# Weapon Use Against An Unarmed Attacker



## MJS (Jul 11, 2011)

After reading 2 recent threads on here, I noticed that the use of a weapon against an unarmed person, was used or suggested.  The first thread was this one.  The guys son was unarmed and stabbed fatally.  The other, was in the locker room, with those 2 Kenpo clowns.  One of them mentioned picking up a variety of weapons, and using them.  

So, this brings us to the thread.  Do you feel that its right to use a weapon to defend yourself, if the person attacking you is unarmed?  Would you pick something up and use it, were you to find yourself in a situation?


----------



## harlan (Jul 11, 2011)

Absolutely. As a female, having been on the wrong side of being choked by a stronger person with a longer reach, I can say I have no problem with it...depending on the situation.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Jul 11, 2011)

harlan said:


> Absolutely. As a female, having been on the wrong side of being choked by a stronger person with a longer reach, I can say I have no problem with it...depending on the situation.



I completely cosign this interpretation for you,harlan...and anyone else with a similar experience.But I think the last  words in your quote: "depending on the situation"...tells the tale. Doc has a favorite saying:"It depends". And there ya are one more once.

I live in LBC,CA. I generally don't recommend going Zorro on a BG if he's unarmed and about the same size as you are.If he's bigger,there's more than one,if you're a woman andh he's a man,if he popped outta nowhere acting like a psycho,or a host of other scenarios? Welll..."it depends". 

The biggest problem I find is that most martial artists are insufficiently instructed in the reality of weapon use,so they tend to do more damage than the situation calls for if/when they do break out a weapon and successfully employ it.We should have the same high degree of facility with a weapon like a knife as we do with our empty hands.We should be able to reliably escalate or de-escalate the damage dealt to an assailant in exactly the same way that we can choose to put him in a control hold,walk away,knock him down,smack him around a bit...or hospitalize or kill him.By and large we lack that facility,and it's entirely our fault.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 11, 2011)

If I am being attacked, anything and everything I can use to help me walk away reasonably unharmed, is fair game. A rock, a brick, a big stick, a pen, whatever I have to do to get home to my kids is acceptable. 

Queensbury rules are for the ring.


----------



## Buka (Jul 11, 2011)

If he was attacking me, nope. Attacking my family, yup.


----------



## David43515 (Jul 11, 2011)

I just might. A weapon doesn`t nessesarily mean leathal force. If I didn`t feel confident about stopping an attacker bare-handed, or if I were being attacked by more than one person, I`d probably look around for an equalizer of some kind. Tossing the box of tissues on my desk into someone`s face, or beating someone`s arms with my cellphone both constitute using a weapon. But I assume you mean would I advocate using something designed as a weapon, something with potentially leathal consequences. 

If I thought my life was in danger, or that I was in danger of serious physical damage, I would use a weapon. No question. I like people, but I`m not going to let someone else put me at serious risk if I can avoid it. If I die or even spend weeks in a hospital who`s taking care of my family? If someone attacks me while I`m WITH my family what are their intentions? A driver filled with road rage may just want to hurt me, but someone else who takes a poke at me may just want to get me out of the way while he runs off with my wife or daughter.

Just like any other talk about unarmed defense and what level of force would you use, the answer is "It depends". Whether you choke a guy out and he doesn`t wake up, or whether you shoot or stab him to death, the end result is the same. What you`re really asking is "How quickly would you decide to cross that line?" and the answer, as always, is it depends.


----------



## OKenpo942 (Jul 12, 2011)

I think that it depends on what type of weapon we are talking about.  I don't think you are defending yourself anymore if you bring a likely deadly weapon in against an unarmed attacker and use it. However, if an impact type weapon, I'd say. "you shouldn't have attacked me" and go ahead and give 'em a good thumping. Just make sure that you thump 'em enough that they can't get to a better weapon to use against you. In other words, make sure they stay down long enough for you to GTFO.

James


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 12, 2011)

MJS said:


> So, this brings us to the thread.  Do you feel that its right to use a weapon to defend yourself, if the person attacking you is unarmed?  Would you pick something up and use it, were you to find yourself in a situation?


In a word... Yes


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 12, 2011)

Might be a good idea to read the Pre-emptive strike thread as well ( http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?97284-Pre-emptive-strike ), looking especially at points of law.  A MA is always going to be held to a higher standard.  We are "karate experts," remember?  We are weapons.  Yessir.  

