SOTB Knife Fight

[Roguish Lawyer]

Not sure what the hesitation was in shooting the guys, but maybe that's just me . . .

http://www.dogbrothers.com/multimedia/2004_04_05_mem_knifeattack.rm

[Smokin Joe]

They should have meet this (http://www.dtdude.com/hostagenegotiations.wmv) end.

Nobody makes enough money to have to go hands on with someone who is pissed off and wielding a knife.

Just my .02 cents

[RLK]

RL, you think that was in the UK? I know most of the cops over there don't go on patrol armed (w/a sidearm) and the ones that are armed keep them in the trunk.

The application of boot to head at the end was too conservative in my humble opinion. Somebody should've bit a curb. My $0.02 US.

[Roguish Lawyer]

RL, you think that was in the UK? I know most of the cops over there don't go on patrol armed (w/a sidearm) and the ones that are armed keep them in the trunk.

The application of boot to head at the end was too conservative in my humble opinion. Somebody should've bit a curb. My $0.02 US.

I believe it was Mexico City.

[CoLawman]

Well in listening to the audio it is not clear where it takes place. Initially the cops do shoot without much success. The one suspect runs up behind one of the cops and stabs him in the neck. A couple more worthless shots or misdirected shots are fired. The newsman is now complaining or questioning why the two subjects are allowed to chase the police around without being shot until they are disarmed. Then another police officer is stabbed in the back. Again the newsman complains that nothing is being done. He points out that the citizens were in danger as well, highlighting a woman and her child in a car in close proximity.

The police finally corner them and tackle them and begin beating the two. The newsman now begins to complain about how the police are brutalizing the suspects even though they are now disarmed. He then starts counting the number of kicks and punches delivered by one of the cops toward the detained subject.

Sheesh! It is okay to kill them.........but don't beat the snot out of them once you risked life and limb to avoid having to kill them.

A crazy world!

Ooops! Let me make it clear that it is does appear to be Mexico based on dialect, but that is the newscasters dialect, so not clear what hispanic country this took place. Clear as Mud.............I give up.

[Smokin Joe]

Well in listening to the audio it is not clear where it takes place. Initially the cops do shoot without much success. The one suspect runs up behind one of the cops and stabs him in the neck. A couple more worthless shots or misdirected shots are fired. The newsman is now complaining or questioning why the two subjects are allowed to chase the police around without being shot until they are disarmed. Then another police officer is stabbed in the back. Again the newsman complains that nothing is being done. He points out that the citizens were in danger as well, highlighting a woman and her child in a car in close proximity.

The police finally corner them and tackle them and begin beating the two. The newsman now begins to complain about how the police are brutalizing the suspects even though they are now disarmed. He then starts counting the number of kicks and punches delivered by one of the cops toward the detained subject.

Sheesh! It is okay to kill them.........but don't beat the snot out of them once you risked life and limb to avoid having to kill them.

A crazy world!

Ooops! Let me make it clear that it is does appear to be Mexico based on dialect, but that is the newscasters dialect, so not clear what hispanic country this took place. Clear as Mud.............I give up.


Thanks CoLawman,

I was guessing the entire way through as to what was being said.

[Goggles Pizano]

I wonder if their department was in the midst of an investigation into officer involved shootings the public had deemed "illegal and/or unjustified" (accentuated by the reporters descripting of the beatings)? Could be one of the reasons they were hesitant to fire. Of course their backround was all wrong for a shootout, but that is why they allow us the responsibility of carrying a shield and loaded weapon-make the decision boys and girls.

[Smokin Joe]

I wonder if their department was in the midst of an investigation into officer involved shootings the public had deemed "illegal and/or unjustified" (accentuated by the reporters descripting of the beatings)? Could be one of the reasons they were hesitant to fire. Of course their backround was all wrong for a shootout, but that is why they allow us the responsibility of carrying a shield and loaded weapon-make the decision boys and girls.


