You are judged by a jury of your peers. This is why they have spent the last century making the average person studiously ignorant and fearful of firearms.
@@Kyle-cv3de someday they'll come for you and you won't even remember me because I'm only one of a thousand people who warned you. It's okay. You're just one more of a million ignorant normies that I won't remember either.
It is true even in school we're taught to be afraid to lift a finger to defend ourselves🎉 the population is ignorant of guns and therefore terrified of them🎉 it is like dealing with snakes if you are not educated on those that are poisonous all snakes are bad in your head🎉 just like the ATF head director new nothing about guns that's why Biden picked him🎉 every gun is a poisonous snake to him because he's ignorant of the matter🎉
Depends on the state, but most places have very friendly self defense laws. My state says that any location I am currently in applies for castle doctrine. Car, office, standing in line for food.
Keep in mind the average criminal won’t run at an officer but they’d run at you. Let me phrase this another way. On average criminals with a knife will not charge someone with a gun compare to charging people without guns… tell me I’m wrong 💀 it’s essentially the same thing because every cop is armed. Also I said on average not never, obviously there are people who have no regard for there life and people who charge officers in hopes of getting shot. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen I’m saying it’s more likely to happen to a civilian and if your still in doubt looks up the stats of people getting stabbed compared to officers getting stabbed or officer shootings with a knife as the weapon.
@@edwardlenovo3240yeah no sh!t, and it isn’t showing otherwise. Sorry ur daddys a cop n ur butthurt but being a cop is less dangerous than you being a commercial fisherman or logger bub
There is more incentive to rush the cop, than an individual. With an individual, you can pretend to be something you're not, to gain their trust, and that is what usually happens.
this is literally what the government says, it doesn’t make any sense. I suppose we only have the right to bear arms; not the right to shoot said arms 😂
I think it's more "you can't use your ranged weapon if you're at close range." But yeah, america is fucking dumb, it's a miracle this law makes ANY sense
It's not common sense as civilians are known to not make common sense decisions. Hence why police cars are different. Civilian people can't use the red and blue lights that police have. It's why there are federal rules like seat belts, helmets, and several other things/laws. Because the MAGA have demonstrated they can't handle themselves with rational decisions.
Unfortunately no matter how much common sense is used those meant to suppress us will be there to step on or over our common sense and logic as long as their point comes out on top
I worked in the worst area's of my city by myself. My boss told me to carry my pistol. He said, If you ever need it nothing else in this world will matter, much less a job. Same for this law, I ain't worrying about feet when I am in fear for my life. At that point the person has seen their last sunrise
@@nofurtherwest3474 I tried to be in questionable area's as short of time as possible. I also made sure I was in those area's early in the morning around 9:00 am.
That’s technically assuming the person isn’t a threat or charging you. Because if you draw your weapon and the person charges, saying you can only unholster is basically saying “die”. But I agree that if, for instance, you draw your weapon and the person flees or clearly becomes a non threat, you shouldn’t fire. But I’d also argue citizens should have greater leeway than trained police officers in regards to their own life
Maybe cause they are in good neigbhourhoods with security guards who do this rule for them and not like normal person who might find himself in such danger situations.
@@BrandonCRFCthe laws apply to them too, you know. They are just smart enough to avoid situations where a random dude will rush you with a knife or a club
@@ffc1a28c7 wish that were true except cops will never be there at your imminent moment of danger. They're basically a fear factor and there to enforce the law at the end of the day, the protection basically never happens.
My guess is, at least on paper, police officers are supposed to face and put themselves between threats and citizens. That they are obligated to put their safety at risk for others. Now, I dont know if that is legally true, because we've seen some pretty poor examples of police officers, but I presume that was the intent. The police officer is (supposed to be) trained and its their job to confront a violent infividual, so they get some leeway with deadly force. The average citizen is not.
@@nobodyinparticular968 In the US, quick draw if you can. Alternatively, fight back even if it seems impossible. Never turn your back on someone who has a weapon
I understand exactly what you saying. If I have to run off for a second to get my gun out then I have a better chance than risk the attacker getting close to me before I can get it out.
@@nobodyinparticular968 uuuhhh that's not the topic here. The topic is when someone is coming at you with a close ranged weapon like a knife or bat. If someone has a range weapon then it requires a different approach, no surprise there.
Politicians are more concerned with the comfort and safety of criminals than private citizens. WE are required to obey the laws made by politicians while the criminals are not.
The 21 foot rule is NOT a rule. It's not even a suggestion. The very idea that one has to allow a threat to approach within lethal range before acting is ludicrous. Most people cannot accurately measure 21 feet with their eyes in the first place. While one is trying to decide whether the threat is close enough to draw, it may already be too late. See a weapon, show a weapon. If one draws a firearm on someone with a knife and that person is coming towards them anyway the intent is clear. Don't get killed because you are trying to guess distance.
@@michaelwaninger3155 Self defense attorneys will often use local law enforcement training policies and guidelines as a standard of reasonable consideration in a civilian self defense action event. It's typical for a self-defense attorney to argue that their client acted within local police department policy. Or was trained by the same or a similar agency at some point. Or uses the same weapon and ammunition because they appropriate for their task. Therefore if their clients actions were lawful the they where also reasonably justifiable.
@@scottfonte3895 Ive also heard dont use the word "fear" because it can be twisted as paranoid or more likely to shoot in a scenario where they claim you didnt have to. legal carriers always have to split hairs but rob a store with a gun and they get released on bail. no sense whatsoever nowadays.
If you took all the laws that allow the government to break laws or get away with things that aren’t equal to the other citizens, it would blow your mind
In the gov's eyes your life is worth more than a citizens, it's why your defence is that you have the right to go home after your shift, but the average citizen has no such defence. Not having a go, you guys really see some tough sh1t, however the duality in life value in the eye of the law well and truly exists.
@@kingcosworth2643 I won't pretend that it is right but a master will love and care for his dogs. He has no cause to care for dogs in general. Obedience has rewards.
Exactly. Remember when antifa and blm was trashing that guys neighborhood in Portland? He stood inside his house at the window holding his shotgun, the terrorists called the police and they arrested him. That's when I stopped taking any of it seriously. They are just tools of the authoritarian
I actually agree to this. it's so unfortunate that probably because of these people, a lot of innocent ones will have to risk their lives just because this rule can't be applied to them due to violent pieces of sht who would abuse it.
just goes to show, how guilible you are. If as a cop you can't pull your weapon and shoot the assaulter in the time it takes for him to cross 21 feet, you shouldn't have eaten all those donuts. Don't forget, the guy attacking you isn't an Olympic sprinter as well as when they start to cross that 21feet that they begin from a none running start. Imagine this idiot doing the talking suddenly starting to sprint. How long do you think it would take him (even if he doesn't have to take a breather after 5 feet) ?
@@PDVismYou obviously don’t understand real life physics or reality. I person can lunge and be on top of u in 20 ft in the blink of an eye. TO HELP YOU- 21 FEET IS ONLY 7 YARDS- ANY AVERAGE MAN CAN CLOSE THAT DISTANCE IN LESS THAN A SECOND! A second is longer than most people realize lol
@@PDVismWhy are you talking about the practical aspects of that law? The point is a cop should have the same rights as a citizen when it comes to self defense. I’d prefer more time to defend my self instead of giving someone more time to attack me. Would you like to reframe my comment?
I replied earlier and I think I need to clarify. We have the inherent right to protect ourselves. I believe that with all that is within me. Now having said that heres the clarification of "somethings are worse than death ". Go to court, if found guilty spend 20 to life. What kind of existence is that. See your kids maybe a couple times a year. Can't hold them during visits. Your husband or wife finds another. Your kids call someone else Momma or Daddy. You sit and Rot in a cell while life beyond the razor wire keeps right on going. I taught Legal Use of Deadly Force for over 20 years and I promise you if you don't read the situation and execute your self defense in a defendable manner which can be done you will regret the rest of your life. Not all things are cut and dry and sometimes all you have time to do is react but if it's at all possible to reason out the situation then reason out the situation. Learn to articulate how you did it right. Every word and action you take leading up to, during and immediately after are critical in your defense. Just trying to give critical advice. Good luck and God Bless
I don't have a problem with cops protecting themselves at all - I DO have a problem with a cop telling me I'm not allowed to do what they did, to survive. Our current government (and plenty of other western governments) penchant for punishing SELF DEFENSE - even sometimes in the person's own home, is absolutely out of line and UNFORGIVABLE.
“ yes my client was running at you full spirit with a bloody butcher knife and says horrific things But as you can see in this video he is still 30 feet away so and if you ask me I see no threat here”
I agree but the reasonable isn't mine or yours reasonable, legally it's an objective test of what a normal member of the public would find reasonable the circumstances. This means you might think you've been reasonable but if the jury disagree your going to jail.
@@monkeyhands5053the man in the video I think he's precisely talking about situations where cops get too cocky with their badge before showing the badge first they involve themselves in situations in an escalate them and then believe that their Authority still matters when they're not in uniform of Duty or they don't show a badge
@@westernstar9121 Yeah I got what he's talking about, I can only speak for UK law but the reasonable test I mentioned applies to police as well as the public, there is no set distance at which an officer can act compared to a member of the public however in court, as part of the reasonable test the officer can argue that due to their training and operational experience they are likely to react to a threat far earlier than most of the public. It's still for the jury to decide on a case by case basis, there is nothing set in law which states police can do X and public can do only do y.
It's not a double standard. Law Enforcement is very different from random ass people. That's like saying it's a double standard that a fire truck can turn on a siren and everyone moves out of its way, but when YOU hook up a siren to your car, nobody does. Learn how societies work. If everyone can just shoot whoever they decide is a threat to them because "hey, 21 feet rule!" then society is fucked.
@@haku8135you just compared firefighters to police officers. That in of itself is a joke. A single firefighter does more than a whole police department combined, considering that police are abusive bullies and firefighters actually save people. “The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled that law enforcement officers generally do not have a constitutional duty to provide assistance to individuals. In the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989), the court held that the government’s failure to protect an individual from harm by a third party does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unless the government has a special relationship with that individual. This ruling established that while police officers have a duty to enforce laws and protect the public safety, they are not legally obligated to provide specific assistance to individual citizens in every situation.”
@@haku8135I'm glad viperpain pointed out the fallacy in your argument, because it doesn't make sense to prioritize law enforcement safety over citizen's safety (especially with their track record of protecting themselves instead of the people they've sworn to protect). They are regular people too, and shouldn't have special privileges or rights that any other citizen doesn't have. That just leads to corruption in the police force.
@@fancyhash "I'm glad viperpain pointed out the fallacy in your argument" HAH! You think he pointed out anything? All he did was not understand what I said. "because it doesn't make sense to prioritize law enforcement safety over citizen's safety" Yeah see, he NEVER said that. Never argued for it. He said it's a joke to compare cops and firefighters because firefighters are perfect paragons and cops are all evil. You know cause he's an idiot. Also, when did I say that? Shooting people that are near you is not "safety". "(especially with their track record of protecting themselves instead of the people they've sworn to protect)." Nice strawman. "They are regular people too, and shouldn't have special privileges or rights that any other citizen doesn't have." Yes they should you idiot, that's how societies work. If everyone has equal authority you get anarchy. "That just leads to corruption in the police force." No it doesn't, the problems with the police force is completely unrelated to them having authority. Firefighters also have authority but viper claimed they were amazing awesome people. Authority does not equal corruption. The problems within the police forces is unrelated to the retardedly simplistic idea of "They can do stuff, so they be bad." Would you like to boil down any other complex issues to a sentence?
As someone who's deployed six times to combat zones and heard countless stories of people shooting their guns on accident, I don't think the answer is more guns. And on the parallel of a law enforcement and civilian they're not parallel. Law enforcement is stuck. They can't run away. Civilians can justifying and legalizing murder is not the answer. Deescalation in learning not to be afraid is. And you don't need a gun to do either one of those
Police also draw down on unarmed individuals when they feel scared or entitled. If YOU did that without a valid reason for self-defense, you're getting charged with brandishing at the minimum.
