I Almost Had To Shoot Someone

[Glenn E. Meyer]

He then turned and walked away telling me how he would have kicked my butt if I did not have that gun. I thought that maybe I should have prone him out and called the police because he might pull that knife on someone else.

That is what is discussed by the OP as a possible action. Attempting a citizen's arrest for attacking you is different. However, as I asked if he doesn't prone and walks away - you don't have the option of using lethal force. Police don't either unless there is a clear prediction of a crime continuing from the present situation. They might have more discretion on that.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My comment on backpedaling is that a class would show you that backward movement is unstable and slower than a person coming at you. In Tueller drills and the like you adopt a movement towards the side as to disrupt the opponent's path and give you time to fire. Note, I'm not recommending firing in this specific situation but talking about technique.

About minimizing damage. In class, we attacked roasts covered in denim with Delicas. Not a big knife. However, the damage was substantial. Also, if you've seen Craig Douglas' knife jabs to the face - you would hard put to block it if the opponent was close.

That's why the starting point of standing there was a point of critique. With the beginning of the interaction, one needed to move. If you ran - would he chase you? If you moved quickly away (not backwards) would that help. Could you start to yell - Help, police. Get away from me. (Helps with witnesses).

Standing there and suggesting proning put the action off on the wrong foot, so to speak. Carrying a hammer and every opponent is a nail to be pounded?

It might be embarrassing to flee, there are verbal techniques to defuse such when facing a panhandler. Now we don't know if they would work but they are a better move than standing there and drawing a gun given the scenario.

It happened so quickly as basic situational awareness and avoidance wasn't used.

[Lohman446]

It’s unlikely any controlled retreat (not turning around and fleeing) is going to be faster than a direct forward attack. Distance, of any type against a contact weapon, is your friend as it gives you longer to react to an attack. Obstacles are even better. When I say I accept deflection will likely result in injury it’s a mental preparation to avoid shock or panic if injury occurs. An opponent attacking with a knife is likely to cause you damage at contact range or even out to several yards (7 IIRC) if you are dependent on drawing a gun to defend yourself.

If you have participated in several simulated knife attacks and escaped “unharmed” in them I suggest, to view a phrase, you find quality training.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's the point. The off axis moves work with longer distances. You are correct that if you are in contact distance you get hurt. That's why I had to wear a gadget on my hand and arm and go to physical therapy from a knife class. Fun to explain at work!

However, you make the great point that the OP should have been on the move from the beginning and not standing there. Instead, he thought about continuing the interaction and it was the opponent who left.

That's the difference between being in the fight you couldn't avoid and not being in one you could.

Three cheers for training: http://abcnews.go.com/US/female-high...ry?id=53019524

[Lohman446]

If I’m at contact or near contact distance I am treating the knife threat as if I’m unarmed. Once the aggressor has shown me he or she is unwilling to let me back away and continues physical aggression (actually attacks with the knife) it is my belief that the best chance of survival with the least injury is an overwhelming offense. Break an ankle or cause damage to the ligaments in the knee with your foot or hit hard to center line (nose, throat , solar plexus, groin) with your strong arm or knee and you are likely to end the attack. By going from retreat to attack quickly and decisively you can throw off your opponents initial attack and minimize the amount of damage done. Don’t dodge and dance and throw purely defensive blocks as every attack increases the cuhance of injury to you while doing little to end the threat. Block as you move forward to decidedly end the attack (the actual physical attack) as it begins. Give me enough distance to believe I can use lateral movement to draw and I see your point. I mean if I’m five yards away I can see where drawing may work. The holstered gun vs presented knife drills I have been involved in have involved contact distance and have been generally negative for the “good guy”

[Lohman446]

This is what I know about defense only contact drills (where no offense is taken by the defender): eventually the defender fails. Now granted these were drills where the attacker was not going to call off the attack and walk away but I never saw someone succeed at wearing out the attacker to the point he or she could not continue. You have to, in the midst of a physical attack, become the aggressor at some point

Note: by rule of the drill flight was not an option. You could gain distance but the floor was of limited size.

