The 21-foot “Rule” is Back in the News!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Yes.  The 21-foot “rule” is back in the news.  And if we’ve been doing our job as police trainers, most of you will be thinking, “It’s not a rule!  It’s simply the principle that an average person can sprint 21 feet in roughly 1.5 seconds.  Incidentally, that’s about the same time it takes an officer to draw a firearm and fire two unaimed shots.” 

In 1983, police trainer Lt. Dennis Tueller thought this insight might be important for officers who would face suspects armed with edged or blunt weapons.  To get the word out, Tueller authored How CLOSE is TOO CLOSE? an article first published in the March 1983 issue of SWAT magazine. 

Tueller’s lessons were unequivocal.  As soon as you recognize that an armed suspect is close enough to reach you, look for cover, draw your weapon, utilize available barriers, buy time where you can, and even consider tactical withdrawal.  Tueller advised officers to give verbal warnings and cautioned that even perfect shots on a charging suspect may not be enough to overcome their forward momentum.

Tueller conceded that, despite an officer’s best efforts, firearms may be needed to stop sudden, close quarter, armed attacks.  But a fair reading of Tueller’s work would never result in the belief that officers could simply shoot anyone they perceived as being armed and within 21 feet.  Or that officers were presumptively safe from anyone outside of 21 feet.

Nevertheless, the 21-foot principle came under scrutiny as critics sidestepped Tueller’s published work, and instead offered anecdotes as evidence that “some” officers believed they could use deadly force based solely on an armed suspect standing closer than 21 feet.  Some reform advocates went so far as to suggest this unreasonable approach reflected the “culture” of policing.

Anyone taking an unbiased look at the police profession knows that American police resolve the overwhelming majority of deadly force encounters without firing a shot.  Even now many of you are remembering the times you could have lawfully used force, even deadly force, but instead generated voluntary compliance.  That said, in the wake of high-profile distortions, leaders in our profession thought it wise to reinforce the premise of Tueller’s work. 

In 2014, Dr. Ron Martinelli authored Revisiting the “21-Foot Rule,” wherein he rejected any suggestion that a suspect merely possessing a knife at less than 21 feet could be summarily killed.  Martinelli too had heard the 21-Foot “Rule” being misstated by experts on all sides.  He challenged any oversimplification of Tueller’s work and, citing Force Science research, argued that to properly assess threats required a sophisticated understanding of perception, decision making, and action.

Calibre Press, one of the most influential public safety training companies in the world, made clear in Street Survival II (2018) that, “No one should ever think, or certainly ever teach and endorse, a policy that says anyone within 21 feet of you, armed with an edged weapon, should be shot!” 

And, in Chief Ken Wallentine’s The 21-Foot Principle Clarified (2018), Dennis Tueller himself confirmed that he never taught that an officer could shoot anyone with an edged or impact weapon simply for being closer than 21 feet from the officer.

If any individual within the profession ever held a different understanding of the 21-Foot principle, the efforts of these leaders should ensure the “culture” of policing never does.

Back in the News

So, with the culture of policing intact, how has the 21-Foot “Rule” found its way back into the news? 

Let’s start with Buchanan v. City of San Jose.1 In Buchanan, Officers responded to an emergency call that a man was threatening a family with a knife.  Sadly, it turned out that the man had actually called the police on himself with the intent of committing “suicide by cop.”  When officers arrived, they saw a man armed with a knife who then advanced toward them “in a threatening manner.” 

Starting from a distance over 130 feet, the man first walked toward the officers and then accelerated into a “trot,” which was described as a “fast” and “rapid” pace.  Still armed with a knife, the man ignored repeated commands to stop.2 When the athletic suspect reached approximately 55 feet from the officers, they opened fire.  The suspect travelled another 37 feet toward the officers before falling. 

Here’s where we pause to let that last fact sink in. 

As the judges in Buchanan scrutinized the officers’ conduct, one judge curiously pointed to the police department’s policy and argued, “[Under the policy], a person armed with a dangerous weapon, such as a knife or bat, constitutes a danger to the safety of the officer when that person is at a distance of 21 feet or less from the officer. Thus, under the Department’s own 21-foot rule, [the suspect], at a distance of 55 feet, presumptively did not pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officer when he was shot” (emphasis added).

With sincere respect for the judge, a former United States Marine and Harvard Law School graduate, there is an obvious flaw in his logic.  Even after the officers engaged the armed suspect in Buchanan, he was able to travel another 37 feet.  That fact alone should have dispelled any presumption that armed, attacking suspects beyond 21 feet do not pose an immediate threat to the safety of officers.

