This seems like common sense, a truism. I understand the 21 foot rule if a person has a holstered gun. But clearly the time it takes to aim and shoot is reduced if the person with the gun a) has the gun drawn, but pointed downward at an angle, b) has the gun drawn, but held at his side in a ready stance used by some in close quarters, and c) has the gun drawn and aimed on target.
The recent police shooting of the guy 16 times walking down the street seems egregious when seen on video, as the cops clearly already had their pistols drawn and aimed. Even though the guy was probably within 20 feet, he did not lung at or threaten the cops. Since they already had guns drawn and aimed, it sure looks to me like they should have waited until there was more immediate danger or threatening behavior. IMO, it isn’t that the guy was closer or farther than 21 feet, it was that he didn’t seem to make a threatening move toward anyone.
On the other hand, one must realize that even a person who has been shot doesn’t always immediately fall down. So, it is entirely plausible that someone running toward you with a knife can still inflict significant wounds even after being shot one or more times. It simply doesn’t take a determined person long to cover 5, 10 or 20 feet.
But obviously the situations where there’s someone “with every intent” of actually killing a cop aren’t the situations the rest of us are concerned about.
Just pulling the trigger may not stop the threat. Pistols, contrary to what you see in the movies, are usually not an instant incapacitation weapon. Unless the aggressor is hit in the spine, brain or heart he can continue his attack even after being shot. 21ft is not a lot of distance.
The “21 foot rule” is not, and never has been, a rule of any sort. This all started as a demonstration that a person with a knife could cover 21’ and be within stabbing distance before a an officer could draw and fire. This was after telling the officer what was going to happen and to prepare (mentally) accordingly. It was never intended to imply that an officer could just shoot anyone with a knife who was within 21’. It WAS intended to remind officers to not get lulled into a false sense of security when confronting a person who they believe is armed with an edged weapon. Nothing more, nothing less. Many members of the general public (scr4?) have the belief that one shot will stop an assailant and that that shot is relatively easy to get off and on target. You can thank Hollywood for that. Nothing could be further from the truth. (More current studies have shown that the distance than can be closed is closer to 30’)
None of the recent controversial cases were remotely like this.
The point is that the “21 foot rule” doesn’t say “if someone is running at you as fast as they can towards you with hate in this eyes you can shoot them”, it says if someone is holding what could be a sharp object, and they are within 21 feet of you the policeman can shoot them. E.g. this example in San Francisco. The guy was not “coming at” anyone, but was still shot.
You chide members of the general public for misunderstanding the “rule,” but many law enforcement agencies have gotten it just as wrong.
As you say, the point is that someone with a knife who intends to hurt you can get to you pretty quickly–probably more quickly than you would think just by bare intuition.
It does not follow that it is proper to use deadly force against a knife-wielding individual within 21 feet. Officers have an obligation to try to create distance from such an individual, to use cover, and engage in other tactics to preserve officer safety while assessing the situation. Unfortunately, a lot of people have been shot and that shooting justified because of the 21-foot rule, when better training could have kept the officer safe and the suspect alive.
I said this above, but it’s critical to remember that in the police context, the encounter with a knife-wielding suspect is more often than not an individual who is alone and mentally disturbed. If police put themselves within 20-feet of such an individual and then shoot him merely because he refused to drop the knife, that should not be considered a good shoot if they did not first try to use proper distance, cover, and de-escalation techniques.
Do you have a cite for this, that the majority of people killed by police while holding knives are mentally disabled? If you do, does it hold for people who are shot but not killed?
A knife in the hand of a mentally disabled person poses no less of a danger than if it were possessed by a non-mentally disabled person.
Here’s one on shooting deaths generally involving the mentally ill (“at least half of the people shot and killed by police each year in this country have mental health problems”), and here’s the Washington Post’s count for 2015 (finding that 25% of all deadly police shootings involved documented mental illness). Among shootings of people wielding knives, the incidence of mental illness is even higher. There are many such databases, and they tend to all show the samething.
The databases are for those killed. We barely track that, much less all shootings.
Yes and no. It is literally true that the mental faculties of the person attached to the hand stabbing you is irrelevant. But people committing suicide-by-cop (to name one subset of such people) don’t generally attempt to stab the cops. They just get close and wave the knife around. It can be intelligently handled with proper training, as it is by police departments around the world and increasingly in the US.
