does it have to be lethal?

Seb,
Let me approach this from a slightly different angle. A knife is recognized as a lethal weapon, no matter how you use it in a fight. In order to draw it, threaten someone with it or use it, you would have to be facing a deadly threat. No matter how each state words it, what it boils down to is if you can articulate facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person (read reasonable 'sheeple') to believe they or family, friends, etc. were in immenent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you can respond with lethal force.

Responding with lethal force does not mean I have to kill the BG. My intention in responding with a knife/impact weapon/firearm is never to kill anyone. The BG chose to do something 'lethally threatening' to me! I am using the most efficient means/tool available to make him stop as soon as possible. If I cut him once and he drops or runs, great! However, as Liveblade mentioned, a well trained FMA knifer is getting in 2 to 4 cuts a second!

My game plan for defending myself calls for continued cutting/shooting/striking until the BG falls down or runs away. As the ever eloquent Don points out, those martial artists who advocate hitting target 1 with technique A, evaluating, and then hitting target 2 with technique B, have not done a lot of real time sparring with an attacker in one of the protective Redman or FIST suits. It happens waaayy too fast and it's not pretty!

Seb, I firmly beleive that the FMA is one of the most overall effective martial arts wehter it's empty hands, impact weapons or edged weapons. It teachs what works. How you choose to use what you are taught is up to you. I know that I place the highest priority on the life and safety of my friends and family and that ultimately protecting them and myself is up to me.

Bram, I have seen the picture Don mentions. You can clearly see the teeth marks in the metal! Yes, he busted out most of his teeth, but can you imagine facing this guy, after you watched him bite off his handcuffs?!?! I would be calling for artillery backup!


 
Protector,

There have been many broken chains, shimmed and picked locks in the history of law enforcement. Most people that are Chemically Fueled and cuffed will tear the flesh off of their wrists, to the bone. If they decide to freak out on you.

The Tactical Edge, Street Survival and other books by Calibre Press are Restricted for Law Enforcement Only. Originally, I would imagine that Calibre Press's "Surviving Edged Weapons" video was probably going to be Restricted LEO as well and something went wrong. I don't think that was ever meant for the Public either.

The point is, people who are simply what we would refer to as "nuts," are incredibly dangerous people. People who are Chemically Fueled are as well.

[This message has been edited by Don Rearic (edited 01-06-2001).]
 
You can edit the misspelled words even after you've posted -- click on that icon with the pencil.
smile.gif


-Cougar :{)


------------------
-Cougar Allen :{)
--------------------------------------
This post is not merely the author's opinions; it is the trrrrrruth. This post is intended to cause dissension and unrest and upset people, and ultimately drive them mad. Please do not misinterpret my intentions in posting this.
 
I think most of my opinions on the subject have already been stated. For the life of me, I can not understand why anyone would pull a knife in a situation where killing the person is not justified. Same with a gun. No matter how you view a knife, the courts view it as a lethal weapon. Plain and simple. I was once given this bit of advice, and feel it sums everything up.
"A man worth shooting is a man worth killing"
I believe that goes for knives as well. If the situation requires the use of a gun or a knife, the situation warrants lethal force.

[This message has been edited by Jeremy Reynolds (edited 01-07-2001).]
 
Speaking for myself, (and Chariot, this is partly an answer to your "how do you train" thread, too--forgive me if it comes out a bit jumbled--being awake from insomnia doesn't mean rested and articulate)--how do you know when to draw/use a weapon, and when not to?

Like anything else in this realm, it's a judgement call, based on the context of the moment and any number of variables. I train to try to cover the spectrum of responses--from lethal to non-lethal, armed to unarmed--I will admit that my chosen FMA system (Bakbakan Kali Illustrisimo) is a purely bladed art in its conception (though we do have sticks within our curriculum), and pretty "old-school" in the sense that we don't really train for non-lethal responses with the weapon in our system--as such, it fits the circumstances within which the art came into existence--which were (among other things) personal combat between Kali/Eskrima practicioners armed with blades, and (in the direct case of the founder of my system, Antonio Illustrisimo) the fires of jungle warfare during World War 2--with some nasty street incidents along the way, etc.

