It’s not a legal rule or policy by any stretch that they have to be within a certain distance to be a threat and the shooting justified. That’s not how officers are trained because officers are usually much closer than that at the outset of an attack. It’s just used to illustrate a point.
The 21 foot rule came about because that is the minimum amount of distance the average officer needs to draw the weapon and fire at an attacker to stop them without getting stabbed by the attacker. Some officers need less some need more - some attackers are able to choose that faster than others.
Indeed, but knowing 21 feet is the 'standard'... I think it's safe to say within 10 feet is 100% justified. That asshole could've just dropped the deadly weapon and avoided the outcome.
It’s not a legal rule or policy by any stretch that they have to be within a certain distance to be a threat and the shooting justified. That’s not how officers are trained because officers are usually much closer than that at the outset of an attack. It’s just used to illustrate a point.
The 21 foot rule came about because that is the minimum amount of distance the average officer needs to draw the weapon and fire at an attacker to stop them without getting stabbed by the attacker. Some officers need less some need more - some attackers are able to choose that faster than others.
Indeed, but knowing 21 feet is the 'standard'... I think it's safe to say within 10 feet is 100% justified. That asshole could've just dropped the deadly weapon and avoided the outcome.
Oh no doubt. I think we all agree on this site that actions have consequences