Distance and Knife Attacks

[KravPirate]

Looks to be made back in the late 80's and reminds me of the reaction time study by STG.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9igSoJHEdUo

[Chuck Haggard]

It was, old training film 'Surviving Edged Weapons'. Still has some good info. That is a video that could really use being redone.

[walkin' trails]

It became a controversy in the early 90s when I lived in San Diego because there were a number of police shootings that involved threats from edged weapons. The Hollywood-trained crowd believed the police should have been using other means to disarm problem children with knives. The video was allegedly pulled from the training curriculum. Ernest Emerson had a great article on knife attacks in an early issue of "American Cop," which focused on the close quarters attacks well inside of the 21-foot rule. He pointed out aattacks on police when a concealed blade was brought into play during grappling. The officers never saw a knife until they felt they'd been cut or stabbed.

[Chuck Haggard]

A number of officers were interviewed for that film. Many of them report never seeing the knife or not seeing it until they were stabbed/cut.

[Dagga Boy]

Two things: We found in some very intensive and well supervised FOF/situational training that in every case in close quarters, officers never realized that they had a blade deployed against them, or if they day, it was WAY too late (sort of shot down the whole "If somebody pulls a knife I'll just shoot them"-not). This was consistent with what we found with officers who were attacked by edged weapons in the field as well. It is why I taught a fairly singular response to attack that was in-line with what Tarani, Emerson, etc. are teaching. I found in the field that almost every suspect we contacted while working on bicycles (where they never saw the cops coming) was carrying some type of edged or improvised weapon. You will not be able to discern if the "Thing" being used is a knife, sharpened screwdriver, a crescent wrench with the end open, or a ball peen hammer, or a fist load.

We did a ton of work on this stuff at ITTS with Scott Reitz. Scott does an exceptional job in court cases as an expert in many of these cases. Scott has several knife attack target systems, and drills. What they found was the "21" foot rule also requires perfection. A perfect identification of the attack, perfect draw stroke, perfect hits and a very clean response. This is rarely possible in the field and well over 30 feet is far more realistic and the ability to move off line is critical, and it is especially important to try to put a barrier between you and the assailant.

[TCinVA]

A number of officers were interviewed for that film. Many of them report never seeing the knife or not seeing it until they were stabbed/cut.

I've looked up as much dashcam/stop-n-rob/nightclub security cam footage as I can and that seems to be the trend so far. People always picture somebody standing 21 feet away with a machete raised over their head charging you when "knife attack" gets mentioned.

None of the videos I've seen have really worked like that apart from dashcam video of crazy people charging cops who were trying to deescalate the situation and avoid using lethal force.

Based on my brief survey of video, it seems like knife attacks generally happen inside punching range. The assault often comes "out of the blue" to the victim and so they're way behind in the OODA loop anyway. The knowledge that they just got stabbed tends to take a couple of seconds to dawn on them...and by that time more wounds have probably been dealt.

[ford.304]

I've looked up as much dashcam/stop-n-rob/nightclub security cam footage as I can and that seems to be the trend so far. People always picture somebody standing 21 feet away with a machete raised over their head charging you when "knife attack" gets mentioned.

None of the videos I've seen have really worked like that apart from dashcam video of crazy people charging cops who were trying to deescalate the situation and avoid using lethal force.

Based on my brief survey of video, it seems like knife attacks generally happen inside punching range. The assault often comes "out of the blue" to the victim and so they're way behind in the OODA loop anyway. The knowledge that they just got stabbed tends to take a couple of seconds to dawn on them...and by that time more wounds have probably been dealt.

So what is the useful training response other than "keep your kittening distance"? Default defensive stance so your arms get shredded instead of your gut while you try to figure out what is going on?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

So what is the useful training response other than "keep your kittening distance"? Default defensive stance so your arms get shredded instead of your gut while you try to figure out what is going on?

Shivworks edged weapon overview

[TCinVA]

So what is the useful training response other than "keep your kittening distance"? Default defensive stance so your arms get shredded instead of your gut while you try to figure out what is going on?

Well generally I would advise MUC'ing and maintaining distance from others as much as possible. Seems like a lot of stabbings happen outside of nightclubs, so maybe avoid getting into it with people in the club and then taking it "outside". Etc.

