Limitations of the knife?

[David Craik]

I've been thinking for a long time now about how possible deadly force scenarios could be met with a knife and still be legally defensible, and I am always struck with how limited a blade is within the constraints of reality and the law. How would such a scenario play out? While I've seen and read bunches of material on technique, mindset, blade selection and strategy I see very little on just how it would supposedly go down. I'm talking civilians here, not military or LEOs of various stripes.

Keep in mind that by using a knife, one is likely already fighting an uphill battle for justification against a jury of everyday joes who probably view a knife as a thug or criminal's weapon. It would probably be far easier to justify the use of a gun. Folks understand shooting an attacker; leaving him a bloody ripped-up mess while still projecting an image of being a law-abiding citizen is a bit more dicey. Particularly if one studies a knife art - it wouldn't be hard for a lawyer to paint you as a bloodthirsty psycho...what normal person learns how to cut people up with a knife? And if that knife is something bizarre like a kerambit or gunting...well, then obviously you're some kind of lunatic, surely.

So deadly force is justified when one reasonably believes that oneself or another is in danger of grievous bodily injury or death, to wit:

1) multiple attackers

2) armed attacker(s)

3) larger, far more powerful attacker against a woman, elderly, etc.


While it is possible to 'warn' off or threaten with a knife, I don't see this being as effective as doing the same with a handgun. How feasible would it be to warn off multiple people with a knife of a size which could be realistically carried in a pocket or the like? The element of surprise is lost, God forbid one of them has a pistol. He could likely be the one exhonorated in court without witnesses to the contrary..defending against a knife-wielding madman.

If the attacker is armed - he is likely armed equally to oneself, with a knife or gun which is already out. If a knife, unless one rushes him while he is distracted it has the potential of turning into a 'duelling' or 'knife fight' sort of thing - legally a disaster and according to knife gurus 'unrealistic', though it seems a lot of folk train this way. If a gun, while it is possible to cover a lot of ground quickly to engage this seems a pretty iffy situation to say the least against a muzzle which is already pointed at you.

Attacking someone who is assaulting another person is quite feasible, but it seems to me sentry removal-type tactics rather than 'knife fighting' would be of more value in such an action.

Bear in mind what formal knife training I've had was in a military context, unencumbered by the idea of having to justify things afterward. As long as the cut-up dude was a bona fide bad guy, kudos to you even if he was just taking a leak at the time.

About the only thing in a civilian defense scenario I can come up with is a last-resort; one is being pummeled or choked out on the ground - but how defensible this escalation of force would be since one's attacker is unarmed is debatable. Or a backup to a legally-carried handgun, which I can definately see the utility of. Pistol stovepipes and you become a human Cuisinart.

In scenario #3 above, a woman or elderly person could probably get away with it. But here I'm probably going to tick off a lady or two. I seriously question many male's ability to deal with the amount of blood spatter (much of it all over yourself) and horrible injury that comes from the use of a bladed instrument; and thus the majority of females too. While I have no doubt that there are normal, well-adjusted women who could handle it quite well, I think they are the exception.

Perhaps I don't see these thoughts addressed because the questions are so basic as to be naive and stupid, in which case I ask for your patience. Or perhaps we focus so much on how effective a particular blade or technique would be no one questions as to how either the knife or the technique would ever realistically and legally become an option in the first place.

I carry a knife every day, but it's usually one that has a utilitarian purpose. I use it every day for various mundane tasks, and sometimes wonder how people get along without one. More defense oriented blades...well, it's easier and way more concealable than a pistol or revolver, and better than nothing.

If you carry a knife solely for defense, how do you see it being used effectively and legally? Serious question, I value your input.

[jwinch2]

Dave,

This is an interesting post and one that brings up quite a bit off really good questions. As I have recently been diving in to some blade work, it is also of interest to me. I have no idea on the answers except I agree with your idea of using the knife as a backup to a CCW in case something goes wrong with that one. The other option is that many states which have restrictions on the locations you can carry a firearm, even with a concealed carry permit, may have somewhat laxer laws on the carrying of a knife. In that situation, I can see the utility of a pocket folder. I would also suspect that if things had gotten to he point where you had to use a knife, you may not have too much time to spare thinking about the legality of what you were doing.

