143 - Expert Testimony In 21 Feet Or Less: Doug Deaton

Imagine that someone with a knife or another deadly weapon is charging at you with intent to kill.  How close do they have to be for you to deploy deadly force?  Did you say 21 feet?  That's what I've always been told.  But what if you take that shot and now you're on trial for murder and the prosecutor has evidence that says the assailant was twenty-two feet away when you took your shot.  Oh, no!  

Our guest today is Doug Deaton, and hopefully your lawyer will hire someone like Doug, a veteran cop and expert on use of force issues, to give testimony as an expert witness in court.  Doug has done exactly that and I brought him today to tell the story of when a lawyer let him explain the 21-foot rule to a jury.

Music is by Chris Haugen

Hey Chaplain podcast Episode 143

Tags:

Police, Career, Court, Detectives, Expert Testimony, Guns, Justice, Movement, Shootings, SWAT, Tactics, Dallas, Texas

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

The prosecution actually asked me, you know, Mr. Deaton, uh, you know, in during your time in law enforcement, did you ever hear about the 21-foot rule? And so that's where we start. And I was like, yes, I have. And uh, what why don't you tell this jury about what is the 21-foot rule? And that's when I realized, you know, I'm I'm gonna talk about this.

SPEAKER_00 0:20

Welcome to Hey Chaplin. My name is Jared Altic, and I'm a chaplain with the police department. The Hey Chaplin podcast is about talking to police officers who say, Hey Chaplain, I've got a story to tell and some hard-earned wisdom to share. The guests on Hey Chaplin come from across the world, from the LAPD to Scotland Yard, from Thailand to Texas. They are sharing their wisdom so that you don't have to learn everything the hard way. And as Patrol Chaplain, I think you deserve something positive and encouraging. You will also notice that there are no commercials or advertisers, there's no sponsors interrupting the show. But that also means that there's no advertising budget. And so don't be selfish, but share the Hey Chaplin podcast with anyone and everyone you think might be interested. This show only grows because of word of mouth. Imagine that someone with a knife or another deadly weapon is charging at you with intent to kill. How close do they have to be for you to deploy deadly force? Did you say 21 feet? Well, that's what I've always been told. But what if you take that shot and now you're on trial for murder and the prosecutor has evidence that says the assailant was 22 feet away when you took your shot? Oh no. Our guest today is Doug Deaton. And hopefully your lawyer will hire someone like Doug, a veteran cop and an expert on use of force issues, to give testimony as an expert witness in court. Doug has done exactly that, and I brought him in today to tell the story of when a lawyer let him explain the 21-foot rule to a jury. Here's Doug Deaton. Hello, Doug. How are you today? I'm doing great. It's nice to be here. I'm glad to have you on the show. Can you tell me just a little bit about what you've done in law enforcement?

SPEAKER_01 2:33

Uh I uh worked at the Plano Police Department in Plano, Texas. Uh that wasn't my first agency, but uh it was the second one that I worked at. I was a police officer for about 26 years in the Dallas uh Metroplex area. So the city that I worked for was uh about 72 square miles, 300,000 people, geographically at the top of a location that was about 7,000, excuse me, 7 million people total. So it's just one gigantic city. So I started out there as a patrol officer. I was on SWAT for a number of years, uh, was a training sergeant and later worked in criminal investigations, uh, promoted to lieutenant, which I just never thought would happen, then uh finished my career in crimes against persons. So I was the lieutenant over all investigations of uh everything from simple assaults to kidnappings, homicides, family violence, sex crimes, things of that nature. And I retired from law enforcement in uh 2021.

SPEAKER_00 3:33

Okay, when you think back on your career, were you more the detective, the investigator, or were you more the door kicker?

SPEAKER_01 3:40

I was definitely more the door kicker. I was a gun guy, a firearms guy, a SWAT guy. I was on the SWAT team for about nine years, a little shy of nine years. And even after promoting uh into the role of lieutenant, I was called back in uh to be a tactical operations commander, barricaded persons, uh, things of that nature. Had to do a lot of oversight on applications for use of the SWAT team. So I I'm I'm kind of a weird dude because most people typically do pick one land or the other and then they kind of stick with it. And I I was definitely the gun and SWAT guy and the jujitsu guy, and then I transitioned over into criminal investigations, uh, especially at the the during the latter half of my career. Ultimately, though, that has worked out really well for me in the private sector.

SPEAKER_00 4:23

Do you remember the first time you had to testify in court?

