# How Many...



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 19, 2009)

How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 19, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?



To _"consider using deadly force?"_  It is always a consideration if attacked.  No options should be off the table when self-defense is involved.

To actually use deadly force?  Never.

I do not 'use deadly force'.  I exercise my right to self-defense, which may include the application of deadly force.  However, my intent is to defend myself, not to apply deadly force.  I want the attack to stop, I do not want to kill.

When questioned by investigators and attorneys, it is extemely important that a person not say _"I chose to kill him to defend myself."_  Instead, saying _"I defended myself using the minimum amount of force necessary to make the attack stop,"_ is much preferable.

Same result?  Yes.  But what matters is intent.  I don't intend to kill, I intend to defend myself.


----------



## JBrainard (Feb 19, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?


 
I don't think quantity of attackers is what matters. If I truely believe that even one unarmed attacker is capable of killing me, I will certainly consider using deadly force.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 19, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?


 
2.75839 and of course depending on whether of not it was one of these guys :dalek:



How the heck do I know, it all would depend on the attack, who was there, where I was and any other of a number of variables that would come into play.


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 19, 2009)

I don't think I would feel the need to use 'deadly' force. I will, as Bill says, use force which is necesary to defend myself. I don't see there being a need to end someones life. 
At the end of the day, nobody knows how they will act or what lengths they will go to to survive. It may just be on a day when you are vulnerable that the right (or wrong) number of attackers gets to you and you see the mist. Then, who knows the outcome?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 19, 2009)

Sandstorm said:


> I don't think I would feel the need to use 'deadly' force. I will, as Bill says, use force which is necesary to defend myself. I don't see there being a need to end someones life.
> At the end of the day, nobody knows how they will act or what lengths they will go to to survive. It may just be on a day when you are vulnerable that the right (or wrong) number of attackers gets to you and you see the mist. Then, who knows the outcome?



When asked this question by a law enforcement officer (with your legal counsel present, of course):

_"Did you intend to kill Mister Sixpack?"_

You should be able to answer, _"I only intended to defend myself, he attacked me and I feared for my life."_

If Mister Sixpack is dead, too bad for him.  That happens to bad guys sometimes.


----------



## Sandstorm (Feb 19, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> When asked this question by a law enforcement officer (with your legal counsel present, of course):
> 
> _"Did you intend to kill Mister Sixpack?"_
> 
> ...


 
Absolutely. So far, I have not felt the need to end someones life in self defence or in my previous line of work. Hopefully I never will.


----------



## MJS (Feb 19, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?


 
IMO, I like to assess the situation, and base my response off of that.  Here are a few things I think are important.  So, to answer the question, it could be one person or 10....I think its important to use the force necessary to end the situation.  And depending on what they're doing, will depend on what we should do.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 19, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?





JBrainard said:


> I don't think quantity of attackers is what matters. If I truely believe that even one unarmed attacker is capable of killing me, I will certainly consider using deadly force.




I think this is how I feel about it and from my past experience. 

If it was a bunch of elementary kids, nope not going to cross my mind. 

A group of young women just being silly and stupid and they attack me or someone I know. Nope. 

A single male or female that is large enough to cause great bodily damage and or I have them do such damage before, has me in the thought of what must I do. 

I always look to get out of there. If not because I cannot leave people behind or unable to get to a door without confrontation, then I will consider harm. 

The problem from my experience is the following:

1) Go in and look for the best way to stop the fight NOW. Every second gives them a chance to capitalize on one of my mistakes. 
Pro: You get to react soon and you set the tone many times.
Con: Paperwork with LEO's and a bad reputation in some cases which does not help with the next LEO encounter. 

2) I went from the above to I must hesitate and wait and let the level of threat increase not the perceived level of threat but the actual physical threat. 
Pro: Witnesses see others move first and or you have physical evidence of having your clock cleaned
Con: You spend lots more time in the hospital and or dental chair and this costs money and time. Also does not stop the LEO paperwork, it just gives you a starting point to begin your statement

3) Consciously choose to react as mean and as soon as possible. The human being can detect intent many times. 
Pro: They see the intent and or harm you are willing to do to them and they back off. Which opens up your chance to leave. 
I was hurt the least in this mode, and while some did get hurt the numbers decreased and in the end less people got hurt. 
Con: Lots of paperwork with LEO's and you need to have your statement in mind before you talk to them. Or do not talk to them until your Lawyer is present. Lots of "TIME" spent and cost for court or legal issues. 


Deadly force is hard to determine also. I could hit someone and they might already have a spinal injury or a closed head injury to that shoulder shot may just be enough to break what is left of them. Then again when one is on the ground being kicked and held down one does what one has too, so they can get back up and continue to survive. 


I also have had discussions with lawyers and LEO's and others, and an older male of middle size could use deadly force (* Firearm/other weapon/empty hand *) before a young man in his 20's could. The Older Male in let us say late 50's or beyond could not move fast enough to go away. They were afraid, as they know how long (* Many months to years *) if ever, it would take them to heal if they survive long enough to heal.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 19, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?



One

_<edit>_ Depending upon what's THEIR intent is towards me. THAT is what makes my determination of the use of deadly force. 

But then to correctly ascertain exactly what their intent, is something else. Them yelling or even quietly saying "I'm going to ****ing kill you" doesn't always do it.


----------



## Guardian (Feb 19, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?


 
Well in the spirit of the question asked.  My answer is 3 or more pure and simple.  The reason the #3, because two can be handled.  You add a 3rd you change the scope of the angles they can come at you and you can defend.

Add the wife and grandkids with me and it's definitely on.


----------



## still learning (Feb 19, 2009)

Hello,  Hum?   just takes one person and there intent?  .....that's my guess....

Your questions seems to involve many situtions to consider....and everyone of them will have a different solutions or defence?

Zero would be wrong...2.76 could be correct too!

  Best to be humble and kind....and learn to run faster than an unarm person...

Aloha,


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 19, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?


 
One.

I'm not going to limit my options because I think I might have an advantage over my opponent. If I'm confronted with violence, I have to assume my opponent might intend my death. I'm not going to risk that.

Now, that being said, I won't necessarily resort to deadly force, but I won't arbitrarily deny myself that option either.


-Rob


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 19, 2009)

SFC JeffJ said:


> How many *unarmed* attackers would it take for you to consider using deadly force?


 
If he's a heck of alot bigger than me... ONE!

If it's the senior citizens rest home militia, I might stretch that a bit.

Deaf


----------



## searcher (Feb 19, 2009)

Deadly force should be considered if you can ask one question of yourself and answer yes to it:

"Do I feel that the person(s) across from me is intending to cause me death or permenant bodily harm."

This is what we teach our HG students and what I teach my MA students.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 19, 2009)

Something to remember since it seems that some in this thread may not "get" this...

Using deadly force does not necessarily mean that death will be the result. Deadly force is usually legally defined as "actions which create a high risk of death or _serious physical injury_" (or words to that effect). That being the case, while shooting or stabbing someone is obviously deadly force, so is gouging someone in the eye, hitting them in the throat with an edge-of-hand, or smashing their knee with a side-kick.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 20, 2009)

it depends.  sometimes i like to think about what i would do if a gang of 6 year olds attacked me.  i think i could jack up a couple dozen little kids without too much trouble.  but then again they are all at groin level.  

if i had a cup on, i think there would have to be at least 25 6-year olds before i considered capping any of them.

jf


----------



## Cirdan (Feb 20, 2009)

One.

You should always look for the opportunity to kill because you might have to.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Feb 20, 2009)

One.


----------

