Tueller Drill Out, De-escalation In?

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.
Click to expand...

I have no need to contact Mr. Tueller to query him. Thanks to the link provided in the NY Times article I can read a reprint of the original 1983 article: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm.

As far as contacting the author of the article at the Times, I would not waste my time. I do not regard the Times as a reliable source of fact or sound analysis, but I do regard it as a reliable weather vane of modern liberal-progressive intentions.

I do, however, assume that most cops are familiar with the three-decade old Tueller Drill. After all, most internet gunslingers are familiar with it. I also assume any law enforcement academy that fails to acquaint its attendees of how much distance can be covered in the time it takes to draw and fire two on-target shots would be negligent, and judge who would disallow this fact to be used as evidence in court would be corrupt or stupid, and anyone accused of unlawful use of lethal force who doesn't invoke the facts illustrated by the drill if they are relevant would be a fool.

That said, the 21-ft rule is merely a statement of fact, not a license to shoot anyone within that distance. I doubt that any credible department has ever portrayed or applied it that way. The Seattle PD's discipline of the cop who shot the homeless wood carving helps to demonstrate that, but I assume the author's beef is that the disciplined cop was not charged with at least manslaughter.
 
Fireforged - I wouldn't say that all police are highly trained professionals. Certainly some cops are better trained than others. A local police sniper I know practices in the rain, mud and snow. That's dedication. Most cops I know think of the gun as part of the job and only shoot their firearm when they're required to go to the range. I've seen non law enforcement sport shooters who are better than the average cop and will spend more time and money on honing their skills.

As to holding non-law enforcement to the same standard of training is too much government control.
 
Police departments are often more interested in using funds for PR, Community Relations than proper training. One bad situation can wipe out at least a year's worth of community relations.
An interesting comment I'll make about the NY Times . For those who want to learn about riots do some research about the Draft Riots in NY City during our Civil War. The NY Times supported the Draft and thought they would be attacked by opposing forces so they bought two Gatling guns to protect their office !!!:eek: How things have changed !!
 
Glad I'm not a cop. Just an ordinary citizen who carries a gun for self-defense. There's a world of difference between a government worker defending a society and a private guy defending himself.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Frank,

I think it's important to identify why the article is wrong, as I expect to hear it repeated by the media.

With regard to your four points:

1. After pondering this point a while, I suppose an example of Hollywood fantasy being used as a reason for not using a firearm for self defense might be that George Zimmerman should have just taken his whupping, despite the fact that the evidence demonstrated he did just that for over 40 seconds before shooting his homophobic attacker. I would have shot much sooner. It seems the only reason George did not was because he forgot he was carrying until his assailant found his gun and made a move for it.

2. Police are paid to take risks, but they, too, have a natural right to self defense. I was appalled a couple of weeks ago when the former Marine cop, in OH I think, who refused to shoot a murder suspect who was charging him was repeatedly praised for his restraint. His body camera footage showed the problem with retreating backward -- it's not a safe manuever, as demonstrated by the fact that he fell and placing himself in further peril. An officer has a moral obligation to protect others in addition to himself, and shooting a rampaging murder suspect would have been the proper thing to do. Reluctance or hesitation like his will result in cops and innocent citizens getting killed.

3. Your examples from Kleck's and Kates's book were difficult to read, especially Rev. Brockway's and Rev. Young's immoral nonsense. I can only assume such idiocy comes from their uninformed reading of the Sermon on the Mount. I tried to find Brockway's article online, taking particular offense having been raised in the United Methodist Church for a time, but couldn't find it. I did find an earlier paper by Kates, published in 1992, that quotes Brockway --
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman/bigotry.htm; thus, it appears he really did write that stuff. Perusing Kates's '92 paper let me see that the bulk of his examples dated back to the '70s and '60s, well before the electorate let modern liberal-progressives know, in 2000, that their immoral anti-gun philosophy wasn't going to be rewarded. Those arguments were tried, worked for a while, but ultimately failed. But ML-Ps never quit, so they will refine their approach until they find something that works. What we are seeing is them capitalizing on situations where a citizen or cop kills a person of a protected class in self defense, in defense of others, or (as in Baltimore, if there is any culpability) accidentally.