You might say that as a "martial art in America", it has real elements that might get me in trouble from a legal standpoint...there's no practical need to train this "Filipino" way in America. Well, speaking as a Filipino-American myself, I'd say that the purity of my art is one that is of great cultural/historical value to me, personally...from the perspective of wanting to understand how my ancestors faced and dealt with pain and lethality and hardship--giving as good as, if not better than what they got, the true expression of the Filipino Warrior...it's a deep thing that nourishes my spirit and further fosters a sense of cultural pride that my people have given such a unique and wild gift to the warriors of the nations of the world. So, in that respect--for me, the more "pure" (read that as "the more blade-oriented and nasty") the system, the better. I'm sure other Fil-Am Kali/Escrima players reading this would agree with me...indeed, doing Kali is HOW I express my pride in my culture--it's just a "lucky coincidence" for me that my people's native art is so dangerous.

That said, I complement (and try to balance) my Kali training with an unarmed component--Bakbakan has unarmed systems that it offers, and right now, I personally am exploring the methods of WW2-era Applegate/Fairbairn CQC, as well as the Wing Chun/Bo Fung Do kung-fu system of the Modern Warrior organization here in NY...so as to better address the reality of the "force continuum". As I continue to advance in my training, I'll better be able to bridge any percieved gaps between "traditional Filipino Kali" (intended for purely deadly force) and the demands of the modern day American street...did that make sense? I'm too tired to tell whether I'm rambling or not...

Okay, I hope that was clear, if it wasn't, I'll edit it later... Anyway, peace.

bayani

[This message has been edited by bayani (edited 01-13-2001).]

[This message has been edited by bayani (edited 01-13-2001).]
 
carrying knife, and looking for ways to study and practice that's why i ask what would be the best for me... i respect that some people are in it for the cultural/art but for me personally im just into it for self-defense.
 
Chariot,

There are more than a few people that are interested in FMAs that also have Concealed Carry Permits. Of those that do have them and actively carry a handgun, I see the edged weapon in one of several roles.

It can be a Secondary Weapon, a Back-up to the Handgun(s).

It can be a weapon utilized to retain a Handgun. If you have people on you, actively trying to take your firearm, they are going to focus on the firearm. They might miss what is coming out in the other hand and you can disable them, blind them or simply just getting the fear factor going. (Not bluffing).

The Edged Weapon could be used in a crowded situation. Situations involving you and your family being in between vehicles, etc., where the possibility of a "Through and Through Gunshot Wound" would strike an innocent.

In such Close Contact, the knife might be preferred over the Handgun. It is all a matter of what your personal training is going to focus on.

If I am carrying a firearm and a knife, it all depends on what I am confronted with as to how I will respond.

This can go even more in-depth...alot more.


 
Someone had E-mailed me about a thread in here that had some information on fighting "Chemically Fueled" Attackers and this is one of them.

My AOL dropped your E-mail Dude, cannot remember who you are. If you read this, drop me an E-mail again.
 
Just wanted to mention (probably unnecessarily) that, even if you get a "double-zero hit" (D&D term), it still can take "awhile" for the BG to stop moving.

A knife-wielding BG, after taking two rounds center mass/10-ring from one of my academy DI's, was still able to cover approximately 20 ft and reach him. Fortunately, the BG expired before he could injure him.

Another FMA instructor advises that you *clear out of the area* ASAP (after having done your business). He warns that the most dangerous time in a knife fight is the elapsed time between the BG realizing that he's just taken a fatal hit and him actually dying; he's got nothing left to lose.

*I take that phrase to mean WAY out of the reach of the BG.
 
Self defense is based on what the reasonable person in your circunstances would have done. If in that situation a reasonable person faced with X would put a bullet through the bad guys head, they you can do so legaly if you did not start it or attack the guy after he retreated. Retreated does not mean tatical withdrawl to obtain the shotgun in the corner but means, for example, after cuting his arm to the bone and stabbing him in the face he runs away screaming in pain you can't run after him to finish him off. If he stays and is a threat, you are allowed to defend yourself.

