Tueller Drill Out, De-escalation In?

What I get from the article is, the Police are TRYING to train officers with some semblance of common sense. Which is what all of us need to use, whether LE or civilian.
 
There are times when you can deescalate and there are times when deadly force is justified. It's a judgment call. Guy rushing you with a drawn knife as opposed to distraught man standing with a knife at his side. One is a shoot and the other in my opinion doesn't justify deadly force.

Bottom line: it depends.

Conclusion: Tueller Drill isn't out. Judgment training for use of deadly force remains a training issue that firearm instructors must instruct their officers. FATS machines and other simulators including role playing (with plastic dummy guns) are good for this. It's been that way for over a decade.
 
The Tueller Drill isn't out and the comparison with de-escalation pretty stupid. You don't de-escalate in less than 1.5 seconds as somebody is charging you. De-escalation is not for when somebody is actively trying to stab you.
 
Pretty sure that many confrontations with a bad result could have been resolved with a couple of cold beers instead of physical force.
Maybe a small cooler with inexpensive beer should be standard police issue.
 
G. Willikers - We must have attended the same academy. I'd get a confrontational person and ask him to step away from the audience so that I may speak to him more privately. I found that a lot of these guys wanted to look tough and save face in front of a crowd. Generally if they agreed to step aside, then I felt I could get their cooperation. In private or out of earshot of the crowd I'd say, "Will you go away if I give you a beer?" Never had a refusal. I'd slip them a beer in a bag and send them on their way. No fight, no report, no internal affairs investigation. Now, there were times when I had people kissing the sidewalk (I wanted the height advantage and most guys were taller than I) but those were the ones that couldn't be reasoned with or were combative to begin with.
 
The linked article from the NY Times is dumb on so many levels it hurts.

It's typical of what happens when a writer has no depth in the subject about which they write.
 
"Harder to use"? Why?
Click to expand...

Harder to legally justify. Likely to pay a higher price (criminal and civil penalties) if done.

It appears I need to clarify what I mean by "Tueller Drill out," too. I got from the article that proximity of a perp within 7 yd should no longer be accepted as a criterion for using deadly force.

Point taken about using common sense, but in the case of the Seattle officer and the homeless wood carver, approaching a menacing individual with a drawn knife is likely unwise in most such cases. Give the guy a wide berth while trying to convince him to put the knife down. Probably a good situation in which to draw one's weapon in case the guy charges.

I haven't seen any scientific poll on the issue, but the media and political left are definitely doing their best to make life miserable for any cop or civilian that uses lethal force. Over the past decade and a half they have been losing the gun control battle, so I see them adopting a tactic similar to the one they have used successfully to diminish use of the death penalty -- make it costlier to kill a convicted capital criminal than to warehouse him for the rest of his life.
 
Last edited:
... I got from the article that proximity of a perp within 7 yd should no longer be accepted as a criterion for using deadly force. ...
Click to expand...

It never was an "accepted criterion", except perhaps in the imaginations of people who took Mr. Tueller's drill wildly out-of-context. There are no police departments with a "21-foot rule" as a policy.

It's one of those things that keeps getting repeated in the gun community, but has no basis in actual fact. You can blame idiot gun-mag writers as much as stupid mass-media writers in that regard.

I've discussed this with Dennis himself. He never once advanced the idea of a "21-foot rule" or any particular distance. The entire point of the drill was to demonstrate that someone with a knife or blunt object is a legitimate threat, at distances far greater then most people assumed prior to his testing.
 
^It is a New York Times article, so I'm not vouching for it's veracity or logical coherency, but rather it's intent -- to discourage police (and by extension civilians) from using lethal force when faced with an imminent threat.

The article calls "the 21-ft rule" dogma taught to police nationwide, accepted by courts, and cited by police as justification in innumerable shootings. If involved in use of lethal force one would be foolish not to invoke the "rule" should it apply, along with every other applicable justification.
 
... The article calls "the 21-ft rule" dogma taught to police nationwide, accepted by courts, and cited by police as justification in innumerable shootings. ...
Click to expand...

If you want to have some fun, try to verify any of that. For extra fun, write the author of the piece, and challenge him/her verify it.

It's one of those "everybody knows" things that gets repeated, but turns out to not be quite true.
 
