I Almost Had To Shoot Someone

Glenn,
You are certainly going with the "hard offense" part!

The OP appears to have violated zero laws and worked with law enforcement to further resolve the issue. That seems appropriate to me. I'm no lawyer, but if he posted a similar description of events here to what he told local law enforcement, that should not add much in the way of legal jeopardy. (Am I incorrect on this?)

Could a more aggressive avoidance strategy have helped? Probably.
Should he have incorporated building space against a knife-armed opponent into his actions? YES!

To the OP, I appreciate the data point.
 
Glenn E. Meyer wrote:
1. In general, it may not be wise to post your actions as they are discoverable and if not wise, may come back to haunt you.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I was once one of two technical experts on a trial team in a civil case. The "cyber team" for the same case had five experts. The attorney I was working with had had an internet archiving service download the entire digital history of the firm on the other side of the dispute.

So, every time you post something like "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six", it is getting archived and if other side wants to know it bad enough to pay for it, they can unearth it and present it in court in circumstances that will be the least favorable for you.
 
It's all risk. There is no benefit about discussing your use of force on the Internet. Who knows how a DA, judge or jury will interpret it.

You may think you got an 'attaboy' from the net or the police. However, your past actions might make you look bad. Why risk it?

The OP posted actions that might look like he contemplated playing policeman - I wanted to prone him out - for instance.

As I said, that would not have been wise. So in another incident - this might be an indication of a mindset. It is debatable whether this could be admitted. But it could be.
 
The OP appears to have violated zero laws and worked with law enforcement to further resolve the issue.
Click to expand...
The OP's description of events appeared to support a conclusion that he broke no laws.

That does not mean that he acted safely--he might well have been stabbed and killed or seriously injured.

While he says he "got caught there with this guy", moving away quickly at the first sign of unpleasantness would have been a lot more prudent.

Standing while someone draws a knife and then trying to draw a gun is not the best way to remain unhurt.

In terms of legal risk, one should never assume that one's own account of events will be seen as truthful, and one should never assume that eyewitness testimony, should there be any, will accurately describe what actually happened. Witnesses might well have believed that the OP drew first.

...if he posted a similar description of events here to what he told local law enforcement, that should not add much in the way of legal jeopardy. (Am I incorrect on this?)While he did not so act, his statement that he considered committing an unlawful act ("I thought that maybe I should have proned him out and called the police because he might pull that knife on someone else) might well have weakened his contention that he was innocent by indicating state of mind.

And, of course, the existence of the posting could come up, should a later case with some ambiguity arise.

Lessons learned:
  1. Avoid "getting caught there" with a possibly dangerous person
  2. Do NOT stand and draw after someone has drawn a knife; MOVE
  3. Do not put an account of the event into a public forum where it will endure forever.

And, of course, do not toy with the idea of "proning someone out" because of what he might do later to someone else.
 
his statement that he considered committing an unlawful act ("I thought that maybe I should have proned him out and called the police because he might pull that knife on someone else)
Click to expand...

Forgetting the tactical implications of holding someone at gun point, how would that act have been illegal? All the states im aware of have a provision for making a “citizens arrest”. If the suspect in this case threatened the OP with a deadly weapon (the knife), then the OP would have been LEGALLY able to detain the susp.

Again, im not saying that would have been the prudent thing to do.
 
There is no benefit about discussing your use of force on the Internet. Who knows how a DA, judge or jury will interpret it.
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer but it would seem to me the OP has posted an incident where he, from the legal angle, acted reasonably and with restraint. Someone with a knife at contact distance represents a credible deadly threat and the OP used force without harming anyone to end the threat and then cooperated with local law enforcement in fact initiating contact with them.

If, God forbid, he ever had to use deadly force it would seem to me this could play positively into an argument that he is not shooting at the first chance.
 
Last edited:
Forgetting the tactical implications of holding someone at gun point, how would that act ["proned him out and called the police because he might pull that knife on someone else"] have been illegal? All the states im aware of have a provision for making a “citizens arrest”.
Click to expand...

A citizen may not arrest or detain anyone because of the possibility of the person's doing something unlawful in the future.
 
Tell me what you would have done if he said that he will not get prone and walked away?

Or he just stood there, holding the knife and made no move towards you? Would you shoot him?

Then estimate for me, his legal costs in such an ambiguous situation?

You cannot shoot someone because he might hurt someone later without very, very clear evidence of such. That has been decided in various court cases.