Hopefully, none of us will ever find out. I will be interested to see what others have to say, especially our LEO's who may have come across similar situations.

Good thread and well reasoned post...

[torbjork]

I'm not sure how relevant this is to your situation, but; in Norway it's technically illegal to carry any knife in public. This ban theoretically includes pocket knives and the like, as the law is partly designed to allow police a way to make life difficult for known criminals (search them every time they're spotted, and fine them every time they're carrying).

On the other hand, many people (craftsmen, handymen, janitors, Joe Schmoe) obviously carry knives in public every day, particularly the Leatherman multitool thingys and a sturdy, thick bladed utilitarian knife called a tollekniv: http://www.milasshop.no/images/tollekniv.jpg. I imagine these knives make great weapons, as they don't break easily and are kept razor sharp. Despite this, it's ok to carry them as long as you have an "honourable reason," meaning you need them for your work or your hobby and are engaged in one or the other at the time you're carrying the blade.

The problem of whether it's legally ok to use a knife to defend yourself then revolves around when and where you are attacked. If someone takes a swing at a carpenter at a worksite with a steel pipe, it is likely that the carpenter will not be punished for slashing or stabbing the attacker. On the other hand, if the same carpenter goes out at night to drink, still carrying his work knife, and gets in a fight which concludes with someone being cut, it's another issue because he didn't have an "honourable reason" to carry the knife.

Then again, if he went fishing after work and brought his knife along to bleed and gut the fish, he'd have "honourable reason" to carry it and could use it as a weapon of opportunity if attacked.


Of course, if you're not satisfied with one or two cuts but decide to practice your Arnis technique on your attacker after he's stopped his attack and turned to defense, you're probably going to look bad in court if you could have extracted yourself instead.

Currently, self defense is not considered "honourable reason" to carry, because if it were, criminals and loonies could justify arming themselves whereas it would not occur to most ordinary citizens to arm themselves before going outside. This might of course change if the incidence of armed attacks increases- so far criminals here mostly use their weapons on each other, which nobody really has a problem with.

[David Craik]

In that situation, I can see the utility of a pocket folder. I would also suspect that if things had gotten to he point where you had to use a knife, you may not have too much time to spare thinking about the legality of what you were doing.

That's pretty much where I'm at. I carry a knife because it's a darn handy thing to have - I don't know how people get along without one. I use it way more often than my cell phone, for example. It's actually illegal where I live to carry anything without a ridiculously short blade, but it's never enforced unless a person is already breaking the law, sometimes not even then - the police just take it away.

I just can't envision too many realistic situations which would lead up to the point you mention, Jason, where a sheathed or pocketed weapon at the low end of the deadly force spectrum would be of much use, primarily because unlike with a pistol one has to physically engage an equally or better-armed assailant.

Though someone very skilled under the right circumstances could do this, looking at numerous accounts of actual assaults and robberies and trying to envision how a knife and the skill to use it may have helped leads one to the conclusion that these situations are very limited.

[jwinch2]

If the situation was serious enough that you had nothing to lose and everything to gain by making the attempt to defend yourself with a blade, could it be effective, even against multiple attackers? I was reminded of this thread after re-reading this one: http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/sh...ighlight=knife

I think if one is in a situation where you may perhaps be outnumbered and with no ready escape, a couple of quick strikes from a knife in the right spot might give your assailants enough pause to let you get the hell out of there. That, or allow you to keep them at bay until the LEO's show up. Or finally, allow your loved ones to get out of harms way while you occupy the assailants long enough for them to escape. My personal preference would be to get one quick strike or two in, hopefully shock the hell out of them, and strap on the track spikes and do my best Jessie Owens impersonation. Who knows if would actually work? I have just recently started doing any sort of blade training and much of what we have done so far has dealt with disarms and that sort of thing as well. As Barry has pointed out repeatedly on this forum, often times arts that do not train with blades often may have unrealistic knife defense techniques. I am not experienced enough to judge that at this time, but it is an intriguing point and one that may have some bearing on this conversation as well.

