Primative Weapons
See other Primative Weapons Articles
Title: Scientific Study Shows Decades-Old Police Training ‘Responsible for Thousands of Unnecessary Deaths’ (21 Foot Rule)
Source:
From The Trenches/FTP
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... ands-unnecessary-deaths/211211
Published: Nov 6, 2017
Author: Rachel Blevins
Post Date: 2017-11-07 05:51:14 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6823
Comments: 28
A scientific study on the legitimacy of a training drill called the “21-Foot-Rule” has revealed that a practice police department across the country have used for decades is “responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths.”
The investigation conducted by NBC Bay Area looked into how many deaths have resulted from the current policies regulating how officers are taught to deal with citizens who appear to be wielding knives.
The “21-Foot-Rule” was created in the 1980s and based on the belief that an individual holding a knife, or another sharp object, could cover 21 feet of ground in the same time it takes a police officer to draw and fire a holstered weapon. But while the so-called rule became common policy, it had never been scientifically tested.
After reviewing hundreds of cases in which police encountered suspects with knives or sharp weapons, UC Berkeley Law School Professor, Dr. Zimring, came to the conclusion that “the 21-Foot-Rule exists only as an urban legend.”
“The threat that the police officer faces (when a suspect has an edged weapon) is not a threat to the police officer’s life,” Zimring told NBC, noting that according to his research, the number of cases in which “somebody with a visible weapon charging at a police officer [and] actually killing the police officer in the United States was zero.”
Criminologist and former police officer, Dr. Ron Martinelli, told NBC that after running hundreds of drills and testing a variety of officer skill sets over the last year, he also came to the conclusion that the “21-Foot-Rule” was much more of a “myth” than an actual rule.
“It is. And I wrote about that and that was my theory over a year ago,” Martinelli said. “As long as the research is practically based, then we can take those numbers and we can put context to it and turn it into good training methodology. That’s the type of research that we need to have with law enforcement in the United States.”
Martinelli argued that in addition to removing the “21-Foot-Rule” from all officer training, police officers should instead be trained to “slow down, create distance and find cover” when dealing with suspects they believe are armed.
“We need to constantly retrain officers on field craft such as this,” Martinelli said. “Teach them how not to get so captured by the moment. You don’t always have to make an arrest you don’t always have to put your hands on people. If we can teach officers new skills by this research…we can save some lives.”
According to the investigation, although FBI statistics show that there is an average of around 56,000 reported assaults on police officers each year, “the numbers show that fatal knife attacks in which suspects charge police from a distance of 20 feet or more, just do not happen.” In fact, over the last 10 years, only two police officers have been killed by knife attacks, and both cases were in close quarters.
As the Free Thought Project has reported, there have been multiple instances where police officers opened fire on an individual from afar, after they apparently mistook a man holding a wallet or a man holding a cellphone for a man with a dangerous weapon.
Under the “21-Foot-Rule,” those shootings are justified. However, the idea that police officers are being trained to shoot a suspect from up to 21 feet away based on the belief that they think the suspect may be holding a knife or a sharp object is absurd, and the fact that police departments across the country have used a method for decades that has no scientific research behind it, results in the opposite of “protecting and serving” the public.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard, Gatlin, misterwhite, GrandIsland (#0)
Martinelli argued that in addition to removing the “21-Foot-Rule” from all officer training, police officers should instead be trained to “slow down, create distance and find cover” when dealing with suspects they believe are armed.
I would introduce the "Super-Rule", "use your mind and conscience".
Second, I would stop training police to be mindless violent zombies.
Third, I would look how other countries do it, especially the older brothers in UK.
#2. To: A Pole (#1)
I would first, 2nd, 3rd
4th... you shouldn't read and get triggered by bias freeShitProject articles.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#3. To: GrandIsland, A Pole (#2)
4th... you shouldn't read and get triggered by bias freeShitProject articles.
Apparently, facts trigger you.
UC Berkeley Law School Professor, Dr. Zimring, came to the conclusion that “the 21-Foot-Rule exists only as an urban legend.”
“The threat that the police officer faces (when a suspect has an edged weapon) is not a threat to the police officer’s life,” Zimring told NBC, noting that according to his research, the number of cases in which “somebody with a visible weapon charging at a police officer [and] actually killing the police officer in the United States was zero.”
Criminologist and former police officer, Dr. Ron Martinelli, told NBC that after running hundreds of drills and testing a variety of officer skill sets over the last year, he also came to the conclusion that the “21-Foot-Rule” was much more of a “myth” than an actual rule.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#4. To: GrandIsland (#2)
4th... you shouldn't read and get triggered by bias freeShitProject articles.