Just remember everyone, you were in fear for your life.

You can't tell by using a manual in most cases if the situation requires lethal force. You just have to judge it by experience. Obviously a man screaming at you, coming at you with a fireaxe is a lethal threat, but how about 3 15 yr olds surounding you, shoving you around asking for money. Teens can be dangreous threats.

Speaking to the Gunting crowd, if I was a prosecutor and fully aware of the gunting's capabilities, and you used one in a lethal force situation for which I wanted your hide on my floor, head on my wall and your @ss in jail, I would show how you had a weapon that could be used non lethaly to put someone down, and I would offer to demonstrait it in court, then I would explain how you deliberatly chose to invoke the lethal portion of the blade and did deliberatly, with malice aforethought (deliberate decission to kill meaning I want you on murder 1 for the death penalty to show I am hard on crime), decide to commit murder.

You would be required to show by preponderance of the evidence(about 50% + on the evidence scale, proof beyond a reasonable doubt being around 99%) that you were justified in using the lethal force you did use when you were fully trained in a nonlethal maner of dealing with the situation.

Kinda like shooing a suspect in the shoulder and claiming it was a joint lock. Well, it worked, but their is another more acceptable way of doing that.

Don't think I am picking on you guys, I can make the same argument if someone used a kitchen knife, a deadly and dangerous instrument used for severing flesh that is an untraceable weapon easily suitable for murdering people.

Of if an emerson commander was used, a deadly weapon made for rapidly exposing a sharp surface for killing and maiming one's fellow man.

Lesson, Just cause YOU say its a non lethal weapon does NOT make it so. Does that mean its not an effective weapon, no. I've had the oportunity to talk with Bram and want to take one of his classes so I can see the gunting used first hand and steal the techniques for my own box of tricks.

Hell, you could say similar things about peper spray or a kuboton.

Another thing I learned in law school (my Mom and Dad were married at the time of my conception, thank you.) Lethal force is lethal force. It does not matter what kind was used as long as it is justified. A knife has a worde immage in the public mind than a gun so you will have some fast talking with a lawyer to do, but it can be justified.

To the original question, does use of a blade have to be lethal? No, but it requires a lot less skill to kill the guy than to do everything perfectly that will leave him with out serious injury and no longer a threat to you.

Quick example, bad guy slashes at you a #1, you are unarmed. You can try for a joint lock if possible, but I prefer to pass it and check it, while punching the BG in the side of his head as I back off to draw my own knife. Sure a joint lock would end it, but you dam well be perfect in you execution or you will bleed.

If you are both armed, and BG slashes #1 you could fade back and try to hit his hand and sever a tendon in the finges disarming him. Or you could check his forearm, slice it on a #1 then pop the guy in the belly once on five times.
One requires more skill that the other. Yes the first method was non lethal and effective, but the second way is easier to do.

Ok, I've rambled enough.
 
Memnoch, I hope you can clear something up from your last post which has me confused. You were talking about a prosecutor who wants to go after someone who uses a Gunting for lethal S-D. You would charge them with Murder One. You stated that the defendant would be "required to show by the preponderance of the evidence" that he was justified in using lethal force.

Questions:

1. I was taught that in a criminal law trial, guilt would have to be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" (ie. over 99% certainty). In a civil (or tort) case in which you are being sued, culpability would be determined by a lesser degree of "preponderance of the evidence" (just over 50%).

2. It sounds as though you are saying that the defendant has to prove something in a criminal trial "by a preponderance of the evidence" which I always thought was only a standard applying to civil actions. But maybe you were referring to S-D being an "affirmative defense" in most states (as it is in Ohio)? In other words, what you have to show WITHIN the trial in order to argue your affirmative defense (that yes, you used force, but it was necessary S-D and not an assault)? Is this what you meant? I thought that the only standard used would be the testimony in its entirety, when at the end the state would have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that this person "did it."

