Jere Krischel
Jul 30, 2017 · 2 min read

Absolutely true — but that doesn’t mean that we can’t minimize that grey-zone.

When I teach my self defense classes, we generally talk about three factors (AOJ):

  1. ability
  2. opportunity
  3. jeopardy

If any of these are missing, deadly force isn’t justified in self defense.

So if the person only has a nerf gun, they don’t have the ability to do you grievous bodily harm or kill you. Deadly force isn’t justified in self defense here.

If they have a knife, but are not within striking range (defined as per the Tueller drill), they don’t have the opportunity to do you grievous bodily harm or kill you. Deadly force isn’t justified in self defense here.

And if they’re just picking their fingernails with their knife, and not presenting an imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death, you aren’t in jeopardy. Deadly force isn’t justified in self defense here.

Obviously, you can’t effectively defend yourself if you’re required to wait for violent action — if you wait for the person to actually slash your neck before responding with deadly force, it’s too late. So if the aggressor has a knife, is yelling threats at you, is within 21 feet, and you have identified their ability, their opportunity, and your jeopardy, then deadly force is justified.

Now, let’s roll the tape all the way through, and imagine a confrontation between an officer and a suspect.

The suspect has a knife, and is 21 feet away. The officer has drawn his weapon, so he’s got a better reaction time, so his Tueller distance is maybe 10 feet. The officer warns the suspect to drop his weapon, and lay flat on the ground. The suspect does not comply, but continues to advance. At this point, once that 10 foot line is crossed, the officer has reasonably waited for ability, opportunity, and jeopardy, and is in fact more justified because *despite* knowing that he has a gun trained on him, the suspect still thinks he can possibly get to the officer before being stopped.

Now, that all being said, there are definitely use of force guidelines that I think should be more common across law enforcement. Training to retreat to a safer distance, or behind an obstacle would be preferred to just waiting for a suspect to cross a line, for example. But these things need to be addressed in a systematic way, understanding that it would take significant training to make sure that while walking backwards in retreat from a suspect you didn’t fall down, or otherwise increase the level of danger. You can’t just make policies on use of force in a vacuum, you need to include realistic and continuous training in them.

Jere Krischel

Written by

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade