- Messages
- 185
- Reactions
- 77
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
CHL Question: Knife first or gun only?
- Thread Starter JRH Oregon
- Start date
JUSTIFICATION
161.190 Justification as a defense. In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in ORS 161.195 to 161.275, is a defense. [1971 c.743 §18]
161.195 "Justification" described. (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of official powers, duties or functions.
(2) As used in subsection (1) of this section, "laws and judicial decrees" include but are not limited to:
(a) Laws defining duties and functions of public servants;
(b) Laws defining duties of private citizens to assist public servants in the performance of certain of their functions;
(c) Laws governing the execution of legal process;
(d) Laws governing the military services and conduct of war; and
(e) Judgments and orders of courts. [1971 c.743 §19]
Note: See second note under 161.015.
161.200 Choice of evils. (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
(a) That conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury; and
(b) The threatened injury is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.
(2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. [1971 c.743 §20]
Note: See second note under 161.015.
161.205 Use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
(1)(a) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person.
(b) Personnel of a public education program, as that term is defined in section 1, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011, may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the application of force is consistent with section 3, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011.
(2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
(3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1; 2011 c.665 §10]
Note 1: The amendments to 161.205 by section 10, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011, become operative July 1, 2012. See section 12, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011. The text that is operative until July 1, 2012, is set forth for the user's convenience.
161.205. The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
(1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.
(2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
(3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971.
Note 2: The amendments to 161.205 by section 11, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011, become operative June 30, 2017. See section 12, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011. The text that is operative on and after June 30, 2017, is set forth for the user's convenience.
161.205. The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
(1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.
(2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
(3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971.
Note 3: See second note under 161.015.
161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]
161.210 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:
(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or
(2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or
(3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]
161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
161.220 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, "premises" includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, "premises" includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]
161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]
161.230 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
161.190 Justification as a defense. In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in ORS 161.195 to 161.275, is a defense. [1971 c.743 §18]
161.195 "Justification" described. (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of official powers, duties or functions.
(2) As used in subsection (1) of this section, "laws and judicial decrees" include but are not limited to:
(a) Laws defining duties and functions of public servants;
(b) Laws defining duties of private citizens to assist public servants in the performance of certain of their functions;
(c) Laws governing the execution of legal process;
(d) Laws governing the military services and conduct of war; and
(e) Judgments and orders of courts. [1971 c.743 §19]
Note: See second note under 161.015.
161.200 Choice of evils. (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
(a) That conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury; and
(b) The threatened injury is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.
(2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. [1971 c.743 §20]
Note: See second note under 161.015.
161.205 Use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
(1)(a) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person.
(b) Personnel of a public education program, as that term is defined in section 1, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011, may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the application of force is consistent with section 3, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011.
(2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
(3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1; 2011 c.665 §10]
Note 1: The amendments to 161.205 by section 10, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011, become operative July 1, 2012. See section 12, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011. The text that is operative until July 1, 2012, is set forth for the user's convenience.
161.205. The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
(1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.
(2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
(3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971.
Note 2: The amendments to 161.205 by section 11, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011, become operative June 30, 2017. See section 12, chapter 665, Oregon Laws 2011. The text that is operative on and after June 30, 2017, is set forth for the user's convenience.
161.205. The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
(1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.
(2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
(3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971.
Note 3: See second note under 161.015.
161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]
161.210 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:
(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or
(2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or
(3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]
161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
161.220 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, "premises" includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, "premises" includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]
161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]
161.230 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
- Messages
- 8,311
- Reactions
- 15,809
Pistol first and always.
If I have to dare defend myself (be it a knife, bat or firearm), my life or others is in jeopardy.
If it can be handled any other way.. Let leos deal with it.
If I have to dare defend myself (be it a knife, bat or firearm), my life or others is in jeopardy.
If it can be handled any other way.. Let leos deal with it.
