II. EDGED WEAPON DEFENSE: IS THE 21-FOOT RULE STILL VALID? WAS IT EVER? Part 1 of a 2-Part Series
II. MORE FROM FSRC ON EDGED WEAPONS & THE 21-FOOT RULE. Part 2 of a 2-Part Series
An excerpt:
Although the research was performed with law enforcement applications in mind, when we are discussing action-reaction times most of this work is directly applicable to the armed citizen and self defense and thus an interesting read.Force Science Research Center wrote:Recently a Force Science News member, a deputy sheriff from Texas, suggested that “it’s time for a fresh look” at the underlying principles of edged-weapon defense, to see if they are “upheld by fresh research.” He observed that “the knife culture is growing, not shrinking,” with many people, including the homeless, “carrying significant blades on the street.” He noted that compared to scientific findings, “anecdotal evidence is not good enough when an officer is in court defending against a wrongful death claim because he felt he had to shoot some[body] with a knife at 0-dark:30 a.m
. . .
After testing the Rule against FSRC’s landmark findings on action-reaction times and conferring with selected members of its National and Technical Advisory Boards, the Center has reached these conclusions, according to Executive Director Dr. Bill Lewinski:
1. Because of a prevalent misinterpretation, the 21-Foot Rule has been dangerously corrupted.
2. When properly understood, the 21-Foot Rule is still valid in certain limited circumstances.
3. For many officers and situations, a 21-foot reactionary gap is not sufficient.
4. The weapon that officers often think they can depend on to defeat knife attacks can’t be relied upon to protect them in many cases.
5. Training in edged-weapon defense should by no means be abandoned.