SouthNarc's ECQC presents some good techniques for controlling a weapon in a KUT.

...but then again, a significant part of ECQC is learning techniques to keep your kittening distance from people who might want to hurt you, so...;)

[Chuck Haggard]

Ref sneak attacks with knives; This has happened as long as people have been people.

Why does one think the term "cloak and dagger" came to be so well known?

Palming a shank is something every felon who has been in prison knows about.

[SouthNarc]

One of the reasons I prefer adapting Greco-Roman wrestling to the weapons based environment is because it teaches hand fighting and if a confrontation does go to an entanglement, then the problem is managed with a high degree of limb control. More limb control, less damage from knives.

Outside of contact range there's a no man's land where you're to close to draw a weapon and a "pick-up" is required to get you to an angle of escape or into an attachment for better control. ALL pick-ups are dicey but probably the better one is a split X. Marc Denny calls this the "Dog-Catcher" which is a ghey name but is essentially the same technique. You'll see it in numerous FMAs including Illustrisimo, Inosanto/Lacosta, Lameco, Pekiti, Doce Pares, and Serrada.

[JHC]

One of the reasons I prefer adapting Greco-Roman wrestling to the weapons based environment is because it teaches hand fighting and if a confrontation does go to an entanglement, then the problem is managed with a high degree of limb control. More limb control, less damage from knives.

Outside of contact range there's a no man's land where you're to close to draw a weapon and a "pick-up" is required to get you to an angle of escape or into an attachment for better control. ALL pick-ups are dicey but probably the better one is a split X. Marc Denny calls this the "Dog-Catcher" which is a ghey name but is essentially the same technique. You'll see it in numerous FMAs including Illustrisimo, Inosanto/Lacosta, Lameco, Pekiti, Doce Pares, and Serrada.

Do you think Peyton Quinn's take on it had merit? [getting both hands on the knifer's strong hand and do you best with what you got left IIRC]

[Dagga Boy]

So what is the useful training response other than "keep your kittening distance"? Default defensive stance so your arms get shredded instead of your gut while you try to figure out what is going on?

Probably some training. I have spent a ton of time in knife classes with many of the top of the food chain edged weapons guys. It is the reason it was so important for Wayne and I to bring Steve Tarani on board for us as it is part of balancing out our training program. While you can make a lifetime study of edged weapons and martial arts (and many have), a couple of foundational classes will go a long way to help, or at least establish some sort of response to edged and impact weapon attacks and understanding the concepts needed to deal with these threats.

[ford.304]

Probably some training. I have spent a ton of time in knife classes with many of the top of the food chain edged weapons guys. It is the reason it was so important for Wayne and I to bring Steve Tarani on board for us as it is part of balancing out our training program. While you can make a lifetime study of edged weapons and martial arts (and many have), a couple of foundational classes will go a long way to help, or at least establish some sort of response to edged and impact weapon attacks and understanding the concepts needed to deal with these threats.

I guess I maybe should have been more specific... if most people being stabbed don't realize they are being stabbed until the third or fourth puncture wound, how hard is it to get your "knife training" to go to work? Or are the defensive counters similar enough for unarmed grappling to work as a generic response?

Where I'm coming from with this - I have a small amount of experience boxing, and it seems like a lot of the counters I would automatically try if I thought someone was punching me would result in some serious stab wounds if he wasn't just punching. I realize my ignorance in this area.

[KravPirate]

I guess I maybe should have been more specific... if most people being stabbed don't realize they are being stabbed until the third or fourth puncture wound, how hard is it to get your "knife training" to go to work? Or are the defensive counters similar enough for unarmed grappling to work as a generic response?

Where I'm coming from with this - I have a small amount of experience boxing, and it seems like a lot of the counters I would automatically try if I thought someone was punching me would result in some serious stab wounds if he wasn't just punching. I realize my ignorance in this area.

Two options, either close the distance or make distance. Ideally, you want to create distance and avoid the attack by utilizing something like SouthNarc's MUC. Once the attack is initiated the distance must be closed regardless if it's empty hand or weapon based attack. Once a fight becomes clinch range, preemption is gone and the ability to create distance will depend on other factors. So with that being said, violent strikes and movement along with dominating the clinch is imperative.

