# Follow through after defanging the snake illegal?



## mcjon77 (Jun 9, 2004)

Hey all,

I didn't know whether to put this in the general self defense section or in the knife section here.  I was thinking about some knife defense techniques when your attacker has a knife, and so to you.  Many of them involve doing some sort of slash on the opponents striking arm, and following through with more cuts.  My question is this.  If you were to do a slash that resulted in the attacker droping the knife, wouldn't you no longer be authorised to continue slashing/stabbing the attacker as he no longer poses any more of a threat than an unarmed man attacking you.

For instance if you were to defang the attackers right arm with a slash to the inside belly of his forearm, causing him to drop his knife, wouldn't you be in trouble legally if you then followed through with a stab in the abdomen or slash of his cartaroid artery.

It would seem to me that any further attacks with your blade on the attacker, after he has been disarmed, move into the area of the illegal (the exception being multiple attackers).  Also, if you admit to the police of doing the arm strike first, couldn't a physician/medical examiner testify that after that first cut, there was no way your attacker could have held a weapon, making what you did afterwards assault with a deadly weapon and/or murder/manslaughter.

If these questions seem simple, please understand that I am an absolute beginner regarding self defense with a knife, and am exploring these issues before I commit to carrying an edged weapon.

Just Wondering,

Jon


----------



## arnisador (Jun 9, 2004)

I think you're right to figure that once the person is disarmed, you're courting trouble if you keep attacking. But remember, these arts were originally for military application. In that case, killing the enemy was the goal. Now, in civilian self-defense, you'd want to try to disengage if you could.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 9, 2004)

I think if you have a knife in your hand and do any damage most courts in the USA will not look well upon you. Selfdefence be damned you had better have many witnesses on your side to say you drew your blade much after he did and all other attempts at a way out where used.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jun 9, 2004)

mcjon77 said:
			
		

> Hey all,
> It would seem to me that any further attacks with your blade on the attacker, after he has been disarmed, move into the area of the illegal (the exception being multiple attackers).
> Jon



you show good common sense. the trick is..can you make those types of decisions in the heat of a confrontation? When the blood starts flowing and emotions get involved its hard to think about making the right or wrong decisions.

Arnisador...perhaps not only "military" application, but maybe in a culture where its accepted as such.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 9, 2004)

I agree with both of your points *arnisandyz*.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 9, 2004)

mcjon77 said:
			
		

> If these questions seem simple, please understand that I am an absolute beginner regarding self defense with a knife, and am exploring these issues before I commit to carrying an edged weapon.
> 
> Just Wondering,
> 
> Jon


In this context, I would advise you to not carry the edged weapon until you have a better understanding of how to use it.  There are people who can take it from you and turn it on you faster than most would believe.

Having said that, I _personally _train in the minset of remaining engaged until I can "consciously" disengage - regardless of legal ramifications.  I find that this mindset provides me with the sense of security that I won't be second guessing myself while engaged.  It's an interesting problem though. The issues over the legality of your actions while defending yourself are complex.  I choose to ignore them, and hope that it won't become an issue for me.

Good question.


----------



## Han-Mi (Jun 10, 2004)

I don't have much experience with knife fighting, and most of what I do know is open hand disarms. But as for the legalities of a killing strike with a knife If you can prove it was in self defense, and the other person had a knife as well, you would have a chance, But not a good one. I would say it would be best to consider what the rules for a cop are, We as MA's arent quite so bound, but we are bound by similar rules.


----------



## Stick Dummy (Jun 10, 2004)

Open ended question - no all encompassing answer..............


 If you are in true fear of your life, do what ever you need to do to survive the event. 

  Its kinda like sparring a "Fairy Godmother" and getting the FEAR look after hitting them "more than once", FMA'ers call this "a Blast", they are out of their enviroment, which is traditionally no touch - single point rules. I like the term fighting masturbation for such endeavours.

 In jr/sr high school, during pugilistic exchanges I used to hear opponents groan "Thats not fair" just before collapse, following a swift BTG. Waaah-Waah. I did not fight outside of MA classes for fun, and still don't.
 I've seen people killed violently on the street with knives, & assorted implements and it ain't no disco, or playing around.

rant mode off :erg:   and I apologize if i offended anyone

Kumbaya........, Kumbaya............


