you have taken away the weapon...now what?

[KempoGuy06]

wrong.

Use of a gun or a knife (or most other weapons) constitutes deadly force. If you say that you deliberately used the weapon to only wound your attacker, you're going to have a hard time convincing the prosecutor that you were really in enough danger to justify the use of a deadly force tool.

This is a good point. What sucks is that with the legal system we have you could get attacked and injured, not seriosly but injured. In the altercation you could (with or without a weapon) cause injury to the attacker that might disable him in one form or another. When everything is all said and done you could come out looking like the bad guy.

With that being said, if the situation like I mentioned in the beginning arises then by all means use what is necessary to stop the attacker, if that doesnt work use the weapon, because in the end you are more than likely going to be blamed one way or another.

its a sad situation.

B

 

[MJS]

Hmm...some interesting points. Now that I think about it, I can think of quite a few weapon techniques in which the weapon is used against the attacker in the process of the disarm.

As always, the situation will dictate what we do. Some interesting things I found.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

Physical Force in Defense of Person

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:
1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer's directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;
2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or
3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.

Lastly, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the person to use physical force, (2) use of such force was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law, or (3) he is the initial aggressor (unless he withdraws from the encounter, effectively communicates this intent to the other person, and the other person continues to or threatens to use physical force) (CGS § 53a-19).

http://www.usadojo.com/articles/use-force-ladder.htm

Jim Wagner certainly brings up some fantastic points IMHO.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Hmm...some interesting points. Now that I think about it, I can think of quite a few weapon techniques in which the weapon is used against the attacker in the process of the disarm.

As always, the situation will dictate what we do. Some interesting things I found.

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:
1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he a peace officer, special policeman, or a private individual assisting a peace officer or special policeman at the officer's directions regarding an arrest or preventing an escape;
2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or
3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.

Lastly, a person is not justified in using physical force when (1) with intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he provokes the person to use physical force, (2) use of such force was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law, or (3) he is the initial aggressor (unless he withdraws from the encounter, effectively communicates this intent to the other person, and the other person continues to or threatens to use physical force) (CGS § 53a-19).

http://www.usadojo.com/articles/use-force-ladder.htm

Jim Wagner certainly brings up some fantastic points IMHO.

good post but one thing I dont get, #2

surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own

does this mean someone can come up to me with a weapon and say "thats my car" and if I feel threatened just decided to hand over the keys, distract the aggressor and then attack him to end the situation.

If that were to happen it seems that #2 is saying I would be in the wrong...I know I cant have that right

B

 

[KenpoTex]

The key word(s) are "reasonably believes."

As I touched on before, if a person comes at you with a weapon, or if the attacker is significantly larger or stronger than you, or if there are multiple attackers (or, worst case, all of the above). Then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that "great/serious bodily harm" is about to be inflicted upon you.
Logic would seem to dictate, as I said earlier, that your attacker has clearly demonstrated his intent to cause great bodily harm (or death) by attacking you with a weapon. I'm not saying that the presence of a weapon automatically signifies intent to do great harm, just that it makes it very easy to articulate why you felt the need to engage him with deadly force.
His intent can be presumed to be the same if he continues to attack after you have disarmed him.
As long as you can articulate the "big 3" (opportunity, ability, and intent/jeapordy) you have justification.

 

[MJS]

good post but one thing I dont get, #2

surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own

does this mean someone can come up to me with a weapon and say "thats my car" and if I feel threatened just decided to hand over the keys, distract the aggressor and then attack him to end the situation.

If that were to happen it seems that #2 is saying I would be in the wrong...I know I cant have that right

B

Good point and upon initial read it is a bit confusing. I believe in this case though, they're referring to the use of deadly force, not any force at all. Personally, and this is just my opinion, but I'm not going to put my life in the hands of the bad guy. Everyone says to hand over the car keys. After all, a car can be replaced, your life cant. Ok..but where is the guarentee that I'm still going to have my life? Whats to say that after I hand over the keys, he doesnt turn around and blow my head off? So, in either case there is a chance you can die. Hand over the keys and die, don't hand them over and die. I'd rather go down with a fight. Additionally, we need to take into consideration anyone thats with us. I'm not leaving my wife behind, even if I decided to run. What if she can't run as fast as I?

