Edged Weapon Defense: Is or was the 21-foot rule valid?

[DaveM55]

http://www.policeone.com/writers/col...rticles/102828

For more than 20 years now, a concept called the 21-Foot Rule has been a core component in training officers to defend themselves against edged weapons.

Originating from research by Salt Lake City trainer Dennis Tueller and popularized by the Street Survival Seminar and the seminal instructional video "Surviving Edged Weapons," the "rule" states that in the time it takes the average officer to recognize a threat, draw his sidearm and fire 2 rounds at center mass, an average subject charging at the officer with a knife or other cutting or stabbing weapon can cover a distance of 21 feet.

The implication, therefore, is that when dealing with an edged-weapon wielder at anything less than 21 feet an officer had better have his gun out and ready to shoot before the offender starts rushing him or else he risks being set upon and injured or killed before he can draw his sidearm and effectively defeat the attack.

"Unfortunately, some officers and apparently some trainers as well have 'streamlined' the 21-Foot Rule in a way that gravely distorts its meaning and exposes them to highly undesirable legal consequences," Lewinski says. Namely, they have come to believe that the Rule means that a subject brandishing an edged weapon when positioned at any distance less than 21 feet from an officer can justifiably be shot.

For example, an article on the 21-Foot Rule in a highly respected LE magazine states in its opening sentence that "a suspect armed with an edged weapon and within twenty-one feet of a police officer presents a deadly threat." The "common knowledge" that "deadly force against him is justified" has long been "accepted in police and court circles," the article continues.

Statements like that, Lewinski says, "have led officers to believe that no matter what position they're in, even with their gun on target and their finger on the trigger, they are in extreme danger at 21 feet. They believe they don't have a chance of surviving unless they preempt the suspect by shooting.

"However widespread that contaminated interpretation may be, it is NOT accurate. A suspect with a knife within 21 feet of an officer is POTENTIALLY a deadly threat. He does warrant getting your gun out and ready. But he cannot be considered an actual threat justifying deadly force until he takes the first overt action in furtherance of intention--like starting to rush or lunge toward the officer with intent to do harm. Even then there may be factors besides distance that influence a force decision.

continued at link...

[Philadelphia]

http://www.policeone.com/writers/col...rticles/102828

For more than 20 years now, a concept called the 21-Foot Rule has been a core component in training officers to defend themselves against edged weapons. . . .

I'm not sure I agree completely with the premise of the article. If some guy is holding a knife close to officers (within 21 feet) and has been ordered to drop it, but he refuses, what exactly do those actions demonstrate in terms of his intentions? That it's his favorite knife so he wants to hang on to it?

There should be no requirement to actually wait to be attacked and maybe killed before taking action to stop the attack. Scuzzballs should not be allowed a fair shake at killing innocents or officers. Tough luck for scuzzballs.

Moral of the story (as I'd advocate for many similar stories): don't hold a knife on police, especially after they order you to drop it, if you don't want them to shoot you. That shouldn't be too much to ask of a criminal who wants to avoid being shot.

[DaveM55]

I took the message of this article to be just cause someone has a knife displayed and they are at the magical 21ft, does NOT mean you can automatically fire. You do have options.

I think that message applies to the general public as much if not more than to the police.

Anyway I thought the people who post the "what if" or "am I justified to shoot" type threads might gain something from this article. That's my intention of posting it.

[pex]

Surely criminals and scuzzballs will be the only people ever holding a knife in any situation where a police could ever become present, and police will surely not close in creating a 21-foot-rule on their own terms, which as the point of the article, would allow them unimpeachable discretion.

[BerksCountyDave]

Surely criminals and scuzzballs will be the only people ever holding a knife in any situation where a police could ever become present, and police will surely not close in creating a 21-foot-rule on their own terms, which as the point of the article, would allow them unimpeachable discretion.

Really, are they? So if someone is defending themselves from an attacker with their own knife, the police are justified in showing up and opening fire at will?

[billamj]

Really, are they? So if someone is defending themselves from an attacker with their own knife, the police are justified in showing up and opening fire at will?

I'm pretty sure that he was being sarcastic... Sometimes that can be hard to pick up though.

[DaveM55]

Surely criminals and scuzzballs will be the only people ever holding a knife in any situation where a police could ever become present, and police will surely not close in creating a 21-foot-rule on their own terms, which as the point of the article, would allow them unimpeachable discretion.

Example of someone whio completely missed the point of the article. Twist it baby twist it.

Why do I even bother to post something that is informative with responses like that?

[headcase]

Example of someone whio completely missed the point of the article. Twist it baby twist it.

Why do I even bother to post something that is informative with responses like that?

I think he got the point better than some. I know he can be a little hard to understand, but he basically said in a sarcastic way that there should be no one getting shot just because they have a knife in an imaginary 21 foot circle around a police officer. He twisted nothing...

[Philadelphia]

I took the message of this article to be just cause someone has a knife displayed and they are at the magical 21ft, does mean you can automatically fire. You do have options.

I think that message applies to the general public as much if not more than to the police.

Anyway I thought the people who post the "what if" or "am I justified to shoot" type threads might gain something from this article. That's my intention of posting it.

I'd look at it two ways. One, what should someone do. Avoid shooting if you can. Just better all around. Train to deal with situations without shooting so not every problem ends up involving a gun.

Two, what if someone does. On that score my reasoning flips a 180. Cops or innocent-citizen-minding-his-own-business always trumps scuzzball holding knife (for example). Never criticize decisions made in the field.

I'm not sure how those two points of view will ever fit together but that's the way it all looks to me.

[CommonHighrise]

Ive had my reservations with the 21' Rule. I feel it should be more of a 'guideline'. 21' is a good distance to work with when establishing a security perimeter. It by no means is the magical distance that any Joe with a knife could automatically kill any Joe with a gun. Could a rushing opponent stab into an unawares person if they were at full run at 21'? Sure. But there are far too many variables in the real world to call it a rule.

A general mark of speed is that someone can back up at 1/4 to 1/3 the speed that someone can run. So rounding figures, that means I could turn that initial 21' into 25' or more that badguy has to cover to get to me. This distance increases depending on terrain and obstacles.

Another variable is reaction time. If timed from the instant their brains said 'draw!', my mother would be incredibly slow, requiring far more than 21', versus someone like Lycanthrope, who would need far less to bring the weapon on target.

And the largest variable I see is moment of contact actions. The 21' is based on a draw to sighted fire at center of mass. While the most common and basic of responses, time from reaction to fire is lessened by using the muscle memory shooting (it has many more names, similar concept), firing without even bringing your gun into the sight picture. Couple this with any hand to hand defence tactics that could be applied to individual situations, and your chance of survival increases dramatically.

So, 21' is a good mark to work from, but by no means is it the 'life or death' rule vs. blade armed assailants. Regardless of what a tape measure might say, youre still better being the one to bring your gun into their knife fight.