The 21' rule should be questioned.
Not every assailant is some PCP-fueled Olympic-runner knife ninja. A large physically capable officer can handle most knife attacks.
This is not to say that police should change everything but this "rule" should be questioned and studied more.
I'd like to see them study how often police don't draw and shoot per the 21' rule and how they fare against knifed assailants if they don't draw and shoot as their first choice.
I think police should generally wear more protective gear, at least when they might encounter dogs or loons. Forearm and calf shields added to kevlar vests would be a good start toward armoring our police.
#5. To: Deckard (#3)
the number of cases in which “somebody with a visible weapon charging at a police officer [and] actually killing the police officer in the United States was zero.”
Proof that the 21-foot rule works.
#6. To: Deckard (#3)
If you came at me with a knife and you were 30 ft away. I'd put a bullet in your head.
A cop should do the same. The person has already shown intent. No reason for them to get closer and closer to you.
Sometimes you are a complete moron.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#6)
...there have been multiple instances where police officers opened fire on an individual from afar, after they apparently mistook a man holding a wallet or a man holding a cellphone for a man with a dangerous weapon.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#6)
If you came at me with a knife and you were 30 ft away. I'd put a bullet in your head.
Unless you're a cop. you will be charged with murder.
Someone holding a knife who is 30 feet away from you is not a threat.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#9. To: Deckard (#7)
...there have been multiple instances where police officers opened fire on an individual from afar, after they apparently mistook a man holding a wallet or a man holding a cellphone for a man with a dangerous weapon.
Someone honest would have to look at each case individually. Since man is fallen good luck with that.
Someone could make an honest mistake with someone holding a cellphone. Should that person be liable would have to be judged case by case to get true justice.
Could a cop lie about thinking it is a gun. Sure could. Could he make an honest tragic mistake doing his job. Sure could. What should be the consequences for an officer making a mistake that leads to someones death? An officer who made an honest mistake with no malice intent?
#10. To: Deckard (#8)
If they started charging at 50 ft and were charging me. Who knows if they are about to throw the knife.
Take them out. I don't carry around a gun so this would be hypothetical. I'd realistically just have to disarm them kick their ass and slit their throat if possible.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
What should be the consequences for an officer making a mistake that leads to someones death? An officer who made an honest mistake with no malice intent?
Same as for anyone else.
Unfortunately, cops have the "I feared for my life" defense, even if the guy he shot is holding a cell phone or even a video game controller.
Georgia teen holding Wii remote shot by cops at his front door
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#12. To: Deckard (#0)
“The threat that the police officer faces (when a suspect has an edged weapon) is not a threat to the police officer’s life,” Zimring told NBC,
Dr. Zimring should put that to a test by being the guinea pig at a police academy. They come at him from 21 feet away, and he is armed with a holstered paintball gun.
The distance at which Dr. Zimring is consistently knocked on his ass, without without shooting the attacker, could be the new rule.
noting that according to his research, the number of cases in which “somebody with a visible weapon charging at a police officer [and] actually killing the police officer in the United States was zero.”
Evidence of good police work and that the 21-foot rule is working. Assholes coming at cops with a knife is a bad thing. None of them succeeding at killing the cop is a good thing.
It is not a sporting event. Attempting to level the playing field so the asshole with a knife has a chance of succeeding is nonsense.
#13. To: Deckard (#0)
Edged Weapon Defense: Is or was the 21-foot rule valid? (Part 1)May 23, 2005
Part 1 of a 2-Part Series
1. Because of a prevalent misinterpretation, the 21-Foot Rule has been dangerously corrupted.
2. When properly understood, the 21-Foot Rule is still valid in certain limited circumstances.
3. For many officers and situations, a 21-foot reactionary gap is not sufficient.
4. The weapon that officers often think they can depend on to defeat knife attacks can't be relied upon to protect them in many cases.
5. Training in edged-weapon defense should by no means be abandoned.
1. MISINTERPRETATION
"Unfortunately, some officers and apparently some trainers as well have 'streamlined' the 21-Foot Rule in a way that gravely distorts its meaning and exposes them to highly undesirable legal consequences," Lewinski says. Namely, they have come to believe that the Rule means that a subject brandishing an edged weapon when positioned at any distance less than 21 feet from an officer can justifiably be shot.
