The 21-Foot Rule Revisited

In 1983, Dennis Tueller, a police officer, published an article discussing the need to defend against an attacker armed with a knife or blunt weapon. Through his tests and studies he determined that a person would be in danger if the attacker came at him from 21 feet or less. In short, the attacker could get to his victim before the victim was able to draw and accurately fire his handgun. While this study was done to educate police officers, it obviously is just as important to the armed citizen. However, through the passing years, various interpretations of Tueller's study have led to some confusion. And it is confusion that just might get the armed citizen in trouble.

Suppose that you are forced to shoot an attacker in self-defense. Suppose further that your attacker was armed with a knife and, during your court proceedings you refer to the “21-foot rule” as your justification for using deadly force. And that would be the time that the prosecutor produces an investigating officer who testifies that the actual distance between you and the attacker was 28 feet. Hopefully your attorney would be able to overcome this discrepancy and still convince the court that it was reasonable for you to be in fear for your life. But it has created doubt that just might sway the jury against you.

The simple fact is that 21 feet is an arbitrary distance that may, or may not, relate to your particular situation. To begin with, few people can point to the ground and accurately point out what 21 feet looks like. Secondly, while the Tueller studies are extremely sound, there are a lot of factors that make it an arbitrary distance.

Click here to read the entire article at AmericanRifleman.org.