The Richmond Beat-down, How Would You Handle This Situation?

[OldCannon]

I know exactly what I would do, and I'm not going to say, because if I ever had to, you can bet a large stack of cash that some lawyer is going to be reading these forums.

I reckon it's one thing to ask, "What does the law say about situation X?", but I sure as heck would never respond, "Well, if I was you, I'd do this..."

Just sayin.

[texanron]

I would've just gone MMA on those actors....I mean attackers.

[Barbi Q]

Does anyone have a link that doesn't require a login?

[BobCat]

I'm interested in ELB's statement about a knife. I have no training in fighting with a knife, but always have a couple of knives on my person for various tasks. A knife is a tool and since I make my living knowing a little about steel, and since the making of steel tools is one of the turning points in our history, I like knives.

In this context I've read that a knife is "considered a thug's weapon" - that a "gentleman" would not use a knife as a weapon, rather a pistol (handgun). There is supposed to be some cultural / historical basis for this view.

So how doe y'all think the police, or the Grand Jury, or the jurors, would see it if you used a knife instead of your legally-carried pistol to defend yourself? Might your defense be "tainted" by the idea that you were willing to fight several attackers at contact distance, with a blade, rather than draw a gun before they got that close? Meaning that you must not have been all that intimidated since you didn't respond until they were so close. Or the idea that you had time to reach for one weapon, and only that much time, so you went for a blade instead of your gun, which everyone "supposes" is a "more potent" weapon?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Regards,
Andrew

[Barbi Q]

Gentlemen used to carry swords.

[RollTide In Texas]

Does anyone have a link that doesn't require a login?

Barbi Q, a login shouldn't be needed. If the link doesn't work for you, copy the address and paste it in a seperate browser window and try that.

[ELB]

Do you have knife training? I mean, real knife training? If you're planning on using it as a contact weapon, you'd better know what you're doing. As a stopping weapon, knives are very ineffective unless in trained hands.

Training? Oh yes, the more I studied self-defense encounters on the street and thought about what I saw, the more I realized that getting a gun into action during a in-your-face-attack was very dicey. So I started looking around, and found some very interesting training, which I practice as often as possible with (or against?) others.

More on that later. (I've been thinking of starting a thread on this, may do so, but this is as good a place as any to jump in.)

My very first day, I pretty much confirmed what I already suspected -- NO,it does NOT take much training to USE a knife. You can inflict a lot of damage on someone if you are determined to do so. It takes a LOT of training to successfully DEFEND against one. And even then, it is no sure thing.

You already possess the basic skills to use a knife -- stabbing and cutting or slashing are fairly instinctive, as opposed to, say, the basic skills for manipulating a handgun. You can certainly enhance your effectiveness with by a bit of study and training -- knowing where to cut to get at various key tendons, where to stab to get to major blood vessels, and the like. But people already basically know how to use a knife and where to stab and cut-- it is usually the willingness to do so that is at question.

As for using a knife to "stop" someone? Of course it is effective. Or ineffective. Depends on getting good strikes, your mindset, and your opponent's. This is not much different than a handgun -- "stopping power" is part physical, part psychological. Physically you are trying to damage your attacker's vascular, nervous, or mechanical systems. I.e. make him bleed enough to pass out, stabbing in the spinal cord or brain, or cutting some part of the anatomy that renders him ineffective, like the tendons controlling the hands that grip his weapon (or make a fist), or the hamstrings that let him stand up, or cutting his forehead so that blood runs in his eyes and makes it hard to see (not to mention distracting).

For the psychologocial part, consider the attackers in the above video. Unless they had some overwhelming emotional reaon (and I do not use this term in a derogative manner) that they wanted to hurt this guy -- for example, payback for messing with somone's wife or girlfriend, or stealing a huge amount of their dope money or something -- they most likely just saw an opportunity to inflict a lot of pain and terror on someone they didn't like -- AND (this is the important part) saw very little chance of getting hurt themselves. They were right. It was many vs one. The victim curled up in a little ball and took his beating and kicks (to the head, I noticed).

BUT. What if the first attacker or two to try to smack this guy suddenly pulled his arm back with a nice slash in it? Maybe saw a couple of his own fingers laying on the ground? Does it still seem like a good idea to beat up this guy just for fun? And if you are the buddy of Mr. "Three fingers," do you still think it is a good idea to help him beat on this guy? Maybe not. Maybe one of the thugs pulls his own knife, or a gun, or whatever (so yeah, you should still carry your gun). But there is a better than even chance that if this is just a beatdown or mugging of opportunity, the thugs will go find someone easier to pick on.

I think the problem with using a knife for defense is not "knowing what your are doing" with it. The problem is not with the knife. The problem is with the mindset. Getting close and cutting someone up is scary icky stuff. This is caveman stuff. Shooting from a distance, however little, seems a little bit cleaner, a bit more detached than stabbing.

I see a couple other posts to reply to, but I want to get this one in now...

[RollTide In Texas]

That's always a tough one. Trying to prevent it from getting to the point where you're on the ground getting your head kicked -- that seems where it would be mostly justifiable, but would you be able to draw your firearm at that point?

If one was to wait until this situation to justify deadly force being used, chances are that the perp will be using your own weapon against you.