[Dagga Boy]

I guess I maybe should have been more specific... if most people being stabbed don't realize they are being stabbed until the third or fourth puncture wound, how hard is it to get your "knife training" to go to work? Or are the defensive counters similar enough for unarmed grappling to work as a generic response?

Where I'm coming from with this - I have a small amount of experience boxing, and it seems like a lot of the counters I would automatically try if I thought someone was punching me would result in some serious stab wounds if he wasn't just punching. I realize my ignorance in this area.

I wish I had some cool acronym to give you. Essentially, you need to build an attack response that is compatible with both edged and impact weapons (with body parts being considered impact weapons). You need an understanding of how those weapons are deployed, how to counter/avoid them, and essential mechanics of their use so that you can best counter them. I guess it would be a MUCECQC something or other;).

Nobody get butt hurt.......I like Craig, and recommend him all the time. Besides, you sometimes need to MUC ECQC in an adaptive hyper- dynamic disruptive environment with denied access.......:p.

[KravPirate]

I wish I had some cool acronym to give you. Essentially, you need to build an attack response that is compatible with both edged and impact weapons (with body parts being considered impact weapons). You need an understanding of how those weapons are deployed, how to counter/avoid them, and essential mechanics of their use so that you can best counter them. I guess it would be a MUCECQC something or other;).

Nobody get butt hurt.......I like Craig, and recommend him all the time. Besides, you sometimes need to MUC ECQC in an adaptive hyper- dynamic disruptive environment with denied access.......:p.

I referenced Craig's material because it is an easy to understand format of how to maintain distance. Back to ford.304's question, one problem with folks that want to learn self defense is that they want to immediately learn how to defend against weapons because it sounds cool. Well, if one doesn't have a thorough understanding of striking and clinch, then a lot can be missed when learning weapons defenses. If I can't defend myself against an empty handed attacker then how can I win if I am attacked by some violent dude wielding a knife. The basics of empty hand fighting definitely carry over to knife defenses. Oh, one other thing, expect to get cut somewhere even if you win.

[SouthNarc]

I guess I maybe should have been more specific... if most people being stabbed don't realize they are being stabbed until the third or fourth puncture wound, how hard is it to get your "knife training" to go to work? Or are the defensive counters similar enough for unarmed grappling to work as a generic response?

Where I'm coming from with this - I have a small amount of experience boxing, and it seems like a lot of the counters I would automatically try if I thought someone was punching me would result in some serious stab wounds if he wasn't just punching. I realize my ignorance in this area.

It's common to get cut/stabbed and not know it. Any unarmed template should take that into account. For that very reason I'm not a "stay in the pipe" kind of pugilist unless it's an attached striking/dirty boxing game.

Essentially to minimize his hands being in contact with you then it's either a mobility game or an attachment game working to take his back. I play an underhook-arm tie game for this very reason in the clinch versus a collar tie head control game. Head control concedes limbs and allows hands to swing wild. Not good if you missed a blade in his hand and just caught motion.

And on your boxing you're right. Covering versus intercepting will get you stuck. But intercepting (blocking) as you know is low percentage for dealing with punches and we certainly can't sacrifice consciousness either.

So there's no free lunch. Personally the strategy template I advocate is that you have to stay conscious and mobile long enough to get quickly out of hand range or if it goes to the clinch you have to immediately establish limb control and stabilize the entanglement long enough to take his back so you can release behind him and not in front of his hands. That's best case and you still may get stuck. I've been in and out of short blade work since '88 and that's the best I've figured out to date.

[ford.304]

Thanks for the education, all of you :) Time to find a good class/gym.

[Dagga Boy]

So there's no free lunch. Personally the strategy template I advocate is that you have to stay conscious and mobile long enough to get quickly out of hand range or if it goes to the clinch you have to immediately establish limb control and stabilize the entanglement long enough to take his back so you can release behind him and not in front of his hands. That's best case and you still may get stuck. I've been in and out of short blade work since '88 and that's the best I've figured out to date.