Because if it were, then in a country like USA, where there is a lack of gun laws, people would misuse this power and lawyers would easily be able to bail murderers out, by pleading them guilty, as they fired in self defense.
Either its acceptable for everyone or its not. The idea that cops can get special treatment for their safety but the rest of us are screwed is just fucked up. Bro is 100% right.
Hmm just because police /military is allowed to do something, everyone should be able to do it. Feels like a stupid argument? Where in any law can you see the 20 feet is allowed and the police will be cleared 100% of the times?. The law can never say at 15 feet you can shoot anyone with a knife. This guy is just making up stuff. Depends on how he acts, how big he is, what does he say. Just because the police train this way doesnt make it 100% legal. The police officers train and needs to know how much reaction time they need. One way just to check that this dude is just making up stuff. No person can know when a person passes that 20 feat mark anyway. Don't listen to people trying to make up stuff like this.
Of course cops are given special treatment, why wouldn't they? That's like saying the president should be held to the same standards as a normal person
@@moonbound6478 Here's the thing though: qualified immunity isn't just extra rights for cops - it's less rights for anyone that the cop dislikes, even if they objectively aren't a threat to them.
@@Jamisone3884it only applies if they attack you, it is okay to draw but not fire if they have a weapon and are within 21ft, but if they drop it when asked or don't intend to attack then it is not okay to keep drawn or fire. But he is saying that citizens are not given that rule when someone who has clear intentions is in 21ft, so its a problem of how do they know that stuff without the body cams.
@@Bored_Zomb I wish you the best of luck. Unfortunately, the political climate sucks for good cops right now. Just make sure to watch your back from the criminals as well as admin these days. I had a good run and only left to pursue a job with another agency as a civilian. Just remember the spirit of what you are doing and not just stats. Sometimes your discretion can make the difference between that guy that's on the strugglebus but trying to do everything right staying on the right track or going off the deep end. What I mean is, sometimes it's better to let the misuse of a turn signal or 10 mph over slide instead of just trying to pump your stats. Good luck to you. May God watch over you in your career. Blessed are the peacemakers. No matter what some people say, cops are meant to be peace makers. Sometimes violence is just necessary to stop violence and keep that peace.
@@TheMandaloreFett If your attorney can show a legal precedent, the jury would probably go along with it, assuming the prosecution didn't pack the jury with a bunch of anti-2A commies. The judge might, if the judge dismisses out of hand, may be good grounds for an appeal.
@@TheMandaloreFettJury will absolutely understand this and I think most likely would accept this reasoning. It depends on the prosecutions argument against it.
Personally in disputes like this I tend to err on the side of “police should shoot people less” and not “civilians should shoot people more.” This one I’m a bit more unsure.
America: You have the right to own a gun Also America: If you shoot someone in self defense with a gun, you could go to jail. Well what the fuck is the point of owning a gun to begin with?
the bar and I just had this conversation, why are they parking in the spaces sideways, so no one encroaches on them? cool, I'll park like a dick, too, and just say I didn't want someone to park near me. they toggle their lights to run a red, cool, I'll turn on my hazards and blow the red, too. LET'S GOOOOOO!!!!!
Yes, if you read the 10th amendment of the United States Constitution, it's basically saying that any law or rule that is made everybody has to follow it not just to one party
Ive actually educated people about this before when i was doing an adept level class in weaponry specialization. Showed them just how consistently a melee weapon can actually tie, and beat the draw of a holstered weapon. Showed my students how to gauge that distance without having to pull tape, or put up their hand to measure. Demonstrated multiple different strikes and movements that can beat a holstered draw, and even had an actual police officer come demonstrate and try to beat some of my students at the exercise. Four out of twenty tied the officer, with another four actually beating him. Both my students and the couple of officers in attendance took in this information and wete greatly surprised by it. And i even got a thank you from my local police department for shedding some light upon this topic. It was a really interesting and stimulating exercise.
As a Dutch person this sounds very weird to me. If all citizens in the USA have a gun, then why would someone attack you with a knife? Are knife attacks still common in the USA nowadays while everyone has a gun? What do you do if your opponent grabs his gun outside the 21 feet range?
most cities have suspended constitutional rights, alot of people dont carry firearms outside their home, most attacks are suprise or fast acting attacks like a mugging or assassination.
I think if the cops are allowed 20-21 feet, Citizens should be allowed 24-27 feet. My reason is cops are trained better, they should be able to grab and pull their guns faster, so if they can't do it in less than 21 feet, as a citizen, I shouldn't be able to beat that or come very close.
@@johnkidd1226 what they get suspended with pay?oh wait they get fired so now they just have to move to the Next county to get another job. oh wait they accidentally killed somebody no big deal qualified immunity takes care of that now they move to Arkansas and the police department there says “we got a position for you!!” You sound ignorant if any civilian did what half of the police do they’d be doing life in prison meanwhile, they get suspended with pay and go on vacation.. most jobs would suspend fire you or suspend you without pay for breach of policy. I Don’t know what world you live in#delusional.
@johnkidd1226 …yes? You get punished in any job if you breach policy. Only difference is that the punishment typically actually affects you and isn’t just getting out on paid leave.
@kathleenkirchoff9223 100% true. If you draw and fire on an attacker at 25 feet, that means you gambled your life on having a draw time probably well above average for civilians and some dipshit jury will still lock you up for it.
@@Freelix2000hard to blame them when you consider that the recommended thing to do in such a situation is to run away. Even harder when you consider that running away is the COMMON SENSE thing to do (statistically, you are more likely to survive a violent encounter if you run than if you stand your ground).
@Shadowkey392 in Nebraska this is true. Self defense laws here is pretty much rare to walk away from. You must not be able to run away and you can't act first unless the verbal threats match the actions about to ensue that's harder to prove with no surveillance. You must be in a situation in which you can't run and force exerted must not be just enough to get out of danger. So one shot wait it they continue and you still can't run shot again. Process repeat. And still it's rare in nebraska to cause that situation.
@@Shadowkey392 Not everyone can run away. If the attacker is faster trying to run is a death sentence. I'd rather take my chances at moving a handgun than trying to move my whole body.
Not only that, but those drills are conducted with guns that aren’t concealed and officers that know they’re about to have to draw their gun. You could absolutely stretch that to 30+ feet if you have to draw from deep concealment and probably even further with a slow reaction time from not expecting it.
Yes, 35 foot replaced 21foot rule years ago. We've been playing that game for a long time, and 21 feet is with positive awareness of the threat, your attention directed at the threat and your response better than average. For most people, which 99% of cops are in that category, they can't react within the 35 zone. They just don't have the situational awareness or training. Repeat, 99% of cops are not trained any better than average civilians. Annual quals do not mean 'trained'.
Another important thing to note, I know your point touches on this, but criminals don't announce when they're going to attack you, most times the knife doesn't come into view until they are right next to you. With the 21 ft rule the situation is that you already see the knife, then they charge, in reality they usually don't pull the knife and charge. They casually walk up to you, usually concealing the knife in a sleeve / palm, then it happens. Where as with police some times there is stand off from a distance resulting in a charge, but the suspect in that case is often on drugs or having a mental health episode. I know it's anecdotal but I remember a police video in which there were multiple officers trying to talk down a suspect with a knife, he was having a mental health episode, thought he was in the matrix and that his powers were taken from him, after a few minutes of talking he got it into his mind to charge and still came very close to stabbing an officer with multiple officers already aiming at him.
I was told the 21 foot rule years ago, I train at 21 feet more than any other distance. Knowing what 21 foot looks like and being 100% accurate at 21 feet is so important. I've had to pull my firearm while being rushed, by the time I had my gun drawn he was just a few feet from me and my family. Luckily he backed down once my firearm was on the way up because he was about half a second from being shot. I hope I never have to pull it again but I'll be damned if I'm going to die out of fear of the governments ruling.
Just a few feet from your family? What the hell were you doing to be near someone not only with a gun, but wanting to use it on you? Sorry, but I am a Brit and I can think of literally NO scenario whatever, assuming one (and one's family) are not up to no good, where the whole family is in danger of being shot 🤔🙄
It's funny I was never taught this rule while in the military. In fact, today is the first I heard of this rule, and I've been out longer than I was in 😅
What do you mean you can think of no scenario. Here's one, you are walking in the park with your wife and kid, a man runs up with a gun and says give me your money. Easy
The Sovereign American People Have More Of A Right To Defense/ Self Preservation Than Any Public Servant At Any Given Time! Officer’s Safety Is Extremely Secondary In Comparison To Any American Citizen! Basic Knowledge And Common Sense!
First of all, Normal public shouldn't have easy access to Firearms and deadly explosives. (It's what causing problems in the US) They are not toys to play with.
The 21 foot rule (Tueller Drill) is the gold standard that we drilled on in IDPA. A reasonably fit person can cover that distance in 1.5 seconds. One point Five seconds. Can one draw and put rounds on a charging attacker (armed with a knife or baseball bat) in that time? AND just because you put rounds on the bad guy doesn’t mean you won’t be injured or worse. If they are on drugs (PCP) and are amped up, 2-3 rounds will not stop them. One could still be easily stabbed or clubbed. IF one hits the person in the head or throat - maybe that would drop them. But that is extremely hard to do on a bad guy moving at you at speed AND at such a SMALL target. That’s why all training is taught to aim for center mass. The largest target. Even highly trained firearm personnel will aim for center mass. Twenty-one feet, 1.5 seconds requires efficient speed and accuracy. If YOUR lawyer doesn’t know this information and how to apply it defending you - find another lawyer. Your lawyer has to overcome the Hollywood-ization of firearm accuracy that the jury will be all too aware of.
There is a short video of a police officer putting 12 rounds in a guy who was beating him even after the officer tried his best to dissuade him from using force. Now, this is the kicker, that guy got all the 12 and fell after the last shot, and no, the shots were not bambambam, they were bam..bam..bam.. hence we can count them clearly. The guy took the video clearly on the officer's side as without his video this could be narrated as police brutality as the officer had no body cam on him and it seems like no other witnesses too.
Cops should be reasonably fit though themselves, and able to maneuver. The gold standard is to do what is morally correct in the situation, as God will be your judge. This way you won't shoot a grandma for having a Kinfe. Like your typical American cop would. Because Americans worship government, they think government decides morals.
Not to mention even a fatal shot can allow the attacker 10-15 sec before bleed out. As far as 21' being used in IDPA your training and competition doesn't equate to a CCW, CWP person. Someone's training is and will be a factor in the use of the firearm and be addressed in court. Your ability being a competitor is not comparable to the avg firearms owner.
