So...Exactly what good is that knife in your purse?

[KenpoTex]

But as was said earlier by a couple of people, if you pull a knife on someone who knows how to use it, and lets face it the criminals have more chance of that then non criminals who haven't been formally trained, then you are giving your attacker a weapon and asking them to stick it in you.

There is a difference between knowing how to stab someone and being able to disarm someone armed with a knife. Anyone who has trained disarms against someone who has any skill with the knife at all and who is attacking with realistic energy will probably agree that it is very difficult to disarm someonen w/o being injured yourself. I don't really put a lot of stock in the theory that you shouldn't carry a weapon because "it may be used against you." For the purposes of self-defense, if you're going to use a weapon, the first time the bad-guy knows you have it should be when you're already using it on him. Brandishing it in the hopes of scaring him is foolish.

Not to mention that many people who carry a knife like this, don't know the basics about how to make it effective. For instance, you should have it sharp enough to cut skin, but not too sharp. A really sharp knife can do a lot of damage before the person getting cut even feels it - which is not the point. The point is for them to feel pain as soon as possible, and let you go.

I disagree...the "point" when applying any type of force is to neutralize the threat. You can't rely on inflicting pain as a way of achieving this goal. Carrying a knife that is "sharp but not too sharp" would be foolish because you're not able to use the tool to it's full potential.

This is the same reason the anyone carying a knife like this should be trained to slice across skin rather than stab. Stabbing can have the same effect as a knife that is too sharp. The end goal is to cause immediate pain so that you can run.

Again, I disagree. The goal is to neutralize the threat. This is best accomplished by thrusting to vital targets (neck/throat, heart, lungs, groin, major arteries) to shut them down. Slashing may cause pain (if they're not "doped up") and may cause some blood loss, but you can't count on pain and/or the mere sight of blood to act as a deterrant to further aggression on their part.

For instance if you are attacked by an unarmed attacker, but you are armed and could get away with a slash and run but instead you freak out and stab the attacker to death - you could face penalties for that.

Wrong...deadly force is deadly force. A knife is a deadly force tool, there is no way to use it in a "less-lethal" capacity (from a legal standpoint). If you are justified in slashing them, you are justified in stabbing them, shooting them, or slamming their head to the pavement and stomping on their throat...simple as that.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Perhaps, but do you want to bet your life on that idea?

Its what we all gotta do.:ultracool

 

[MJS]

Absolutely. But, what happens when she's attacked without the knife? Damned if you do and damned if you don't. As has already been shared, nothing will take the place of diligent training, awareness, and common sense. All I was suggesting was that, if she's able to walk with confidence, that may improve her statistics.

I agree, there really doesn't seem like there is a happy medium. Like I said, I'm all for someone carrying something. I'm not anti-gun or anti weapon, I just think that if someone is going to take the time to carry something, they should a) be able to know how to effectively use it and b) be able to access it quickly.

Mike

 

[Amazon]

I disagree...the "point" when applying any type of force is to neutralize the threat. You can't rely on inflicting pain as a way of achieving this goal. Carrying a knife that is "sharp but not too sharp" would be foolish because you're not able to use the tool to it's full potential.

Agreed - the point is to get someone to let you go or to get loose enough to get away. However you have to hit one of a few extrememly lethal targets to drop a person right then and there. The only other way to get them to let you go is to ause enough pain to make them do so and - as covered above and testified to by someone who has been stabbed - stabbing will not necessarily do that. Nor will a cut with a super sharp knife.

Also, a knife can be sharp enough to do all of the damage needed to human tissues without being super sharp to the point where it can cut with no pain. You don't have to be able to slice through a brick to get the job done.

Again, I disagree. The goal is to neutralize the threat. This is best accomplished by thrusting to vital targets (neck/throat, heart, lungs, groin, major arteries) to shut them down. Slashing may cause pain (if they're not "doped up") and may cause some blood loss, but you can't count on pain and/or the mere sight of blood to act as a deterrant to further aggression on their part.

Again, stabbing vital targets does not mean that the person will let you go right away as it most likly won't have an effect for many minutes - enough time for them to do plenty of damage to you.

Wrong...deadly force is deadly force. A knife is a deadly force tool, there is no way to use it in a "less-lethal" capacity (from a legal standpoint). If you are justified in slashing them, you are justified in stabbing them, shooting them, or slamming their head to the pavement and stomping on their throat...simple as that.

