Legal distance to shoot attacker with a knife?

[Fallguy]

The distance at which you can shoot a threat wielding a knife is the distance at which that person poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to you or to a third person. That, of course, will depend. I think if you are contemplating that you yourself are the intended or potential victim, the 21' rule would find substantial support in law enforcement, if you had not yet unholstered. I would say if you have drawn and are ready to fire, the distance might be somewhat within 21', but I'm not going to quibble over a yard or two if a man with a knife is advancing on a man with a gun. He's nuts, he means to kill me, he's going down.

+1

...or to clarify a bit further, when it is reasonable to believe there is imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death.

There is no 17ft rule in the law.

[Guest archerdr1]

this is what my friend on the Winston-Salem PD has to say about this:

These photos are of an officer trained in

hand-to-hand combat.

The officer figured that due to his size and

fighting skills, he could disarm a knife wielding

aggressor.

[BigPoppa]

Re: the preceding pictures........

I often get calls and e-mails asking if we offer a knife defense course.

I say "Yes, we do....it's called the Handgun Carry Permit course."

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

[Guest Daelith]

Ouch!!! Bet that officer won't do that again.

[setsdw]

Re: the preceding pictures........

I often get calls and e-mails asking if we offer a knife defense course.

I say "Yes, we do....it's called the Handgun Carry Permit course."

Dang Straight! I don't have the time or the will to invest in becoming an unarmed master.

[JReedEsq]

You must have reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Your instructor might want to pay a little closer attention to the video presentation the next time he teaches the class.

Edited April 26, 2010 by JReedEsq

[Guest archerdr1]

If someone comes at you with a knife, shoot. When you go to court, print off those pics and say, this is what I was afraid would happen to me.

[molonlabetn]

As has been posted, there is no legal, prescribed distance at which any weapon in the hands of an aggressor is a reasonable threat... the law is written for that sense of imminent danger to be subjective, and all you need to be able to articulate is that you did, in fact, feel that your life or well being was at serious, immediate risk. The '21 ft' rule depicts the minimum distance that the average person with a gun can beat a charging person with a knife... I would certainly be clearing leather at a distance greater than 21ft, and especially 17ft (I have no idea where he got that... my guess is your instructor made that up). The important part of the law in that case is the 'imminent' requirement... if the aggressor is far enough away for you to be able to escape or prevent yourself from being accessible to the attacker, then the threat is not 'imminent'... for example, as was mentioned above, if there is a car or other barrier between you, or you can escape to a lockable place and call the police. Your weapon is only meant to be used if you wouldn't otherwise survive or remain concious/mobile until the perp is under control or in custody.

[Guest db99wj]

Re: the preceding pictures........

I often get calls and e-mails asking if we offer a knife defense course.

I say "Yes, we do....it's called the Handgun Carry Permit course."

Good answer!!! Made me laugh out loud!

Regarding those pictures. DAMN.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

As has been stated, there is no law concerning the distance etc.. I can say this, if a person with reasonable access to me has a knife (in hand or otherwise ready to use) and is even remotely interested in threatening or doing me bodily harm, I will draw on that person and will not be concerned about the distance. I would much rather a person come at me with a gun than a knife. I have been cut, and when the blades come out - somebody is going to get cut and it is never pretty.

[Guest Ggun]

As has been posted, there is no legal, prescribed distance at which any weapon in the hands of an aggressor is a reasonable threat... the law is written for that sense of imminent danger to be subjective, and all you need to be able to articulate is that you did, in fact, feel that your life or well being was at serious, immediate risk. The '21 ft' rule depicts the minimum distance that the average person with a gun can beat a charging person with a knife... I would certainly be clearing leather at a distance greater than 21ft, and especially 17ft (I have no idea where he got that... my guess is your instructor made that up). The important part of the law in that case is the 'imminent' requirement... if the aggressor is far enough away for you to be able to escape or prevent yourself from being accessible to the attacker, then the threat is not 'imminent'... for example, as was mentioned above, if there is a car or other barrier between you, or you can escape to a lockable place and call the police. Your weapon is only meant to be used if you wouldn't otherwise survive or remain concious/mobile until the perp is under control or in custody.

I think you are confused regarding an individual's duty to "escape to a lockable place and call the police."

[Guest Jamie]

I think you are confused regarding an individual's duty to "escape to a lockable place and call the police."

Yep, I believe that in Tennessee, no one is required to flee a place they have a legal right to be... though there are times that will be the prudent thing to do irregardless of what the law says.

Given that I can't run very fast backwards - or frontwards anymore, for that matter - and that I'm not gonna turn my back on a nut with a knife that's charging me... I guess somebody's gonna end up getting cut or shot.

BTW... Those are some nasty pics. I've seen 'em before - and some worse - and they always make it hard to swallow my coffee...

J.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Jamie

[molonlabetn]

I think you are confused regarding an individual's duty to "escape to a lockable place and call the police."

No confusion... It's not a legal duty to flee, but it's certainly the prudent thing to do if you have the opportunity, if the threat is not yet 'imminent'. Why wait for a potential threat to become an actual threat if you can possibly avoid it? I'm not looking for a reason to use my gun, but I certainly do not want a law requiring me to flee either... my common sense should be enough to guide me through any of the many variations of circumstances an encounter may occur under.

[Guest Glock23ForMe]

Agreeing with J, if someone was coming at me with a knife, I would definitely not run away, even if I can run faster than him... Someone's gonna get stabbed or shot, and my draw's pretty fast, and it'll be done WAY before they get to 17 feet, because you know if someone is coming after you with a knife.

[Guest Jamie]

... if the threat is not yet 'imminent'.