Since I help teach S-D law (after we remind the students that we are not lawyers, nor are we giving legal advice) in S-D classes, I am just wanting to clear this up. I have not been to law school, so maybe I am missing some point which I need to be aware of, or perhaps this is applicable only in your state.

As an aside, I would think it would be just as likely for a Gunting wielder to be prosecuted (or rather, "persecuted") for using a Gunting nonlethally and having some politically motivated prosecutor claim he was still using a "lethal weapon" inappropriately. Same as using a pocketknife unopened as a fistload. You are still with lethal weapon in hand, "brandishing it" when lethal force is not justified. Any thoughts on that?

Thanks!

Karl
 
Karl,

I have long pointed out that in many States, using a Gunting, even if it was specifically designed to be used as an Impact/Compliance Tool/Weapon, in a Non-Lethal Confrontation, in an equally Non-Lethal manner, that there could be a Weapons Charge.

It's a big gray area as far as I'm concerned. If an Attacker is Manhandling you, a time when you would use a Kubotan or a closed ASP like a Kubotan, etc., and you drew a handgun and beat the snot out of them...you would probably be in the jackpot.

As you pointed out and I have in the past, you're still pulling a knife regardless of the intent or design, it's still a knife. Especially in the eyes of Law Enforcement and the Courts.

That's a problem.

I have problems with the whole Concept of "Non-Lethal" or "Less Than Lethal" cutting as well. If you banana-peel someone's bicep, it's going to be very hard, if not impossible, to avoid cutting the brachial artery and vein. Even if you could, you're still cutting through a lot of tissue which is going to hemorrhage severely...

You don't have to cut major blood vessels to bleed to death. In any event, the person could die from shock.

Then there is the maiming angle as well...anything that turns out to be "Non-Lethal" in effect, is going to maim or cripple. Tens of thousands of dollars in reconstructive surgery and/or orthopedic surgery...

All of these are issues.
 
Use of Force and it's consenquences within our criminal justice and civil legal systems is best described as unpredictable. There are no easy answers, no sure bet formula, to stay clear of legal proceedings.

One major factor that many poeple overlook is the influences of witnesses. A third party may provide statements that may incriminate or exonerate the defender. You can bet the BG and his friends are going claim it was the all the GG's fault. Even a true independant witness will have their own slant on the incident.

Next comes the reporting LEO(s), who will gather evidense and statements to constuct a report. The influences here reflect the LEO's investigative skill, and attitudes, and will futher affect the process of the incident.(the phrase "misdemeanor murder" is a homicide where little effort is given to closing).

The DA's office is next in line, with a whole slew of factors that will bear on he proceedings. Some of which have nothing to do with justice or the facts of the case. This is where the politics of our anti-self defense society will come into play. If the case falls into the news media spin-maker, all bets are off. The DA can press a Charge of ADW with practically any hand-held object. Moreover, an object, such as a 'mean' looking knife(even if used closed) can be played to the jury to vilify the good guy. DA's like cases that have a high chance of conviction. But then again, you may draw an ADA that may see the case for what it is, and return no bill.(yes, that's happen as well)

I won't even go into the civil side.... it's a mess as well.

From the aftermath perspective, a SD incident without a lethal or near lethal outcome is quite different from one where the BG expriences terminal rehabilitation. The 'system' will differ in the intensity of review and handling. One half-butt reason to avoid killing the BG, is that it generates far less paperwork. Then again, putting the scrote down may be the only option.

Also, if the BG can run away, albeit wounded, the chances the he will report to the cops is low. It's hard to quantify such incident outcomes, but my bet is that it's not uncommon.

Then again, bad guys intent on doing real harm will run in packs, so the problem can be compounded. Now the GG may have to strike frist, run, and not report.

Surviving a street SD encounter while staying within the comfort zone of legal justification may not be possible.
 
Well, you struck a chord of reality. The Justice System is primarily driven by people who are driven by the Concept of Career instead of Justice.

