LEO Self Defense Vs Civillian Self Defense in Hand to Hand Altercation (knife and hands)

How do you see the difference between a LEO and a civilian when it comes to how they can defend themselves in a Hand to hand or knife wielding (attached) altercation? Do you see much difference? I think the big point of contention is that the job of the officer is to first arrest the suspect. So in doing his job he has a different burden. But what happens when he starts losing? Maybe the suspect is a trained fighter? Or high and can’t feel anything. I had someone on my Facebook this morning wanting the death of all police for the actions of a scumbag cop this morning. He went so far as saying anyone who kills a cop right now is a hero. And when someone called him out on the lunacy...he pulled his “I am a combat vet marine and so I’m special and I fought for your rights and that isn’t what I fought for” card. The irony of him not being responsible for war crimes committed by other marines but all cops being guilty of the actions of a few being completely missed there. Anyway.

So how do you feel about the tactics and training and use of force differences in the above? I am just wondering. Maybe we can have a dialogue that produces an understanding of self defense differences.

blackjack50 said:

How do you see the difference between a LEO and a civilian when it comes to how they can defend themselves in a Hand to hand or knife wielding (attached) altercation? Do you see much difference? I think the big point of contention is that the job of the officer is to first arrest the suspect. So in doing his job he has a different burden. But what happens when he starts losing? Maybe the suspect is a trained fighter? Or high and can’t feel anything. I had someone on my Facebook this morning wanting the death of all police for the actions of a scumbag cop this morning. He went so far as saying anyone who kills a cop right now is a hero. And when someone called him out on the lunacy...he pulled his “I am a combat vet marine and so I’m special and I fought for your rights and that isn’t what I fought for” card. The irony of him not being responsible for war crimes committed by other marines but all cops being guilty of the actions of a few being completely missed there. Anyway.

So how do you feel about the tactics and training and use of force differences in the above? I am just wondering. Maybe we can have a dialogue that produces an understanding of self defense differences.

Click to expand...

LEOs seem to need to be educated on how to deal with people that are not wielding weapons. The overly large number of unarmed citizens being shot by LEOs is problem. Works good in a Police State. Perhaps that is the problem. If a LEO sees a suspect/civilian with a knife, he shoots him. Center mass, don't ya' know?
/

DaveFagan said:

LEOs seem to need to be educated on how to deal with people that are not wielding weapons. The overly large number of unarmed citizens being shot by LEOs is problem. Works good in a Police State. Perhaps that is the problem. If a LEO sees a suspect/civilian with a knife, he shoots him. Center mass, don't ya' know?
/

Click to expand...

Well let me ask you 2 important questions here...

1) If i attack you with a knife and you have a gun...could, would, and should you shoot me? Or would you prefer to be stabbed? This is a serious question. You as a civilian are allowed to defend yourself. Same for police. Or should the rules be different if someone is hell bent on stabbing them or someone else? Stabbing is lethal force.

2) If you are able to get a gun into play and someone is beating you down...severely...blood and everything...should you be allowed to use lethal force? Is there a difference between an officer and a civilian in that case? That being said there is a difference in handling of armed and unarmed suspects. But it is also important to remember that there is no such thing as “unarmed” in terms of how you should approach a situation (just like a gun is never unloaded).

When you're life is at risk, job titles don't matter.

The question is, how do you know when it truly is, and how can you prove it?

The difference is as vast as the difference in their arrest powers and immunity from prosecution powers.

A citizen cannot order you to submit to being cuffed and removed from your current location - that is often called kidnapping when done by other than an LEO. A civilian is not (largely) immune from false arrest and/or assault charges. A civilian must actually prove self defense in a court of law - they are not simply assumed, by the state, to be in the right and to have used "only necessary" force to render you "safe to handle".