Many US States allow use of force greater than that being defended against, if you can show you are the defender, and are at a disadvantage because of your attacker's greater presumed ability, and had no path of retreat.  Remember, you may be required to prove that in a court of law.  Those deciding your fate may never have been in a fight.  Regardless, they are sitting comfortably in a jury box or behind a judge's bench, taking a lot of time to decide what you probably had seconds or split seconds to decide.

Now, what weapon are we talking about?  A man takes a swing at you and you reply with a 12 gauge shotgun.  That's going to be a tough sell in a court.  Not perhaps impossible, but very very difficult.  If he takes a swing and you use a baton to apply a come-along hold.  I see no problem.  A lot will depend on the weapon.  If you pull out a roll of quarters and hit someone, you will likely have some explaining to do.  If you happen to have a cell phone in your hand and use that, that will probably be seen as a matter of circumstance.

Just remember that anything we say here doesn't apply when it gets to the stage of you going to court to defend your actions, whether criminal or civil.  You will then be alone and have to convince the fact finders in the court.

But I really wonder about a belted MA thinking of using a weapon first.  What have you been taught?  Mind you I am not against weapons per se.  And for sure if you think you need them to survive, survive and fight any court battles as a survivor later.  But aren't we susposed to be a little better than that?


----------



## poollshark (Jul 12, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> If I am being attacked, anything and everything I can use to help me walk away reasonably unharmed, is fair game. A rock, a brick, a big stick, a pen, whatever I have to do to get home to my kids is acceptable.
> 
> Queensbury rules are for the ring.



My sentiments exactly, whatever it takes to get home to my family.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 12, 2011)

*Every situation will have different factors* that could contribute to you utilizing or not utilizing a weapon.  Hard to give any kind of definitive answer on this one.  Bottom line though we should all do what is necessary to survive and get home safe or protect our loved ones!


----------



## Jenna (Jul 12, 2011)

I feel it is right to defend yourself however you see fit.  I think the only debating point is what the law subsequently says of your action.  Personally I would rather be alive yet culpable of the injury of my aggressor than be seriously injured yet innocent of any wrongdoing.  

The other issue is that in this situation where the aggressor is unarmed, I will not know whether use of a weapon is called for until it is too late.  So while I personally think use of a weapon is completely ethical in my own defence, unfortunately for me I am not primarily versed in their use for attack and would defend unarmed always in the first instance.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 12, 2011)

Most State's use of force laws don't even get into the issue of weapons. It's all about "force" ...physical force, deadly force, etc. If you can articulate that deadly force was necessary it doesn't matter if the opponent is armed or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Most State's use of force laws don't even get into the issue of weapons. It's all about "force" ...physical force, deadly force, etc. If you can articulate that deadly force was necessary it doesn't matter if the opponent is armed or not.



This ^^^


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2011)

And for those who would not use a weapon to defend themselves against an unarmed opponent, let me suggest a scenario and see if you change your mind.

You are armed - perhaps as part of your job.  You are attacked by what certainly appears to be an unarmed person.  He is ferociously beating you with his hands and feet and you are quickly on the ground, he's on top of you, and you feel yourself beginning to black out.

a) Do not respond using your weapon.  Hope he does not kill you once you're unconscious.
b) Use your weapon to defend yourself.  Maybe die, maybe live.

I'm not going to intentionally put the choice of whether I live or die in the hands of another person under most circumstances.

Police officers face this conundrum all the time.  Their right to use a weapon in self-defense is very little different from a citizen who is not a law enforcement officer, if any at all.  Attacked by unarmed people all the time, they have to defend themselves *and* enforce the law, and they have to do it knowing that if they lose control of their weapons, those weapons may be used against them or against anyone.  It is not unheard of for a police officer to have to shoot an unarmed person.  It happens.  It always causes a big outcry from the segment of the community who only sees _"cop shoots unarmed man"_ and do not think beyond the headline they read.