I am no legal expert, not by a long shot. However, I would suspect, depending on what state you were in, if you could demonstrate that you did everything you could to get out of the situation such as attempting to back away and judicious use of your verbal judo, you would be alright. Then again, I may be entirely full of ca ca. Hopefully, groups like Knife Rights, of which I am a charter member, and others as well, will start exploring the legality of knife carry for self-defense purposes so that there are some more clearly defined rules. As it stands, I would not even know where to look to find out what the laws stated with regard to knife carry on my person.

Again, great thread Dave. And, a timely one for me as these are some things I have been mulling over in my head for the last couple of weeks...

Jason

[DragonMind]

As I see it, there are two different issues at work here: legal and perceptual. From the legal perspective, a knife is no different than any other weapon. If you are in the right to use deadly force, you have the right to use a knife to inflict such force.

The perceptual side is much trickier. Unless the case is slam-dunk clear that you were justified in using deadly force, the prosecutor (or attorney for the plaintiff in civil cases) is certainly going to use the innate psychological fear people have of blades to portray you as a mad dog killer. In that sense, it is no different than being portrayed as a Karotty-Killer if you use empty hands.

One reason Bram Frank explicitly teaches TOOL use rather than WEAPON use is that it helps change the perspective. A common pocketknife is a tool. Most people can relate to that. The fact that you had it available and used it to defend yourself is because you were assaulted and used your handy TOOL.

When should you have your tool handy? Just follow the Cooper Color System and you have your answer. If you wait until the assault has already begun, you will never get that blade deployed in time to be any use. Rory will back me up in that the bad guy isn't coming into the assault looking for a fight. His weapon is already out and being used, whether to harm you or intimidate you. When I go to condition orange, I guarantee you my blade is already in my hand and tucked out of your sight.

As for skill level, it doesn't take very long at all to learn how to use a blade effectively for defense. Learning how to blade spar against a trained knife fighter is a whole other thing, but that isn't usually the case in an assault. The bad guy will probably have somewhat better technique than you do if you've never trained with a blade because he has probably had to survive a blade attack or two already, particularly the gang-bangers. However, that advantage quickly goes away with only a short amount of training.

Disarms are unrealistic unless you are capable of disarming a running lawn mower. They are good for teaching angles, perspectives, and opportunities but rarely happen in a real assault until you've already subdued the attacker.

As for blade vs gun, give me the blade. It is a more versatile weapon, particularly at close range - which is where an assault will happen. Anyone familiar with the Tullers Drill can relate to that. I don't have to aim a blade, just reach out and touch someone.

[David Craik]

Very good points, and I was wondering if Barry would chime in.

As for Tullers Drill, the phrase 'don't bring a knife to a gun fight' gets my dander up ever time. A holstered gun against an assailant with a drawn knife at 21' or less is often going to result in a cut-up pistolero. The distance can be closed very quickly. But an assailant is not going to have a holstered gun. It's already pointed at you. It takes me less than half a second to pull the trigger of any of my guns. Could a person disarm me, control the weapon, or step offline and inflict crippling damage before they're riddled with bullets? Possibly, but at assault ranges, you don't really have to 'aim' a gun. If you have to 'aim' at a man-size target a yard away you are definately well beyond the age or ability where you should be attempting to rob people. I guess this is where Cooper's system is a necessity - having to draw and open a knife with a gun pointed at you seems a pretty risky proposition indeed even when grabbed with an off-hand.

I think a knife in the eyes of a jury is going to be (in many cases) the same as having a pistol with 'Widowmaker' etched across the slide or grips that feature carved skulls or something; I don't think the empty-handed 'karate killer' prosecution strategy would carry the same weight in a society that expells elementary school students for bringing a butter knife to school with which to make a sandwich.

Most pocketknives that would be considered 'tools' by the average person are of the stockman, barlow, and Swiss Army variety. The more tactical features you add the less it appears to be like something Tom Sawyer would have carried and more like a deadly weapon - to include thumb studs, locks, synthetic handle scales, and unusual blade designs. There was a fellow many years ago prosecuted in Va. under their 'switchblade' laws for having a Buck model 110 in his car. The definition of 'switchblade' was so vague that this venerable old knife fit, because the bolsters were so loose it could be flicked open and locked.

Just casting around for ideas - thanks for making the first response Jason! Thread sat around for nearly a month without so much as a 'gee, you're stupid!'

[Brian R. VanCise]

No doubt having a holstered gun facing an opponent with their blade already out could be disasterous. Of course facing an unholstered firearm with a blade could equally be disastrous.

As to legal defensibility of utilizing a knife for self defense? Well as long as you follow the law in your area and are reasonable in your defense then you have a chance. Go beyond reasonable and well you may be in a lot of trouble.

[DragonMind]

Very good points, and I was wondering if Barry would chime in.

Been really busy with school and getting ready to launch a new business.

As for Tullers Drill, the phrase 'don't bring a knife to a gun fight' gets my dander up ever time. A holstered gun against an assailant with a drawn knife at 21' or less is often going to result in a cut-up pistolero. The distance can be closed very quickly. But an assailant is not going to have a holstered gun. It's already pointed at you. It takes me less than half a second to pull the trigger of any of my guns. Could a person disarm me, control the weapon, or step offline and inflict crippling damage before they're riddled with bullets? Possibly, but at assault ranges, you don't really have to 'aim' a gun. If you have to 'aim' at a man-size target a yard away you are definately well beyond the age or ability where you should be attempting to rob people. I guess this is where Cooper's system is a necessity - having to draw and open a knife with a gun pointed at you seems a pretty risky proposition indeed even when grabbed with an off-hand.

Average reaction time to a complex stimulus is roughly 3/4 of a second. The problem is that action time to cover that yard is much less than that. It comes down to who moves first. I used to do a demo of this concept by having someone put a gun to my head and tell them to pull the trigger as soon as I move. I've never been shot, even by highly trained LEOs. Not bragging - any of you could do the same thing, it's just a case of simple physiology. AirSofts make this a very easy proposition to test.

Not to mention if I let an armed assailant get that close to me without taking preemptive steps, I've failed my Cooper test.

As there are lots of variables at play here, let's settle on a particular set to keep us from arguing apples and oranges. I'm assuming that my life is in imminent danger (eliminating simple robbery where I just hand over my wallet) and that puts me in the realm of lethal force. If I'm not in lethal force situation, then I have no right to use that blade. Period. Of course, no right is not the same thing as being unprepared.

I think a knife in the eyes of a jury is going to be (in many cases) the same as having a pistol with 'Widowmaker' etched across the slide or grips that feature carved skulls or something; I don't think the empty-handed 'karate killer' prosecution strategy would carry the same weight in a society that expells elementary school students for bringing a butter knife to school with which to make a sandwich.

I once read a study that showed people are more intimidated by a knife than a gun (really wish I could find it again). I think it is a visceral gut thing. A gun MAY kill you but a knife IS going to hurt you. That's why I said the prosecutor will use it against you. As for the empty hand vs knife, I don't think it makes much difference. You're being portrayed as the bad guy. All the jury has to be convinced of is it was your fault, and I could make a pretty convincing argument to Joe Lunchbucket in either case. In my defense I would ask how many of the jurors use a knife at home, at work, etc. How many have one they carry all the time. See, just carrying it is not the same as training year after year to be a Human Killing Machine Karrotty Killer... see my point?

As for the dumb things bureaucrats do to cover their behinds and avoid using any lick of sense rather than idiotic One-Size-Fits-All-Zero_tolerance policies, I pray that a jury of my peers would be smarter than that. Of course, I wouldn't want a jury trial in the first place.

Most pocketknives that would be considered 'tools' by the average person are of the stockman, barlow, and Swiss Army variety. The more tactical features you add the less it appears to be like something Tom Sawyer would have carried and more like a deadly weapon - to include thumb studs, locks, synthetic handle scales, and unusual blade designs. There was a fellow many years ago prosecuted in Va. under their 'switchblade' laws for having a Buck model 110 in his car. The definition of 'switchblade' was so vague that this venerable old knife fit, because the bolsters were so loose it could be flicked open and locked.

