Using The Weapon After The Disarm

[MJS]

During a discussion in the Kenpo section, I posted the following video clip, of Jeff Speakman (Kenpo) doing a knife disarm.

[yt]_Jh7O1VzkyA&feature=player_embedded[/yt]

Chris Parker commented that some of the things that Jeff was doing in the clip, ie: using the knife to basically slice and dice the other guy, was severe overkill and would probably land you in jail. Using the blade against a now unarmed opponent, would probably be frowned upon in court. Now, as a Kenpo guy myself, yes, alot of the techs, do contain 'overkill' though some like to refer to it as 'overskill', but nonetheless, Chris made some valid points.

So, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the use of a weapon on someone, who you just disarmed. Is it right? Wrong?

 

[ballen0351]

He pulls a weapon on you its fair game. Just as quickly and easily as you took it from him he can take it from you. Only exception would be if you somehow incapsitated him in the process and he is no longer a threat or you took it he gives up lays down and is no longer engaged in the fight you can't just walk over and stab him.

 

[elder999]

Chris Parker commented that some of the things that Jeff was doing in the clip, ie: using the knife to basically slice and dice the other guy, was severe overkill and would probably land you in jail. Using the blade against a now unarmed opponent, would probably be frowned upon in court. Now, as a Kenpo guy myself, yes, alot of the techs, do contain 'overkill' though some like to refer to it as 'overskill', but nonetheless, Chris made some valid points.

So, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the use of a weapon on someone, who you just disarmed. Is it right? Wrong?

Well, Chris is in Australia, where the standard of what consitutes "self defence" and the "justified use of lethal force" may be different than what we're used to in the states, but I think that in both cases, the use of force has to be proportional to the perceived threat-that a reasonable person would believe that such actions were appropriate and necessary. In this instance, this person pulled a knife on you, and tried to stab you with it-you took it away, and shoved it up their ***-I'd say that's proportional the perceived threat: just because they're disarmed, doesn't mean that they're disengaged, and what they were, and still are engaged in is a lethal threat to your person. None of those cuts is going to instantaneously disable or neutralize a person-they're going to keep fighting until they realize that they're bleeding out. In fact, there are only a few ways to cut someone and instantly incapacitate or kill them, and none of those are taking place here. If you look at cases of actual stabbings, very often people think they were punched or struck, and they keep fighting.

In my experience,when someone is trying to stab me, I'm going to keep doing whatever I'm doing to keep them from doing that until they stop trying to stab me, or stop moving, whichever comes first. In that one instance there was no "disarm"-I just wrapped up his knife arm and stabbed him-repeatedly-with my pen. Some might argue that by immobilizing his weapon bearing hand, I had neutralized the lethal threat, but I hadn't: he was fighting back right up until he realized that he had to lie down. I never even went to court, and that was in New York, not exactly a bastion of self defense doctrine.

It's also important to remember that what we're seeing really is a demonstration geared towards teaching things beyond simple technique or response-while the familiar axiom that you'll follow your training might bear fruit in a real instance, one cut really might be all that's necessary: just as lethal, just as appropriate, just as reasonable, and, quite simply, just as justifiable. I mean, if he'd simply cut once where the person would bleed out-say he stopped at a femoral artery cut-would it be overkill, or simply "kill?"

 

[Chris Parker]

To give an idea of our laws here, that would be considered murder (Jeff Speakman's clip, not Elder's story). Basically, once you have removed a weapon from an attacker, they are considered unarmed. If you then use that weapon against the now unarmed person, you are up for the same charges that they would be. An armed person coming after an unarmed one is the same, no matter how it began.

Here's the catch, though. In order to NOT respond with the type of thing that Jeff Speakman does above, that needs to be trained. You actually have to train not responding in that way, train holding yourself back, and train the emotional control that is required for that. The reason is that, from a psychological standpoint, when you are attacked, it tends to get taken personally. You are assaulted psychologically and emotionally, as well as physically. As a result, the impulse is to hurt the person who caused such pain and injury... which can often lead to going to the most powerful option you can achieve. And, if you've just come into possession of the attackers weapon, the source of their ability to inflict such pain on you, the natural impulse is to use it back. So, in order to counterman that, you need to train not using the weapon. The overkill response is, sadly, all too natural.