To answer the question as applied to myself - were I armed and attacked by an unarmed person *and* I thought that I was in danger of grave bodily injury or death and therefore justified in using deadly force in self-defense (not just 'self-defense' but also 'deadly force'), then I would not hesitate to defend myself with that weapon.  Nor would I delay employing it.  To delay implies I have other options that I could employ first.  If I have the legal justification to employ deadly force, I am out of options (as a 'reasonable and prudent man' as I presume myself to be).  Please do not read that to mean I run around packing heat and itching to blow away the first guy I can convince to raise a fist against me.  Nothing of the sort.  It is just that I will not delay employing a weapon in my defense if a) I have such a weapon and b) I am legally justified in using it for that purpose.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 12, 2011)

Using a weapon against an unarmed attacker may or may not be legal, depending on your local laws and the specific circumstances. And of course, how good the lawyers are.
But from an ethical and moral standpoint, I belive you're justified in doing whatever it takes to defend yourself from an attacker. I also believe you shouldn't do more damage than necessary, but what constitutes "necessary" is also something that will vary widely depending on exact circumstances.

Here in Colorado, we have this thing called the "Make My Day" law. You break in, and I can kill you. End of discussion.

Outside your home it's not quite as simple, but still fairly reasonable. If you're in fear for your life, you can kill to defend yourself.


----------



## Nomad (Jul 12, 2011)

Just because you don't see a weapon doesn't mean your attacker is unarmed... there are a number of scenarios possible where the assailant could well have weapons that he hasn't chosen to deploy yet... but which might come out if things don't go as planned for him.

Personally, I think it can be prudent to assume that an attacker likely does have a knife in his pocket or a gun stuffed down his pants, at least until you can prove otherwise. 

If someone attacks me, they have several advantages going for them; they've likely picked the location, the victim (me) and the approach.  I have no problem using whatever's available to equalize the odds, since they tend to start out heavily in his favor.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 12, 2011)

The standards for law enforcement are different, simply because they are authorized to be armed, and duty bound to enforce the law (including protecting themselves from being assaulted).  They also are more likely to travel in pairs and have other non-lethal weapons they may be able to employ first.  That is why there aren't more shootings of "unarmed" perps.

Now if the person is not LEO, there is another problem.  If you carry a weapon, you become more likely to have to use it.  As Bill points out, are you going to give an attacker access to your weapon?  

Most of us in this forum are MA.  Have you not been taught how to protect yourself against an attacker, do you know how to block?  Can you do a low kick that backs off an attacker or injures him.  If an attacker gets close to you, you are close to him and can do great damage.

I'm not saying there won't be circumstances where an assailant may be able to overcome you.  But it just isn't supposed to happen to MA so easily.  If it does, do what is necessary.  Use anything you can as a weapon.  But if you carry a weapon, that must be used quickly.


----------



## billc (Jul 12, 2011)

In a low light environment, such as at night or inside a dark hallway, a small knife in an attackers hand may not bee seen easily by the victim.  I know at least one law enforcement officer, a friend, who said he was punched in the back,  only later realizing he had been stabbed.


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2011)

Nice replies everyone.  To answer my own question...yes, I'd use a weapon.  As to what type?  Well, it would again, depend on the situation.  A weapon is really a broad term, and it can range from picking up some sand or some rocks on the ground and tossing them at the BG, all the way to picking up a gun.  Bill pretty much echoed my thoughts.  The BG whos confronting me has a weapon, yes, I'd use one.  BG breaks into my house at 2am while my wife and I are sleeping, you bet I'm going to grab something.  Given the fact that at that moment, I have no idea who he is, is there more than 1 person, yes, you bet I'm going to use a weapon.  A life and death situation, yes.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 13, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm not saying there won't be circumstances where an assailant may be able to overcome you. But it just *isn't supposed to happen to MA so easily*.



I don't know if I necessairly believe that. It's my opinion that MANY martial artists haven't ever been exposed to a REAL fight. And many MA schools don't ever expose students to a realistic attack (or as close as you can safely get to one).


----------



## Phenix_Rider (Jul 13, 2011)

To paraphrase my first instructor.  Hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast, walk away and don't get caught.  In real danger, there's no such thing as a fair fight.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 13, 2011)

As others have noted -- the question isn't whether or not the attacker is armed, but whether or not the attacker is capable of doing serious bodily harm to you and whether that threat is imminent.  Both attacker and defender are taken as they are found.  As a defender, you may be tired, ill, injured...  The attacker may be bigger, stronger, healthy... or drunk or injured.  Your use of force must be proportionate to the threat.  That doesn't mean exactly equal -- but simply roughly in-line with what you're facing in the totality of the circumstances.  My 105 year old grandmother (to use an extreme) would be absolutely justified in using lethal force to defend herself if she was attacked by a Navy SEAL or Army Green Beret just out of training -- if if the commando was bare naked and drunk.  (Again -- extreme!)  But me?  I'd have to justify shooting that guy a bit more, no?  I might be expected to show why something else wouldn't work...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 13, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I don't know if I necessairly believe that. It's my opinion that MANY martial artists haven't ever been exposed to a REAL fight. And many MA schools don't ever expose students to a realistic attack (or as close as you can safely get to one).