[OldMarksman]

Reread my post. It [citizen's arrest] was in response to the suspects inter-action with the OP. Not some future action

That's not what the OP mentioned, but how would you present evidence in support of such an act?

[Sharkbite]

He asked me if I had any money, when I replied no so he says well I got this knife.

I stood there as he reached down and pulled up his right pants leg and grabbed a knife

This was the OP’s account of the event that lead him to present his gun.

The taking of the property of another through the use of force or fear, constitutes Robbery. Introduction of a weapon and, well you figure it out.

As for introduction of evidence, witnesses statements, the plethora of hi-def video cameras that are EVERYWHERE now and lastly the clear account of the events by an upstanding citizen vs the telling of a story by some street urchin.

As a former LEO, ive taken plenty of statements by both types of reporting parties. Its not hard to tell the difference.

[OldMarksman]

This was the OP’s account of the event that lead him to present his gun.

It would take a lot more than his account to justify a citizen's arrest. There would be the other guy's story, and perhaps other evidence that would not clearly correspond to the OP's story. Eyewitness may truly believe something else.

And unless the OP could provide a preponderance of the evidence that he had been justified, he would be in a world of hurt in a civili proceeding.

And that's where the real risks of detaining someone present themselves.

You won't find me trying it.

[5whiskey]

Ok... wow.

OP has received a monumental amount of constructive criticism, which is not a bad thing. The appropriate argument has been made that the absolute best method of winning a confrontation is to avoid it altogether. I would remind everyone that you likely don't know the route, street corner, approach method of the individual armed with a knife, or potential (or lack thereof) escape routes of the OP. So in essence, we don't know how easy or difficult avoidance may have been. I will say to the OP, or anyone, that avoiding close contact with an individual that you perceive as a potential threat is best. However complete avoidance in every case is not possible, and I can understand your perceived safety as you believed you would not get caught by the light.

I understand exactly what Lohman is talking about, or at least I think I do. I am not necessarily willing to give up my weak side arm to a knife wielding assailant, but I am also not going to walk around and treat every grungy looking homeless guy like a suspect (though I will have a prepared plan for defense and disengagement). I have compassion. This compassion could get me in trouble, but it is a risk that I am willing to take. A friend of mine as a teenager showed compassion by purchasing a meal for a homeless person and offering $10.00 for his next meal. His kindness was rewarded with having a knife pulled on him and his wallet and all his money taken. He said that he would purchase a meal for the next person that appeared to be in need, but if he ever saw that same guy he would call the cops on him.

Preachy is an understatement. All of this discussion of tactics and training throws actual humanity out of the window. Flame on and roast me for all I'm worth. I have, at times, willingly put myself in a bad situation in an effort to help. I have co-workers who responded to a call of someone who wanted to commit suicide by cop. It was an Iraqi war veteran with a young family who just had a hard time coping. They all spoke to his wife, and decided they were willing to take the risk of approaching this guy without guns drawn (actually there was one cover officer who was prepared) because they had committed to not shooting him unless absolutely necessary. The first officer to approach had a gun pointed at him by the suspect, but he just talked to the guy. They eventually talked him into getting help and he is alive today. Were they using bad tactics? From a "tactical" standpoint, yes. From a human standpoint, no. Take it for what it's worth.

[OldMarksman]

All of this discussion of tactics and training throws actual humanity out of the window.

Perhaps you can better explain what you are trying to say.

The advisability of exercising prudence and caution has been with us since long before anyone decided to use the term "tactics" in the context of contact among individuals.

How does avoiding risk, including the risk of "almost having to shoot someone" run counter to "actual humanity"?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

5Whiskey, you make an excellent point. Not everything must be a gun oriented solution.

Good training is more holistic than just the end point of inevitable physical conflict. Lohman makes reasonable points about how to act in that end point conflict. But you don't have to get there. That was the point of the avoidance discussion. Doing dojo exercises is great. However, add extra good total package training that has scenarios that start before the need to fight.