Now, I'm not saying that you just stop your defense, or that the attacker will stop once you get their weapon off them, but the response from you needs to now be adjusted to the appropriate level. And slicing and dicing a now unarmed person who isn't pressing the attack (in the clip above) is just downright wrong. I mean, I like the use of the butt end of the knife that Jeff initially goes to, it's the rest that goes overboard.

Oh, and Elder? Simply "kill" is overkill here.

 

[elder999]

Oh, and Elder? Simply "kill" is overkill here.

This is just one place where we're in disagreement, and I'll start there: the guy just tried to kill you. While killing him might not be the only option, it just might be the only available one-his ability and desire to do so probably aren't taken away with the knife, no matter how slickly you do so. If he's bent on destroying you, taking away the knife probably hasn't changed that. Now, in Speakman's clip, the assailant is pretty much just standing there waiting to be sliced up-this is a familiar complaint from some quarters as far as kenpo demonstrations go, and it is pretty unrealistic. The intention isn't to demonstrate realism, though, but how one thing flows to another.

To give an idea of our laws here, that would be considered murder (Jeff Speakman's clip, not Elder's story). Basically, once you have removed a weapon from an attacker, they are considered unarmed. If you then use that weapon against the now unarmed person, you are up for the same charges that they would be. An armed person coming after an unarmed one is the same, no matter how it began.

Again, self-defense law is predicated upon what a reasonable person would do with the perception of imminent danger or death. They just have to think that their life is threatened, and show that it was reasonable to think as much, and respond with an appropriate level of force.

A knife is an appropriate level of force response to a knife attack-which is what has taken place-and one that a reasonable person might rely upon, especially once their assaillant has conveniently provided them with a knife.

Here's the catch, though. In order to NOT respond with the type of thing that Jeff Speakman does above, that needs to be trained. You actually have to train not responding in that way, train holding yourself back, and train the emotional control that is required for that. The reason is that, from a psychological standpoint, when you are attacked, it tends to get taken personally. You are assaulted psychologically and emotionally, as well as physically. As a result, the impulse is to hurt the person who caused such pain and injury... which can often lead to going to the most powerful option you can achieve. And, if you've just come into possession of the attackers weapon, the source of their ability to inflict such pain on you, the natural impulse is to use it back. So, in order to counterman that, you need to train not using the weapon. The overkill response is, sadly, all too natural.

Not too sure about any of that. For some, the first response, and even the second and third one is to run. Do what you have to do to get away, and then get away as soon as possible. There are also more than a few studies that demonstrate that for most of us there is a natural aversion to killing our fellow men.

As for training not to use the weapon, sorry-just not the way I was trained. Mind you, the guy is lying on the ground screaming because I broke his arm taking the knife away? No "slicing and dicing." Guy's still coming at me and I have his knife?

Well, I'm gonna give it back to him.

Now, I'm not saying that you just stop your defense, or that the attacker will stop once you get their weapon off them, but the response from you needs to now be adjusted to the appropriate level. And slicing and dicing a now unarmed person who isn't pressing the attack (in the clip above) is just downright wrong. I mean, I like the use of the butt end of the knife that Jeff initially goes to, it's the rest that goes overboard.

Again, that's the appearance of it-it's meant to demonstrate a bunch of oher things, not slicing and dicing a now unarmed person who isn't pressing the attack. The appropriate level, again, is that you're responding to a lethal threat-it doesn't matter that you've disarmed them, because you can't disarm their intent.-if they've taken action that demonstrates that they give up, well, that's another story, but it also isn't what's taken place here: basically the guy is acting as a training dummy.