This is on the money. In the past, I had my best success in "cop fights" with boxers (very popular among the gangsters in "my age"). It was mainly due to countering it with clinches, tight work, and a lot of leg work, and working towards the rear of the head. All "counter" to traditional boxer's training. You did have to clear their "range" as it sucked when they connected a punch. With the advent of MMA today, things are more complicated. The biggest thing you need to take away from training is not really techniques, but understanding of the dynamics and to recognize what is happening.

Just to emphasize......I was "internet funning" with Craig on the abbreviations....;):):p:cool:, see lots of smilies.

Also, Marc (Crafty Dog) Denny is a very good resource to spend some time on the net digging up thoughts, and videos. I have learned a lot over the years paying attention to what Marc says. The training time I have had with Marc on a couple of occasions has been enlightening.

[nycnoob]

We did a ton of work on this stuff at ITTS with Scott Reitz. Scott does an exceptional job in court cases as an expert in many of these cases. Scott has several knife attack target systems, and drills. What they found was the "21" foot rule also requires perfection. A perfect identification of the attack, perfect draw stroke, perfect hits and a very clean response. This is rarely possible in the field and well over 30 feet is far more realistic and the ability to move off line is critical, and it is especially important to try to put a barrier between you and the assailant.


I would be very interested in learning more about this "theory approach". I checked Scott's website: http://www.internationaltactical.com/scott.html and I do not see any edged weapons classes. I am particularly interested in learning something "court defensible" about the danger of edged weapons. SouthNarc and the TPI crew very firmly believe "In a fight, most people do not get violent enough early enough". I currently live in NYC where the police are not particularly friendly to the idea of selfdefense. I have taken Ayoob's course on the legal issues of Lethal force (just came back from a refresher this weekend) and he still teaches "use of force ladder". I do not see how to apply Criag's experiance about the danger of such situations and still maintain the "reasonable" response the law requires.

[Cecil Burch]

Never mind.

[SouthNarc]

I would be very interested in learning more about this "theory approach". I checked Scott's website: http://www.internationaltactical.com/scott.html and I do not see any edged weapons classes. I am particularly interested in learning something "court defensible" about the danger of edged weapons. SouthNarc and the TPI crew very firmly believe "In a fight, most people do not get violent enough early enough". I currently live in NYC where the police are not particularly friendly to the idea of selfdefense. I have taken Ayoob's course on the legal issues of Lethal force (just came back from a refresher this weekend) and he still teaches "use of force ladder". I do not see how to apply Criag's experiance about the danger of such situations and still maintain the "reasonable" response the law requires.


What in particular do you believe is not defensible?

[TCinVA]

I would be very interested in learning more about this "theory approach". I checked Scott's website: http://www.internationaltactical.com/scott.html and I do not see any edged weapons classes. I am particularly interested in learning something "court defensible" about the danger of edged weapons. SouthNarc and the TPI crew very firmly believe "In a fight, most people do not get violent enough early enough".


I'd be very reluctant to make statements about Craig's opinion or the general temperature of TPI like that.

I believe I'd be accurate if I said that one of the points Craig teaches in ECQC is that people are not proactive enough in defense of themselves, meaning that they often aren't paying enough attention and if they start and combine that with taking reasonable, non-violent actions that often completely avoid an intended attack or that give them a much better chance of success should it become a fight they can dramatically up their chances of a good outcome.

Often when doing this properly one sees the signs that violent action is necessary before there's a knife in their guts or a gun in their face, and that can prompt an appropriate response (like a preemptive draw) which will stop the attack cold without any blood being spilled.

If you haven't taken ECQC, I recommend it. Craig's approach to the use of force...any level of it...is very nuanced and one of the best I've ever encountered. Being an actual court certified UOF expert who has testified in a bunch of cases helps out with that.

[Dagga Boy]

I would be very interested in learning more about this "theory approach". I checked Scott's website: http://www.internationaltactical.com/scott.html and I do not see any edged weapons classes. I am particularly interested in learning something "court defensible" about the danger of edged weapons. SouthNarc and the TPI crew very firmly believe "In a fight, most people do not get violent enough early enough". I currently live in NYC where the police are not particularly friendly to the idea of selfdefense. I have taken Ayoob's course on the legal issues of Lethal force (just came back from a refresher this weekend) and he still teaches "use of force ladder". I do not see how to apply Criag's experiance about the danger of such situations and still maintain the "reasonable" response the law requires.

