you have taken the bad guys "tool" (remember the person is the weapon) the situation has changed and you need to take that into account, the jury will.

If you have to shoot or stab someone do not try to wound them! In a real situation you won't have the time to think of things like that!!! And if the bad guy is so inept you do have time maybe you really need to rethink what you are doing!!


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Jan 4, 2008)

For me personally, if no one was around and I knew for a fact that I wouldn't get caught I would use thier weapon against them. If possible I would keep the weapon in thier hand and use it against them. Make it look like they shot or stabbed themself......lol. I'd be ruthless as they were.


----------



## towknee (Jan 5, 2008)

This is the drill I was taught once you have disarmed a firearm weapon threat.

1)  Remove yourself several feet from the bad guy(s).  Many steps away.  Many.  Back away. Don't turn away.  If you are with others, don't put them between you and the bad guy(s).
2) Show them you have the weapon and tell them loudly you will use it.
Loudly. So there are potential witnesses.  Do not try to discharge the weapon.  If at all possible, verify that it is loaded.  It could very well be empty.
3) Back off and remove yourself from the area.  Legally, you are now the armed individual.  Get out.
4) If the bad guy approaches.  Shoot center of body.  Don't make it hard.
Keep in mind that the gun may not be loaded.  Plan on alternative behavior.
5) Whether you fire, if possible, do not leave area.  We want these folks arrested.  Flight is considered guilt.  Call the police.  Wait for the police.
6) If you have to depart, and you have shot someone, then do so.  But, call the police, just after calling your attorney, and tell them all details.  Don't screw it up any more than it already is.
7) Provide basic info to police.  This is good common sense.  Help them move toward resolution.  Especially if the bad guy is still alive and waiting for assistance.  Then, shut up and wait for your attorney.

If you shoot someone, anticipate that the authorities will arrest you.  Don't do anything stupid.  This is nomal.  It isn't something they are doing to get at you.  Shooting people is considered anti-social.  Deal with it.

If you shoot somenone, anticipated that they will sue you should they survive.  (Read into this what ever you think about that center shot.)

Always keep in mind: Once you have disarmed them you have changed the legal environment dramatically.  You are no longer in threat of deadly force.

Luck.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 5, 2008)

towknee said:


> This is the drill I was taught once you have disarmed a firearm weapon threat.
> 
> 1)  Remove yourself several feet from the bad guy(s).  Many steps away.  Many.  Back away. Don't turn away.  If you are with others, don't put them between you and the bad guy(s).
> 2) Show them you have the weapon and tell them loudly you will use it.
> ...



The underlined portions are in conflict...

If you have successfully disarmed an attacker who was armed with a gun, they may no longer present an immediate threat of deadly force.  If you then shoot them for approaching you, you'll have a seriously uphill battle to justify your actions.  Your use of force was, almost by definition, excessive at that point.

If you've had the time to disarm them. determine whether the weapon is loaded (not always easy, unless you're familiar with the weapon in question), then back off, and warn them...  You've largely demonstrated that they no longer present the immediate threat or capability of inflicting serious bodily harm upon you. 

If you're attacked and manage to disarm your attacker, whether they're using a knife, club, pistol, or M1 Abrams tank, your best legal option is probably to escape as fast as you can.  Prolonging the confrontation puts you in questionable legal territory.

Disclaimer: I'm NOT A LAWYER and I AM NOT providing specific legal guidance or advice to anyone.


----------



## LawDog (Jan 5, 2008)

After taking a weapon away from your opponent,
* with extreme haste place it in a safe location on your person.
   Your opponent will try to retreive it or a by-stander / friend might try
   to take it away from you,
* never state that you might / will use the weapon against your now
   unarmed opponent,
* if you run away after taking the weapon away from your opponent
   he could stated that you tried to use the weapon on him. Giive it to 
   police, they can check to see if his finger prints are on the magazine,
   the bullets etc. This will show who really  has been handling the gun.
* Last and the most important, make sure that you make it home intact.
:ultracool


----------



## towknee (Jan 6, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> The underlined portions are in conflict...
> 
> If you have successfully disarmed an attacker who was armed with a gun, they may no longer present an immediate threat of deadly force.  If you then shoot them for approaching you, you'll have a seriously uphill battle to justify your actions.  Your use of force was, almost by definition, excessive at that point.
> 
> ...



Yes.  No contest. Several aspects can easily be seen as in conflict.  For that matter, lots of unmentioned things offer points of conflict such as your socio-economic class or perceived racial profile, your legal history, or lack thereof, etc, in a disarm & defend situation.

I am also not an attorney nor a police office and I am not prescribing a procedure.  I am only listing something I was taught some time ago along the lines of the thread. 
The instruction  was back in the late 1970's and I have no clue where those folks are now so I can't go back and ask if they revised their thoughts.  They certainly told us to run.  And they were pretty sure you would go to jail if it involved much physical interaction at all.  This included punching the stuffings out of an assailant you had disarmed.

In fairness, right from the get-go punisher73 summed up the best practical advice:
"I would check with an attorney and find out 1) what state laws are 2) what local ordinances are and 3) how does the prosecutor's office generally look at cases like that."

I frequently interact w/a couple of police officers in my job so now I'm going to go agitate them and see what they think.  
Personally, I just don't see my self shooting someone I am able to disarm. 

Thank you.
luck.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 6, 2008)

towknee said:


> Yes.  No contest. Several aspects can easily be seen as in conflict.  For that matter, lots of unmentioned things offer points of conflict such as your socio-economic class or perceived racial profile, your legal history, or lack thereof, etc, in a disarm & defend situation.
> 
> I am also not an attorney nor a police office and I am not prescribing a procedure.  I am only listing something I was taught some time ago along the lines of the thread.
> The instruction  was back in the late 1970's and I have no clue where those folks are now so I can't go back and ask if they revised their thoughts.  They certainly told us to run.  And they were pretty sure you would go to jail if it involved much physical interaction at all.  This included punching the stuffings out of an assailant you had disarmed.
> ...


I am a cop.

The response you described initially could very easily lead to a very bad situation.  You've disarmed someone, then remained at the scene and essentially RE-ENGAGED them after you'd escaped.  You then become the aggressor; you're brandishing the gun that you took off of them.

The question of whether force used is appropriate has to consider many issues, but relative socio-economic strata is NOT one of them.  Poor people have equal rights to defend themselves as rich people.  If you check within the General Self Defense forum (and a few others, too) here on MT, you'll see that issues of what level of force is justified have been discussed at length several times.


----------



## towknee (Jan 6, 2008)

OK.
I take the points.

Sorry.
Thank you.
luck.


----------