As the late great George Carlin once said, consider how stupid the average person is and then remember that half of them are dumber than that.

I fully agree that the Terminator 3000 with Skull Crusher Butt Cap and Integrated Brass Knuckle Spikes is not going to look good in court (AKA People's Exhibit A). The preponderance of thumb studs or aids - ala Spyderco -, and scales other than deer horn shouldn't be much of an issue any longer. They're just too common these days.

[David Craik]

Been really busy with school and getting ready to launch a new business.

I wish you the best of luck, Barry!

Average reaction time to a complex stimulus is roughly 3/4 of a second. The problem is that action time to cover that yard is much less than that.

Hmm, I don't think this RT is correct, at least for an individual moving at you which is not particularly complex. For college age individuals, mean reaction time to a visual stimulus is .19 of a second.(1) Usain Bolt, current Olympic record holder of the 100m dash covers a yard (average over 109 yards) in an astonishing .088.

Of course, it takes time to reach peak speed from a dead stop, so even the incredible Bolt's first yard is going to be slower than his twentieth. Using this chart, I subtracted his reaction time(not a factor for our scenario, though as an aside was only .16 to an aural stimulus, interesting as sound is way slower than light) from his 0-10m time, divided by 10 to get an average, and converted for yards. Unless my math is off somewhere I get that Bolt covered each yard of his first 10 in around .183. Starting to get hairy now..

When one factors in street clothes and starting from a regular standing position, I begin to seriously doubt that even 'the fastest man on earth' could cover a yard in .19 seconds straight towards a muzzle without being plugged by an assailant that is already in condition red and likely jittery as hell. We're now getting into margins so tiny that even a pebble on the sidewalk, a few inches, weight of trigger pull, or muzzle velocity could be a factor. And he's a multiple gold medalist with freakish speed..I doubt any martial artist anywhere is even in the same league. They will be shot.

I'm assuming that my life is in imminent danger (eliminating simple robbery where I just hand over my wallet) and that puts me in the realm of lethal force.

Ruling out robberies and situations where the assailant is too far away or there are obstacles between you(a la Luby's or a school shooting), we aren't really left with a whole lot that is very likely that won't wind up being a a 'knife fight' of sorts...however one-sided. Despite the objections of many knife folks that 'knife fighting' and 'self defense with a knife' are two different animals, it seems to me that in most realistic situations that are both doable and have a hope of being legally defensible they are likely to play out as one and the same. Not that there's anything wrong with that, really.

I used to do a demo of this concept by having someone put a gun to my head and tell them to pull the trigger as soon as I move. I've never been shot, even by highly trained LEOs. Not bragging - any of you could do the same thing, it's just a case of simple physiology. AirSofts make this a very easy proposition to test.

I'm going to have to try this, sounds interesting. What was the protocol? Do you step off-line only (or only move the head), cut with a rubber knife or drone, or seize the weapon? Do they only get one shot?

At these short distances - gun to the head range, the knife guy definately has an advantage because he doesn't have to cover distance with his body and is within reach of the assailant. His cuts can cover swaths of area while a bullet only a tiny point. Though it's a gamble, I agree that a gunman likely won't be able to react in time. Even Musashi noted that when ranks close a gunman is at a severe disadvantage - though of course in his time we are pitting a three-foot razor blade against an arquebus.

I once read a study that showed people are more intimidated by a knife than a gun (really wish I could find it again).

I've read the same thing. I think that since relatively few people have been shot, they have nothing to relate it to. On an intellectual level they know it is dangerous but on a gut level it's a nebulous concept. Most people have been cut however, and can relate to the damage and trauma involved. Perhaps this same psychology plays into the perception of a jury as well.

In my defense I would ask how many of the jurors use a knife at home, at work, etc. How many have one they carry all the time. See, just carrying it is not the same as training year after year to be a Human Killing Machine Karrotty Killer... see my point?