Scott doesn't do "theory". First, he doesn't teach "edged weapons". He often works with Ernie Emerson and some of the high end Krav guys on the edged weapon specific stuff. His systems are designed to use a firearm response to an edged weapon. This is done live with an excellent charger system (that he can also bring Juries to see in action), and he will take actual LAPD shooting cases and they will be recreated with Sims. This includes case involving edged or unknown weapons that test your abilities to maneuver, problem solving and use appropriate force. What his training does is allow the "if a guy has a knife I'll just shoot them" people to see exactly how hard that is to pull off. The Sims work also show how difficult "problem solving" really is using actual cases as a guide. Scott has a heavy emphasis on "Problem Solving". Many cases have edged and impact or improvised weapons as part of the problem and he gives you exposure time to what is involved with many of the solutions.

[nycnoob]

What in particular do you believe is not defensable?


I am worried about how to explain violence to the Jury, I think there is much that is defensible but would be hard to explain.

In particular there was a discussion here (almost exactly a year ago) about the use of gasoline to the face as a preemptive strike:

http://www.totalprotectioninteractive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15962

I agree the situation discussed was dangerous, but there had been no use of force by either side yet so
justification of a potential blinding seems difficult.

Also there has been mention on TPI that the whole "use of force continuum" is dated and not necessarily best practice anymore.
How to explain such things if the prosecutor is working under the old paradigm.(I can not find the thread but I remember general
agreement on this point that minimal force was not required: SouthNarc, Mitchel, Paul Sharp Etc. I think were in agreement. I am
still very fuzzy about what would be reasonable and yet not minimal. I tried to ask Ayoob a question about this, over last weened
but either I was very bad at phrasing what I wanted to say, or this was so far from his experience he could not parse the question.

From nyet's description it sounds like Scott Reitz has some ways of quantifying how uncertainty of the situation
difficulty in correctly observing the attack can lead to very dangerous outcomes.



We did a ton of work on this stuff at ITTS with Scott Reitz. Scott does an exceptional job in court cases as an expert in many of these cases. Scott has several knife attack target systems, and drills. What they found was the "21" foot rule also requires perfection. A perfect identification of the attack, perfect draw stroke, perfect hits and a very clean response. This is rarely possible in the field and well over 30 feet is far more realistic and the ability to move off line is critical, and it is especially important to try to put a barrier between you and the assailant.

[nycnoob]

Scott has a heavy emphasis on "Problem Solving". Many cases have edged and impact or improvised weapons as part of the problem and he gives you exposure time to what is involved with many of the solutions.


Sounds like the course he will be teaching in Pittsburgh in October

Scott Reitz Low Light and Problem Solving Tactics, Pittsburgh PA October 11-13, 2013

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9330-Scott-Reitz-Low-Light-and-Problem-Solving-Tactics-Pittsburgh-PA-October-11-13-2013&p=155359#post155359

Guess I should make an effort to go to it. Thanks for the info, I would not have known about this.

[SouthNarc]

I am worried about how to explain violence to the Jury, I think there is much that is defensible but would be hard to explain.

In particular there was a discussion here (almost exactly a year ago) about the use of gasoline to the face as a preemptive strike:

http://www.totalprotectioninteractive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15962

I agree the situation discussed was dangerous, but there had been no use of force by either side yet so
justification of a potential blinding seems difficult.

Also there has been mention on TPI that the whole "use of force continuum" is dated and not necessarily best practice anymore.
How to explain such things if the prosecutor is working under the old paradigm.(I can not find the thread but I remember general
agreement on this point that minimal force was not required: SouthNarc, Mitchel, Paul Sharp Etc. I think were in agreement. I am
still very fuzzy about what would be reasonable and yet not minimal. I tried to ask Ayoob a question about this, over last weened
but either I was very bad at phrasing what I wanted to say, or this was so far from his experience he could not parse the question.

From nyet's description it sounds like Scott Reitz has some ways of quantifying how uncertainty of the situation
difficulty in correctly observing the attack can lead to very dangerous outcomes.




I think a single discussion in a thread on an internet forum is a quite a stretch to the "ShivWorks/TPI paradigm is not defensible". My opinion though.