Check out the latest guidelines from PERF (which is not exactly a group of pinko cop-haters). The research is pretty clear now that mental illness plays an enormous role in the rate of police shootings, and that good training can eliminate a lot of them.
Officers throughout the United States have heard use of force instructors discuss the “21 Foot Rule” during their officer safety, firearms and deadly force training. As a use of force instructor and a forensic police practices expert, I have trained and testified to this concept myself.
In 1983, the concept’s founder, Salt Lake City PD police firearms instructor Lt. John Tueller (Ret.) set up a drill where he placed a “suspect” armed with an edged weapon 20 or so feet away from an officer with a holstered sidearm. He then directed the armed suspect to run toward the officer in attack mode. The training objective was to determine whether the officer could draw and accurately fire upon the assailant before the suspect stabbed them. After repeating the drill numerous times, Tueller wrote an article wherein he opined that it was entirely possible for a suspect armed with an edged weapon to successfully and fatally engage an officer armed with a handgun within a distance of 21 feet. The “21 Foot Rule” concept was born and soon spread throughout the law enforcement community almost like a virus. It is interesting to note that even Tueller does not know where the term “21 Foot Rule” came from.
Tueller never imagined when he designed his simple firearms training drill that, 30 years later, the 21 Foot Rule would eventually become a police doctrine that is taught and testified to hundreds of times a year. So, is the 21 Foot Rule a forensic fact or a police myth?*
Thank you. I have no desire to argue about this and I think mental illness is a very serious issue. I appreciate the links. I don’t think they specifically discuss mental illness among knife wielders, but your point is taken.
The only thing I would employ the 21 foot rule (guide) for is to illustrate that people can cover distances more quickly than people may think.
If you’re going to use that justification, then you’d have to require that the officer draw and aim the weapon at much greater distance than 21 ft, to insure that he can fire multiple shots before the suspect reaches you with a knife. And how many shots would you allow? Whole clip?
But the police are not entitled to shoot at anyone who is capable of harming them; a much more sophisticated judgment, and a higher threshold of imminent danger, is surely required?
That is, an objective cite that establishes that a majority of the time, a person attempting suicide-by-cop, who gets close to a police officer, will not attempt to stab him.
No. The studies on this aren’t very good, because of the murky categories. The most comprehensive one I’m aware of took a very broad view of what counts as suicide-by-cop (though it is consistent with my claim).
We live in a world in which we’ve only started to count deadly shootings, much less detail the other factors. So the best evidence we have at the moment is the qualitative impressions of the law enforcement personnel who study these things, which is where I was getting my claim from. Indeed, it is this judgment about the threat posed by such people that has undergirded the change in police tactics we are slowly starting to see, as embodied by the PERF report I cited above.
I’m assuming you stopped reading at “No,” but I encourage you to share the evidence that makes you doubt my claim.
Just to be clear, officers have no obligation to retreat (create distance) from any threat. It is, in almost all cases, a wise tactical move and we constantly encourage maintaining/creating distance in training it but it is not a legal obligation.
It is generally correct as to *Graham v. Connor *analysis. Historically speaking, courts have not been willing to endorse a theory that force is excessive if de-escalation techniques are not properly employed. But even that is shifting. I suspect in a decade you will see courts analyzing reasonableness and including proper tactics like maintaining distance when the only threat is to the officers.
It is generally incorrect as to the newer legal theory in play: violation of the ADA. Plaintiffs are increasingly arguing that officers commit an ADA violation if they unnecessarily approach and confront someone with a known mental disability instead of using de-escalation tactics. The Supreme Court punted on that question recently, but the lower courts have largely endorsed the theory. So that’s a clear example of when there might be such a legal obligation.
But are officers encouraged to encroach (minimize distance) to a threat? The video linked to above seems to show the cop moving closer to the guy with the knife, and when the guy continued in the same direction he had been walking the cops opened fire. In that video, it seems like there was plenty of time to use less lethal force than gunfire, such as a taser. Yes, I realize that is Monday morning quarterbacking, but several recent cop shootings could have reasonably been handled by tasers, pepper spray or something less lethal than shooting.