Thats why my shooting Coach tells me to get close.....less chance of a miss. ;)

[hoepoe]

Thats why my shooting Coach tells me to get close.....less chance of a miss. ;)

Good morning

Not to come across as a smart aleck, but unfortunately, i have had the displeasure of being confronted by skilled kniefe wielding folk on a few occasions. I have seen somoene close 10m+ in a blink of an eye to succesfully stab someone. Be very very weary of a knife, distance is your friend.

If the attacker is close, don't bother trying to draw (if your weapon is holstered), you won't make it.

As for the video clip, my opinion is they should have been shot many many times. As for the environment for a shootout, i understand, but is it the ideal envronment for a cop killing??


Hoepoe

edited to add: I see my post is a little out of context here, apologies, but i'll leave it as is, as there are some good general points.

[Smokin Joe]

Hopoe,

Agreed about the 10m+ distance inwhich you are speaking about.

I am refering to having your gun out, frontsight on target, and advancing on the threat while giving them lead poisioning. What I am refering to is that the LEO's need to be the Neutrializer not the container.

I would offer this: In the supplied video look and the psychological dynamics that are at play.
Who are the aggressors and who are the victims?
Are the Sheepdogs (LEOs) really challenging and fighting the wolves (the badguys with the knives)? Or are they just providing a target or distraction to the wolves from preying on the sheep?

At what point are they going to Man up and Neutrialze the threat? Instead of running around being chased buy men with knives.

Granted this video has different dynamics but, the message is the same. They neutrialized the threat.1 man with knife vs 3 cops (http://www.filecabi.net/v/file/KnifeatGunFight/wmv)

:) :cool:

[Goggles Pizano]

Strength in numbers. :D

I agree Joe at some point they had to take control of the situation (which ran too long in my opinion) hence my original questions.

[The Reaper]

Real knife fighters would not show you the knife before they stick you with it. Look at the shankings that are taught and practiced in prison. Most are sneak attacks. You have to determine ahead of time if someone might have a blade, and be prepared to deal with them, perhaps after being cut.

You can take a knife away from someone if you know what you are doing and the other person is not skilled. You will probably get cut doing it. You need to understand this ahead of time and make your best guess.

If I had a firearm, I would not close with a knife fighter, but would look to put something between us while I pumped rounds into him.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[Smokin Joe]

Real knife fighters would not show you the knife before they stick you with it. Look at the shankings that are taught and practiced in prison. Most are sneak attacks. You have to determine ahead of time if someone might have a blade, and be prepared to deal with them, perhaps after being cut.

You can take a knife away from someone if you know what you are doing and the other person is not skilled. You will probably get cut doing it. You need to understand this ahead of time and make your best guess.

If I had a firearm, I would not close with a knife fighter, but would look to put something between us while I pumped rounds into him.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

Great points Sir.

My response is for the above video that RL posted. At some point they need to take the "Bull buy the Horns" so to speak and fight back.

I also absolutely agree with you having cover or an obstacle would be ideal when confronting someone with a knife. But, I also look at the statical hit ratio of LEO's in dynamic situations; weigh that with the horrible backdrop these guys have and I still think the least risk to society is to close with them to a degree I don't know that I would get inside 10 feet of either one.

So, yes at some point I would stop my advance and rely on my ballistics to do the work.

[hoepoe]

I think the bottom line regarding the limited info we have on this video is simple, these cops should have, but did not dish out a large dose of 'led pie'.

\I have a particular distaste for knives and the damage they do.

TR, Sir, yes indeed, when tackling a knife wielder, chances you are will get cut, but sometimes there is no other option.



Keep well all.

[Smokin Joe]

I think the bottom line regarding the limited info we have on this video is simple, these cops should have, but did not dish out a large dose of 'led pie'.

\I have a particular distaste for knives and the damage they do.

TR, Sir, yes indeed, when tackling a knife wielder, chances you are will get cut, but sometimes there is no other option.



Keep well all.

Your hitting the nail on the head.

