His position was he LIKED the leather mailbag. Yes it was MUCH heavier then the cloth bags that replaced them, but he could always put it between him and any charging dog.
The same with the police officer, if they had something to BLOCK the knife attack. This is why police officer use to carry BILLY CLUBS in their hands. Not on a belt but in their hands. It could be used to block such an attack since it is already in your hands. No pulling it out of a holster, no making sure the safety is off, just raise and block and hit.
Under 21 feet you are better off mixing it in with the attacker then trying to run away from him. The attacker has the initiative, by CHARGING into him you removed that advantage. The Army teaches this is ambushes, you are better off ATTACKING the people ambushing you then staying in the ambush OR running away.
Notice when the Police officers went for their guns AND retreated they lost (Except when the distance was 21 feet). On the other hand if the officer themselves had attacked they would have won (By the officer attacking, I mean CHARGING the attacker AFTER the Attacker had started his attack).
This is one of the reason British Officers do NOT carry guns. They often walk the streets and are thus within 21 feet of anyone they are engaging with, thus they do NOT have time to pull a gun if they had one. Under 21 feet the billy club is the better weapon (and under 10 feet by far the better weapon).
My father said the number of dogs attacking him were minimal, he understood dogs and NEVER put himself in a position where a dog would fell it had to attack (and if the dog did attack the leather bag was in the way). Billy clubs are a pain if you are driving in a car, for you either have to remove them or put them on your belt in such a way that they do not bind.
In the olden days, it was common for beat officer to "play" with their billy clubs as they walked the streets. The reason was it was a way to have the club in their hands while NOT using it to intimidate anyone.
A better combination would be some sort of shield and a billy club, but I just do not see Police Officers carrying a clear plastic shield as they walk the streets (Through it is NOT a bad idea if you can get officers to accept carrying them (I prefer the classic Roman Buckler, i.e. something that is buckled to your upper arm, thus your hands are free). A small Polycarbonate buckler, that an officer had PUSH into anyone who is attacking him may be ideal. I have known people to rap their coats around their arms to act like a shield, so it is NOT that far out an idea.
Yes, I am one of those person who think Police should be unarmed even in the US. Pistols are best used under 25 feet, further distance the ability to hit a target declines rapidly. Shotguns and Rifles are to be used at those greater distances. One of the reasons Shield dies out among combat troops was do to the fact shields interfered with one's use of pikes and later bayonets on muskets. Troops were trained to use the bayonet and musket to defend themselves in close quarters. Police when they use Shotguns or rifles adopt the same practice and the shield just gets in the way.
On the other hand, riot control equipment is often just a Shield, helmet and billy club. You end up being to close to use firearms in such riots and thus any firearms should be to your rear providing cover fire if needed.
Just a comment that we would be better off taking the pistols away from police officers, giving them access to rifles or shotguns if needed (could be in the trunk of their patrol car), and give them training on how to use a billy club when attacked. Train them to carry the club in their hands but in a way that is NOT threatening but quickly usable (i.e. in hands, or just one hand, but being used as an extensive of that hand, not pounding on the other hand). I know that tends to interfere with the ability to write a ticket, but sometimes you have to give up things.
= new reply since forum marked as read
