Pulling a percentage out of my ass that can't be terribly inaccurate, 99% of police encounters with guns drawn the police are under 21 ft away, at which distance a knife is as dangerous as a gun.
If someone is less than 21 ft from you and they are going to be using a knifes against you, then you should still draw a gun just as often as if they had a gun. So at <21 ft you think guns should be drawn less because they have knives you should also be thinking guns drawn the ~exact amount less no matter which of the 2 weapon they had.
I don't dispute that. But in most those 'other countries' literally anyone could be hiding a knife as easily as someone in US could be hiding a gun. So it appears in the vast majority of the cases where people are already right next to each other where both a knife or gun could kill someone, whether it is a knife or a gun is almost a moot point. It's only at a distance that you can treat a knife as a less lethal threat. Therefore the problem lies with the police, by vast majority.
A knife is not equivalent to a gun. One is a kitchen appliance that can be used as a rather ineffective weapon, the other is a tool literally designed for eliminating life as efficiently as possible
Disarming someone who poses a threat with a knife (especially via the use of modern equipment) is absolutely possible and can be performed in most cases with training, even with just one officer. Meanwhile, disarming someone with a gun is a much more complex task, often requiring a coordinated effort from multiple officers
>a knife (especially via the use of modern equipment) is absolutely possible and can be performed in most cases with training
I want to see you attempt that in real life when someone is within 21 feet. If you watched enough training videos and the literal flood of body camera videos that show even tasers are more often than not infective you would not speak so conveniently about a split second life or death situation.
> I want to see you attempt that in real life when someone is within 21 feet
Sadly I did not film it, but you could have been! I have attended multiple classes during which I had to disarm people with knives and other weird objects. It is absolutely possible with the right circumstances and training, but it's a completely different story when it comes to guns - the element of luck is much more meaningful, as a instructor who was shot quite a few times in their career has pointed out
> You can but you absolutely should not try just because you can in training
For incapable civilians like me - absolutely. But I expect more from police officers than from myself when it comes to non-lethal disarming capabilities
>But I expect more from police officers than from myself when it comes to non-lethal disarming capabilities
It's asinine to expect someone to put there life in danger for little to no benefit just because they are trained for it and there is a chance it might go well instead of certain death.
If someone comes at someone with a knife (which is deadly force), they should expect to be met with equal or more force, this isn't some game with retries. Others don't have to go along your stupid games just because you drag them into them. Play stupid games win stupid prices.
> It's asinine to expect someone to put there life in danger for little to no benefit just because they are trained for it and there is a chance it might go well instead of certain death.
Whether it's asinine or not depends on context. Where I live, it is expected for police officers to protect you with their lives from a lethal threat if necessary, both legally and socially, and failure to commit to that means that you shouldn't be a cop
For the US, I think that the Uvalde shooting revealed a lot about what people actually expect from cops in life threatening situations, never mind what they are legally obligated to do
I'm glad you're making this point. It's something that only people trained in combat would know, and it's very non-intuitive. But it has to do with reaction times, how quickly the person wielding the gun can pull the trigger, and how quickly the person wielding the knife can move. That 21 feet can close blindingly fast.
> under 21 ft away, at which distance a knife is as dangerous as a gun.
No, it is not as dangerous.
To use gun from 7 meters away, you have throw it, which takes way more movement hand movement and time. While you should not rely on it, it is very feasible to just move out of the way of the thrown knife.
Other possibility getting closer to you. Running will take 2 seconds. (Not a lot, but definitely not as dangerous as a handgun)
The statistic isn't related to thrown weapons. It's how quickly you can close the space between you and your adversary, as well as how much bearing drift you can create as you do so.
Then you shouldn't be a police officer. We can't have a society where police shoot first and ask questions later just because they want to make sure there is zero risk to them.
I sent out screens to ~15-25% of resumes (a higher rate for new grads, lower for seniors, not wanting to unnecessarily rule them out just because they didn't have positive evidence of potential success and didn't know how to write a resume, only ruling them out of there was positive evidence they'd be unsuccessful). That amounted to ~100 per position filled. Around half of those completed the take-home. Some of the rest should have self-selected out and didn't, which is something I'd like to improve if I run a take-home again.
You're right the time commitment wasn't equal. Early on I spent much more time than the candidates designing and analyzing the test. Afterward, their 20 minutes would usually take me <5min (often <1min for obvious failures and obvious passes, the average brought up due to time analyzing edge cases).
I did read every submission though. It wasn't wasted time for candidates.
Sounds common to have training in big tech but I never received any training either. Sometimes we’d discuss changes we wanted to make to the interview process, which suppose could be considered adjacent to training.
reply