Some of PERF’s recommended policies are downright dangerous to police, and to the law-abiding citizens they are sworn to protect. Consider Policy 8: “Shooting at vehicles must be strictly prohibited. [PERF’s emphasis.] Agencies should adopt a strict prohibition against shooting at or from a moving vehicle unless someone in the vehicle is using or threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle itself.” Did those who wrote that ever see what an automobile does to an unprotected human body? Perhaps instead of visiting the UK, they should have gone to Graz, Austria and talked to the cops who responded there last year to a rundown spree that killed three victims and injured another 34. Or the officers who investigated the narcissistic killing spree of Eliot Rodger in California, who used his automobile as a deadly weapon itself, as well as his guns and contact weapons, and was only stopped when he met with police gunfire and committed suicide.
Or Policy 16: “Use Distance, cover and Time to replace outdated concepts such as the ’21-foot rule’ and ‘drawing a line in the sand.” What? Dennis Tueller’s classic drill from 21 feet simply shows that the average adult male can close that distance from a standing start and inflict a fatal stab wound in 1.5 seconds, one of the most thoroughly verified human dynamics in the field of force science. The policy goes on to recommend “buy(ing) more time.” In real world encounters, more time is rarely available for purchase…
Or Policy 9: “Prohibit use of deadly force against individuals who pose a danger only to themselves.” Sounds logical until you realize that suicide is inner-directed homicide, which means that the suicidal subject is by definition homicidal…and the impulse can easily outer-direct, with little or no warning. We have to apply the logical, time-proven guidelines of the Supreme Court – objective reasonableness and the totality of the circumstances – which PERF tells us elsewhere in their report are insufficient.
The definition of “perfidy” is betrayal. Adoption of policies that make a dangerous job more dangerous and make it more difficult to protect innocent victims from homicidal criminals, I think, fits the definition of that term.
I’m far from the only one who thinks so. For other opinions, check the links below, provided by Dave, one of our regular commenters here:
Regarding Policy #8, I won’t go as far as to say there is never a situation where shooting the driver of a threatening motor vehicle might be appropriate, I do however think the subject deserves discussion and possibly some policy tweaking.
I have seen numerous real videos of police officers in attempting an arrest, stupidly and dangerously, intentionally move from a position of relative safety to a position near the front fender or in front of a fleeing (or potential fleeing) vehicle. Then when the vehicle doesn’t immediately stop, they open fire. Perhaps it should be policy that officers not intentionally put themselves in that dangerous situation, removing the shoot/don’t shoot decision from the equation. By the way, those officers are always exonerated, they feared for their lives.
Secondly, knowing that a threatening moving motor vehicle probably won’t stop on a dime even if the driver is fatally shot, I believe that a threatened officer could make better use of any time and distance available by using all of his mental and physical abilities in an attempt to move out of the way and avoid being hit, rather than taking the time necessary to aim and fire.
On the other hand, if a suspect is ramming and/or trying to kill with the vehicle, and not merely trying to flee, shots can certainly be appropriate.
That’s my two cents worth.
Policy 16: “Use Distance, cover and Time to replace outdated concepts such as the ’21-foot rule’ and ‘drawing a line in the sand.”
How is it that the principle demonstrated by the Tueller drill (i.e., the “21-foot rule”) is not an approximation of “Distance, Cover, and Time”?
Is “21 feet in 1.5 seconds” no longer considered Distance and Time, therefore only variable by the presence (or non-presence) of appropriate Cover or other Obstacles? (And really, is there any such thing as “cover” when the attacker is wielding a knife? “Cover” is a barrier that stops incoming projectiles — a knife is not a projectile.)
Personally, I sensed a large amount of Fail in that recommendation.
It would be so interesting and entertaining to put the PhD’s/MBA’s that invented the “Critical Decision-Making Model” into a shoot house for just 15 minutes and make a video of the process.
I’ve been teaching self-defense with handguns since 1968. I was a cop for five years. While I can only aspire to Mas’ level, I clearly emphasize human limitations. These include TIME when you have little or none to run through a check-list or decision tree. Training and practice as well as constant situational awareness can help with the latter, but you cannot beat the clock.
Tueller’s 21-foot rule applies when you are aware of the threat as it begins. If the attacker is 30 feet away and starts rushing toward you with a knife, you need TIME. Time to recognize the threat. Time to decide what to do about the threat. Time to DO what you’ve decided to do, and then time for it to become effective. Be that decision to avoid, defend or both, you are likely to get cut. It requires no skill to cut someone to ribbons with a knife in less than 3 seconds even if you shot them several times. If you have to stop and evaluate their mental condition or other factors, you may die. My sympathies go to the potential victims without regard for the mental capacity or motivations of the unwarranted attack.
While some of PERF’s conclusions are worthy of consideration, far too many express little more than wishful thinking as if Hollywood depictions represent real life situations. I love action movies, but I know fiction when I see it.
Point 16 about the “21 foot rule” shows an obvious lack of understanding of dynamic situations. As does point 28 about using shield to defend oneself against a contact weapon. I’m not sure that input from the Force Science Institute would help, but it might come from a direction more intellectually acceptable to the folks who apparently make up PERF.
Point 8 is out of the question. As rebuttal I suggest the video of an Isreali Arab who was using a front loader as a weapon. I don’t recall the death toll before he was shot to death. Decades later I recall the class reaction to a discussion on how best to stop a vehicle. There were many imaginative suggestions. The instructors comment of “shoot the driver” brought thoughtful silence-and not a few dropped jaws and wide eyes. While shocking to some/many, in some cases, it’s the best answer in a dynamic and evolving situation.
As a non-lawyer, I recall an opinion that Graham vs Conner was intended to stop an attempt to view gunfire as a siezure of the person and essentially turn the standard for use of force from a reasonable belief standard to probable cause. Whatever the actual fact, Graham is the law of the land and should stand.
for what its worth: the 21 foot rule is also reflected in Japanese Martial arts. I just want to stress how much of a basic concept this is in that people a long time ago and in a different culture figured the same thing out and planned for it too.
I am catching up with my reading since I haven’t been here in a while, and policy #8 really stands out against the recent attack in Nice, France. I wonder how these policy makers would handle that one?
Human bodies make lousy road blocks, as the police in France (and some demonstrators here) have discovered.
Comments are closed.