Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
It’s not strictly speaking a gun-rights case. But the discussion of the 21-foot rule might be useful to a CCW permittee who finds herself explaining why she shot a person holding a knife, standing a little distance away from her.
The defendant in this case argued with apartment security, went to her car, retrieved a knife, then returned to threaten security with the knife. The prosecution called the investigating detective, who testified:
“Over defense objection, Detective Ratajczyk testified regarding the continuum of force; the lowest level of force being the presence of a person in uniform, and the level of force then moves from verbal, to physical, to deadly force. According to Detective Ratajczyk, force in response to a threat is “met with the same force plus one.” Detective Ratajczyk also testified that he believed a knife is a dangerous weapon, particularly if the knife is within 21 feet of an officer because a distance of 21 feet is the minimum distance an officer with a holstered weapon needs to react to a threat from a knife . . . Even if we were to conclude that the challenged testimony was inadmissible, appellant cannot establish prejudice because there is no reasonable possibility that the verdict would have been different had the challenged testimony not been admitted. See Post, 512 N.W.2d at 102. The record reflects that the evidence supporting appellant’s guilt was overwhelming.”
The Court didn’t actually rule on whether the 21-foot rule was valid. But the court didn’t toss it out, either. Keep this case in your pocket for the next time somebody claims a knife isn’t a reason to use deadly force.
Joe Doakes
I would love to see the weasel assistant DA who tries to state with a straight face that a knife isn’t a deadly weapon.
Only on Planet Law.
I’d be willing to bet that Backstrom would!
I think that this was a reoccurring plot point on several different episodes of “Justified” last season. IIRC the first guy who came at Raylan with a knife, tripped on a hole and managed to impale his own chin with his knife.
Not exactly their finest season.
If Mythbusters prove 21 foot rule to be true, which they have, it is!
Actually, a more compelling demonstration is Marcaida vs Zero.
The 21 foot rule has ben a staple of law enforcement firearms training for years. In fact, many officers, in training, even when prepared for the attack (which may not be likely in a real life situation), were unable to draw their (simulated) pistol in time to save themselves.
Plus, when using Simunition (small paintballs fired from a modified real pistol or revolver), even when the gun was drawn in time, successful hits were not guaranteed.
If (presumably) trained and prepared law enforcement officers have difficulty functioning correctly with this premise, a jury should have no difficulty applying it favorably to a non-sworn, female (yes, I know, but people do think that way …) defendant, assuming the rest of the story is sound …