The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 4, 2017, 12:25 PM   #76
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,531
In a police case: https://www.policeone.com/use-of-for...ideo-released/

- we have a somewhat similar concept. The officer used quite a deal of force on an opponent who was seemingly out of the fight.

An interesting line:

Quote:
“But terminating a threat doesn’t necessarily mean terminating the suspect,” Kozinski said.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 5, 2017, 07:30 PM   #77
John J. McCarthy, Jr
Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2017
Posts: 18
Committing crimes should be a very dangerous way to make a living.
__________________
Optimism is true moral courage. - Sir Ernest Shackleton

http://www.anamericanwithagun.com/
John J. McCarthy, Jr is offline  
Old November 8, 2017, 01:04 AM   #78
IZZY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman View Post
Read this once or twice, and reflect upon it.

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/def...ense-knife-use
Good luck with that strategy.
Ok. I actually read the whole thing.

1. I used to have one of Marc's books, I thought it good back then, but this new material seems wonky. Keeping in mind he has to keep food on the table, he seems to be going the Mossad Ayoob legal expert route, but with knives.

2. A lot depends on state law in self defense. The Stand your ground law in Florida would change this mental exercise for those in that juridiction.

3. article does not mention my question about Jeans or leather and slashing. Training, or only mentally preparing to preform one kind of strike in an SD situation is trianing to fail.

4. No one here would (or should want) to be in a knife fight/ duel. It would be very messy for both sides.
(Marc used to say be prepared to get cut up). sometimes just running away is not always possible, even if preffered by some.

Last edited by Frank Ettin; November 8, 2017 at 02:31 AM. Reason: delete snark
IZZY is offline  
Old November 8, 2017, 08:00 AM   #79
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,808
Quote:
The Stand your ground law in Florida would change this mental exercise for those in that juridiction.
In what way?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 8, 2017, 08:43 PM   #80
IZZY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman View Post
In what way?
In this way: (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

http://http://www.slaw.ca/2012/03/29...-law-the-text/

It used to be that you were immune from civil suits, but the FL supreme court Nixed that. SO now the state will cover your court costs, and lost income.

For arguments sake, lets say you lose in civil court... the homested/bankrupcy laws in Florida allow you keep your house, car, and up to 160 acres of primary residence farmland.

http://https://www.alperlaw.com/asse...ead-exemption/
IZZY is offline  
Old November 8, 2017, 09:30 PM   #81
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,808
Quote:
It used to be that you were immune from civil suits, but the FL supreme court Nixed that. SO now the state will cover your court costs, and lost income.
NO! The state will cover no such thing.

The court will award such posts, but they must be paid by the defendant, if he can do so.

But--that will happen if and only if the evidence presented supports the defendant's case.

Where do you get your ideas?
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 8, 2017, 11:30 PM   #82
IZZY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman View Post
NO! The state will cover no such thing.

The court will award such posts, but they must be paid by the defendant, if he can do so.

But--that will happen if and only if the evidence presented supports the defendant's case.

Where do you get your ideas?
Ok let me clarify and add to what you said, you must persue your cost you pay up front. The law is clear you if you are free from prosecution under the "stand your ground law" you can recover costs.

Last edited by IZZY; November 8, 2017 at 11:38 PM.
IZZY is offline  
Old November 8, 2017, 11:33 PM   #83
IZZY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by IZZY View Post
Ok. I actually read the whole thing.

1. I used to have one of Marc's books, I thought it good back then, but this new material seems wonky. Keeping in mind he has to keep food on the table, he seems to be going the Mossad Ayoob legal expert route, but with knives.

2. A lot depends on state law in self defense. The Stand your ground law in Florida would change this mental exercise for those in that juridiction.

3. article does not mention my question about Jeans or leather and slashing. Training, or only mentally preparing to preform one kind of strike in an SD situation is trianing to fail.

4. No one here would (or should want) to be in a knife fight/ duel. It would be very messy for both sides.
(Marc used to say be prepared to get cut up). sometimes just running away is not always possible, even if preffered by some.
Yes, self defense IS more protected in Florida, on that I doubt people would argue. In FL I can also protect others legally with no duty to retreat, and even just a possibility of cost recovery might put a damper on the whole lawsuit issue.