If the person can close the distance... even if it's 100 yards... faster than you can get away... then I'd say the threat was imminent and you're probably better off to stand your ground and prepare to "repel boarders".

J.

[Guest archerdr1]

If someone comes at me with a knife, I will probably be with my family. There is no way that I can outrun anyone carrying two kids and a wife (She will probably be hanging on me b/c she is scared) so He will see the business end of my pistol as soon as I see the business end of his knife coming at me...But he will only see mine for about a half a second.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Whats sad is if the instructor in question is indeed teaching this as law then what else is he wrong about?

[roverboy]

As soon as I fear for my life of the life of a 3rd person I am clearing leather I dont care it is 7 inches, 7 feet, or 7 yards.

I agree 100% bud.

[G27]

Whats sad is if the instructor in question is indeed teaching this as law then what else is he wrong about?

The class my wife took at a highly respected place was taught by a local LEO and contained several wrong things that I later corrected (and even emailed the details to her friends who were in the class with her). Things like:

- illegal to carry on airport property

- illegal to carry in banks

- circle slash is legal, carries same legal ramifications as 'properly posted'

Pretty sad, doubly so that he was a LEO.

[JAB]

Given that I can't run very fast backwards - or frontwards anymore, for that matter - and that I'm not gonna turn my back on a nut with a knife that's charging me... I guess somebody's gonna end up getting cut or shot.

J.

+1. In fact, to be truthful, I've never been all that fleet of foot. I hope I'd remember to 'move and shoot' to try and get out of the direct line of the charge/attack but beyond that I like my chances using that time to get into some semblance of a balanced shooting stance better.

Also, the main law I would be considering in such a situation would be Mr. Murphy's law. If it were possible for me to trip, twist an ankle, etc. while trying to run away then I would have to assume (being that my life would be on the line) that this is exactly what would happen. Therefore, as long as I am in a place where I can legally defend myself with a firearm then I am thinking twice and then three times before attempting to match my speed in a foot race against someone intent on harming/killing me. I'm a better marksman than sprinter.

If it were possible for my firearm to malfunction - either a jam or misfire in a semiauto or a misfire or other problem with a revover - then I would have to accept the likelihood of that happening at the worst, possible moment. Therefore, if it would be difficult to present a holstered weapon and get off one shot before a knife-wielding attacker could cover 21 feet then I'm going to want to give myself a buffer zone, if at all possible, to be able to have time to either clear a malfunction or draw my BUG. Besides, being able to unholster and present a firearm then get off a single shot at the attacker, even if you get a good hit with that shot, equates with counting on a 'one shot stop'. I don't want to bet my life on a one shot stop if I have a choice.

If it is possible that the assailant could be wearing some sort of bullet resistant clothing/armor, that the assailant could be under the influence of a substance that would make quickly stopping the threat more difficult or any number of other considerations, then I would have to asssume that such would be the case. Waiting until the assailant approached to 21 (or 17) feet to discover these things could make an already bad day worse.

Finally, if a person has a knife and intends on inserting said blade into my tender flesh then his intent is to cause death or serious bodily injury, period. With that intent, all bets are off as far as I am concerned and I don't care if there is a car between us. Heck, I don't care if there is a water-filled moat complete with sharks wearing lazers on their heads between us. It is my life on the line and I'm not measuring my chances - or the value of my life - with a yard stick.

Of course, as others have said, there are many other variables to consider. For instance, I don't want to get into a shooting situation if I can simply step through a doorway and close the door then call 911. I would also have to take into account the surroundings, whether or not there were innocent bystanders around and other such details into account in order to decide at what distance I feel it would be responsible to open fire. That doesn't mean I'm letting the knife wielding attacker get that close before I present my weapon, however.

Edited April 26, 2010 by JAB

[Guest Jamie]

Pretty sad, doubly so that he was a LEO.

Not really, when you consider that it only takes 6 or 8 weeks to become an LEO, but several years to become a lawyer.

Still, whoever laid out his curriculum should have been more knowledgeable. And if he did it himself, he should have consulted with an attorney to be sure it was correct, for liability's sake if nothing else.

( The guy that taught the one I went to was an ex-cop. His lesson plan was obviously pre-packaged, and he did mention that there were a couple of points in it that made him wonder and caused him to head to the lawyer's office before he ever taught the first class. )

J.

[Guest Jamie]

+1. In fact, to be truthful, I've never been all that fleet of foot.

I was at one time, and it's that fact that made me grin when somebody further up the thread mentioned a car being between you and your attacker.

'Cause I can remember crossing over the top of a car like it wasn't even there once, when the shooting started.

And the point there is don't get a false sense of security just because there's an obstacle between you and the trouble that you think may prevent it from reaching you. Because it may not even slow it down.

J.

[G27]

Not really, when you consider that it only takes 6 or 8 weeks to become an LEO, but several years to become a lawyer.

Still, whoever laid out his curriculum should have been more knowledgeable. And if he did it himself, he should have consulted with an attorney to be sure it was correct, for liability's sake if nothing else.

I took the class there, also, and was given primo information from a different instructor. This particular school has a fantastic reputation regarding permit instruction.

From what the wife said, it sounded as if he was simply unprepared and thought he knew what he was talking about.

[G27]

I was at one time, and it's that fact that made me grin when somebody further up the thread mentioned a car being between you and your attacker.

'Cause I can remember crossing over the top of a car like it wasn't even there once, when the shooting started.

And the point there is don't get a false sense of security just because there's an obstacle between you and the trouble that you think may prevent it from reaching you. Because it may not even slow it down.

Excellent point.

For those of us who haven't the life experiences you guys (especially LEO) have had, it's a more dangerous world, to be sure...