[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Primative Weapons Title: Scientific Study Shows Decades-Old Police Training ‘Responsible for Thousands of Unnecessary Deaths’ (21 Foot Rule) 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27. #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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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
#20. To: Deckard (#19) Breathe easy, don't break the law. lol
#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.
#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
#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.
#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
#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.
#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
#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.
Replies to Comment # 27. There are no replies to Comment # 27.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 27. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|