Is "how much force to use" the wrong question?

[JusticeZero]

Okay, how about this piece of elaboration.

You walk out of a house at night, in a residential neighborhood.

You know that all the doors, save for the front, are locked and barred. You left the front door unlocked and slightly ajar, as you only stepped out to check the mail.

For whatever reason, you have a handgun in a chest holster under your windbreaker, which is closed but not fastened. (If a gun nut must ask for details, we will claim it is a .45ACP M1911, but I doubt it really matters for practical purposes.)

On your way back, from behind a parked car, someone steps out, steps into range more rapidly than you can react (not having seen, expected them there, or identified them as a threat until it was too late) and pushes you against a relatively impassable fence with a hedge growing against it. She produces a large cooking knife, held in the manner that one might use to cut food, and holds it to your neck. At this range, you can identify her as an individual that you had encountered earlier, who you saw distinct signs of being mentally unstable and narcissistic with a lack of ability to think of future consequences. You had encountered her at work, where she got upset at something strange, and security removed her.

She tells you that she is going to kill you, because some bizarre consequence that could presumably be linked in some strange way to her getting thrown out had ruined her life and made it worthless. Her breath smells like alcohol. You can see that she is psyching herself up into a more adrenalized state, and that the grip on the knife is changing in a way that appears that they are preparing to cut.

A siren goes past, but passes not going to you, and she looks away, moving the knife off line with you.

She now has the back side of the blade facing you, held in her right hand; her right arm is over her chest and her head and attention is focused on looking to her left to identify the noise.

At this point you note the following:

She is somewhat unbalanced, tipsy and wearing heels for crying out loud, and standing on the edge of the sidewalk, with her feet perpendicular to you; she would have no way to avoid being pushed backward.

Behind her is a puddle of water, which you know by familiarity has a treacherous and deep pothole at the bottom of it, which has caused more than a couple of people to trip and fall into before.

Your right hand is in a fence position; by shifting your weight, you could shove her backward, causing her to fall backward into the puddle.

Your right hand is also perfectly positioned to draw your handgun, though if you push them, it obviously won't be quite so well placed anymore.

You are six steps away from the front door to the otherwise empty house, which is slightly ajar. The door will latch if pulled closed from the inside; it also has a deadbolt.

There is a telephone inside. For that matter, you have a cell phone.

What's the response?

As noted, it seems as though a troublingly large number of people's first reaction would be to draw the pistol. Certainly a valid response, but is it the best?

[MasterPain]

Weapon deployment requires space. It would be best to push her off and retreat through the door as she gets up. Lock the door and call 911. If she breaks through the door, you'd better be prepared to shoot if she won't respond to verbal commands.

[Groinstrike]

Agreed, studies have shown that a person needs at least 21 feet to draw a pistol against a rushing attacker with knife. Any thing closer than this and even if you draw your weapon and hit your target this victory will most likely be pyrric.

If someone is on you that quickly you better be prepared to expel your attacker and get to your weapon or get away.

Edit: As far as estimating how i would respond in that specific situation, to me it doesn't matter that the assailant is female, she has a knife therefore in my mind all bets are off. I will be responding with brutal crushing force until the attacker is subdued.

[sensei8]

What I teach my students about the amount of force to use in a survival situation (real fight, not tournament) is basically what the law states, and that is that you should use the amount of force necessary to insure your survival and safety, and no more than that.

However, what I also teach my students is that if you are faced with a situation, such as a home intrusion where your life, or someone else's, is in danger and your truly feel that you could be killed, then the use of deadly force may be needed to keep yourself, or someone else, from dying.

Over the 30+ years I've been doing the arts, I've often thought about what I would do if someone broke into my home and held my family and I at gunpoint with the possibility of my own, or a member of my family, being killed. I think (nobody really knows for sure until it happens) that I would not hesitate to do everything in my power, whether it is using the martial arts, a knife or a gun, to kill the home invader.

Basically, I feel I would, and could, do anytthing I had to do to keep myself and my family safe.

Solid post!!

[JusticeZero]

Right, I know. But the issue is that it seems like a lot of discussions pop up with this idea of "Well, she had a knife, therefore I get to use lethal force, and that's what my gun is for". Well really?

[tallgeese]

To me, yes.

It's not worth me taking the off chance of getting cut, possibly badly enough to get killed, when I have a perfectly good and legal option of responding with deadly force from a distance that does not require that possibility of death or great bodily harm.

This answer is different for everyone and everyone's threshold and acceptance of risk for the benefit of the attacking individual is different based on a whole host of acceptable reasons.

It's a HIGHLY individualized question. All you can really do is find the right answer for you that is legally acceptable.

[JusticeZero]

Right. That said, the situation contains a lockable door less than 12 feet away for a reason. You have shoes. She has heels. She's stumbling at the edge of a pool of water.

And yet, when I pose the situation, I note that more of the responses contain some variation of the words "I need to fight". than not.

I will be responding with brutal crushing force until the attacker is subdued.

I have a perfectly good and legal option of responding with deadly force from a distance that does not require that possibility of death or great bodily harm.

push her off and retreat through the door as she gets up. Lock the door and call 911.

That's two out of three.

[Liver Punch]

Controlling the knife would be step number one. After that, I'd want to control it and remove it if possible. The next best option would be to push her and the weapon as far away as possible, knocking her down if possible. If the knife is secure, I'd control her physically and yell my lungs raw for help to arrive. If the knife isn't secure, I'd draw my pistol, put myself between her and the door, and start negotiating at gunpoint (while making a 911 call). If I'm secure, and my home is secure, I've got to make sure she isn't a harm to anyone else.

In short, my number one concern is controlling this person. This is to a)protect my family, b) to protect myself, and c) to protect the general public. If I'm at all capable, I have to protect everyone from this threat - I think it's my responsibility.

[JusticeZero]

I have to protect everyone from this threat - I think it's my responsibility.

Is it? Do you have a badge? Why is it your responsibility to hurl yourself toward danger that is directed somewhat ineptly at you when there's a door ten feet away?

Seriously. Why is it your responsibility to attack a knife wielding threat who has already stated that their only target is you? Why can't you let the people with badges take care of this one? It just seems like fighting adds more chances for things to go wrong, with very little payoff, in a fair number of situations. This is the point that I think is important here. Just because we CAN bust out an action movie on an obvious threat doesn't make it spontaneously become a good idea by force of will if it wasn't already a good course of action.

[MasterPain]

I have to protect everyone from this threat - I think it's my responsibility.

Is it? Do you have a badge? Why is it your responsibility to hurl yourself toward danger that is directed somewhat ineptly at you when there's a door ten feet away?

Seriously. Why is it your responsibility to attack a knife wielding threat who has already stated that their only target is you? Why can't you let the people with badges take care of this one? It just seems like fighting adds more chances for things to go wrong, with very little payoff, in a fair number of situations. This is the point that I think is important here. Just because we CAN bust out an action movie on an obvious threat doesn't make it spontaneously become a good idea by force of will if it wasn't already a good course of action.

I don't have that much faith in my doors. Or local police.