I have been watching Best Defense the last two weeks ,they have talking about useing knifes for self defense by cutting the bg's mussels in his forearms or legs . I just wonder were you stand legaly if you cripple a bad guy in self defense?
Personally, I'm going to do whatever it takes to stay alive. When I was taking JKD, my instructor always said...the first thing you need to know about getting into a knife fight is that if you do so, you are going to get cut.
Introducing a blade to a fight would not be my first option, but it can serve a purpose and I would do so if I needed to to stay alive.
Introducing a blade to a fight would not be my first option, but it can serve a purpose and I would do so if I needed to to stay alive.
this is exactly why you should cut connective tissue on a BG.
stabbing someone is in most eyes intent to kill.
slashing to "de-animate" is self defense.
liability is not the only reason.
attacking hands, arms, and legs keeps you at a distance.
this is all in contention if you train with an instructor doing many drills with dummy knifes.
other wise having a knife on your hip can be used to stab while being mounted by a BG.
or just looking cool.
stabbing someone is in most eyes intent to kill.
slashing to "de-animate" is self defense.
liability is not the only reason.
attacking hands, arms, and legs keeps you at a distance.
this is all in contention if you train with an instructor doing many drills with dummy knifes.
other wise having a knife on your hip can be used to stab while being mounted by a BG.
or just looking cool.
I don't want this construed as legal advice in OK or any other jurisdiction. For that, you need face-to-face time with your lawyer. Not a lawyer, yours, in the jurisdiction where it happens. This is just general rules to consider.
The answer will be fact dependent. You will have both criminal and civil exposure. You are describing the use of deadly force. I have read a lot of your posts here, and I know you know about the subject, so is it safe to assume you are thinking of the civil side of the equation?
You know, of course, that at least one law enforcement agency will consider if there are facts to support charging you or the BG with a crime. Many jurisdictions have a separate statute that can be [very rarely] used to charge "maiming." Less serious than murder, more serious than assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted murder.
Assume you are convicted - civil liability is a near certainty.
Assume you are not convicted, not even charged - civil liability can be contested. Different factors enter into it. The two main differences are that you will be compelled to testify, and that the burden of proof is only a preponderance, not a beyond a reasonable doubt level. In both civil and criminal court, past actions both by BG and you will enter into it [though the specifics will be contested like everything else.] Both civil and criminal standards vary by jurisdiction. It can make a big difference being on one side or another of a state line when it comes to such allegations.
So, yeah, you may be sued. Maybe not if the BG is charged with a crime. Maybe not if you are judgement proof. Maybe not if the facts are all on your side that it was self defense, that you used the minimal amount of force to defend yourself from death or serious bodily injury. Maybe not if you have witnesses and the BG does not. A tort will be alleged by a plaintiff represented by a lawyer who does this on a contingent fee basis. That means he makes money only if he wins in trial or settles the case. That means he does not take the case unless he determines in advance that he is likely to make some money out of it.
If you cripple a guy intentionally, where some lesser amount of force would have saved your life, the civil liability can be enormous. If it that be proved in criminal court, the criminal liability is worse.
The best example I can think of where this criminal/civil split happened was the O.J. Simpson murder case. Found NG, sued in civil court, found liable to the tune of many millions of dollars.
Does that answer your original question?
jej
ANYTIME you introduce a knife into a confrontation, you have introduced a deadly weapon and the courts will view it this way.
The idea of biomechanical cutting i.e. cutting connective tissue or muscles in order to disable a limb, is a fallacy.
An even bigger fallacy is the idea that cutting is somehow going to be viewed as self defense but stabbing is not.
You will be judged on the merits of your actions not the medium you chose in order to disable your adversary and don't kid yourself into believing that cutting a forearm is going to be viewed as kosher if stabbing in the heart wasn't.
Michael Brown
The idea of biomechanical cutting i.e. cutting connective tissue or muscles in order to disable a limb, is a fallacy.
An even bigger fallacy is the idea that cutting is somehow going to be viewed as self defense but stabbing is not.
