# what would happen if...?



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 20, 2009)

I have a question....

Lets say im out for a run/walk and someone comes up to me and demands my money. they appear to be unarmed so I take a pose where my hand say "i want no trouble" but are up in front of my face and ready to defend if need be. Well, what if the guy feels threatened and pulls a knife, now the situation is changed and my life is in direct danger. The guy lunges, i move counter, take a way the weapon. Now my life is in less danger (knowing what i know about the current situation, maybe he has another knife but i dont know so i go with what i do know). The attacker has no more weapons, but is desparete and attacks again....This is where my question comes in?

What would happen if I were to use the weapon? Since it is a knife and not a gun the guy has a reasonable chance to get it back or still win and not get hurt.

Say he is trained as well, he starts to drive me back or over power me, am I allowed to use it since this guy obviously intends to do harm to me?

Thought please....particularly from LEOs or former LEOs and anybody with law experience 

B


----------



## JBrainard (Feb 20, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Say he is trained as well, he starts to drive me back or over power me, am I allowed to use it since this guy obviously intends to do harm to me?
> 
> Thought please....particularly from LEOs or former LEOs and anybody with law experience


 
I would imagine that you would be allowed to use it since by brandishing the weapon in the first place he has shown intent to do you greavous bodily harm. Of course, I would also imagine that my first statement doesn't inherently give you the right to use the knife to kill him. As with everything, keep "appropriate force" in mind when using his knife.
But then again I'm not an LEO. I would like to hear an LEO's perspective on this as well.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2009)

I'm not sure I entirely followed your scenario, but the short answer (my opinion only) is this:

The law in most jurisdictions in the US says that people have the right of self-defense.  That can include the right to employ the use of deadly force, if that is what is necessary to stop an attack, and if a 'reasonable and prudent' man would feel his life were in danger.  The standard is not what YOU might feel, but what a so-called 'ordinary person' would consider fear for their life.

If deadly force is necessary and justified, how it is applied is of little consequence.  If you are carrying a weapon illegally yourself, you might find yourself charged with that crime, but not for using it.  If you take away a weapon from your assailant and use it against them, you likewise would probably not be charged.

There are some important caveats.  One is that the right to defend yourself ends when the threat ends.  Not when you feel the threat ends, but when that mythical 'reasonable and prudent man' would feel the threat ended.

Another is that some jurisdictions have a 'duty to retreat' included in self-defense laws. That is slowly changing, and more and more states have a 'stand your ground' law that eliminates the requirement that you first try to escape before defending yourself with force.

In the end, a lot depends on things you probably cannot control or predict ahead of time.  Your jurisdiction, the police who investigate the situation and their take on it, you, your demeanor, the assailant and their possible criminal background, where you were and why you were there, the DA and their political agenda, and etc, etc, etc.

Don't ever expect that a self defense situation that ends in deadly force being applied will ever be cut and dried (no pun intended).  You may not be arrested on the spot, or you might be - no matter the circumstances.  Chances are very good that you will need an attorney, and you can also find yourself sued - anyone can sue anyone, and it costs a lot of time and money to defend against a wrongful death lawsuit; no matter what the results of a criminal investigation might be.


----------



## redantstyle (Feb 20, 2009)

your good enough to take his knife away and you can't handle him emptyhanded?

what's the toll for this bridge?


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 20, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> *your good enough to take his knife away and you can't handle him emptyhanded?*
> 
> what's the toll for this bridge?



Just because he has a knife doesnt mean he knows how to use it effectively. he may have been desperate and wanted to control the situation but that alos doesnt mean he has no knowledge of fighting. What am I supposed to do with it after ive taken it, throw it down so he has the chance to pick it back up, run away (i have a bad knee, i can run but not fast and im not going to turn my back on some one that tried to stab me) or hell, maybe i can call time out, take it to my house, then come back and say "game on"

B


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Just because he has a knife doesnt mean he knows how to use it effectively. he may have been desperate and wanted to control the situation but that alos doesnt mean he has no knowledge of fighting. What am I supposed to do with it after ive taken it, throw it down so he has the chance to pick it back up, run away (i have a bad knee, i can run but not fast and im not going to turn my back on some one that tried to stab me) or hell, maybe i can call time out, take it to my house, then come back and say "game on"
> 
> B



That's why elaborate 'what if' scenarios are difficult to answer in specific terms.

