Vancouver axe-attack prank ends in 2 arrests

[addiction]

they were not attacking others, they were attacking each other, so the treat would not have been directed at you, at least initially, it dons say the threatened others.

"suspects admitted they were "pranking" people by pretending to attack one another with the axe and threatening nearby citizens"

So the question is not about an axe wielding crazy coming at you but rather at someone else you do not know.

that would actually be a much harder decision,

 

[CoastRange57]

The way I interpreted what happened was a guy with an axe raised running at people from a distance greater than the 21ft. rule. In that very rare case where there is a lethal threat coming at you but not close enough to be legally considered "immediate", I could see being able to stop a threat by presenting a firearm and not firing.

That is your qualifier there. if someone else is being attacked and you are in close proximity, you may be the next directed victim. Only your situational analysis and a very fast one will determine if you challenge or fire. Just do not be the next victim.

I agree, a challenge and a presentation may be able to be used in some situations to try and defuse before going lethal, but again, a very quick decision has to be made. If the individual has the weapon (axe) in a upward position or is cocked back with it to bring it down on somebody, you probably don't have time to challenge and expect compliance. There is a better chance if the axe is held down in arms to challenge, but I am going to have it out and ready to go in any case.

A lot of police agencies have went to a 40 foot rule. I agree 100%. I teach 35 feet and a very loud command presence voice to get your point across. If they get inside 20 feet from you, you have a huge problem.

 

[CoastRange57]

they were not attacking others, they were attacking each other, so the treat would not have been directed at you, at least initially, it dons say the threatened others.

"suspects admitted they were "pranking" people by pretending to attack one another with the axe and threatening nearby citizens"

So the question is not about an axe wielding crazy coming at you but rather at someone else you do not know.

that would actually be a much harder decision,

So if you do not know that person, you are going to let them hack away ?

And some crazy sob with an axe close to YOU is a problem.

Somebody with an axe swinging at another person, 40 feet from me is a big fing concern to me.

Not a very hard decision at all.

 

[coop44]

I assume the young healthy guys are the ones talking about "running away",let's talk in 20 years. due to a risky former lifestyle I am not being capable of "running away" (bad knee, foot). Their life expectancy would be very short approaching me with what appears to be a weapon, or attacking some one else with one when I am present. I consider that to be their lifestyle choice they have made fully aware of the consequences. Perhaps the are under the preconcieved notion that everyone will run away?
One of the biggest reasons I conceal carry is that I CANNOT run away. I have no qualms about using deadly force should I feel the threat is sufficent. The value I place upon my life is much greater than that of some miscreant.

I consider it a moral obligation to defend myself (because of my awesomness), or come to the defence of anyone I percieve to be in mortal danger.


(40 feet is to far, close the gap)

 

[Burt Gummer]

It is not OK for a cop to fill a person with holes 40' away who is holding a knife and not charging forward. The bum with a pocket knife on Constitution Ave that could barely stand a few years back comes to mind. Then the old man whittling wood curbside. The list of killer cop victims are endless.

Don't give cops even more leeway to kill at will. Defend themselves when necessary, yes, execute people from afar, no.

 

[wichaka]

Two things I keep seeing reoccurring in this thread;

1 - 21 foot rule and 2 - Verbal warning.

First, and I know this may be semantics but...there has never been a 21 Foot rule...ever. It was a guideline test that pitted an armed Officer with a holstered pistol, against a knife attacking subject. The 21 foot conclusion came to light, when after the tests were done...it was determined that the minimum distance one could accurately get a shot placed on the the attacking knife wielding subject was 21 feet. BUT, at that distance...you will get stuck!

To simulate such a thing, google "Tueller Drill" Dennis Tueller was the Officer that came up with the original test, and he now teaches the armorer classes for Glock. I have talked with him many times over the years, and it grinds him to no end that folks have perverted his original test into something that it was never intended. Example - one can not shoot a subject because they have not got within the required 21 feet, OR and here's an oldie but a goodie...one can not defend themselves in court if the subject has not crossed the 21 foot threshold! UGH!

So yes, it is court defendable to shoot someone outside 21 feet if they are armed with any type of weapon, be it firearm or in this case an axe. As stated above, if you're stuck on the 21 foot thing...you will get hurt. Unless the shot goes in the snot locker, tests of shown that pistol bullets suck, so you'll need further than 21 feet to keep yourself in one piece. And no, 40 feet is not out of the question when one figures reaction time. Everyone's reaction time to a stimulus is different. Other factors in reaction time include; placement of firearm, how it is concealed and the holster being used.

One thing to remember, the Officer knew the attack was coming during original test that Tueller conducted. Out on the street, most likely you won't have that advantage. So pleeeeeeeeez, let's get off the 21 foot RULE thingy. It doesn't exist.

Really folks, I'm trying to help you all out here. Don't trust me on this? Contact any attorney that is versed in use of force issues, and they will verify what I'm posting. 'nuff on that.