And if not, then not. I don't think it us wise to worry to much, or second geuss defending your self (or in FL others as well), when you have very little time if any to respond to such situations.

In many states bankrupcy laws will allow you to live in your home and drive a car, keep farm equipment, Etc. It pays to look up your own state laws, even if you never want to go bankrupt. (I never have).

Last edited by IZZY; November 8, 2017 at 11:56 PM.
IZZY is offline  
Old November 9, 2017, 12:37 AM   #84
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by IZZY
Yes, self defense IS more protected in Florida, on that I doubt people would argue.....
Florida does indeed have some very favorable self defense laws. But so do a quite a few other States, including Washington State, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, among others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IZZY
...In FL I can also protect others legally....
As can one in every State.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IZZY
...with no duty to retreat....
Around 29 States have express, statutory stand your ground laws. Another 8 or so States (including California) have abrogated any duty to retreat through judicial decisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IZZY
...even just a possibility of cost recovery might put a damper on the whole lawsuit issue.....
A victorious defendant having a legal right to recover his expenses from an unsuccessful civil plaintiff is meaningful only if the defendant has assets. If the unsuccessful civil plaintiff doesn't have the money, the defendant's judgment against him for costs and expenses is just a piece of paper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IZZY
...It used to be that you were immune from civil suits, but the FL supreme court Nixed that.....
No, you don't understand how immunity laws work.

All immunity laws say that one will be immune from suit if certain facts exist. However, if there's a dispute about whether those facts exist, the only way to resolve such dispute is through litigation.

For more in depth discussion of these issues, see the following threads:
  1. Civil Liability, Civil Immunity, and the Use of Force.

  2. Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 9, 2017, 05:47 PM   #85
IZZY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2000
Location: Florida
Posts: 905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
Florida does indeed have some very favorable self defense laws. But so do a quite a few other States, including Washington State, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, among others.

As can one in every State.

Around 29 States have express, statutory stand your ground laws. Another 8 or so States (including California) have abrogated any duty to retreat through judicial decisions.

A victorious defendant having a legal right to recover his expenses from an unsuccessful civil plaintiff is meaningful only if the defendant has assets. If the unsuccessful civil plaintiff doesn't have the money, the defendant's judgment against him for costs and expenses is just a piece of paper.

No, you don't understand how immunity laws work.

All immunity laws say that one will be immune from suit if certain facts exist. However, if there's a dispute about whether those facts exist, the only way to resolve such dispute is through litigation.

For more in depth discussion of these issues, see the following threads:
  1. Civil Liability, Civil Immunity, and the Use of Force.

  2. Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine.
aye Frank, but if someone has little money for cost recovery, it is likely they have little assets in order to sue, unless it's small claims court.

I talk about Florida because it's the State I know best in terms of law. Florida is one example of how a state law ( jurisdiction) can effect how we pontificate on the legal aspects of self Defense.

29+8 States might be GTG in terms of Stand your ground ( and good for them/ Us) that leave maybe 13 states where you might be expected to retreat.
So again, where you are might affect this mental exercise.

Yes I do understand how an immunity law works, and that facts can be in dispute. However thank you for the links.
IZZY is offline  
Old November 9, 2017, 08:21 PM   #86
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by IZZY
...if someone has little money for cost recovery, it is likely they have little assets in order to sue, unless it's small claims court.....
Not true at all. Penurious tort plaintiffs are ubiquitous. There are hordes of lawyers who specialize in representing plaintiffs on a contingent fee basis in tort litigation, advancing costs and getting paid only if the plaintiff recovers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IZZY
...Florida is one example of how a state law ( jurisdiction) can effect how we pontificate on the legal aspects of self Defense.....
Well, first, the word is "affect", not "effect."

But folks like OldMarksman, Spats McGee, Bartholomew Roberts and others who post here don't pontificate on self defense law. They have studied the subject extensively and have appropriate education and experience in the legal world. They can provide solid and useful information for those who are serious about improving their understanding of the subject.

There is actually less difference among the large majority of States than one might think. Most have done away with, one way or another, the duty to retreat, although a few still recognize and enforce it. Most States also have some form of Castle Doctrine and recognize useful evidentiary presumptions when a person against whom force is used has forcibly and unlawfully broken into someone's home and the defender knows or has a reasonable belief that has happened. Indeed the language of most Castle Doctrine statutes is remarkably similar.

