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

[MasterPain]

For that matter, what is a cop? He is a citizen who has taken it upon himself, as a job, to serve and protect the safety of his fellow citizens. This is a respectable job, but should any other person with the means to protect his neighbors refuse to do so because it is not their job? If it is in my power to restrain a dangerous individual until the authorities show up, isn't it my duty as a citizen to do so?

[Liver Punch]

I'm not hurling myself toward anything. I'm standing at a safe distance with a weapon pointed toward a threat shouting instructions to them to stay in a non-threatening position. I'm not attacking them - I've already defended myself, I'm keeping them neutralized.

Of course, I could take the word of someone who's obviously under the influence of alcohol and in a state where they are prepared to hurt or kill another human being. Why wouldn't I assume that they're a threat to themselves or others? I'm not taking anything this person says as the truth.

Why did I defend myself to start with? Shouldn't the people with badges take care of that? Why do I have a 1911 on my person? It's not a hunting gun..its purpose is defense. That's the job of the police. In fact, I'm doing the police's job if I take any sort of action in this situation. I should probably throw away my first aid kit and fire extinguisher because that's EMS and the Fire Fighter's job.

As a citizen with a concealed carry permit, my state has deemed it legal for me to carry and use a firearm in the defense of myself and others. So, once I've created space, and given myself enough time to draw my weapon, the number of things that can happen decrease substantially.

The payoff is that I don't run inside and loose control of a situation that had seconds earlier been much less dangerous. If you want to run inside and watch an armed and dangerous person roam your neighborhood, be my guest. My obligation is a moral one - I don't want my neighbors and random passer-by's to be stabbed.

Just because we CAN stand by and let bad things happen doesn't make a good idea.

[Groinstrike]

Snarkyness aside, i agree with Liverpunch. That being said i do not condone every joe blow who owns a gun to be riding around like Charles Bronson being a vigilante.

Hurling yourself needlessly into a dangerous situation is dumb, i think we can all agree on that, but it you have the means and the ability to control a situation and keep it from escelating to something worse, whether that means using a firearm or just using words i agree that we as martial artists and fellow human beings have a moral obligation to do so.

Evil is created with good men are indifferent.

[bushido_man96]

For that matter, what is a cop? He is a citizen who has taken it upon himself, as a job, to serve and protect the safety of his fellow citizens. This is a respectable job, but should any other person with the means to protect his neighbors refuse to do so because it is not their job? If it is in my power to restrain a dangerous individual until the authorities show up, isn't it my duty as a citizen to do so?

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is your duty. But, I do think that to many of us, having the training we do, we may feel more compelled to react in such a way. And this is an admirable quality to have. I've seen those videos of a bus full of people who watch another person get stomped. I think to myself, "what is the deal here, people?" Talk about feeling alone in a crowd. I don't know if I could live with myself if I watched someone getting stomped like that.

[bushido_man96]

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.

In most states, there is no "duty to retreat" clause when it comes to self-defense. Just because you can turn and run, doesn't mean that you are required to. In some cases, it could be a bad idea. In a more familiar area, it might be ok.

As far as your scenario goes, pushing them away, and hopefully to the ground forcefully enough to cause injury, would be the way to start. From there, things can happen really fast. You could turn and bolt for your door, or begin a strategic retreat, and watch their actions. Is she getting back up, redoubling her efforts to attack? Did she drop the knife? Is she turning and running away? All these questions lead to either an escalation in force, de-escalation, or perhaps staying with the same level you are at.

If she drops the knife, this can change things. If she leaves it and trys to escape, then gunning her down might be a bad option for us. But, with this in mind, we know two things; 1, she tried to due great bodily harm/intended death to one person already, and 2, she had one weapon we could see. She may have another, or may go retrieve another. Do we want to face this scenario again?

If she attempts to regain the knife, then at that point, shooting may be the best option. The fact that she is a female, and likely smaller in stature then the person being attacked, matters little when she is armed thus. An idiot can kill someone with a knife; you don't have to be knife fighter to do the job.

If she loses the knife, drawing the gun and giving orders not to move might be the best response at this point. Likewise, tackling, pummelling, and controlling her while help arrives might be wise, as well. She is less likely to die this way, and will be arrested and dealt with from there.

Hopefully, while all this is going on, we have our head about us enough to give commands; "LEAVE ME ALONE!" "DROP THE KNIFE!" "STAY DOWN!" "DON'T MOVE!" Things of this nature will help draw attention to your perdicament, and hopefully more backup soon, along with demonstrating your intentions during the confrontation.

There are so many ways a situation like this could go. Its easy to Monday morning QB these scenarios, especially from the outside looking in, and when it isn't numero uno it has actually happened to.

[RazeMMA]

An answer I gave was in response to a group question regarding when deadly force is a proper response to any given situation...