Second - If you are threatened, in this case with an axe, you are justified in drawing your gun and making a verbal warning to the suspect...if feasible. The key here is "Feasible" Or in other words, practicable, reasonable...you get the idea. You can make the warning without drawing your firearm, which is best...but again, that might not be feasible for you.

Every situation is different...adapt to what is unfolding in front of you and act appropriately.

 

[misplacedtexan]

For the life of me I couldn't remember the name of the drill with the knife armed perp, and holstered pistol cop. Thanks for that.

21ft is too close, and 40 ft is probably still too close.

Like Wichaka said, the officer KNEW it was coming, was facing the perp, and just had to wait for the knife to present. AND the cop STILL GOT STUCK! It won't happen so well in your encounter. i promise you that. I hate to sound like a shoot first and ask questions later kinda guy, but I would have shot the guy with the axe. Oregon law has a stipulation for allowing the defense of others.

He chose to charge with an ax, which begs the question, do I want to live more than he does?

 

[wichaka]

Knowledge is power, especially in the area of use of force.

I guess there really is a 21 foot rule; If the a subject with a weapon gets within 21 feet and threatens you, the rule is...you will get hurt!

 

[luke23]

New arrival here, so forgive me for jumping right in.

Now, stupidity kills. If someone is stupid enough to run at someone else with an ax, fake or otherwise, they've just Darwin-Awarded themselves. Take whatever action you need to defend yourself, because it's better judged by twelve than carried by six. Maybe, maybe, a highly trained shooter could draw fast enough and try to force the attacker to stand down.

But that's a lot like the typical antigun thing I see thrown at cops all the time. "Couldn't they shoot him in the leg? Couldn't they shoot the ax out of his hand? I saw it in the movies, it must be true."

 

[soberups]

I'm a very large guy as well and I know how it goes when the lil' fellas get some alcohol in them. Before I started carrying I'd always stand my ground and fortunately that only got me in a couple minor scrapes. Now that I carry more often than not I find that I'm often acting like a sissy to avoid confrontation and have actually had to beat a hasty retreat a couple of times. It hurts my pride a little but its not worth it to risk having to injure, or worse, someone just cuz my pride wouldn't let me wuss out.
That's just the price we pay to be the "good guys"

Just keep in mind that you are saving that persons life by not allowing pride and ego to make decisions for you. It takes courage to be the bigger man and to disregard what other people might think of you, and you can take a healthy pride in that.

 

[coop44]

But that's a lot like the typical antigun thing I see thrown at cops all the time. "Couldn't they shoot him in the leg? Couldn't they shoot the ax out of his hand? I saw it in the movies, it must be true."

"couldn't they just shoot the brain out of their head?"

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Halloween pranks are meant to be scary, thats the point. for a group of people who stand behind tradition on many things, im surprised you guys havnt said anything about that. no one got hurt and he clearly took no risks with anyone elses safety, this should be ignored by the courts to allow taxes to go to taking bad guys off the streets.

Really? How would you like to "prank" someone and cause their fatal stroke or heart attack?

 

[coop44]

Really? How would you like to "prank" someone and cause their fatal stroke or heart attack?

or cause a traffic accident?

 

[Kevinkris]

i hadnt looked at this thread since my last post and i see some would like a bit more. Halloween is a holiday when people go out to be scared, not all but most anyway. the guys were acting out a violent scene at a distance from other people and did not make violent threat or pretend to attack anyone who was not involved. ive seen much worse pranks go unpunished and this is far from threatening. the only problem these guys have is the fact that some tight wad called the cops and a tight wad cop decided to be a dick. if these guys see jail time and/or fines it would be an injustice to society. they were simply having a good time with halloween and didnt hurt anyone.

 

[Both Eyes Open]

Just throw this out there... "Several Good Samaritans shouted at Krivov to stop, and he responded by charging and swinging the axe at them. He reportedly got within a few feet of one terrified bystander, who had no way of knowing that the axe was a harmless but convincing fake." From the article in the OP. Swinging at them... Within a few feet... Terrified bystander... Sorry Kevinkris, if what your last post said was what really happened I would agree with you. The fact that they DID attack innocent bystanders they are getting what they deserve.

 

[Koda]

I'm a very large guy as well and I know how it goes when the lil' fellas get some alcohol in them. Before I started carrying I'd always stand my ground and fortunately that only got me in a couple minor scrapes. Now that I carry more often than not I find that I'm often acting like a sissy to avoid confrontation and have actually had to beat a hasty retreat a couple of times. It hurts my pride a little but its not worth it to risk having to injure, or worse, someone just cuz my pride wouldn't let me wuss out.

That's just the price we pay to be the "good guys"

this is an example to all, thank you for posting that. Maturity trumps pride and no one who avoids confrontation is a sissy.