[CoLawman]

I think I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty that this scenario would not be played out on the streets of America. Given the length of this debacle, less than lethal weapons could have and would have been deployed if there was some reluctance to fire the guns. Hmmmmmmmm this looks like a job for Protectojet or maybe a bean bag round, or possibly a sock round. Maybe firing a wooden baton at the dirtbags groin would have stopped him/them. I do not think this is an appropriate place for a Tazer.

Anyway the point is, most American officers arriving on scene of Keystone would have popped their trunk and ended this within moments with one of many choices from their arsenals............again, if their was some unknown reluctance to use deadly force.

Then we would have kicked the ever living snot out of them, like observed in Keystone.......ha ha ha ha!

[frostfire]

You have to determine ahead of time if someone might have a blade, and be prepared to deal with them, perhaps after being cut.

You can take a knife away from someone if you know what you are doing and the other person is not skilled. You will probably get cut doing it. You need to understand this ahead of time and make your best guess.
http://www.hockscqc.com/knife/index.htm
scroll down for the sample cases...having a "bulletproof mind" definitely help in such scenarios
Also here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tHf_pvv4zo

just my 0.0002 cents, sometimes it's handy to show the knives/weapon on the first place. This is a different scenario of course since the goal is to deter potential attacker(s) or even avoid bloodier confrontation.
I saw first hand on street of 3rd world country a small guy pulled a knife from the leg, held it in ice pick position, and made a stance/clear determination that if he were to go down, he'd bring at least one of the 3 thugs along. The 3 thugs ran away, and he went away as well in the opposite direction.

[hellokitty]

Hi All, The distance which was once considered safe when facing an opponent armed with an edged weapon was once considered to be 7mts or 21 ft ( the Tueller drill ) it has since been reviewed and a lot of LE agencies have gone to 10mts or 30ft as a safe minimum , the problem however comes from the fact most serious knife users wont be showing the blade untill you are on top of them or they close distance and engage , I am stunned by the videos shown in this thread and that the LEOs did not shoot earlier, and at how close they allowed the BGs to get to themselves , any of these videos could have been a lot worse . The question of less lethal options such as bean bag rounds and tasers raised is a very valid one , but IMHO for LEOs only , in a military or self defence situation i would seek cover and shoot till threat ceases as in reality this is the best way to execute a knife disarm against a motivated opponent, Good instruction on knife disarms and defences that are realistic and workable can be found from Jerry Wetzel and the Red Zone or Stab programs or if at Bragg send me a PM and i will put you in contact with a good source of up to date info on this subject, all the best , respectfully Kitty.

[Team Sergeant]

This is where some of us differ. I would quickly close the distance for two reasons:

One to ensure no friendlies would be able to move laterally into my line of fire and two to also ensure I had a backstop for the six rounds I pump into the knife wielding bad guy.

I would advocate moving forward in a gun/knife fight (against punks) which is what 99.999% of what the Law Enforcement faces today.

Todays LEO’s have, IMO, been taught tooooo much in the “defensive” tactics department. There are times when, in order to save lives that the street cop goes on the “offensive”.

Lose your focus, even for a moment, and you could lose your life. If you are “moving to cover” and do not have someone else to cover your movement you will lose focus. Stay focused on your target, always move in a decisive manner, and only move as fast as you can accurately engage your target.

If knife fighting was all that lethal the US Military would have a Field Manual on knife fighting. Would I ever use a knife in a fight? You bet, when I run out of bullets.... ;)

[The Reaper]

I think there is a legal aspect to this as well (on the civilian side), and it is easier to defend if you were stationary or withdrawing rather than advancing, which could be viewed in court as an aggressive move.

If you are outside of his reach, you are unlikely to be cut by a knife wielder. If you close the distance to engagement range and employ lethal force, who is responsible?

Any of our counsel care to voice an opinion about the better CoA from a legal perspective?

Agree with kitty, our edged weapon trainer says that trained cutters will not flash the knife in advance of an attack. More like an attack similar to a shanking in prison. Which is probably where they acquired their training.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

I think there is a legal aspect to this as well (on the civilian side), and it is easier to defend if you were stationary or withdrawing rather than advancing, which could be viewed in court as an aggressive move.