Wrong - someone ending up dead and someone not ending up dead is a huge distinction. Also, many states have excessive force laws that will hold you accountable if you use more than the amount of force necessary to get away.

This is also a stong principal in Kenpo - match your attack level to the threat. If it's just a drunk guy looking for trouble you don't need to kill him - just deal with the threat to only the extent necessary. Upper belt levels in many arts have the power to kill someone easily - but it's not necessary in every situation.

No matter what the weapon is, it is not reasonable to say that just because you need to use it you therefore need to kill someone.

 

[KenpoTex]

Agreed - the point is to get someone to let you go or to get loose enough to get away. However you have to hit one of a few extrememly lethal targets to drop a person right then and there. The only other way to get them to let you go is to ause enough pain to make them do so and - as covered above and testified to by someone who has been stabbed - stabbing will not necessarily do that. Nor will a cut with a super sharp knife.

Also, a knife can be sharp enough to do all of the damage needed to human tissues without being super sharp to the point where it can cut with no pain. You don't have to be able to slice through a brick to get the job done.

Again, stabbing vital targets does not mean that the person will let you go right away as it most likly won't have an effect for many minutes - enough time for them to do plenty of damage to you.

So the knife has to be sharp but not too sharp? How do we determine that the knife meets that criterion?

I'm not saying that slashing/cutting type attacks never have a place, I'm saying that I don't feel that they're the most effective method for rapidly ending a threat. You can't rely on pain as a means of "stopping" someone. What happens when either their adrenalized state, or the fact that they're under the influence of a drug affects their pain threshold?

You say stabbing vital targets won't make them let me go or stop attacking? I would submit that if I ram my knife into their groin or kidney, or thrust into the neck and rip through the carotid artery and trachea that I will deter them a heck of a lot quicker than if I just give them a boo-boo on the arm.

Wrong - someone ending up dead and someone not ending up dead is a huge distinction. Also, many states have excessive force laws that will hold you accountable if you use more than the amount of force necessary to get away.

This is also a stong principal in Kenpo - match your attack level to the threat. If it's just a drunk guy looking for trouble you don't need to kill him - just deal with the threat to only the extent necessary. Upper belt levels in many arts have the power to kill someone easily - but it's not necessary in every situation.

No matter what the weapon is, it is not reasonable to say that just because you need to use it you therefore need to kill someone.

Not wrong...

As I said before, deadly force is deadly force. The language of the statutes vary from place to place but deadly force is usually defined as "actions that have a high probability of causing death or serious physical injury." The sticky part is that your actions can be considered deadly force even if death does not actually occur. In other words, deadly force is determined based on the likelihood of the method or tool to cause the death or serious physical injury, not on whether the death or serious physical injury is the end result of your actions.

In most places, to be justified in using deadly force for self-defense, you must be able to reasonably articulate that you were in fear of death or serious physical injury. If this is the case and deadly force is justified, it doesn't matter what type of deadly force you use (knife, gun, empty-hand strikes to vital targets, etc.).
If deadly force is not justified then you cannot use a deadly force tool...period.

To borrow your example of "a drunk guy looking for trouble," if you did not feel that you were in danger of being killed or seriously injured, you would not be justified in using deadly force to deal with the situation. That means that if you were to use a knife on him even if it were just to inflict pain, you would have used deadly force and would be guilty of using excessive force. If however, you did feel that you were in serious danger--enough to warrant the use of a deadly force tool or methodology--you would be justified in killing him (and no...I'm not saying to perform a "coup de grace" on the guy... ).

I never said that you should kill everyone who bothers you, "matching the attack level to the threat" is generally sound advice. However, that prinicple does not apply when we're dealing with weapons...If you're not justified in killing the person, DON'T USE A WEAPON. Saying that there are situations where it would be permissible to slash someone but not stab them would be like saying there are times when you could shoot someone in the leg but not shoot them in the head...it doesn't work that way.

 

[XOPC]

Actually there was a case in Russian not long ago, when a guy tried to rape a young girl in his car (he was a taxi driver), and during the struggle she took the knife out of her purse and stabbed him into the hip. She accidentally cut the artery and the bastard died in a matter of minutes. What I am saying is that depending on the situation it might turn out to be quite useful.

