In a 2014 post (HERE) I discussed and advocated carriage of “less-lethal.” OC was offered as and remains the preferred non-deadly force option for the non-sworn. Of course, amateur physical defensive or “fighting” skill is an important non-deadly force “skill” of that portion of the CAN (HERE) paradigm element. Non-deadly force skill and tools are important, notwithstanding the usual training emphasis on firearms and shooting. It is far and away the more likely level of justified defensive force one might need to employ.
By its usual definition, non-deadly force is force not likely to inflict death or great bodily harm. It is almost universally lawful to use it to fend off any criminal attack or undertaking against person or property. Caveat: Employing non-deadly force where deadly force is available and lawful as per the paradigm element MAY (HERE) and as compelled by the paradigm element MUST (HERE) is likely a to-be-regretted paradigm element SHOULD (HERE) failure.
Some points for consideration — to research in your state’s law (statutes, appellate cases, standard jury instructions). Study and determine the state of the law, and whether a judge or jury decides:
- If deadly force is lawful, must I first attempt “resolution” with non-deadly force
- Is a folding knife ever non-deadly force
- Is OC ever deadly force
- Is an impact weapon deadly or non-deadly force
- Is force level lawfulness intertwined with the absence of the duty to retreat
- Is force level lawfulness affected by “aggressor” status
- Is force level lawfulness affected by the type premises involved in the criminal conduct
- Is force level lawfulness affected by otherwise compliance with all laws
- Is exposure to civil liability (including insurance concerns) affected by level of force
- What force level is firearm display or gun-pointing
- What crimes (where and when) may be countered with presumptively justified deadly force
- How does force level affect arrest and bail processes
- Is a single strike to the face/head deadly or non-deadly force
- How is formal, extended martial arts training analyzed
- Does intended or actual result (or neither) affect classification of force
Training specifically directed to non-deadly force response is lesser-known, but widely available, and may demand less investment of money and time. There are trainers who are qualified to instruct on both non-deadly force options and when going to the gun is a better idea, and how to do it.
It is usually a good bet that non-deadly force will carry the day when an “excessive” or disproportionate use of force analysis is made. Better bet: Avoidance.
Disclaimer: No MSW post constitutes particularized legal advice, or creates an attorney-client relationship with a reader.