what would happen if...?

[KempoGuy06]

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]

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]

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]

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

what's the toll for this bridge?

 

[KempoGuy06]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....