The bottom line is that in the US, people have the right to defend themselves from expressed or implied violence if they have a legitimate fear.  There is a standard for judging what a 'legitimate fear' is, the 'reasonable and prudent man' standard, but even that is subject to some interpretation by cops, lawyers, judges, and juries.

Assuming a person does have the right to defend themselves and does not have a legal duty to retreat, they have the general right to use that force necessary to do so, which can include the use of deadly force.

How many knives, who picked up what and swung it, who knows how to use what effectively, trick knees, and all the rest of it - can matter, but the general questions are still the same - were you legitimately in fear of your life, and did you stop when the threat was ended?

And of course, common sense.  Regardless of any law to the contrary, living is better than dying.  The old _"I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six"_ answer.


----------



## just2kicku (Feb 20, 2009)

Me personally, would not have let it get that far to where a weapon was drawn. If someone demands your money the intent is to rob you. If he has no weapon in his hand yet then that's a good time to go into the strike hard and strike fast mode and never allow the weapon to be drawn in the first place. Especially if he's already in your face.

  I think that's what redant was saying.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 20, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> Me personally, would not have let it get that far to where a weapon was drawn. If someone demands your money the intent is to rob you. If he has no weapon in his hand yet then that's a good time to go into the strike hard and strike fast mode and never allow the weapon to be drawn in the first place. Especially if he's already in your face.
> 
> I think that's what redant was saying.


well that would present a problem. According to the law (as my feeble mind understands it) if you are not under direct threat then you can not use force. If he asked for money but made no threat like and "or else" statement I believe this would cause a problem

B


----------



## Akira (Feb 20, 2009)

Please please please don't try to use a weapon unless you are suitably trained to use it.

As far as using the knife, in Australia we have what is called 'reasonable force'.  Sure he may have pulled a knife on you, but if you stab him with it and he is unarmed then you can be sure you're going to jail.  

If you can take the knife from him I'm assuming you would have to apply some kind of wrist lock, whereby you can control him anyway.  Why do you want to get all stabby with him?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> well that would present a problem. According to the law (as my feeble mind understands it) if you are not under direct threat then you can not use force. If he asked for money but made no threat like and "or else" statement I believe this would cause a problem



No, actually it would not.  A person does not have to produce a weapon to make another person fear for their safety.  The man has put you in fear (assault) and demanded your property (strong-arm robbery).  The assault does not have to be consummated by battery, you only have to have a legitimate fear that it would.  The crime of robbery occurred as soon as he demanded your property or money.

A 'reasonable and prudent' man in such circumstances would conclude correctly that he was being robbed, which by its nature has put him in danger.   You would be justified in using self defense at that point to defend yourself.  You would be justified in continuing to defend yourself until the threat was over.

It is not the actions, it is the situation, which matter.  Are you in fear?  Would a reasonable and prudent man think so to?  Then you may legally defend yourself (in most jurisdictions, I am not a lawyer, etc, etc, disclaim, disclaim).


----------



## just2kicku (Feb 20, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> well that would present a problem. According to the law (as my feeble mind understands it) if you are not under direct threat then you can not use force. If he asked for money but made no threat like and "or else" statement I believe this would cause a problem
> 
> B




You may be right. I guess it would depend on body posture, how he said it, and the size of the guy. But I thought if you felt threatend that he was going to cause bodily harm, you can defend yourself, even if it means hitting first.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> You may be right. I guess it would depend on body posture, how he said it, and the size of the guy. But I thought if you felt threatend that he was going to cause bodily harm, you can defend yourself, even if it means hitting first.



All that matters (in the US) is reasonable fear for one's safety.

If a stranger comes up to me and scowls and says _"Do you know what I'm going to do to you?"_ and I am terrified and believe I'm about to be hit, I'm quite justified in using that force necessary to end the threat, right then and there.  Even if he was hired to say _"I'm going to wish you a Happy Birthday!"_ and produce a cake from behind his back.

It is not the actions, but how they are interpreted, and whether or not a mythical 'reasonable and prudent man' would be in fear for their safety.


----------



## Drac (Feb 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, actually it would not. A person does not have to produce a weapon to make another person fear for their safety.


 
Remember that well..." Your Honor I was in fear for my life".It works



JBrainard said:


> I would imagine that you would be allowed to use it since by brandishing the weapon in the first place he has shown intent to do you greavous bodily harm. Of course, I would also imagine that my first statement doesn't inherently give you the right to use the knife to kill him. As with everything, keep "appropriate force" in mind when using his knife..But then again I'm not an LEO. I would like to hear an LEO's perspective on this as well.