SPEAKER_01 4:27

Yes, I do. I think the very first time I testified was on a uh just a very simple uh plain vanilla traffic uh citation that was being contested. Uh, but it felt very real to me. Uh it was very, you know, it was a little intimidating. You got a judge and the robe there and lawyers present and a jury and all of that over a traffic ticket.

SPEAKER_00 4:46

On that day, did you think, man, I want to come back and be in court more? Did you think that at the time?

SPEAKER_01 4:53

Absolutely not. It was very, very uncomfortable. No, I did not like it at first.

SPEAKER_00 4:58

So tell me how it turns out now, all these years later, that you deliberately put yourself in the position to testify in court.

SPEAKER_01 5:06

I I do. That's what's funny, is it's kind of like public speaking. Uh, you know, they say that people are terrified of public speaking, and there's probably some truth to that, but the more you do it, the better you get at it. Once you sort of sort of lean into uh the challenge, lean into the fight a little bit, it becomes sort of like a chess game, and you start to figure out where you can perform better. Having a difficult opponent makes you sharper. It makes you more professional. And I began to enjoy that uh very much, actually. I I sort of enjoyed the the intellectual back and forth uh within the confines of the courtroom, and of course, the rules of evidence and rules of testifying. Um I guess I'm starting to become somewhat well known for my writing and my analysis of situations and incidents, uh, the fancy term being post-incident analyses. And uh so it's it's actually very satisfying to be able to determine what actually occurred or to be able to testify in plain language that everyday people can understand and break down very difficult concepts or esoteric sounding concepts for the every man, for the every woman, and just explain to them, hey, they're using these terms, but that's really just a fancy way to say one plus one equals two. And I really do enjoy doing that.

SPEAKER_00 6:24

Yeah. And this is important for a jury trial, for instance. But really, any situation where the lawyers and the judges involved just don't have a clear understanding, maybe, of some of the things that law enforcement officers experience. And if you have the ability to articulate that and put that into terms that somebody outside of the law enforcement field can understand and put their mind around, uh, that's a useful skill. And so you've been brought in to give expert testimony in some cases, right? I have, yes, sir.

SPEAKER_01 6:57

I've testified on behalf of uh of police officers, sheriff's deputy, uh in use of forced trials uh several times now. Uh testified many times in uh the state of Texas, but also in Virginia, uh Oregon, and Washington.

SPEAKER_00 7:12

Yeah. And now you were telling me, too, that you had the opportunity recently. You were testifying, and you got the opportunity to speak to something that has kind of been bothering you for a little bit and maybe bring some clarity to that situation. Can you tell me that story? So you're in court testifying. What kind of a what kind of a case was it?

SPEAKER_01 7:31

Uh, this was a murder trial in uh in Texas. Uh this involved the citizen self-defense shooting, and uh there were really primarily two people involved. Uh, you have your citizen defender with the with a handgun blocking the doorway of his home uh to prevent uh the other party uh from entering his home. The other party had a pump, a metal pump in his hand. It resembled, sort of resembled a bicycle pump, and they were erroneously referring to it as a bicycle air pump, but that's not really what it was. It's uh something known as like a liquid transfer pump. So it's it's it's a heavy, somewhat heavy metal uh object, uh, and it has what's known as a uh barbed hose fitting at the end, uh, where you're to slip the hose on there. And so this guy uh was holding it like a club with the uh the sharp barbed hose fitting exposed, and was telling this other person that he was going to kill him with it, and then uh raised it up and was approaching him. And then so there was a shooting. And and consistent with many shootings, uh, the uh uh one of the bullets actually hit the weapon itself. It hit the pump that he was holding in his hand. We see we see that a lot in in both officer ball shootings and citizen self-defense shootings. It's very common for people to be shot in the hand or or in the weapon or object that is that is being held at that time. Uh and so the one of the things that came up in the trial uh when I was trying to explain the uh the dynamics of movement and uh you know, personal violence and you know, time, distance, cover, or the lack thereof, uh was this notion of the quote unquote 21 foot rule. And uh, I tell you what, if I had a dollar uh for every time I've heard you know people on the internet and and even and even criminal defense attorneys and uh seasoned prosecutors both uh use the phrase 21-foot rule, man, I'd be wealthy. I wouldn't be doing anything anymore.

SPEAKER_00 9:26

I can hear in your voice that it's specifically the word rule is grading on you. But but tell me, tell me what do they mean by that? So let's just start there. What do they mean by a 21-foot rule when this gets brought up as if it's common knowledge?

