|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 5, 2015, 03:31 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 1,032
|
Tueller Drill Out, De-escalation In?
Police Rethink Long Tradition on Using Force: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/us...=top-news&_r=0
If society tightens up the rules of engagement for police, I assume the use of deadly force by citizens will be harder to use. |
May 5, 2015, 06:20 AM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
"Harder to use"? Why?
|
May 5, 2015, 06:52 AM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: April 13, 2015
Location: North Texas
Posts: 34
|
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.
__________________
If I don't answer the phone, I'm probably in the Senate taking a POTUS and wiping my Congress. |
May 5, 2015, 09:40 AM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,848
|
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.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe! |
May 5, 2015, 09:57 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
May 5, 2015, 10:01 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
|
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.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.” |
May 5, 2015, 10:27 AM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,848
|
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.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe! |
May 5, 2015, 10:33 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
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.
__________________
__________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer |
May 5, 2015, 10:36 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 1,032
|
Quote:
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 by Limnophile; May 5, 2015 at 10:57 AM. |
|
May 5, 2015, 11:37 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
__________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer |
|
May 5, 2015, 12:08 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 1,032
|
^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. |
May 5, 2015, 12:32 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
It's one of those "everybody knows" things that gets repeated, but turns out to not be quite true.
__________________
__________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer |
|
May 5, 2015, 12:41 PM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
May 5, 2015, 01:28 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
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.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
May 5, 2015, 02:44 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
BigMikey ~
Here's a link to the original article written by Dennis Tueller that kicked off an entirely new paradigm in law enforcement training: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/T.../How.Close.htm pax |
May 5, 2015, 03:51 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
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.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
May 5, 2015, 04:32 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
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.
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver ! |
May 5, 2015, 07:09 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 1999
Location: Rebel South USA
Posts: 2,074
|
Police are highly trained professionals.. I doubt joe citizen is going to be held to the same standard.
__________________
Life is a web woven by necessity and chance... |
May 5, 2015, 07:10 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: NC
Posts: 244
|
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.
|
May 5, 2015, 08:43 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2012
Location: Northern California
Posts: 447
|
Quote:
__________________
__________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer |
|
May 5, 2015, 10:25 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 1,032
|
Quote:
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. |
|
May 5, 2015, 11:15 PM | #22 |
Staff
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,848
|
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.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe! |
May 6, 2015, 01:34 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 14, 2004
Location: NY State
Posts: 6,575
|
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 !!! How things have changed !!
__________________
And Watson , bring your revolver ! |
May 6, 2015, 08:29 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
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.
|
May 6, 2015, 10:09 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 1,032
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|