Weapon Use Against An Unarmed Attacker

[Archangel M]

I'm not saying there won't be circumstances where an assailant may be able to overcome you. But it just isn't supposed to happen to MA so easily.

I don't know if I necessairly believe that. It's my opinion that MANY martial artists haven't ever been exposed to a REAL fight. And many MA schools don't ever expose students to a realistic attack (or as close as you can safely get to one).

 

[Phenix_Rider]

To paraphrase my first instructor. Hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast, walk away and don't get caught. In real danger, there's no such thing as a fair fight.

 

[jks9199]

As others have noted -- the question isn't whether or not the attacker is armed, but whether or not the attacker is capable of doing serious bodily harm to you and whether that threat is imminent. Both attacker and defender are taken as they are found. As a defender, you may be tired, ill, injured... The attacker may be bigger, stronger, healthy... or drunk or injured. Your use of force must be proportionate to the threat. That doesn't mean exactly equal -- but simply roughly in-line with what you're facing in the totality of the circumstances. My 105 year old grandmother (to use an extreme) would be absolutely justified in using lethal force to defend herself if she was attacked by a Navy SEAL or Army Green Beret just out of training -- if if the commando was bare naked and drunk. (Again -- extreme!) But me? I'd have to justify shooting that guy a bit more, no? I might be expected to show why something else wouldn't work...

 

[oftheherd1]

I don't know if I necessairly believe that. It's my opinion that MANY martial artists haven't ever been exposed to a REAL fight. And many MA schools don't ever expose students to a realistic attack (or as close as you can safely get to one).

Well, I haven't trained in a school in a long time. You may well be right. Sad if you are, and shame on schools that aren't teaching good martial arts.

 

[MA-Caver]

Most State's use of force laws don't even get into the issue of weapons. It's all about "force" ...physical force, deadly force, etc. If you can articulate that deadly force was necessary it doesn't matter if the opponent is armed or not.

Right but as stated earlier it does bring into question that a guy throws a punch at you and you respond with a .12 gauge at close range... umm... even as a juror I'd have trouble with that. Are you telling me that you're not good enough or intimidating enough to make a person stand where they are at gun point? Or even that you're at least good enough to wound the person (i.e. shot in the leg or other non-vital area?). I think a gun defense against an un-armed individual would play better in court if you show that you 1st tried to stop the attacker via firearm intimidation, 2nd tried to stop the attacker via wounding 3rd stop the attacker by killing them. Some people can get so pissed off or out of their minds that nothing stops them and ergo your life is indeed in mortal danger. Better be able to prove it. And I think by proving it you tried to de-escalate the attack a little at a time... unless of course there are other individuals involved that could not otherwise defend themselves, should you fail to defend yourself without a weapon ... i.e. small children in the house.
Pretty sticky situation all around to be sure.

 

[Archangel M]

I can't believe you bought out the "shoot to wound" argument Caver. :barf:

 

[Haakon]

So, this brings us to the thread. Do you feel that its right to use a weapon to defend yourself, if the person attacking you is unarmed? Would you pick something up and use it, were you to find yourself in a situation?

There are no 'fair' fights, if there is a weapon handy that gives me an advantage against an attacker, sure I'll use it. Using a weapon may very well end a fight sooner with less total damage done to the attacker than if I didn't have a weapon and had to break several of his joints and pummel him.

 

[oftheherd1]

I can't believe you bought out the "shoot to wound" argument Caver. :barf:

If you thought that were a viable option, would you not choose it?

 

[Archangel M]

A firearm is deadly force. When you pull the trigger you better have legal reason to use deadly force and nothing less. If you do have a reason, than you are risking your life on the assumption that wounding will work or is even possible. people who think that shooting to wound is a viable option have little knowledge of what a gunfight is like or the mechanics of what bullets can (or cant) effectively do.

 

[oftheherd1]

A firearm is deadly force. When you pull the trigger you better have legal reason to use deadly force and nothing less. If you do have a reason, than you are risking your life on the assumption that wounding will work or is even possible. people who think that shooting to wound is a viable option have little knowledge of what a gunfight is like or the mechanics of what bullets can (or cant) effectively do.

If you even brandish a gun, you had better be sure you have a reason that is legally justifiable, and are willing to use it. To do otherwise risks you going to jail or being shot with your own weapon.

You are painting with a broad brush to say "people" who think shooting to wound don't know about guns or gunfights. Indeed many, probably most, don't. But I asked the question and I presume your reply is to me. I know enough to believe wounding may sometimes be a viable option, and when it is, I would prefer to take that option. I presume any gun I use will be capable of firing more than one round. I presume I will be able to fire more than one round. If those presumtions aren't correct, I might look to increase the seriousness of where I shoot the person (again, the presumption is that I can hit what I aim at), or then perhaps I might be more inclined to shoot to kill. But it would not be my first choice, nor my constant preference. YMMV

 

[jks9199]

If you even brandish a gun, you had better be sure you have a reason that is legally justifiable, and are willing to use it. To do otherwise risks you going to jail or being shot with your own weapon.

