The Kenpo "knife fantasy" - a deadly dream

[kenpo_cory]

Hi ParkerKarate,

I think the discussion focused on tactical folders and smaller fixed blades (like Ayoob's model from Masters of Defense and some from Cold Steel) because those are really the only blades you could carry relatively inconspicuously where we live. I think it'd be fun to carry my Kukri, or a fighting Bowie, but unless I'm hunting bear I don't think I have an excuse. Doing so around town would bring PLENTY of unwanted attention.

Hmm, well where I live (Bend, OR) it is legal to carry very large swords and the like around with you as long as it's not concealed. I see people walking around down town and in the parks here carrying swords all the time. LOL I even saw a guy the other day walking down the road with a mid - sized axe trapped to his waste.

 

[parkerkarate]

An axe, wow. I don't know what to say about that.

 

[howardr]

Howardr..

So, in application, I have the right to defend my car from being vandalized, lets say, but I don't have the right to use lethal force to accomplish this. I can yell at the vandels or even push them away from my car and yell for them to stop, legally speaking. But, if one pulls a gun after I do this, then thats when lethal force may be justified. Is this kind of how it works for the most part, or am I misunderstanding a bit?

PAUL :asian:

I think you've got the general idea. Nondeadly force may be employed to defend your property. Deadly force may never (unless in conjunction with another defense that justifies deadly force) be used to defend property. Yelling, as such, I wouldn't even classify as force since there is no physical contact (save the sound waves which are likely in this scenario not to damage the hearing of the intended recipients). Pushing or even striking or holding may be justified depending on the scenario. Guess who's gonna decide that (after the police and prosecutors make their determination)? The jury. Guess what will be one of the jury's main determining factors in whether what you did is considered justified or not? Answer: whether a reasonable man (or woman, of course) would have acted in such a way in the same situation. What is a "reasonable man?" Well, ya better go to law school for that one...

This reasonable man test is one of the reasons that I raised the whole issue of knives in the first place. When your average person, who is not a martial artist, and is likely a bit squeamish, hears (and sees brutally graphic pictures) of the results of your knife work, it may make it considerably more difficult to empathize with you (esp. when they find out you train to do this very thing; they may feel that you are a bit too ready to deploy the knife). With a gun, of course, there is still that danger, but I'd guess that generally speaking the populace at large is more understanding of a person who defends themselves with a gun.

 

[howardr]

Howardr,

But, I find that the techniques don't really matter. Using a knife is just like using a gun. To use the weapon, deadly force needs to be justified. This means that whether you only slash the hand of your attacker, or if you stab and rip his throat out with the blade, it is considered deadly force. So I find that the actual technique doesn't matter, its the use of the weapon or not.

Now granted, you may have more trouble with the law if you kill the guy rather then just slice, but that will depend on the circumstance.

The fact is, a knife for defense should be treated like a gun, so the technique is generally obsolete in terms of the law.

PAUL

Strictly speaking that may be true. However, as I've stated several times, part of the legal outcome will come down to how what you did is perceived by the jury. Certainly, deadly force is deadly force, but just how elaborate your dissection of your opponent is will be taken into account by the jury as an indication of your state of mind (defensive vs. offensive, scared vs. gung-ho going overboard, etc.).

 

[howardr]

this thread developed too far before I could check it.

Howardr,

Another thing: In regards to practicing "offensive" techniques.... wouldn't you say that to know how to defend against a knife fighter who is trying to kill you, or trying to use offensive techniques against you, that you should know how these techniques work and the mentality behind them for your defense to be effective? If so, then wouldn't that justify practicing these techniques...for proper defense?

Just something for you to think about.

PAUL

Actually, I believe I said something quite similar to this in one of my first posts on the first page...

 

[Cruentus]

Howardr...

Yup...Jury perception is a big factor that people training knives don't think about.

Also:

Actually, I believe I said something quite similar to this in one of my first posts on the first page...

Sounds good! artyon:

 

[loki09789]

"A lot of people have CCW permits in my state. If someone trys to harm them and it is justifiable, they can pull their gun and shot that person. They may have a lot of explaining to do, but they will not get thrown in jail if lethal force is proven to have been justified."

It may actually be the case that you do get detained and jailed, until justification for deadly force is proven. It could be that justification has to be decided in court.

"You don't need a CCW permit to carry a knife under the legal limit, yet the standards are the same. If lethal force in justified, you can use your knife without legal repricussions."

The idea that the force continuum/penal code is the same is valid because force/deadly force is not contingent on the weapon, but the reasonableness of the threat, as well as the response.

The problem is that, because pistol permits might require a safety course or a background check, there is more 'credibility' to a firearm in force application than with what could be considered a 'hoodlum weapon'. Perception/prejudice is a big issue when dealing with untrained, average citizens. Harder than a knife would be justifying the use of a screwdriver (the next most common stabbing weapon in deadly force/violent incidence).

Technically speaking, if medical examiner pictures of the injuries incurred are uses, which do you think would be more condeming: Stab/puncture wounds or the slashing/filleting woulds?

Me personally, stabs could be spun as intent to kill because of the penetration factor, but slashing wounds are more dramatic and scary looking.

Either way, get a good lawyer, get your money's in order and prepare to have to spend some time in a jail/holding center until bail is set and paid. It could happen, until you can prove that you were justified. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that if you are suspected/charged that you will be let off or allowed to roam around - maybe run off.

Paul M

Paul M.