Limnophile said:
...The article calls "the 21-ft rule" dogma taught to police nationwide, accepted by courts, and cited by police as justification in innumerable shootings....
Click to expand...
The article is arguably wrong on a number of levels. However, it may very well be becoming more difficult, because of a variety of social mores and pressures, to justify a use of lethal force in self defense.

  1. It might very well be that the public is getting a distorted and erroneous view from movies and TV of what it can take to defend oneself. From the good guy shooting the gun out of the bad guys hand to the good guy using extravagant martial arts movements to defeat multiple, armed bad guys, folks start to confuse media creative fantasy with reality. A lot of people have grown up today with little or no personal experience of violent confrontation or physical conflict.

  2. I've seen the sentiment expressed on a number of gun forums that police are paid to take risks and can reasonably be expected to accept greater personal risk to avoid hurting someone else.

  3. There are influential people and groups who specifically oppose, on principle, the right of self defense.

    See, for example, Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates (Prometheus Books, 2001). On pages 116 - 121, they discuss various liberal, moral objections to the notion that one may be justified to defend himself.

    Feminist Betty Frienden is cited as denouncing the trend of women to arm themselves for self defense as, "...a horrifying, obscene perversion of feminism...." Her ridiculous notion that , "...lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence and that gun control should override any personal need for safety...." is probably widely held in liberal circles. Indeed, according to Kleck and Kates, Mario Cuomo avowed that Bernie Goetz was morally wrong in shooting even if it was clearly necessary to resist felonious attack.

    Kleck and Kates also report that an article was published by the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church condemning defensive gun ownership. In the article, Rev. Allen Brockway, editor of the board's magazine, advised women that it was thier Christian duty to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil the attacker's life.

    Kleck and Kates also note that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) has taken a strict anti-self defense view. Rev. Kathy Young testified as a representative of that group before a Congressional Panel in 1972 in support of handgun control that the Presbyterian Church (U. S. A.) opposes the killing of anyone, anywhere for any reason (including, in the context of the testimony, self defense)

    While these positions appear to us to be nonsense, they have some following. Note, for example that self defense is not considered in many countries to be a good reason to own a gun. Indeed in Great Britain, the natural right of self defense has been significantly curtailed by law. For an excellent study of the erosion of gun and self defense rights in Great Britain see Guns and Violence, the English Experience by Joyce Lee Malcolm (Harvard University Press, 2002).

  4. People tend to look for support and validation from others who share their tastes and values; and they distinguish themselves, often in a denigrating manner, from those who do not. So with the increasing urbanization of America, and the world, the city dweller likes to fancy himself sophisticated, socially liberal, well educated, urbane, fashionable, and too civilized to resort to violence; and he wants to associate with, and have his self image validated by, people he perceive are like him. And they set themselves apart from those they find different.
 
Subtle Word Choices

There are some word choices in the article that I find intriguing - not surprising, though.

Right out of the gate, the author describes Tueller's research as "a rudimentary series of tests." I am not familiar with his actual methodology, but the wording of the article certainly seems intended to undermine the validity of his conclusions. By calling them rudimentary, the implication is that the tests were non-scientific and results, therefore, non-valid.

Later in the article, the author refers to "the 21-foot rule and other axioms that have emphasized how to use force, not how to avoid it." The word "axiom" is interesting here. It implies that these concepts are considered to be self-evidently true, rather than proven through objective testing. Again, there is a subtle linguistic push here that seems to be intended to undermine the validity of the training the author is calling into question.

It's subtle, but I see these things as a form of ad hominem attack on the proponents of the current police training standards, rather than a legitimate argument against the standards themselves. This is definitely considered dirty pool in debating circles.
 
Thanks, Pax. That was an interesting read, and it is apparent to me after reading it that there is nothing in the article that promotes the idea that 21 feet or less is an excuse to fire your weapon. There are several references to finding cover, using verbal warnings, or even retreating in order to avoid the need to shoot. The NY Times article is just another example of cherry picking the information to get the results you want, I guess.
 
It is NOT a rule or law !!! It's training thing ! He has said that firmly in other quotes !
For me backing up with strong verbal commands would give would give both GG and BG a bit of time to reconsider.
 
I trust the NY Times to intelligently comment on LE policies about as well as I can teach a baboon astrophysics. This article is an excellent illustration that my trust is well calibrated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top