Baseball bat or knife?

**MMAMickey** · Posted On: 1/02/2012 7:11pm

Originally Posted by ChenPengFi

Wrong, in a home defense both are legal yet both are deadly force and both can cause GBH.
Legal hairsplitting confirmed.

Wrong.
The bat can cause the less serious injuries - ie. not deadly force. You're not going to see any court confirm that hitting somebody in the legs or arms with a bat to disable them is deadly force. It's irrelevant that both can cause GBH. The difference is that any incapacitatory injury from the knife will amount to wounding/GBH, whereas the bat can cause lesser injuries to fulfil its purpose.

In practice, it could be the difference between going to court or not, and then the difference between acquittal and conviction based on the injuries you caused, and whether the jury accepts that your actions were proportionate based on your defence.

Also, on the earlier subject of broken facial bones, I'll let you in on a secret as to why they're often classed as ABH, because you can try ABH in a magistrate's court, and it's cheaper to do so.

**Devil** · Posted On: 1/02/2012 7:39pm

If you have an intruder in pretty much any U.S. state, castle doctrine or not:

1. Kill him.
2. When the cops get there your comments should be A. "I thought I was going to die." and B. "I would like to speak with my attorney."

You'll be fine unless you did something ridiculously stupid like following him outside and executing him in the street as he tried to flee.

Edit: To answer OP's question - Sig .40. I was at lunch with some people from work one day. One of the ladies was talking about how her husband keeps a golf club handy to whack intruders. One of the other guys said, "yeah I have a baseball bat." I smiled at them to their face and laughed with my buddies later.

Here's a current local news story. This is how you deal with an intruder properly.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10553140/

Badass of the month, please.

**maofas** · Posted On: 1/02/2012 7:50pm

A bat requires force behind it which means room to swing it (bad for hallways or any area with a lot of furniture or clutter). It can also be grabbed and wrestled away from you. I would take the bat if I were going outside to break up something rowdy, but if woken up in the middle of the night, the knife. I'd prefer a machete to either though given the choice.

**PointyShinyBurn** · Posted On: 1/02/2012 7:50pm

The knife has a sheath? I'd take the bat in my hand and put the blade in my pocket.

The legal consequences for using either if I weren't in immediate fear of harm wouldn't particularly concern me because I wouldn't use bludgeon or stab anybody without good cause.

**ChenPengFi** · Posted On: 1/03/2012 12:41pm

Originally Posted by MMAMickey

Wrong.
The bat can cause the less serious injuries - ie. not deadly force.

You're making up stuff now.

You're not going to see any court confirm that hitting somebody in the legs or arms with a bat to disable them is deadly force.

Says you, the law is written pretty clearly.

It's irrelevant that both can cause GBH. The difference is that any incapacitatory injury from the knife will amount to wounding/GBH, whereas the bat can cause lesser injuries to fulfil its purpose.

That's just your opinion and one not supported by fact.

In practice, it could be the difference between going to court or not, and then the difference between acquittal and conviction based on the injuries you caused, and whether the jury accepts that your actions were proportionate based on your defence.

Source?

Also, on the earlier subject of broken facial bones, I'll let you in on a secret as to why they're often classed as ABH, because you can try ABH in a magistrate's court, and it's cheaper to do so.

So how much experience or formal training do you have in this area?
It sounds like none.
It also sounds like you don't know the difference between "and" and "or".

Let's not forget this part:

It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result:

or this:

deadly force as defined by Geller and Scott (23) pertains to the force reasonably capable of causing death or bodily harm.

**Bneterasedmynam** · Posted On: 1/03/2012 3:57pm

Originally Posted by Scut Farkus

If you have an intruder in pretty much any U.S. state, castle doctrine or not:

1. Kill him.
2. When the cops get there your comments should be A. "I thought I was going to die." and B. "I would like to speak with my attorney."

You'll be fine unless you did something ridiculously stupid like following him outside and executing him in the street as he tried to flee.

Edit: To answer OP's question - Sig .40. I was at lunch with some people from work one day. One of the ladies was talking about how her husband keeps a golf club handy to whack intruders. One of the other guys said, "yeah I have a baseball bat." I smiled at them to their face and laughed with my buddies later.

Here's a current local news story. This is how you deal with an intruder properly.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10553140/

Badass of the month, please.

This i have to agree with, there are just too many variables in a break in to trust your life or the lives of family members to a 911 call. There have just been too many stories in the news lately about break-ins leaving entire families dead. I think with this I agree with that old NRA statement that it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

**gregaquaman** · Posted On: 1/04/2012 7:29am

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

This i have to agree with, there are just too many variables in a break in to trust your life or the lives of family members to a 911 call. There have just been too many stories in the news lately about break-ins leaving entire families dead. I think with this I agree with that old NRA statement that it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

What if it is just taking you a really long time to beat this guy to death? Personally I would feel kind of awkward after a minute or so.

**Ignorami** · Posted On: 1/04/2012 9:18am

Originally Posted by gregaquaman

What if it is just taking you a really long time to beat this guy to death? Personally I would feel kind of awkward after a minute or so.

In any kind of work, you can usually increase your output by taking regular breaks.

Stop, go get yourself a coke and some fresh air for a few minutes, then come back and have another go. You'll be surprised at how much beating you can get done when you are feeling that little more rested.

**Chili Pepper** · Posted On: 1/04/2012 9:44am

Originally Posted by gregaquaman

What if it is just taking you a really long time to beat this guy to death? Personally I would feel kind of awkward after a minute or so.

"Listen, I really don't think this fatal bludgeoning is working out for us. No, really, you've been great; it's not you, it's me. I just think you're clinging too strongly to life."

**jspeedy** · Posted On: 1/04/2012 10:54am

Originally Posted by 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.

(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.

If I'm thinking of the same video, the guy was wielding the bat one handed thus using it rather ineffectively it's not surprise the guys he hit got back up. That video can't be cited as an example of the non-lethality of baseball bats. Any other person using a bat who has at least hit a T ball once back in the day will grab the bat two handed and let some serious power fly.

Personally, I don't see why we are arguing the lethality of bat vs knife unless some states or countries really do require you to use less than lethal force on intruders. IN which case using a bat could still go terribly wrong if you were trying not to use lethal force.

The requirement to barricade yourself also sounds impractical. Maybe I missed it but does anyone have source stating where this is a requirement? For a single person home alone it's a reasonable option but I've got a kid who's room is on the other side of my (small) house. My room is by the back door my kid's is by the front if anyone comes in either door I'm grabbing my machete (next to bed) going to my kid's room then we go to my room with my wife and I unlock the gun. If I see anyone while going to get my daughter all the glory of my FMA training will unleash a couple of serious machete blows before I pause to see if there is anyone else around.