Force continuums, ladders, etc. ARE dated. Most agencies are getting away from them and sticking with a 4th amendment standard. For a citizen's perspective you might want to do Mitchell's phone seminar.

And with that being said I'm not sure how ANY of this relates to knives or knife defense.

[ToddG]

I do not see how to apply Criag's experiance about the danger of such situations and still maintain the "reasonable" response the law requires.

I don't want to speak for Craig so if he wants to come in here and say I completely misunderstand his viewpoint, let me offer my mea culpa in advance.

However, I think you're looking at the problem the wrong way. Craig's experience and lessons include, in essence, a warning that many people don't fight soon enough. In other words, a lot of people wait until they're already far behind the power curve before they react violently and that, obviously, increases risk to the defender. (it's worth noting that Col. Cooper said much the same thing a million years ago in his little book... I don't have mine at hand but I do recall words like "aggressiveness," "surprise," and even "ruthlessness")

That is completely disconnected from your local PD and jury. If they believe you need to take a bullet to the chest before you can defend yourself, you live in a sucky place. That doesn't mean instructors are wrong to advocate tactics that involve responding before you take a bullet to the chest. It means you live somewhere that potentially frowns on best practices.

So you're in a tough spot: compromise your defensive strategy and risk injury/death, or employ tactics that may put you at greater risk for incarceration in your local jurisdiction. It's probably fallacious to believe that someone, somewhere, is teaching strategies and techniques that are just as good but don't have any legal ramifications.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Actually, Ken has done my class & shot me in ECQC.

(Obligatory Training Day reference re: you shot me in the ass!)

I can't really comment because im working now and cannot use the real computer (responding by phone sucks) but I would give Ken's conserns some consideration.

Please dont just suggest he needs to take a class as I think he's actually quite well informed.

People may see things differently...so give discussion a chance because I think good stuff will come out of this thread...

[Byron]

In particular there was a discussion here (almost exactly a year ago) about the use of gasoline to the face as a preemptive strike:

http://www.totalprotectioninteractive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15962

I agree the situation discussed was dangerous, but there had been no use of force by either side yet so
justification of a potential blinding seems difficult.
I believe you are mischaracterizing that discussion.

A pregnant female asked for potential ways to defend herself against 3 able-bodied males while pumping gas. She had already used verbal commands, including shouting "GO AWAY!"


"...My main concern is being trapped between my vehicle and a gas pump..."
"...I’ve thought about what I would have done if the bad guy would have encroached upon me..."
(Emphasis added)

Given the parameters that she laid out (i.e. continued encroachment after her clear commands to stop) it was suggested to her that the gas pump itself could be used as a weapon.

No one suggested she should have blinded men just for talking to her.

I can understand a consideration of how certain weapons will be viewed in the eyes of a jury...
But I can't imagine what jury in the world would convict a pregnant woman of splashing gasoline on a guy who was advancing on her after she yelled "GO AWAY!"

To use this as evidence of anything outside of the specific context in which it was discussed seems to be cherry picking.


Also there has been mention on TPI that the whole "use of force continuum" is dated and not necessarily best practice anymore.
How to explain such things if the prosecutor is working under the old paradigm.(I can not find the thread but I remember general
agreement on this point that minimal force was not required: SouthNarc, Mitchel, Paul Sharp Etc. I think were in agreement. I am
still very fuzzy about what would be reasonable and yet not minimal. I tried to ask Ayoob a question about this, over last weened
but either I was very bad at phrasing what I wanted to say, or this was so far from his experience he could not parse the question.
I'm not sure how you phrased it to Ayoob, but I must imagine there was something lost in translation. As SN notes, this is not a new concept in the LE world. As for explaining such to a prosecutor or anyone else? I'm not sure how it would come up in conversation, but you could always point him or her to this PoliceOne article: Use of force: Downfalls of the continuum model (http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5643926-Use-of-force-Downfalls-of-the-continuum-model/)

As the author notes, departments have been headed in this direction for over a decade now.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Apparently, I can't edit my previous post...

I think what Ken is saying is that it may be hard to justify to law enforcement or jury in NY, who may be used to a "force continuum" why someone would react so violently without attempting any "lower on the continuum" options that the public, or people who have been trained in the continuum model, seem to believe should be used prior to lethal force.