Well, I haven't trained in a school in a long time.  You may well be right.  Sad if you are, and shame on schools that aren't teaching good martial arts.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 13, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Most State's use of force laws don't even get into the issue of weapons. It's all about "force" ...physical force, deadly force, etc. If you can articulate that deadly force was necessary it doesn't matter if the opponent is armed or not.


 Right but as stated earlier it does bring into question that a guy throws a punch at you and you respond with a .12 gauge at close range... umm... even as a juror I'd have trouble with that. Are you telling me that you're not good enough or intimidating enough to make a person stand where they are at gun point? Or even that you're at least good enough to wound the person (i.e. shot in the leg or other non-vital area?). I think a gun defense against an un-armed individual would play better in court if you show that you 1st tried to stop the attacker via firearm intimidation, 2nd tried to stop the attacker via wounding 3rd stop the attacker by killing them. Some people can get so pissed off or out of their minds that nothing stops them and ergo your life is indeed in mortal danger. Better be able to prove it. And I think by proving it you tried to de-escalate the attack a little at a time... unless of course there are other individuals involved that could not otherwise defend themselves, should you fail to defend yourself without a weapon ... i.e. small children in the house. 
Pretty sticky situation all around to be sure.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 13, 2011)

I can't believe you bought out the "shoot to wound" argument Caver. :barf:


----------



## Haakon (Jul 13, 2011)

MJS said:


> So, this brings us to the thread.  Do you feel that its right to use a weapon to defend yourself, if the person attacking you is unarmed?  Would you pick something up and use it, were you to find yourself in a situation?



There are no 'fair' fights, if there is a weapon handy that gives me an advantage against an attacker, sure I'll use it. Using a weapon may very well end a fight sooner with less total damage done to the attacker than if I didn't have a weapon and had to break several of his joints and pummel him.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 14, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I can't believe you bought out the "shoot to wound" argument Caver. :barf:




If you thought that were a viable option, would you not choose it?


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 14, 2011)

A firearm is deadly force. When you pull the trigger you better have legal reason to use deadly force and nothing less. If you do have a reason, than you are risking your life on the assumption that wounding will work or is even possible. people who think that shooting to wound is a viable option have little knowledge of what a gunfight is like or the mechanics of what bullets can (or cant) effectively do.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 14, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> A firearm is deadly force. When you pull the trigger you better have legal reason to use deadly force and nothing less. If you do have a reason, than you are risking your life on the assumption that wounding will work or is even possible. people who think that shooting to wound is a viable option have little knowledge of what a gunfight is like or the mechanics of what bullets can (or cant) effectively do.



If you even brandish a gun, you had better be sure you have a reason that is legally justifiable, and are willing to use it. To do otherwise risks you going to jail or being shot with your own weapon.

You are painting with a broad brush to say "people" who think shooting to wound don't know about guns or gunfights. Indeed many, probably most, don't. But I asked the question and I presume your reply is to me. I know enough to believe wounding may sometimes be a viable option, and when it is, I would prefer to take that option. I presume any gun I use will be capable of firing more than one round. I presume I will be able to fire more than one round. If those presumtions aren't correct, I might look to increase the seriousness of where I shoot the person (again, the presumption is that I can hit what I aim at), or then perhaps I might be more inclined to shoot to kill. But it would not be my first choice, nor my constant preference. YMMV


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 14, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> If you even brandish a gun, you had better be sure you have a reason that is legally justifiable, and are willing to use it. To do otherwise risks you going to jail or being shot with your own weapon.
> 
> You are painting with a broad brush to say "people" who think shooting to wound don't know about guns or gunfights. Indeed many, probably most, don't. But I asked the question and I presume your reply is to me. I know enough to believe wounding may sometimes be a viable option, and when it is, I would prefer to take that option. I presume any gun I use will be capable of firing more than one round. I presume I will be able to fire more than one round. If those presumtions aren't correct, I might look to increase the seriousness of where I shoot the person (again, the presumption is that I can hit what I aim at), or then perhaps I might be more inclined to shoot to kill. But it would not be my first choice, nor my constant preference. YMMV



