Knife design/appearance=Trouble in court?

[KenpoTex]

I've often heard it said that even if certain knives are legal, you will have trouble in the aftermath of a SD situation if you use one. Usually these comments are made about "nasty looking" knives like push-daggers, kerambits, double-edged knives, knives whose blades have a black finish, etc.

I've always been of the opinion that it shouldn't really matter. I once heard a statement from an instructor who said: "If you were justified in your actions, it doesn't matter what you used. If you were not justified...it doesn't matter what you used."

It seems to me that the only places you'd actually encounter this problem would be in the parts of our country whose laws are a little more draconian (i.e. Mass, NY, Chicago, etc.). But let's face it, in those areas, you're probably going to face some heat regardless of what method you used to defend yourself.

Now granted, I'm not saying you should carry a knife with something like "Eviscerator" etched on the blade, but at the same time, If a particular design is more effective (as long as it's legal) I'm not going to leave it behind in favor of something more politically correct.

So my question is: Can someone give some examples (preferably with a case reference) of times when someone was prosecuted for a justified use of force simply because they used a knife that, while legal, looked a little scary? I'm interested as to whether this is a real issue, or just one of the legal myths that gets tossed around (like: "if you shoot someone outside your house, drag them inside").

Just curious.

 

[Andrew Green]

I can speak somewhat from a Canadian perspective, I imagine you consider us a little "draconian" though

Intent is what is looked at.

If I am carrying a swiss army knife, that is a tool. Me reason for carrying it is likely a tool. If I am carrying a switch blade, it's not a tool, and if I claim it is one I'll get some funny looks. Of course if I am carrying a Kitchen knife openly, maybe waving it around, I'll probably get arrested. What reason did I have for carrying it?

It's a funny thing to try and prove, but basically if I am carrying it as a weapon, it's a weapon, regardless of it's other functions. Things designed as weapons for there primary purpose are most likely being carried as weapons.

Now if things hit the court, and you are carrying a weapon, something designed specifically as a weapon, and it comes down to your word against the other guys, do you not see how that might cause you problems? It's a lot easier to show that you weren't looking for a confrontation when you aren't armed. Two armed guys fight, both claim self-defence, no witnesses. Both are likely in trouble. Now suppose only one was "armed", the other improvised with something meant for a different purpose, who do you suppose will be most likely to get in the most trouble?

 

[KenpoTex]

I understand what you're saying, I'd have a hard time trying to say that the double-edged Companion I carry every day isn't a weapon. Yeah, it's a weapon, but so is the Glock that I carry just about every waking hour. My question is, If it's legal to carry, are you really going to be in that much trouble. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is a legal precedent for this type of thing, that's why I started this thread.

Like I said, I'd really like to see some verifiable incidents if possible, we can sit here a philosophise all day long without accomplishing much.

 

[Andrew Green]

Well, neither are legal here, which solves that problem

 

[Cruentus]

I understand what you're saying, I'd have a hard time trying to say that the double-edged Companion I carry every day isn't a weapon. Yeah, it's a weapon, but so is the Glock that I carry just about every waking hour. My question is, If it's legal to carry, are you really going to be in that much trouble. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is a legal precedent for this type of thing, that's why I started this thread.

Like I said, I'd really like to see some verifiable incidents if possible, we can sit here a philosophise all day long without accomplishing much.

Intent will come into question, as Andrew said. Opposing council will try to paint a picture of you to put your intent and credability in question. They will use the knife that you used to elicit an emotional response, which often works with juries. Opposing council will try to paint the picture of you as a bad guy by showing them your "military knife" off; they will often try to paint you as a willing and eager participant rather then a victim.

This isn't just theroretical; this is usually what opposing council tries to do (although they don't always succeed). I can recall specifically a court case within the last couple of years that was covered extensively by Court TV where the one persons Spyderco was used by attorneys in the exact manner in which I described to put his credability and intent into question.

It was a really great example to watch unfold on TV, as it showed exactly what will happen if you use a knife for self-defense.

I know for sure that I won't have time to look up this or other exact cases for you, though; maybe someone else can help with that.

Now, the as to the question of whether or not we should be concerned with what kind of knife we carry? You can expect that opposing council will try to paint a negative picture or you no matter what you carry, so I don't put a whole lot of weight on this issue other then to say that a knife should really be convienent as a tool, not just a self-defense weapon. Regardless of design or fancy names or how it is marketed; my carry knife is always a tool that I use for utility purposes, and I can always justify that fact. If I happened to use it for self-defense, so be it, but my gun is always my first choice for that if lethal force is needed.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

OK...I lied because my curiousity got the best of me!