I mean, do you actually mean to tell us that there is no where in your ninja training that you use a weapon on an unarmed person? :lol:

 

[David43515]

Tough call, and like most "what if" scenarios the correct answer is "it depends". In the US the legal standard is the so called reasonable man. Would a reasonable person in the same situation still be in fear of their life or serious injury? If the answer is yes, cut him or stick him untill the threat is gone. If not, pitch the weapon and realize you`ve still got a fight on your hands. There are all kinds of mitigating circumstances we could think up (multiple opponants, disparity of force, etc). But it`s still a fun exercise and knowledge is like condoms, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

[Buka]

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, there was a surveillance tape from the store across the street, of you disarming the knife, and it worked just as nifty as it did in the dojo. I can hear his attorney now, "Your honor, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, not only does the defendant hold a MASTER'S ranking in this deadly art, but he TEACHES it. Surely, my client was no threat to him when the defendant so callously cut my client's you know what off."

You would be so screwed.

 

[Jenna]

No matter how much training, it is extremely difficult to remain calm and logical in that situation anyway. Shock, anger and instinct reign sovereign.

A defence in court? I would rather defend in court than have to attend a funeral of one of my family who may have been with me when this happened (or have them attend mine).

My defence in court is that yes I am trained to handle a bladed weapon. Perhaps I should have been able to muster greater restraint. Yet if he had not attacked me with it, he would not be dead or disfigured because of his criminal action. Basic causality. His actions were the direct cause of his injury or death.

 

[Jenna]

Basically, once you have removed a weapon from an attacker, they are considered unarmed.

I do not entirely agree with that Christopher, I think it is imprudent to ever imagine that because he has dropped his weapon or you have wrested it from him that he is now unarmed. Hey may or may not have other weapons. Nevertheless, he has made his position entirely unequivocal. He has saught you out to attack you. That clearly gives you legal precedent to defend and but also gives you clear directive that he is a threat to your safety or those in your care. In this instance, to assume that he is now unarmed may put you at peril.

If he remains on the scene at all then he remains a threat to personal safety. Therefore use of the weapon in a reasonable manner to defend your person or those with you is acceptable.

Do you disagree?

Anyway, I do not like the legal chicanery involved here. *I* am (or you are) the victim here NOT the guy with the knife!! That should never be allowed to be contorted and but it is often unfortunately.

 

[oftheherd1]

Several of the knife defenses I learned in Hapkido ended by disarming the assailant and cutting the assailant long and deep. At the time, I thought, and built up what I thought were good defenses against doing that if I perceived the assailant was no longer a threat after being disarmed. But I always also thought that Jenna said above. I would sooner work on justifying my actions in court than have people attend my funeral.

As to the law, I am not sure. A lot has changed in self defense in the last 30 or 40 years. I can remember when even a police officer was not susposed to exceed the amount of force used against him. It also required a victim to run away unless he was cornered. Laws and judical rulings have changed that in many placed. If you can demonstrate you actions were based on fear of life, such as not being able to outrun an assailant, or not expecting to be able to successfully fight the assailant who is 50 pounds heavier, and 6 inches taller, and feared for your life, fighting with greater force may be a defense against any charges against you, including homicide. Certainly if there were what appeared to be friends of the assailant that appeared to wish to engage me as well, that would bolster my defense.

However, one always needs to consider what the consequencies are possible when going into what you consider a self defense situation. Will possible consequences of resistance be greater than consequences of not resisting if you are allowed to leave. In the scenarios above, we sort of presume there is no chance to leave, and that a weapon is being used against us. I have always figured that if, God forbid, I had to defend myself, and did so successfully, following through with knife cuts to the assailant, I would point to my training that had that follow through, and throw the blame back at the assailant as Jenna said.

Would it work? Don't know. It would depend on the local laws and the feelings of the jury.

 

[Sukerkin]

No matter how much training, it is extremely difficult to remain calm and logical in that situation anyway. Shock, anger and instinct reign sovereign.

Something that we all need to bear in mind, aye. Those things and fear too.

