Is the 21 Foot Rule Still Valid?

[Excaliber]

Somehow I never thought of the tueller drill as a "rule," just an (important) example meant to be an eye opener. Nothing magic about 21 feet -- it was just an average based on the combination of officers and "attackers" used to measure reaction time. Depending on the actual defender and attacker, the distance might be more or less.

More succinctly, the lesson is a person with a contact weapon does not have to be at contact distance to be a threat, as baldeagle said.

Certainly you shouldn't blast someone just for carrying a baseball bat, but if you have some other indicators he is violently hostile to you, you should not be complacent just because he is beyond swinging distance at the moment; he may already be inside your reaction time if you just stand there waiting for him to make his move. Maybe you should be moving and increasing distance, and getting out of his obvious route (ie the line of force); If he does make his move you definitely need to boogie -- while drawing and shooting.

At least that is what I see as the importance of the tueller drill.

You're exactly right. As Lt. Tueller explained in his interview, the Tueller drill was never intended to create a rule. It was developed to test and demonstrate the defensive challenges posed by reaction time at distances where most officers felt relatively safe for the moment and to show them they weren't as safe as they thought.

Those who turned it into the so called "21 foot rule" oversimplified and contorted the information for presentation in a convenient small bite sized chunk. While that may have helped training move along more quickly, it removed a lot of the information needed to gain a true understanding of the challenges involved in situations involving contact weapons at several paces and the viable options for delivering an effective response. That morphed into a common understanding in the CHL community that one would be justified in using deadly force on any apparent threat with a knife in his hand at 21 feet or less, which is certainly not the case

[Purplehood]

Somehow I never thought of the tueller drill as a "rule," just an (important) example meant to be an eye opener. Nothing magic about 21 feet -- it was just an average based on the combination of officers and "attackers" used to measure reaction time. Depending on the actual defender and attacker, the distance might be more or less.

More succinctly, the lesson is a person with a contact weapon does not have to be at contact distance to be a threat, as baldeagle said.

Certainly you shouldn't blast someone just for carrying a baseball bat, but if you have some other indicators he is violently hostile to you, you should not be complacent just because he is beyond swinging distance at the moment; he may already be inside your reaction time if you just stand there waiting for him to make his move. Maybe you should be moving and increasing distance, and getting out of his obvious route (ie the line of force); If he does make his move you definitely need to boogie -- while drawing and shooting.

At least that is what I see as the importance of the tueller drill.

You're exactly right. As Lt. Tueller explained in his interview, the Tueller drill was never intended to create a rule. It was developed to test and demonstrate the defensive challenges posed by reaction time at distances where most officers felt relatively safe for the moment and to show them they weren't as safe as they thought.

Those who turned it into the so called "21 foot rule" oversimplified and contorted the information for presentation in a convenient small bite sized chunk. While that may have helped training move along more quickly, it removed a lot of the information needed to gain a true understanding of the challenges involved in situations involving contact weapons at several paces and the viable options for delivering an effective response. That morphed into a common understanding in the CHL community that one would be justified in using deadly force on any apparent threat with a knife in his hand at 21 feet or less, which is certainly not the case

I fully agree.
I am going to use the Threat of Deadly force the moment that I feel it is justified, regardless of distance.
That means pulling my weapon and aiming it.
If that does not appear to deter the BG, I change the mode to Use of Deadly force.
My only assertion is that situational awareness is paramount. A cunning BG can simply bore in on you without presenting any legal justification for threat or use of deadly force. At that point you are potentially in hand-to-hand combat distance and still not able to draw.
That is where this whole package "rule" seems to be a moot point.
Perhaps I just miss the whole point.

[Excaliber]

I fully agree.
I am going to use the Threat of Deadly force the moment that I feel it is justified, regardless of distance.
That means pulling my weapon and aiming it.
If that does not appear to deter the BG, I change the mode to Use of Deadly force.
My only assertion is that situational awareness is paramount. A cunning BG can simply bore in on you without presenting any legal justification for threat or use of deadly force. At that point you are potentially in hand-to-hand combat distance and still not able to draw.
That is where this whole package "rule" seems to be a moot point.
Perhaps I just miss the whole point.