You will be judged on the merits of your actions not the medium you chose in order to disable your adversary and don't kid yourself into believing that cutting a forearm is going to be viewed as kosher if stabbing in the heart wasn't.
Michael Brown
Isn't that just like a wop? Brings a knife to a gun fight.
[Broken External Image]
[Broken External Image]
I Guess Where Someone Might Get Confused Is That When The New Law Went Into Effect (stand Your Ground) It Does Not Mention What Type Of Force Is Used To Meet A Criminal Force Against You, Only That You Were In Fear Of For Your Life And Meet The Criminal Force With Deadly Force.
It Doesnt Even Say The Bad Person Has To Have A Weapon, Only That Through Their Actions And Intent They Have Introduced The Fear Of Emminent Danger That Puts In Fear For Your Life.
I Think The Biggest Thing Is This Falls Under The Same Training As The Ccl. You Dont Pull Your Gun Out And "put One In The Hip" (the First Time I Could Use That In Context...lol) But That You Fired Your Weapon Until The Threat Either Stopped Or Was Eliminated.
By Only Using The Knife To Maime The Person By Cutting Connective Tissue You Are Showing That Your Intent Is You Dont Want To Eliminate The Threat But Harm It Until The Threat Stops.
That Could Be Construed As Not Being In Fear Of Your Life In Some Eyes.
So With That I Would Say If You Are Honestly In Fear Of Your Life You Need To Take The Appropriate Actions And Be Prepared To End The Life Of Another Otherwise You Might Be Opening Yourself To All Sorts Of Litigation Whether It Be Criminal Or Civil.
It Doesnt Even Say The Bad Person Has To Have A Weapon, Only That Through Their Actions And Intent They Have Introduced The Fear Of Emminent Danger That Puts In Fear For Your Life.
I Think The Biggest Thing Is This Falls Under The Same Training As The Ccl. You Dont Pull Your Gun Out And "put One In The Hip" (the First Time I Could Use That In Context...lol) But That You Fired Your Weapon Until The Threat Either Stopped Or Was Eliminated.
By Only Using The Knife To Maime The Person By Cutting Connective Tissue You Are Showing That Your Intent Is You Dont Want To Eliminate The Threat But Harm It Until The Threat Stops.
That Could Be Construed As Not Being In Fear Of Your Life In Some Eyes.
So With That I Would Say If You Are Honestly In Fear Of Your Life You Need To Take The Appropriate Actions And Be Prepared To End The Life Of Another Otherwise You Might Be Opening Yourself To All Sorts Of Litigation Whether It Be Criminal Or Civil.
I look at my "carry knife" in this manner; If someone is on me, in the sense that they have jumped me, or tackled me, driven me to the ground in one way or another, if I can get to my knife (which is usually not as deeply concealed as my gun) it can be a better option at "contact distances" than a firearm. One of the reasone for that is, it is not something they can just grab and take away. (the blade just isn't that good of a handle for them to use)
Secondly, if I use my knife properly, and create distance between me and my attacker, or just give him some wounds that take his mind off of me, then I create an opportunity to draw a more effective weapon should the attacker decide to continue being a threat.
If you view your knife as something to use in a "knife fight" I question your logic. Just as they say, a pistol is what you use to get to a long gun, a knife should be what you use to get to your pistol.
This post should have been after GED's, dunno why its here.
Secondly, if I use my knife properly, and create distance between me and my attacker, or just give him some wounds that take his mind off of me, then I create an opportunity to draw a more effective weapon should the attacker decide to continue being a threat.
If you view your knife as something to use in a "knife fight" I question your logic. Just as they say, a pistol is what you use to get to a long gun, a knife should be what you use to get to your pistol.
This post should have been after GED's, dunno why its here.
I look at it as if you can engage a bg with a knife ,your in deep kimchi already ,if you have knife skills you you should already have open hand skills ,if the bg does not have a knife then you should be able to use open hand skills to remove the bg . Would a court or DA look at you as a bad guy for bring a knife to fist fright just as they would if you use a gun againt a emety handed bg.
