policy myths and knives

A preview of an article I hope to have published soon:

Four Common Policy Myths Regarding The Knife:

Over the years I have been approached by numerous Law Enforcement Officers seeking training with edged weapons; both counter and offensive tactics. Just as often, they voice frustration over their agencies not only not offering any training with the knife; but also dismissing knife tactics training as irrelevant or unnecessary. This is alarming on numerous levels.

In 2010 Emergency Survival Responses, LLC conducted a statewide survey. The results showed that 96% of the respondents who are assigned to patrol, (from over 30 different Colorado Law Enforcement Agencies) carry at least one duty-knife. Does 96% constitute a significant majority? Additionally, 72% of the total respondents attested to carrying a knife off-duty.

There is a legal guideline called the “Walker Test” which is based off of the Supreme Court Case Walker v. City of New York, 1992. The law suit was a “failure to train” claim for damages by the plaintiff. What the Courts told us was that, if the following three factors are in place, there must be training in place to address the issue:

1.       The policy maker knows to a moral certainty that the employee will confront a given situation.

2.       The aforementioned situation presents the employee with a difficult choice that training or supervision will make less difficult.

3.       The wrong choice, by the employee, will frequently cause the deprivation of the citizen’s constitutional rights.

We will come back to the Walker Test in a moment. First, let us look at some of the most common myths regarding Knife-Tactics training and policy makers.

Myth 1

“A fixed blade knife is a weapon whereas a folding blade knife is a tool. A “tool” does not fall under the use-of-force guidelines and as such, does not require training.”

What about a 4-inch fixed blade knife versus an 8-inch folding knife? All though a fixed blade is superior to a folding blade as far as being sturdy, (the more moving parts the higher the probability for malfunction. Think semi-autos versus revolvers), that is about the only difference. Colorado Revised Statute, (CRS) 18-1-901(3)€(II) specifically defines two weapon systems as “Deadly Weapons” and thus, deadly force for the officer; The Firearm and the Knife. Notice the statute does not differentiate between fixed blades or folding blades, but simply reads “knife”. A folding blade knife is every bit as deadly as a fixed blade knife. I am not sure where this misinformation originated. I can’t seem to locate it, and it certainly is not coming from the C.R.S.

Myth 2

“If our officers carry knives with blades under 3 ½ inches in length, it is not a deadly weapon and does not require training.”

Again, in C.R.S. title 18, article 1 the statutes refer to “offenses related to firearms and weapons” Notice it says “weapons” and not tools… Statute 105 refers to “unlawful conceal carry”. Here is the only place in the book that there is a reference to blade-length, and the commonly referred to 3 ½ inch blade restriction. The statute is referencing the unlawful carrying of a “concealed” knife on or about your person, for civilians. If the knife has a blade length over 3 ½ inches, the knife cannot be carried concealed. The blade length has no impact on the deadliness of the weapon. A great question for those folks who commonly refer back to blades under 3 ½ inches as not being weapons, is “what would you do if a bad-guy holding a knife with a 3 inch blade was  charging you intent on stabbing and/or slashing you? Is that an imminent deadly threat?” Remember, there are numerous fatal-targets located less than two inches underneath the skin surface. These same folks are very quick to reference Sgt. Tueller’s famous “21 foot rule” and answer that they would “simply” shoot the bad-guy. Conversely, if the “little” 3 inch blade is a deadly threat against an officer, it is likewise, a deadly force option/ weapon in the hands of an officer.

Myth 3

“If we call the knife a “life-saving tool” or “utility tool” then we are not required to train officers with it as a weapon system.”

 

This myth is simply ludicrous. What if we called the officer’s duty weapon/firearm a “hand-held boom maker” or “lead-thrower” instead of a firearm? Would that mean that they don’t have to train and qualify with it? Of course not! Whatever you call it, a firearm is a firearm and a defined deadly weapon/force option. The same holds true for the knife. Legally, a knife is a knife; no matter what it is labeled in policy. The use of a duty-knife is deadly force and will result in death or serious bodily injury.
 

Myth 4

“If an officer faces an imminent deadly threat or is in a fight for his life, then he can use whatever is necessary to survive. The knife falls under “whatever” so we don’t have to train him with it.”

 

I agree with the first part of this myth. If an officer is in a fight for his life he can, and should use whatever is at his disposal, to win the fight. I am a big fan of the phrase “one mind, any weapon” which refers to just that. Do what you need to, with what you need, in order to win. However, if we are going to truly buy into this myth, specifically the second part, then why the need to train with firearms? If an officer can use whatever he needs to in order to win; does that not include a firearm? Yet, we train and train with the firearm due in part to the liability of using a defined deadly weapon and the high probability of death or serious bodily injury resulting from such. Take the above and replace the word “firearm” with “knife” and it is just as applicable; legally and morally.

The duty-knife is the only other item that an officer carries routinely (96% of respondents) that is a deadly force option. If an officer were to lose his firearm, be unable to deploy it, or suffer a fatal malfunction, the duty-knife is the only other item that is designed, manufactured and sold as a deadly weapon that he can use to overcome a deadly threat. It is the equal and appropriate force option to a deadly threat.

Let’s go back to the Walker Test and the “(1) moral certainty that the employee will confront a given situation”. If 96% of our Colorado Officers carry at least one knife on duty that means that there is a knife at every call, contact and scuffle; just like the firearm. Additionally, officers will tell you that they encounter knives during calls, pat-downs and so on, with much greater frequency than they do firearms. Most officers will go an entire career without shooting someone, yet continual firearms training is mandated for them. Most officers will never have to use a knife, but “what if?” A policy maker must recognize this fact and acknowledge with a moral certainty that the probability of a knife-encounter exists daily.

“(2) The situation presents the employee with a difficult choice that training or supervision will make less difficult.” Like the firearm, C.R.S. defines the knife as a deadly-weapon and deadly force option. The duty-knife is the only other item that an officer carries that is a deadly force option should he find himself in a weapon retention situation; it is tactically unwise to deploy the firearm; or he runs out of ammo. Choosing whether or not to utilize deadly-force and cause death or serious bodily injury is probably the most “difficult choice” an officer will have to make during a career. Training can, and does assist the officer in knowing when to, and how to make that decision; just as with firearms training. Imagine being in a deadly threat scenario, and the one appropriate option you have access to, you have zero training with or policy guidance with. That opens up a huge liability gap and results in deadly hesitation.

“(3) The wrong choice, by the employee, will frequently cause the deprivation of the citizen’s constitutional rights.” Think of the Fourth Amendment. Those short 54 words are responsible for more civil suits against law enforcement than any other civil right provided for under our Constitution. Lack of training and guidance mixed with high stress and a rapidly deteriorating use-of-force situation, can lead to lack of confidence, overreaction and a “wrong choice” by the officer. A wrong choice will almost certainly lead to civil litigation due to the damages/harm caused by deadly force. One of the first things a plaintiff’s attorney will attack is training; or lack thereof.

As you seek out training, it is important to arm yourself with knowledge, so that you might overcome fallacious obstacles such as these four common policy myths. Simply, it is tactically and professionally wise to have options. For example, think of all the less-lethal options officers are afforded and trained with. The duty-knife is an excellent second deadly-force option that the majority of officers already carry. Now, we just need to provide appropriate training with Knife-Tactics to stack the deck in our Law Enforcement Officer’s favor.