Were there witnesses? The guy, if he lives, says he simply asked the OP for money. The OP cursed at him and pulled this big gun out. In fear of his life, he reached for a knife. Then the OP shot him. Who is to dispute this tale? If you killed him, a witness might say that he or she saw two guns talking and one just shot the other. He was not attacked. Just bang! Esp. if you did a standard two shots.

I wasn't going to mention this but now the OP is on trial. The DA presents quite a big gun for the jury. Some folks have a natural bias about guns vs. knives. Knives aren't that dangerous. They are not knowledgeable about the Tueller drill. So you hire an expert - well, that's $5000 depending on who you train with and your insurance. The DA says that the G35 is a bigger gun with a more powerful round than carried by the local police. A juror might think that is evidence for a mindset to use the gun in an aggressive manner. We do have cases where such has been mentioned.

I could go on. It is good that none of this happened. However, a reasonable after action report has to take into account:

1. Tactics
2. Legal justification at the time
3. Legal consequences.

We have a natural tendency as gun owners to want to cheer what seems like a good usage and slap each other on the back. However, lots of us have had enough training to understand that there is more to it. That nothing bad happened, doesn't mean we have not to critique mistakes.

In many of the classes and FOF exercises, you took your critique and learned from it. Been there.
 
We have a natural tendency as gun owners to want to cheer what seems like a good usage and slap each other on the back.
Click to expand...
And to believe that the other guy was a "bad guy", and that someone's display or use of a firearm was a lawful act....

There is a lot of that going around.
 
I stood there as he reached down and pulled up his right pants leg and grabbed a knife
Click to expand...

And to believe that the other guy was a "bad guy", and that someone's display or use of a firearm was a lawful act....
Click to expand...

Are we making an argument that the incident, as described, does not constitute lawful display of a firearm?
 
We are discussing how the incident played out and the actions of the OP. We are discussing how it could have gone badly for him. Whether something is a lawful act is determined when the courts decide that. Did you miss that point in class? We are debating what is a wise action.

We are critiquing the action and the risks associated with them. What would you have done? Give us your action plan? Be specific.
 
Are we making an argument that the incident, as described, does not constitute lawful display of a firearm?
Click to expand...
No, I was adding to Glenn's point that we do often see such discussion.

But "as described" (by the actor) would not determine whether the act is deemed lawful. Displaying the firearm with out being able to provide evidence that the need for force had existed would not necessarily have been deemed lawful, and if contradictory evidence had been put into the equation, there is a very real possibility that investigators, the charging authority, and perhaps the triers of fact, would conclude that the presentation had not been lawful.

Immediate withdrawal by the actor would likely have obviated the need to address the question, and should subsequent actions have made the presentation of the forearm immediately necessary, the actor's case would be a lot stronger.
 
What would you have done? Give us your action plan? Be specific.
Click to expand...

My plan will be critiqued as not being aggressive enough and not adequately considering the danger of a knife wielding aggressor.

But just for the game - assume the situation has transpired to the point the avoidance had failed and the individual in question had bent to reach for a knife. I would have backpedaled with my weak hand up to a side and my strong hand going towards my hip (but not entirely to my weapon on the street). I'm confident that my cover garments do not require a two hand draw. *IF* I failed to create distance I would have to escalate further. I'm confident in my ability to avoid deadly injury from the knife wielding attacker though somewhat accepting that my plan of action probably involves losing some blood should he continue to escalate the confrontation.

My plan of actions are often critiqued in training drills as being too passive in nature. I accept the risk. My plan of action, had I been with my children, would have been a lot more similar to the OPs
 
Why backpedal? This is a trick question for Tueller fans. Second, how can you be confident that you will avoid deadly injury if you are accepting losing blood? Every do a knife class?

Why are you too passive? Did you 'survive' the drill according to the professional evalutors of the class? I've been taught that avoidance is the best move if possible.
 
While I don’t disagree that avoidance is the best strategy to use, I’ll admit that generally I’ll just walk past a suspicious character rather than try to cross the street, wait for the light, cross back over, etc. Most of the time, nothing happens (Dallas still has a sizable homeless problem and I’d WAG about 10% of them have a serious mental illness or multiple felony convictions. There are even a few career criminals in that mix).

The problem becomes when you have a gut instinct that you ignore based on past experience. I think what we perceive as a “gut feeling” is often signs that our senses have perceived but that our conscious brain hasn’t processed because it is busy worrying about picking up the laundry. The unconscious brain though is busy screaming “Hey! That shady guy has his hands digging in his waistband and just changed direction 90 degrees to put him on an intercept path.” It is interesting to me how often victims describe knowing they were about to be victimized but only recognizing the signs after the event.