The 4th amendment model, as SN mentioned, is to my information based off of Graham v Connor - The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

While different in explanation, it is similar to the subjective/objective test usually found in use of force statutes, and from the last time I looked at NYS jury instructions, found their too.

Preemptive striking is also looked at in NYS Jury instructions:

“Initial aggressor” means the person who first attacks or threatens to attack; that is, the first person who uses or threatens the imminent use of offensive physical force. The actual striking of the first blow or inflicting of the first wound, however, does not necessarily determine who was the initial aggressor.

A person who reasonably believes that another is about to use deadly physical force upon him/her need not wait until he/she is struck or wounded. He/she may, in such circumstances, be the first to use deadly physical force, so long as he/she reasonably believed it was about to be used against him/her. He/she is then not considered to be the “initial aggressor,” even though he/she strikes the first blow or inflicts the first wound. Arguing, using abusive language, calling a person names, or the like, unaccompanied by physical threats or acts, does not make a person an initial aggressor and does not justify physical force.

[A person cannot be considered the initial aggressor simply because he/she has a reputation for violence or has previously engaged in violent acts.]

http://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_instruction/ny-justification-use-of-deadly-physical-force-in-defense-of-a-person/

Also:

People v. Petty, 7 N.Y.3D 277, 284 (2006). In Petty, the Court of Appeals so held:
“evidence of a deceased victim’s prior threats against defendant is admissible to prove
that the victim was the initial aggressor, whether or not such threats are communicated to
defendant.” The Court reasoned that such threats may indicate an intent to act upon
them, thereby creating a probability that the deceased victim has in fact acted upon them
as the initial aggressor.
http://www.nycbar.org/pdf/report/CJImodelcharges.pdf


I think the confusion over, "... I do not see how to apply Criag's experience about the danger of such situations and still maintain the "reasonable" response the law requires. "

Is that reasonable, both under Graham v. Connor (the LE Objective reasonableness test) and the Subjective/Objective standard is that they are SUBJECTIVE to the person who used force.

Your level of reasonable, both in terms of speed of your initial action, and the level of force used, is based on your training and experience which supports it.

Your training and experience become the justification for your interpretation of the events at hand, and thus the threat level which you believed you faced - therefore the reaction, and the speed/aggression thereof, are justified by the perceptions and analysis of the person who used the force at issue.

[KravPirate]

And with that being said I'm not sure how ANY of this relates to knives or knife defense.

Agree. Bottom line, if I can't make distance and am forced to fight then violent preemption is what I know. I hate it for anyone that lives in an area or works for an agency that frowns upon that. Although I am not very familiar with the use of force paradigm. It is unfortunate that LE has their hands tied and has to worry about consequences of being preemptive when all of the evidence proves that preemption can save your life.

[nycnoob]

(SN) I think a single discussion in a thread on an internet forum is a quite a stretch to the "ShivWorks/TPI paradigm is not defensible". My opinion though.


If that is what I appeared to say, then I must apologies for giving offence. It was not my intention to state that. I have participated in more than one ECQC and have taken the AMIS class and have great respect for the curriculum and intend to continue to study it. I would not put forth the effort if it was "not defensible", I am concerned about my own ability to defend it and my own view of the big picture.



(SN) Force continuums, ladders, etc. ARE dated. Most agencies are getting away from them and sticking with a 4th amendment standard. For a citizen's perspective you might want to do Mitchell's phone seminar.


As Mitchel stated, I was particularly looking for a clear way to explain such things to a Jury who may be exposed to the Force Continuum as part of the trial. What ever else they may be they are certainly a clear guideline to the Jury about "reasonableness". It will stick in peoples heads, I do not have something else to counteract this image which is equally salient.



(TLG) That is completely disconnected from your local PD and jury. If they believe you need to take a bullet to the chest before you can defend yourself, you live in a sucky place. That doesn't mean instructors are wrong to advocate tactics that involve responding before you take a bullet to the chest. It means you live somewhere that potentially frowns on best practices.


Yes, the legal and self defense issues are different though connected through the rubric of "best practice".



