But the "within 25-30 feet" at least has it being the truth in its favor. And none of this has changed, US cops have always been well armed, right?
The problem I see is the switch from their being "peace officers" to warrior cops, or at the very minimum, having as their #1 objective making it home safely when their shift ends. Rather negates the "Thin Blue Line" concept of their being there to protect us, also calls into question their outsized benefit packages.
Not really, they carried a revolver or .38 special, might have had a shotgun between the front seats or in the trunk, Using khaki as the only body armor. Now there are police whose primary weapon is an ar-15 and the backup is a semi-auto .40 mm glock. everyone else has an ar-15 in the trunk and a glock in hand plus varying levels of body armor.
That's a far cry from having a 6 shot revolver on your hip just in case.
And in the long run, I suspect trading their khaki for body armor and the disdain or worse of civilians will be viewed as a mistake.
From what I've read, there is no basis for it.
I've done it myself, timed the speed I could lunge 21 feet, it's true enough. And that's a minimum, allow more feet to realize there's a threat etc.
no not really, there are a lot of countries without armed or heavily armed police forces.
>That seems a fairly shortsighted estimation of what balances power between police and the people.
So does the NRA's idea that the second amendment will allow people to overthrow the government if they still own guns.
But at the end of the day, forcing your police force to think deescalation first has some real benefits. Carrying a fatal weapon and being trained that people within 25-30 feet are in your 'danger zone' has had a very poor outcome.