Thank you for this! I always look at the comment section because usually there are professionals that comment and add value to the video. I screenshot this just in case me, my husband or 1 of my 5 kids ever need this. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not know. My oldest 2 girls both carry. My oldest son will be 21 in June and he wants a 9mm for his birthday. He’s still at home and in college. Of course he can’t have it on campus. Which I think is crazy with the amount of attacks that happen on campuses. And it’s usually someone who isn’t supposed to be there and isn’t a student. My youngest 2, boy & girl twins, will be 16 in June so they will be getting a used vehicle along with a jumpstart battery so they never have to depend on a stranger if their battery goes dead, seatbelt cutter, $20 emergency cash to stay in the vehicle, a flat tire fix kit, 2 stun guns, a small air pump that plugs into the cig lighter, a tire gauge, flashlight, water & protein bars in case of a breakdown, glass breaker, first aid kit, & we are teaching them how to change a tire & how to use a flat tire kit, how to check their oil & how to change it, how to fill the washer fluid, how to check the radiator, how to use the battery charger, how to use the air compressors & tire gauge, how to change wipers, and how to check a fuse and change it. Have I forgotten anything? Thankfully in our state we have a law that if you fear for your life regardless if they have a weapon or not you do not have to try to retreat first and are lawfully allowed to shoot them. It doesn’t say anything about them having to be within a certain distance from you. If I see anyone coming at me I don’t know then I’m going to yell, what do you want? If no answer, they say something stupid or even reasonable I’m going to ask them to stop & stay right there. If they keep coming I’m pulling my firearm. In this day and time you can’t be too careful! Plus being a woman once a man is close enough to touch me he can easily overpower me. My biggest fear is someone coming up behind me our jumping out from behind something to attack me before I even know they are there. No one knows how they will react in that situation until it happens. My husbands mamaw passes out if she is really scared. She would be useless. Normally when scared because I hate being scared I either yell or freeze for a second then I get instantly fighting mad. I’ve never been attacked but when my kids have jumped out and yelled to scare me, they know not to but did it anyway, I have slapped their jaws before my brain even registered what I’d done. Slapping won’t do much good. I have 3 different times reacted to a best friend that’s younger than me being in a situation that once slightly injured her, once she had a man take beads from her at Mardi Gras to give his girl, and once a man got in her face at a party yelling at her. She’s like my little sister. All 3 times I saw it happen and went into a blind rage. When she was injured she had her feet knocked out from under her by 2 men about to fight at her house & she was trying to stop them. Before I knew what I was doing I’d taken off my heels and used one of the heels to repeatedly beat him in the back. When the beads were taken I grabbed them back and told him they weren’t his. When he refused to let go I squished them with my hands and broke them yelling at him to grow a set and buy his girl some. I must have had a crazy look on my face because his girl pulled on him and said let’s go! At the party I jumped between them shoved him so hard he fell on his arse, he didn’t see it coming, then stomped my foot on the floor right between his legs very close to his privates and yelled next time you won’t be able to get up! But when it comes to being surprise attacked I have no idea if I’ll be too afraid to think, freeze, or get so mad that I forget I’ve got a gun and just try to bare handedly choke him. Any of those options are not good ones. I do carry a backup firearm in another location on my body but I just pray I have sense enough to use them. And I carry a knife & brass nuks that were my grandmas. She once worked in a bar then owned a bar. She also owned a new black ford thunderbird way back with a matching racing boat. She raced them both for money. Once she almost flipped her boat so she sold it because she couldn’t swim. But kept the car. She had a lot of jobs & businesses in her lifetime. She even went back to college when my uncle went & got her nursing degree in her late 30’s. She was a character. She was only 5’4” and weighed 120 most of her life. She was tiny but fierce. All of this is scary because we have so many terrorists, cartel, human traffickers, and criminals that have been let out of prison from other countries who are used to having to fight for their lives. I just pray I’m never faced with any of them.
Especially proving your perception of the threat. Sometimes you can get lucky, and how you perceive can save you even if the prosecution tries to prove why you shouldn't have. Such as a break in and the person not retreating when you contacted them with a drawn weapon, but rather moving towards you. Armed or not, this is still a perception of threat and has been won before. Castle doctrine is a saving grace.
Do you think we should all get qualified immunity as standard? How come when you as a cop don’t know the law and break it it’s fine but when I don’t know the law and break it I go to jail?
@@evilsanta8585 99.99% of the time, the cop is correct in the law... and the person complaining has NO concept of the law, but only the nonsense he read on RUclips.
Spare me. you clowns do mag dumps on handcuffed, unarmed guys sitting in a coward cop car because of an ACORN. Not to mention an untold number innocent unarmed citizens, ROUTINELY
@@HappyBuddhaBoyd People don't READ on youtube, they WATCH coward, lying, racist POS cops having no clue of the actual law, they just make up shyt. You need to ease back on the BOOT POLISH. It's toxic
By the law they do. Police have no special circumstance in which they can use deadly force that you don't, except for one: a fleeing felon. Police can legally shoot a fleeing felonious subject in the back if they feel there's sufficient evidence that letting the subject go could lead to great risk of bodily harm or death to another person. You can use lethal force in every circumstance that police do. The reason it appears different is that police officers typically have a duty to intercede during active crimes and current conflicts. Police don't have an expectation to flee first while on duty. That results in them being in lethal force scenarios more often than a random citizen. As a random citizen you are expected to flee first (in most states, there are exceptions like stand your ground states) but you are legally within your right as a citizen to intercede. If someone 21 feet away has a knife out and there's another citizen within 10 feet of them and he appears to be threatening that bystander, ANY citizen has a legal right to use deadly force on that subject to save the other person. No different than police. Police just aren't expected to try and run before resorting to deadly force. That 21 foot rule is understood as the deadly range if you're standing your ground. If you are fleeing, that 21 feet isn't quite the same deadly range, as you aren't going to stand there and try to quickdraw the threat while backpedaling. As a citizen you are expected in most cases to be turning and running while drawing. As I always say though, there are exceptions for everything. Every case is different and needs to be considered on its own merits. There is no blanket correct shoot/no shoot answer that is sufficient for every scenario, so don't think in absolutes like this guy is presenting.
@@jackd6853 Real life is full of subjectivity and ambiguity. It's not a cartoon with clearly defined villains. For example someone can honestly believe the other guy were charging at them with intent to kill, but video evidence shows that they were actually turning away to leave (case: Michael Drejka). Often there's no video evidence in civilian vs civilian encounters but there's also a myriad of police videos where the cop clearly misjudged the situation, sometimes with loss of life for the innocent citizen. Also this wasn't even about "charging", but if they came within a certain distance from which they could charge at you. It is a way weaker position than the one you're talking about.
@@Hedning1390 Your literally just squabbling more lol. Were talking about this situation in the video not a well what if scenario. The case you referred to did not have someone running at you with a weapon
Here's another one: the government makes it illegal for people to commit to Larceny by conversion, embezzlement, and false pretenses. But the government allows itself to commit these, plus extortion, etc.
The difference is in the training. Police are ready to analyse a situation and make those calls. Billybob the local hillbilly probably doesnt have good judgement and might shoot someone who isnt actually a threat.
You’re going to find that in almost all cases those are prosecutors who don’t believe in self defense. As a general rule police are under more stringent criteria because they are considered professionals. Open carry holster so the draw is easier, as opposed to drawing from concealment. Meaning 21 is their _minimum_ and need to add a few more for civilians. The standard for “I was in fear” is also higher. It’s literally what you are trained for. I spent about 15yrs in LEO, this was always the case. Maybe in POS Cali or NY where they hate civilians with guns, but not everywhere else.
Another point similar point: Most people who care about stopping a potential threat carry HP ammo, but prosecutors love to demonize it given the opportunity. Easiest way out of it is to ask local law enforcement what they carry in their service weapons that they see appropriate to stop threats - it's going to be HP every time. If they can use it, so can we.
I've never heard that. The only question about ammo was is that the bullet used in the shooting. Did it come from that gun. There is no shoot to wound. If you have to shoot someone its to kill. Stop forward aggression is just a fancy way of saying kill. If you are not trying to kill them, you shouldn't be shooting them. The reasoning is the only place people shoot weapons out of someone's hands is in the movies. Even police hit less then 30 percent of the times in shooting. And warning shots are a big no. The bullet has to go somewhere.
@@anthonyfrost9220if you pay attention to any self defense case that involves firearms then you will see it, the Rittenhouse case had the prosecutor try to make an attempt as if HP rounds were designed to turn into a giant mushroom of metal wherever it strikes in the body.
@@zecaptainpegleg8820that’s not what Kyle had in his gun. Go watch it over again. Kyle had FMJ’s in his gun. The prosecution argued that he was using military grade ammo. He has said several times that Kyle was using military grade ammo that was designed to do the most damage. You can’t win in this argument. It doesn’t matter what ammo you use HP or FMJ’s either way if you have an overzealous prosecutor they will find a way to use it against you. Liberals in the US want us to be like the UK and Canada where it’s illegal to defend yourself. The US was founded on a persons right to self defense, self reliance, and self determination. The liberals want to take that away
@@anthonyfrost9220 It's a thing for sure, same with any custom engravings on firearms - even Bible verses. The prosecutions goal is to use any opportunity they can find to make you look like you intended to hurt someone instead of defended yourself. Also, warning shots are legal in Florida provided you use common gun sense and don't fire anywhere that someone or their property could catch a stray.
They do. This guy is full of poop! The laws apply to all. It's all about "Totality of the Circumstances", which for cops, it's almost always in the course of their duties and not a random event. There's much more involved but this guy was just trying to make a point. In fact, citizen's truly acting in self defense are given more leeway when it comes to having to make that decision to shoot.
@@k9haysonly in some states. There are actually still “retreat to safety” states. Us folks who live in Castle or stand your ground states forget there are less fortunate peers in states that have thrown the constitution out the window
@@ivanbolvar5900bahahahaa. Say you’re a slave without saying ya a slave 😂. Most citizens practice with their firearms more than the average officer 😂. Imagine thinking the only way your trained enough, is for another HUMAN to allow you to be. Slaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave
most firearm related deaths are within 8 feet, the highest number of deaths in america has been with firsts, 2nd blunt objects, 3rd stabbing tools, 4th vehicles, 5th firearms, 6th strangulations
How is that double standards? He's just stating the facts think about it if they can defend themselves why can't we is all he's saying it's double standard if if police, politicians etc can use force and not get in trouble but us regular citizens do that's double standard....
@chicarosethe520 🤦🏻♂️ the double standard is cops will get away with murder all the time and get no sentencing for it, they get a smack on the wrist and a kiss on the forehead as they get a promotion, if you shoot and kill someone in a self defense situation, you will be held as a criminal until you can legally prove you did everything in your power to not shoot that person, and they will pick apart every bit of your defense because, in the way the injustice system works is "yOu ThInK YoUr AbOvE tHe LaW" They would rather send you to jail then prosecute a criminal who robbed, raped, stabbed or even murdered a home owner, if they even ever find they criminals that did it. 🤷🏻♂️
Well. here's a thought. Call me crazy, but maybe it'd be better to have police officers that were not shooting and killing people from 20 + feet away because their little legs are shaking and they're scared. Not " we should _all_ be able to kill people from 20 or more feet away. Not fair!" Good lord. If you're so terrified of somebody from 20 + feet away that you feel the need to murder them to keep yourself safe, then you have chosen the wrong profession.
I mean police in the U.S. only need 672 hours of training. My sister in Connecticut needed 1,000 hours of training to become a massage therapist but they only need barely half that with split-second decisions involving human life. In Bangladesh they need over 1,000 hours, in Japan it's 6 months or between 1,000 and 1,500 hours.
I remember my patrol procedures instructor talking about this in class in the early ’90’s. He was responding to a question about some recent stabbing murders of citizens around the country who were carrying a gun. It was along the lines of * if you have a holstered weapon and have been trained to draw it out properly and aim it. Not to mention that you would have practiced it over and over again. An armed citizen, although possibly and hopefully trained how to properly handle a firearm, will not have the same reaction time because they will not have practiced in the same manner*
I'm a British Military Vet who took part in British Military drills of the "21 feet rule" in the mid 80s , I remember the conclusion was that in 95% of incidences a Knife Wielder will win against a sidearm user, unless the sidearm is drawn and cocked...... when I worked and travelled in the States in late '89 as a Bodyguard, I had a Carry Permit , and I would have had no qualms at using my Firearm at over the 21ft mark to protect my Client and myself
@@someguy2819 Depends on the space restrictions of the area you are in, you could also trip and fall. On top of that, you are much less accurate while moving, especially for the average person.
