In training, this is actually known as the Tueller Drill. Interestingly though, it doesn't assume the person is concealing the knife, is a 'Ninja', or is getting the drop on an unaware person. Quite the contrary, when the drill was first developed, it was tested using both recruits from the Salt Lake City PD and people attending Gunsite training courses (which were comprised of civilians, LEO, and Military of varying levels of experience, age, and physical fitness).

They would typically start with the 'knife' in hand and try to tag the person before he/she could draw and shoot his dart gun with relative accuracy, more or less being a test of reaction time. It was found that most people could reliably cover a 7yd distance in about 1.5 seconds. This is where the whole "21 foot rule" came into play. Though, Tueller never called it that, as he felt calling it a rule implied it was always true....whereas, in actually, there is a bit more variability. Some officers can draw faster or slower, some assailants can cover 7 yards faster or slower.

Either way, it became generally accepted that a potential attacker "under 21 feet" was considered to be in the person's danger zone. As they were able to grab/touch the officer before most could shoot. At the time, this was exacerbated by the fact that most officers were trained not to draw their weapon unless absolutely necessary and not to move once they drew their weapon, as it was thought to be unsafe to walk with gun in hand. Nowadays, better training will focus on properly and safely moving both backwards and forwards, as necessary, with a firearm in hand. (Of course, that doesn't guarantee anything in the way a person will react.)

One of the other results it had, with regard to training, was a fundamental shift in thoughts on "when" to draw a firearm. It's why you now often see officers drawing their gun from their holster long before an apparent escalation of force. Tueller found that already having one's firearm in hand significantly reduced reaction time.

All in all, it's a pretty interesting thing to read up on. Dennis Tueller is still training officers and is well regarded in the field. He'll often speak at a variety of conventions and such, which are quite interesting to listen to.

I've been reading and contributing to this thread but without watching the video. Finally got round to it.
Is this a joke?
The entire confrontation between the cop and Williams happens off camera!
How can anyone say what happened based on this?
Like with Bin Laden; it sounds when you don't know much about it like an execution. An unarmed man or man with a folded knife; gets shot by an armed man.
But if you have a knife or are known to use guns and suicide bombs the fact is; if an armed man confronts you, anything other than keeping your hands in view without a weapon, is going to get you shot. People simply don't have fast enough reactions to wait till they can positively identify what is in the hand.
If Williams had the knife in his hand and kept coming at the officer, the officer would have no option but to shoot.
And how can you say the cops knew he was no threat once he was down? They didn't know the extent of his injuries. He might have popped up and rushed at them.
As for the idea that someone has to be super trained to stab someone? You have someone stood in front of you and you have a knife. Tell me; what are the chances of you missing? But it's very easy to miss with a gun.
Also bullets don't inflict injuries as massive as a knife can. Your gun means you may have to hit him several times to get him to stop. Anyone, with no training, can kill you with one swipe of a knife.
qjs

I think some of the articles mentioned eyewitnesses, plus the police spokesperson mentioned looking at footage from other nearby cameras. Plus forensics and all that.

Several articles pointed out that Williams was shot to the side, so (if correct) unless he was advancing in a fencing pose, he wasn't really posing an immediate threat to the cop, or at least not advancing towards him. Plus the blade was found closed.



Anything's possible, sure, but if someone is lying motionless after 4 firearm rounds in his torso, I doubt he'd suddenly "pop up and rush at them".



I respectfully disagree. Sure you probably could surprise someone and inflict massive injuries with a single cut or stab of a knife, but against someone who is 10 feet away, looking at you and being prepared for every move and has at least some training in martial arts and self defence, not so easy. Plus, having seen real photos of what a single bullet (even a small caliber one) can do to a human body, you'd have to be wielding a chainsaw claymore to do that kind of damage.

-jh

Drawing and aiming a loaded weapon is a stress factor in itself. The this is for REAL factor.

Heck, even at the range using actual live ammo can be stressful. I haven't ever pointed a weapon on a human, but I remember vividly reverting to the lowest level of training the first time in the Army I did the quick draw (point-shoot) drills on close range with live ammo. There was very little room for fine grained mental processing...

Although the dangerous knife man existed nowhere else but in the officer(s) mind, the stresses of confrontation were very much real. Which means there is little or no ability to process an alternative interpretation of events.

If I ever find myself in a situation where I am not able to thing beyond: This man is close enough to slash my guts, and he's GOING TO DO IT then I'd probably shoot him, too. One thing I fear if I ever find myself in a violent confrontation is that I shall loose the ability to "think out of the box" and find alternate solutions.


But I leave it to better and more well informed heads than me to discuss the causes leading up to this incident, how it could and should have been prevented and the correct reaction for the officer.

>I think some of the articles mentioned eyewitnesses, plus the >police spokesperson mentioned looking at footage from other nearby >cameras. Plus forensics and all that.

Witnesses make mistakes; which is why no one asks just one witness. Because they usually all say something different. Please produce this footage and the 'forensics and all that' evidence you say exists.