You are painting with a broad brush to say "people" who think shooting to wound don't know about guns or gunfights. Indeed many, probably most, don't. But I asked the question and I presume your reply is to me. I know enough to believe wounding may sometimes be a viable option, and when it is, I would prefer to take that option. I presume any gun I use will be capable of firing more than one round. I presume I will be able to fire more than one round. If those presumtions aren't correct, I might look to increase the seriousness of where I shoot the person (again, the presumption is that I can hit what I aim at), or then perhaps I might be more inclined to shoot to kill. But it would not be my first choice, nor my constant preference. YMMV

Shooting to wound versus shooting to kill is really a different issue from whether the use of a weapon is justifiable. A firearm is, by definition, lethal force (it is capable, and indeed likely to cause serious bodily harm or death if used), whether used to shoot a gun out of the bad guy's hand a la TV Westerns or to place two rounds center mass, and one between the eyes. As a strong general rule, a plan to intentionally shoot to wound disregards a whole lot of what goes on in a lethal force encounter. Very experienced SWAT or similar tactical operators may be be able to do it. A sniper at a remove, in the right circumstances, might do it. But the "average" officer or civilian gun-toter? Probably not, not intentionally. You did address dealing what to do if the wound is insufficient to stop the threat, but you're still disregarding what we know tends to happen in a violent encounter.

Are there circumstances where it is possible and even desirable to shoot to wound? Yes. But they're few and far between.

 

[billc]

So what you are saying is that instead of shooting to wound, you should just shoot the weapon out of the attackers hand?

 

[Archangel M]

Very few people have the ability, self control training, or experience to accurately place a bullet into a nonlethal part of the human body. There are some weapon "experts" who can demonstrate some impressive shooting skills, however their targets are located at a known range, aren't shooting back, aren't holding a hostage shield, and usually aren't moving.

99.9999% of shooting scenarios are not going to give you the time/distance to debate between shooting COM or a limb anyway (unless you are a SWAT sniper...and even then) and limb shooting wont stop enough BG's from continuing to try to kill you to make "shooting to wound" a skill even worth practicing.​

 

[oftheherd1]

Shooting to wound versus shooting to kill is really a different issue from whether the use of a weapon is justifiable.

True, but you brought it up.

A firearm is, by definition, lethal force (it is capable, and indeed likely to cause serious bodily harm or death if used), whether used to shoot a gun out of the bad guy's hand a la TV Westerns or to place two round center mass, and one between the eyes. As a strong general rule, a plan to intentionally shoot to wound disregards a whole lot of what goes on in a lethal force encounter.

I would think a plan to always intentionally shoot to kill does too, and especially in your subsequent encounter with the law.

Very experience SWAT or similar tactical operators may be be able to do it. A sniper at a remove, in the right circumstances, might do it. But the "average" officer or civilian gun-toter? Probably not, not intentionally. You did address dealing what to do if the wound is insufficient to stop the threat, but you're still disregarding what we know tends to happen in a violent encounter.

You are correct as to reports of encounters of LEO in at least their first gun fight. However, I believe it to be a matter of training. LEO don't get enough of it. But MA do get lots of training, albeit not usually on using guns as opposed to defending against guns. But IMHO, no one should be carrying/intending to use a gun unless they get lots of proper training.

Are there circumstances where it is possible and even desirable to shoot to wound? Yes. But they're few and far between.

I don't agree, especially if the gun-toter gets sufficient training.

And we haven't even talked about the mental problems a shooter may have after killing someone. They are real and significant, even for those who shoot and only wound. Killing is usually worse. That should be part of any training; dealing with the aftermath of any shooting.

Just some of my thoughts. Again, YMMV.

 

[MA-Caver]

So what you are saying is that instead of shooting to wound, you should just shoot the weapon out of the attackers hand?

Heh, that'd leave the guy with one hand now wouldn't it? He's supposed to be unarmed.
I do see what jks is trying to say here, yet I feel comfortable enough with a firearm to sufficiently aim to wound and if that fails then it'll be center mass and a head shot if necessary. However; it's more-n-likely to be a center-mass and/or head shot anyway.

Yet in a court of law I suppose it would be better to just kill the attacker and argue it's justifiability rather "how many times did you shoot him/her?So were they really THE attacker?"
Witnesses in this situation would be very nice but they'd better be on your side.

 

[chinto]

A firearm is deadly force. When you pull the trigger you better have legal reason to use deadly force and nothing less. If you do have a reason, than you are risking your life on the assumption that wounding will work or is even possible. people who think that shooting to wound is a viable option have little knowledge of what a gunfight is like or the mechanics of what bullets can (or cant) effectively do.

and if you use a choke or strangle you also have initiated deadly force just as much as you have if you shoot some one!

the question is would I use a weapon if attacked... answer yes.

 

[MJS]

and if you use a choke or strangle you also have initiated deadly force just as much as you have if you shoot some one!

the question is would I use a weapon if attacked... answer yes.

OTOH, its possible to use the choke to simply put the guy into nighty night land. Of course, you could wrap your hands around the guys neck with the intent of crushing everything in there. IMO, the intent is different in each.

 

[threethirty]

I have absolutely no problem with using a weapon against an unarmed person, to be honest it is preferable. Just because they are unarmed when the fight begins does not mean it will continue that way. As has already been said there are NO fair fights. I carry a tabot at all times, not necessarily a lethal weapon but better than nothing.

 

[Lee Mainprize]

I agree I would have thought carrying a telescopic baton or such would be more effective than a blade for common sense purposes.

 

[thegatekeeper]

Depends on the situation. If it was a fair 1 vs 1 fight, I don't agree with it. If something dear is in danger because of the attacker, then I would advise it.