SPEAKER_01 9:39

Most people who use that phrase are laboring under the false belief that if a person with a knife or uh or an object that can be used to inflict serious bodily injury or death is at or inside 21 feet, that you can automatically shoot them, uh, that they're automatically a deadly threat. And so that if you can envision a radius or a distance around you that's uh this bright line standard of 21 feet, once the uh your would-be opponent gets to that 21 foot space and then takes a step over the that imaginary 21 foot line, he's bought and paid for.

SPEAKER_00 10:17

Okay. Outside 21 feet, he's safe. Inside, he's a goner. All right. 22 feet, right?

SPEAKER_01 10:25

20 feet, it's it's weapons free. You're like, no, that is not correct, first off.

SPEAKER_00 10:31

Okay, so how how did this come up in that trial?

SPEAKER_01 10:33

Surprisingly, it was the prosecution that brought it up. And uh could because initially uh the the attacker had been uh far far further than than 21 feet away and was approaching uh the doorway with this weapon in his hand. And so the uh as best I can tell, they were trying to make the clay the claim that because he was uh beyond 21 feet initially, that the defender really should not have pointed his weapon at him at all. Uh and then there was a question about exactly who was standing where at the moment that the citizen began firing. You know, was he standing immediately at the door? Was he 10 feet away from it? We can't tell because of where the shell casings are. And so they were uh I think they were trying to make the case, well, no, he was 30 feet away, so he wasn't a deadly threat. And and that that turned out to not be true either, because the attacker in this particular case was a young, very physically fit, athletic male uh with a significant methamphetamine habit. And so a person uh meeting that those you know, that criteria can easily cover 30 feet or more in in a very, very short amount of time.

SPEAKER_00 11:42

Sure. So so the prosecution brings it up potentially to say that it was outside that distance, therefore it was not necessary. And you get brought up on the stand. So it's being brought up to you while you're on while you're testifying, or is this something?

SPEAKER_01 11:59

The prosecution actually asked me, you know, Mr. Deaton, uh, you know, in during your time in law enforcement, did you ever hear about the 21-foot rule? And so that's where we start. And I was like, yes, I have. And uh what why don't you tell this jury about what is the 21-foot rule? And that's when I realized, you know, I'm I'm gonna talk about this. So I they they actually let me talk for quite a while. And I started off by explaining, I think it's important that we we understand it's not a rule. And then I went into the history of uh this it you can call it a concept, you can call it a drill. What there's several other terms for it, but I was able to speak about you know Dennis Tuller with uh Salt Lake City Police Department, uh, who was uh one of the first guys that that worked on this. And it was originally an article in Swant magazine, you know, about how close is too close. And then that was do you know about when that was? That was uh circa 1985, I believe. Okay, so in the 80s. Yes. In the 80s, they're talking about this. That's right. And and you know, and Dennis Tuller uh was a firearms instructor uh with Salt Lake City PD, and and there's been some other videos where he talks about it as well and some other articles on this, but uh he's even tried to make sure people understand this is not a hard and fast rule. All they were doing initially was trying to determine about how much distance could an average person cover in one and a half seconds. And the key to that is the average person. And when you think about, you know, an outside the waistman holster, a duty holster especially, about how long does it take a police officer to draw that pistol and address a deadly threat that's that's approaching. And so, you know, opinions vary, but even if you go with one and a half seconds, uh, how much distance could an attacker cover in that one and a half seconds? And what what he found and what has been repeatedly found is that the average person can cover roughly 21 feet. That's all. It's a concept, you know, it's a it's a drill, it's a it's something to keep in your back pocket and to keep in mind when when dis again, time and distance are both shrinking.

SPEAKER_00 14:05

So you get the latitude to talk about this. I would think that a lawyer's instinct would kick in and say, wait a second, this isn't helping me. Uh was there any point at which they cut you off? Or yeah.

SPEAKER_01 14:21

So when you're testifying uh as an expert, uh it typically what happens is you have the initial examination part. So whoever you're working, uh, whoever's hired you uh as an expert or retained you as an expert, they talk, they talk to you first. And then the other side gets to cross-examine you. And so uh that that came up a little bit, just a touch with with the defense attorney, but it really came up with the prosecution. And and you could tell I uh he probably thought he was going to really get me there. Uh, and then when it wasn't going that direction, uh it wasn't very helpful. Uh, what I did think was funny was that then he then he started talking about, well, the what about the length of the arm and then the length of the tool that he's holding? And so if he's not actually at that distance, well then he's actually not a deadly threat. And I said, Well, he it's an imminent deadly threat if he's rapidly approaching. If someone is charging you with a piece of metal in their hand, uh, yes, it it that is, especially when they've just told you they're going to kill you, uh that is absolutely an imminent deadly threat. Uh, so I was, yeah, I was able to talk about that at length. Uh, quite a few questions. Frankly, we covered uh several different scenarios from 30 feet away to 21 feet to six feet to to contact distance.