I've found that relatively few people carry knives around on a daily basis nowadays, and many would find it a little odd that you have one out on the street - though it doesn't stop them from borrowing mine all the time and being the "go-to guy" if they need one. I really wonder if many on a jury could relate. Even professional framers who need one all the time ask to borrow mine out in the field to sharpen pencils and whatnot - it's mind boggling. It's not really common for me to come across someone who has so much as a penknife on their person these days unless they're fishing, camping, or hunting.

When I was a young'un every boy carried a pocketknife, even at school, now you hardly see it even here in the deep South. Being caught with even a little penknife is acted upon as if the kid brought a cannister of nerve gas to school or something. I had a poolee nearly suspended because the resource officer spied a hunting knife in the back of his truck in the parking lot - while he was in class at the time hundreds of yards away. He'd gone deer hunting over the weekend and forgot it was back there. I had a talk with the principal since his parents didn't seem to give a crap and luckily he was let off the hook. Sad as it is, we should remember that the same idiots that Carlin talked about are going to be the ones judging you, the same ones that resulted in Black Talons being viewed as 'cop-killer' bullets capable of piercing body armor (though Winchester's marketing certainly didn't help) and the same ones that are going to be like "You're a data architect, why are you walking around the streets carrying a knife?"

Massad Ayoob himself, who has testified in many cases as an expert witness, said years ago that you'd probably be better off using a gun - even though a pistol has no other use on the street than putting holes in people. Regular folk - even those who carry a pocket knife themselves for utilitarian purposes - view carried knives as rather 'thuggish' and brutal if used on another human being. A pistol seems to be viewed as a less bloody-minded, more disconnected means of self defense...more palatible and understandable to the average joe. Looking to engage an assailant with a knife appears to be more a contest of skill than drawing a pistol out of fear because the latter is a less physical means of dealing with a threat. I wonder if at a subconscious level they think that you must be looking to cut somebody up since you have knowingly 'disadvantaged' yourself by choosing a weapon where you must physically slice someone up instead of a gun - perceived to be a superior and more 'passive' weapon where you don't have to fight or be covered in blood spatter.

Though Karotty is a physical means, one is not armed - hands and feet are all you had so I think it will be viewed a bit more charitably. You didn't strap on a dogi with heavily embroidered obi looking to whoop somebody's arse. Hopefully.

For a real laugh go to a board frequented by folks in the UK and during a discussion mention that you carry a knife. They react as if you're Jack the Ripper or a chav, it's funny coming from a country that crafted some of the world's finest knives - the likes of Rogers and Sons and IXL. Of course, they freak out about guns too, which also were of the finest quality. A damn shame coming from the land of Webley and Sheffield.


(1) Galton, 1899; Fieandt et al., 1956; Welford, 1980; Brebner and Welford, 1980 - http://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/1...m#Mean%20Times

[giles]

For a real laugh go to a board frequented by folks in the UK and during a discussion mention that you carry a knife. They react as if you're Jack the Ripper or a chav.

We've got a problem with public perception of knives here, and some really silly laws being passed as a consequence, but it's not all like that. have a look at http://www.britishblades.com/home/index.php for a forum featuring a lot of UK knife makers and some reasonably sane discussion be people who carry shiny sharp things on a daily basis.

[Cliff Hargrave]

As far as the Tullers drill, we have cut the 21' rule down tremendously with proper training, perception, and off line steps while drawing. It really comes down to are you a highly trained FMA guy like Barry against an untrained person with a gun, versus a trained pistol fighter against an untrained person with a knife.

If I were against a person with a gun, I would draw my gun to engage rather than my knife. Against someone with a knife, I would still go for the gun first. Lots of variables involved in any violent situation. If you are having to react in either situation, you have failed the color code steps and having to play catch up.

I have seen knives used for self defense come out both ways, with the person being justified and with them unfairly prosecuted. I have seen the same things with just about any use of force. Clean living plays a better role at how you come out at the end than anything else. If you are frequenting the local strip joint, drug hang out, or biker bar, and use a knife for self defense, you will probably be more scrutinized than if you were leaving the grocery store and accosted in the parking lot. It may not be fair, but that is just the way it is.