For example, an article on the 21-Foot Rule in a highly respected LE magazine states in its opening sentence that "a suspect armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat." The "common knowledge" that "deadly force against him is justified" has long been "accepted in police and court circles," the article continues.
Statements like that, Lewinski says, "have led officers to believe that no matter what position they're in, even with their gun on target and their finger on the trigger, they are in extreme danger at 21 feet. They believe they don't have a chance of surviving unless they preempt the suspect by shooting.
"However widespread that contaminated interpretation may be, it is NOT accurate. A suspect with a knife within 21 feet of an officer is POTENTIALLY a deadly threat. He does warrant getting your gun out and ready. But he cannot be considered an actual threat justifying deadly force until he takes the first overt action in furtherance of intention--like starting to rush or lunge toward the officer with intent to do harm. Even then there may be factors besides distance that influence a force decision.
"So long as a subject is stationary or moving around but not advancing or giving any indication he's about to charge, it clearly is not legally justified to use lethal force against him. Officers who do shoot in those circumstances may find themselves subject to disciplinary action, civil suits or even criminal charges."
Lewinski believes the misconception of the 21-Foot Rule has become so common that some academies and in-service training programs now are reluctant to include the Rule as part of their edged-weapon defense instruction for fear of non-righteous shootings resulting.
"When you talk about the 21-Foot Rule, you have to understand what it really means when fully articulated correctly in order to judge its value as a law enforcement concept," Lewinski says. "And it does not mean 'less than 21 feet automatically equals shoot.'"
2. VALIDITY
In real-world encounters, many variables affect time, which is the key component of the 21-Foot Rule. What is the training skill and stress level of the officer? How fast and agile is he? How alert is he to preliminary cues to aggressive movement? How agile and fast is the suspect? Is he drunk and stumbling, or a young guy in a ninja outfit ready to rock and roll? How adept is the officer at drawing his holstered weapon? What kind of holster does he have? What's the terrain? If it's outdoors, is the ground bumpy or pocked with holes? Is the suspect running on concrete, or on grass, or through snow and across ice? Is the officer uphill and the suspect downhill, or vice versa? If it's indoors, is the officer at the foot of stairs and the suspect above him, or vice versa? Are there obstacles between them? And so on.
These factors and others can impact the validity of the 21-Foot Rule because they affect an attacking suspect's speed in reaching the officer, and the officer's speed in reacting to the threatening charge.
The 21-Foot Rule was formulated by timing subjects beginning their headlong run from a dead stop on a flat surface offering good traction and officers standing stationary on the same plane, sidearm holstered and snapped in. The FSRC has extensively measured action and reaction times under these same conditions. Among other things, the Center has documented the time it takes officers to make 20 different actions that are common in deadly force encounters. Here are some of the relevant findings that the FSRC applied in reevaluating the 21-Foot Rule:
- Once he perceives a signal to do so, the AVERAGE officer requires 1.5 seconds to draw from a snapped Level II holster and fire one unsighted round at center mass. Add 1/4 of a second for firing a second round, and another 1/10 of a second for obtaining a flash sight picture for the average officer.
- The fastest officer tested required 1.31 seconds to draw from a Level II holster and get off his first unsighted round.The slowest officer tested required 2.25 seconds.
- For the average officer to draw and fire an unsighted round from a snapped Level III holster, which is becoming increasingly popular in LE because of its extra security features, takes 1.7 seconds.
- Meanwhile, the AVERAGE suspect with an edged weapon raised in the traditional "ice-pick" position can go from a dead stop to level, unobstructed surface offering good traction in 1.5-1.7 seconds.
The "fastest, most skillful, most powerful" subject FSRC tested "easily" covered that distance in 1.27 seconds. Intense rage, high agitation and/or the influence of stimulants may even shorten that time, Lewinski observes.
Even the slowest subject "lumbered" through this distance in just 2.5 seconds.
Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them. "Certainly it is not safe to have your gun in your holster at this distance," Lewinski says, and firing in hopes of stopping an activated attack within this range may well be justified.
But many unpredictable variables that are inevitable in the field prevent a precise, all-encompassing truism from being fashioned from controlled "laboratory" research.
"If you shoot an edged-weapon offender before he is actually on you or at least within reaching distance, you need to anticipate being challenged on your decision by people both in and out of law enforcement who do not understand the sobering facts of action and reaction times," says FSRC National Advisory Board member Bill Everett, an attorney, use-of-force trainer and former cop. "Someone is bound to say, 'Hey, this guy was 10 feet away when he dropped and died. Why'd you have to shoot him when he was so far away from you?'"