Being compassionate and giving someone a buck or being polite in refusal is part of a holistic view in training. Mas Ayoob recommended carrying a small amount of extra cash that might be tossed to the guy as you move away. Could it go bad, maybe. You don't want to have a big discussion.

I've read that the offer to buy a meal isn't realistic as the money is most likey used for substance abuse, sad to say.

Perhaps to add a note to lighten the discussion. Years ago, my father, uncle and myself went to a grungy part of NYC to pick up an item. While at a light, what would be called a 'bum' then came to the window and asked for a buck. My uncle who was driving, told him rudely to get lost and get a job. The person whipped out .... wait for it .... A fish. He wiped it on my uncle's windshield and ran away. Wipers do not get fish off the glass!

My dad and I were convulsed in laughter.

To return - excellent point though. While our critiques may seem harsh, we are talking about life and death. Ego isn't important.

Last, some folks don't see it that way. While debatable, this officer seems to have acted compassionately and was punished for it: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...75-000-n847501

[OldMarksman]

Good training is more holistic than just the end point of inevitable physical conflict.

Absolutely!!!

Not entering a store when a driver is in a car pointed the wrong way with the engine running...not stopping in a lot where people are standing around with cell phones observing the people who come in....not sitting in a car and reading or eating....talking on the phone or texting while loading the car...waiting for another elevator if things don't seem right...choosing where to park judiciously....all of those things, and more, are addressed in good training.

[Lohman446]

The incident in question referenced by Mr. Meyer raises a different series of concerns. As I have no duty to the public if I err on the side of inadequate force I am putting my own life in danger. The lives in the general public that may be influenced negatively because of my lack of force are not my responsibility.

I have tremendous respect for the officers who attempt to use less lethal force when it is appropriate even if lethal force may be justified. That being said one has to recognize the issue with officers doing it. For one they have a duty to their fellow officers to use the appropriate level of force to prevent a fellow officer from being injured. Further, with an armed suspect, allowing that suspect to escape or overcome the officers because they failed to use appropriate force may put the general public at greater risk. A police officer does have an obligation of some type to the safety of the general public and other officers.

In the case Mr. Meyer points out I feel Mader has a right to risk his life as long as it does not put other officers or the general public in danger. It is his life to risk to attempt to "save" the suspect. The other officers do not have the right to make the same gamble with Mader's life once the suspect raised his gun in threat. It seems there is some contention if the incident is why Mader was fired. Still if Mader's hesitation to use appropriate lethal force, a hesitation he expressed no regret for and no intention of changing, increased the risk to the other officers it is not surprising he was let go. After all will other officers be able to trust, going forward, that he will do what is necessary to protect them in violent situations.

In the OP's situation letting the aggressor flee is totally appropriate. Others have pointed out that detention was problematic at best. An on duty officer in the same situation likely has some duty to attempt to apprehend and detain the aggressor.

Note: I should note that I have likely overstated an officer's actual legal duty to the general public as established in the law. As it is not a profession I am my clarity on the exact details is not as clear as it could be.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

You bet. I recall telling my wife and kid we were NOT going into an ice cream store just at late night closing time. Much wailing about not getting ice cream. So what - closing time is a good time for a hit. Google the Austin ice cream shop murders.

I think we have made the point to the OP about his options.

[OldMarksman]

So what - closing time is a good time for a hit.

That never occurred to me.

[briandg]

It remains true in every universe that a confrontation of any sort, any conflict, even walking down the street minding your own business can become a life and death situation, that someone will lose, at best It will be a draw. It is something that should be avoided, I think. A grouchy guy like me shouldn't even have his in-laws over for christmas dinner. who knows what may transpire, such as accidentally dropping the bowl of gravy in someone's lap? This is what I remind my wife every year, that having twenty people over, and spreading them out in the dining room can be a 'recipe' for disaster.


I wouldn't go to mardi gras or some of the bars around town for love or money.

