All other things being equal, at 7 yards distance (a mere 21 feet) if someone confronting you is holding a knife and you have a holstered gun, and there is no cover available, I believe that the person with the knife almost always has the advantage over you as to who can wound the other first. You may not believe that but I do because I have been trained time and time again that such is the case. In fact, in later years of my continued tactical firearms
training, my instructors increased the distance to 30 feet (10 yards) although that was slightly controversial. You also may not want to believe it but the 21 foot rule also sometimes (note I did not say always) applies when you have your firearm, in hand, in the ready position. Even if your assailant does not have an advantage if you already have your weapon out at the ready, at a mere 7 yards, the odds are still not in your favor by much, if at all, and it is more likely that the best you can hope for is a tie. A tie when facing life threatening force is not good odds for you or the other guy.
If anyone doubts it, then I invite them to face me with a gun while I hold a knife and am only 21 feet from them. Of course I am talking about training devices incapable of doing harm, I would not train for that scenario with a real knife or gun capable of firing live ammunition other than Simunition. I mean it too, I will gladly prove my point by facing anyone, even a much younger person than me, to see if they can effectively draw and fire to stop me with a gun before I can get them with a knife from that distance. Sure, someone might be able to do it but most of you will not, that even considering my 60 year old very stiff and aching joints.
How do I know this? Is it because of all the classroom verbal instruction I have received or is it because I have seen numerous training videos on the subject? Well, it is a bit of both but has more to do with actual live training for such situations. It's easy to test the rule just as we did when I was being trained for it or when I was training others about it. Just stand there with a training firearm. Make absolutely sure it is a training gun that is totally incapable of firing live ammunition - a non-firing rubber gun or a cap gun are good devices to use or if you want something more realistic a Simunitions firing gun (fires non-life threatening paint filled plastic projectiles that can leave quite the bruise) is great but does require proper protective gear be worn. Have someone else stand 21 feet from you armed with a training knife (made from rubber, no sharp edges and blunt tip). Both of you should be in the open with no cover with 21 feet of you. Then, at your opponents will, he should attack you as rapidly as possible (using only a rubber training knife or something else that cannot cut of inflict harm) and you should attempt to draw and fire BUT only when you realize you are being attacked. See who wins. My bet is on the knife wielding assailant. Then try it with your training gun out and at the ready.
You don't even need training-weapons to do this; you can point your hand and say bang and your opponent can use a hand in place of a training knife. Of course, it is much more realistic if you use professionally made training weapons (meaning a gun that cannot possibly fire live ammunition and a rubber knife that cannot cut or stab and you should wear eye protection at the minimum. Note that I cannot stress this enough: NEVER USE A REAL WEAPON TO TRY THIS!
So, what brings this up today. It was a Fox News report, of a day or two ago, in which Greta Vanwhatever, and two other Fox News types, were talking about this shooting and repeatedly saying that the guy who was shot, at a distance of 10 feet (according to them), never posed a threat to the officer who shot him because of the distance between them. When it comes to a knife versus a gun, they don't know squat. Now please mind your manners and pay attention to what I am about to say:
If the police were responding to a report of a suspect who had just punctured a tire on a car with a knife (as I first saw reported) and if, as police approached him, the guy had a knife in his hand and he was acting odd or was not complying with police orders to stop or to drop the knife, and if he was only 10 feet (just over 3 yards) from the officer, then in fact, the officer well could have had reasonable cause (even probable cause) to believe the guy posed a deadly threat to the officer and thus the officer would have been justified to use deadly force to stop the threat.
Now don't start saying I am some sort of Nazi or racist or that I am always pro-police and anti-citizen just because you may disagree. Please note, I did not say that I think he officer should not have been charged with murder or at least manslaughter. I am only saying he possibly was justified to use deadly force to stop the threat. I did not say he should have used excessive force. In fact, I do think, from what I have read and seen so far, that he used excessive force and that his arrest was fully justified and that he should stand trial for either manslaughter or murder (whichever is appropriate under state law). In my opinion, based on what little I know now, him firing as many times as he did, seemingly was not justified.
If you are in LE, don't start calling me a cop hater either. I was in LE for over 32 years and worked well with many officers from many departments. I will tell you this though, I hated it when any of my brother or sister agents or officers abused their authority especially regarding use of excessive force and I reported it more than once. I can proudly say that in all of that time, I never used excessive force and never had even a single official complaint made against me by anyone for use of excessive force (or as far as I recall for anything for that matter). That is not because I never arrested anyone, I literally made thousands of arrests (most during the 4 short years I spent in the U.S. Border Patrol) and many of those arrests included violent encounters started by the dirtbags being detained.