Be able to articulate why you felt yourself or other innocent party to be in "imminent or immediate life-threatening jeopardy and why the threat would have been substantially accentuated if you had delayed," Everett advises. You need specifically to mention the first articulable motion that indicated the subject was about to attack and was beyond your ability to influence verbally."
And remember: No single 'rule' can arbitrarily be used to determine when a particular level of force is lawful. The 21-Foot Rule has value as a rough guideline, illustrating the reactionary curve, but it is by no means an absolute.
"The Supreme Court's landmark use-of-force decision, in Graham v. Connor, established a 'reasonableness' standard," Everett reminds. "You'll be judged ultimately according to what a 'reasonable' officer would have done. All of the facts and circumstances that make up the dynamics between you and the subject will be evaluated."
Of course, some important facts may be subtle and now widely known or understood. That's where FSRC's unique findings on lethal-force dynamics fit in. Explains Lewinski: "The FSRC's research will add to your ability to articulate and explain the facts and circumstances and how they influenced your decision to use force."
Edged Weapon Defense: Is or was the 21-foot rule valid? (Part 2)
Jun 13, 2005
Part 2 of a 2-Part Series
[...]
Here's what FSRC's executive director and selected members of the Center's National and Technical Advisory Boards have to say on these topics:
3. MORE DISTANCE. "In reality, the 21-Foot Rule--by itself--may not provide officers with an adequate margin of protection," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, FSRC's executive director. "It's easily possible for suspects in some circumstances to launch a successful fatal attack from a distance greater than 21 feet."
Among other police instructors, John Delgado, retired training officer for the Miami-Dade (FL) PD, has extended the 21-Foot Rule to 30 feet. "Twenty-one feet doesn't really give many officers time to get their gun out and fire accurately," he says. "Higher-security holsters complicate the situation, for one thing. Some manufacturers recommend 3,000 pulls to develop proficiency with a holster. Most cops don't do that, so it takes them longer to get their gun out than what's ideal. Also shooting proficiency tends to deteriorate under stress. Their initial rounds may not even hit."
Beyond that, there's the well-established fact that a suspect often can keep going from momentum, adrenalin, chemicals and sheer determination, even after being shot. "Experience informs us that people who are shot with a handgun do not fall down instantly nor does the energy of a handgun round stop their forward movement," states Chris Lawrence, team leader of DT training at the Ontario (Canada) Police College and an FSRC Technical Advisory Board member. Says Lewinski: "Certain arterial or spinal hits may drop an attacker instantly. But otherwise a wounded but committed suspect may have the capacity to continue on to the officer's location and complete his deadly intentions."
That's one reason why tactical distractions, which we'll discuss in a moment, should play an important role in defeating an edged-weapon attack, even when you are able to shoot to defend yourself.
"When working with bare-minimum margins, any delay in an officer responding to a deadly threat can equate to injury or death," reinforces attorney and use-of-force trainer Bill Everett, an FSRC National Advisory Board member. "So the officer must key his or her reaction to the first overt act indicating that a lethal attack is coming.
"More distance and time give the officer not only more tactical options but also more opportunity to confirm the attacker's lethal intention before selecting a deadly force response."
[snip]
#14. To: Deckard (#3) (Edited)
You come within 21 foot, with a knife, from me... and I'll put two holes in your chest... and one in your drug loving forehead. Then... after the investigation is complete... I'll go get a fucking sandwich and coffee.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#15. To: Deckard (#11)
Unfortunately, cops have the "I feared for my life"
It's nice you can speak for all cops during stress incidents, from the safety of your computer. How fucking brave of you.
What YOU don't get is, it's NOT about what you think, feel, know or precieve... it's what the officer precieves as a reasonable fear. Your opinion on a specific use of deadly force by an officer, is not relevant. Dumb fuck.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#16. To: Tooconservative (#4)
The 21 foot rule is a basic rule of thumb for training purposes. Officers aren't held to the standard of whipping out a tape rule and measuring, prior to pulling the trigger. It still comes down to the totality of factors... and at anytime, a judge or jury could rule against an officer that dispatches an armed asshole at 19 feet away.
Officers come in all shapes, sizes, speeds, smarts and firearm skills. For some officers, if they don't draw on an asshole armed with an edged weapon within 100 yards, they could die.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#17. To: GrandIsland, Deckard (#14)
You come within 21 foot, with a knife, from me... and I'll put two holes in your chest... and one in your drug loving forehead. Then... after the investigation is complete... I'll go get a fucking sandwich and coffee.
You mean to say ... a doughnut, correct?
#18. To: buckeroo (#17)
If I would have meant "donut", I'd have written "donut"... dumbshit
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#19. To: GrandIsland (#15)
...it's what the officer precieves as a reasonable fear.
Yeah, sure thing coward.
Cop Fears For His Life, Kills Family’s Tiny 12lb Dog, Exploded Her Head in Front of Kids
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#20. To: Deckard (#19)
Breathe easy, don't break the law.
lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#21. To: GrandIsland (#20)
You were a cop, right? Why is it that cops are scared of little dogs and feel the need to shoot them?
Seems to me that mailmen have more balls than you and your sadistic ilk.
What Dog Shootings Reveal About American Policing
In a later article on a Mississippi cop who shot a Labrador, claiming that he felt threatened despite its leash, and an Ohio cop who injured a 4-year-old girl while shooting at a dog, Balko added, “Given that there’s no shortage of actual human beings getting shot by police officers, pointing these stories out can sometimes seem a bit callous. But I think they’re worth noting because they all point to the same problem. In too much of policing today, officer safety has become the highest priority. It trumps the rights and safety of suspects. It trumps the rights and safety of bystanders. It’s so important, in fact, that an officer’s subjective fear of a minor wound from a dog bite is enough to justify using potentially lethal force, in this case at the expense of a 4-year-old girl.”
One might think that cops who shoot small dogs had most likely abused dogs and other animals while growing up - after all, they do seem to get major chub shooting and killing an animal that is no threat to them, even dogs that are running away.
Officers Open Fire on Small Dog as it Runs Away From Them, Shoot it to Death
You act like a real tough guy online, but I'd bet that you would piss your Depends if you were confronted by a puppy, you cringing little coward.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#22. To: Deckard (#21)
You were a cop, right? Why is it that cops are scared of little dogs and feel the need to shoot them?
You were a non Paultard once, right?... Why is it you've got include all cops for the act of one?
lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#23. To: GrandIsland (#22)
Paultard
PDS is known to ravage the rationality of its hosts. While this disorder indeed promises to reduce its victims’ thoughts on Congressman Paul to textbook cases of illogic, it would be a mistake to infer from this that every Paulophobe was a clear thinker prior to falling prey to PDS: In a not inconsiderable number of instances, Paulophobia hasn’t so much as caused the wild irrationality that is the most salient characteristic of all PDS victims as exacerbated the general unreasonableness with which they already lived.
Unlike many other illnesses, PDS isn’t at all difficult to identify. The Paulophobe’s discourse on all matters pertaining to Ron Paul, or at least to Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, is replete with, not just inconsistencies, but glaring inconsistencies, contradictions that are so profound that even a college freshman enrolled in an introductory logic course couldn’t help but to be pained by them. To anyone remotely attuned to reality or possessed of a modicum of reason, the Paulophobe’s utterances can’t but sound like the babblings of a baby: indecipherable noises intending to signify we know not what.
At one and the same time that he loudly and proudly affirms “limited government,” “liberty,” “individualism,” “fiscal sanity,” “the Constitution,” and “the Founders,” the Paulophobe will just as loudly and unabashedly repudiate Ron Paul. Although the latter has proven to be, by far, both more committed and more consistently committed to these values than any political actor of our generation — although, that is, he is an incomparable champion of the very ideals that the Paulophobe claims to cherish — the Paulophobe insists upon treating Ron Paul as an enemy.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#24. To: Deckard (#23)
PDS
This is older than the music you listen too. Find a new retort that doesn't take up as much bandwidth or site space.
PDS actually stands for ... Politically Dumb Shits
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#25. To: GrandIsland (#24)
This is older than the music you listen too.
Looks like that GED didn't work out for you, eh Einstein? Nonetheless, what I posted describes you and the other fascists here to a T.
Deal with it coward.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#26. To: Deckard (#25)
the other fascists
Ah... your ANTIFA is coming out. I like this better than your PETA and Black Lies Matters side.
lol
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
#27. To: GrandIsland (#26)
Ah... your ANTIFA is coming out.
You really are an idiot. Those clowns ARE the fascists.
You and your ilk would fit right in with that group, not me. Perhaps a better term for you would be totalitarian police state tool and cop apologist.
Oh - and coward.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#28. To: GrandIsland (#18)
If I would have meant "donut", I'd have written "donut"..
But, but, but .... it should be "doughnut" correct?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]