Confrontation

[Purplehood]

If he pulls a knife inside of 10 yards from me, he won't have much of a chance to drop it. Depending on his demeanor and HIS immediacy to retreat or drop it, once I draw, he better be very deliberate or the cops will be removing the knife from his cold stiff fingers. Not that I'm a cowboy, but I've been around too many LEO's who have drilled it into me that a knife is a serious threat within that distance.

Actually if he pulls a knife within 10 yards of you, having a concealed weapon may not do you any good unless it is already drawn.

That means if you do decide to draw, you probably don't have time to wait and see if he will drop the knife and run away. If he's an immediate threat, you need to shoot immediately and keep shooting until you're sure you stopped the threat.

There is a good probability that if I have drawn and see a knife, rounds are already going down-range.

[Tamie]

[duddini]

Read this:

http://www.usadojo.com/articles/21-feet.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow, this is really good info. I had zero clue. 10 yards (30') sounded like plenty of buffer.......I better start practicing and thinking a bit differently.

Thanks alot for this link. Is this common knowledge ? The instructor in my CHL class made no mention of something like this, but several people on this forum seem to be aware of it. Thanks to you, now I'm aware....

Thanks again.

[LikesShinyThings]

I've seen a few examples floating around, however, my personal use of deadly force ROE revolves around 3 criteria I believe to be in accordance with the law, and common sense, all of which must be met before I would use deadly force: 1)intent 2)ability 3)immediacy.

The "scenario" or "circumstances" do NOT matter to me, simply because the criteria is either met, or it isn't. Period. So be it one or more individuals, with or without weapons, youths, a gang of homicidal senior citizens, escaped monkeys, or whatever, either the criteria is met, or it is not. If the criteria is met, I will use deadly force to stop the threat, and if not, I won't.

Intent displayed to cause unlawful death or serious bodily injury?
- Verbal threats, hostile physical actions, predatory behaviors.
Ability to carry out the intent?
-Size/strength, numbers, use of tools / weapons
Immediacy
-Do I need to use deadly force NOW to stop the threat?
-Is it too late to escape, avoid, use less than lethal force, or use a barrier to stop the threat?

If the answer to all of the above is yes, then I feel confident in being able to justify the use of deadly force to stop a threat, regardless of scenario.

From what I have read, it seems that the biggest problem citizens face involving the use of deadly force revolves around the "immediacy" criteria. Many citizens either use deadly force too soon, or too late, when there is no immediate need. Or they fail to STOP using deadly force after a threat has been stopped. Intent and ability alone won't justify the use of deadly force, there must also be an immediate need, and without that immediacy, there is no justification.

Wow. That is a beautiful, concise way to boil it all down. It really truly does simplify the question a lot, at least for me. Thank you for that.

[apostate]

Is this common knowledge ? The instructor in my CHL class made no mention of something like this, but several people on this forum seem to be aware of it.

Dennis Tueller wrote his article ("How Close is Too Close") more than 25 years ago. I think the concept is well known in the firearms training community, but I wouldn't expect the average juror to have heard of it.

[tommyg]

Get away from the threat A BG who goes around pulling knives on people

probably wont report an incident where he was run off with a gun

[bayouhazard]

My apologies if I'm posting in the wrong forum.

I was just thinking about a "what if" scenario. If I'm confronted by say, a guy with a knife and I pull to defend myself, and he then drops the knife. He starts to run away when I try to call 911, do I just let him go to rob someone else another day ?

Probably dumb, but I find myself trying to think about how I should react in different circumstances. I know reality is a whole other ball game, but still....

Thanks for any input.

If you give him the opportunity to drop the weapon and flee, you have to respond appropriately if he does so.

[speedsix]

I've seen a few examples floating around, however, my personal use of deadly force ROE revolves around 3 criteria I believe to be in accordance with the law, and common sense, all of which must be met before I would use deadly force: 1)intent 2)ability 3)immediacy.

The "scenario" or "circumstances" do NOT matter to me, simply because the criteria is either met, or it isn't. Period. So be it one or more individuals, with or without weapons, youths, a gang of homicidal senior citizens, escaped monkeys, or whatever, either the criteria is met, or it is not. If the criteria is met, I will use deadly force to stop the threat, and if not, I won't.

Intent displayed to cause unlawful death or serious bodily injury?
- Verbal threats, hostile physical actions, predatory behaviors.
Ability to carry out the intent?
-Size/strength, numbers, use of tools / weapons
Immediacy
-Do I need to use deadly force NOW to stop the threat?
-Is it too late to escape, avoid, use less than lethal force, or use a barrier to stop the threat?

If the answer to all of the above is yes, then I feel confident in being able to justify the use of deadly force to stop a threat, regardless of scenario.

From what I have read, it seems that the biggest problem citizens face involving the use of deadly force revolves around the "immediacy" criteria. Many citizens either use deadly force too soon, or too late, when there is no immediate need. Or they fail to STOP using deadly force after a threat has been stopped. Intent and ability alone won't justify the use of deadly force, there must also be an immediate need, and without that immediacy, there is no justification.

...one point of disagreement..."Is it too late to escape..." doesn't enter into the mix legally...we have, minding our own business where we have the right to be and not doing anything criminal ourselves...NO DUTY to retreat from the threat...escape doesn't stop evil...

[Jumping Frog]

I've seen a few examples floating around, however, my personal use of deadly force ROE revolves around 3 criteria I believe to be in accordance with the law, and common sense, all of which must be met before I would use deadly force: 1)intent 2)ability 3)immediacy.

I was taught a slightly different variation on the similar theme:

Components of Jeopardy: Opportunity; Means; Intent. If all three components are present as evidenced by one's opponent, then one is in a state of jeopardy. Simply put:

1.) Opportunity is defined as the attacker being in proximity to the victim.

2.) Means is the attacker has the physical ability to inflict serious harm or death upon the victim.

3.) Intent is evidenced by the attacker's language, both by verbal and body language, from the attacker, directed towards the victim.

If all three components are present, in some degree or form, then one is in a state of jeopardy. When a state of jeopardy exists, then one is permitted to utilize a reasonable degree of force, to protect oneself, or a third party (if one so decides).

[OldCannon]

... He starts to run away when I try to call 911, do I just let him go to rob someone else another day ?

So you're saying you know FOR A FACT he will rob somebody else?

[Purplehood]

... He starts to run away when I try to call 911, do I just let him go to rob someone else another day ?

So you're saying you know FOR A FACT he will rob somebody else?

If certain folks get reelected, he may have to.

[johnson0317]

Wish that was not so darn funny.