@@northern_21 Yes, but in areas in which you've got space, surely, it would provide an advantage, no? Yeah, you could trip. Is that really a risk worth considering when being charged with a knife? As for accuracy, you're going to land far more hits if you can actually get your gun out in time. It's not like you need to run and gun, you're mainly just running to buy some time so you can pull out a firearm. You could also incorporate some dynamic movement such as dropping backwards to the ground if they're close to you, which would not only mean a change of direction to their inertia, but it could throw them off, and it could also allow you to use your legs to push them back for a second. It would require training of course, but it's a far better option than the alternative in my opinion.
@someguy2819 this is seriously ineffective. You lose time in the turn to run away, you lose time to turn back, you break concentration on your evasion while drawing your firearm, then when you turn to point your weapon, you rush your shot and miss and get stabbed. It is far safer to stand your ground and shoot. You don't have to break your concentration.
@@VikingCarter You lose time in the turn, but you create distance, or at least maximize the distance. A drop to the ground can also buy further time and allow for a better defensive position. 'you rush your shot and miss and get stabbed' As opposed to not getting a shot off and then getting stabbed? It's also practically at point-blank range. 'It is far safer to stand your ground and shoot' Except you're not going to get a shot off, which is why the 21-foot rule even exists.
That's why I'm glad I live in Oklahoma where we have the "Make My Day" law. They don't care how close or far an intruder is, if they break into your house you're authorized to use deadly force and you'll be immune from prosecution. Doesn't matter if they were armed or not. Don't want to die, don't break into houses.
I’m a police officer and I, completely, agree with this man! In fact, I give citizens, who use deadly force while defending themselves and/or others the same treatment that officers get. Not to lie, but have an opportunity to speak with an attorney, have time to realize what happened before giving a statement with an attorney present, etc. You go through an intense adrenaline dump and you’d be surprised at what you can remember days later. Sometimes there are parts to it that you don’t remember. I still can’t remember parts of deadly confrontations that I’ve had even years ago. It’s traumatic and as you are faced with a life or death situation, a lot of your blood will go to your large muscle groups (fight or flight which is primal) and less to other parts of your body including your brain. This is one of the reasons why good training and good muscle memory will be automatic when faced with this type of situation.
My supervisor would agree as well! He explained the idea of we are guilty until proven innocent in a court of law. He was a great man and great officer! RIP!
So as an officer - if you shot someone like in this case, clear no problems - next day off duty someone comes at you - exactly the same and you shoot them? then what?
You police are full of shit. Stop trying to act like you would be there arresting the citizen with the quickness. You cops are coward pos. If not you wouldn't be a cop.
Outstanding. I've always had issues with the fact that officers are taken care of, reassured by fellow officers, and catered to after a deadly force encounter and are allowed plenty of time to gather their thoughts, talk to their rep and lawyer etc before giving a statement and generally put at ease in every way possible. But when a citizen is in a self defense related shooting, they're often treated like a criminal, arrested, immediately thrown in the box to try to pressure a statement out of them, and the adrenaline dump and shock experienced in such an event is often taken advantage of by investigators who already have the guy isolated, in handcuffs, unable to talk to anyone, stripped of his firearm, thrown in a cage, and usually scared out of his mind that he's about to be financially ruined, lose his job, probably lose his family, go to prison for many years, plus be sued by some scumbag's family, who could possibly also come after him or his family...and gawd knows what else... And investigators will press him for details and do what they do to try and get a statement ASAP that the guy is going to be held to and could seriously come back to bite him in the ass just because he didn't have time to gather his thoughts and calm down and let things level out and calm down before making a statement. Most guys are not in any condition to deal with a statement immediately after an incident. Shouldn't be talking to anyone but a lawyer anyway, but pushing someone into a statement so quickly is wrong. And if we all want "justice to be served", police should not be pressuring someone for a statement and scaring the hell out of him right after a shooting and the same standards should be applied to officers and joe citizen.
In Florida we have a law called "stand your ground". Being disabled, I'm not able to fight off offender, so it's always important to keep your distance from people who you think to be a threat.
@@silverpc4611what are you talking about? Stand Your Ground laws, or Castle Doctrine laws, mean that if you are legally allowed to be in a certain place, you do not have the “duty to retreat” from an attacker and are authorized to use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger.
I agree with the message here but there is NO law preventing an innocent citizen from using lethal force to protect themselves from an imminent attack. Prove me wrong.
Make it mandatory to have training before you have a gun otherwise it isn't the same. Arguably police should also have a higher bar here too given how shit their record is.
You can't hang your hat on any justice department! Look what they're doing to our greatest President ever!.. DOJ! A bunch of bought and paid for cronies! 🖕
As prior military and a cop, I agree. 21 ft rule should apply to citizens as well. Why does someone need to get stabbed first to defend themselves?
Rules for thee....
@@steveunderwood4003Not for me. Sad reality. I'll take my chances though.
Rather be judged by twelve.
@@TheMandaloreFett it's the only way
So if on the subway in NYC after dark, you basically have 20 threats within 21 feet of you.
@@steveunderwood4003 Damn right.✊🏾
You are judged by a jury of your peers. This is why they have spent the last century making the average person studiously ignorant and fearful of firearms.
@@Kyle-cv3de thanks for proving my point
@@Kyle-cv3de someday they'll come for you and you won't even remember me because I'm only one of a thousand people who warned you. It's okay. You're just one more of a million ignorant normies that I won't remember either.
@@Kyle-cv3de Nooo you're scaring him :c
It is true even in school we're taught to be afraid to lift a finger to defend ourselves🎉 the population is ignorant of guns and therefore terrified of them🎉 it is like dealing with snakes if you are not educated on those that are poisonous all snakes are bad in your head🎉 just like the ATF head director new nothing about guns that's why Biden picked him🎉 every gun is a poisonous snake to him because he's ignorant of the matter🎉
Most citizenry are considered 'guilty until proven otherwise'.
Power & money buy freedom.
This is TOTALLY 💯true that American citizens should be able to completely defend themselves.
If I fumble the holster at 21 feet I'm dead. There is no time to rack a round or hit a safety.
Depends on the state, but most places have very friendly self defense laws. My state says that any location I am currently in applies for castle doctrine. Car, office, standing in line for food.
Unless you have a felony and can’t own any type of self defense weapons the law is fucked up
Even acorns are a threat within 20ft .
💀those who know
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Keep in mind the average criminal won’t run at an officer but they’d run at you.
Let me phrase this another way. On average criminals with a knife will not charge someone with a gun compare to charging people without guns… tell me I’m wrong 💀 it’s essentially the same thing because every cop is armed. Also I said on average not never, obviously there are people who have no regard for there life and people who charge officers in hopes of getting shot. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen I’m saying it’s more likely to happen to a civilian and if your still in doubt looks up the stats of people getting stabbed compared to officers getting stabbed or officer shootings with a knife as the weapon.
there is plenty of video out there showing otherwise.
Depends on the person
@@edwardlenovo3240yeah no sh!t, and it isn’t showing otherwise. Sorry ur daddys a cop n ur butthurt but being a cop is less dangerous than you being a commercial fisherman or logger bub
There is more incentive to rush the cop, than an individual. With an individual, you can pretend to be something you're not, to gain their trust, and that is what usually happens.
give 'em a tv.they will outrun you.sorry.lightly veiled prejudice.not hard core.just a joke.they sure can run.friggin Hussein Bolt sure can run.
"You can't use your ranged weapon as a ranged weapon to defend yourself."
"....what?"
Wait until you find out that the government defends itself from percieved threats on the other side of the globe!
Yeah, you have to wait until you’re bloody and brain damaged to even begin to consider defending yourself
/s
this is literally what the government says, it doesn’t make any sense. I suppose we only have the right to bear arms; not the right to shoot said arms 😂
I think it's more "you can't use your ranged weapon if you're at close range."
But yeah, america is fucking dumb, it's a miracle this law makes ANY sense
Shouldn't have brought a gun to a knife fight
I’d rather fight in court than on life support!
That's a bar
HEAT 🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥
When are you dropping the full track
@@ZachyWacky789 I''m gonna use this as the intro.
@@JamesJones-vq3jq Thank you my good sir.
once usain bolt hears about this, we're all cooked
What?
@@shy404usernotfoundbelieve he was Olympic runner that's fast as lightning.
Im so glad this man is speaking about this common sense questions.
Terry vs Ohio!! That's when police safety prioritize over civilian safety 🤦♂️ It's messed up!!
It's not common sense as civilians are known to not make common sense decisions. Hence why police cars are different. Civilian people can't use the red and blue lights that police have. It's why there are federal rules like seat belts, helmets, and several other things/laws. Because the MAGA have demonstrated they can't handle themselves with rational decisions.
Unfortunately no matter how much common sense is used those meant to suppress us will be there to step on or over our common sense and logic as long as their point comes out on top
it's not common sense at all. it's false equivelance... for the police the neuance is on the drawn vs undrawn gun.
No. He’s spreading misinformation. 100%
I worked in the worst area's of my city by myself. My boss told me to carry my pistol. He said, If you ever need it nothing else in this world will matter, much less a job. Same for this law, I ain't worrying about feet when I am in fear for my life. At that point the person has seen their last sunrise
or last sun set
@@partytoy1seriously, bro be cappin farmers 😂
Did anything bad ever happen
@@nofurtherwest3474 I tried to be in questionable area's as short of time as possible. I also made sure I was in those area's early in the morning around 9:00 am.
@bobxyzp the last sunrise I saw was in 2018 on a vacation, and I'm pretty sure I'm living
Pay attention to the explanation for the rule, 21 ft is the time to draw a holstered pistol, so that justifies drawing your weapon but not firing.
Good point.
By that time the person charging you with a knife will also likely be less than 3 feet away from you.
That’s technically assuming the person isn’t a threat or charging you. Because if you draw your weapon and the person charges, saying you can only unholster is basically saying “die”. But I agree that if, for instance, you draw your weapon and the person flees or clearly becomes a non threat, you shouldn’t fire. But I’d also argue citizens should have greater leeway than trained police officers in regards to their own life
As a retired deputy sheriff and now a civilian I'm not going to worry about distance if I feel threatened and my life is in danger Bang end of story😮
Unfortunately it’s not a theory, it’s common fucking sense and the people who make the legislation are lacking that.
that know exactly what theyre doing...and its to f you. lol
Maybe cause they are in good neigbhourhoods with security guards who do this rule for them and not like normal person who might find himself in such danger situations.
@@BrandonCRFCthe laws apply to them too, you know. They are just smart enough to avoid situations where a random dude will rush you with a knife or a club
Worse, they don't care, we can all die for all they care.
Legislation is lacking what? Common sense or the lacking of common sense.? 🤣🤣🤔🤔
I’ve been saying this for years. A citizen’s life is just as important as a cop’s.
Not according to the police. Their safety overrides the constitution and all laws.
moreso honestly, citizens do more real work.
more important arguably. cops put their lives at risk for the upholding of other citizens.
@@ffc1a28c7 wish that were true except cops will never be there at your imminent moment of danger. They're basically a fear factor and there to enforce the law at the end of the day, the protection basically never happens.
Of course everyone's life is. THat's why police exist, to protect.
This isn’t political and shouldn’t be. This makes complete sense and I do not understand why the police are above the law here.
Terry vs ohio
My guess is, at least on paper, police officers are supposed to face and put themselves between threats and citizens. That they are obligated to put their safety at risk for others. Now, I dont know if that is legally true, because we've seen some pretty poor examples of police officers, but I presume that was the intent. The police officer is (supposed to be) trained and its their job to confront a violent infividual, so they get some leeway with deadly force. The average citizen is not.
My weapons officer used to say dump the whole mag and then shit yourself. Proof that you were in fear for your life.
"If someone runs at you with a melee weapon you should turn and run till you're safe." -American justice system and politicians
what exactly is the alternative?
@@nobodyinparticular968 In the US, quick draw if you can. Alternatively, fight back even if it seems impossible. Never turn your back on someone who has a weapon
I understand exactly what you saying. If I have to run off for a second to get my gun out then I have a better chance than risk the attacker getting close to me before I can get it out.