SPEAKER_00 15:34

So I've had officers who have been in the situation that citizen was in, where they've had to make a decision to shoot a suspect that was closing on them. And when that happens, this concept, this this 21-foot rule gets brought up. Sometimes in defense, like, hey, you don't realize how fast someone can close on you. It was absolutely justifiable to use deadly force. And then other times, I think what this prosecutor was trying to do, they're like, Well, they could have used something else. They had time because you know they were 30 feet away or something, 25 feet away, therefore, therefore, they could have used option B. How would you respond to an officer who is sweating it out, not sure, am I in trouble? Am I gonna go to jail? Am I gonna lose my career? Uh what would you say to that officer?

SPEAKER_01 16:26

So I I would say uh that everywhere you go, you need to be surveying the uh the land around you, looking for objects and you know, and and uh vehicles, things that you can put between you and a potential attacker. Just something as very as simple as a couch. Uh, and I speaking, you know, I'm speaking on that from personal experience, uh, you know, it is not necessarily going to solve anything, uh, but it gives you uh some additional delay. And it also, uh, when you put an object between you and that and that attacker, it also, in in many cases, uh, even when they can get over the top of that object, it also provides that third-party reviewer with an actual bright line to look at. Like, hey, this guy was holding a butcher knife. He just pulled it out of the block there. He was standing in the kitchen. There was nothing between uh he and I. So I moved over uh so that the couch was now between him and me. And he still came at me and he was coming over the top of that couch when I finally shot him. So it's not some imaginary distance, it's not some imaginary object or line on the ground. It's a hard, serious okay. You have a couch there, you know, you have a Ford F-150 between you and him. Uh, if at all possible, don't just stand there and and and let the bull charge you, you know, and hit you with both horns. Try to put something between you and him if you can. Uh, and then uh what we've seen in a lot of training is of course getting off the X or moving offline. Backpedaling is is almost never the answer. Uh you're so much better off with some quick sidesteps uh and then you know looking to create not just distance but alternate angles. Uh you know, humans being bipedal animals, we're great at charging in straight lines. Uh we're not great uh at maneuvering rapidly after we already have all that momentum moving forward. So if you can just step offline a few feet, sometimes that'll give you a little bit more time to make a decision.

SPEAKER_00 18:28

I was going to ask you about training, and you said that Tuler was developing this concept 40 years ago. Do you feel like training has adequately absorbed this idea of an attacker closing on you? And if not, then what would you tweak or what do you like to see in training to address a closing attacker?

SPEAKER_01 18:50

I think that it has in many respects. Uh I think training has gotten much better and does address it. But I do also sometimes think that in some agencies or jurisdictions, they don't do a true deep dive into uh the original purpose of that of that study and uh and the ongoing studies that have been done on movement. Uh I think that uh the Force Science Institute has done some phenomenal work there, and those those papers and studies are available uh for free, uh especially for police officers to look at. There's been some great work on that. I do wish that more training units and training officers would really take a hard look at that uh because it is really about time distance cover and the amount of time that it takes a human being to see a threat, figure out what it is. You know, so they have this cognition. They use a word, people like to use the word cognition. That's just a fancy word for thinking, right? Figuring it out. You're like, hey, that's not uh a ham sandwich in his hand. That is, in fact, a butcher knife, and he's coming right at me. So now we have to make a you know make a decision. Well, by the time we've made a decision, a great deal of time has actually elapsed already. And the distance between us and that attacker is shrinking, uh, in some cases, exponentially shrinking, uh, because he is accelerating as he's running at you. That's a long-winded answer to your question. I think we've done a great job in law enforcement. I think there's probably in some corners, uh, there's probably still some good work to be done. Uh, we really need to look at, again, that perception, cognition, and motor movement process because that's that's really where the rubber meets the road. And one of the examples that I like to use uh when I'm trying to explain this to laypersons is that anyone who's ever been to a driver's education course, anybody who's ever had the proverbial ball roll out into the roadway and a child comes running after it, you know, or some kid on a bicycle pulls in front, you know, inadvertently pulls in front of your car, anybody who's ever experienced those things inherently understands the perception, cognition, and motor process. They get it. They realize, oh, I see now. Uh when you talk about, hey, when you're going down the highway and suddenly the car in front of you just locks up their brakes, and now you have to realize, oh, that's their brake lights coming on, oh, there's no distance, and you're stomping on your brakes as hard as you can, and there's just a few molecules between your front bumper and their rear bumper. Uh, that that that'll help people understand a little bit the kind of fear and panic that you, the police officer, was experiencing at the moment this person was running at you, you know, with a uh with a weapon of some kind, whether it was a knife or you know, a hammer or some other object, just a piece of rebar, it could be anything.

