Replies

Note the operative word - they "run" the drill, as in train their personnel to react around their 21 foot rule, already assuming that it is unquestionable "truth" even though it was really just a single cop's guesstimation that he used as a rule of thumb on the job. Meanwhile it remains the case that there's never been an independent scientific demonstration of the even the Tueller drill's most basic premises - No statistical justification for 21 feet as opposed to 25 or 17 or anything else. No representative sampling of fitness in the general population to tell if it takes the "average" knife guy 1 second or 3 seconds or 10 seconds to move. No controlled or replicable measurement of human reaction times, save simply running the drill with cops while already taking its underlying claims for granted. In short it's nothing more than anecdotal guesswork. That observation is no matter of my anonymity or expertise (of which I choose not to volunteer or advertise though I am thoroughly confident that it well exceeds the typical GED-toting cop with a few hours at the academy and a "criminal justice" certification from ITT Tech). It's a simple and undisputed fact about the Tueller drill: it is NOT scientific. So treat it and use it as the rule of thumb that it is and that it was originally written by Officer Tueller to be. But don't try to pass it off as something it is not just so you can duck behind it to justify violent and reckless behavior that costs other human lives.

You stepped in it, just as I knew you would. Research into the Tueller drill has been conducted. Since you appear to be completely ignorant, I'll help you along. The The original Tueller article appeared in SWAT magazine in 1983. Numerous other individuals HAVE conducted research into Tueller's premise, and by in large vindicated his point, in fact, many suggest that 21 feet is probably too close.

The research done by Dr. Lewinski used high-speed camera footage, and documented numerous officers and suspects of varying degrees of experience and athleticism. Lewinski documented average response and reaction times, as well as the time that it takes for the suspect to cover a set distance.

You can read about his work here:

http://www.forcescience.org/

Secondly, Tueller never suggested that his work was a "rule", nor did he ever say that one is automatically justified in shooting someone holding a knife when they are standing 21 feet. I never said that either. You are committing a very elementary internet debating fallacy called "creating a straw man." It's pretty laughable considering your inability to verify that additional research into Tueller's premise has been conducted by a variety of individuals.

(BTW: Law enforcement certification doesn't come from "ITT Tech" and the trend is to require a college degree for law enforcement work, so you merely demonstrate your ignorance yet again.)

Your own links betray you on this one. Let's examine:

1. The original Tueller article. What does it contain? A completely anecdotal guesstimation in a trade magazine based on the author's experiences. It doesn't even pretend to be scientific, and most of the article is devoted to its real purpose: discussing how officers can improve their response time and better defend themselves.

2. Lewinski's website. First a little bit about Lewinski - he's a notorious pro-police shill who gets paid $425 an hour to serve as an "expert witness" for hire in defense of cops facing criminal prosecution for excessive force, and rakes in over $100,000 a year giving testimony to help get cops off the hook. He is best known for developing an absurd pseudo-scientific theory to explain away cases where police shoot somebody in the back on the specious claim that they were probably looking backward and shooting while running away.

Lewinski's academic credentials are highly suspect, to put it mildly. His "doctorate" is in "police psychology," a pseudo-scientific field that was invented by law enforcement agencies themselves and wasn't even recognized as a legitimate specialization by the APA until it granted a "trial period" in 2008 after intense lobbying from law enforcement. Equally telling, he isn't even a real Ph.D. in the normal sense. He got his "degree" from the Union Institute - a degree mill in Cincinnati that grants "Ph.Ds" over the internet. The Union Institute does not even have accreditation to grant degrees in psychology. It also has a long history of legal and accreditation trouble over granting unaccredited Ph.D's that misrepresent their field.

3. Moving on to Lewinski's research, it's junk science and nothing more. The "Forced Science Institute" is his own self-funded organization, which also serves as an in-house publisher for his stuff and which is not subjected to the rigors of the scientific peer review process. He has a long history of being on the losing side of excessive force lawsuits, and offering testimony well outside his own highly questionable "expertise" - for example medical forensics, a field in which he has absolutely no training. Nor does he have any academic credentials that would allow him to properly analyze human biomechanics as his "high speed camera" research purports to do. Contrary to his tendency to portray himself as "groundbreaking," this type of research is something kinesiologists and other fields that specialize in biomechanics perfected decades ago...through established and peer-reviewed scientific standards, in which Lewinski has absolutely ZERO training. His research in this area is of little more value than if it was conducted by a random guy on the street with a stopwatch and a camcorder from Wal-Mart - to the point that he likely doesn't even know what he's looking at or how to properly interpret human muscle reactions.

So where does that leave us? Back where we originally started: the Tueller Drill is junk science, and your "expert" Lewinski only proves that further.

Tueller never suggested that his work was a "rule", nor did he ever say that one is automatically justified in shooting someone holding a knife when they are standing 21 feet.

That is indeed correct. The problem is that most cops who read Tueller nonetheless treat it that way, yourself included in your earlier post where you cited it to justify an absurdly paranoid prioritizing of "officer safety" at the expense of the safety of others. Thank you for illustrating my point though.

Law enforcement certification doesn't come from "ITT Tech" and the trend is to require a college degree for law enforcement work

No. Those ITT Tech-style internet schools offer "criminal justice" programs that are tailored to cops who need a couple hours of college credit for promotion. As to the requirement of a college degree, simply look at the hiring websites of just about any given random police department in the United States. Standard entry level qualifications to become a cop:

- High school diploma or GED
- Have no felony convictions
- Minimum age somewhere in the 18-21 range
- Valid driver's license
- Be able to pass a VERY minimal physical fitness test
- Affirmative Action bonus points for being a minority or other protected class

Now it is true that promotions are usually contingent upon completing some college credits, and that is where ITT Tech comes into play. But an entry level cop is no more qualified than an entry level burger flipper.