The one time I have ever had to fight in my adult life, I injured my attackers much more than I would intend to if I was being calm and logical about things. I make no pretence otherwise, I was petrified. There were three of them and they all looked like giants to me as I was stuck with my back against a lamp-post (upon which one of them smashed a bottle, as if I wasn't scared enough!).

I just wanted "away" from them as quickly as I could and I confess that I learned just how unlike sparring the real deal is, for the techniques we learn are designed to damage the human body - we just don't normally realise how badly because we don't use them full force or full speed in the dojo.

So the question then becomes, in legal terms, how much mitigation that fear-driven application of technique is granted when in a court of law.

 

[Cyriacus]

Something that we all need to bear in mind, aye. Those things and fear too.

The one time I have ever had to fight in my adult life, I injured my attackers much more than I would intend to if I was being calm and logical about things. I make no pretence otherwise, I was petrified. There were three of them and they all looked like giants to me as I was stuck with my back against a lamp-post (upon which one of them smashed a bottle, as if I wasn't scared enough!).

I just wanted "away" from them as quickly as I could and I confess that I learned just how unlike sparring the real deal is, for the techniques we learn are designed to damage the human body - we just don't normally realise how badly because we don't use them full force or full speed in the dojo.

So the question then becomes, in legal terms, how much mitigation that fear-driven application of technique is granted when in a court of law.

Personally, I tend to Respond to Hostility with Anger.
The Basis is different, the Effect is the same.

NOTE: That doesnt mean if someone is remotely Hostile, ill go crazy and demolish them. Its just the Mental State, if you will

Remaining Calm and Logical becomes... Difficult. Suffice to say. It becomes a matter of Instinct.
And Instincts are Subjective to the Individual.

You can Train ANYONE in Martial Arts for as many Years as you like. But its up to them to be Effective in its Application outside of their Learning Inlet.

Now, im positive you can find People whod be able to Disarm someone and Retrieve the Weapon.
Im just as positive you can find People who wouldnt.

 

[frank raud]

He pulls a weapon on you its fair game. Just as quickly and easily as you took it from him he can take it from you.

I'm curious what your experience with edged weapons is, that it is so easy to disarm someone that you think a reasonable scenario is multiple disarms happening back and forth.

 

[MaxiMe]

No matter how much training, it is extremely difficult to remain calm and logical in that situation anyway. Shock, anger and instinct reign sovereign.

A defence in court? I would rather defend in court than have to attend a funeral of one of my family who may have been with me when this happened (or have them attend mine).

My defence in court is that yes I am trained to handle a bladed weapon. Perhaps I should have been able to muster greater restraint. Yet if he had not attacked me with it, he would not be dead or disfigured because of his criminal action. Basic causality. His actions were the direct cause of his injury or death.

Better to be tried by twelve than carried by 6.

 

[frank raud]

In Canada, I have the right ot defend myself by whatever means necessary, until the threat is no longer a threat. That does not give me an automatic license to kill. But if I disarmed an attacker, and he continues, I can use the weapon to defend myself. However, the multiple cuts, intentional slicing of the neck, femoral arteries and achilles tendons as demonstrated in the video would be considered an assault by me, I would cease being the victim, and become the attacker.

It is fairly common in martial arts to use "overkill" techniques, which can get you in deep legal trouble if followed out in an unfotunate real life incident.

 

[ballen0351]

I'm curious what your experience with edged weapons is, that it is so easy to disarm someone that you think a reasonable scenario is multiple disarms happening back and forth.

Easy may be the wrong term I was typing on a cell phone and was trying to be brief. The point was if I can get a knife from you then you also could get it from me so there for the weapon is in play as long as the attacker is still engaged.
I am a part time trainer at the police academy and teach an officer safety class the first thing that comes out of my mouth on day one is EVERY call you go on there is a gun in play. Its yours and it can be taken from you at any time and used against you so every call should be treated as an armed subject call. Same rule applies here. If bad guy pulls a knife on you just because you got control of the knife for the moment does not take the threat of the knife out of play.