SPEAKER_00 21:43

I I'd actually like to hear your thoughts on when the object in the hand is misinterpreted, because sometimes officers would take lethal action against a charging suspect who is not holding a knife. It turns out they were holding a phone.

SPEAKER_01 22:00

Correct, yes. And so these are those uh uh mistakes, uh a mistake of fact, a mistake of perception. Um, you know, a great class that I went to one time was talking about um, you know, we we often think about things in terms of snapshots, but in reality, we need to be trying to force our brains to operate more like a video camera. It doesn't, but but try to do that, try to have that movie in your mind. Again, it's it's it's also about surveying uh what's going on around you and with that person and conducting a meaningful analysis of what of what you're seeing as much as possible. Uh look whole body down to the hands, waistline, and demeanor. Yeah. Because sometimes, yeah, sometimes those people are intentionally trying to get you to shoot them, or they're intentionally trying to get you to make a mistake, and so they will hold uh an object that is really not uh able to be implemented as a deadly weapon, uh, either because they're suicidal or or they have mental issues or what have you.

SPEAKER_00 23:00

Um well, and you're moving more from the 21-foot rule to, well, I guess Gramby Connor, right? Yes, right.

SPEAKER_01 23:07

Objectively reasonable, correct. Right. Okay. And uh, you know, if we if we expect zero defects, we're never going to get that uh because human beings are involved here. Any organization which employs human beings will always have some kind of flawed uh decision making that occurs, no matter uh what our you know, what our uh intentions were. Using uh proper illumination, a proper flashlight in your hand, not on your not on a weapon-mounted light, but uh is I'm not speaking against weapon-mounted lights at all, but uh having that flashlight in your hand early and often, illuminate, uh illuminate those hands that you see uh that are out there. Be aware of the hands you cannot see. And uh I continue to recommend to people, and I'm a huge believer in sidestepping. I am, and I don't mean when you're drawing your pistol, I'm just talking about hey, somebody says, Hey, hold on just a second, let me go in, I'll get my ID. Hey, no problem. And you're on the left side of the door. Uh, as soon as they turn their back, I sidestep a few a few steps over. So when they come out again, they're they're expecting to see me there on that left side of the door, but I'm over here on the right side of the door now. Yeah, something just that simple. I I've seen videos where that has saved officers' lives. You know, you you need to be constantly able to be moving and reading that scenario, reading the reading that person, uh again, their whole body and their demeanor, and and really take a good look at what you can see in those hands. If you're not sure, illuminate that quickly. And uh that's you know, movement, movement is life, stillness is death.

SPEAKER_00 24:36

So tell me how that day on the stand ended. It started to turn for that prosecutor. Uh, how did that finish?

SPEAKER_01 24:44

Uh, so it it we ended up uh he he he did it he did a great job. He did it he did the best that he could. It will he wasn't necessarily hostile, but of course, you know, he has to represent his client, which is the state. He tried to hit me with several different uh scenarios in which uh it would not have been, you know, in these hypothetical scenarios, it would not have been uh, you know, righteous to shoot the attacker. And I was able to explain how the object that he was holding was effectively the same size, weight, and length as a police officer's standard issue asp baton. And uh, but except this also had the ability to puncture somebody's eyeball or their skull or you know, that soft little area or their face or what have you. And that I just was able to explain that no reasonable person would charge a homeowner who's holding a gun, telling them to stay away. That that alone uh was an indicator of this guy being an unreasonable person and unhinged and dangerous. Ultimately, I was able to overcome all of his uh his scenarios right up until the part where because a piece of the hose was still attached to the other side of the thing. And I was explaining to him, look, I've seen people strangled with cordage, ropes, and water hoses. So yeah, he could have absolutely strangled the homeowner to death. You know you're you're doing well when the jury is looking at you and nodding their heads along with you, you know.