Shooting to wound versus shooting to kill is really a different issue from whether the use of a weapon is justifiable.  A  firearm is, by definition, lethal force (it is capable, and indeed likely to cause serious bodily harm or death if used), whether used to shoot a gun  out of the bad guy's hand _a la_ TV Westerns or to place two  rounds center mass, and one between the eyes.  As a strong general rule, a  plan to intentionally shoot to wound disregards a whole lot of what  goes on in a lethal force encounter.  Very experienced SWAT or similar  tactical operators may be be able to do it.  A sniper at a remove, in  the right circumstances, might do it.  But the "average" officer or  civilian gun-toter?  Probably not, not intentionally.  You did address dealing what to do if the wound is insufficient to stop the threat, but you're still disregarding what we know tends to happen in a violent encounter.  

Are there circumstances where it is possible and even desirable to shoot to wound?  Yes.  But they're few and far between.


----------



## billc (Jul 14, 2011)

So what you are saying is that instead of shooting to wound, you should just shoot the weapon out of the attackers hand?


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 14, 2011)

Very few people have the ability, self control training, or experience to accurately place a bullet into a nonlethal part of the human body. There are some weapon "experts" who can demonstrate some impressive shooting skills, however their targets are located at a known range, aren't shooting back, aren't holding a hostage shield, and usually aren't moving.

99.9999% of shooting scenarios are not going to give you the time/distance to debate between shooting COM or a limb anyway (unless you are a SWAT sniper...and even then) and limb shooting wont stop enough BG's from continuing to try to kill you to make "shooting to wound" a skill even worth practicing.​


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 14, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Shooting to wound versus shooting to kill is really a different issue from whether the use of a weapon is justifiable.
> 
> *True, but you brought it up.
> 
> ...



Just some of my thoughts. Again, YMMV.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> So what you are saying is that instead of shooting to wound, you should just shoot the weapon out of the attackers hand?


 Heh, that'd leave the guy with one hand now wouldn't it? He's supposed to be unarmed. 
I do see what jks is trying to say here, yet I feel comfortable enough with a firearm to sufficiently aim to wound and if that fails then it'll be center mass and a head shot if necessary. However; it's more-n-likely to be a center-mass and/or head shot anyway. 

Yet in a court of law I suppose it would be better to just kill the attacker and argue it's justifiability rather "how many times did you shoot him/her?So were they really THE attacker?"  
Witnesses in this situation would be very nice but they'd better be on your side.


----------



## chinto (Jul 20, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> A firearm is deadly force. When you pull the trigger you better have legal reason to use deadly force and nothing less. If you do have a reason, than you are risking your life on the assumption that wounding will work or is even possible. people who think that shooting to wound is a viable option have little knowledge of what a gunfight is like or the mechanics of what bullets can (or cant) effectively do.



and if you use a choke or strangle you also have initiated deadly force just as much as you have if you shoot some one!  

the question is would I use a weapon if attacked... answer yes.


----------



## MJS (Jul 21, 2011)

chinto said:


> and if you use a choke or strangle you also have initiated deadly force just as much as you have if you shoot some one!
> 
> the question is would I use a weapon if attacked... answer yes.



OTOH, its possible to use the choke to simply put the guy into nighty night land.   Of course, you could wrap your hands around the guys neck with the intent of crushing everything in there.  IMO, the intent is different in each.


----------



## threethirty (Jul 24, 2011)

I have absolutely no problem with using a weapon against an unarmed person, to be honest it is preferable. Just because they are unarmed when the fight begins does not mean it will continue that way. As has already been said there are NO fair fights. I carry a tabot at all times, not necessarily a lethal weapon but better than nothing.


----------



## Lee Mainprize (Aug 11, 2011)

I agree I would have thought carrying a telescopic baton or such would be more effective than a blade for common sense purposes.


----------



## thegatekeeper (Dec 25, 2011)

Depends on the situation. If it was a fair 1 vs 1 fight, I don't agree with it. If something dear is in danger because of the attacker, then I would advise it.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 25, 2011)

thegatekeeper said:


> Depends on the situation. If it was a fair 1 vs 1 fight, I don't agree with it. If something dear is in danger because of the attacker, then I would advise it.



If you're facing a real violent attack, and you have a weapon -- USE IT.  There is no such thing as a fair fight except in sporting contests.  Unless you fall into the habit of getting into monkey dance/status fights... if you're attacked for real, don't try to play fair.


----------