It was the Alexander-Pring Wilson Case that I was refering too as one example:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/pring-wilson/index.html

Pring-Wilson managed to duck out of a life sentence for 1st degree murder, but still got 6-8 years because they claimed that his use of his knife was "premeditated." The type of knife, which ironically was a Spyderco "Civilian" folder if I remeber correcty (often refered to by the opposing council as a 'military knife') that was used was one of the things that helped to solidify the idea of premeditation.

Nice, huh?

This one is definatily a good one to look at.

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

from one of the articles:

"Pring-Wilson maintained he mistakenly approached their car because he thought they were hailing him for directions. He said he reached for the 4-inch Spyderco blade in his pocket after being repeatedly punched and kicked in the head by the Colono and Rodriguez."

 

[Cruentus]

My take on the case for those that don't want to read all the links:

One jackass (Pring-Wilson) goes stumbling past a parking lot, drunk.

2 other jackasses (Rodriguez and Colono) hollar smack at him out their windows.

The drunk jackass goes over to the car to see what is up, not thinking clearly in his drunken state; words are exchanged, so the two jackasses from inside the car (who both have previous criminal records of a fairly serious nature unlike the drunk jackass, mind you) get out to beat the snot out of the drunk guy.

The drunk guy pulls his knife, stabs the closest assailant in the chest 5 times, it ends up in court.

Pring-Wilson gets 6-8 for manslaughter.

Moral #1: Don't be a jackass; and especially don't be a drunk jackass.

Moral #2: Be very careful, as your self-defense could very easily earn you a prison sentence.

Paul

 

[KenpoTex]

Thanks Paul, good posts.

 

[Carol]

OK...I lied because my curiousity got the best of me!

It was the Alexander-Pring Wilson Case that I was refering too as one example:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/pring-wilson/index.html

Pring-Wilson managed to duck out of a life sentence for 1st degree murder, but still got 6-8 years because they claimed that his use of his knife was "premeditated." The type of knife, which ironically was a Spyderco "Civilian" folder if I remeber correcty (often refered to by the opposing council as a 'military knife') that was used was one of the things that helped to solidify the idea of premeditation.

Nice, huh?

This one is definatily a good one to look at.

Paul

GOOD FIND Paul!

That is a doozy of a complex case. I didn't realize that the spiderco was used to help bolster the murder conviction.

Harvard grad student (caucasian) gets in to a scuffle with a local teenager (not caucasian) at a pizza joint in an ethnic neighborhood not far from the college. Teenager gets mortally wounded. Grad student convicted. Family is rich enough to afford an expensive lawyer. Conviction overturned and a new trial is set.

It ain't over yet.

 

[arnisador]

In this case the knife was described as "evil-looking" and that appears to have hurt the defendant's case. I've had a state trooper friend tell me my gunting would draw unwanted attention from authorities. I think the look of the knife can work against you...unfortunately.

 

[KenpoTex]

Thanks Arnisador, I remember reading a lot about that case when it happened.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I try to have my EDC look like something any guy would carry or that your dad might have given you. That could only help if you ever have to use it. Now in the course of a career where a knife would be acceptable : ie: military, police, executive protection, etc then I would opt for something a little beefier and the push dagger would be perfect provided I could legally carry it on duty. If not a nice fixed blade would be my next choice.

 

[arnisador]

I try to have my EDC look like something any guy would carry or that your dad might have given you. That could only help if you ever have to use it.

I read an article in a recent issue of Blade magazine that addressed this:

Another article discussed "Gent's knives," ornate knives with attractive hand grip art for gentleman to carry when smartly dressed. They were described as serving a small but growing market.

They indicated that there was both a legitimate fashion but also the desire for a more innocent-appearing blade.

 

[HKphooey]

I can speak somewhat from a Canadian perspective, I imagine you consider us a little "draconian" though

Intent is what is looked at.

If I am carrying a swiss army knife, that is a tool. Me reason for carrying it is likely a tool. If I am carrying a switch blade, it's not a tool, and if I claim it is one I'll get some funny looks. Of course if I am carrying a Kitchen knife openly, maybe waving it around, I'll probably get arrested. What reason did I have for carrying it?

It's a funny thing to try and prove, but basically if I am carrying it as a weapon, it's a weapon, regardless of it's other functions. Things designed as weapons for there primary purpose are most likely being carried as weapons.

Now if things hit the court, and you are carrying a weapon, something designed specifically as a weapon, and it comes down to your word against the other guys, do you not see how that might cause you problems? It's a lot easier to show that you weren't looking for a confrontation when you aren't armed. Two armed guys fight, both claim self-defence, no witnesses. Both are likely in trouble. Now suppose only one was "armed", the other improvised with something meant for a different purpose, who do you suppose will be most likely to get in the most trouble?

I agree. Many of my friends are LEO (and I think a few have posted about this already) and they say the same thing about baseball bats and arnis sticks. It is best to carry a pair of cleats and glove or martial arts clothing in the car anytime either of those weapons are in there. Otherwise it can be implied your intention is to use them as a weapon.