[Lohman446]

It is something that should be avoided, I think

You can only avoid it to a degree though while living in the world. For instance I believe that the taking of human life is always a negative action. However I am more than willing to do so in defense of my wife or children and obligated to do so in defense of my employees or customers. The way to avoid obligation and attachment is to join a monastery. In theory living as a friar, totally detached from the world and in the wilderness, or as a monk in a monastery should limit the risk of being involved in violent confrontation and having to decide to either be a victim or become violent to avoid it. The problem is this does not necessarily hold. Historically monasteries have not been entirely free from violence and sometimes have been specifically targeted.

How far is one willing to detach from the world around them to help remove the prospect of violence? Its a question we all have to ask and weigh for ourselves. Glenn brought up the point of not going for ice cream at closing time. I recall once leaving a theater lounge with my wife because one particular person was acting peculiarly. Perhaps I don't go to a particular eatery because of its location in town. In the end it is impossible to fully mitigate risk and an error to believe we have or else we run the risk of letting our guard down and being caught unaware just because we were on the "good" side of town.

Human interaction runs the risk of violence. We can only adjust how much risk we expose ourselves and those around us to.

Interestingly enough, and to some degree on point of the discussion, the only time I have been attacked by someone armed by a knife was in my "home" (college dorm room) by someone I consider to this day a friend and one of the more interesting people I know. Luckily he was far from sober, the lack of space of a dorm room disallowed him much movement, and he was readily disarmed. Perhaps showing that even then I took foolish risks I gave him back the knife the next day when he asked about it and complained about a sore shoulder.

[thallub]

IMO: The original poster did very well. Way i read it he never seriously considered holding the perp for law enforcement.

[OldMarksman]

IMO: The original poster did very well.

It appears that the OP came out okay. Some of that was luck.

He noticed suspicious behavior on the part of someone, hoped to not remain close, ended up unable to cross separately, and decided to not withdraw to avoid possible trouble. That was a judgment call. It was probably not a good decision, seen in retrospect, but are there any of us who have not made such judgments?

When the man drew a knife, the OP "stood there". Training will tell us to not react that way and will tell us what to do. But might some of us, caught off guard, have found ourself doing the same thing, at least momentarily?

He drew, and called the police afterward. Good.

He posted about it, which in the event may or may not have been a bad thing, but it is usually not prudent. Are there any among of us who have never written something that might have been better left unwritten?

As Spacemanspiff pointed out, "This is an ideal time to highlight that it takes a great deal of effort to be mentally prepared. It also is easy to say "I would do this" or "I would do that" but its all just words until one is in that situation. "

The OP has reflected upon the advice given and has expressed appreciation. A "win win", I think, to use a tired old expression.

[TXAZ]

“Any landing you can walk away from is a good one.”

TXAZ’s corollary:

“Any lethal encounter you can avoid is a good one”

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by hdwhit

Early in my working career, I had to take files between buildings in downtown Dallas. At the time, Dallas had a significant population of homeless people; some of whom were unbalanced or aggressive or both.

The sheer number of homeless limited how far out of my way I could go to avoid the unbalanced and aggressive ones since it simply moved me into the territory of another unbalanced or aggressive person.

This all pre-dated the widespread availability of concealed carry in Texas, so that was never an option.

My solution was to get a ratty, ex-French Foreign Legion topcoat and wear it as I commuted between buildings while mumbling to myself just loudly enough to make it clear what I was saying was incoherent. A guy in a slacks, starched white button-down oxford shirt and tie in a torn ex-military topcoat sweating profusely and muttering about the dark forces of finite elements served me well. I guess the unbalanced and aggressive homeless people though I was more unbalanced than they were and they left me alone.

You "win" every confrontation you avoid, no matter how it is done.

Hdwhit in urban stealth mode!

[briandg]

I wasn't going to mention this but now the OP is on trial.

In a very real sense, that is true from the first second that he acts. The bad guy himself is even a witness. He will be asked for a version of what happened.

Every person and every bit of evidence on the scene will be used to judge him. A cop chooses whether to detain him, and from that very first step, his fate has pretty much been placed in other hands.

the same case decided by two separate courts in two separate locations would possibly have two diametrically opposed outcomes.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

Ok... wow.

