21 foot rule.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/21-foot-rule-controversial-police-training-shootings/

I wasn't going to attack this issue from this angle. I was just fact checking myself and stumbled upon this article.

To PBS's credit, the content of the article is a bit more fair than I was expecting given the headline.

It is safe to say that the inappropriately called, "21 Foot Rule" can teach us a lot. It can also cloud our judgements.

The origin of this rule lies with Dennis Tueller. He was training police officers in Salt Lake City. When an officer asked him, "How close is too close?" in regard to an attacker with a knife or another similar weapon, Tueller realized that he didn't have an answer. So, he timed how long it took for trained officers to unholster a firearm and place two shots on center mass as opposed to how long it took a person with a knife to close distance and deliver a deadly blow. The finding was that about 1.5 seconds was in and around the time that an attacker with a knife could close distance while a trained officer could reliably draw and place shots on center mass.

The interesting thing is that just about every thoughtful person on whichever side of the gun or self-defense argument, including Tueller himself, has problems with the word "rule." Nonetheless, the "rule" almost became law.

In reality, the "rule" is just a measurement of the reactionary gap.

A person acting always has an advantage over a person who is reacting. A person who has a knife and wants to kill you has the advantage of acting. If you have a gun, you have to react, which means that your brain needs time to process the fact that you're facing a deadly threat and analyze how to respond before you can even reach for a gun.

If anything, understanding the this reactionary gap as a "rule" stacks the deck even further against lawful defenders. This 1.5 to 2 seconds that was tacitly established by Tueller was measured in controlled settings with the officers knowing that a simulation of a deadly force threat was coming. In reality, even a particularly well trained person is going to need more time to process the reality of the threat and respond.

How long does it take you to convert 21 feet into yards in your head? It's probably at least a second. Imagine trying to process that with the knowledge that, if you're wrong, you could end up in prison for the rest of your life compounded by facing a deadly force threat.

Incidentally, this is a mark against the so-called "Israeli draw" in which the person with the firearm carries without a round in the chamber, and racks the slide after the draw. Yeah, it only adds a half second. That half second is the difference between whether or not you have a knife in your chest.

What this article leaves out is the Buchanan v. City of San Jose case. That was a suicide by cop situation in which a man with a knife charged at police officers who, after repeated commands to stop, was shot dead. The shooting allegedly started when the man was about 55 feet away from the officers. An appeal of the decision that the officers were justified ensued along with lawsuits claiming that the man didn't pose an imminent threat because he wasn't inside 21 feet.

Fortunately for all of us, the appeal and the lawsuits failed.

I understand the temptation regarding hard numbers and objective standards in regard to life or death situations; but, all of these incidents need to be handled with nuance.

PBS tried to spin this in a way that generally made it seem as if the 21 Foot Rule was being used to get police officers off when they're accused of murder. The reality is that the mythology of this rule has gone in the opposite direction for the most part. Namely, we came really damn close to having it codified into law that, if you're attacked by a dude with a knife, your attacker needs to be within 21 feet in order for you to lawfully defend yourself.

That's a bad take.

The reason why the FBI upgraded its standards regarding ballistic performance was an incident in which a suspect was morally wounded by a gunshot to the chest, but he still managed to keep fighting long enough to kill a couple of agents while he was dying.

People are more likely to survive gunshot wounds than stab wounds.

Of course, no, the 21 Foot Rule shouldn't be regarded as a real rule. It should only be viewed as a measurement of the reactionary gap.

If anything, we should view it as a greater defense for people who are forced to react in self-defense.