 

[tshadowchaser]

not haveing read allof this thread I will ask what good is a gun or knife in your purse if you do not know how to use them or can not get them out and into use at a moments knowtice. Also having one or the other in your purse is not good if the purse is lost or stolen.
No I don't carry a purse often but I have my wife alway carry something in her purse for protection and I know she will use whatever is there if need be

 

[dubljay]

Like tshadowchaser I have not read through all posts in their entirety. What I have read seems to fall along the lines that it's worthless if it's not easily accessible, a danger to yourself if you don't know how to use it.

One thing I haven't seen is this, and again I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if someone has already brought this up.

It's all well and good if you can get to the weapon, and even better if you're trained to use it. Here's the kicker though; you have it, you know how to use it, are you ready to use it? Are you fully prepared to inflict grievous bodily harm upon another person? If you can't honestly answer yes, then in my opinion it doesn’t matter how quickly you can get it into your hand, or how skilled you may be with it, if you are not 100% prepared to use whatever weapon you are wielding then it is 100% useless.

A difficult question to address unless you are actually faced with a situation where you have to use a weapon (or any SD skill). I realize that there are too many variables and the what if's could go on till my grandchildren's great grand kids are all 90 years old.

Given some experiences I've had before I can honestly answer that question; whatever it takes if it means me or some one I care about over some dirt bag guess who gets it?

I could be looked down upon for that mind set I suppose, but cross that line with me and be prepared to reap what you sew.

In any self defense situation regardless of who does or does not have a weapon the slightest bit of hesitation will cost you. You have fractions of a second to make a decision that will impact you for the rest of you life.

In regards to guns it's often said that you never point a gun at someone unless you are fully committed to shooting that person. No wiser words. If you pull a weapon be fully 100% prepared to use it because if you aren't then it's more of a danger to yourself than you might realize.

Just my thoughts

-Josh

 

[MJS]

In any self defense situation regardless of who does or does not have a weapon the slightest bit of hesitation will cost you. You have fractions of a second to make a decision that will impact you for the rest of you life.

In regards to guns it's often said that you never point a gun at someone unless you are fully committed to shooting that person. No wiser words. If you pull a weapon be fully 100% prepared to use it because if you aren't then it's more of a danger to yourself than you might realize.

Just my thoughts

-Josh

Two very good points IMO. I think that this is certainly worthy of discussion, due to the fact that while some may carry a weapon, there is a big difference between practice and actually being able to use it. Are you going to be able to pull that trigger or thrust that knife into someone? Split second decisions and as it was said, the choice can have a pretty heavy impact.

Mike

 

[exile]

One thing I haven't seen is this, and again I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if someone has already brought this up.

It's all well and good if you can get to the weapon, and even better if you're trained to use it. Here's the kicker though; you have it, you know how to use it, are you ready to use it? Are you fully prepared to inflict grievous bodily harm upon another person? If you can't honestly answer yes, then in my opinion it doesn’t matter how quickly you can get it into your hand, or how skilled you may be with it, if you are not 100% prepared to use whatever weapon you are wielding then it is 100% useless.

This is exactly the point I raised early on in this thread, with particular reference to the problem posed by the knife which the OP specifically asks about. My take on this was that knives pose special problems, compared with e.g. sticks or bats on the one hand, and guns on the other, because with a knife, you can actually feel the blade going into the attacker's body. You can feel the skin splitting, resistance from the muscle layer, contact with bone. Neither bats (personal and deadly but non-penetrating) nor guns (penetrating but relatively impersonal: you have no physical sensation yourself linked to the round you've fired entering the attacker's body) call upon what we used to call your stomach for the counterattack—your ability to overcome the visceral distress you feel (if you're a normal person) stabbing someone to the bone with a knife.

My point was that it's unlikely that the average person can do this unaided, so to speak. You need to practice and desensitize yourself to that instinctive reluctance to actually ram a knife into someone else's body. If you're not willing to do that, then, as I suggested earlier, the odds are you won't be able to actually carry out the act—and that knife will very possibly be turned against you—very much worse than useless, eh?

