Baseball bat or knife?

[Spectral]

If you were woken up in the middle of the night by a strange noise coming from downstairs, and you had both right next to you(a baseball bat and a knife), which would you grab? I'm just curious, we just had a break-in at my house a couple nights ago before I got back.

[MMAMickey]

Personally, I'd take the bat.

It has better reach and can be used offensively without necessarily causing grievous bodily harm, which may or may not be justifiable in court.

[Chili Pepper]

Agreed. Although I'd be more comfortable with the knife, the bat allows for a gradient of force.

[Vorpal]

Bat. But since all may guns are locked up (kids) I choose my Game of Death nunchucks that one of my friends made for me. Waaaaa taaaaa!

[ChenPengFi]

c) The phone.

I don't think the legal ramifications make a compelling argument for the bat.
It's still deadly force and the word "bludgeoning" tends to have a pretty negative connotation, if it gets to court.
More importantly it's also not safe to assume the intruder is alone or unarmed.
Even in a state with a "Castle Doctrine", like Hawaii, going down to meet a threat is ill-advised and even potentially illegal.
All of the defensive handgun classes i took hammer in this fact.
We were taught to barricade ourselves in the furthest room from the break-in and call the cops, even while armed with a handgun.
Most states have much more stringent duty to retreat requirements than we do here as well.
Know your local laws.

[MMAMickey]

c) The phone.

I don't think the legal ramifications make a compelling argument for the bat.
It's still deadly force and the word "bludgeoning" tends to have a pretty negative connotation, if it gets to court.

Except the bat allows for a, to use a term coined earlier, 'gradient of force'. The entire point is that the word 'bludgeoning' and its connotations should be irrelevant; you can hit somebody with a bat and incapacitate them while causing far less injury than incapacitating somebody with a knife, from which pretty much any incapacitating injury counts as grievous harm (wounding) under English law.

By only considering deadly force from a bat and deadly force with a knife you're committing to a false dichotomy.

[kenny_free]

I like the bat myself, better chance of quicker incapacitation as well as increased range. A knife works nice and all, but you gotta wait for somebody to bleed out. A solid shot to the dome or the ribs puts a much quicker dent in somebody's fighting ability.

I firmly understand that grasping 'more lethal' weapon and chasing somebody down may result in some pretty gnarly criminal charges. With respect to that, I have a seven month old, and a very beautiful wife that means the world to me. My family is worth my life, or prison time. I don't want to ever have to make the choice to kill or cause grevious bodily harm to another person within my household. And if I can give that person the chance to run the **** away with or without my television, I will. That being said, if your between my child and I, and you don't fucking haul ass when I pump the action, what happens next is on you.

[ChenPengFi]

US law does not see it that way in my understanding, thus my comment "know your local laws."
Hitting someone with a bat is considered deadly force here.
I don't know where the OP is from.
Your gradient is false imo, and sounds like a bastardization of the military's continuum of force.

Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

(my bold)
http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/

I think you're dreaming if you think you are so proficient with a bat that you can decide exactly how much damage the person will receive, that's just silly, especially if that person means you harm.

You're also missing the point that both are stupid responses to an intruder anyhow.
The intruder should be assumed to be armed and/or not alone if your presence isn't enough to deter them.
I wouldn't go down to meet a threat even with a gun, hell brandishing a weapon is a crime itself.
I was taught to barricade myself in a room, call the cops and leave the phone off the hook.
Then you yell, "The cops are on the way! I am armed and believe you mean me harm! I will shoot you!! Leave immediately!!"

Furthermore i would not trust a bat at all, given that video that was on here a few months back.
Those guys got knocked but they kept coming and the guy eventually lost his bat.
He was lucky to get away alive.

[MMAMickey]

US law does not see it that way in my understanding, thus my comment "know your local laws."
Hitting someone with a bat is considered deadly force here.
I don't know where the OP is from.

The quote you gave is of little consequence, and only really accounts for hitting someone to the head. Hitting somebody to the ribs or leg (taught to Police in the UK) is not reasonably expected to cause death or serious injury.

Your gradient is false imo, and sounds like a bastardization of the military's continuum of force.

...

I think you're dreaming if you think you are so proficient with a bat that you can decide exactly how much damage the person will receive, that's just silly, especially if that person means you harm.

You're missing the point, and attempting to exaggerate it to absurdity. You CAN control how much damage somebody receives by hitting them in a different place. Obviously you cannot control it exactly, and people could still receive serious harm, but the likelihood is drastically lower; to the point of arguably setting it below the 'reasonableness' requirement for 'deadly force' under US law, and would almost certainly limit the damage inflicted under UK law to ABH, as opposed to grievous bodily harm.

With a knife, your only option is to cut or stab somebody, both GBH offences in the UK, and unlikely to be proportionate to the threat with regards to a self-defence argument. Hitting somebody in an area likely to cause pain and incapacitation but not permanent or serious injury would constitute a lesser offence, and more likely to be supportive of a self-defence claim.

You're also missing the point that both are stupid responses to an intruder anyhow.
The intruder should be assumed to be armed and/or not alone if your presence isn't enough to deter them.
I wouldn't go down to meet a threat even with a gun, hell brandishing a weapon is a crime itself.
I was taught to barricade myself in a room, call the cops and leave the phone off the hook.
Then you yell, "The cops are on the way! I am armed and believe you mean me harm! I will shoot you!! Leave immediately!!"

Furthermore i would not trust a bat at all, given that video that was on here a few months back.
Those guys got knocked but they kept coming and the guy eventually lost his bat.
He was lucky to get away alive.

This has nothing to do with anything I said. My argument is with the part of your quote I posted; hence I declined to refute that the safest measure would be not to engage.

[ChenPengFi]

The quote you gave is of little consequence, and only really accounts for hitting someone to the head. Hitting somebody to the ribs or leg (taught to Police in the UK) is not reasonably expected to cause death or serious injury.

Incorrect.
A punch to the face counts as deadly force, here.
Breaking a femur is potentially fatal.

You're missing the point, and attempting to exaggerate it to absurdity. You CAN control how much damage somebody receives by hitting them in a different place.

Bullshit, you can't even reliably stop someone when going full force. Go watch that Boston Chinatown video.

Obviously you cannot control it exactly, and people could still receive serious harm, but the likelihood is drastically lower; to the point of arguably setting it below the 'reasonableness' requirement for 'deadly force' under US law, and would almost certainly limit the damage inflicted under UK law to ABH, as opposed to grievous bodily harm.

Now you're waffling.
I clearly gave the local law caveat.
If you'd like to quote a law resource that supports your assertion, i'd appreciate it.

With a knife, your only option is to cut or stab somebody, both GBH offences in the UK, and unlikely to be proportionate to the threat with regards to a self-defence argument. Hitting somebody in an area likely to cause pain and incapacitation but not permanent or serious injury would constitute a lesser offence, and more likely to be supportive of a self-defence claim.

I disagree wholeheartedly.
I could brandish the knife.
Further, the pain of the bat won't necessarily stop someone.
That said a broken skull can kill you, as can many blunt force traumas.
That is why it is lumped in with deadly force.

This has nothing to do with anything I said. My argument is with the part of your quote I posted; hence I declined to refute that the safest measure would be not to engage.

You are splitting hairs between two really poor responses, and are using poor logic that does not extrapolate to US law to do so.
(IANAL, any attorneys who'd like to interject, please do.)
That was my point.