Sometimes it does not matter if you were right. Sometimes everything goes wrong because someone wants to advance their career and in so doing, you have to go to prison for a long time...maybe for the rest of your life.

I remember back when the Tactical Discussions used to be of a very high quality at Knifeforums. Thaddeus wrote about a friend of his that was stabbed, he turned the knife on his attacker.

Guess what? He went to prison for his "sin" of defending himself.

In my own personal view, had he killed the person outright, with the attacker's own knife, he should not have went to prison. I think he only gave what he got. He went to prison.

"Memnoch" above is in Law School, he's a friend of mine. We were discussing the Preemptive Strike before, legally and tactically. We were discussing the fact that in some cases, it is the only way to survive but is a fast ticket to prison...

We were also discussing, "Duty to retreat" and "flight equals guilt."

All three of these things allow Law Enforcement, Prosecutors, Judges and Juries to do an incredibly dangerous thing...and that is use hindsight to pass judgment on a person and they can never understand what that person went through. Monday Morning Quartbacking someone's life is B.S. to me.

If you're coming out of a 7-11 at say, 11:30pm, and you are confronted by three people, and they clearly state what they are going to do, and you see the glint of steel in a hand, even if the closest person is totally unarmed, tactically speaking, you have to hit that unarmed man with what might amount to lethal force, because he is the vehicle that the other guy is using to put steel in you...

In a Court of Law, the Prosecutor will act as a Defense Attorney for the actions of the person you hit.

"Mr. _______ did not know the person behind him had a knife, Mr. _____ had no idea and Mr. ______ attacked him in a criminal and reckless manner..."

See the madness? It should not matter that the person you hit turned out to be unarmed and even if it is a fact that he did not know his associate was armed, that should never enter into the picture. Look at the original crime. Threatening another person, the one person should be treated as a member of a group. The actions should be run together and not separated.

There should be clear lines draw on these issues, as well as a greater degree of Protection in cases of Disparity of Force.
 
Originally posted by Safety Guy

As an aside, I would think it would be just as likely for a Gunting wielder to be prosecuted (or rather, "persecuted") for using a Gunting nonlethally and having some politically motivated prosecutor claim he was still using a "lethal weapon" inappropriately. Same as using a pocketknife unopened as a fistload. You are still with lethal weapon in hand, "brandishing it" when lethal force is not justified. Any thoughts on that?
Click to expand...

Karl- I had the opportunity to screen Bram's Gunting videos for a few trial lawyers. Very intresting comments were given regarding Bram's philosophy of use of force.

A carry-over from law enforcement use-of-force legal cases is the review of the officer's training and adherance to force policy. The basic defense is "I used force within my training and guidelines". Thus, LE agencies attemp to detail specific force responses for specific threats. These 'Force continumm' policies can be used to sell the jury that 'proper' force was employed.

Now -- I'll break here and say that LE Force Continumm's don't easily cross-over to a civilian SD situation, but that not where I'm going with this...

One attourny in the group, mentioned that if she was defense counsel for a Gunting user under trial, She might bring the videos into evidense, if the user owned and viewed them. Bram's 'less-than-lethal' appoarchs serve to establish training documentation and the responsible intent and nature of the defendant. The defense would be based on "I choose the Gunting, because the employment concept is developed upon not having to kill with it". Bear in mind this is a very hypothetical defense...It could back-fire with the jury...but it highlights training documentation and it's potential use in legal defense.

With the Gunting becoming ever popular,(LE circles as well)we may yet see the Gunting 'concept' tested in court. It may bode different for LE vs. Civilians, but the role of the training documentation and Bram's philosophy will bear interest during trial.

Further, with many LEO's now carrying knives, the day one is used in a justifible homocide, and makes the news media.... watch out. The political frenzy will be ugly as well as stupid. One question that will arise is, "So... Officer Slash Hacker, Where were you certified in Police Use of Edged Weapons?"