 
You could always do what needs to be done and then get the HELL outta there before the local boys arrive...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2009)

Drac said:


> Remember that well..." Your Honor I was in fear for my life".



It was always amazing to me how many mutual combatives tried to claim 'self defense' and when I asked _"Were you afraid of being injured?"_   They always responded _"Of that weenie?  Are you kidding?  I'm not afraid of him!"_

OK, then.  Not self-defense.  Can you say _"under arrest?"_  I knew you could.


----------



## Drac (Feb 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It was always amazing to me how many mutual combatives tried to claim 'self defense' and when I asked _"Were you afraid of being injured?"_ They always responded _"Of that weenie? Are you kidding? I'm not afraid of him!"_
> 
> OK, then. Not self-defense. Can you say _"under arrest?"_ I knew you could.


 

I teach my charges in the police academy that if they are are locked up in a struggle with an individual to say loudly enough for any bystander to hear "Sir, your hurting me...Please stop restisting"..Then when the crowd is questiones guess what they will remember???


----------



## just2kicku (Feb 20, 2009)

The guy can still come back and sue you in civil court. Even if you win that, the time and money 
You spent for a lawyer it's still like you lost.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 20, 2009)

It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Honestly if he comes bak after you while you have the knife, the I think it would be easy to convince a jury that he was attempting to kill you. A robber usually would run off once he realized your not goin to just roll over and give him what he wants. To avoid all this, just break his leg when you throw him to the ground. It's not lethal and he can't attack you anymore.


----------



## Drac (Feb 20, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
> 
> Honestly if he comes bak after you while you have the knife, the I think it would be easy to convince a jury that he was attempting to kill you. A robber usually would run off once he realized your not goin to just roll over and give him what he wants. To avoid all this, just break his leg when you throw him to the ground. It's not lethal and he can't attack you anymore.


 
Yup....Better to have an ugly trial than a beautiful funeral.....


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 20, 2009)

Drac said:


> Yup....Better to have an ugly trial than a beautiful funeral.....


good point. its just a ***** that there are so many what if's with the law...

B


----------



## Drac (Feb 20, 2009)

A buddy of mine is a former Green Beret...He comes out of a bar one night and discovers 3 homies trying to rip off his new Caddy..He yells "Hey" and they attack him with fists, a chain and a knife..He beats the chicken soup outta them and he gets arrested...The Judge reviewed the case and threw it outta court....


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 20, 2009)

Drac said:


> A buddy of mine is a former Green Beret...He comes out of a bar one night and discovers 3 homies trying to rip off his new Caddy..He yells "Hey" and they attack him with fists, a chain and a knife..He beats the chicken soup outta them and he gets arrested...The Judge reviewed the case and threw it outta court....


at least our troops get the respect...

Im wondering cause I work in a rough part of town, im a big guy but that wont always stop people from trying to take stuff from me. I dont want to carry a firearm but it looks like that is my best option, guy pulls out a knife, i pull out my gun and say i dont think so.

B


----------



## DavidCC (Feb 20, 2009)

Maybe you could just stab him a little... depends on the laws of your state.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 20, 2009)

davidcc said:


> maybe you could just stab him a little... Depends on the laws of your state.


lol!!!

B


----------



## Drac (Feb 20, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> at least our troops get the respect...
> 
> Im wondering cause I work in a rough part of town, im a big guy but that wont always stop people from trying to take stuff from me. I dont want to carry a firearm but it looks like that is my best option, guy pulls out a knife, i pull out my gun and say i dont think so.
> 
> B


 
Remember the 21 foot law is B.S...Or drop the perp like a bad habit and walk away, making sure he isnt getting back up to re-engage...What's he gonna do, go to the police and say " I was gonna rob dis dude and he stomped me?"...


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 20, 2009)

Drac said:


> Remember the 21 foot law is B.S...Or drop the perp like a bad habit and walk away, making sure he isnt getting back up to re-engage...What's he gonna do, go to the police and say " I was gonna rob dis dude and he stomped me?"...


LOL...great point

B


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 22, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I have a question....
> 
> Lets say im out for a run/walk and someone comes up to me and demands my money. they appear to be unarmed so I take a pose where my hand say "i want no trouble" but are up in front of my face and ready to defend if need be. Well, what if the guy feels threatened and pulls a knife, now the situation is changed and my life is in direct danger. The guy lunges, i move counter, take a way the weapon. Now my life is in less danger (knowing what i know about the current situation, maybe he has another knife but i dont know so i go with what i do know). The attacker has no more weapons, but is desparete and attacks again....This is where my question comes in?
> 
> ...





