Did the officer in the vid already have his gun drawn? If so, that 21 foot rule doesn't apply.
Where did you learn that?
As I recall it, the 21 foot rule assumes a holstered sidearm, absent even hand on gun.
When I took the class to renew my CHL several years ago one of the instructors (a retired cop) demonstrated the 21' foot rule for us. The instructor held a rubber knife and gave a plastic pistol to one the students (a young active duty soldier). He marked off 21' feet on the floor and had the soldier stand there with the pistol pointed at him. The instructor pointed out that 21' feet seems like a long way and you would think that it was a safe distanse from someone armed with a knife. The instructot then suddenly charged the sodier and stuck him with the rubber knife before the soldier could pull the trigger. I don't know what is being taught in police academys today but as for myself if anyone ever threatens me with any kind of lethal weapon I'm not going to worry about if they're within 21' of me before I start shooting.
There was a similar case in OK involing a non-LEO, I expect the jury to find the cop guilty by similar reasoning.
Pharmacist was robbed, shot one of the perps, chased the other outside. Shot perp was still squirming so he came back and finished him.
Prosecutor argued that there was no threat after the initial shooting and the jury agreed. Murder, the rest of his life in prison.
Personally, I don't care how many times a cop shoots a bad guy, but I imagine the Prosecuting attorney will drive home the fact that the original threat was neutralized and every shot after that was a "murder shot".
There was a similar case in OK involing a non-LEO, I expect the jury to find the cop guilty by similar reasoning.
Pharmacist was robbed, shot one of the perps, chased the other outside. Shot perp was still squirming so he came back and finished him.
Prosecutor argued that there was no threat after the initial shooting and the jury agreed. Murder, the rest of his life in prison.
Personally, I don't care how many times a cop shoots a bad guy, but I imagine the Prosecuting attorney will drive home the fact that the original threat was neutralized and every shot after that was a "murder shot".
Did the cop in the Chicago case shoot the perp, leave the area, come back and administer another shot to the kid?
Doesn't seem like much of a comparison.
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
Reading Bill lewinski study on this, it absolutely isn't true.
And the whole tueller (21 foot) rule is a guideline, as Travis said each use of force is unique, and the totality of the situation will be taken into account
The government plans these shootings by targeting kids from kindergarten that the government thinks they can control with drugs until the appropriate time--DerbyDude
Whatever. Tell the oompa loompa's hey for me. [/quote]. LtPPowell
Reading Bill lewinski study on this, it absolutely isn't true.
And the whole tueller (21 foot) rule is a guideline, as Travis said each use of force is unique, and the totality of the situation will be taken into account
I am very familiar with the Tueller Drill and the reasoning behind the guideline. The issue of whether the defender has or has not drawn his weapon or has his hand on the weapon isn't part of the criteria.
Reading Bill lewinski study on this, it absolutely isn't true.
And the whole tueller (21 foot) rule is a guideline, as Travis said each use of force is unique, and the totality of the situation will be taken into account
I am very familiar with the Tueller Drill and the reasoning behind the guideline. The issue of whether the defender has or has not drawn his weapon or has his hand on the weapon isn't part of the criteria.
If you were truly familiar with the drill, you would know it involves a holstered firearm.
There is no "21 ft rule" involved in the drill itself.
Regardless, the question in my mind is, how did we get to the point where a drugged out full-sized man (as far as anyone knew) staggering down the middle of a busy road who pulls a knife is a "victim?"
Cops' licenses to kill will be revoked if the sheeple ever figure out that the cops have no duty to protect them, and have a lot more latitude in protecting themselves, than us subjects have.
Cops have no duty to protect? How so as to the latter, we had (have) even more latitude in the armed forces, so what's your point?
I guess it was a hard question?
I just logged back on, Jorge.
Do YOU think cops have a duty to protect us? Courts have ruled otherwise, long ago.
I can't make sense out of the rest of your post. Want to try again?