In another LE position, here in NY, I shot someone once, while I was off duty. He and an accomplice tried to rob me. I was found fully justified. All it took was two shots to stop the threat of both assailants (that was two shots total, not two shots at each criminal). One hit the closest assailant and the other hit the windshield of their car just where the other guy's head was at as he tried to get out of the car while holding a revolver in one hand. I am not saying that multiple shots at a single assailant are never required, nor am I saying that that many shots are never necessary to stop a threat to your life. It all depends on the situation in which you find yourself; however sometimes all it takes is a minimal amount of shots and THAT IS ALL IT IS EVER SUPPOSED TO TAKE. You shoot until the threat has been stopped. You, as the defender who is shooting needs to know when the threat has been terminated and you must use reasoning to do so. However, if you watch the video and carefully review what was happening, I think you too will come away with the belief that the officer used excessive force by firing as many times as he did, or in other words well beyond the time when the suspect gave the officer a reasonable belief that he was faced with imminent death or serious bodily harm. That is, I think you will arrive at that conclusion if you are being perfectly honest and objective while considering your 'shoot - don't shoot' training and the legalities of using deadly force. That thought is not my main point, whether or not that officer reasonably believed his life was in danger throughout every shot he fired (and then as he was about to reload) is only secondary to this discussion.
My main point is that an edged weapon holding assailant who is 21 feet away from you, let alone the10 feet reported in this case, can hurt you before you can draw and fire if he wants to do so and gives it his best try, sometimes even if you already have gun in hand. As a gun owner, who carries for self-defense, you should know that. Don't believe me though, because I make the disclaimer that such is my opinion based upon my own training and experience and is not advice for you. My advice to you though is to make sure to check it out in tactical firearms training materials to see what they say about it. Then train for the situation so you know what to do I ever confronted by a knife wielding assailant. I will mention some of the very basics before closing. Remember these points - they may help save your life:
An assailant with a knife, when both of you are in the open, often can easily reach you from within a 21 foot distance before you can draw and fire a handgun if all other things are equal.
In such an encounter, distance is your friend.
Safe retreat, when it is an option, if confronted by a blade yielding assailant is often a good option.
Cover between you and your assailant is a good thing, it can make it harder for your assailant to reach you.
Training, more training and lots of practice often can result, not only in your survival but, in you winning by you stopping the threat before it harms you.
All the best,
Glenn B
training, my instructors increased the distance to 30 feet (10 yards) although that was slightly controversial. You also may not want to believe it but the 21 foot rule also sometimes (note I did not say always) applies when you have your firearm, in hand, in the ready position. Even if your assailant does not have an advantage if you already have your weapon out at the ready, at a mere 7 yards, the odds are still not in your favor by much, if at all, and it is more likely that the best you can hope for is a tie. A tie when facing life threatening force is not good odds for you or the other guy.
If anyone doubts it, then I invite them to face me with a gun while I hold a knife and am only 21 feet from them. Of course I am talking about training devices incapable of doing harm, I would not train for that scenario with a real knife or gun capable of firing live ammunition other than Simunition. I mean it too, I will gladly prove my point by facing anyone, even a much younger person than me, to see if they can effectively draw and fire to stop me with a gun before I can get them with a knife from that distance. Sure, someone might be able to do it but most of you will not, that even considering my 60 year old very stiff and aching joints.
How do I know this? Is it because of all the classroom verbal instruction I have received or is it because I have seen numerous training videos on the subject? Well, it is a bit of both but has more to do with actual live training for such situations. It's easy to test the rule just as we did when I was being trained for it or when I was training others about it. Just stand there with a training firearm. Make absolutely sure it is a training gun that is totally incapable of firing live ammunition - a non-firing rubber gun or a cap gun are good devices to use or if you want something more realistic a Simunitions firing gun (fires non-life threatening paint filled plastic projectiles that can leave quite the bruise) is great but does require proper protective gear be worn. Have someone else stand 21 feet from you armed with a training knife (made from rubber, no sharp edges and blunt tip). Both of you should be in the open with no cover with 21 feet of you. Then, at your opponents will, he should attack you as rapidly as possible (using only a rubber training knife or something else that cannot cut of inflict harm) and you should attempt to draw and fire BUT only when you realize you are being attacked. See who wins. My bet is on the knife wielding assailant. Then try it with your training gun out and at the ready.