Bram Frank's Gunting Concept is controversial to be sure, and just because it's closed doesn't mean you get a free pass out of trouble, but it does offer a potential advantage in mounting a legal defense based on 'preceived responsible training'. Moreover, in trained hands, it's very effective.

BTW - You would think from these comments, I carry a Gunting -- I don't; due to personal operation issues. But -- I know two lawyers that carry blunt drones for SD.

-Seth
 
Originally posted by Seth Thomas
One attourny in the group, mentioned that if she was defense counsel for a Gunting user under trial, She might bring the videos into evidense, if the user owned and viewed them. Bram's 'less-than-lethal' appoarchs serve to establish training documentation and the responsible intent and nature of the defendant.
Click to expand...

That would be a plus, especially if the person expired anyway. But more on that in a moment, "less than lethal."

The defense would be based on "I choose the Gunting, because the employment concept is developed upon not having to kill with it". Bear in mind this is a very hypothetical defense...It could back-fire with the jury...but it highlights training documentation and it's potential use in legal defense.
Click to expand...

I think this will be countered effectively by an overzealous Prosecutor by having the Medical Examiner and a Trauma Surgeon or two testify there is simply no such thing as, "Less than lethal" or "Non-lethal" cutting.

Quite simply, I think saying you were using "Less than lethal" or "Non-lethal" cutting is a door you do not want to open. Unless you are cutting on the palm of the hand or the sole of the foot, all bets are off.

Think about this for a moment, this is a reality that I've been smashed for in the past.

In Calibre Press' "Surviving Edged Weapons" [SEW] Video, there is one Officer who was cut across the face with a "one inch utility knife." He was on Life support for over a week due to loss of blood.

The reason I have the beliefs I have, well, they are based on scientific fact and not the hope that Modern Medicine in the Form of a Trauma Center is going to save everyone. People die.

Any cut that you can list that would be a "disabling cut" is going to effect muscle, think back to the facial cut. Think hard. You are talking about horrendous hemorrhage whenever that sort of damage is done. Even if a major vessel is not hit.

Further, with many LEO's now carrying knives, the day one is used in a justifible homocide, and makes the news media.... watch out. The political frenzy will be ugly as well as stupid. One question that will arise is, "So... Officer Slash Hacker, Where were you certified in Police Use of Edged Weapons?"
Click to expand...

Oh, bet your bottom dollar it will happen some time in the future for the reason you cite. Officers more and more are realizing what a powerful defensive weapon a knife is. Sooner or later, it will happen.

As for everything else, I agree with it. The Gunting is a good finger breaker, excellent for doing all sorts of things. It is going to be a hairy ride for the first person who really gets themselves in the jackpot with it.

Bram did an absolutely marvelous job designing it, it seems there is not a square millimeter of wasted space that cannot be used to make someone howl in pain. That leads to a discussion of pain compliance as well...that's another clusterbomb on the street.

The two times I have been attacked by knife-wielding assailants and I had an ASP [OTJ, there were several other incidents where I did not have an ASP], I never tried to use any sort of pass with a capture and pain compliance, I knew what the deal was immediately and acted accordingly.

Lead hand, a one-two, leg, leg, leg. Down they went. Both times.
 
Don-

You bring a up the key point of opening Pandora's folder. Your most likey right that a good prosecutor would jump all over "less-than-lethal" cutting, much like "shooting to wound" isn't a strong defense for 'less than lethal' gunshots. Perhaps the analogy is a flying bullet is much like a swinging sharp edge; the potential for lethality remains regardless of the intented target.

Defense counsel may be prudent not to to breach the issue, but never discount the absurdity of legal tactics. I would'nt want to bet my butt on this ploy; but it would'nt surprise me if some jury bought into it.

As a compliment, Don...I would'nt want you as a expert witness againest me, but, If your acumen and knowledge was employed in my defense, opposing counsel would have a handful.

In a previous posting of Don's, He mentions the lack of clear legal doctrine invovling self-defense. This situation has contributed to the confusion of justifiable force. And, it's only getting worse.

-Seth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top