 

[Lisa]

My point was that it's unlikely that the average person can do this unaided, so to speak. You need to practice and desensitize yourself to that instinctive reluctance to actually ram a knife into someone else's body. If you're not willing to do that, then, as I suggested earlier, the odds are you won't be able to actually carry out the act—and that knife will very possibly be turned against you—very much worse than useless, eh?

The bold is for my emphasis.

Good points, exile and others.

But I have a question.

Is this always the case? What about acting on impulse? That moment that comes that it is either you or them. That you HAVE to do something otherwise you will perile? I believe you can train for that, but I also believe that in some cases, it is a matter of survival and people can do it without training. It is a matter of fight or flight.

 

[exile]

The bold is for my emphasis.

Good points, exile and others.

But I have a question.

Is this always the case? What about acting on impulse? That moment that comes that it is either you or them. That you HAVE to do something otherwise you will perile? I believe you can train for that, but I also believe that in some cases, it is a matter of survival and people can do it without training. It is a matter of fight or flight.

I agree, Lisa. I think there will always be a percentage of attack victims who go into complete R-brain red zone and react... well, like a crocodile defending itself. My concern is really for those who don't.

You remember in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, where Elizabeth, abducted on the Black Pearl, purloins a knife during her `dinner' with Barbosa and at the `opportune moment' (as Jack Sparrow would say) stabs him with it? That scene made a big impression on me, because there seemed to be something very unrealistic about it (yes, I know it's Pirates of the Caribbean I'm talking about, so realism isn't exactly a major theme, but `hear me out' :wink1. Elizabeth hasn't had what you'd call a particularly hard life, or had much firsthand involvement with survival in terrifically violent situations, to put it mildly. And she's not actually facing a mortal threat at that point in the movie, though things don't look great. But she stabs Barbosa (to no avail, of course, but she doesn't know that) with almost cold casualness... sort of like, `Aha—gotcha!' That always has seemed a false step to me, somehow. Studies of violence, like David Grossman's On Killing, present very strong evidence that even in the most dangerous firefight situations, soldiers are reluctant to kill enemies whom they `know' full well are ready to kill them. And here is this sheltered teenager ready to stab someone less than a foot away with a long knife as far as she can drive it into him.

I'm pretty sure that at her age, and in her situation, I would have a very hard time doing that, and I suspect that's true for a lot of other people on the board. She might be one of the exceptional cases you're talking about, but somehow I think many people (including screenwriters) don't realize how hard it would be to do that. That's why I think your friend is really making a serious error in carrying a knife unless she has good reason to believe she's going to be one of the (I suspect relatively few) people who can resolve to use it with no hesitation in the necessary `flash'. Because even a little bit of hesitation, as various previous posters have noticed, can be a fatal error...

 

[dubljay]

I agree with Exile on this one. There will always be a small percentage that just reacts. But that's a big gamble. Think about your own training for a minute. From my experiences most MA universally have a general 'if a weapon is involved the rules have changed' kind of thing. From your training perspective if an attacker pulls a weapon you're going to react differently than if they didn't. Now we are looking at the flip side of the situation. You bring the weapon, What kind of reaction is your attacker going to have? Fight or flight? Here's the thing though, in order to actually select you as a victim the way I see it is the attacker has already dehumanized you, you aren’t a person your his/her next hit, drink, rush, or whatever drives them to do it. This right here is a massive advantage over you. Should a struggle ensue do you think they will hesitate to cut you? You bet they wont. So still if you bring it be prepared to use it because I'm willing to bet if you hesitate in the slightest you may lose more than you bargained for.

 

[Sukerkin]

Some very good points being made here everyone :tup:.

My earlier wade into this pool was to say that the psychological effects of carrying a weapon, regardless of whether you can use it or not, in and of themselves are valuable because the confidence you move with has an impact on whether you're targeted as a victim in the first place.

However, there is the flip side to this, as has been discussed because if you become so confident that you do not allow for the possibility that danger will arise then, if it does, you will indeed be worse off because of the shock factor.

Likewise, dubljay and exile have rightly argued that if you are targeted then if you are not prepared to use what you are carrying then the old truism about providing a weapon for your attacker comes into play.

It is this 'trap' that I think, along with an over-exagerated media depiction of the actual threat level, that is in part responsible for the spiral of violence we are seeing. By which I mean that if all become convinced that the mere threat of violent reprisal will not deter an assailant, then why bother waiting to see if deterrence works and just kill or be killed? Another thread here has touched on the rise of neo-barbarism and I'm starting to think that this mindset is part of it.