>Several articles pointed out that Williams was shot to the side, >so (if correct) unless he was advancing in a fencing pose, he >wasn't really posing an immediate threat to the cop, or at least >not advancing towards him. Plus the blade was found closed.

As you say (thanks for being fair) this is what just what articles say happened. And the fact is; when you decide to shoot you are basing the decision on what he was doing slightly before you pulled the trigger. If he turns away as you are shooting, he's going to get shot in the side or even back. And the cop is supposed to take the time to be sure the knife is open?

>lying motionless after 4 firearm rounds in his torso

The cop had no way of knowing he hit the torso with all 4 shots.

>Sure you probably could surprise someone and inflict massive injuries with a single cut or stab of a knife, but against someone who is 10 feet away...not so easy. Plus, having seen real photos of what a single bullet (even a small caliber one) can do to a human body, you'd have to be wielding a chainsaw claymore to do that kind of damage.

As has already been mentioned. Most people cant' react fast enough to shoot someone who starts running at them from 21 foot away.
This very incident disproves knives can injure more than bullets. Williams was shot 4 times. Does he look like he's been gutted? Now just think of what a knife stabbed into you then pulled sidewards can do. Human bodies are very easy to cut (you can do it with paper).

Mostly harmless wrote:
> Although the dangerous knife man existed nowhere else but in the officer(s) mind, the stresses of confrontation were very much real. Which means there is little or no ability to process an alternative interpretation of events.

This is the nub of any shooting. It is incredibly stressful, and you have a fraction of a second to make a decision that may get you killed or in prison. Then the pundits spend weeks debating.
Maybe this cop did go out and decided "I'm shooting the first person who looks at me funny". I'm not defending him. I don't know what happened. I'm just saying there isn't the evidence here to condemn him. And the arguments about 'he only had a folded knife' is incorrect.
qjs

A knife is a more general-purpose tool than a gun. I'd have more sympathy with the officer in this case if it had been a drunk man waving a gun around.

Mistakes happen. If guns are involved, mistakes are more likely to have fatal outcomes.

The various replies so far show that the situation can be complex.

I have actually run through the simulation many times personally ... knife against gun. The knife is a very effective weapon at short ranges (say less than 20 feet) and could be lethal against someone with a gun if they are not prepared. However, if the person holding the gun has their weapon already drawn and trained on the attacker with the knife- they should have very good confidence of subduing that attacker provided they keep a cool mind and can shoot accurately. The time factor is very small, so there's no room for error. But it could certainly be done if the gun owner is well prepared.

In the case of the original story - we just don't have enough info to evaluate exactly what happened. But the police officer has some good tactics that he could use. For example - take a position behind any parked vehicle, or behind a telephone pole, or even the seat at a bus stop. Any physical barrier. Then he could train his gun on the suspect and order him to drop the knife. The presence of a physical barrier would make it much, much harder for a suspect with a knife to do harm to the officer.

In reference to the comments about warning shots. I will speak my own mind - but it differs substantially from accepted procedures. I believe there is a definite place for "warning shots" or "warning blows" as a tactic, and that includes any lethal weapon (gun, knife, stick etc.). Anyone who is skilled with a weapon should be able to use it with sufficient accuracy that it can be used to deliver non-lethal force. That may seem like a high standard, but high standards are necessary if you want to save human life. Ask yourself a simple question ... suppose you are a criminal suspect standing 20 feet from a police officer. You have been ordered to comply with a police request. But you are hesitating. Now imagine that officer fires one bullet into the ground, just 12-24 inches from your left or right foot. Accurate shooting. Do you honestly think you are still going to ignore the commands that are given to you?? Not if you are even slightly sane. The warning shot gives the officer the opportunity to demonstrate his command over the situation. I think it's highly regrettable that this type of policy has been dropped as an option in US law enforcement. We are rabidly killing each other for no reason. It's not always necessary.

Pete #2

Keystone cops with assault rifles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY82seEBw5w

Then there is the real Pima County Sheriff's Department SWAT team;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnYV4nrNdjA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnYV4nrNdjA

How do you react when your asleep and subject to a home invasion and need to protect your DW and DD? The cop who aimlessly points and rapidly fires his pistol into the door way next to the other cops ear drum (makes him fall down) was classic Keystone cop.

I respectfully disagree. The bullet has to go somewhere. If it ricochets and hurts someone, the shooter is responsible.

The cop was 9 feet away from the victim when the cop shot him in the back and the side. The bullet holes he made would have been very visible esp with all the blood being ejected from the holes in the victims torso.



If you listen carefully, in the video a witness challenges the cop and said 'what happened, he wasn't doing anything', the cop replies 'he had a knife and wouldn't drop it.'

The cop shot him down firing 5 shots, also the cop already had his pistol drawn even before making the challenge on someone who was not committing a crime.



The police were probably frightened because it was probably quite clear on initial inspection when they arrived that one of there own had just committed a murder. The rest was street theatre for the onlooking public.

Why fire five shots? This poor fellow would have been floored by the first. Basically the more you analyse this murder the more you come to the conclusion that murder in the 1st degree is a more appropraite charge for this Seattle police officer.