Yes, it really does, in terms of legal self-defense.
No, it really doesn't. Remember, I said, "Distance weapons are for using "at distance." It doesn't matter if they are used pre-contact or post-contact." That was in response to your statement that if the attacker is pushed back or breaks contact for some reason then the attack is no longer there. This may be true in some cases but is also not true in many others. Direct physical contact is often broken in altercations when one party is pushed back or decides to gain a little space. The attacker may very well still be a threat even though he does not have a grasp on the victim.
Imagine a person with a pistol carried for self defense. He is attacked, and runs fifty feet away, takes aim, and shoots his attacker.
Why would I imagine that? It doesn't match anything I've suggested to now. Might as well imagine the attacker runs 100 yards away. It has no bearing on my points. Just because the attacker has been backed up some, doesn't mean the attack is no longer imminent. Standard Self Defense and LEO dogma suggests that a person is a valid threat up to 21 feet and sometimes beyond, even when they have no distance weapon and is commonly represented in the oft cited Tueller Drill. This is just a fact of life. I'm not sure where the idea of 50 feet came from.
By removing himself from the threat of being cut, stabbed, punched, clubbed, or etc, he is no longer in imminent danger. If the attacker has a firearm, of course, that may be different.
I agree. The question is, "how far away is 'removed'?" I'm suggesting that it's a lot farther than you seem realize, though maybe not since I think it's probably a lot closer than 50 feet. Nevertheless, back to my points, there can still be a valid threat of immediate bodily harm 1) before contact is made, 2) after contact has been broken 3) and even at some small distance.
But then I would question what kind of person would attack a man with a gun by throwing knives at him.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The point is, of course I agree (as I've already said) a firearm is a superior tool for distance self defense. But there are any number of reasons why a victim might not have a firearm and, in those cases, using a thrown weapon of some sort is a darn sight better than peeing my pants and crying like a little girl.
No, that is absolutely untrue. Reasonable belief has to be grounded in reality, and it is not up to the victim to decide what 'reasonable' is. From a distance, a person cannot punch, slice, stab, or club you. He can perhaps shoot you - in which case you would absolutely reasonable in believing your life was in imminent danger. But again, chucking knives at a man who is armed with a gun and trying to shoot you? While legal, probably not as wise as trying very hard to escape might be.
Yes, actually, it is quite legal. Perhaps, at this point, we are having a difficulty with terminology. When I write "reasonable," I am referring to the legal construct known as a "Reasonable Man." It is a fictitious person that a Jury or some other group develops from their legal advice and personal experience to compare actions against. The question is always, "Would a 'Reasonable Man' have believed what the Defendant says he believed with the same information and would that 'Reasonable Man' have been justified in taking the same actions?" "Reasonable" in this case automatically assumes that the Defendant is not suffering from delusions and is otherwise grounded in reality.
Now, again, we are faced with the "from a distance" issue. Again, I point out that it is a well established fact of our legal system that an attacker can, indeed, be a valid threat, under the Reasonable Man construct, even from a distance. Exactly what that distance is is up to the Attorney General, Grand Jury, and/or Jury to decide. While I agree that it is probably less than 50 feet, there is also significant precedent that it is also greater than nose-to-nose. Ayoob and other authors have written extensively on the subject. I recall him writing one piece about a female officer who failed to fire on a suspect who was more than 20 feet away from her because he was "so far away" and "only" armed with a knife. It nearly cost her life. He was obviously a justifiable threat but the officer had the same mind set as it appears you are suggesting. I hope I'm wrong here.
Interesting scenarios. Have any of these ever resulted in a person defending themselves by throwing knives at an assailant? I get your point (no pun intended), but it seems so far-fetched as to strain credulity.
Yes. I saw some video the other day of a defender chucking a knife (and a lot of other stuff) at a person(s) attacking with knives. Is it common? Not that I'm aware of.
Let me be clear, again, I am not suggesting that this is a common occurrence nor that this is a "must have" skill in every person's arsenal who is interested in self defense. I am merely saying that it is not solely the reserve of fantasy and that its use is legally justifiable in any case where the use of a firearm would also be legally justified.
Just me personally - I would never, never, throw a weapon at a person. The chances they would then use it on me are too frightening to even contemplate.
If my attacker has time to pick up a thrown weapon and "use it against" me then my tactics
really need tweaking. He should be too busy worrying about defending against my other self defense related attacks as I close range or wondering if he can catch me as I "shoot and scoot."
The person who brought this up stated it as his normal method (years ago, as he said) of carry for self-defense weaponry. That does indeed strike me as bizarre, fantasy, outlandish, odd, potentially illegal, and probably foolish. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but come on. We get the occasional person on MT who talks about carrying around eggs full of ground up glass and pockets full of sand and so on. All are rightly pointed out to be fantasy nonsense in terms of practical, real-life, self-defense situations. At a certain point, although I respect all martial arts traditions, I have to say woah up there pardner, that's just crazy talk. If everything is OK, then nothing is NOT OK. And carrying around a brace of throwing knives as self-defense? Not OK. Sorry, I have to say that.
I understand that it sounds far fetched, particularly in U.S. society where the role of distance weapon is better filled for most by firearms. However, again, as a self defense tool (where legal), there is no legal difference in using one weapon instead of any other potential weapon. If Deadly Force is justified then Deadly Force is justified and it doesn't matter what "force" was used to accomplish it. Again, a thrown knife is justified in the same circumstances as a fired bullet.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk