From shadowraiths' link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/u...r-longstanding-rules-on-using-force.html?_r=0 May 04.
"
Dennis Tueller, the instructor in that class more than three decades ago, decided to find out. In the fall of 1982, he performed a rudimentary series of tests and concluded that an armed attacker who bolted toward an officer could clear 21 feet in the time it took most officers to draw, aim and fire their weapon....The “21-foot rule” became dogma.... adopted when officers faced violent street gangs." bbm sbm
Saying - before responding physically to person closer than 21 feet (or any given distance),
LEO sh
first de-escalate situation by talking or other non-physical means - is a great idea,
but -
The '21 foot rule' defines a
zone & time of risk to LEO: roughly
3 seconds.
Not that LEO has ~3 seconds to decide
how to respond.
Rather LEO has ~3 seconds to decide h
ow to respond and for his response
to succeed in either -
1. de-escalating situation (convincing person to put weapon down) or
2.
neutralizing the threat by
a. physically taking
control of weapon from person, or
b. physically taking
control of person by restraining, certain holds; less-lethal methods, such as fists, batons, taser, stun gun, etc., lastly firearm use.
Neutralizing the threat does not mean LEO uses force until person is dead, rather using physical means to a point person can be restrained, cuffed & searched, put in car (IIUC).
Anyone think de-escalating situation - in 3 seconds - by
talking to person w screwdriver, brick, knife, or gun is a piece of cake?
Another point: even displaying no visible weapon, 21 feet away, person may have
concealed weapon, lunge at LEO and seriously injure in 3 seconds.
Another point - even w no visible or concealed weapon, person 21 ft away may lunge at LEO and land solid blows w
fists or feet. Previous posts linked to LEOs killed w fists & feet.
And most important point, imo, in considering whether LEO's use of force is excessive, by PD policy or state law, in continuing physical altercation, is
not whether hypothetically LEO or other would '
win.'
Some ppl are thinking -
"Awwww, it was a just a scrawny guy (or little old lady, or drunk dude, or teen, etc.),
so sooner or later, the cop would have gotten the best of him, so no need to use taser or firearm."
In virtually all cases, the LEO's firearm or other weapons are subject to being taken by the person.
W a
few seconds of LEO being unconscious or pain-distracted,
person can wrest gun and
kill LEO w his own gun. Or even w no pain or unconsciousness.
Article's ^stmt about 21 foot rule initially adopted in times of
'violent street gangs' -
subtly implying rule applies only if single LEO is faced w 3-5-10-15(?) gangbangers? - is
ludicrous.
Does not take multiple people ready to jump from 21 feet to put LEO at risk.
A single person, regardless of size, apparent strength, weapon-displayed-or-not, places LEO at risk of serious injury or death - in 3 seconds time - and
can justify LEO's use of force.
Dash cam vid of stop shows Mr
Scott's actions, his inconsistent stmts, & attempts to run.
Still pix/screen grabs from Santana's vid- w Mr Scott & LEO
Slager "
on the floor" shows LEO in danger of serious bodily injury or death, imo.
Possible, imo, that during the few/splits seconds in which Scott turned & ran, Slager's brain did not have enough time to view Scott's threat to him as diminishing.
Curious, after fight on ground,
how many seconds, from time LEO was back on feet until he starting firing? Can anyone
clock it?
JM2cts.
shadowraiths, thanks for linking NYT article, interesting reading.