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 10, 2004)

In my head at least, I would continue until that person has no possible way to continue to pose a threat.  As soon as the knives come out, a little switch in the brain has to be flipped to say "OK, there's a very high probability I'm going to die, it's DEFINITELY go time!", and let the body follow suit.  Now, if you somehow catch a disarm, or do enough damage to the arm that the attacker drops the knife and attempts to leave, let him/her go.  If you run the other person down, you become the agressor.  If you get that disarm, and the person keeps coming, keep cutting until that person doesn't want to, or is unable to attack you further.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jun 10, 2004)

In most principalities you have the right to defend yourself with equal or lesser force. Of course that's stupid, because which has more force a punch or a kick? What about a snap kick and a thrust punch? Or a handsword or a backnuckle? The idea is to create such a vague, undefined area of law that each case must be judged solely on its own merits. Of course, that doesn't really work either. When it comes to weapons, you can usually defend against a weapon, with a weapon. However, if your opponent is disarmed and you hit him with the weapon, you are using a greater amount of force than he is able to use against you, and you have become the aggressor. At this time, you can, and most likely will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

In a fight, there is no right answer. The right answer was to avoid the fight, too late for that. Understand however that there are laws which govern our society and being ignorant of them will not keep you safe. It sounds like you are on the right path as far as learning the legal ramifications of your decisions. It's good to see that you haven't fallen so in love with gutting a bad guy with your knife that you forgot how the cops might feel about that.


-Rob


----------



## Elfan (Jun 10, 2004)

First remeber that its preferable to face trail for your actions than be dead.  However, if you have the knife striking with the hilt can be very effective and demonstrates a great deal of restraint on your part.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 10, 2004)

I have a question for those of you who spend a significant portion of your training time working edged weapons. As you know, many of the techniques and patterns that we learn are quite continuous. Now, I have never ever had to deal with this in real life, only through limited sparring with a trainer, but, let's say you get the disarm. Is it not reasonable to assume that by the time you've noticed that the disarm worked, you may have already pulled off a few more cuts/stabs? What I'm pointing to here is the speed and continuity of the attack. This is where I see the real rub. Should we then be held accountable for using extreme force? 

It seems to me that, within the context of the statement "you fight how you train", and give that we train to rip off numerous techniques in very little time, its very difficult for me to believe that I can remain totally conscious of the "moment" when I may be stepping over the line. Does this make sense to anyone?


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 10, 2004)

I understand what you mean and agree to a point.  One has to train with a level of control and sensitivity to "know" what the opponent is doing without actively thinking about it.  Granted, this may be much easier said than done on the street, with the adrenaline pumping and your brain running in overdrive.  Without that control, your basically going to blitzkrieg anyone and everyone who crosses your path in an altercation, probably landing you in jail quick.  It's one thing to focus on your opponent, and it's another to blind yourself to the possibility he's done and the fight is over.

Think i'm rambling now, so please comment away.


----------



## Stick Dummy (Jun 11, 2004)

Accountability? - Absolutely! and I'd venture both Criminally and Civilly at that.

Jeopardy
Ability
Opportunity
Preclusion

  The point is when is enough?

  To me when the threat is neutralized by whatever means necessary to ensure my or another attack victims survival. 

Think about these "what ifs":

The attacker had the same skill level as you, or  WORSE  YET as your instructor.

The attacker has a significant physical size gain (both height & 50 + lbs) over you.


Then there is the preconceived "Sheeple" notion of hanging around the incident scene waiting on the po-lice to arrive. 

If the attacker is on his home turf and his buddies & relatives begin to arrive post facto, and you have none with you, things might / WILL / get REAL ugly.

G.T.F. Out of the area, call a lawyer - hopefully you have thought of this since you are carrying a weapon, and write everything down that occured to the best of your ability.


----------



## Grasshoppah (Jun 11, 2004)

Hey, Jon

This is why I don't carry a Knife.
Someone will have to use it against me. Then this will be self-defence.


----------



## Dijos (Jun 13, 2004)

IMHO:
"follow through" is relative.  Being a student of Bram Frank, we/I look for Bio-mechanical cutting.  The intent is to stop the threat.  A cut to the inside of the arm, f.e., would not be followed up with an intentionally lethal response-I'd try to take out my attacker's mobility with a cut to the sartorious-for FMAers, it's a 1-4 pattern.  then I believe I can safely run away.  In reference to disarms, it's something I would try only if I had absolutely no other option, including running away.  They're really hard to do real time.  Truth be told, I've never had to defend myself in a knife-knife fight, so who knows?

--Joe


----------



## chfroehlich (Jun 14, 2004)

Hey,


just read an article here in Germany where an unarmed defender of a knife-attack was sent to jail for 7 years.

