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

[KempoGuy06]

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

 

[punisher73]

That's one of those "what you would like to do" vs "what can you do". As an LEO if someone is actively trying to take away my gun I can use lethal force to prevent that. If they disengage and don't try to disarm me, I have to descalate at that point even though it would be nice to just shoot them.

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.

In most states as a civilian you can only use equal force to protect yourself. For example, if he is using a weapon you can use a weapon to match the force he is using. They will also look at "totality of circumstances" in each situation. If you are a 5'0 90 lb. female and you use your keys as a weapon to defend yourself against a 6'5 350 lb. attacker the circumstances will dictate she was more than likely justified in her use of force. So if you were to disarm your attacker, you have to consider what type/level of threat he is. What would justify you using the weapon against him? Is your life in immediate danger? Did you take it away and they are now trying to get away? What other circumstances would a reasonable person look at and say that they would do the same thing in your situation? Are they trying to retake the weapon to use against you again? Which would put it back into a lethal force situation that you could use it on them.

 

[KempoGuy06]

That's one of those "what you would like to do" vs "what can you do". As an LEO if someone is actively trying to take away my gun I can use lethal force to prevent that. If they disengage and don't try to disarm me, I have to descalate at that point even though it would be nice to just shoot them.

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.

In most states as a civilian you can only use equal force to protect yourself. For example, if he is using a weapon you can use a weapon to match the force he is using. They will also look at "totality of circumstances" in each situation. If you are a 5'0 90 lb. female and you use your keys as a weapon to defend yourself against a 6'5 350 lb. attacker the circumstances will dictate she was more than likely justified in her use of force. So if you were to disarm your attacker, you have to consider what type/level of threat he is. What would justify you using the weapon against him? Is your life in immediate danger? Did you take it away and they are now trying to get away? What other circumstances would a reasonable person look at and say that they would do the same thing in your situation? Are they trying to retake the weapon to use against you again? Which would put it back into a lethal force situation that you could use it on them.

wow good answer.

If they were trying to take the weapon back, would it be justified to use it against them to stop the attack? (I understand the different laws but go by the ones in your parts just to answer the question). What about multiple attackers? If there were 2 or more could you use a weapon on them even if they dont have one? Even someone my size (6'4 260 lbs), would I be able to?

B

 

[tellner]

Excellent advice, Punisher.

Do what you honestly think you have to to keep from being injured or killed. Don't do any more just because the SOB deserves it and you're ticked at him. Once the threat is gone, don't keep fighting. Until it is gone do what's necessary.

My wife's cousins' grandmother (her father's brother's mother in law) told us how the neighbor came by one morning and said "Your grandson took my manhood away." The old lady was a little taken aback and was probably thinking of something anatomical involving garden shears.

It turns out the neighbor had gotten drunk and disorderly the night before. He was outside waving a pistol around and generally making a nuisance. Tiel's cousin came out to see what the commotion was all about. He kindly but firmly separated the gun from the man, unloaded it. Took the slide, magazine and cartridges and told the neighbor to go home and go to bed.

On the other hand, a very famous police officer was in an altercation with about half a dozen mobsters. There were several guns and knives floating around. He couldn't get to his. He figured he might need a gun, so he disarmed one of the bad guys only to find that he couldn't fire it. The man's finger was still in the trigger guard. If memory serves he hit a few people with the gun over the course of the fight.

If "Mongo" out of the classic police training scenario lost control of a weapon and I got a hold of it I would not hesitate to turn him into a Mongo-lace doily.

The scenario:

You have been called because an Emotionally Disturbed Person is causing a disturbance in an apartment building. As you climb the stairs you see the refrigerator come flying out the window of Mongo's apartment. As you near the door Mongo steps out dressed in bacon strips and a tinfoil hat. He picks your partner off the ground and head butts him into unconsciousness. Then Mongo turns towards you.

Q: What do you do?

A: Shoot Mongo as may times as you possibly can.
​

 

[Big Don]

With my safety and likely the safety of my son being in question? After disarming I'd try to either incapacitate the attacker and call the cops or just eliminate the threat permanently and then call the cops.
If I couldn't easily tie or otherwise restrain the attacker, I'd probably hamstring him (if he had attacked with a knife) If I had been attacked with a gun, I'd probably shoot him (her) in the head and take my chances. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six...

 

[tellner]

wow good answer.

If they were trying to take the weapon back, would it be justified to use it against them to stop the attack? (I understand the different laws but go by the ones in your parts just to answer the question). What about multiple attackers? If there were 2 or more could you use a weapon on them even if they dont have one? Even someone my size (6'4 260 lbs), would I be able to?

Like the man said, "totality of circumstances". Do what you honestly believe is necessary. But like I always say "Know what you are doing and why you are doing it. Be prepared to articulate those reasons for the police, the Court and your own conscience."

There are lots of things that go into that. In general the more danger you are in, the more leeway you have. It's really hard to do hypotheticals, and very few of us are attorneys let alone your attorney.

Personally, I have had a lot of martial arts training. I'm not The Rock, but I'm not weak. I can not run quickly and have poor wind, so escape would be difficult. Due to my training and experience I firmly believe that I would be in serious and immediate danger of getting killed or badly hurt if I were attacked by two healthy adult criminals, especially if they had shown how serious they were by drawing on me during the attack. That would influence my course of action.

That course could change quickly depending on how things unfold. If they start running I wouldn't pursue. Well, if I knew that they had just raped a police officer and then shot him with his gun after beating and robbing a group of elderly nuns I might, but that's a different issue. If one had been disarmed, but they were still aggressive and my baby goddaughter was in the room I wouldn't let up until they were in full flight or incapable of hurting her.