OP has received a monumental amount of constructive criticism, which is not a bad thing. The appropriate argument has been made that the absolute best method of winning a confrontation is to avoid it altogether. I would remind everyone that you likely don't know the route, street corner, approach method of the individual armed with a knife, or potential (or lack thereof) escape routes of the OP. So in essence, we don't know how easy or difficult avoidance may have been. I will say to the OP, or anyone, that avoiding close contact with an individual that you perceive as a potential threat is best. However complete avoidance in every case is not possible, and I can understand your perceived safety as you believed you would not get caught by the light.

I understand exactly what Lohman is talking about, or at least I think I do. I am not necessarily willing to give up my weak side arm to a knife wielding assailant, but I am also not going to walk around and treat every grungy looking homeless guy like a suspect (though I will have a prepared plan for defense and disengagement). I have compassion. This compassion could get me in trouble, but it is a risk that I am willing to take. A friend of mine as a teenager showed compassion by purchasing a meal for a homeless person and offering $10.00 for his next meal. His kindness was rewarded with having a knife pulled on him and his wallet and all his money taken. He said that he would purchase a meal for the next person that appeared to be in need, but if he ever saw that same guy he would call the cops on him.

Preachy is an understatement. All of this discussion of tactics and training throws actual humanity out of the window. Flame on and roast me for all I'm worth. I have, at times, willingly put myself in a bad situation in an effort to help. I have co-workers who responded to a call of someone who wanted to commit suicide by cop. It was an Iraqi war veteran with a young family who just had a hard time coping. They all spoke to his wife, and decided they were willing to take the risk of approaching this guy without guns drawn (actually there was one cover officer who was prepared) because they had committed to not shooting him unless absolutely necessary. The first officer to approach had a gun pointed at him by the suspect, but he just talked to the guy. They eventually talked him into getting help and he is alive today. Were they using bad tactics? From a "tactical" standpoint, yes. From a human standpoint, no. Take it for what it's worth.

In a modern urban environment, interaction with homeless is almost a given, so you have a point. When I was in Houston, waiting for the bus daily, homeless would often come to people in line. While you could be aware and cautious, taking further action then that would have quickly had you imprisoned. Dallas, and San Antonio are similar, and Austin seems to be trying to break the record for homeless per capita in the South.

[In The Ten Ring]

In 2005 I was threatened by two men in a parking lot. I had seen them there, bending over and looking into my car windows, BUT I told myself "don't be racist" and went to my car anyway.

The threats were of death and/or grave bodily harm. Fortunately I had my gun and they didn't want to get shot. Unfortunately I was badly out-of-habit.

1). I was badly dressed. Shorts and sandals aren't the best for a combat situation.
2). I did not carry my normal 9mm, I had carried the .22 Mag Mouse Gun. I was afraid to show the gun at my side as I figured they'd laugh. I only had enough rounds for maybe one of the two. Reloads with NAA weapons aren't especially fast.
3). I did not have my pepper spray.
4). I walked right up to two large and clearly suspiciously-acting individuals. VERY DUMB.

Theron, you walked right over to a guy acting strangely. Once the man made a threat you just stood there. Once man shows his weapon, you then pull your gun. No attempt to create distance, no use of "command voice," no use of pepper spray. DUMB.

You are very lucky sir you aren't cut up, dead, or sweating out exercising the Stand Your Ground defense.

Glad you came off OK but you walked right into an ambush and you got lucky. Don't make it a habit.

In our mostly civilized society we tend to expect everyone to be honest and easy-going, like we are. I'm especially outgoing, very friendly, very helpful with everyone I meet but that can get me into trouble. It's a constant struggle we all have to figure out. Glad you are OK and thank you for posting as it's a wake up call for us all!

Ugh, the criticism I've read here concerning your post is a bit much. I've noticed that elsewhere on this site, I guess it's just the atmosphere here and I'm not the only person to notice it.

In my opinion you have done us all a service by posting this rather embarrassing episode and I hope we can all learn something from it. Good luck to you and to you all.