- Messages
- 465
- Reactions
- 686
Knifes require being at least arms length of someone intent on doing you harm. That's to close. Unless you somewhere that you cannot carry legally. Go for the gun.
- Messages
- 185
- Reactions
- 77
- Thread Starter
- #5
What I was thinking was the knife would keep someone from coming within arms distance. It would be like if someone was coming from 20-25 feet I would pull the knife to stop them from getting any closer, then go to the gun if they keep advancing.
The more I think about certain scenarios, the more I think that I would never bother with the knife. I am not the type to take someone on in a fight so if that situation ever arose I would end it, or prevent it, with the gun.
Thanks for the definition of the laws solv3nt, that did help.
- Messages
- 358
- Reactions
- 167
If I understand your question correctly you are asking about your ability to engage with a firearm if the threat is inside 7 yrds. The short answer is that if you are very proficient you should be able to engage from concealment a threat advancing with haste from 7 yards. Anything closer and you will probably not. It should also be pointed out that just because you were able to successfully engage a threat does not guarantee that it was neutralized.
Mike Seeklander has a really good discussion on this topic in his defensive classes and did a segment here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwHYRBNc9r8
Attempting to draw when you know that you will not be able to get the weapon out in time puts you at 2 immediate disadvantages. One is that you are now attempting to defend yourself with one hand and the second is you have also pointed out to and observant threat you probably have a weapon and where it is.
I would really recommend a few defensive classes. The intro classes are really more of an introduction to using a pistol. The average gun owner is barely competent to engage a close target let alone safely draw under pressure so that has to be introduced first. You will really benefit from the intermediate levels classes when it comes to the tactics necessary to deal with a threat. You know that you are at a good class when the instructors emphasis avoidance and point out just how screwed you are if it comes to the point that you need to touch your gun.
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reactions
- 1,753
Remember the saying, " Don't bring a knife to a gun fight?" There's a reason for that logic. Most civilians are not very well trained at hand to hand combat, much less with a bladed weapon. As others have pointed out, a knife fight involves very close contact with your aggressor....a recipe for disaster during a confrontation.
- Messages
- 185
- Reactions
- 77
- Thread Starter
- #8
I feel that within 7 yards I am very competent with my sidearm. I can run a 3" group at 50 feet with rapid fire. I do practice drawing and shooting also. I also understand that at the time my weapon is used, I become the defendant in most cases. I would obviously prefer not to engage at all possible. One of the reasons I decided to carry is because I play at a poker room in downtown and I leave in the early morning hours, usually with a pocket full of cash. I don't know if anyone has been robbed leaving there, but I don't want to be the first.
I have been interested in taking a few defensive classes, but like I said before, I prefer not to engage in a fight. If I feel there is a chance I would be in a fight, my sidearm would be pulled. I have seen to many fights take terrible turns, be it cheap shots or just good blows, I don't want to find out how much of a better fighter the "perp" is than me.
Thanks for all the replies so far, this has helped me take a different view on the situations.
- Messages
- 185
- Reactions
- 77
- Thread Starter
- #9
I understand completely what you have to say. I train at least 2x a month for 2-3 hours at my favorite shooting spot. I practice my draw and fire, I also practice a retreat fire, aiming while backing up. Most of my practice is in the 10-25 yard range. I try to be very aware of my surroundings at all times, which I believe is why I have avoided most negative situations that I could have been in.
- Messages
- 185
- Reactions
- 77
- Thread Starter
- #10
I also will only sit inside a building where I can see any entrances clearly. I don't like my back to the door.
I also never give out any change, call me an a hole but that's one way to be off guard with a hand in your pocket.
- Messages
- 4,070
- Reactions
- 9,372
Sounds like you have a pretty good grasp of the situation. In most cases, a 7 yard confrontation will have had some kind of precursor actions or movements by the perp that would get your situational awareness up. But planning for that unexpected close in encounter is a very good idea. An instructor taught me to draw and fire with out bringing the weapon up to hold at arms length. Basically a hip shot.
