Whilst I’m somewhat tech savvy e.g., I engage in crime data analysis using structured and unstructured data etc., I am not someone who understands social media; I get how algorithms work or are “meant” to work, but I don’t know how to “tune” my feeds, or if that is even possible, so that I see what I want to see, rather than what the social media platform wants me to see etc. This isn’t a major problem in my life, but it means I sometimes see debates and discussions around subjects that I thought had been concluded years ago. One of these concerns the use of bayonets by modern militaries i.e., is bayonet training still included in military training and why? Effective use of the bayonet has been described, at times, as “the last seven inches of foreign policy”. Whilst it may seem “redundant” when you have a weapon that is capable of firing bullets there are situations when using a rifle differently, such as, as a cutting/stabbing weapon is more effective, and not just when you have run out of ammunition e.g., in a crowded environment, such as a house where there is the risk of non-active participants getting shot collaterally, a bayonet can be more easily localized and directed at the person who is needing to be dealt with. Whilst this article is not about bayonets (or “swords” as we use to refer to them), their continued use illustrates why it’s not always applicable or effective to use a firearm as a “hot” weapon, and sometimes it may be better to use it “cold” e.g., as an impact weapon.

               Not every situation you are in may permit you to use legal force, even if it appeared that this might be necessary at an early stage. Whilst there are those involved in reality-based self-defense who will causally trot out the line, “better to be tried by twelve than carried by six” to excuse/explain an excessive use of force, and/or poor judgement, being able to make an effective and “watertight” claim of self-defense, especially where/when firearms and lethal force are involved, is essential e.g., you may be innocent and have been justified to use lethal force however if a DA puts a plea deal of three years on the table versus going to trial, where you could be sentenced to life without parole etc., your attorney is likely to advise you to take the plea. It is always good to try to separate the “moral” from the “legal”, when looking at having to justify your potential actions – you may feel the moral right to shoot someone after you have disarmed them, after all that may have been their intention regarding you, however if you have moved away with the weapon, and are no longer in imminent danger, you don’t have the legal right to do so, despite how justified you may feel in that moment.

If you are not in imminent danger i.e., an aggressor can’t in that moment cause you harm, it's worth taking that moment to assess what you should do next; you may want to increase that assessment time by disengaging and backing away, rather than simply acting blindly in that moment, fueled by rage, aggression and injustice. The law makes very few provisions for “but what ifs…” e.g., but what if he had another weapon (did you see one?), but what if there were two other people who entered the room to assist them (did this happen?) etc. After making a disarm, it may be better/more effective to use the weapon “cold” and smash your assailant in the face with it, in order to create a disengagement opportunity, rather than “tap and rack” the weapon whilst backing off to a distance where you can cover/put a bead on them etc. Once you’ve done that, do you have a plan? What will you do if they fail to obey your command to stay on the ground? What will you do if they run away or towards you? Staying “engaged” with an attacker even when you believe you hold the power prolongs the confrontation and creates the opportunity for further stages in it that can complicate your position. Proving/demonstrating, that you were trying to disengage and safely put distance between yourself and an aggressor rather than staying with them, is a safer and usually better legal option to take/follow i.e., it demonstrates your “innocence”, that you didn’t want to be involved in any way, shape or form concerning this altercation, and were trying to get away at the first opportunity.

The most common, strongest part of a short-barreled firearm e.g., pistol or revolver etc., is the barrel. When you are working with someone else’s firearm, such as after a disarm, it is extremely unlikely that you will be able to assess the strength and integrity of the other parts of the weapon and so it is best to work from the premise that the part which is most likely to be strong is the barrel. There are basically two ways to use the barrel, and these replicate the way you would use the barrel of a long-barrel weapon, you can strike/punch with the barrel, and you can slash/cut with it. You can potentially use the magazine (and the bottom of the magazine well) to strike with, however this tends to be more effective with a long-barrel firearm which usually has a stronger magazine. Both slashes/cuts and strikes/punches are delivered whilst you are holding the firearm on the grip (“handle”), as if you were going to fire it one-handed. As with all weapons, it should be regarded as much as a liability as a strength. You will want to protect it and ensure that your assailant/attacker isn’t able to take it off you and get it back. Whilst they may not have intended to use it against you before, it is pretty much guaranteed they will now i.e., they won’t want to take the risk of being disarmed again. A few good strikes should dissuade them from attempting to but the longer you stay with them, the greater the risk. A few strikes with the weapon that cause/inflict serious pain should give you the opportunity to disengage.

It is all too easy to get caught up in the training environment of imagining a scenario where you turn the tables on an assailant armed with a firearm, and then hold them there until law enforcement arrives etc. However, staying rather than going, not having inflicted serious pain and/or physically damage to an assailant, can go in so many other directions that don’t see you exiting the incident as the “hero”.