Tueller drill retrospective

[sidheshooter]

I've noticed that this drill comes up in commentary with some degree of regularity here at THR, and for good reason given its iconic status as a concept. While I'm sure that virtually everyone found logged in to ST&T is familiar with the drill, I'm wondering if everyone has also read the original swat magazine article that gave it the name?

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm

In reading the vintage piece, I got two definite take-aways: Situational Awareness and use of cover. The first is always a good idea, and the second is every bit as useful when dealing with edged or impact weapon offenders as it is with firearm assaults.

Lastly, if these two concepts fail (or are impractical, as would be the case in many interview situations) then it would be a very good idea to have solid empty hand bridging skills in order to recreate a gap in which to access your own weapon.

Good food for thought sponsored by the year 1983; a year that gave us Chicken McNuggets, Microsoft word, the Grenada invasion, Martin Luther King day, the Swatch watch and the Tueller drill.

What can I say? I'm a history buff...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Unfortunately, this iconic drill has built into it a significant flaws that most folks don't realize and hence fail to account for in real life. The "reactionary gap" is likely too small for real life situations.

As a drill, this drill has built into it the assumption that the officer already knows he is going to draw and fire his gun at the first sign of aggression. The officer has no concerns about bystanders or backstops either. As such, the drill is over-simplified and is that way to illustrate a good point, but fails when it comes to demonstrating how close is too close.

In looking at this through another iconic concept, the OODA Loop, you will find that people lose a considerable amount of time observing, orienting, and deciding to act. Tueller is mostly just concerning with the act itself. So much of the critical time is lost in the first 3 stages and probably most of that is lost in the Observation stage where you not only have to observe what is going on, but to identify what is or is not a threat and identification can be a slow process, all things considered.

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2011/11/he-was-turning-his-life-around.html

better vid here...
http://www.wlfi.com/dpp/news/crime/dashcam-video-shows-spencer-attacking-officers

The above incident has the cops shooting their attacker who travels 22 feet. Not shown, but the cops apparently have their guns already drawn when they start giving orders to the suspect as it is a felony stop. Undoubtedly, they are making use of their vehicles as cover. It takes over 4 seconds from when the suspect starts his attack for officers to shoot. The suspect is able to cover a greater distance than what the Tueller Drill indicates and do it in triple the time before officers fired and one officer still managed to be stabbed in the FACE.

Why did it take officers so long to fire? It wasn't because of losing time on their draws as their weapons were out. It is because it took so long for them to get through the first 3 stages of the OODA loop. Initially, the suspect leaving the car apparently is not perceived as an immediate threat, not even when he is seen moving quickly and eratically. No doubt all or most of the officers are thinking that the suspect is trying to take flight, not that he is attacking. The suspect doesn't even travel in a straight line and manages to stumble in the process.

So Tueller's reactionary gap (1.5 seconds, 21 feet) only really applies under ideal circumstances and when officers already know what they are going to do which means the first three stages of the OODA loop process are being bypassed for the sake of the drill and that isn't a luxury they have in real life.

 

[lemaymiami]

As a guy who was responsible for police training on a small department back in the early nineties (100 authorized strength, we rarely had them all...) for about three years, we did that kind of training for everyone. What I've since learned to call the "Tueller drill" was something my trainers thought important and we made a point of running everyone through it as part of some fairly serious officer survival training that was ongoing during my three years as head of training.

Whether the concept was flawed or not... most of us came to the same conclusion - confronting an opponent with any kind of edged or pointy weapon was best done at a distance... and that you had to be willing to act before he/she could reach you or there were going to be consequences. The best responses to a blade that any of our officers displayed (and we all watched as they occurred - or later on tape, if possible) were by officers smart enough to scoot backwards as fast as possible if charged to keep as much distance between them and the "attacker" as possible while drawing and firing as they went. It was similar to watching a pro defensive end back-pedalling to keep in front of the guy trying to get past him on the football field.

No, it didn't look very courageous, but anything that keeps you away from that knife while you respond with your sidearm is the only way to go in close quarters... The times when our "attackers" were most successful in assaulting an officer during training were when he or she could talk or maneuver (any way possible) closer to the target officer before doing anything that indicated an assault was about to occur... If the attacker was able to get within that 21 foot space they were able to reach and attack every time before the officer was able to get his or her weapon into the action....