If you are outside of his reach, you are unlikely to be cut by a knife wielder. If you close the distance to engagement range and employ lethal force, who is responsible?


TR

In some states civilians have no “legal” responsibility to “withdraw” from a fight. This is catching on I hope.

Again, I would NEVER advocate a “uniformed Police” Officer (s) withdraws from a knife wielding punk. (Then again I've not really heard of a “Professional” knife fighter taking on police officers in a fight.)

Place yourself into mind of your knife brandishing adversary, he’s just waiting (as in the movie) for a chance to employ his knife. When you lose focus, even for a second, is when he will attack.

If a punk with a knife is within 21 feet (most LEO agencies agree with this distance) and shows intent to do harm law enforcement officers can employ lethal force. Allowing the same punk with a knife to close that distance, as shown in the movie is foolish.

It a police officers job to enforce the laws, if he must be aggressive in order to accomplish his mission, so be it.

[The Reaper]

Not looking to throw gasoline on this, but let's verify the civilian (LE, not military) scenario I think we are alluding to. This is separate from the video scenario above.

The knife wielder/punk/American citizen is at 30 feet brandishing, but stationary.

You have legal basis to shoot if he is within 21 feet.

You choose to immediately advance to within 21 feet to shoot, rather than wait him out or further verify his intentions.

Do you think this will withstand criminal and civil review?

I can pretty much state with certainty that if you were to do this as an armed citizen, you are going downtown to the lock-up.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

Not looking to throw gasoline on this, but let's verify the civilian (LE, not military) scenario I think we are alluding to. This is separate from the video scenario above.

The knife wielder/punk/American citizen is at 30 feet brandishing, but stationary.

You have legal basis to shoot if he is within 21 feet.

You choose to immediately advance to within 21 feet to shoot, rather than wait him out or further verify his intentions.

Do you think this will withstand criminal and civil review?

I can pretty much state with certainty that if you were to do this as an armed citizen, you are going downtown to the lock-up.

TR

TR,

I’m commenting on the movie and how the LEO’s handled the situation, how I would advise law enforcement to do otherwise given the same scenario.

In your scenario, a punk brandishing a knife at 30 feet, no others within 21 feet of him, no one else in the scenario, after I stopped laughing, I would pull my CCW, inform the punk that his current course of action might lead to grievous bodily harm on his part, wait for his reaction and if he decided to move in my direction take the appropriate action in order to neutralize the threat.

I would not run for cover or move to cover, I would not take my eyes off the threat, not for a moment, I would not move forward but hold my ground and wait for the punk to make the first move.

I would however move forward to engage if said punk was threatening the life of another human being, as in the movie.

And yes, given this scenario I would hope it would stand up in a court of law.

[The Reaper]

Roger all, that clears it up.

I thought that you were advocating advancing within legal shooting range in all gun on knife situations.

Thanks for elaborating.

TR

[hellokitty]

Hi Team Sgt , Reaper and friends , I wasnt too specific when i said move to cover , I wasnt sugesting to run for cover or to lose focus on the knife , a better option is just to have something between you and them , like a car or telegraph pole etc , I als o agee with Team Sgt about "professional" knifefighters , there is no such creature but if there was there would probably be some good HD pay in it ;) , if not limited by legal concerns , IMO closing the distance when armed with a firearm gives away your advantage , every step closer to a trained or untrained knifer takes you closer to his range and increases your risk. I honestly dont have a great knowledge of self defence laws in the US so can only offer an opinion based on ours in Australia where we do have a "duty of retreat" and as such was really commenting more for the SF people here who operate under differing rules of engagement , my comments for self defence in the US for civvies was based on assumption and as such I happily defer to you all for info on whats acceptable and whats not. I am with Team Sgt on closing the distance to a knifer IF you cant run and you are armed with an edged or impact weapon, as , if you turn your back and run and have nowhere to go you are going to have serious problems and a very sore back or neck :eek: all the best , respectfully Kitty