@@OldNorthFoxx222 and whats your plan if they have a gun
@@nobodyinparticular968 uuuhhh that's not the topic here. The topic is when someone is coming at you with a close ranged weapon like a knife or bat. If someone has a range weapon then it requires a different approach, no surprise there.
I 💯% agree. Self defense should not be a reason why innocent people are put on the chopping block in court
Politicians are more concerned with the comfort and safety of criminals than private citizens. WE are required to obey the laws made by politicians while the criminals are not.
What, it should just be the reason why innocent people are shot dead by a dumbass who thought he was threatened instead?
@DoubleDogDare54 That's because the politicians are criminals as well.
@@DoubleDogDare54*alleged criminals. Plenty of people have been shot “in self-defense” when they weren’t a threat
@@DoubleDogDare54it’s almost as if you become a criminal BY breaking the law. Shocker.
You know it’s a messed up system when even the Taliban has more trigger discipline than American cops
facts
Cause Talibans actually has military and combat experience
The 21 foot rule is NOT a rule. It's not even a suggestion. The very idea that one has to allow a threat to approach within lethal range before acting is ludicrous. Most people cannot accurately measure 21 feet with their eyes in the first place. While one is trying to decide whether the threat is close enough to draw, it may already be too late.
See a weapon, show a weapon. If one draws a firearm on someone with a knife and that person is coming towards them anyway the intent is clear. Don't get killed because you are trying to guess distance.
Definitely remember this if you're ever in a self defense trial
You can remember it. You can bring it up, but, it won't make a difference.
I was in fear for my life and the lives of my family. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.....
@@michaelwaninger3155 depends if there is a jury or not, that to a jury would make a big impact
@@michaelwaninger3155 Self defense attorneys will often use local law enforcement training policies and guidelines as a standard of reasonable consideration in a civilian self defense action event. It's typical for a self-defense attorney to argue that their client acted within local police department policy. Or was trained by the same or a similar agency at some point. Or uses the same weapon and ammunition because they appropriate for their task. Therefore if their clients actions were lawful the they where also reasonably justifiable.
@@scottfonte3895 Ive also heard dont use the word "fear" because it can be twisted as paranoid or more likely to shoot in a scenario where they claim you didnt have to. legal carriers always have to split hairs but rob a store with a gun and they get released on bail. no sense whatsoever nowadays.
My criminal justice teacher always said "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6."
@@connormccluskey9103 what is this even aimed at?
@@connormccluskey9103wtf is wrong with you bud
@@101k_with_no_video clearly he specified “y’all” as the object of his aim
@@kaphizmey6229 I meant like what’s supposed to be cringe here?
@@101k_with_no_video i dunno, i was just making a dumb comment intended to be humorous. i wasn’t agreeing with him or anything
Words of wisdom. Thank you! 🇺🇸
If you took all the laws that allow the government to break laws or get away with things that aren’t equal to the other citizens, it would blow your mind
As a police officer I 100% agree with this guy.
In the gov's eyes your life is worth more than a citizens, it's why your defence is that you have the right to go home after your shift, but the average citizen has no such defence. Not having a go, you guys really see some tough sh1t, however the duality in life value in the eye of the law well and truly exists.
@@kingcosworth2643 I won't pretend that it is right but a master will love and care for his dogs. He has no cause to care for dogs in general. Obedience has rewards.
you better agree because one day you'll retire and be a simple citizen like everyone else
Get your fucking buddies under control. I judge you according to the actions of the worst of your fellow officers.
Thank you for your service!
Why is it ok for the Government and not the Citizen? The answer is simple. "Rules for thee, but not for me."
it has nothing to do with that - please stop drinking gramps
Exactly. Remember when antifa and blm was trashing that guys neighborhood in Portland? He stood inside his house at the window holding his shotgun, the terrorists called the police and they arrested him. That's when I stopped taking any of it seriously. They are just tools of the authoritarian
@@PLF...we don’t get qualified immunity
Police officers are trained to assess threat levels. Your average twitchy paranoid citizen is not. That's why.
@@PLF...than what is it?
21ft sounds like a lot until you convert it into yards and imagine the lines on a football field.
21 feet is the length of a pickup truck.
Roughly 4 meters. Maybe not converting to metric was a mistake.
I agree but there is only one problem... People would abuse the hell out of this rule
as if officers don't.
nothing of value would be lost
@@samuelsoliday4381 iirc they have body cam right that can be serve as proof if what they do is against law or not
I actually agree to this. it's so unfortunate that probably because of these people, a lot of innocent ones will have to risk their lives just because this rule can't be applied to them due to violent pieces of sht who would abuse it.
Police officers grossly abuse this rule
This makes too much sense for the courts to accept.
We need this guys number! Just in case
just goes to show, how guilible you are.
If as a cop you can't pull your weapon and shoot the assaulter in the time it takes for him to cross 21 feet, you shouldn't have eaten all those donuts.
Don't forget, the guy attacking you isn't an Olympic sprinter as well as when they start to cross that 21feet that they begin from a none running start.
Imagine this idiot doing the talking suddenly starting to sprint. How long do you think it would take him (even if he doesn't have to take a breather after 5 feet) ?
@@PDVismYou obviously don’t understand real life physics or reality. I person can lunge and be on top of u in 20 ft in the blink of an eye. TO HELP YOU- 21 FEET IS ONLY 7 YARDS- ANY AVERAGE MAN CAN CLOSE THAT DISTANCE IN LESS THAN A SECOND! A second is longer than most people realize lol
It's nothing to do with sense. The govt and justice system exist to enslave, not serve your best interests.
@@PDVismWhy are you talking about the practical aspects of that law? The point is a cop should have the same rights as a citizen when it comes to self defense.
I’d prefer more time to defend my self instead of giving someone more time to attack me.
Would you like to reframe my comment?
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six. 🤷♂️
Not when your fellow Americans are idiots!
Have you seen people? 😂 They ain't too bright brother.
Somethings are worse than death.
So you'd rather deal with the lunacy and idiocy of our judicial system? And there's the problem with society 🤦🏻 so many cowards running freely.
I replied earlier and I think I need to clarify. We have the inherent right to protect ourselves. I believe that with all that is within me. Now having said that heres the clarification of "somethings are worse than death ". Go to court, if found guilty spend 20 to life. What kind of existence is that. See your kids maybe a couple times a year. Can't hold them during visits. Your husband or wife finds another. Your kids call someone else Momma or Daddy. You sit and Rot in a cell while life beyond the razor wire keeps right on going. I taught Legal Use of Deadly Force for over 20 years and I promise you if you don't read the situation and execute your self defense in a defendable manner which can be done you will regret the rest of your life. Not all things are cut and dry and sometimes all you have time to do is react but if it's at all possible to reason out the situation then reason out the situation. Learn to articulate how you did it right. Every word and action you take leading up to, during and immediately after are critical in your defense. Just trying to give critical advice. Good luck and God Bless
I don't have a problem with cops protecting themselves at all - I DO have a problem with a cop telling me I'm not allowed to do what they did, to survive.
Our current government (and plenty of other western governments) penchant for punishing SELF DEFENSE - even sometimes in the person's own home, is absolutely out of line and UNFORGIVABLE.
preach
“ yes my client was running at you full spirit with a bloody butcher knife and says horrific things
But as you can see in this video he is still 30 feet away so and if you ask me I see no threat here”
As a police officer, I 100% agree. If you are in reasonable fear for your life, you should have the right to defend yourself.
I agree but the reasonable isn't mine or yours reasonable, legally it's an objective test of what a normal member of the public would find reasonable the circumstances. This means you might think you've been reasonable but if the jury disagree your going to jail.
@@monkeyhands5053the man in the video I think he's precisely talking about situations where cops get too cocky with their badge before showing the badge first they involve themselves in situations in an escalate them and then believe that their Authority still matters when they're not in uniform of Duty or they don't show a badge
@@westernstar9121 Yeah I got what he's talking about, I can only speak for UK law but the reasonable test I mentioned applies to police as well as the public, there is no set distance at which an officer can act compared to a member of the public however in court, as part of the reasonable test the officer can argue that due to their training and operational experience they are likely to react to a threat far earlier than most of the public. It's still for the jury to decide on a case by case basis, there is nothing set in law which states police can do X and public can do only do y.
Think u Sr
Define "reasonable".
Double standards in law enforcement is fuckin crazy
It's not a double standard.
Law Enforcement is very different from random ass people.
That's like saying it's a double standard that a fire truck can turn on a siren and everyone moves out of its way, but when YOU hook up a siren to your car, nobody does.
Learn how societies work. If everyone can just shoot whoever they decide is a threat to them because "hey, 21 feet rule!" then society is fucked.
@@haku8135you just compared firefighters to police officers. That in of itself is a joke. A single firefighter does more than a whole police department combined, considering that police are abusive bullies and firefighters actually save people.
“The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled that law enforcement officers generally do not have a constitutional duty to provide assistance to individuals. In the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989), the court held that the government’s failure to protect an individual from harm by a third party does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unless the government has a special relationship with that individual. This ruling established that while police officers have a duty to enforce laws and protect the public safety, they are not legally obligated to provide specific assistance to individual citizens in every situation.”
@@haku8135I'm glad viperpain pointed out the fallacy in your argument, because it doesn't make sense to prioritize law enforcement safety over citizen's safety (especially with their track record of protecting themselves instead of the people they've sworn to protect). They are regular people too, and shouldn't have special privileges or rights that any other citizen doesn't have. That just leads to corruption in the police force.
@@fancyhash "I'm glad viperpain pointed out the fallacy in your argument" HAH! You think he pointed out anything? All he did was not understand what I said.
"because it doesn't make sense to prioritize law enforcement safety over citizen's safety" Yeah see, he NEVER said that. Never argued for it. He said it's a joke to compare cops and firefighters because firefighters are perfect paragons and cops are all evil. You know cause he's an idiot. Also, when did I say that? Shooting people that are near you is not "safety".
"(especially with their track record of protecting themselves instead of the people they've sworn to protect)." Nice strawman.
"They are regular people too, and shouldn't have special privileges or rights that any other citizen doesn't have." Yes they should you idiot, that's how societies work. If everyone has equal authority you get anarchy.
"That just leads to corruption in the police force." No it doesn't, the problems with the police force is completely unrelated to them having authority. Firefighters also have authority but viper claimed they were amazing awesome people. Authority does not equal corruption. The problems within the police forces is unrelated to the retardedly simplistic idea of "They can do stuff, so they be bad."
Would you like to boil down any other complex issues to a sentence?
@@haku8135 whats your favorite flavor of boot?
We gotta do quick draw drills and maybe do some helldivers 2 back jump bullshit 😂😂😂
As someone who's deployed six times to combat zones and heard countless stories of people shooting their guns on accident, I don't think the answer is more guns. And on the parallel of a law enforcement and civilian they're not parallel. Law enforcement is stuck. They can't run away. Civilians can justifying and legalizing murder is not the answer. Deescalation in learning not to be afraid is. And you don't need a gun to do either one of those
And also the average citizen isn't going around with a bullet proof vest and a possible life sentence for his attacker.
Aren't vests legal in a lot of states?
@@THE_MOONMANdepends on the state, some jurisdictions are trying to, or already have, made body armor illegal for citizens
@@princevirgil1190rules for thee but not for me
@@princevirgil1190 body armor is legal unless you're a felon
@@matthewmusashi9523they are trying to ban it in my state
Police also draw down on unarmed individuals when they feel scared or entitled. If YOU did that without a valid reason for self-defense, you're getting charged with brandishing at the minimum.
That depends a lot on circumstances and location.
@troyjanise9051 Well, obviously dude
@@troyjanise9051 the "circumstances" is if you are a cop the rules don't apply to you.
Cops open fire when threatened by *checks notes* acorns.
@@troyjanise9051yeah when the coward tyrant shows up
Meanwhile
Schools: wtf is a self defense???