I say take your chances and fight. Again, this is just my opinion.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Good point and upon initial read it is a bit confusing. I believe in this case though, they're referring to the use of deadly force, not any force at all. Personally, and this is just my opinion, but I'm not going to put my life in the hands of the bad guy. Everyone says to hand over the car keys. After all, a car can be replaced, your life cant. Ok..but where is the guarentee that I'm still going to have my life? Whats to say that after I hand over the keys, he doesnt turn around and blow my head off? So, in either case there is a chance you can die. Hand over the keys and die, don't hand them over and die. I'd rather go down with a fight. Additionally, we need to take into consideration anyone thats with us. I'm not leaving my wife behind, even if I decided to run. What if she can't run as fast as I?

I say take your chances and fight. Again, this is just my opinion.

I totally agree. In most cases these people are weak (not physically but mentally) and they will run if someone fights back. They are only looking for the easy way out. Though every once in a while there will be someone who has nothing else to lose and these are the really dangerous people. That being the case I to will go down with a fight and if I go down and take him with me thats ok because its one less person like that in the world

B

 

[jks9199]

I still think it's ok to use the attackers weapon against him if he's still the aggressor. You could use a non leathal stab wound (if it was a knife) and still be in the good. The jury could see that you could have killed him if you wanted to, but used just enough force to stop the attack and control the situation. Slicing his throat would be overkill. Same goes for a gun. A leg or shoulder wound is better then a head shot in this situation. Scott

wrong.

Use of a gun or a knife (or most other weapons) constitutes deadly force. If you say that you deliberately used the weapon to only wound your attacker, you're going to have a hard time convincing the prosecutor that you were really in enough danger to justify the use of a deadly force tool.

The actual definition of lethal force is "force which is a likely to cause serious bodily injury or death." If you use force that is likely to cause serious bodily harm, even if you "only wound" them -- you're still using a deadly weapon. You'd stand a good chance of being charged with somethng like Assault With a Deadly Weapon or Aggravated Malicious Wounding or even Attempted Murder.

If you're assaulted, and you take the attacker's weapon away -- you have to be very, very careful. You may no longer be justified in using significant force against that person; after all, they're no longer capable of using that weapon on you, right? If they are not continuing the aggressive actions, you may not be justified in using any force against them! Just because you just got attacked, you don't get the right to commit a new assault against the bad guy who's running from you.

And, of course, I'm not providing legal advice or guidance. There are numerous classes in use of force for civilians available. It's a really good idea that anyone studying martial arts for self defense take at least one...

 

[jks9199]

good post but one thing I dont get, #2

surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own

does this mean someone can come up to me with a weapon and say "thats my car" and if I feel threatened just decided to hand over the keys, distract the aggressor and then attack him to end the situation.

If that were to happen it seems that #2 is saying I would be in the wrong...I know I cant have that right

B

That's basically covering repos, shoplifter detentions, and similar situations. I would suspect that someone making a claim that they were recovering their own property, and so you weren't justified in defending yourself would be required to show that they had a reasonable belief that they had ownership of the property.

 

[bigfootsquatch]

What happens once you take away the attackers weapon and they still come at you? One answer would be to use it. This might be ok given the weapon is a club or something similar, but what if it happens to be a knife or a gun? You couldnt just turn around and use it to defend youself, or could you? What would you do? Fight that person off with hands alone or use the weapon?

B

If I had to I would. Someone that has a gun or knife in their hand are not there to pick a fight, they are there to take something from you.

With that being said, I would only use a deadly weapon as a very last resort, if I could restrain him with joint locks or grappling then I would.

 

[KenpoTex]

The actual definition of lethal force is "force which is a likely to cause serious bodily injury or death." If you use force that is likely to cause serious bodily harm, even if you "only wound" them -- you're still using a deadly weapon. You'd stand a good chance of being charged with somethng like Assault With a Deadly Weapon or Aggravated Malicious Wounding or even Attempted Murder.

That was exactly my point. Deadly Force/Lethal Force, same idea, different terminology.

If you're assaulted, and you take the attacker's weapon away -- you have to be very, very careful. You may no longer be justified in using significant force against that person; after all, they're no longer capable of using that weapon on you, right?

They may not be capable of using the weapon against you, but if they're still attacking they're still a serious threat. Furthermore, if they succeed in regaining their weapon, they're going to present an even greater threat (all over again) and you're right back where you started.

If they are not continuing the aggressive actions, you may not be justified in using any force against them! Just because you just got attacked, you don't get the right to commit a new assault against the bad guy who's running from you.

agreed. When did I ever say anything about using the weapon or continuing the use of any kind of force if they ceased their attack?

