Firsthand account of defensive use of a folding knife in a Hawaii hotel

[DiscipulusArmorum]

Haven't I heard from some experienced LE folks that domestic disturbances are among the most dangerous calls an officer responds to? If the guys with bat belts, back-up, and cuffs think it's dangerous, how well are you going to fare with a raised voice and a knife that you may or may not be trained to use?

I think you can make a good argument one way or the other about opening the door to let the asshole know someone is actually paying attention and the cops are on their way. Once he took a punch, closed the door, and then decided to open it again to follow them, that's where it gets less defensible IMO.

[Hambo]

I think the guy with the knife used up his supply of luck in this incident. There is a lot to be learned from all the moments it could have gone horribly wrong for him in the hallway. Note in the news stories that the initial investigation was attempted murder, not a self-defense incident. A different story from the guy he stabbed, the woman, other witnesses, or maybe some video, and he might have been facing a lengthy prison sentence. Also note that he also chose to talk to detectives without an attorney.

[JV_]

Note in the news stories that the initial investigation was attempted murder, not a self-defense incident.

News stories get it wrong all. the. time.

I was the subject of a news investigation, with a couple of other people I know, and it was one of the most witch-hunt type of affairs I've ever seen.

[StraitR]

Good read, thanks for sharing. That's a tough situation. I believe he was trying to do what's right, but I also think he was fortunate to not end up in prison for few reasons.

1) He jumped into a domestic situation where he possessed no intimate knowledge of either party or the lead up. So regardless of how bad the scenario was, and no matter how noble his intentions were, he's lucky the female victim didn't side with the other guy for one reason or another.

2) He went from initiating verbal contact, to being assaulted and retreating to a place of safety, to making a conscience decision to leave that safety and put himself in a position to be reengaged. No mention of intervention do to fear of GBI of female victim. He just didn't want to see the lady pushed around, which is completely understandable, but then there's the escalation of force...

3) After being reengaged, he immediately responds with deadly force without even attempting to defend himself with a similar level of force. According to his story, he never once struck the male attacker prior to deploying a knife. Based on his recount of the event and the description of his internal monologue during the fight he seemed to be coping with the blows pretty well. So well that he was able to recall a "gem" from a Surefire magazine article on blade tactics during the attack, and yet never conveys fear of GBI for himself or the female victim.

I'm surprised he was able to articulate all that, especially without legal counsel, in a way that kept him out of prison. I have to think there was some criminal history on the part of the male aggressor because it surely doesn't seem that this description of what happened would clear him of all wrongdoings. Then again, maybe his public AAR was written for maximum peer approval, who knows, but that's what crossed my mind while reading it. Hopefully everyone involved learned a thing or two. The female victim might learn how to pick better male partners. The male attacker will hopefully learn that pushing around women is a good way to get stabbed in the neck. And with any luck, our Good Sam has learned to count his lucky stars. Either way, I'm really glad it worked out for him.

[TR675]

He is very lucky not to have been indicted.

He intervened, apparently unnecessarily, in a minor altercation, was assaulted, and responded to the assault with deadly force. It does not appear he had a reasonable fear that either he or the lady were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; if he was afraid of those things he doesn't mention it explicitly (that I saw).

I appreciate his good intentions and applaud his desire to stick up for someone weak being abused by someone strong, but I would point out that middle class values and chivalry do not have much of a place in the lives of the domestically abused and abusers and trying to impose those values on them is likely to be both fruitless and dangerous, as already pointed out.

It is also good to always remember that the state generally has a monopoly on the legal use of force and jealously guards it, sometimes especially when the person who used the force in question is an otherwise upstanding citizen trying to do the right thing after getting involved in some shithead's reindeer games.

Cases like this leave me deeply ambivalent. I have not been in this type of situation and am glad of it. I like to think that I would stick up for someone weaker, but I know there are good sound reasons why that is a poor idea *most of the time.* I also have zero desire to take a bad beating. If I listened to the reasonable voice in my head I would feel bad and cowardly about not sticking up for the weaker party as I spent the rest of my life enjoying my family and not rotting in prison.

Life is full of tough choices and compromises.

[41magfan]

That guy should probably buy a few lottery tickets before his mojo runs out.

[John Hearne]

This is just speculation but, I bet the investigating cops looked at the criminal histories of the respective parties. If the guy with the knife had no history and the guy assaulting had any prior history, the investigators may make certain assumptions. IIRC, Ayoob or someone similar wrote that the most contentious self-defense cases are those where both parties have clean records.

[TCinVA]

This is just speculation but, I bet the investigating cops looked at the criminal histories of the respective parties. If the guy with the knife had no history and the guy assaulting had any prior history, the investigators may make certain assumptions. IIRC, Ayoob or someone similar wrote that the most contentious self-defense cases are those where both parties have clean records.

Seems like common sense.

[BehindBlueI's]

This is just speculation but, I bet the investigating cops looked at the criminal histories of the respective parties. If the guy with the knife had no history and the guy assaulting had any prior history, the investigators may make certain assumptions. IIRC, Ayoob or someone similar wrote that the most contentious self-defense cases are those where both parties have clean records.

Criminal histories play a role, but generally I'm looking for things that create credibility issues. You can have a robbery prior and be the victim of a robbery and still get it filed on. If you have a perjury, false reporting, etc. that hurts your credibility in court and if the case hinges mostly (or entirely) on your statements it will not be filed. I need more corroborating evidence if you're a proven liar in the eyes of the court.

I would still bet the guy who got cut wanted nothing to do with the investigation, did not provide a statement, and the fact he's an out of towner (apparently) and likely a PITA to serve subpoenas to get him back into court as the 'victim' all played heavily into the charging decision.

[eb07]

Luckily the woman cried victim and didn't stick up for her man and say you were the aggressor. That surely would have sucked, and has happened.