Because if it were, then in a country like USA, where there is a lack of gun laws, people would misuse this power and lawyers would easily be able to bail murderers out, by pleading them guilty, as they fired in self defense.
Either its acceptable for everyone or its not. The idea that cops can get special treatment for their safety but the rest of us are screwed is just fucked up. Bro is 100% right.
Hmm just because police /military is allowed to do something, everyone should be able to do it. Feels like a stupid argument?
Where in any law can you see the 20 feet is allowed and the police will be cleared 100% of the times?.
The law can never say at 15 feet you can shoot anyone with a knife. This guy is just making up stuff. Depends on how he acts, how big he is, what does he say. Just because the police train this way doesnt make it 100% legal. The police officers train and needs to know how much reaction time they need.
One way just to check that this dude is just making up stuff. No person can know when a person passes that 20 feat mark anyway. Don't listen to people trying to make up stuff like this.
Right!
Of course cops are given special treatment, why wouldn't they? That's like saying the president should be held to the same standards as a normal person
@@moonbound6478 Here's the thing though: qualified immunity isn't just extra rights for cops - it's less rights for anyone that the cop dislikes, even if they objectively aren't a threat to them.
@@Jamisone3884it only applies if they attack you, it is okay to draw but not fire if they have a weapon and are within 21ft, but if they drop it when asked or don't intend to attack then it is not okay to keep drawn or fire. But he is saying that citizens are not given that rule when someone who has clear intentions is in 21ft, so its a problem of how do they know that stuff without the body cams.
As an ex cop of 20 years...I FULLY agree with this guy
Wow 20 years. I've just started my policing career about a couple months ago 🇬🇧
@@Bored_Zombcongrats!
@@Bored_Zomb I wish you the best of luck. Unfortunately, the political climate sucks for good cops right now. Just make sure to watch your back from the criminals as well as admin these days. I had a good run and only left to pursue a job with another agency as a civilian. Just remember the spirit of what you are doing and not just stats. Sometimes your discretion can make the difference between that guy that's on the strugglebus but trying to do everything right staying on the right track or going off the deep end. What I mean is, sometimes it's better to let the misuse of a turn signal or 10 mph over slide instead of just trying to pump your stats. Good luck to you. May God watch over you in your career. Blessed are the peacemakers. No matter what some people say, cops are meant to be peace makers. Sometimes violence is just necessary to stop violence and keep that peace.
Wish you and the rest of ex cops & military opinions mattered so that this could be changed.
@@mjk4378 Well unfortunately, such is life
I’m a Marine veteran.
I also HATE cops.
All of them.
Your either in a casket or in a cell. The crazy part is it’s unavoidable wether your armed or not.
This is exactly why you hire a lawyer. These arguments are strong.
But will the judge or jury care is the question? Unlikely in several states.
@@TheMandaloreFetta good lawyer will make them care.
@@TheMandaloreFett If your attorney can show a legal precedent, the jury would probably go along with it, assuming the prosecution didn't pack the jury with a bunch of anti-2A commies.
The judge might, if the judge dismisses out of hand, may be good grounds for an appeal.
@@TheMandaloreFettJury will absolutely understand this and I think most likely would accept this reasoning. It depends on the prosecutions argument against it.
@@kolinmartzSaul Goodman
Yeah I agree, if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.
You and your zero credits from college
Its called equal protection under the law.....unless its the government or its agents. Then its do as the crown demands
What is a gander anyway?
@@Owl325you and your pile of debt for a useless piece of paper
@ajs96350 a gander is a male goose or It's an insult meaning "simpleton"
Personally in disputes like this I tend to err on the side of “police should shoot people less” and not “civilians should shoot people more.” This one I’m a bit more unsure.
America: You have the right to own a gun
Also America: If you shoot someone in self defense with a gun, you could go to jail.
Well what the fuck is the point of owning a gun to begin with?
Equal protection of law. If they can do it, so can we.
NO. Moron. They've been trained and have taken an oath. Something you have not.
If we do it we go to jail.
the bar and I just had this conversation, why are they parking in the spaces sideways, so no one encroaches on them? cool, I'll park like a dick, too, and just say I didn't want someone to park near me. they toggle their lights to run a red, cool, I'll turn on my hazards and blow the red, too. LET'S GOOOOOO!!!!!
Such a sweet thought.😅😂
Yes, if you read the 10th amendment of the United States Constitution, it's basically saying that any law or rule that is made everybody has to follow it not just to one party
Ive actually educated people about this before when i was doing an adept level class in weaponry specialization. Showed them just how consistently a melee weapon can actually tie, and beat the draw of a holstered weapon. Showed my students how to gauge that distance without having to pull tape, or put up their hand to measure. Demonstrated multiple different strikes and movements that can beat a holstered draw, and even had an actual police officer come demonstrate and try to beat some of my students at the exercise. Four out of twenty tied the officer, with another four actually beating him. Both my students and the couple of officers in attendance took in this information and wete greatly surprised by it. And i even got a thank you from my local police department for shedding some light upon this topic. It was a really interesting and stimulating exercise.
This should be a standard high school class. Misconceptions about firearms and self defense would plummet.
WOW!!!!! Incredible. Do you still teach and are there any online demonstration. Thanks
This video conflates drawing the gun and shooting the gun tough.
If the attacker is charging, he'd be way closer than 21ft by the time he gets shot.
That's good ...no missing target@@arthurvyater656
Should. Too bad the education boards are dumber than anybody else on the planet.@@mc.builder8267
As a Dutch person this sounds very weird to me. If all citizens in the USA have a gun, then why would someone attack you with a knife? Are knife attacks still common in the USA nowadays while everyone has a gun? What do you do if your opponent grabs his gun outside the 21 feet range?
most cities have suspended constitutional rights, alot of people dont carry firearms outside their home, most attacks are suprise or fast acting attacks like a mugging or assassination.
I think if the cops are allowed 20-21 feet, Citizens should be allowed 24-27 feet. My reason is cops are trained better, they should be able to grab and pull their guns faster, so if they can't do it in less than 21 feet, as a citizen, I shouldn't be able to beat that or come very close.
Officers, trained oath takers, should be held more accountable than civilians.
Oath fakers
But it's the civilians that have created the 3rd world status of America.
They are. Do you get suspended, demoted, fined or fired for a breach of policy.
@@johnkidd1226 what they get suspended with pay?oh wait they get fired so now they just have to move to the Next county to get another job. oh wait they accidentally killed somebody no big deal qualified immunity takes care of that now they move to Arkansas and the police department there says “we got a position for you!!” You sound ignorant if any civilian did what half of the police do they’d be doing life in prison meanwhile, they get suspended with pay and go on vacation.. most jobs would suspend fire you or suspend you without pay for breach of policy. I Don’t know what world you live in#delusional.
@johnkidd1226
…yes? You get punished in any job if you breach policy. Only difference is that the punishment typically actually affects you and isn’t just getting out on paid leave.
21 feet is called the reactionary gap. The is the bare minimum needed for a trained officer to react to a melee attacker.
So it should be a wider reactionary gap for us old arthritic amateurs.
@kathleenkirchoff9223 100% true. If you draw and fire on an attacker at 25 feet, that means you gambled your life on having a draw time probably well above average for civilians and some dipshit jury will still lock you up for it.
@@Freelix2000hard to blame them when you consider that the recommended thing to do in such a situation is to
run away. Even harder when you consider that running away is the COMMON SENSE thing to do (statistically, you are more likely to survive a violent encounter if you run than if you stand your ground).
@Shadowkey392 in Nebraska this is true. Self defense laws here is pretty much rare to walk away from. You must not be able to run away and you can't act first unless the verbal threats match the actions about to ensue that's harder to prove with no surveillance. You must be in a situation in which you can't run and force exerted must not be just enough to get out of danger. So one shot wait it they continue and you still can't run shot again. Process repeat. And still it's rare in nebraska to cause that situation.
@@Shadowkey392 Not everyone can run away. If the attacker is faster trying to run is a death sentence. I'd rather take my chances at moving a handgun than trying to move my whole body.
Yeah good luck proving that in court and getting justice after 10 years.
That is an ABSOLUTE, ABSOLUTELY A POINT OF POINTS ‼️‼️‼️ THIS IS VERY VERY GOOD,⁉️‼️🇺🇸
Not only that, but those drills are conducted with guns that aren’t concealed and officers that know they’re about to have to draw their gun. You could absolutely stretch that to 30+ feet if you have to draw from deep concealment and probably even further with a slow reaction time from not expecting it.
Let alone if you carry without one in the pipe
@@ytsucksmnkyballz thought didn’t even cross my mind. Good point, and yet another reason not to do that lol
YES.
Yes, 35 foot replaced 21foot rule years ago. We've been playing that game for a long time, and 21 feet is with positive awareness of the threat, your attention directed at the threat and your response better than average. For most people, which 99% of cops are in that category, they can't react within the 35 zone. They just don't have the situational awareness or training. Repeat, 99% of cops are not trained any better than average civilians. Annual quals do not mean 'trained'.
Another important thing to note, I know your point touches on this, but criminals don't announce when they're going to attack you, most times the knife doesn't come into view until they are right next to you. With the 21 ft rule the situation is that you already see the knife, then they charge, in reality they usually don't pull the knife and charge. They casually walk up to you, usually concealing the knife in a sleeve / palm, then it happens. Where as with police some times there is stand off from a distance resulting in a charge, but the suspect in that case is often on drugs or having a mental health episode. I know it's anecdotal but I remember a police video in which there were multiple officers trying to talk down a suspect with a knife, he was having a mental health episode, thought he was in the matrix and that his powers were taken from him, after a few minutes of talking he got it into his mind to charge and still came very close to stabbing an officer with multiple officers already aiming at him.
I was told the 21 foot rule years ago, I train at 21 feet more than any other distance. Knowing what 21 foot looks like and being 100% accurate at 21 feet is so important. I've had to pull my firearm while being rushed, by the time I had my gun drawn he was just a few feet from me and my family. Luckily he backed down once my firearm was on the way up because he was about half a second from being shot. I hope I never have to pull it again but I'll be damned if I'm going to die out of fear of the governments ruling.
This is the Way.
Just a few feet from your family? What the hell were you doing to be near someone not only with a gun, but wanting to use it on you? Sorry, but I am a Brit and I can think of literally NO scenario whatever, assuming one (and one's family) are not up to no good, where the whole family is in danger of being shot 🤔🙄
Maybe you live in safer culture but it's not always that way here. To often trouble comes to us. Understanding I hope?
It's funny I was never taught this rule while in the military. In fact, today is the first I heard of this rule, and I've been out longer than I was in 😅
What do you mean you can think of no scenario. Here's one, you are walking in the park with your wife and kid, a man runs up with a gun and says give me your money. Easy
The Sovereign American People Have More Of A Right To Defense/ Self Preservation Than Any Public Servant At Any Given Time!
Officer’s Safety Is Extremely Secondary In Comparison To Any American Citizen!
Basic Knowledge And Common Sense!
First of all, Normal public shouldn't have easy access to Firearms and deadly explosives. (It's what causing problems in the US)
They are not toys to play with.
The 21 foot rule (Tueller Drill) is the gold standard that we drilled on in IDPA. A reasonably fit person can cover that distance in 1.5 seconds. One point Five seconds. Can one draw and put rounds on a charging attacker (armed with a knife or baseball bat) in that time? AND just because you put rounds on the bad guy doesn’t mean you won’t be injured or worse. If they are on drugs (PCP) and are amped up, 2-3 rounds will not stop them. One could still be easily stabbed or clubbed. IF one hits the person in the head or throat - maybe that would drop them. But that is extremely hard to do on a bad guy moving at you at speed AND at such a SMALL target. That’s why all training is taught to aim for center mass. The largest target. Even highly trained firearm personnel will aim for center mass. Twenty-one feet, 1.5 seconds requires efficient speed and accuracy. If YOUR lawyer doesn’t know this information and how to apply it defending you - find another lawyer. Your lawyer has to overcome the Hollywood-ization of firearm accuracy that the jury will be all too aware of.
