Thoughts on the 21' "Rule"

 There exists a threshold, a "line" if you will, from which someone with a weapon, improvised or otherwise, can do us harm before we might act decisively and stop, or at least diminish the harm intended by the attacker. I personally have taught and trained the concept of the 21' "rule" as it had been taught to me many years ago. It exists in established curriculum at our academies and within in-service requirements at the agency / department level as well. Although I appreciate the concepts it develops within the individual officer as to the risks they must perceive and address, I have always taught it from the perspective of just that....a concept, rather than a rule. A hard and fast "rule" it is not and cannot be, due to the physical abilities of the attacker varying, as well as other factors. The characterization of this premise as a rule I believe, was in attempting to convey to the individual officer that the threat must be addressed prior to no longer being able to address it effectively. Our training and need as officers to be factual and precise in our reporting and testimony, and the courts recognition of "facts" during proceedings, resulted in this characterization as a "rule" and it's acceptance as such in many case rulings. No one person (to include Dennis Tueller), nor group or agency, intended for this concept to be established as a rule, yet due to the requirement to establish the officers lawfulness to act and the courts need for a standard, that is exactly what it became. Interestingly, a rigid "line" (ne: view) would seem to contradict the recognition of the fluidity and perception of threat that was established in Graham v. Conner by acknowledging that threat perception is through the eyes of the individual on scene, and not those who offer opinion while removed from the immediate threat yet judge the officers actions. Yes, this can become quite subjective and appear to argue against having a baseline standard, but it bears heavily on the individual as they move from being a civilian into law enforcement and throughout their career. Experiences prior to entering service, maturity, grasp of larger concepts and nuances, completeness of training at the academy: to include situationally based force training, integration into their department (FTO, first line supervisors, command influence, political atmosphere, community perception, and recent events) all weigh incredibly heavy on their operational ability and decision making on the job. Those troops will always have their decisions second guessed, some rightfully so and some due to outside influences not germane to compliance with policy or legitimacy of need for the force option chosen. Perhaps our best course of action is to refocus our training (and reference to the 21' "rule") conceptually, while highlighting the variance in speed of attack, reaction time and force option, the reactionary gap necessary (and often impossible to maintain), situational awareness, and articulation of need to have used force. Many will view the training of articulation as "how to justify", but I would disagree. Strong writing skills and comfort in the relating of their recognition of the threat, thought process, instinctual and trained survival response, and belief in needing to respond must be taught, encouraged and expected. I have personally reviewed many uses of force where stigma of perception influenced an officers decision and resulted in their injury or another's due to inaction, insufficient action, and even overreaction, all based on a myriad of factors which might hinder their justifiable need to use force. Again, frequent situationally based training can help address this in order to better prepare the officer, as well as establish a baseline of training for the department in regards to liability. Yes this is often driven by the larger entity; federal, state, etc. as to mandate, staffing and budgeting, but a department can influence how it characterizes these concepts so that an officer better understands it as such, rather than mistakenly believing (or being told) that this "line" is where they may utilize deadly force and no sooner or later.

Eric M. Bills

[email protected]

Articles on the 21' "Rule" - https://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx

https://www.calibrepress.com/2019/09/the-calibre-report-new-knife-attack-decision/

Previous post on force - https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/musings-public-response-use-force-eric-bills?trk=pulse_spock-articles