[RollTide In Texas]

I believe in this instance that the production of a weapon (and verbal commands) is necessary. As long as the reason for the production of a weapon is to let the others know "I fear for my life...I will use deadly force!" Again at this point VERBAL COMMANDS are essential. STOP! DO NOT COME CLOSER! I WILL SHOOT YOU!


If YOU were in this situation...would YOU reasonably believe that you needed to use force/deadly force to stop what was about to happen? I dont know what just ran through your mind as an answer but I clearly thought "YES"

I would hope that the production of the weapon and firm verbal commands would have stopped this action, but I am afraid I would have been in the middle of a mag reload by the middle of this video.

Great comments HotLeadSolutions. Running this situation in my head many times, your comments probably reflect what I hope I would be able to do if caught in this type of thing.

[ELB]

I'm interested in ELB's statement about a knife. ... Andrew

Andrew -- As I noted above, I have been considering starting a thread on up-close-and-personal with the knife in particular, and more generally with any kind of immediate street confrontation (as opposed to a home invasion). I have yet done so, but soon. I don't really want to hijack this thread further. But for now, let me say I have been training in knife and unarmed defense with some folks in Austin for several months now (once a week more or less, more often when I can) and it has been eye opening. Especially when one of our brother groups from Killeen, mostly soldiers from Ft Hood, come down periodically. Their lead guy is scary good, they are all young, strong healthy guys, and they run 51-year-old-potbellied me ragged. And when we practice our skills at full speed, I end up getting "killed" a lot...

But you know what -- even old guy me turns table on them often enough that they do not take me lightly. That was the eye opener for me -- that when armed with "just a knife" I could be a serious threat to trained soldiers, some of them vets of Iraqi street fights.

I do this in order to learn to defend against someone with a knife, and it has helped. Confronted with a knife, I will be plenty scared. But I think not panic stricken. I know some things to do.

But in learning this, I learned just how effective a knife is, and hence my comments above about the defensive use of the knife.

As for the reputation for being a "thug's" weapon? I do not worry about this. I know why I have a gun and a knife and I will be happy to be alive to explain it to anyone.

[RollTide In Texas]

Now to change the situation up a bit. If you were not the victim, but someone who came across this beating, how would you handle it?

Under PC 9.33, if conditions are met as described in 9.31 and 9.32 and, intervention is necessary to protect this person, we would be justified in using deadly force to protect the victim.

If verbal warnings did not cease the beating, would you be able to fire on these thugs to stop the threat?


PC §9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes
them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in
using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force
or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the
third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately
necessary to protect the third person.

[Excaliber]

This discussion contains lots of good thought and considered perspective.

It's worthwhile to remember that the standard for the validity of your judgment will be what a "reasonable man" would have believed if faced with the same set of circumstances. To establish that this theoretical but legally vital creature would have done what you did, you have to be able to very specifically list and describe (articulate) what you believed was happening and why you believed the action you took was the best choice available to you at the time.

You don't need to wait until the BG texts you or announces what he's going to do before you act to ward off an impending attack (although quotable announcements are quite helpful later). Targeted approach to you with no valid business or social reason, disregard of protests and warnings, maneuvering to place you at a tactical disadvantage and closing distance can all be used to help establish a convincing fact pattern.

Your personal experience, training, and individual study can also all be used to help support the reasonableness of your actions. The deeper and more detailed that background knowledge is, and the tighter the correlation you can make between that and your interpretation of the situation you faced, the stronger the case you'll be able to make.

For better or worse, you should be aware that use of a knife for defense, especially in preference over a handgun, will likely face skepticism at best from investigators. They see lots of attacks with edged weapons, and very few if any valid defensive uses. This background can color their approach to the investigation at the outset in a way that is not favorable to you.

[nyj]

You don't need to wait until the BG texts you or announces what he's going to do before you act to ward off an impending attack (although quotable announcements are quite helpful later). Targeted approach to you with no valid business or social reason, disregard of protests and warnings,

My problem with this whole deal is how do you prove this? You shoot someone because you think his intentions are to cause grave bodily harm to you. You defend yourself before it ever escalates and you now have a dead 'BG,' and you, unscratched and claiming self defense.

Not saying your wrong, just one of those things. Fear of legal consequences possibly impeding your ability to make a solid judgment call is something I hope never effects me if I'm ever in a bad situation.

[Excaliber]

You don't need to wait until the BG texts you or announces what he's going to do before you act to ward off an impending attack (although quotable announcements are quite helpful later). Targeted approach to you with no valid business or social reason, disregard of protests and warnings,

My problem with this whole deal is how do you prove this? You shoot someone because you think his intentions are to cause grave bodily harm to you. You defend yourself before it ever escalates and you now have a dead 'BG,' and you, unscratched and claiming self defense.

Not saying your wrong, just one of those things. Fear of legal consequences possibly impeding your ability to make a solid judgment call is something I hope never effects me if I'm ever in a bad situation.

A good post incident defense will depend on meticulous recounting of the details and how they all fit into a coherent fact pattern. Simple fear for reasons you can't describe won't do much to support any action you might take. Remember the "reasonable man." I'd strongly recommend you make plans to attend one of Charles' Deadly Force Seminars to get a much better understanding of how to manage your analysis, options and decisions.

[cbr600]

Mas Ayoob said CYA means "Can You Articulate?" and that's a good question for all who lawfully carry a weapon - LEO, CHL, MPA, etc.