A civilian cannot take you down by force and frisk you simply to assure themselves that you are not armed "just in case" - that is often called assault and battery when done by other than an LEO. The bottom line is that self defense implies that an attack has been initiated or is provably imminent (credible threat of serious injury or death was made).

blackjack50 said:

How do you see the difference between a LEO and a civilian when it comes to how they can defend themselves in a Hand to hand or knife wielding (attached) altercation? Do you see much difference? I think the big point of contention is that the job of the officer is to first arrest the suspect. So in doing his job he has a different burden. But what happens when he starts losing? Maybe the suspect is a trained fighter? Or high and can’t feel anything. I had someone on my Facebook this morning wanting the death of all police for the actions of a scumbag cop this morning. He went so far as saying anyone who kills a cop right now is a hero. And when someone called him out on the lunacy...he pulled his “I am a combat vet marine and so I’m special and I fought for your rights and that isn’t what I fought for” card. The irony of him not being responsible for war crimes committed by other marines but all cops being guilty of the actions of a few being completely missed there. Anyway.

So how do you feel about the tactics and training and use of force differences in the above? I am just wondering. Maybe we can have a dialogue that produces an understanding of self defense differences.

Click to expand...

In all encounters.. the police have the SAME right to self defense as the civilian. Which means that they should REASONABLY believe that they are in danger before using force and reasonably believe that they are imminent danger of death or grave bodily injury before using deadly force.

The problem as I see it.. is that police officers are not held to as high a standard as the civilian.. and that's very problematic in a democracy.

I am 5 10 200 pounds, and a trained martial artist.. If a 5 foot 10 skinny kid pushes me.. I am not allowed to use deadly force to defend myself.

Yet an trained officer with a rifle can see a suspect crawling toward him make a move. just a move to pull up his pants and the officer shoots him and gets off.

The bar is set way to low for the police right now.

blackjack50 said:

How do you see the difference between a LEO and a civilian when it comes to how they can defend themselves in a Hand to hand or knife wielding (attached) altercation? Do you see much difference? I think the big point of contention is that the job of the officer is to first arrest the suspect. So in doing his job he has a different burden. But what happens when he starts losing? Maybe the suspect is a trained fighter? Or high and can’t feel anything. I had someone on my Facebook this morning wanting the death of all police for the actions of a scumbag cop this morning. He went so far as saying anyone who kills a cop right now is a hero. And when someone called him out on the lunacy...he pulled his “I am a combat vet marine and so I’m special and I fought for your rights and that isn’t what I fought for” card. The irony of him not being responsible for war crimes committed by other marines but all cops being guilty of the actions of a few being completely missed there. Anyway.

So how do you feel about the tactics and training and use of force differences in the above? I am just wondering. Maybe we can have a dialogue that produces an understanding of self defense differences.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the guidelines for when, and how much force someone is allowed to use to defend themselves should be no different between LEOs and ordinary citizens. If anything the standards for LEOs should be higher given the amount of power we allow them to wield.

blackjack50 said:

How do you see the difference between a LEO and a civilian when it comes to how they can defend themselves in a Hand to hand or knife wielding (attached) altercation? Do you see much difference?

Click to expand...

If an incident reaches the point where the officer is literally fighting for their life, it’s pretty much exactly the same as if a civilian ended up in the same position. It’s the circumstances around and before that where the key differences are. In a threatening situation, an individual civilian only has a responsibility to protect themselves (and possibly vulnerable dependants), their primary aim is to get themselves to a position of safety. LEOs have wider professional responsibilities, seeking to protect everyone involved (including suspects), bring the threat to an end and safely secure any suspects. That will inevitably put officers in to conflict with violent people and in positions where deadly force is a valid or required option much more often.

blackjack50 said:

So how do you feel about the tactics and training and use of force differences in the above? I am just wondering. Maybe we can have a dialogue that produces an understanding of self defense differences.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure there will ever be an answer to satisfy everyone. Even officers in the most fractious environments won’t find themselves in this kind of extreme situation very often and all the training in the world will wash away from the best of us in any kind of extreme. Mistakes and unfortunate combinations of circumstances are inevitable, as are situations where officers make the right decision in the heat of the moment only to be second guessed by people with the benefit of hindsight and often a biased point of view. Equally, there will always be human failings within law enforcement, closing ranks and refusing to acknowledge real errors due to the “then verses us” attitude promoted by the criminals who benefit from it.

Ultimately, the “bad” police interventions will always be some subset of all police interventions so the best way to reduce the bad ones is to work to reduce violent crime in general.