Why did you not just give the bad guy your money? If you had then no attack would ever had happened. 

This it the question the DA and widow's attorney for the civil case will be asking the judge or jury. 

So why did you not just give him the little bit of money you had on him and avoid the situation?

They will ask it over and over, until the idea of it becomes absurd for any other possible answer that for you to give him the money. The bad guy will become the victim. They will parade his widow and kids and friends and mother all crying in front of camera's and the jury(ies). 

I can give you no legal advice. I can give you no real advice in this situation. 

I can tell you what was asked of me, by LEO's and detectives et al. And I had not used a weapon that they brought. I had only walked away (barely) from 6 guys. I had a dislocated rib, and other injuries, but as we all went through the window, I rolled and avoided the bouncing glass. They did not, so they "looked" much worse for wear. 


If you have the weapon and there is no visible threat in my state you are not the bad guy. If you brandish the weapon or tell the guy to leave you have assaulted him. (* recently they made some changes so even if you have the weapon from him in your own home, that you no longer have to get you and your family out of the house. Yes your house and you would have had to leave. As this was considered the "average" man line of action. *) 

I know what I have done in the past. I know what I train. I can tell you what I would plan to do. Defend myself and make sure there was no more threat. But, I also know that if I touch him in the portion of making sure there is no more threat, I have become the bad guy. So, by having the weapon down and saying "why don't you just leave" is not being aggressive to the bad guy. 

But, you may want to ask your question of a lawyer. Talk to those that do the CPL or concealer weapons classes as many times they will answer such a question during the class. 

Good Luck


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 22, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
> 
> Honestly if he comes bak after you while you have the knife, the I think it would be easy to convince a jury that he was attempting to kill you. .


 

After all, what "reasonable person", disarmed of his weapon while assaulting you, then charges that same weapon just to get you?


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 22, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Say he is trained as well, he starts to drive me back or over power me, am I allowed to use it since this guy obviously intends to do harm to me?
> 
> Thought please....particularly from LEOs or former LEOs and anybody with law experience


 
Depends on what state you live in. Some require you to retreat if you can do so safely. Others have 'stand your ground' laws.

You can do this....

Once you have the knife, throw it as far away as you can so they cannot use it, and then either fight or run.

Deaf


----------



## Aikicomp (Feb 23, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I have a question....
> 
> Lets say im out for a run/walk and someone comes up to me and demands my money. they appear to be unarmed so I take a pose where my hand say "i want no trouble" but are up in front of my face and ready to defend if need be. Well, what if the guy feels threatened and pulls a knife, now the situation is changed and my life is in direct danger. The guy lunges, i move counter, take a way the weapon. Now my life is in less danger (knowing what i know about the current situation, maybe he has another knife but i dont know so i go with what i do know). The attacker has no more weapons, but is desparete and attacks again....This is where my question comes in?
> 
> ...


 
What I tell my students is NEVER...NEVER... NEVER use the assailants weapon against him. You would be in effect stabbing or slashing an unarmed person. No matter what his original intention was. 

IMO, To delibrately stab or slash him is in poor judgement and IF you have enough training to disarm him in the first place you should have enough skill to stop him from hurting you without having to use his weapon against him.

Think very hard before you do this. If he lives and it goes before a jury there are ways to make it look like you were the aggressor and you could be going to jail instead of him.

Yours in Budo
Michael


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 23, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> *Why did you not just give the bad guy your money? If you had then no attack would ever had happened. *
> 
> This it the question the DA and widow's attorney for the civil case will be asking the judge or jury.
> 
> ...



Thats what I was thinking, but i put the situation at that I was running/walking. Maybe I only took a cell phone and my license and insurance card. or maybe I gave him the money and he got angry wanting more and attacked All hypothetical the real question is what would happen if that situation occurred, given that I tried every other avenue. 

B


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 23, 2009)

Aikicomp said:


> What I tell my students is NEVER...NEVER... NEVER use the assailants weapon against him. You would be in effect stabbing or slashing an unarmed person. No matter what his original intention was.
> 
> IMO, To delibrately stab or slash him is in poor judgement and IF you have enough training to disarm him in the first place you should have enough skill to stop him from hurting you without having to use his weapon against him.
> 
> ...



Thats a very good point and 99% of the time I agree. 