Thankfully, the majority of judges in the Buchanan case disagreed with the lone dissent and expressly noted, “The 21-foot rule provides that a person at a distance of 21 feet or less may pose a threat to the safety of an officer.  It does not follow from this rule, or any other, that armed suspects never pose a threat beyond 21 feet.”  With that observation, the Buchanan court upheld the lower court’s grant of summary judgment on behalf of the officers.  But if you pay attention, they did more than that.

Buchanan was an appeal from a lower court’s summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the officers.  Readers familiar with qualified immunity understand that the rule protects officers from civil liability for official conduct.  To protect officers, who must make multiple judgment calls each day, the law makes it hard to win a lawsuit against the police.

If there can be honest debate among officers as to whether a use of force was reasonable, then qualified immunity applies.  However, the court can deny this protection if it would have been obvious to any reasonable officer that the police violated a constitutional right. 

Frequently, at the summary judgment stage, courts will simply uphold qualified immunity by deciding that it would not have been obvious to a reasonable officer that the suspect’s constitutional rights were violated.  The Buchanan court went one step further and expressly held that, under these circumstances, the immediate threat to the officers justified their use of deadly force.  This is the courts way of saying, this wasn’t a close call.

The Buchanan case highlights the need to have knowledgeable attorneys and human factors experts participating at all stages of investigation and case preparation.  But as this next case shows, not all attorneys or use of force experts understand (or want to understand?) the nuances of the 21-foot principle.

Florida v. Michael Drejka

Some of you are familiar with the case of Florida v. Michael Drejka, or at least have seen the video.  Drejka was dubbed the “handicap parking spot shooter” after he verbally confronted a woman for parking in a handicap parking space.  When the woman’s boyfriend unexpectedly pushed Drejka to the ground, Drejka (still on the ground) drew his pistol and shot the boyfriend who stood several feet away.  He was ultimately charged and convicted of manslaughter and now awaits sentencing.

The legal aspects of the Drejka case were analyzed in detail by Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self-Defense.  In his coverage of the case, Branca wrote, Drejka Case Analysis: When the ‘Tueller Drill’ 21-Foot Defense is Defined Out of Existence.

Branca is a veteran legal analyst who begins his critical assessment with an important disclaimer: “My problem with this outcome has nothing to do with the fact the Michael Drejka was found guilty—maybe he was guilty.”  Instead, Branca took issue with the attorneys’ and use-of-force experts’ treatment of the 21-Foot rule.  As well he should have.

As mentioned above, the central point of Tueller’s 21-Foot principle is the awareness that an average person can sprint 21 feet in roughly 1.5 seconds.  When deciding how to respond to a lethal threat, the time it takes to draw from a holster and fire two unaimed shots becomes important.  But the means of attack doesn’t change that, if an assault is launched from 21 feet, you have about 1.5 seconds to respond.

So how did the prosecution in Drejka explain the 21-foot rule?  Through their expert witness, the prosecution told the jury that the 21-foot rule didn’t apply unless three components were met.  First, a law enforcement officer with a holstered weapon must be involved.  Second, the suspect must be advancing on the officer.  And third, the suspect must have an edged weapon.  According to the prosecution, unless you have all three, the 21-foot rule doesn’t apply.

Andrew Branca does an outstanding job dismantling, what most of us by now should recognize as an unreasonably narrow description of the 21-foot rule.  His critique of the prosecution, the defense, and the experts’ handling of the Drejka case is well worth reading.

“The Tueller Drill” was a Starting Point

If we learn anything from the Buchanan and Drejka cases, it’s that human factors research and education is still critically important.  The Tueller drill itself was merely a starting point for important situational awareness.  Consider that Force Science studies have documented the ability of subjects to sprint and perform a slash in 1.5 seconds from distances closer to 30 feet!

Even so, the factors that influence real-world threat assessments and response can’t be reduced to simple math problems. 

While it’s important to know, for example, that a suicidal person holding a gun to their head, can push the weapon in your direction, point, and shoot in about 1 second, that fact alone does not justify pre-emptively shooting an armed suicidal person! 

There are simply no shortcuts to understanding use of force decision making.  It requires a sophisticated understanding of laws, policies, tactics, and human factors. 

Force Science students will remember that to apply a “simple” reaction distance principle (like the 21-foot “rule”) requires the consideration of such factors as pre-attack indicators, emotional arousal indicators, attention and perception influences, speed of assaults, firearms accuracy, action and reaction times, start and stop times, sprint speeds, the effect of uniform weight on performance, and decision making processes.  Not to mention, the effect of heightened emotional and physical stress on all of these factors!

It’s inevitable that the foundation of the 21-foot principle will remain an important part of your training development and use of force case reviews. I encourage readers to use their tape measures sparingly and avoid any temptation to oversimplify or narrowly define any police practice. Instead, continue to apply human factors research and lessons from cases like Buchanan and Drejka for the next time the 21-foot principle is back in the news.


