What kind of Force?

07 Aug 09

Force: "Reasonable," "Superior," "Effective," "Equal," "Optimal," or " Minimal?"

In teaching Defensive Shooting, within our domestic environment, " use-of-force" issues always dominate the discussion. We can provide students with what we believe represents competent guidance. What we cannot provide is specific, nor perfect, solutions for every conceivable threat a student may encounter.

"Force," in the legal sense, means "to compel via physical means." We legitimately, lawfully use force, or the threat of force, to compel violent criminals to cease and desist harmful/threatening behavior, and/or to disengage and go away.

Deadly force (that degree or type of force that is intended, or likely, to cause death or serious bodily harm) is legitimately, lawfully employed as a last resort to what you reasonably believe to be an bona-fide, unlawful, imminent, deadly threat posed by a violent criminal. Understand that some weapons, like guns and blades, are considered inherently "deadly," and thus cannot be employed in a "non-deadly" manner.

We all need to understand that many in the criminal justice system believe they have, and should have, a monopoly on the use of any kind of force. They are mistaken, but this false nation is common. Thus, any unilateral use of force on the part of a Sovereign Citizen will often be greeted with suspicion and condescension by investigators and prosecutors alike. Expect it. Don't become a victim of it!

Judgments with regard to the appropriateness of a person's use of force in self-defense require consideration of:

(1) The relationship between the amount and type of force actually used, and the apparent need presented,

(2) The relationship between the stated intent of the user of force, and the extent of injuries actually inflicted, and

(3) The presence, or absence, of a good-faith effort on the part of the person employing force in self-defense to adhere to, as dispassionately as possible, the singular goal of preserving his own safety and that of other innocent parties. That is, whatever type or amount of force is initially employed, one may not continue to apply it after the threat has clearly been eliminated or has voluntarily desisted/withdrawn.

When a fight is unavoidable, it is best to end it, on our terms, quickly! The longer the fight/confrontation goes on, the more my safety is compromised.

It should be noted that ill-conceived hate-crime legislation makes "wrong" intentions a crime in and of itself, even when the person's actions were otherwise lawful and appropriate. In other words, when using force, one may only think government-approved thoughts!

The advice I give to students as the discussion progresses is that the key word here is "reasonable." Under the totality of circumstances existing at the time, was your use of force an example of what a reasonable person would do? You are not required to be a saint, nor come up with the "perfect" solution, but your actions need to be within the "reasonable" range. However, any force used that is ineffective in abrogating the threat cannot be "reasonable." By definition, "reasonable" force is "effective" force.

And, to be truly effective in quickly ending the threat, "effective" force is "superior" force. Again, merely prolonging a potentially-deadly confrontation can hardly be considered a "reasonable" option!

So, "reasonable" force is both "superior" and "effective," or there is no point. When in a fight for my very life, "inferior," "ineffective" force surely has no appeal!

Thus, fraudulent doctrines such as "equal force" and "minimal force" undermine the principle of legitimate self-defense:

When I am only authorized to employ "equal" force against a VCA threatening me with a gun, must I only use a gun "equal" to his? When he shoots at me and misses, must I miss also, in order to maintain equality? As you can see, "equal-force" is an unworkable can or worms.

The problem with "minimal-force" is with the definition! Whatever type or amount of force you use, someone can always claim that, had you used less force, things would have worked out just fine! Well, we'll never know. Will we? "Minimal" does not equate with "effective"

Finally, when facing deadly, unlawful threats, you don't need to be thinking about any of the foregoing! You need to ask yourself only one question: "What can I do to keep from getting hurt?"

When, whatever you do, or don't do, is even half-way reasonable, you're probably going to be okay.

But, there are no guarantees!

/John