I don't know if we can pull back from the brink of this decline of 'civilised' response to threats but I pray so. I know that for myself I have made the conscious decision that I shall never take anothers life, regardless of the threat to my own ... but that's a whole other thread, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[exile]

Here's the thing though, in order to actually select you as a victim the way I see it is the attacker has already dehumanized you, you aren’t a person your his/her next hit, drink, rush, or whatever drives them to do it. This right here is a massive advantage over you. Should a struggle ensue do you think they will hesitate to cut you? You bet they wont. So still if you bring it be prepared to use it because I'm willing to bet if you hesitate in the slightest you may lose more than you bargained for.

This is the big bottom line, and dubljay is right on target (out of rep, dj, or I'd rep your post). See, my real concern is that people may be a bit disconnected from what their own probable reactions are. They have seen, on television and in movies, many profoundly unrealistic episodes where the potential victim heroically turns the table on the nasty sadistic hate-object villain by using a knife, or a gun, or some heavy object on them... and the message that gets expressed from this barrage of predictable feelgood screenwriting is, `This is what you will be able to do too, if it ever happens... there's a hero in all of us [ad nauseum].' But while it's true that the nasty sadists in real life are probably just as willing to cut you as the show depicts, I'm very skeptical that most people can overcome that fundamental hesitation to ram a knife into living flesh, or at least, overcome it in time.

I'm also concerned that the very small percentage of people who receive actual training in how to use the weapons they carry may well fail to understand that technical ability doesn't equate to the moral commitment to use that training. David Grossman's extensive research shows that soldiers, trained to shoot accurately, will often fail to fire their weapons at critical times in battle. They're good at it, they're accurate on the target range... but in case after case he examines, they cannot bring themselves to do it at critical moments. Knowing how does not equate to knowing you will. I'm concerned that people think weapons training will give you the will to use the weapon you've trained... but by itself, it doesn't.

 

[Kacey]

This is the big bottom line, and dubljay is right on target (out of rep, dj, or I'd rep your post). See, my real concern is that people may be a bit disconnected from what their own probable reactions are. They have seen, on television and in movies, many profoundly unrealistic episodes where the potential victim heroically turns the table on the nasty sadistic hate-object villain by using a knife, or a gun, or some heavy object on them... and the message that gets expressed from this barrage of predictable feelgood screenwriting is, `This is what you will be able to do too, if it ever happens... there's a hero in all of us [ad nauseum].' But while it's true that the nasty sadists in real life are probably just as willing to cut you as the show depicts, I'm very skeptical that most people can overcome that fundamental hesitation to ram a knife into living flesh, or at least, overcome it in time.

I'm also concerned that the very small percentage of people who receive actual training in how to use the weapons they carry may well fail to understand that technical ability doesn't equate to the moral commitment to use that training. David Grossman's extensive research shows that soldiers, trained to shoot accurately, will often fail to fire their weapons at critical times in battle. They're good at it, they're accurate on the target range... but in case after case he examines, they cannot bring themselves to do it at critical moments. Knowing how does not equate to knowing you will. I'm concerned that people think weapons training will give you the will to use the weapon you've trained... but by itself, it doesn't.

This is, I think, a very key point - the more "up close and personal" a weapon is - a knife, compared to a gun, for example - the harder it is to actually use it. Shooting someone from 20 feet is much more impersonal than sticking a knife into someone at arm's length or closer. Using hands, feet, elbows, knees, etc. is much easier to practice because the target is generally not destroyed - the attack can be stopped short of the target, or it can be practiced on a heavy bag, target pad, or similar item, giving the practitioner the feel for hitting something solid - and there is rarely significant blood visible when attacking with body parts, unlike using a knife on someone... I know I can hit someone with a hand, foot, etc., and they will (most likely) survive, which takes away the moral concern of killing somoene who is trying to rob, rape, or otherwise misuse (but not kill) me - but I also know that if I use a knife on someone, no matter my intentions or theirs, the only way to ensure that the person can't take the knife away from me is to seriously incapacitate them - and I also know that winning a knife fight can still lead to death from blood loss. This could easily create a fatal hesitation.

