Distance and Knife Attacks

[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.totalprotectioninteractiv...ad.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

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_ins...e-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 .