But the 1% chance is where Im going. I as well as the majority of us here know that adaptation of what we learn is key to our survival on the streets. What if that adaptation fails or is countered and our only option is to resort to a tactic that we would normally not use. Thats what Im trying to get at. 

what you tell your students is great advice and right as far as Im concerned, but ( and please I mean no disrespect and I am not trying to tell you how to teach just giving advice on what I would do) it needs to explained, to the adults in your class only, that in extreme circumstances if using the weapon is the only way to walk away alive than use it. Like it has been said many times before. *Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6*

B


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 23, 2009)

If you _know_ you can take the guy out without stabbing him after taking his knife then I believe you are morally obligated to do so, but i'd rather stab him to death then have him steal the knife back from me and stab me to death instead.

There are two things you should sayif you are at a trail.

"It all happened so fast" and "I was afraid for my life"

just repeat again and again until the questions stop (-:


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 23, 2009)

on a side note;

I find it unreasonable for prosecutors to make the case that if you know martial arts, even just a tiny bit, then you must be Batman and can therefore stop any attacker without injuring him or causing him "emotional distress".

What a load of crap.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> on a side note;
> 
> I find it unreasonable for prosecutors to make the case that if you know martial arts, even just a tiny bit, then you must be Batman and can therefore stop any attacker without injuring him or causing him "emotional distress".
> 
> What a load of crap.



I think you will find that less often in the case of prosecutors in criminal cases and more often from plaintiff's attorneys in civil suits.  And that's because they are not paid to be fair or reasonable, they are paid to win lawsuits.  They'll use any advantage they can find.


----------



## MJS (Feb 23, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I have a question....
> 
> Lets say im out for a run/walk and someone comes up to me and demands my money. they appear to be unarmed so I take a pose where my hand say "i want no trouble" but are up in front of my face and ready to defend if need be. Well, what if the guy feels threatened and pulls a knife, now the situation is changed and my life is in direct danger. The guy lunges, i move counter, take a way the weapon. Now my life is in less danger (knowing what i know about the current situation, maybe he has another knife but i dont know so i go with what i do know). The attacker has no more weapons, but is desparete and attacks again....This is where my question comes in?
> 
> ...


 
This sounds similar to a question that I posed in a thread I started here a while back. Here is that thread. Someone mentioned using the weapon against the attacker. I replied that as tempting as it'd be, it may not be a good idea. Someone else chimed in by saying that it would be ok to use it. 

If we were struggling over the weapon, and it went off and he was shot with his own gun or stabbed with his own knife, if I took it away and used it against him...as it was said in the other thread, a threat is still present, and depending on your actions after, you could be justified. Of course, I also posted this comment in that thread. That comment was made by a LEO, so I do place value in that. If we look at that post, and then put ourselves into the question you asked, it seems that some of the factors of you using the weapon are gone. This is where my thinking was going, in that other thread I linked, because I compared this to an empty hand situation, where the threat is over, ie: bad guy is on the ground, no longer attacking, and you haul off and kick his ribs 8 more times for good measure. Was that necessary? 

Same thing here...you get the knife away, and now you chase after him with it, cutting him. 

Like I always say, assess the situaiton presented to you at the time. And my old saying, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Could the BG retake the weapon after you've disarmed him?  Anythings possible and we could what if this to death.  What would I do?  Gaining control of it is the #1 priority IMO.  Perhaps I could still use it against him, but not in the fashion it was intended for.  In other words...you disarm the gun and hit him with it.  You 'used' it against him, but didn't shoot him.  

Depending on the situation, I may use it or may try to remove it from the situation, ie: toss it out of reach.  If he goes to get it, hopefully that'll buy me time to get the hell out of there.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2009)

It's really not as complicated as people try to make it.

Are you reasonably in fear for your life?  If so, then you are authorized to use that force necessary (in most jurisdictions) to end the danger.  How you do that matters a lot less than:

1) Whether or not the threat was real from the point of view of a hypothetical 'reasonable and prudent' man.

2) Whether or not you stopped defending yourself when the danger ended.

I'm really not sure why people want to make things more complex than they really are.  Ask a cop or an attorney, they'll tell you the same thing.  Some states have a _'duty to retreat'_ instead of a _'stand your ground' _doctrine in their 'self defense' statutes, but that's about it.