Perhaps. The point isn't a distance "rule" at all.

Look at it this way:

1. You nailed it when you said situational awareness is paramount, and your use of deadly force is decided upon according to the situation, not an arbitrary distance. If you don't identify a determined approaching threat at 30 feet or more, your options will decrease from several to none in a couple of seconds or less and your chances of getting away in the same shape you came in are greatly diminished.

2. An average bad guy can go from standing still to on you with body force or contact weapons in about 1.5 seconds from a distance of from around 21 - 30 feet, depending on his individual abilities. Even if you shoot him during the last few feet of his attack, his momentum will almost certainly carry him through to you and he will still be able to do fatal damage unless you were extremely lucky with your shot(s).

3. If you simply stand in place while a real BG "bores in on you" with or without presenting clear justification for use of deadly force, you've missed almost all of the window of opportunity for managing the encounter successfully. Bad things will happen.

4. If you do recognize the threat at a 2 second distance, you need to DO SOMETHING RIGHT THEN:

Challenge and/or
Put obstacles (preferably ones that provide cover) between you and the threat and/or
Run and/or
Draw attention and/or
Engage

Drawing and firing is not the only option (the hammer and nail problem). That may not be clearly justified either right away or at all. Your best options may well be to create more distance, make it harder for him to reach you directly with obstacles, call attention to what's going on to discourage him from pressing an attack, or run like heck to get away unless and until a clear deadly threat with no other good option is presented.

You need to consider vehicle based scenarios too - if you see a suspicious vehicle accelerating toward you in a parking lot or street, think about doing what the vehicle can't - moving at 90 degrees to the traffic lane or getting on the other side of curbs, shrubbery, or other obstacles.

The plan needs to be simple and reactive - if this happens, then I'll do that.

It should also take into account that there is unlikely to be much opportunity for multiple levels of incrementally escalating tactics.

Does that make more sense?

[Purplehood]

The whole option to retreat if possible makes more and more sense from both a practical and legal standpoint.
Situational awareness + Tactical Retreat = Odds increase that you can draw in time to have a good outcome

[Fangs]

I can run pretty fast, and parkour (free running - jumping over, climbing obstacles) is one of my hobbies. If someone with a contact weapon comes after me I will bail out and run til I lose them. The part the worries me is if I'm injured or with a girlfriend or little brother or my mom, someone who doesn't have the luxury of fleeing. In that case I'll try to draw the attacker's attention and then do my best to discourage him from continuing his assault in any way possible.

Granted, someone coming up to you asking for directions with the intention of robbing you at knifepoint doesn't leave much time for figuring stuff out once you realize his true intentions.

[karder]

Good information here. The "21 foot" principle is something that we practiced for years in my martial arts training. The "J" move is a good option, but as already noted, it needs to be practiced as it is a bit trickier than it would seem. I was always taught to actually slide forward toward the attacker while moving off the line of attack, then sliding into the "J" move as the attack goes by. It works great but requires a lot of practice.
I think it is important for us to remember that concealed carry is just an element of our self-defense plan. It has to be coupled with situational awareness and, in my opinion, some dedicated training in empty handed self defense. Anyone of us could be surprised by a charging adversary and we may well need our fists to repel the initial assault, clear space, and give us the chance to draw. We have to be careful not to get over confident because we are carrying firearms.

[Excaliber]

The whole option to retreat if possible makes more and more sense from both a practical and legal standpoint.
Situational awareness + Tactical Retreat = Odds increase that you can draw in time to have a good outcome

Or even better, that you can have a good outcome without drawing.

There's an added benefit to appropriate tactical movement too.

If you attempt to avoid / evade / escape / retreat and the BG continues to come after you anyway, that becomes a strong piece of evidence for demonstrating the intent element of justification if you are eventually forced to engage. It pretty clearly establishes who was the aggressor.

This tactic is especially useful if you make lots of noise ("Keep away from me. Get back! Get back!") to attract attention and multiple witnesses see the BG pursuing you as you try to get away.

[TLE2]

Now I have four new books to read... thanks,