My response was basically that you shouldn't want to use it under any circumstances. I further clarified my point by saying that you shouldn't be looking for excuses to seriously hurt anyone.

I understand and agree with what you are saying here, but the rest of your post left me a little unsure. I don't think that asking this question necessarily implies that one is going out looking for fights to see what he can get away with. Bruce Lee did this, and while it may have made him more confident in himself, his early years say little of his respect for life (thankfully that changed as he got older and matured in the arts).

I for one do not go out looking for trouble, but the sad state of affairs in my hometown sometimes brings such circumstances to your front door. My basic philosophy is this...I now practice the MA's for self-defense purposes, and if a person is approaching a combative situation with me, and it is feasible and an intelligent thing to do, I will try to avoid the confrontation.

However, if it is not the intelligent thing to do, or if it is not avoidable, then I will do whatever is necessary to defend myself and my family. Especially if someone breaks into my house threatening their safety...there is no wondering about how much force needs to be used.

[dragonwarrior_keltyr]

For me, I'm under five feet and 110 pounds. I'm small and "vulnerable." So for me, I think doing anything I need to get away is what I'd do. I'm an easy target, and I can be overpowered. It's an unfortunate fact of being small - someone can out-muscle me. Overall, I think that size plays a factor. If a 300lb guy attacks me, I would be more likely to use as much force as possible because of the size difference. Whereas, someone who is more my height, I wouldn't see the need to use as much force because they aren't as physically imposing. Perhaps, that isn't a good attitude, but that's just how I react.

[JusticeZero]

No, it sounds good to me..

The attitude that worries me is when these questions come up and people immediately plan to go on the attack, and start thinking only of how much damage they can do instead of how to, you know, protect and defend themself.

[madtanker]

Good question. And I think I've been part of multiple of tests where similar questions were asked. Don't you hate the sound of your own voice?

Anyway, I can see where you're coming from and it's an area that need complete discussion within any school that even looks in the direction of combative application of the arts for self defense.

I'm big these days on teaching the use of of force needed. Period. No as little or as much as you can, just what's needed. It's the safest in terms of teaching people to not UNDER respond (a major problem) and not getting people so worked up that they move from self defense to aggravated battery (which is what I think I was geared towards during some of my days of training- thanks USBBA).

This teaches a fluid mindset in regard to use of force. This should go hand in hand with fluid mindset as far as tactical application of tools. Your response has to go up and down the scale as your bad guy attacks and desists. So, if he throws a punch and you evade and counter with a strike, your good. Then you launch a double leg to control him. So far so good. If he puts his hands in submission, you need to not strike him from your new, super- cool dominate position. If however, he retrieves a knife from his waistband, you'd best be ready to drive your tactics up to meet the force. So maybe you check the draw and up your bludgeoning and clubbery to his head (or check his draw and present your firearm to escalate- whatever you've got handy).

If at this point (assuming you haven't deployed a .45 round in a contact shot) let's say he has a bit of your bullying and decides to stop trying to get his knife arm free. He drops the knife and tosses it aside cries uncontrollably. Now you need to adjust down, stop beating him about the head and neck (or re-engage the safety on your pistol) and start making use of your joint position training to control him in a fetal position until the cops get there. Maybe provide some career counseling on why attacking random people on the street is a bad idea (I'm not above amusing yourself a little here on a cerebral level).

This sliding application really get to the heart of the issue and trains people not to under or over respond without getting caught up in some artificial "use of force continuum" (a system used in law enforcement that we created ourselves to be confusing and unnecessary. State and federal law says noting about the concept nor has any use of force rulings in case law ever).

OUTSTANDING... beating about the face and neck...

The rule I have been taught in LEO training was that, you use (assuming non stopping force) 1 level above the force used against you, or to quote Sean Connery, 'if he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the ($&%&@) morgue... that's the Chicago way'...

Not really... You DO have to end the fight as soon as an attacker disengages. You can hold for law enforcement (assuming you are trying to effect a citizen's arrest, or something similar), you can defend, block, or end the fight with a punch, but you can NEVER have been the aggressor in a deadly force situation. You have to remember, a jury of 12 people will have to review whether they (usually with no training of their own) would have roundhoused this guy to the head, or whether the jury (of old cat-ladies and 'gentlemen') would have dropped their medication and social security checks and run...

Remember, balance is key, if you are on the defensive, then defend, but never attack.

And I can say this from personal experience, if you EVER go into court and state, under oath that you attacked for any reason, YOU WILL LOSE...

The state of mind is defense... (I was in a situation where I was doing security enforcement... a man pulled a pole on me, and I a gun on him... I stated incorrectly, that the man took a defensive pose instead of saying what I wanted to say, OFFENSIVE, and that word alone got this man off of 3-5 for assault with a deadly weapon). It is in the testimony as well as the mindset!! You are NEVER an attacker in a self-defesnse situation!!