imported post
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
What about the 'twenty foot' rule? It is not a rule of law or even common law, but of self-defense received knowledge. I doubt that it has received even judicial notice.
The 21 foot "rule" or Tueller Drill frequently comes up in court. I'm certain Massad Ayoob has testified as an expert witness in court regarding it numerous times.
Whether one is justified in using force, or a certain level of force is based upon a "reasonable person" test. The Tueller Drill, or some close variation of it, is standard training throughout the United States among law enforcement. There would be a strong presumption that acting in accordance with it would be what a reasonable person would do.
So what would it have to do with the case at hand? Well, it would probably be better to call it a 21-foot guideline, rather than a rule. A person 21 feet away on ice may take 5 or 10 seconds to reach you and present less immediate threat than the same person would on a dry even floor. A person who weighs 600 pounds will not be able to move as quickly either.
But as a guideline, the studies have shown that the average person can move about 21 feet in approximately the same amount of time that the average police officer is able to draw from a level 2 retention holster and fire one shot into center of mass. The fastest draw is to already have the gun in your hand. So, the 21-foot rule really just is a way of recognizing that you should have the gun in your hand when the potential threat is within a certain distance from you, and not to wait until they launch a charge at you. It is by no means an invitation to automatically shoot someone armed with a knife simply because they are that close to you. That person better be in the act of closing the distance at the moment you shoot them because if you shoot a person who is simply standing there with a knife, 25 feet from the nearest person, you will find yourself with in a world of s&#t.
I think the discussion about self-defense law here is a bit off course. The question was whether one could legally hold the suspect at gunpoint. There's a difference between
threatening force (holding at gunpoint) and
using force-- i.e., shooting them. The self-defense statute concerns using force, and how much force on can use. I think some people here are implying that you cannot legally draw your weapon unless you are justified in shooting someone. Baloney. You ought to draw your weapon when it is prudent to have it in your hand rather than in your holster. It may turn out that at no point are you justified in firing the gun... if so, when it is prudent to do so, the gun is returned to the holster. Again, the self-defense statute is a guide to when it is permitted to USE deadly, or a lesser level, of force. It is not the exclusive guide to indicate when you may or may not draw your weapon.
A simple example should suffice. If you heard suspicious noises in your house at night and you got up to investigate, it would be rather foolish to walk through your house with a holstered gun not knowing if beyond the next corner or behind the couch a criminal was waiting for you. You don't have a reason to shoot unless and until there is an immediate threat discovered, but you have every reason to have the gun in your hand.