See the following Force Science News articles for related coverage.

  1. The Buchanan case was the subject of The Calibre Report: New Knife-Attack Decision and I would encourage readers to read their excellent summary, analysis, and additional lessons learned. []
  2. Because a witness testified that the suspect had stopped at some point before reaching the officers, the dissent was not willing to credit that the suspect was advancing throughout the encounter. Although this witness’ testimony was contradicted by her prior testimony, the dissent argued that it nevertheless created a genuine issue of material fact that should only be resolved by a jury. The majority rejected this argument in part because the witness was unable to describe what the suspect did after he reportedly stopped, while other witnesses testified that the suspect continued to advance on the officers. []
6 Responses
  1. Jerry Peters

    Forget the 21 foot rule. In my humble opinion for what it is worth as a retired 35 year police officer and a firearms instructor and the recipient of the medal of valor, after being involved in a deadly shoot out, is this. Exactly what is the person doing that the police officer is confronting. His/her demeanor, his/her language, his/her size, and the instrument that the aggressor is threatening the police officer with. I have a simple saying and it is this,” Engage your brain, before you engage your weapon.”

  2. Ed Kafel

    This was a very good article by Von Kliem. I believe we need to emphasize that the “21-Foot Rule” was never a rule, but just a shooting drill (Tueller Drill) to illustrate action vs. reaction. Somehow, it has morphed into a “rule.” Figuratively, we need to drive a stake into the heart of that term. The Tueller Drill is a mechanical application that only requires a response to a stimulus that requires no decision making or relevance to the real world.

    As Kliem states, there are so many legal, tactical, and human factors that are actually involved that really determine when an officer’s response is reasonable that are not tied to specific responses at certain ranges.

    I found it encouraging that the 9th Circuit made the right decision in this case. Hopefully, the involved agency in the circuit’s decision has dropped any reference to the 21-Foot Rule in its training and/or policy.

    Ed Kafel
    Force Science Advanced Specialist
    El Paso County Sheriff’s office

    1. Steve Papenfuhs

      For clarification, this is my agency. Never has that language been in our policy. I have an idea from where the judge believed such, but it is incorrect.

  3. Let me supportingly expand on what Mr. Peters said. “Police officers should always explain with specificity how their training and experience led them to draw their conclusions when [justifying their actions.]” State v. Duran, 138 N.M. 414, para 40 (NMSC 2005) the key theme here is justification. A seasoned police officer has developed special skills of observation that naturally combine with his training and experience. These result in his responses to perceived threats. While it may take some time to recall all the relevant facts, here is the formula: What did the officer’s senses detect? What did he see, hear, smell, feel, taste? How did these combine with his training, experience and reason to make any other response unreasonable? That is, not only was his response reasonable, it was arguably mandatory!

  4. Hello Ernie
    I know Dennis Tueler well.
    He was simply trying to provide information which officers could include in their decision making.
    Knowing how fast a suspect can close on you is good to know.
    it never was a rule but has often been taught as such.
    The “rule” has been impugned in court when an officer could not demonstrate that he could accurately judge 21 feet.

    As we know a suspect who is more than 21 feet away charging at full speed may be shot and such a shooting deemed justified. On the other hand a suspect 15 feet away armed with a knife who is not showing any pre-attack indicators and is not closing may not be a justified target. As I said to my class about 10 times over the past 6 days of instruction, “all uses of force will be judged by the trier of fact, based on ‘the totality of circumstances’, distance being only one of the almost infinite variables.”

    We can not oversimplify the justification for the use of force. We must instantly analyze all the information available to us and make a reasonable decision based on “what we know” and we must do so in many cases in less than one second. That my friends is the definition of the hardest job in the world. As such we must also understand that those who make such decisions will be right the vast majority of the time and that being only human will occasionally err. If reasonable mistakes can not be understood, accepted and supported then no one should ever wear a badge or put their freedom on the line to protect others.

    Those who threaten and attack innocent people with deadly weapons have crossed a line and must be stopped. To expect perfect infallible decisions regarding the exact best moment to use force in every single case which will eventually be judged by people who have absolutely no actual knowledge or experience about such things is some form of insanity.
    Larry Mudgett

  5. Kirk

    I agree with my experienced law enforcement peers, but adding this piece. There are no rues when it comes to fighting, fights or combat. There is a lot being taught out there that conflicts with real life. Another one is the “reactionary gaps” if we operated with this theory we would all be perfectly dressed with a bladed stance hands above the waist etc…We have to train better more realistic.

Leave a Reply

GDPR

  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.

Analytics

We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: [email protected]
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.