There are huge tactical differences between a knife and gun fight. I was always taught, and I teach others that if somebody is coming at you inside of 10 yards, you have to react right now. Personally I am too old and not as fast as a possible aggressor, and way to old to take or give a hands on a** kicking or knife fight.
If I were you, I would continue to train as you have been, and leave the knives to cutting food up with . Myself, I put in about 3 hours this weekend on drawing, firing, and tactical reloads.
There are huge tactical differences between a knife and gun fight. I was always taught, and I teach others that if somebody is coming at you inside of 10 yards, you have to react right now. Personally I am too old and not as fast as a possible aggressor, and way to old to take or give a hands on a** kicking or knife fight.
If I were you, I would continue to train as you have been, and leave the knives to cutting food up with . Myself, I put in about 3 hours this weekend on drawing, firing, and tactical reloads.
- Messages
- 358
- Reactions
- 167
Most defensive uses of handgun occur 7 yards and in. If your focus is defense you need to spend more time training there. You also need to use a shot timer. Start by testing to see how long it takes you to get from 7 yards to contact and then move in by 1 yard increments. People hear the numbers but don't believe them until they see or try it in real life. Then check to see what your draw stroke to rounds in the upper A zone or head really is. If it's longer to draw and hit than it took you to close that distance going to the gun as a primary response is a bad move.
Without metrics you can't really gauge your base skill levels and you don't know if what you are practicing is helping, hurting or doing nothing to hep you improve. Todd Jarrett said that you can go out to the range and shoot till your knee deep in brass but if you aren't doing it right you will be a worse shooter at the end of the day and it will be harder to get better because of the training scars.
- Messages
- 19,720
- Reactions
- 55,063
BANG!!!!!!!
Don't EVER bring a knife to a gunfight!!! What is wrong with you? Unless you are a MMA fighter... I'd rather have overkill if needed, besides I'm to damn old to wrestle around with these young perps. They are going to get a hard lesson on messing with an old guy!!!
Don't EVER bring a knife to a gunfight!!! What is wrong with you? Unless you are a MMA fighter... I'd rather have overkill if needed, besides I'm to damn old to wrestle around with these young perps. They are going to get a hard lesson on messing with an old guy!!!
- Messages
- 4,070
- Reactions
- 9,372
Recently the wife and I were walking out of a shop in a residential house / neighborhood. As we exited the door, I stopped on the porch and did my usual left right left scan. Old firefighters habitat, the left traffic will hit you first.
I saw an individual walking down the sidewalk and noticed he had a 6 inch pig sticker in a sheath tied down on his leg. Now he could not conceal it obviously given its size. My size up of him and his body language told me he was not an immediate threat, but I still decided to delay walking out the front walk and on to the sidewalk. I waited until he was at least 50 feet away to move on to the sidewalk. He went around a corner where our vehicle was, I waited a few seconds and then looked around the corner.
He was proceeding across the street and was paying us no attention. We moved to the vehicle and went on our way. I never felt threatened or intimidated, my training kicked in and I reacted exactly how I wanted to. No doubt he was no threat, and it is not my place to question the mans legal right to open carry a weapon, but nor would I drop my vigilance or situational analysis.
I saw an individual walking down the sidewalk and noticed he had a 6 inch pig sticker in a sheath tied down on his leg. Now he could not conceal it obviously given its size. My size up of him and his body language told me he was not an immediate threat, but I still decided to delay walking out the front walk and on to the sidewalk. I waited until he was at least 50 feet away to move on to the sidewalk. He went around a corner where our vehicle was, I waited a few seconds and then looked around the corner.
He was proceeding across the street and was paying us no attention. We moved to the vehicle and went on our way. I never felt threatened or intimidated, my training kicked in and I reacted exactly how I wanted to. No doubt he was no threat, and it is not my place to question the mans legal right to open carry a weapon, but nor would I drop my vigilance or situational analysis.