There is a short video of a police officer putting 12 rounds in a guy who was beating him even after the officer tried his best to dissuade him from using force. Now, this is the kicker, that guy got all the 12 and fell after the last shot, and no, the shots were not bambambam, they were bam..bam..bam.. hence we can count them clearly. The guy took the video clearly on the officer's side as without his video this could be narrated as police brutality as the officer had no body cam on him and it seems like no other witnesses too.
Cops should be reasonably fit though themselves, and able to maneuver.
The gold standard is to do what is morally correct in the situation, as God will be your judge.
This way you won't shoot a grandma for having a Kinfe. Like your typical American cop would. Because Americans worship government, they think government decides morals.
Very well said. I came here to say the same thing, but you articulated it better than I ever could.
Not to mention even a fatal shot can allow the attacker 10-15 sec before bleed out. As far as 21' being used in IDPA your training and competition doesn't equate to a CCW, CWP person. Someone's training is and will be a factor in the use of the firearm and be addressed in court. Your ability being a competitor is not comparable to the avg firearms owner.
Thank you for this! I always look at the comment section because usually there are professionals that comment and add value to the video. I screenshot this just in case me, my husband or 1 of my 5 kids ever need this. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not know. My oldest 2 girls both carry. My oldest son will be 21 in June and he wants a 9mm for his birthday. He’s still at home and in college. Of course he can’t have it on campus. Which I think is crazy with the amount of attacks that happen on campuses. And it’s usually someone who isn’t supposed to be there and isn’t a student. My youngest 2, boy & girl twins, will be 16 in June so they will be getting a used vehicle along with a jumpstart battery so they never have to depend on a stranger if their battery goes dead, seatbelt cutter, $20 emergency cash to stay in the vehicle, a flat tire fix kit, 2 stun guns, a small air pump that plugs into the cig lighter, a tire gauge, flashlight, water & protein bars in case of a breakdown, glass breaker, first aid kit, & we are teaching them how to change a tire & how to use a flat tire kit, how to check their oil & how to change it, how to fill the washer fluid, how to check the radiator, how to use the battery charger, how to use the air compressors & tire gauge, how to change wipers, and how to check a fuse and change it. Have I forgotten anything? Thankfully in our state we have a law that if you fear for your life regardless if they have a weapon or not you do not have to try to retreat first and are lawfully allowed to shoot them. It doesn’t say anything about them having to be within a certain distance from you. If I see anyone coming at me I don’t know then I’m going to yell, what do you want? If no answer, they say something stupid or even reasonable I’m going to ask them to stop & stay right there. If they keep coming I’m pulling my firearm. In this day and time you can’t be too careful! Plus being a woman once a man is close enough to touch me he can easily overpower me. My biggest fear is someone coming up behind me our jumping out from behind something to attack me before I even know they are there. No one knows how they will react in that situation until it happens. My husbands mamaw passes out if she is really scared. She would be useless. Normally when scared because I hate being scared I either yell or freeze for a second then I get instantly fighting mad. I’ve never been attacked but when my kids have jumped out and yelled to scare me, they know not to but did it anyway, I have slapped their jaws before my brain even registered what I’d done. Slapping won’t do much good. I have 3 different times reacted to a best friend that’s younger than me being in a situation that once slightly injured her, once she had a man take beads from her at Mardi Gras to give his girl, and once a man got in her face at a party yelling at her. She’s like my little sister. All 3 times I saw it happen and went into a blind rage. When she was injured she had her feet knocked out from under her by 2 men about to fight at her house & she was trying to stop them. Before I knew what I was doing I’d taken off my heels and used one of the heels to repeatedly beat him in the back. When the beads were taken I grabbed them back and told him they weren’t his. When he refused to let go I squished them with my hands and broke them yelling at him to grow a set and buy his girl some. I must have had a crazy look on my face because his girl pulled on him and said let’s go! At the party I jumped between them shoved him so hard he fell on his arse, he didn’t see it coming, then stomped my foot on the floor right between his legs very close to his privates and yelled next time you won’t be able to get up! But when it comes to being surprise attacked I have no idea if I’ll be too afraid to think, freeze, or get so mad that I forget I’ve got a gun and just try to bare handedly choke him. Any of those options are not good ones. I do carry a backup firearm in another location on my body but I just pray I have sense enough to use them. And I carry a knife & brass nuks that were my grandmas. She once worked in a bar then owned a bar. She also owned a new black ford thunderbird way back with a matching racing boat. She raced them both for money. Once she almost flipped her boat so she sold it because she couldn’t swim. But kept the car. She had a lot of jobs & businesses in her lifetime. She even went back to college when my uncle went & got her nursing degree in her late 30’s. She was a character. She was only 5’4” and weighed 120 most of her life. She was tiny but fierce. All of this is scary because we have so many terrorists, cartel, human traffickers, and criminals that have been let out of prison from other countries who are used to having to fight for their lives. I just pray I’m never faced with any of them.
Especially when cops are trained on how to deal with this type of threat.
The problem is I need to prove I'm being threatened.
police training in America is a joke, have you seen that video of a cop shooting his patrol car because an acorn fell on top of it?
Hahahaha this guy said cops are trained
Especially proving your perception of the threat.
Sometimes you can get lucky, and how you perceive can save you even if the prosecution tries to prove why you shouldn't have. Such as a break in and the person not retreating when you contacted them with a drawn weapon, but rather moving towards you. Armed or not, this is still a perception of threat and has been won before. Castle doctrine is a saving grace.
@@zacharybeste2961They are… You can’t be serious 😂
I guess they will need us to start wearing bodycams as private citizens as well
The first rule of fighting is control the distance. Why can’t any cops I’ve ever seen create distance or de escalate a threat?
He sounds like an attorney educating other attorneys. I like it!
No one labeled a "citizen" is going to ever have any decent rights.
Correct! Because you are a commodity owned by the government.
This man speaks absolute truth!
I agree 100%, that's what they taught us in the academy. Every citizen should know that.
This is a breach of the fking CONSTITUTION that says "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL". THIS AINT EQUAL FAM.
As a police officer, i 100% agree. This should just be a standard
Do you think we should all get qualified immunity as standard? How come when you as a cop don’t know the law and break it it’s fine but when I don’t know the law and break it I go to jail?
@@evilsanta8585 99.99% of the time, the cop is correct in the law... and the person complaining has NO concept of the law, but only the nonsense he read on RUclips.
Spare me. you clowns do mag dumps on handcuffed, unarmed guys sitting in a coward cop car because of an ACORN. Not to mention an untold number innocent unarmed citizens, ROUTINELY
#FTP
@@HappyBuddhaBoyd People don't READ on youtube, they WATCH coward, lying, racist POS cops having no clue of the actual law, they just make up shyt. You need to ease back on the BOOT POLISH. It's toxic
Exactly. If it’s legal for law enforcement to protect their life. The same exact circumstances should apply to everybody.
By the law they do. Police have no special circumstance in which they can use deadly force that you don't, except for one: a fleeing felon. Police can legally shoot a fleeing felonious subject in the back if they feel there's sufficient evidence that letting the subject go could lead to great risk of bodily harm or death to another person.
You can use lethal force in every circumstance that police do. The reason it appears different is that police officers typically have a duty to intercede during active crimes and current conflicts. Police don't have an expectation to flee first while on duty. That results in them being in lethal force scenarios more often than a random citizen. As a random citizen you are expected to flee first (in most states, there are exceptions like stand your ground states) but you are legally within your right as a citizen to intercede. If someone 21 feet away has a knife out and there's another citizen within 10 feet of them and he appears to be threatening that bystander, ANY citizen has a legal right to use deadly force on that subject to save the other person. No different than police. Police just aren't expected to try and run before resorting to deadly force. That 21 foot rule is understood as the deadly range if you're standing your ground. If you are fleeing, that 21 feet isn't quite the same deadly range, as you aren't going to stand there and try to quickdraw the threat while backpedaling. As a citizen you are expected in most cases to be turning and running while drawing.
As I always say though, there are exceptions for everything. Every case is different and needs to be considered on its own merits. There is no blanket correct shoot/no shoot answer that is sufficient for every scenario, so don't think in absolutes like this guy is presenting.
See the fourteenth Amendment! !!!
Been screaming this. Cops who have weapons, backup and body armor have more leeway for self defense than a civilian. Crazy. Power play
It shouldnt apply even for cops.
Laws should protect the victims, not the aggressors
Who's the victim though? The shooter or the person who was shot? Is it self defense just because the shooter says so?
@@Hedning1390 Depends on the situation I guess
@@Hedning1390 wtf are you squabbling about if someone with a weapon is charging at you its pretty obvious who the aggressor is
@@jackd6853 Real life is full of subjectivity and ambiguity. It's not a cartoon with clearly defined villains. For example someone can honestly believe the other guy were charging at them with intent to kill, but video evidence shows that they were actually turning away to leave (case: Michael Drejka). Often there's no video evidence in civilian vs civilian encounters but there's also a myriad of police videos where the cop clearly misjudged the situation, sometimes with loss of life for the innocent citizen.
Also this wasn't even about "charging", but if they came within a certain distance from which they could charge at you. It is a way weaker position than the one you're talking about.
@@Hedning1390 Your literally just squabbling more lol. Were talking about this situation in the video not a well what if scenario. The case you referred to did not have someone running at you with a weapon
Here's another one: the government makes it illegal for people to commit to Larceny by conversion, embezzlement, and false pretenses. But the government allows itself to commit these, plus extortion, etc.
And they can "legally" lie to us, but a crime to lie to them..
Like Laticia James is extorting $ from Trump
The same "Government" that you vote for in your town, city, state congress, federal congress, and president?
Term Limits... sure would go along way to slow that shit down and put these politicians in prison...
@user-lp2iy6ol2v you mean Trump who wants to kill his enemies and not be prosecuted for it?
The difference is in the training. Police are ready to analyse a situation and make those calls. Billybob the local hillbilly probably doesnt have good judgement and might shoot someone who isnt actually a threat.
A very deep lawyer. Anyways a self defense needs to proof it was indeed a danger to defend from.
Actually, citizens should be given greater leeway, because police are "trained" to deal with such threats.
Hasnt been shown in some cases🤷♂️
You wouldn't guess it by looking at them 😂😂😂
You’re going to find that in almost all cases those are prosecutors who don’t believe in self defense. As a general rule police are under more stringent criteria because they are considered professionals.
Open carry holster so the draw is easier, as opposed to drawing from concealment. Meaning 21 is their _minimum_ and need to add a few more for civilians. The standard for “I was in fear” is also higher. It’s literally what you are trained for.
I spent about 15yrs in LEO, this was always the case. Maybe in POS Cali or NY where they hate civilians with guns, but not everywhere else.
rfgd
Makes sense to me.
Another point similar point: Most people who care about stopping a potential threat carry HP ammo, but prosecutors love to demonize it given the opportunity. Easiest way out of it is to ask local law enforcement what they carry in their service weapons that they see appropriate to stop threats - it's going to be HP every time. If they can use it, so can we.
I feel like this is what needs to be teached
I've never heard that. The only question about ammo was is that the bullet used in the shooting. Did it come from that gun. There is no shoot to wound. If you have to shoot someone its to kill. Stop forward aggression is just a fancy way of saying kill. If you are not trying to kill them, you shouldn't be shooting them. The reasoning is the only place people shoot weapons out of someone's hands is in the movies. Even police hit less then 30 percent of the times in shooting. And warning shots are a big no. The bullet has to go somewhere.