 

[dubljay]

A stray thought occurred to me just a while ago on this topic. I think someone mentioned the weapon could be a person's talisman. Something used to inspire confidence in their ability. Granted appearing confident and alert is going to reduce the likelihood of your being selected as a target to begin with but carry this confidence too far and you could be asking for trouble. If all the dirt bag wants is your wallet are you more inclined to fight back because you have the knife? Are you willing to escalate the situation instead of handing over your wallet? I realize there are other situations that arise, rape, flat out assault and what not will garner a different response, and in those situations its already crossed the point of no return, it's already them or you.

The question is are you more likely to make an intelligent response while carrying a weapon, especially if you use it more as a confidence booster than an actual tool of self defense?

Further implications go on to intent. Your carrying a weapon changes all the rules when it comes to the law. I think we're all familiar with SGM Parker's quote 'I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6' and I agree completely. When carrying a weapon you have to be prepared for all the consequences, some of which will be legal.

Just more rambling take it with a grain of salt

-Josh

 

[exile]

This is, I think, a very key point - the more "up close and personal" a weapon is - a knife, compared to a gun, for example - the harder it is to actually use it. Shooting someone from 20 feet is much more impersonal than sticking a knife into someone at arm's length or closer. Using hands, feet, elbows, knees, etc. is much easier to practice because the target is generally not destroyed - the attack can be stopped short of the target, or it can be practiced on a heavy bag, target pad, or similar item, giving the practitioner the feel for hitting something solid - and there is rarely significant blood visible when attacking with body parts, unlike using a knife on someone... I know I can hit someone with a hand, foot, etc., and they will (most likely) survive, which takes away the moral concern of killing somoene who is trying to rob, rape, or otherwise misuse (but not kill) me - but I also know that if I use a knife on someone, no matter my intentions or theirs, the only way to ensure that the person can't take the knife away from me is to seriously incapacitate them - and I also know that winning a knife fight can still lead to death from blood loss. This could easily create a fatal hesitation.

Exactly, Kacey, this is the gist of what I've been trying to get at in this thread... the fact is, a knife is a really horrible weapon, in terms of our normal human reactions—either to have used on you or to use on someone else. Most people, I suspect, aren't ready to handle the physical sensations of actually stabbing someone else, or even slashing them badly. We think of ourselve doing that and in our minds we instinctively close our eyes and turn away from the scene. In line with what Kacey says, this isn't a reaction I have when I visualize myself striking someone with a palm-heel strike, knife-hand to the throat, or even a shuriken or baseball bat. But there's something about a knife...

 

[Cirdan]

It's all well and good if you can get to the weapon, and even better if you're trained to use it. Here's the kicker though; you have it, you know how to use it, are you ready to use it? Are you fully prepared to inflict grievous bodily harm upon another person? If you can't honestly answer yes, then in my opinion it doesn’t matter how quickly you can get it into your hand, or how skilled you may be with it, if you are not 100% prepared to use whatever weapon you are wielding then it is 100% useless.

Can a person really be fully prepared for this? I think not. There is no way to know if you are able to stab your knife into another human being without actually having done so. I guess you could do like Mohamed Atta`s "muscle hijackers" and practice on horses and camels but it will still not be the same.

 

[MrE2Me2]

To all,

I’ve have to agree with those that promote, “Ready, Willing and Able” if withdrawal is not an option.

My ex trained very little and a long time ago so she would qualify as almost completely “untrained”.
She also carried a very small lock blade that she used for a variety of things (but not self D).
She unable to hurt others because she didn’t practice…period.

After she left me she started working the early morning shift which entailed a walk to work.
She also bought and carried in her hand, a can of pepper spray so that she would be ready.
Now she is ready to make some guy cry.
One morning she was assaulted by a very large and very desperate knife wielding crack head.
And he was very ready to take her money but not her life.

He leapt out in front of her and demanded her valuables, so she tried to spray him in the face.
Unfortunately, her can malfunctioned (or she made an error) and the can dribbled all over her hand.
Now she has two problems to worry about; the guy is spooked and she has one less hand to stop him.

Lucky for her this yoyo was not functioning on all cylinders.
He swiped haphazardly at her a couple of times as she circled away from the blade.
Finally, realizing that he wasn’t going to leave with out something, she tossed him her purse.
He ran and she lived.

Regards, MrE2Me2