SPEAKER_00 26:03

So that's I bet he couldn't wait to get you off the stand.

SPEAKER_01 26:06

Yeah, that that was it. I I to be honest, I was expecting a lot more pushback and uh because sometimes it's very ugly, very contentious, but it really wasn't in this case. Uh he did the best he could. It just didn't come up, uh didn't work for him because it in my opinion that this guy really that he really did have no other choice but but to use deadly force. And ultimately the the jury came to that same decision um the next day they acquitted him.

SPEAKER_00 26:33

I don't know if you specifically work for certain lawyers or that kind of thing, or if you would ever have that prosecutor come back and say, you know what, I've got a case where I could use this guy as an expert.

SPEAKER_01 26:43

You know, it's possible. Um I I the legal world is a small world. You know, Texas is a big state, but I st I keep running into some of the same guys. I I I even run into the people that I used to work with uh who are working at DA's offices or or you know, they're working for other agencies elsewhere. It's funny you say that. I I worked on a I worked on a case down in Houston, and and that was a pretty good contentious deposition on a on a shooting issue. And when we were done, the attorney who had hired me told me, he was like, Hey, I promise you those guys are going to hire you in the future. He said that when it happens, just call me to tell me, hey, you were right, they called me and they wanted to hire you. So it I it hasn't happened yet, but but you you never know.

SPEAKER_00 27:26

Right. Final final question: Do you have any advice if if there's an officer who they've they've been in the courtroom before, they feel like they have the the aptitude and the ability to explain these things and have a passion to explain it. If you're looking to be an expert witness, any advice is somebody who's gonna dip their toe in that water?

SPEAKER_01 27:49

Yes, whatever you choose to be an expert in, become a true student of that craft. Whether you are uh an accident reconstructionist, whether you're a shooting scene reconstructionist, whether you're into firearms, uh, whether you're going to be an expert in interviews and interrogation, there are many different lanes uh for experts to work in. Um I'm specifically talking about uh police officers. It's not good enough to go to one or two classes and then just do it for a few years. That's not going to cut it. You have to read this, read the material, go to training, take notes, become a true student of this craft. And I mean that in all sincerity. You really do have to do a deep dive into the into whatever that craft is, whatever that that field of your expertise is.

SPEAKER_00 28:42

And it's not it's not just something that you choose, it's something that in a way kind of chooses you.

SPEAKER_01 28:47

It is, yeah, exactly. Because um, and I'm glad you said that. There's so many people out there that claim to be experts, and and maybe they even get a couple of courts to say they are an expert, but then you find out they've never actually done it. So they've they've gone to all these classes or schools, or this guy has a PhD in criminology, and he went and wrote out a few times with these different agencies, and he wrote some articles in a police magazine, and people will call that guy an expert. But people like that uh often fold on the stand because they don't have any practical hands-on experience in this field. I, you know, just I don't know anything about traffic crash reconstruction at all. I know that it's it's very detailed and very difficult, uh, and a lot of math is involved. But, you know, if somebody went out and went to those classes and and they got those certifications, but then I found out they have never been on the scene of a fatality traffic crash. Well, then that tells me they're not actually an expert. They're a guy that's been to some classes and maybe, you know, maybe got some certifications, but he's never actually been a practitioner. And I think that's the big difference. If you there's so many cops out there that have a tremendous amount of experience, real-world hands-on experience, back yourself up with some extra training and start saving documents and files now so that you can use them in your repertoire later.

SPEAKER_00 30:11

That's excellent. Doug, I thank you for doing what you're doing. I appreciate your service all those years in Texas, and I appreciate what you're doing now to continue to help the cause of justice. Uh, very much appreciate you.

SPEAKER_01 30:23

Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_00 30:24

Glad to be here. Thank you. I want to thank Doug Deaton for being here today. I am friends with Doug on social media, and as soon as I saw him write about testifying in this particular case about the 21-foot rule, I said that is an episode. When complex subjects are dumbed down, they can be misused. So having someone like Doug who can explain a complex subject and yet still maintain its nuances is really valuable. It's a skill that a lot of cops have, and I hope that some of the people listening to this episode are going to be inspired to take that same skill and use it in the way that Doug does as an expert witness. The views expressed here are the personal views of the hosts and our guests, and do not necessarily represent the views of any law enforcement agency or its components. If you like this episode, please share it with a cop or someone who loves a cop. Thank you for listening to Hey Chaplin. And as always, let's pray for peace in our cities.