Food for thought on the street or in any confrontation where blades are a possibilty...

 

[Loosedhorse]

Unfortunately, this iconic drill has built into it a significant flaws

Just the opposite: I think the drill is great. Unfortunately, real life has several flaws that the drill doesn't.



I think we get into trouble when we try to turn the Tueller "drill" into something it is not. Remember, the title of the piece is "How close is too close?" In other words, if you (as an LEO) encounter a person with a contact weapon, how close should you allow him to approach before you draw your gun?

As an answer to that specific question, I think the "drill"--and I think of it more as a "demonstration" than a "drill"--is fine:

an armed attacker at 21 feet is well within your Danger Zone. [emphasis mine]

As you mention, sidheshooter, the article is filled with other advice about tactics (such as use of cover).

If one were to transform this into a training drill, it should involve (as a minimum) having the defender retreat toward cover and shout verbal commands as he draws, firing if the threat doesn't stop or retreat. The old Thunder Ranch used to have a "Chargers" platform that was great for that--and quite nerve-racking.

 

[HammerG26]

Loosely related - I think 21 feet is way too close, as I am nursing a "lightsaber wound" from my 6 year old... he attacked me from around the corner (about 18 feet away) and before I could "shoot him with my Nerf gun", I was whacked... I was paying attention - looking at my 12:00 and he came out of my 3:00...

 

[JRH6856]

Loosely related - I think 21 feet is way too close, as I am nursing a "lightsaber wound" from my 6 year old... he attacked me from around the corner (about 18 feet away) and before I could "shoot him with my Nerf gun", I was whacked... I was paying attention - looking at my 12:00 and he came out of my 3:00...

“...ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”

Seems Han Solo was wrong.

 

[Surf]

If anyone knows or gets to speak to Dennis Tueller, he will tell you that they were trying to figure out how fast someone can cover 21 feet and the answer is that someone can easily cover that distance in 1.5 seconds. The 21 feet was a bit arbitrary of a distance when they picked it. Also those who have run many people through this or similar training will also tell you the same thing that probably Dennis Tueller will tell you that in essence you are going to get cut, maybe killed if your attacker is at 21 feet. If your skill level, awareness or mode of carry is not conducive to being able to place shots on a closing target in 1.5 seconds you need to evaluate many things. Even being able to deliver rounds on target that target might become incapacitated at some point, but they may still be able to first take your life. So again depending on your skill, awareness, mode of carry etc, you might need to be engaging a threat at much further away than 21 feet. Which is why those who have coined, or espouse the "21 Foot Rule" have done a huge disservice to defensive shooting.

The #1 thing to have or to do, is to place an object between you and your attacker.

 

[bubba in ca]

I too looked at the Tueller drill and came away thinking it is a minimum. As I remember, it was for a cop with a belt holster when said officer was aware of the suspect. A homeowner or CCW with a concealed rig would probably be much slower in drawing and shooting. Start being aware of people at 50 yards!

Also, many shooting incidents start out as a scuffle with fists, etc. If you are not physically or mentally prepared for a fist fight, stay 50 yards from suspicious people!

 

[sidheshooter]

As surf mentions, the "21 foot rule" is no rule at all; they were qualifying at 7 yards at the time, and just decided to see how fast someone could cover that same distance with a contact weapon. You can hear all about that from the man himself in the first 2/3rds of this short youtube interview with Tueller, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxeTNnEWmbY

As I alluded to above, the hidden flip side of this concept is that any unknown contact inside of the *unimpeded* distance that it would take you to react, draw, and respond to a threat will probably have to be dealt with primarily by non-gun means, with the gun coming out to finish secondarily, if at all.

How many times when out in public do people–even sketchy ones–get closer than 21 feet to you with unimpeded (no obstacles) access? That's pretty much every time the average person goes out onto the sidewalk of any decently sized town or city, IMHO.

Unless one lives a very solitary lifestyle, mitigating skills (ie: awareness, verbal, bridging/empty hands, the fence or whatever else we've got) have to be plan A, with the gun down there around plan D or E, if at all; a sobering thought for CCW lifestylers.

Again, IMHO. Good discussion so far. I realize that the original swat article has been posted here before, but the basics always bear review.

Thanks for the responses up to this point.