4. The ML-Ps have successfully practiced the politics of division for a long time. If it continues to be successful much longer the Republic will cease to effectively exist. With regard to the recent killings they've focused on, when people take the time to look at the facts the ML-P distortions are exposed, which is irrelevant to those already in the tank for their philosophy, but the time will come when a killing they focus on will prove to be criminal -- even a broken clock is right twice a day -- and when that happens there will be hell to pay.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That Seattle shooting is a particularly poor example of "de-escalation".
(at least according to the information I saw)

Cop flips a U turn in the street, seeing a man standing holding a knife. Approaches from behind him, GUN DRAWN, shouts "Drop it!DROPIT! DROPIT!" BANG!BANG!BANG!.

Apparently no chance was given to comply before shots were fired.
Further complicating matters, the homeless wood carver was #1) NOT threatening anyone, #2) known to the locals, #3) partially deaf, and also a "native American". IMNSHO, the officer was entirely wrong to fire when he did.

As to the 21foot rule, it was featured in a show a while back, with an ironic twist. Bad guy is a knife wielder, mentions the 21ft rule several times during the show, believes he is faster with his knife than someone with a gun inside that limit.

Final confrontation, bad guy is digging grave for his dog (at night), believing hero killed his dog. Hero confronts him, bad guy gives his 21foot spiel. Hero basically says, I believe you're wrong, but its your move.

Bad guy charges, hero draws, bad guy falls into dog's grave, dies impaled on his own knife. I love those scriptwriters! :D

I believe that the 21 foot rule is meant to show how a person with a knife COULD be a viable threat at more than arm's length distance. Not that everyone with a knife IS a threat at less than 7 yards distance.

A guideline, or reference point, not an absolute standard. Each case MUST be judged on it own evidence. A guy holding a knife, standing calmly 10 feet away with his back to you is one thing. The circus knife thrower, 22 feet away, facing you, with a knife in his hands and his arm raised is a different matter.
 
Interesting post.
I do take exception with the writer subtly inserting Michael Brown as one of the examples where the policeman might have made a better choice.
 
Officer approaches from behind and shouts, "Drop it! Drop it! Drop it!"

Ignoring for a moment that the perforated party is partially deaf, how's a person who is being shouted at from behind to understand who is giving the order and what they mean? If the officer shouted, "Seattle Police Department" or "Police!" first, then at least the command would seem more legitimate. Better yet, "Police! You with the knife! Drop it now!" would be even better.

I'm inclined to say bad shoot.
 
Guns have entered a mythical status among the bulk of the civilian population. There is not just an ignorance but a thorough misunderstanding about them. There is more fear than respect for firearms. A gun in a holster in and of itself can cause widespread panic. There was some incident not to long ago where an older black man was carrying legally and some other guys in a store saw his weapon, freaked out, and kicked the crap out of him to take it away...

On the other end of the spectrum I remember a mall in Massachusetts getting locked down when some woman saw a man with a shotgun in his backpack and it ended up being a black umbrella.

While we are far removed from the old West where a functioning and available firearm was the difference between life and death on an often daily basis, there is a stark lack of widespread acceptance of firearms' existence in our world. I recently went to play in a nerdy Magic: The Gathering tournament after putting in some range time. I had a 9mm case that had ejected into my front pocket unbeknownst to me and when I pulled it out the look of awe changed to fear as my fellow nerds found out that I own, carry, and use guns regularly. The dynamic of interpersonal interaction suddenly changed. The kid with the fake bullet belt probably didn't feel as cool.

Regarding the OP, from a PR perspective every law enforcement organization in the country is going to make sure the public "knows" about how they are redoubling their efforts to promote deescalation and nonviolent intervention. From my 10 years in EMS I know already that most LEOs would prefer to talk down than shoot out, but no media outlet is going to cover the scores of successfully nonviolent interventions police departments have every day... That's just boring news.

"This just in! Everything is fine!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top