In any case, I think it is important to trust those instincts and at a bare minimum, start focusing your thoughts on WHY you are having that reaction instead of brushing it off and going about your daily business.
 
I have done knife defense classes and practiced it fairly thoroughly in various training drills in martial arts classes. I accept that, confronted with a knife, my weak side arm is likely going to take some damage. It is better to deflect a knife even if you take some damage to a forearm than it is to take a direct knife "hit" to the torso. Yes ideally your "block" catches the opponents hand, wrist, or elbow but enough drills taught me that the only time you get "ideal" outcomes is when the attack is nearly scripted.

Backpedaling gains me a couple tactical advantages. One it allows me to see if my aggressor is going to pursue aggression. Secondly as a knife is a contact weapon it gives me more time to react should I be able to open up any distance. It also allows me to adjust my stance in regards to the aggressor. Further if I do open up ground and then the aggressor attempts an aggressive attack it forces him to commit fuller to it and allows a more effective counter - I am assuming* by the description of the individual that he is not an accomplished knife fighter. Most likely, I hope, it gives the aggressor a chance to break off aggression simply by not pursing my retreat. It also gives me, depending on how observant I was of the physical surroundings, an opportunity to put an obstacle or barrier between myself and the aggressor.

*yes I know the mantra "assumptions get you killed". However there is no great way to avoid making any assumptions in the situation described. Depending on the attacker's size, speed, skill, and commitment my best defense against and aggressive attack at that range may be an aggressive unarmed counter. If the aggressor makes a committed aggressive attack at the ranges we are discussing getting my gun effectively into play without some physical counter is unlikely unless I committed to immediately attempting to "outdraw" the aggressor. Remember the Tueller drill, at least as I have always understood it, assumed an attacker with a knife in hand and not sheathed on his or her leg.

Edit: I can't say that I have kept really great track of survival rates. Against unscripted attackers it is not 100%. Going by estimate its in the 70 to 80% range between a couple firearm centered courses and martial arts. The last firearm course I took the instructor felt I should have gone for my firearm sooner in the confrontations presented involving a knife at contact distances. While it was interesting to go through the course I was not 100% confident in the quality of the instruction. I should note I have accepted my own mortality to an unhealthy degree and tend to be passive in initial response and display of firearm in scenarios where my children are not present. I accept the consequences and change in risk of being so.
 
Last edited:
I'm confident in my ability to avoid deadly injury from the knife wielding attacker though somewhat accepting that my plan of action probably involves losing some blood should he continue to escalate the confrontation.
Click to expand...
You are making some big assumptions about the severity of a wound that involves your "losing some blood".
 
You are making some big assumptions about the severity of a wound that involves your "losing some blood"
Click to expand...

I don't question that. I am, to some degree, sacrificing my weak side arm. I think it would be a tremendous amount of hubris to argue I can deflect a knife attack without a high risk of some injury to the blocking arm. For the most part you can minimize the danger of that injury to your arm by "controlling" what side(s) are presented during the block. No you can't think about it while you are doing it it has to be practiced and ingrained. Practice tells me that I am better off accepting the risk to my arm and blocking earlier than I am trying to "aim" my block and risking it being late.
 
I am, to some degree, sacrificing my weak side arm. I think it would be a tremendous amount of hubris to argue I can deflect a knife attack without a high risk of some injury to the blocking arm.
Click to expand...
You have absolutely not way of answering that your inquires would be limited to that arm.
 
You have absolutely not way of answering that your inquires would be limited to that arm.
Click to expand...

There is no certain way of assuring it. On that you are correct. In any conflict you can only increase the chances of it happening as you expect. Chances are if you are at contact distance with an aggressor and he has a knife you are going to get cut somewhere. To me it is best to accept that and try to mitigate the damage done.

We used to, from time to time, decide that we were no longer point fighting and would allow "controlled contact" in sparring or various drills (you would hit hard but not hard enough to actually injure). You would be amazed how many people were good at point fighting but could not deal with being hit at all.

Aggressor at contact range and has a knife... drills on that one taught me that it is likely when attempting to have any amount of control on where the knife was going that I was going to get my arm caught by that knife at some point. Attempting to assure this didn't happen resulted in the blocks being late and allowing contact with my torso.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top