Cruentus
Grandmaster
Anyone paying attention to this?
I have been catching parts of it on court TV. I thought this would be a good place to discuss this particular topic. .
I think that this is a good case to pay attention too. I feel somewhat validated because the harvard student is running into many of the legal problems that I cover in my EDC seminars.
I also think it is important to pay attention to this case due to its implications regarding knife defense. You need to be aware of "what" to train and get into your muscle memory, so you don't panic and hack somewhat to bits in a non-prudent fashion, and find yourself defending a murder charge.
I have heard people before basically make the arguement that "mercy" on your attacker is not an option, and can get you killed. I agree to a point. Sometimes the line is very grey, such as in cases where I am doing security and in a position of authority. But once that line of lethal force is crossed, you need to defend yourself first and foremost, and by any means available (which would include your gun or knife or weapon of opportunity).
However, you also need to understand the legal implications of such actions. Furthermore, you need to know how to use whatever you carry for self-defense in a "prudent" fashion. Why? Not for the sake of your attacker, but for the sake of YOU.
So, if you draw down on a guy with your firearm, you aim center mass, and you shoot to "stop." "Officer, I was not trying to kill anyone, I was just trying to stop him from hurting me."
Simple enough with a firearm. I am probably one of the few knife instructors who advise my attendents to get a CCW if they really want to carry something for self-defense.
It is not so simple with a blade, however. In the Pring-Wilson case, Forensic science is brought into the equation, and the prosecutor is trying to determine that the cuts do not resemble someone on the defense, because there are few slash marks superficially in places like the arms, and there were 5 stab wounds to the chest. This was also a factor I cover in my seminar...what story will forensic science tell in court?
So, you have to train in a manner so that when all is said in done, the evidence is stacked as much in your favor as possible. This includes with how you actually train the blade. If your doing soldier of fortune/para-military stuff like sentry removal techniques in your knife class, you'd better consider the consequenses and circumstances where these techniques would be viable.
Anyways, these are just some things to think about.
What do you all think? How do you think this case might impact our rights to self defense with a knife? How might it impact the knife industry? What are some of the things Alexander (the harvard student) did wrong, or rather what is wrong with his defense? What is wrong with the prosecution? How about your training? Do you consider things like legal reprocussions and prudence when you train with your knife?
I look forward to here your opinions...
PJMOD
I have been catching parts of it on court TV. I thought this would be a good place to discuss this particular topic. .
I think that this is a good case to pay attention too. I feel somewhat validated because the harvard student is running into many of the legal problems that I cover in my EDC seminars.
I also think it is important to pay attention to this case due to its implications regarding knife defense. You need to be aware of "what" to train and get into your muscle memory, so you don't panic and hack somewhat to bits in a non-prudent fashion, and find yourself defending a murder charge.
I have heard people before basically make the arguement that "mercy" on your attacker is not an option, and can get you killed. I agree to a point. Sometimes the line is very grey, such as in cases where I am doing security and in a position of authority. But once that line of lethal force is crossed, you need to defend yourself first and foremost, and by any means available (which would include your gun or knife or weapon of opportunity).
However, you also need to understand the legal implications of such actions. Furthermore, you need to know how to use whatever you carry for self-defense in a "prudent" fashion. Why? Not for the sake of your attacker, but for the sake of YOU.
So, if you draw down on a guy with your firearm, you aim center mass, and you shoot to "stop." "Officer, I was not trying to kill anyone, I was just trying to stop him from hurting me."
Simple enough with a firearm. I am probably one of the few knife instructors who advise my attendents to get a CCW if they really want to carry something for self-defense.
It is not so simple with a blade, however. In the Pring-Wilson case, Forensic science is brought into the equation, and the prosecutor is trying to determine that the cuts do not resemble someone on the defense, because there are few slash marks superficially in places like the arms, and there were 5 stab wounds to the chest. This was also a factor I cover in my seminar...what story will forensic science tell in court?
So, you have to train in a manner so that when all is said in done, the evidence is stacked as much in your favor as possible. This includes with how you actually train the blade. If your doing soldier of fortune/para-military stuff like sentry removal techniques in your knife class, you'd better consider the consequenses and circumstances where these techniques would be viable.
Anyways, these are just some things to think about.
What do you all think? How do you think this case might impact our rights to self defense with a knife? How might it impact the knife industry? What are some of the things Alexander (the harvard student) did wrong, or rather what is wrong with his defense? What is wrong with the prosecution? How about your training? Do you consider things like legal reprocussions and prudence when you train with your knife?
I look forward to here your opinions...
PJMOD