You don't even need training-weapons to do this; you can point your hand and say bang and your opponent can use a hand in place of a training knife. Of course, it is much more realistic if you use professionally made training weapons (meaning a gun that cannot possibly fire live ammunition and a rubber knife that cannot cut or stab and you should wear eye protection at the minimum. Note that I cannot stress this enough: NEVER USE A REAL WEAPON TO TRY THIS!
So, what brings this up today. It was a Fox News report, of a day or two ago, in which Greta Vanwhatever, and two other Fox News types, were talking about this shooting and repeatedly saying that the guy who was shot, at a distance of 10 feet (according to them), never posed a threat to the officer who shot him because of the distance between them. When it comes to a knife versus a gun, they don't know squat. Now please mind your manners and pay attention to what I am about to say:
If the police were responding to a report of a suspect who had just punctured a tire on a car with a knife (as I first saw reported) and if, as police approached him, the guy had a knife in his hand and he was acting odd or was not complying with police orders to stop or to drop the knife, and if he was only 10 feet (just over 3 yards) from the officer, then in fact, the officer well could have had reasonable cause (even probable cause) to believe the guy posed a deadly threat to the officer and thus the officer would have been justified to use deadly force to stop the threat.
Now don't start saying I am some sort of Nazi or racist or that I am always pro-police and anti-citizen just because you may disagree. Please note, I did not say that I think he officer should not have been charged with murder or at least manslaughter. I am only saying he possibly was justified to use deadly force to stop the threat. I did not say he should have used excessive force. In fact, I do think, from what I have read and seen so far, that he used excessive force and that his arrest was fully justified and that he should stand trial for either manslaughter or murder (whichever is appropriate under state law). In my opinion, based on what little I know now, him firing as many times as he did, seemingly was not justified.
If you are in LE, don't start calling me a cop hater either. I was in LE for over 32 years and worked well with many officers from many departments. I will tell you this though, I hated it when any of my brother or sister agents or officers abused their authority especially regarding use of excessive force and I reported it more than once. I can proudly say that in all of that time, I never used excessive force and never had even a single official complaint made against me by anyone for use of excessive force (or as far as I recall for anything for that matter). That is not because I never arrested anyone, I literally made thousands of arrests (most during the 4 short years I spent in the U.S. Border Patrol) and many of those arrests included violent encounters started by the dirtbags being detained.
In another LE position, here in NY, I shot someone once, while I was off duty. He and an accomplice tried to rob me. I was found fully justified. All it took was two shots to stop the threat of both assailants (that was two shots total, not two shots at each criminal). One hit the closest assailant and the other hit the windshield of their car just where the other guy's head was at as he tried to get out of the car while holding a revolver in one hand. I am not saying that multiple shots at a single assailant are never required, nor am I saying that that many shots are never necessary to stop a threat to your life. It all depends on the situation in which you find yourself; however sometimes all it takes is a minimal amount of shots and THAT IS ALL IT IS EVER SUPPOSED TO TAKE. You shoot until the threat has been stopped. You, as the defender who is shooting needs to know when the threat has been terminated and you must use reasoning to do so. However, if you watch the video and carefully review what was happening, I think you too will come away with the belief that the officer used excessive force by firing as many times as he did, or in other words well beyond the time when the suspect gave the officer a reasonable belief that he was faced with imminent death or serious bodily harm. That is, I think you will arrive at that conclusion if you are being perfectly honest and objective while considering your 'shoot - don't shoot' training and the legalities of using deadly force. That thought is not my main point, whether or not that officer reasonably believed his life was in danger throughout every shot he fired (and then as he was about to reload) is only secondary to this discussion.
My main point is that an edged weapon holding assailant who is 21 feet away from you, let alone the10 feet reported in this case, can hurt you before you can draw and fire if he wants to do so and gives it his best try, sometimes even if you already have gun in hand. As a gun owner, who carries for self-defense, you should know that. Don't believe me though, because I make the disclaimer that such is my opinion based upon my own training and experience and is not advice for you. My advice to you though is to make sure to check it out in tactical firearms training materials to see what they say about it. Then train for the situation so you know what to do I ever confronted by a knife wielding assailant. I will mention some of the very basics before closing. Remember these points - they may help save your life:
An assailant with a knife, when both of you are in the open, often can easily reach you from within a 21 foot distance before you can draw and fire a handgun if all other things are equal.
In such an encounter, distance is your friend.
Safe retreat, when it is an option, if confronted by a blade yielding assailant is often a good option.
Cover between you and your assailant is a good thing, it can make it harder for your assailant to reach you.
Training, more training and lots of practice often can result, not only in your survival but, in you winning by you stopping the threat before it harms you.
All the best,
Glenn B
No comments:
Post a Comment