With permission to use granted, Claude Werner, a/k/a The Tactical Professor, decided, when referring to my CAN-MAY-SHOULD-MUST paradigm (for the use of deadly force), to re-sequence it. His version:

CAN-MAY-MUST-SHOULD

From the professor: “This author re-sequenced them from Mr. Harris’ original sequence to Can-May-Must-Should because Can, May, and Must are essentially binary Yes/No decisions that would be decided the same way by similar persons in the same set of circumstances. Should, however, has numerous ambiguous inputs based on individual moral and sociological precepts. If the Can and May criteria are met but the Must (i.e., I do this to survive) is not, then the Should decision could be legitimately decided differently by persons in the same set of circumstances. For instance, in the case of defense of a third party, some persons might choose to intervene and others might not. Both decisions could be reasonable based on the personal beliefs of the individual who is making the decision.”

I got nothing. I like it. It hadn’t occurred to me when I first thought up my paradigm that my favored seriatim analysis was not the only appropriate presentation. From studying the professor’s body of work it occurred to me long ago that my CAN and SHOULD are the two elements over which the force user has nearly complete control, unlike the MAY and the MUST elements, which are dictated by someone else.

Hat tip: Claude Werner. Lesson learned: Never mess with an “OODA” expert.