But a significant characteristic of self defense law, which most people don't appreciate, is the way a self defense plea turns the presumption of innocence on its head. When one claims self defense he effectively admits to committing acts which are the elements of a crime -- he intentionally committed acts of violence against another human.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:
Quote:
...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....
This affects the evidentiary burdens of the parties. In court the parties have their respective burdens of (1) production (producing evidence); (2) proof; and (3) persuasion:
  1. If a defendant is on trial for a crime involving violence against another person, and if the defendant is claiming self defense or justification to avoid criminal liability, he needs the judge to instruct the jury about self defense. The judge isn't going to do that just because the defendant asks. There will need to be some amount of evidence supporting his claim of self defense. How much, or what type, of evidence will have to be in the record in order to require the judge to give a self defense instruction will vary from State to State.

  2. So in some States a defendant has the burden of producing sufficient evidence to make a prima facie (on its face) case of self defense.

  3. In other States, such as New York, the defendant can more easliy get a self defense (justification) instruction, as a member who is a New York lawyer pointed out on THR a while ago (emphasis added):
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Derry 1946
    "Under New York law, in determining whether the evidence warrants a justification charge, the court must assess the record in the light most favorable to the defendant.   See Magliato, 68 N.Y.2d at 29, 505 N.Y.S.2d 836, 496 N.E.2d 856;  McManus, 67 N.Y.2d at 549, 505 N.Y.S.2d 43, 496 N.E.2d 202;  Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d at 144-145, 468 N.Y.S.2d 854, 456 N.E.2d 795 (even where an aspect of defendant's testimony was inconsistent with justification defense, justification should have been charged);  People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 301, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188 (1982);  Torre, 42 N.Y.2d at 1037, 399 N.Y.S.2d 203, 369 N.E.2d 759;  People v. Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 529, 311 N.Y.S.2d 889, 260 N.E.2d 527 (1970) (because jury may believe portions of both defense and prosecution evidence, justification should have been charged even when defendant claimed alibi);  People v. Huntley, 87 A.D.2d 488, 452 N.Y.S.2d 952, 956 (Fourth Dep't 1982), aff'd, 59 N.Y.2d 868, 465 N.Y.S.2d 929, 452 N.E.2d 1257 (1983) (justification should have been charged where defendant testified, in conflict with other witnesses, that decedent had approached him with knife demanding money).   In sum, if the record includes evidence which, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant and drawing all reasonably permissible inferences in his favor, satisfies the essential elements of the defense of justification, the charge must be given."
  4. If the defendant can get his self defense instruction, the prosecution must generally overcome the claim of justification in order to get its conviction. Generally the burden of proof on the prosecution in such cases will be "beyond a reasonable doubt."

  5. In a few States, however, the defendant will have the burden of proving justification by a preponderance of the evidence.

  6. But the practical reality is that, in any case, the less convincingly the evidence, taken as a whole, supports the defendant's self defense claim, the easier it will be for the prosecution to overcome the defendant's claim of justification. And if the defendant has a serious hope to escape conviction on the basis of justification, he will, as a practical matter, want to assure that there will be sufficient, convincing evidence supporting his claim.

In most cases the substantive rules, i. e., when the use of force against another person may be justified, are roughly similar in all State. Texas law provides for the justification of a use of force is somewhat broader circumstances (but not a broad as some think). The differences are usually in the details and the procedures in court.

One particularly advantageous characteristic of Florida law is the availability of a preliminary, evidentiary hearing on justification. A finding of justification concludes the matter in the defendant's favor. If the finding is adverse, the defendant may still raise self defense at trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IZZY
...that leave maybe 13 states where you might be expected to retreat.
So again, where you are might affect this mental exercise. ....
Not so much.

As we often say, "You don't ask, 'Can I shoot?', you ask, 'Must I shoot to save innocent life?'" Avoidance will in general be the best course, if it can be done without harm to innocents, even if retreat isn't legally required.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 11, 2017, 02:52 AM   #87
hdwhit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 928
Once again, thank you Frank Ettin, for your very thorough and informative post.