As for my experience I have none other then 4 years USMC, 10+ as a Cop, Multiple trainings on officer survival and defensive tactics, defensive tactics instructor, Been personally stabbed once which is why I decided to become a DT instructor so that wouldnt happen again.

 

[jks9199]

There are four elements to consider when assessing a use of force in self defense: Intent, Means, Opportunity, and Preclusion.

These scenarios eliminate Intent (the bad guy is already attacking, so it's clear he means to hurt you!), and define Means (a knife or other deadly weapon). So, let's look at Opportunity and Preclusion, after the intitial disarm.

You've disarmed the bad guy; you have control of his weapon, and now you use it on him to prevent further attack. You're not simply killing him; you've got, at least in your mind, a legally justifiable reason to go further than the disarm because you don't want him to keep trying to hurt or kill you. OK... Opportunity? He's disarmed -- but he can still do harm to you with his hands or feet, if he's close enough. (Let's ignore the guy who decides that discretion is the better part of valor and wants to skedaddle when you disarm him... I think we can agree that if you chase him down, you're now the aggressor in the scenario!) You'll have to explain how he still had the opportunity to do you serious bodily harm... Was he within arm's reach? Still struggling, trying to hurt versus simply escape? If you can explain how he continued to present a threat to you -- you may be OK. Probably going to get less and less justifiable the more you do to him, though...

But Preclusion is the biggie here... Was your hand forced? Was using serious force against him necessary, or did you have other reasonable options to get out? State and national laws vary in how much you have to have other options precluded. So... A knife disarm, where you end up with the guy face down on the ground, and proceed to filet him? You might find it harder to justify. Especially if you escape and re-enter to continue the fight.

You might note, I'm not giving a hard yes or no, because there is none. It's about how you justify the actions, especially as the situation changes. You can use all the force reasonably necessary to subdue and stop the threat -- but no more force than that. If you carve the guy up like the Christmas turkey... problem, unless you can justify it.

 

[Rich Parsons]

During a discussion in the Kenpo section, I posted the following video clip, of Jeff Speakman (Kenpo) doing a knife disarm.

[yt]_Jh7O1VzkyA&feature=player_embedded[/yt]

Chris Parker commented that some of the things that Jeff was doing in the clip, ie: using the knife to basically slice and dice the other guy, was severe overkill and would probably land you in jail. Using the blade against a now unarmed opponent, would probably be frowned upon in court. Now, as a Kenpo guy myself, yes, alot of the techs, do contain 'overkill' though some like to refer to it as 'overskill', but nonetheless, Chris made some valid points.

So, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the use of a weapon on someone, who you just disarmed. Is it right? Wrong?

MJS,

Right or Wrong is totally different on is it legal.

The guy tried to kill you and has come back multiple times with each time having it get more and more violent and with your skill or luck you survive. You know end up with a weapon in your hand and do you use it or not.?

I would say it would depend upon the situation and circumstances and who was involved on both sides.

Now that being said, the legal side is going to get you a lot of questions.
i.e.:
If you were skilled enough to take the weapon away then obviously (* the DA's choice of words here *) there was no real threat of violence let alone a threat of death.

It only gets worse from there.

I tell people if you use it you are now the attacker and you are now going to have to face those issues yourself.

 

[David43515]

We`re all agreed then?

"First, let`s kill all the lawyers.":uhyeah:

 

[Buka]

Regardless if you're the good guy, if you are involved in a self defense case, that is, if you are charged, the things that might happen to you are not fair, and they certainly ain't pretty. The investigator, be that the police, or one hired by the opposing attorney, will start digging into your life. And, oh man, can they dig. They'll know how many weapons you own, how long you've been training, how often you practice, they'll print out posts you've written on forums - not all of them, they'll put certain ones out of context, just the ones that make you look a certain way, ANYTHING you've ever posted about self defense will be fair game. They will paint a picture that you won't believe is you, but it will be to those deciding your fate.

Stay the hell out of courtrooms. If you have to kill someone, eat them.