 

[SKB]

If you go with what Kenpotex is saying you will be in the right most of the time. Why most of the time? See if you happen to be over six foot, weight over 200 and have any past which woud lead people to think you can handle yourself, you are at a disadvantage. A jury will think you should of been able to do somthing else! Big fellas need to keep that in mind!

Use the least amount of force necasary to gain control of the situation. If you have taken the bad guys "tool" (remember the person is the weapon) the situation has changed and you need to take that into account, the jury will.

If you have to shoot or stab someone do not try to wound them! In a real situation you won't have the time to think of things like that!!! And if the bad guy is so inept you do have time maybe you really need to rethink what you are doing!!

 

[JadeDragon3]

For me personally, if no one was around and I knew for a fact that I wouldn't get caught I would use thier weapon against them. If possible I would keep the weapon in thier hand and use it against them. Make it look like they shot or stabbed themself......lol. I'd be ruthless as they were.

 

[towknee]

This is the drill I was taught once you have disarmed a firearm weapon threat.

1) Remove yourself several feet from the bad guy(s). Many steps away. Many. Back away. Don't turn away. If you are with others, don't put them between you and the bad guy(s).
2) Show them you have the weapon and tell them loudly you will use it.
Loudly. So there are potential witnesses. Do not try to discharge the weapon. If at all possible, verify that it is loaded. It could very well be empty.
3) Back off and remove yourself from the area. Legally, you are now the armed individual. Get out.
4) If the bad guy approaches. Shoot center of body. Don't make it hard.
Keep in mind that the gun may not be loaded. Plan on alternative behavior.
5) Whether you fire, if possible, do not leave area. We want these folks arrested. Flight is considered guilt. Call the police. Wait for the police.
6) If you have to depart, and you have shot someone, then do so. But, call the police, just after calling your attorney, and tell them all details. Don't screw it up any more than it already is.
7) Provide basic info to police. This is good common sense. Help them move toward resolution. Especially if the bad guy is still alive and waiting for assistance. Then, shut up and wait for your attorney.

If you shoot someone, anticipate that the authorities will arrest you. Don't do anything stupid. This is nomal. It isn't something they are doing to get at you. Shooting people is considered anti-social. Deal with it.

If you shoot somenone, anticipated that they will sue you should they survive. (Read into this what ever you think about that center shot.)

Always keep in mind: Once you have disarmed them you have changed the legal environment dramatically. You are no longer in threat of deadly force.

Luck.

 

[jks9199]

This is the drill I was taught once you have disarmed a firearm weapon threat.

1) Remove yourself several feet from the bad guy(s). Many steps away. Many. Back away. Don't turn away. If you are with others, don't put them between you and the bad guy(s).
2) Show them you have the weapon and tell them loudly you will use it.
Loudly. So there are potential witnesses. Do not try to discharge the weapon. If at all possible, verify that it is loaded. It could very well be empty.
3) Back off and remove yourself from the area. Legally, you are now the armed individual. Get out.
4) If the bad guy approaches. Shoot center of body. Don't make it hard.
Keep in mind that the gun may not be loaded. Plan on alternative behavior.
5) Whether you fire, if possible, do not leave area. We want these folks arrested. Flight is considered guilt. Call the police. Wait for the police.
6) If you have to depart, and you have shot someone, then do so. But, call the police, just after calling your attorney, and tell them all details. Don't screw it up any more than it already is.
7) Provide basic info to police. This is good common sense. Help them move toward resolution. Especially if the bad guy is still alive and waiting for assistance. Then, shut up and wait for your attorney.

If you shoot someone, anticipate that the authorities will arrest you. Don't do anything stupid. This is nomal. It isn't something they are doing to get at you. Shooting people is considered anti-social. Deal with it.

If you shoot somenone, anticipated that they will sue you should they survive. (Read into this what ever you think about that center shot.)

Always keep in mind: Once you have disarmed them you have changed the legal environment dramatically. You are no longer in threat of deadly force.

Luck.

The underlined portions are in conflict...

If you have successfully disarmed an attacker who was armed with a gun, they may no longer present an immediate threat of deadly force. If you then shoot them for approaching you, you'll have a seriously uphill battle to justify your actions. Your use of force was, almost by definition, excessive at that point.

If you've had the time to disarm them. determine whether the weapon is loaded (not always easy, unless you're familiar with the weapon in question), then back off, and warn them... You've largely demonstrated that they no longer present the immediate threat or capability of inflicting serious bodily harm upon you.