It does bring up one question; given the amount of time and effort it obviously takes to keep the Legal forum on this site (as well as on THR and any other sites to which you contribute) straight, how do you have time to make a living practicing law?
hdwhit is offline  
Old November 11, 2017, 11:44 AM   #88
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by hdwhit
...given the amount of time and effort it obviously takes to keep the Legal forum on this site (as well as on THR and any other sites to which you contribute) straight, how do you have time to make a living practicing law?
The secret is that I made a good enough living practicing law to have retired ten years ago.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; November 11, 2017 at 01:17 PM. Reason: Clean up grammar
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 11, 2017, 03:58 PM   #89
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 20,029
Only that which force is reasonably necessary. If I were stabbed, I think seventeen stabs on my opponent is reasonable if that 's what it took to get him to stop resisting.

Part of the strategy of these lawsuits is not to win but to seek an out of court settlement. Plaintiff's attorney wins for the bluff. Defendant eats the loss.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old November 11, 2017, 08:14 PM   #90
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
Quote:
If I were stabbed, I think seventeen stabs on my opponent is reasonable if that 's what it took to get him to stop resisting.
Reminds me of what Bill Jordan had to say on this. In his book, "No Second Place Winner" to talked about using the gun as a sap/club. He was against it. He said to use the gun as it was meant to (that is, shoot them.)

He felt it is much easier to convince a GJ that you didn't shoot them to much than club them to much!

But yes, since unless you aim for the jugular/throat, which is just where I do, and I have taken defensive knife courses that extol all kinds of hamstringing cuts that are supposed to disable an attacker, then you will find you many very well need to stab someone many times to get the effects you wish for. That is an immediate stop of hostilities.

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old November 12, 2017, 08:13 AM   #91
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,808
Quote:
If I were stabbed, I think seventeen stabs on my opponent is reasonable if that 's what it took to get him to stop resisting.
Whether you were stabbed or not, you would be hard put to justify the use of deadly force to get someone to "stop resisting".

To defend, yes. But to continue to hold an unarmed man, and to continue to stab him in the back....

Quote:
Part of the strategy of these lawsuits is not to win but to seek an out of court settlement.
Absolutely.

And both the fact of a settlement and the amount remains confidential.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 12, 2017, 04:00 PM   #92
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,544
None of you chaps knows how to fight? Starbucks has lots of impromptu weapons, chairs, stools. That kind of stuff. Pick up a stool, smack knifer Guy, across the mouth, back of the neck, side of the head, etc. Like you were striking to the wall!

Wear sues, so you can kick, not too high. Front of shins, knees. Not flip-flops.
Swipe someones red-hot coffee, right in his face, the whole place has weapons.

Or do what I do, carry always!
Brit is offline  
Old November 12, 2017, 08:55 PM   #93
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit
None of you chaps knows how to fight? Starbucks has lots of impromptu weapons, chairs, stools......
Fine, but the question is, then, how that relates to the subject of this discussion.

We're discussing an actual incident. In that incident, the a citizen stopped a robber's aggression by taking the robber's knife away from him and stabbing the robber. That's what happened. Now we're discussing the citizen's legal situation given the actual facts of the incident.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 12, 2017, 09:16 PM   #94
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 394
Wouldn't it boil down to determining at which point the robber stopped being a threat?
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old November 12, 2017, 09:48 PM   #95
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 4,453
Quote:
Wouldn't it boil down to determining at which point the robber stopped being a threat?
More like when the robber appeared to the victim to stop being a threat.

Deaf
__________________
“To you who call yourselves ‘men of peace,’ I say, you are not safe without men of action by your side” Thucydides
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old November 13, 2017, 12:23 AM   #96
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deaf Smith
Quote:
Wouldn't it boil down to determining at which point the robber stopped being a threat?
More like when the robber appeared to the victim to stop being a threat.
Actually, the test would be more along the lines of: when the assailant would have appeared to a reasonable and prudent person to no longer be a threat.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 13, 2017, 05:18 AM   #97
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,544
It might be not a direct discussion Frank. But the whole premise of wrestling with a man holding a sharp? Is outlandish to me! Getting away with stabbing someone 17 times, and calling it self-defence. Bit of a stretch?
Brit is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09295 seconds with 10 queries