----------



## chinto (Feb 24, 2009)

in my state it is black letter law that you would be justified in using deadly force.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 24, 2009)

MJS said:


> This sounds similar to a question that I posed in a thread I started here a while back. Here is that thread. Someone mentioned using the weapon against the attacker. I replied that as tempting as it'd be, it may not be a good idea. Someone else chimed in by saying that it would be ok to use it.
> 
> If we were struggling over the weapon, and it went off and he was shot with his own gun or stabbed with his own knife, if I took it away and used it against him...as it was said in the other thread, a threat is still present, and depending on your actions after, you could be justified. Of course, I also posted *this comment in that thread.* That comment was made by a LEO, so I do place value in that. If we look at that post, and then put ourselves into the question you asked, it seems that some of the factors of you using the weapon are gone. This is where my thinking was going, in that other thread I linked, because I compared this to an empty hand situation, where the threat is over,* ie: bad guy is on the ground, no longer attacking, and you haul off and kick his ribs 8 more times for good measure. Was that necessary?
> 
> ...



MJS, great response as always. I love what the guy said on that other board, very good answer and very informative. 

One thing however, you said (look at second bolded section), I was not implying that I was to run after the guy stabbing him, i was making the suggestion that after I disarmed him, he still attacked with bare hands (or maybe another knife, didnt think of that first time around), based on the fact that he attacked me with the knife the first time (evidince he wanted to physically harm me) and then attacks me again w/ or w/o a weapon, i believe I would have the right to use the weapon.

I dont know it is all very confusing, i will ask my aunt she is a lawyer

B


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 24, 2009)

chinto said:


> in my state it is black letter law that you would be justified in using deadly force.


can you or anybody explain this to me please

B


----------



## MJS (Feb 25, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> MJS, great response as always. I love what the guy said on that other board, very good answer and very informative.


 
Thanks.  Glad you liked everything. 



> One thing however, you said (look at second bolded section), I was not implying that I was to run after the guy stabbing him, i was making the suggestion that after I disarmed him, he still attacked with bare hands (or maybe another knife, didnt think of that first time around), based on the fact that he attacked me with the knife the first time (evidince he wanted to physically harm me) and then attacks me again w/ or w/o a weapon, i believe I would have the right to use the weapon.
> 
> I dont know it is all very confusing, i will ask my aunt she is a lawyer
> 
> B


 
My apologies, as that was a poor choice of words on my part.  No, of course, if he turns and runs, I'm probably going to do the same.  I was speaking more along the lines of once you gain control of the weapon, to think whether or not you should use it.  Going off of what I've said in other threads, IMHO, if you're faced with deadly force, you're probably more in the right to return the same vs. if you weren't faced with it.  Of course, whether or not you choose to do it is another thing.  I don't think theres any rule that says you have to take the guys life.  

For me, my safety and the safety of anyone with me, is my #1 concern.  What happens to the badguy is pretty low on my list.  Afterall, why should I be concerned about him, especially if he assaulted me or my wife, tried to steal my belongings, etc?  He brought the poop storm on himself, so he gets what he gets.  

I hope that cleared things up a bit. 

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 25, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> can you or anybody explain this to me please
> 
> B


 
I'll take a stab at this.  I'm guessing that he is speaking of the use of force laws for his state.  I could google, "Use of force laws in CT" which is my home state, and come up with this.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Feb 25, 2009)

MJS said:


> I hope that cleared things up a bit.
> 
> Mike



yes it did thanks

B


----------



## thardey (Feb 25, 2009)

When I teach "desparate knife-disarm" moves (and I always make sure that people understand it is a desparate move) -- I don't teach them to try to take the knife unless the attacker has been severely weakened by your initial attack.

That is, first you gain control of the knife - (control-redirect-counter-disarm.) then you get it out of the way, (usually Krav-Maga-style pushing the kife behind them) _then_ you knee/kick/head butt/bite/chew/claw etc.  them repeatedly until they can either a.) no longer breathe b.) no longer stand c.) no longer see or d.) no longer resist in general. Then you move to the disarm stage. "Defanging the snake" is a lot easier when they're barely functioning.

Then when you take their knife away, they _can't_ counterattack. They'll be too busy trying to figure out why they can't inhale.


----------



## JBrainard (Feb 26, 2009)

MJS said:


> I'll take a stab at this. I'm guessing that he is speaking of the use of force laws for his state. I could google, "Use of force laws in CT" which is my home state, and come up with this.


 
*Possible derail of thread*
For the MTers who live in or near Oregon; I did this for our state and found that by the letter of the law, we are not a _'duty to retreat'_ state, but having a reasonable ability to escape the conflict will most likely come up if you find yourself in court due to a "use of force for self defense" issue.
*Derail ended*

Thanx MJS.


----------