- Messages
- 8,630
- Reactions
- 12,873
If I use my knife the bad person will never see it. If I use my handgun it will be the last thing they see.
- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,934
The only time I would suggest using a knife on someone to stab/slash during a deadly force encounter is if I couldn't draw the firearm.
*Disclaimer- I recommend the shooting hand to be on the subject's hand or on the pistol during this, not on his shoulder as displayed; however, the knife is cutting the correct area (inside forearm) to stop the subject from being able to grasp and draw the firearm.
For example, the guy knew you were carrying and tried to disarm you or someone came from behind you and tried to stop you/disarm you when you went to draw...in those cases I would recommend drawing a knife to cut at your attacker, gain distance, draw and shoot any threats still present.
For weapon retention knives, I recommend the K-Bar TDI
*Disclaimer- I recommend the shooting hand to be on the subject's hand or on the pistol during this, not on his shoulder as displayed; however, the knife is cutting the correct area (inside forearm) to stop the subject from being able to grasp and draw the firearm.
For example, the guy knew you were carrying and tried to disarm you or someone came from behind you and tried to stop you/disarm you when you went to draw...in those cases I would recommend drawing a knife to cut at your attacker, gain distance, draw and shoot any threats still present.
For weapon retention knives, I recommend the K-Bar TDI
- Messages
- 566
- Reactions
- 365
Solid advice from respected members. The 7 yard distance is critical. An attacker can close at what would seem to be warp speed, and your situation deteriorates. I see no mention of stun guns and pepper spray. Probably useless unless highly trained, and you could end up getting a good whiff of pepper spray and your day is gonna get a lot worse.
Having said all that, there may be an alternative to deploy, depending on the circumstances. Personally, I have ruled out spray, tasers and batons due to the close contact range required to wield. I carry a VERY bright flashlight with strobe. It reaches out to 9 yards or so with fresh batteries and will absolutely blind anyone in its beam. Try it on a friend. It works. It might help diffuse a potential attack, or if need be, give you another second to draw, and the courts look favorably on non-lethal methods, if and when possible. But also be of a mindset to end a persons life with full knowledge you will be dragged into the legal circus. That prospect does not bother me as much as being a sheep to some street predator.
Having said all that, there may be an alternative to deploy, depending on the circumstances. Personally, I have ruled out spray, tasers and batons due to the close contact range required to wield. I carry a VERY bright flashlight with strobe. It reaches out to 9 yards or so with fresh batteries and will absolutely blind anyone in its beam. Try it on a friend. It works. It might help diffuse a potential attack, or if need be, give you another second to draw, and the courts look favorably on non-lethal methods, if and when possible. But also be of a mindset to end a persons life with full knowledge you will be dragged into the legal circus. That prospect does not bother me as much as being a sheep to some street predator.
- Messages
- 185
- Reactions
- 77
- Thread Starter
- #18
Thank you everyone for the input. The more I read the replies, the more I tell myself that I need to start practicing in the under 10 yard range. Mainly focusing on drawing and target acquisition. As far as bringing out the knife goes, I don't think I would actually think about grabbing it in a dire situation when I have the pistol with me. As said before, you never know how you will react when the situation arises but it is good the practice and be prepared for such events. Again, thanks to everyone who participated.
- Messages
- 44
- Reactions
- 55
This is what I think about: Let's say you have a knife and a gun on you. With it being noted that both can be equally lethal, would the law expect you to use the weapon that is perceived to be least lethal first? (As if you have all the time in the world for decision-making). What if I feel my life is threatened and I have mace and a gun? This is Oregon after all.
- Messages
- 185
- Reactions
- 77
- Thread Starter
- #20
I have also wondered the same, my defense would be that I am not trained at all with the knife. So if it came down to saving my life or someone else's life I would think to go to the pistol first just because I have trained and practiced for that particular weapon. This seems to be the consensus with most who have replied so far.
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
247 count of Hornady .458 350gr round nose
- Started by alelord
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
