Michael T. Rayburn
Present-day officers must relearn and strengthen their ability to recognize threats; understand the deadly potential of even small weapons; and accurately judge when the use of deadly force is appropriate.
Lately, it seems we have been inundated with numerous videos of officers being attacked with edged weapons, resulting in multiple cases of officers being slashed; stabbed; and, in some instances, stabbed several times. I am not here to point fingers, but, clearly, somewhere along the way, the officers’ training has failed them. Have we forgotten the critical officer safety lessons from the past? Consider how long ago the Tueller Drill was developed (1983). For those unfamiliar, the Tueller Drill – often mistakenly called a “rule” – is actually a training exercise demonstrating that a suspect armed with an edged weapon (or any weapon) can cover 21 feet in a matter of seconds. When facing an edged weapon, an officer often has just enough time to draw and fire a single round before being overtaken and attacked. This drill was once a standard part of law enforcement training across the country and even adopted in other nations as part of officer safety practices. Over the years, the Tueller Drill has been analyzed, refined and expanded – something I have written about and taught myself – yet, it now appears to be either omitted from training or, at the very least, neglected on the streets.
Unwillingness to Apply Force
How else can we explain why officers allow suspects with edged weapons to close in within a few feet before reacting? Part of the answer may lie in today’s societal climate, when some officers, wary of public scrutiny, hesitate to use force. However, history and FBI research teach us that “reluctance to use force” is a dangerous trait often observed among officers who were murdered in the line of duty. The FBI has long collected statistics on officers killed and assaulted, and their interviews with cop killers reveal a chilling fact: The officers they killed often used less force than the attackers themselves would have used if the roles were reversed. In short, had the killers been in the officers’ shoes, they would have used deadly force far sooner, thereby surviving the encounter.
While today’s emphasis on de-escalation training has its place, we must not abandon the hard learned lessons of the past regarding officer safety. De-escalation techniques are important, but they have limits. When a suspect armed with an edged weapon actively closes the distance, the officer’s life is in immediate jeopardy. The fact that more officers have not been killed in recent incidents may be due to sheer luck – something which we cannot continue to rely upon. Recognizing that an edged weapon presents a deadly threat within 21 feet is vital. Of course, circumstances must dictate whether the threat is immediate enough to justify deadly force. A real-world example would be a suspect with one leg in a wheelchair brandishing a knife. While he poses a threat, his ability to deliver that threat depends on distance and other variables. Similarly, a subject holding a box cutter while standing ten feet away behind a six foot chain-link fence topped with barbed wire is a threat, but not necessarily an immediate one – unless he/she attempts to climb the fence.
Not a Hard-and-Fast Rule
This illustrates why the Tueller Drill must be understood as a drill and not misapplied as an absolute rule. If it were a rigid rule, any suspect within 21 feet could justify deadly force, regardless of other critical factors. However, both examples demonstrate that action – not proximity alone – determines when a suspect becomes an immediate threat. Beyond recognizing that edged weapons pose a threat, officers must develop a true respect for the damage they can inflict. Too many officers exhibit a dangerously cavalier attitude toward knives, perhaps believing that, because they have a gun, a knife is “only” a secondary threat. This mindset must change. Even a small pocketknife can cause catastrophic injuries. A quick search online will reveal brutal knife attacks when victims, struck in vital areas like the neck or groin, died in no time at all – often before even realizing they were wounded. These assailants are usually not trained knife fighters, but ordinary individuals armed with a blade. Officers must remember that they are not immune to becoming victims themselves; countless officers bear the scars as proof.
Developing a healthy respect for edged weapons and understanding what constitutes an immediate threat are both essential. Simply claiming, “He was within 21 feet, so I shot him,” is not sufficient and, as demonstrated in the case involving the wheelchair bound suspect, will not hold up in court. Once an officer fully appreciates the dangers posed by edged weapons, they must also grasp how to properly identify an immediate threat. Though it seems incredible that this even needs to be discussed, the frequency of recent attacks makes it necessary. A simple three-step process can aid officers in making these critical decisions: assess weapon, intent and delivery system. Recalling the earlier example: The suspect behind a fence with a box cutter certainly possesses a weapon and exhibits intent through verbal threats, but without a delivery system – such as breaching the fence – the threat is not immediate. Even if the suspect attempts to climb the fence, nonlethal options may still be viable before resorting to deadly force. However, once the barrier is overcome, the threat can escalate quickly and must be reassessed.
A Recent Example
A real-world case further underscores these lessons. Recently, a man armed with a knife was confronted by officers on a subway platform. He possessed a weapon and, once he entered a crowded subway car, had a delivery system. He did not verbally threaten the officers, raising the question of intent. However, intent is not always conveyed through words; actions can speak just as loudly. The suspect’s refusal to comply with lawful commands and his escalation of the situation by entering a confined, crowded space constituted clear indicators of dangerous intent. Watching the footage leaves little doubt that the officers’ proximity to the suspect was reckless and that critical safety principles were disregarded. ( Watch YouTube video.)
In conclusion, the past offers hard learned lessons about edged weapon defense which we cannot afford to ignore. Recognizing threats, respecting the lethality of even a small knife, and properly assessing when deadly force is justified are skills which must be revived and reinforced among today’s officers. Our survival – and the survival of those we serve – depends on it.
Michael T. Rayburn has been involved in law enforcement for over 40 years. He is a retired police officer, former Adjunct Instructor at the Smith & Wesson Academy and is the author of five books. Mike can be reached at combatgunfighting.com