The Defender was attacked by a guy with a knife and disarmed him and returned it to the sender.

Made me think about my knifetraining.

But I think it's better to be juged by 12 then carried by 6.

Greets

Christof


----------



## arnisador (Jun 14, 2004)

Do you have a link to that story?


----------



## Aaron (Jun 14, 2004)

As Law Enforcement we follow the standard of "no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended"

A citizen is judged (I use that term loosely) by a much lesser standard.  In my state just because you are a "martial artist" you are NOT held to higher standard than average "Joe Citizen".  I should clarify that in my mere 10 years of work I have never heard of, seen or read about knowledge of martial arts being used against someone in prosecution, it may be out there and I'm just not aware of it.

If you are "in fear" for your life and your fear is reasonable (realizing that we can what-if that to death) then you are allowed to take whatever action is necessary to defend yourself to the point of killing someone.  This could also include killing an unarmed attacker with a weapon.  Again the "what-ifs" are endless but "articulation" is the key.  Can you explain your actions, what caused you to feel that you were in mortal danger, etc?

This has been my experiance and how I have handled the investigations that I have been involved with.  Now comes the disclaimer, I'm just a lowly line officer on the street and have never dealt with a homicide in this kind of situaton.  Also remember that if criminal charges are brought against you it will be by the prosecutors office and prosecutors tend to shift in the political wind to some degree.

Hope that makes sense, any judges, lawyers or prosecutors out there want to weigh in on this?  Input would be greatly appreciated!

Respectfully,
Aaron


----------



## chfroehlich (Jun 15, 2004)

@arnisador

http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/2/99/2-348-99.php3?view=print

Sorry only in German

Greets

Christof


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 15, 2004)

Same page Translated by Google It's not perfect, but it's readable.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 15, 2004)

I went to www.altavista.com and got something very similar but slightly different (e.g. "unfounded" vs. "unfounded"). But yes, it's workable!


----------



## KungFuWarrior (Jun 15, 2004)

mcjon77 said:
			
		

> It would seem to me that any further attacks with your blade on the attacker, after he has been disarmed, move into the area of the illegal (the exception being multiple attackers).  Also, if you admit to the police of doing the arm strike first, couldn't a physician/medical examiner testify that after that first cut, there was no way your attacker could have held a weapon, making what you did afterwards assault with a deadly weapon and/or murder/manslaughter.
> 
> You are absolutely right. My instructor is a police officer and I have asked him similier questions and he said that after you disarm the man/woman and then attack them again you now become the agreesor and you can be charged just as they are.  This also holds true if you are attacked by a knife weilding assalaint and you don't have a knife.  If you disarm him of his knife then pick it up and go after him with it you then face the same charges that he does.


----------



## argyll (Jun 17, 2004)

Your general line of thinking is correct, i.e. you're are responsible for all your actions.  My question to you is how do you know your attacker only has one knife?  If you are fortunate enough to get a cut on one of his arms which gets him to drop his knife, that does not mean you are out of danger yet.  If he was such a threat to your life that use of a lethal force on your part was justified (and a knife is always considered lethal force) then you'd better keep your attack up until he can no longer attack you, or else you may end up with a knife in your back.

Best regards,

Argyll


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 17, 2004)

Aaaahhhhh!  good point sir.


----------



## Baytor (Jun 19, 2004)

argyll said:
			
		

> Your general line of thinking is correct, i.e. you're are responsible for all your actions. My question to you is how do you know your attacker only has one knife? If you are fortunate enough to get a cut on one of his arms which gets him to drop his knife, that does not mean you are out of danger yet. If he was such a threat to your life that use of a lethal force on your part was justified (and a knife is always considered lethal force) then you'd better keep your attack up until he can no longer attack you, or else you may end up with a knife in your back.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Argyll


 
This is a good point.  IMO though, it is harder to justify using a higher degree of force because you are afraid he has another knife.  I think you would have to be able to articulate why you thought he had another weapon (his other hand reached behind his back, into his waistband, pocket, ect).

I am not saying to take chances by any means.  Immediate follow up is absolutely necessary.  IMO, this would be the time to drop the guy onto the ground using whatever technique works best for you.  As soon as he's down, create distance to monitor the situation and get the heck out of there as soon as it is safe to do so.

If things go "good" (relatively speaking) the guy will stay on the ground or back off.  Most criminals don't want to fight hard, they want an easy mark.  If things go bad, you have at least created a reactionary gap and probably weakened your opponent.  

Anyhow, that's my oppinion on it FWIW, but I'm not exactly an expert yet.


----------

