Tueller Drill Revisited

 A child might ask a parent, “How do I tell if someone is trying to just frighten or really harm me?”

It is an excellent question and one not simply answered.

There are many excellent articles on pre-attack behavior, concealed weapon indicators, verbal judo to de-escalate, and tactics to give you the ‘higher ground’ advantage, effectively giving you a greater disparity of force.  The list goes on and on.

But none of them actually address the question, "How do I distinguish between someone trying to frighten me and someone attempting to harm me?”

Making yourself seem more dangerous is a common strategy in nature.  So much so that cartoonist Gary Larson makes fun of it.

One way to answer this question is to break it down into a flow sheet of questions with either a yes or no answer.

One could imagine a flow sheet:

Does he have a weapon?  No – go to line 56

          Yes    Is it effective across a distance?  Yes, go to line 23

          No     Is it a contact weapon?  Yes, go to line 31

          No     Is he at least 10% bigger or 10 years younger?  Yes, go to line 78

          No     Are there more than one of them….

You're likely to get mugged before you complete the remaining 153 questions.  Let's look at how close is too close.

(I have a couple short videos that help explain.  The mover starts at zero and the orange line, where the shooter stands is 21 feet.  Note the condition of the shooter and his sidearm at the start of each.)

Dennis Tueller published the concept of ‘Danger Zone’ (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm).  This was an offshoot of his search to visually illustrate the 'reactionary gap.'

It has been long known that action beats reaction.  I’m sure the Roman Legion trainers drummed it into recruits.  “Get your shield up when you’re in striking distance of the barbarian’s weapon, rookie!” 

The shooter starts with an aggressive stance and a concealed weapon  The attacker makes it to the 21 ft line before a shot is fired.  It is only moving back quickly that the defender preserves his life.

Reactionary gap is not a simple subject in itself.  It has its roots in the OODA loop.  That's a topic for another day.

Tueller proposed a concept of time and distance.  This concept is still being taught (wisely, I might add) that an average person can run 21 feet in the 1.5 seconds, it takes for a trained officer with an exposed gun to draw and fire two rounds center of mass.

The shooter starts with his hand on the weapon and is able to get a round off before the attacker reaches 21 ft.  Again, moving back helps preserves the defender's life. 

So, if a person with a contact weapon indicates he/she will use it on us and they are within 21ft, we are in Tueller’s danger zone.

True or False?  Are you in danger?

And the answer is:  maybe.

I ran 21 feet at different speeds on different surfaces.  Grass, loose stone, and concrete all had a little different time.  It doesn’t take too much imagination to realize deep snow, tall weeds, or sand would have a more significant effect.  So, are you ‘safe’ if your assailant is 21 feet away, standing on sand?

The conservative answer, the correct answer, is no.  Remember you're on the same surface, and your attempts to increase distance will also be hampered. 

The shooter starts with the gun drawn and pointed between the attacker and himself.  The shooter is able to get several rounds off before the attacker closes the distance. 

But maybe more importantly, Tueller's 'Danger Zone" is defined by your skill with your sidearm.  I checked my records.  Four years ago, I drew and fired one round to the center of mass in 1.8 seconds.  Last month I clocked in at 2.1 seconds for the same shot.  My reactionary gap has increased. 

The distance doesn't change in a linear method.  Speed, endurance, and acceleration mean a runner starts slow, reaches peak speed, and at some distance, begins to slow.  All of these depend on the physical condition of your attacker.

The tactical defender has taken all this into account.  He constantly attempts to increase distance while keeping the best possible backstop behind his attacker.  He makes his weapon more assessable; he attempts to get objects between him and the attacker and uses verbal judo to de-escalate the situation.  He does all this while paying attention to her surroundings.

Does this guarantee a good outcome? 

I know an electrical engineer who tells me ‘You can do everything right and still have a negative outcome.” 

But doing all the right things gives you a significantly better chance at a good (define it any way you want) outcome.