rcurry is right if the knife wielder is within 20 feet AND the gun holder has their gun holstered, uncocked, with the safety still on. Why not also do a test w

rcurry is right if the knife wielder is within 20 feet AND the gun holder has their gun holstered, uncocked, with the safety still on. Why not also do a test where the officer has to front-load the powder into their musket and put a bullet in and arm the gun? Have you seen those videos? The policemen are the ones who approach the knife wielder, not the other way around! They have the power to set the distance and to prepare themselves if they're going to close the distance! They're not hapless policemen standing idly by, suddenly assaulted by a knife wielder who surprise-jumps out of a doorway within 20 feet. That's a totally different situation. What's more likely to be happening in a real situation, based again on all those countless snuff films floating around the internet, is that the officers have the safety off, have their hand on the gun, or even have the gun out of the holster in their hand, long before the 20-feet distance is reached. That reduces the dangerous distance pretty significantly I would think. So again, my point totally stands: unless the victim (I refuse to call them an attacker when they're clearly the one who always dies in practice when these scenarios happen, especially if they're black) is actually actively moving towards the policeman, there is no reason for the policeman to shoot their gun at a victim that's standing 20 feet away. If they feel the victim is a threat, then unholster the gun, take off the safety, cock the gun, and be ready to shoot, but maintain your distance. It totally refuse that the only reasonable course of action after you deliberately approach a knife wielder is to shoot them when you get them within your 20-foot radius. That's murder, pure and simple.