 

[KempoGuy06]

As always good response. This is just one of those topics that I think about and dont really have anyone to ask (except my friends dad who is a LEO but I dont see him a lot). My aunts a lawyer but gives me that look like "You are stupid to work about it"

Thanks again

B

 

[thardey]

Why does it matter whether the gun you have in your hands came from him, or your holster?

So what that you took it away from him? If it is the type of situation where you would otherwise be forced to shoot him with your own gun, then there is no difference in being forced to shoot him with his gun.

If it is the type of situation where you stop the attack by simply drawing your own weapon, then you are not in a legal position to shoot him. Same goes for his gun in your hand (or knife, or club, or sharpened chopsticks.)

In the end, the jury won't care who owned the gun in the first place, only who had possession of it when the shooting happened.

 

[tradrockrat]

Depends on the attacker as stated above. If, as you said, he/she is still attacking then yes, I will employ that weapon because as far as I'm concerned this is a life or death situation as soon as weapons become involved. If I take the knife (as has happened once) and the attacker takes off running as soon as we disengage, then the fight is over. I win. Time to stop the bleeding...

 

[Yari]

wow good answer.

If they were trying to take the weapon back, would it be justified to use it against them to stop the attack? (I understand the different laws but go by the ones in your parts just to answer the question). What about multiple attackers? If there were 2 or more could you use a weapon on them even if they dont have one? Even someone my size (6'4 260 lbs), would I be able to?

B

I also agree, but would you be able to not use the weapon, if it's in your hands. And would you throw it away to be able to defend yourself (and let somebody pick it up= wrong person)

/yari

 

[Guardian]

All good answers, justifiable force in a defense situation. Alot of thoughts running through my head.

I say that if I disarmed my attacker, I would use the weapon in a fashion that would end the confrontation the easy and safest way with the intention of doing the least amount of damage possible to my attacker (for legal reasons of course).

 

[MJS]

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

Nice thread! I would say that this is a touchy situation, because while you may appear initially to be the defender, you can suddenly appear to be the aggressor. This is where knowing the laws is helpful. The odds were raised as soon as the bad guy pulled a weapon, so IMHO, you're justified to pull one as well. I would also think that you're justified to use deadly force. As tempting as it may be, it may be best to not use it against them. Of course, as others have said, if they're trying to take it back, then you may be forced to use it. Could you disarm and throw the weapon? Sure. If they go to get it, thats when you turn around and get the hell out of there.

 

[MJS]

Why does it matter whether the gun you have in your hands came from him, or your holster?

So what that you took it away from him? If it is the type of situation where you would otherwise be forced to shoot him with your own gun, then there is no difference in being forced to shoot him with his gun.

If he has a gun or knife and you have your own gun, then yes, I'd say you'd be justified in shooting. But, would you be justified in pulling the gun and using it if he is empty handed? Unless one can prove that they really feared for their life and there was no other options, I think it would look bad in the eyes of the court if you pulled and used a gun on an unarmed person.

I think the main difference is once you disarm them, the initial threat has been removed. Sure they can still come at you, but now technically they are unarmed.

 

[INDYFIGHTER]

If someone comes at me with a weapon and I can't just run away for some reason and I am forced to disarm them and I'm able to pull it off successfully?
If that ever happens, it will take a police officer with a taser to get me to stop beating that person senseless and they will have deserved it. IMO

 

[KempoGuy06]

If he has a gun or knife and you have your own gun, then yes, I'd say you'd be justified in shooting. But, would you be justified in pulling the gun and using it if he is empty handed? Unless one can prove that they really feared for their life and there was no other options, I think it would look bad in the eyes of the court if you pulled and used a gun on an unarmed person.

I think the main difference is once you disarm them, the initial threat has been removed. Sure they can still come at you, but now technically they are unarmed.

Thats a good point.

Would you say that multiple attackes would justify the use of a weapon even if they are unarmed? I might be inclinded to say yes.

 

[MJS]

Thats a good point.

Would you say that multiple attackes would justify the use of a weapon even if they are unarmed? I might be inclinded to say yes.

I would say yes. IMHO, any time the odds become stacked against you, then you should be able to use something to equal them.

 

[ares]

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

 

[KenpoTex]

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 they continue to attack after you've disarmed them, they're still a threat. Use whatever you took from them to end the threat.

Some people hold the opinion that to do what I recommend would be to commit assault as you now are using a "higher level" of force. However, this is not the case. You are authorized (in most places) to use whatever level of force you reasonably believe to be necessary in order to protect yourself from death or serious bodily harm.
By attacking you with a weapon (use of a weapon generally is considered deadly force), your attacker has demonstrated his intent to kill or seriously injure you. The fact that you now have his weapon does not mean that he is any less committed to achieving his goal. If anything, he is even more of a threat because he is [evidently] so serious about hurting you that he is attacking you while he is at a disadvantage. Make use of the advantage that you now have neutralize the threat.

 

[KenpoTex]

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.

 

[Yari]

In Denmark, if I took a weapon away from an agressor and used it. I'll probaly go to jail. By taking the weapon away I've shown that I can handle a situation that is not in my favor. Way should I then use a weapon to defend myself when the agressor is without a weapon?

This is the legal thought.... it's completly different what I feel about it. My feeling is that I'll stop the agressor with all the means possible.

But if I'm good enough to take the weapon away, I shoud be good enough to stay out of jail ;-)

/Yari