@@anthonyfrost9220if you pay attention to any self defense case that involves firearms then you will see it, the Rittenhouse case had the prosecutor try to make an attempt as if HP rounds were designed to turn into a giant mushroom of metal wherever it strikes in the body.
@@zecaptainpegleg8820that’s not what Kyle had in his gun. Go watch it over again. Kyle had FMJ’s in his gun. The prosecution argued that he was using military grade ammo. He has said several times that Kyle was using military grade ammo that was designed to do the most damage. You can’t win in this argument. It doesn’t matter what ammo you use HP or FMJ’s either way if you have an overzealous prosecutor they will find a way to use it against you. Liberals in the US want us to be like the UK and Canada where it’s illegal to defend yourself. The US was founded on a persons right to self defense, self reliance, and self determination. The liberals want to take that away
@@anthonyfrost9220 It's a thing for sure, same with any custom engravings on firearms - even Bible verses. The prosecutions goal is to use any opportunity they can find to make you look like you intended to hurt someone instead of defended yourself. Also, warning shots are legal in Florida provided you use common gun sense and don't fire anywhere that someone or their property could catch a stray.
Wholeheartedly agree. Legality does not determine appropriate or rightful action.
It is 100% legal for citizens to do this. WTH is this guy talking about?? 🤦🏻♂️
As a law enforcement officer, I agree 100%
Thank you.
Narc
Thank you for your service. Stay safe.
Road pirate
@@uzifromtwitter5257Nitwit
Citizens should have the same thing as the government employees
Actually in the Constitution. True meaning of the 2nd amendment.
They do. This guy is full of poop! The laws apply to all. It's all about "Totality of the Circumstances", which for cops, it's almost always in the course of their duties and not a random event. There's much more involved but this guy was just trying to make a point. In fact, citizen's truly acting in self defense are given more leeway when it comes to having to make that decision to shoot.
If they get the same training and qualify the same way in firearms use and weapon retention.
@@k9haysonly in some states. There are actually still “retreat to safety” states. Us folks who live in Castle or stand your ground states forget there are less fortunate peers in states that have thrown the constitution out the window
@@ivanbolvar5900bahahahaa. Say you’re a slave without saying ya a slave 😂. Most citizens practice with their firearms more than the average officer 😂.
Imagine thinking the only way your trained enough, is for another HUMAN to allow you to be.
Slaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaave
The 21 ft rule is what we were taught in concealed carry class in Texas way back when I took it in ‘90.
In modern day, outside of a shotgun, the deadliest weapon within 21 feet is a sword.
most firearm related deaths are within 8 feet, the highest number of deaths in america has been with firsts, 2nd blunt objects, 3rd stabbing tools, 4th vehicles, 5th firearms, 6th strangulations
Gun fights are usually at short distance. You must learn to retreat from knives or swords while you do whatever you choose to do.
Bullshit double standards in my opinion.
hes not bad mouthing the police, just pointing out a fact
How is that double standards? He's just stating the facts think about it if they can defend themselves why can't we is all he's saying it's double standard if if police, politicians etc can use force and not get in trouble but us regular citizens do that's double standard....
@chicarosethe520 🤦🏻♂️ the double standard is cops will get away with murder all the time and get no sentencing for it, they get a smack on the wrist and a kiss on the forehead as they get a promotion, if you shoot and kill someone in a self defense situation, you will be held as a criminal until you can legally prove you did everything in your power to not shoot that person, and they will pick apart every bit of your defense because, in the way the injustice system works is "yOu ThInK YoUr AbOvE tHe LaW" They would rather send you to jail then prosecute a criminal who robbed, raped, stabbed or even murdered a home owner, if they even ever find they criminals that did it. 🤷🏻♂️
It's not a double standard though. He's just claiming it is. People get off for justifiable self-defense all the time.
I've been saying this for years. If it's acceptable for a " highly trained " police officer, than it should be perfectly acceptable for a civilian.
I've seen cops that are trained to talk on their phones and drive also. Civilians can't get such training
Well. here's a thought. Call me crazy, but maybe it'd be better to have police officers that were not shooting and killing people from 20 + feet away because their little legs are shaking and they're scared. Not " we should _all_ be able to kill people from 20 or more feet away. Not fair!"
Good lord.
If you're so terrified of somebody from 20 + feet away that you feel the need to murder them to keep yourself safe, then you have chosen the wrong profession.
@@heavyhaulerT9Odefinitely James Bond level stuff right there. If only we could be so lucky 😢😅👍
Highly trained? The same people that complain about cops, have cut funding for proper training
I mean police in the U.S. only need 672 hours of training. My sister in Connecticut needed 1,000 hours of training to become a massage therapist but they only need barely half that with split-second decisions involving human life. In Bangladesh they need over 1,000 hours, in Japan it's 6 months or between 1,000 and 1,500 hours.
The cop should just take a step back 🤫🧏🏻♂️🗿🦐
I remember my patrol procedures instructor talking about this in class in the early ’90’s. He was responding to a question about some recent stabbing murders of citizens around the country who were carrying a gun. It was along the lines of * if you have a holstered weapon and have been trained to draw it out properly and aim it. Not to mention that you would have practiced it over and over again. An armed citizen, although possibly and hopefully trained how to properly handle a firearm, will not have the same reaction time because they will not have practiced in the same manner*
I'm a British Military Vet who took part in British Military drills of the "21 feet rule" in the mid 80s , I remember the conclusion was that in 95% of incidences a Knife Wielder will win against a sidearm user, unless the sidearm is drawn and cocked...... when I worked and travelled in the States in late '89 as a Bodyguard, I had a Carry Permit , and I would have had no qualms at using my Firearm at over the 21ft mark to protect my Client and myself
Can you not just run away whilst taking out your weapon to give yourself better odds?
@@someguy2819 Depends on the space restrictions of the area you are in, you could also trip and fall. On top of that, you are much less accurate while moving, especially for the average person.
@@northern_21 Yes, but in areas in which you've got space, surely, it would provide an advantage, no? Yeah, you could trip. Is that really a risk worth considering when being charged with a knife? As for accuracy, you're going to land far more hits if you can actually get your gun out in time. It's not like you need to run and gun, you're mainly just running to buy some time so you can pull out a firearm. You could also incorporate some dynamic movement such as dropping backwards to the ground if they're close to you, which would not only mean a change of direction to their inertia, but it could throw them off, and it could also allow you to use your legs to push them back for a second. It would require training of course, but it's a far better option than the alternative in my opinion.
@someguy2819 this is seriously ineffective. You lose time in the turn to run away, you lose time to turn back, you break concentration on your evasion while drawing your firearm, then when you turn to point your weapon, you rush your shot and miss and get stabbed. It is far safer to stand your ground and shoot. You don't have to break your concentration.
@@VikingCarter You lose time in the turn, but you create distance, or at least maximize the distance. A drop to the ground can also buy further time and allow for a better defensive position.
'you rush your shot and miss and get stabbed'
As opposed to not getting a shot off and then getting stabbed? It's also practically at point-blank range.
'It is far safer to stand your ground and shoot'
Except you're not going to get a shot off, which is why the 21-foot rule even exists.
That's why I'm glad I live in Oklahoma where we have the "Make My Day" law. They don't care how close or far an intruder is, if they break into your house you're authorized to use deadly force and you'll be immune from prosecution. Doesn't matter if they were armed or not. Don't want to die, don't break into houses.
I like this law.
@@dredgenwar2375 so do I
Awesome name for the bill
Same in Kansas , you have a right to defend yourself
What about not in your house, but on your property? What about a stranger knocking on your door, who just needs help?
Ehhh, I mean, if you have your gun drawn, then 21ft is fine. The rule only applies if your gun is holstered
The difference is cops have body cams to prove exactly what happened and regular people don't
I’m a police officer and I, completely, agree with this man!
In fact, I give citizens, who use deadly force while defending themselves and/or others the same treatment that officers get. Not to lie, but have an opportunity to speak with an attorney, have time to realize what happened before giving a statement with an attorney present, etc.
You go through an intense adrenaline dump and you’d be surprised at what you can remember days later. Sometimes there are parts to it that you don’t remember. I still can’t remember parts of deadly confrontations that I’ve had even years ago.
It’s traumatic and as you are faced with a life or death situation, a lot of your blood will go to your large muscle groups (fight or flight which is primal) and less to other parts of your body including your brain.
This is one of the reasons why good training and good muscle memory will be automatic when faced with this type of situation.
My supervisor would agree as well! He explained the idea of we are guilty until proven innocent in a court of law. He was a great man and great officer! RIP!
You’re a tyrant that gets paid by the government to do their bidding , nothing more
So as an officer - if you shot someone like in this case, clear no problems - next day off duty someone comes at you - exactly the same and you shoot them? then what?
You police are full of shit. Stop trying to act like you would be there arresting the citizen with the quickness. You cops are coward pos. If not you wouldn't be a cop.
Outstanding. I've always had issues with the fact that officers are taken care of, reassured by fellow officers, and catered to after a deadly force encounter and are allowed plenty of time to gather their thoughts, talk to their rep and lawyer etc before giving a statement and generally put at ease in every way possible. But when a citizen is in a self defense related shooting, they're often treated like a criminal, arrested, immediately thrown in the box to try to pressure a statement out of them, and the adrenaline dump and shock experienced in such an event is often taken advantage of by investigators who already have the guy isolated, in handcuffs, unable to talk to anyone, stripped of his firearm, thrown in a cage, and usually scared out of his mind that he's about to be financially ruined, lose his job, probably lose his family, go to prison for many years, plus be sued by some scumbag's family, who could possibly also come after him or his family...and gawd knows what else... And investigators will press him for details and do what they do to try and get a statement ASAP that the guy is going to be held to and could seriously come back to bite him in the ass just because he didn't have time to gather his thoughts and calm down and let things level out and calm down before making a statement. Most guys are not in any condition to deal with a statement immediately after an incident. Shouldn't be talking to anyone but a lawyer anyway, but pushing someone into a statement so quickly is wrong. And if we all want "justice to be served", police should not be pressuring someone for a statement and scaring the hell out of him right after a shooting and the same standards should be applied to officers and joe citizen.
In Florida we have a law called "stand your ground". Being disabled, I'm not able to fight off offender, so it's always important to keep your distance from people who you think to be a threat.
How often do you REALISTICALLY encounter a threat? I mean a human, not an alligator.
Have you seen the Florida man stories? Why wouldnt he be packing?@@Nemesis-pe7mw
Really don't get it. Is Florida not a 2nd amendment state.
@@silverpc4611what are you talking about? Stand Your Ground laws, or Castle Doctrine laws, mean that if you are legally allowed to be in a certain place, you do not have the “duty to retreat” from an attacker and are authorized to use deadly force if you feel your life is in danger.
@@silverpc4611there is no non-2nd amendment states??? its a federal right
Just so you know..."LEGAL" is NOT the same as "LAWFUL". "LEGAL" is a commercial term..."LAWFUL" is common law... totally opposite
I agree with the message here but there is NO law preventing an innocent citizen from using lethal force to protect themselves from an imminent attack.
Prove me wrong.
This man is exactly right there’s no difference between a police officer or a citizen. Trying to defend himself from a criminal.
There is actually, and the difference is training. The LEO has training, where as the civilian may have some, but in many cases does not.
Make it mandatory to have training before you have a gun otherwise it isn't the same. Arguably police should also have a higher bar here too given how shit their record is.
There are many reasons why it's referred to as "THE DEPARTMENT OF INJUSTICE". This being one of those.
DoiJ is a totally different thing from your local police.
Sounds just like the Harris county texas DA's office.
That's the way the average citizen likes it
You can't hang your hat on any justice department! Look what they're doing to our greatest President ever!.. DOJ! A bunch of bought and paid for cronies! 🖕
DEI in DOI...
At least y’all can defend yourselves. In Canada you are legally not allowed to defend yourself even if your the one getting attacked 💀
We convinced our entire generation that this is a battle that we could win.