If you're attacked and manage to disarm your attacker, whether they're using a knife, club, pistol, or M1 Abrams tank, your best legal option is probably to escape as fast as you can. Prolonging the confrontation puts you in questionable legal territory.

Disclaimer: I'm NOT A LAWYER and I AM NOT providing specific legal guidance or advice to anyone.

 

[LawDog]

After taking a weapon away from your opponent,
* with extreme haste place it in a safe location on your person.
Your opponent will try to retreive it or a by-stander / friend might try
to take it away from you,
* never state that you might / will use the weapon against your now
unarmed opponent,
* if you run away after taking the weapon away from your opponent
he could stated that you tried to use the weapon on him. Giive it to
police, they can check to see if his finger prints are on the magazine,
the bullets etc. This will show who really has been handling the gun.
* Last and the most important, make sure that you make it home intact.
:ultracool

 

[towknee]

The underlined portions are in conflict...

If you have successfully disarmed an attacker who was armed with a gun, they may no longer present an immediate threat of deadly force. If you then shoot them for approaching you, you'll have a seriously uphill battle to justify your actions. Your use of force was, almost by definition, excessive at that point.

If you've had the time to disarm them. determine whether the weapon is loaded (not always easy, unless you're familiar with the weapon in question), then back off, and warn them... You've largely demonstrated that they no longer present the immediate threat or capability of inflicting serious bodily harm upon you.

If you're attacked and manage to disarm your attacker, whether they're using a knife, club, pistol, or M1 Abrams tank, your best legal option is probably to escape as fast as you can. Prolonging the confrontation puts you in questionable legal territory.

Disclaimer: I'm NOT A LAWYER and I AM NOT providing specific legal guidance or advice to anyone.

Yes. No contest. Several aspects can easily be seen as in conflict. For that matter, lots of unmentioned things offer points of conflict such as your socio-economic class or perceived racial profile, your legal history, or lack thereof, etc, in a disarm & defend situation.

I am also not an attorney nor a police office and I am not prescribing a procedure. I am only listing something I was taught some time ago along the lines of the thread.
The instruction was back in the late 1970's and I have no clue where those folks are now so I can't go back and ask if they revised their thoughts. They certainly told us to run. And they were pretty sure you would go to jail if it involved much physical interaction at all. This included punching the stuffings out of an assailant you had disarmed.

In fairness, right from the get-go punisher73 summed up the best practical advice:
"I would check with an attorney and find out 1) what state laws are 2) what local ordinances are and 3) how does the prosecutor's office generally look at cases like that."

I frequently interact w/a couple of police officers in my job so now I'm going to go agitate them and see what they think.
Personally, I just don't see my self shooting someone I am able to disarm.

Thank you.
luck.

 

[jks9199]

Yes. No contest. Several aspects can easily be seen as in conflict. For that matter, lots of unmentioned things offer points of conflict such as your socio-economic class or perceived racial profile, your legal history, or lack thereof, etc, in a disarm & defend situation.

I am also not an attorney nor a police office and I am not prescribing a procedure. I am only listing something I was taught some time ago along the lines of the thread.
The instruction was back in the late 1970's and I have no clue where those folks are now so I can't go back and ask if they revised their thoughts. They certainly told us to run. And they were pretty sure you would go to jail if it involved much physical interaction at all. This included punching the stuffings out of an assailant you had disarmed.

In fairness, right from the get-go punisher73 summed up the best practical advice:
"I would check with an attorney and find out 1) what state laws are 2) what local ordinances are and 3) how does the prosecutor's office generally look at cases like that."

I frequently interact w/a couple of police officers in my job so now I'm going to go agitate them and see what they think.
Personally, I just don't see my self shooting someone I am able to disarm.

Thank you.
luck.

I am a cop.

The response you described initially could very easily lead to a very bad situation. You've disarmed someone, then remained at the scene and essentially RE-ENGAGED them after you'd escaped. You then become the aggressor; you're brandishing the gun that you took off of them.

The question of whether force used is appropriate has to consider many issues, but relative socio-economic strata is NOT one of them. Poor people have equal rights to defend themselves as rich people. If you check within the General Self Defense forum (and a few others, too) here on MT, you'll see that issues of what level of force is justified have been discussed at length several times.

 

[towknee]

OK.
I take the points.

Sorry.
Thank you.
luck.