(TLG) So you're in a tough spot: compromise your defensive strategy and risk injury/death, or employ tactics that may put you at greater risk for incarceration in your local jurisdiction. It's probably fallacious to believe that someone, somewhere, is teaching strategies and techniques that are just as good but don't have any legal ramifications.


I was not looking to replace Craig's methods with a different fighting strategy (except perhaps additional preconflict recognition/avoidance) mostly I was looking for a better way to communicate the results of his class which are experiential in nature and very difficult to put into words.



(SN) And with that being said I'm not sure how ANY of this relates to knives or knife defense.


I have been thinking about Force Continuums and deviations for a few weeks, in particular at Mitchell's class in CT (held before the teleconference I asked him several pointed questions) and Ayoob's class (I asked one question) Michael de Bethencourt (taught issues relating to use of force, I also do not understand his position) . Additionally this is topical because of the Zimmerman trial: Several of my work acquaintances were concerned during the Zimmerman trial because Trayvon was unarmed and his actions at first blush appeared unreasonable.

I expect that this issue about diverting from the Force Continuum will continue to come up because people have heard about it. I am not criticize the TPI model only looking for ways to understand it.



(Byron) To use this as evidence of anything outside of the specific context in which it was discussed seems to be cherry picking.

I was asked for a specific example and I have been thinking about the thread for over a year. I meant it only as an example of a perhaps justified use of something outside the Force Continuum that I might need to be explained and I personally would find it difficult to explain though there seem to be quite a lot of people who are experience with violence who feel it is justified. This thread is the only TPI thread I could find at short notice, I know this issue in general has been bothering me for a while. I meant for the thread to be an example not necessarily the only one or even the best one. Thanks for the article!


In this thread it appeared from Neyti's comments that Reitz had done some additional work on the Tuller model and issues about the messiness of applying Tullers experiment real world. So I firmly believe that Force Continuum issues are especially about knives because they are so dangerous and hard to see.


If you like I will take this discussion back to TPI where it is more in keeping with the material (this is a gun specific board and I seem to have dragged this convo way off topic), though on the TPI form I do make a greater effort to "stay in my lane" and not derail discussion I have little life experience with (which would include violence and also the legal system).

[SouthNarc]

Hey dude I'm not bent at all. :). I was just genuinely perplexed but I think you cleared that up. No need to steer this back to TPI unless Todd/mods think that's necessary.

On second thought, I think if you actually started a thread over there on this topic it would actually generate some good, focused, discussion.

[Byron]

I was asked for a specific example and I have been thinking about the thread for over a year. I meant it only as an example of a perhaps justified use of something outside the Force Continuum that I might need to be explained and I personally would find it difficult to explain though there seem to be quite a lot of people who are experience with violence who feel it is justified.
Gotcha. It seems I previously misunderstood your citation.

[Chuck Haggard]

Although it shouldn't, it still shocks me that departments haven't "gotten the memo" on this stuff. The issues in LE of reasonable UOF have been laid out for years.

I noted in my work e-mail today a Force Science e-newsletter on this same subject (from an LE perspective).


From #237;


RECOMMENDATIONS. Based on his parsing of court decisions, Ross recommends the following:

Policy revision. Administrators should revise use-of-force policies to conform with "the philosophy of Response to Resistance," which bases force responses on the subject's actions. Policy should state that the reasonableness of force will be "assessed in conjunction with the officer's perception [of the threat] at the moment force was used" and "within the totality of circumstances," as prescribed by the Graham decision.

Language which directs an officer to "use the minimum amount of force or the least intrusive amount should be removed from existing policies." Every federal court, Ross says, "recognizes this point."

[nycnoob]

I signed up for the Reitz course in Oct. It has a bunch of shoot/don't shoot exercises which I would like to do.

[Dagga Boy]

I signed up for the Reitz course in Oct. It has a bunch of shoot/don't shoot exercises which I would like to do.

Scotty will REALLY challenge your thinking process. I have been blessed to have had access to him since the late 80's with a lot of time spent training with him in the last 15 years. The problem solving class was "good" for me to do, but it was hugely beneficial to the non L/E guys in the class. I saw some eyes get opened very wide when folks found out that these engagements are not like gun store conversations, gun magazines, and the internet.

P.S. If he calls you "cup cake" or "princess", you are doing great ;).