goldshellback

I'm posting this in part for training I'll be participating in later this month (AD military laws and enforcement) and I greatly respect the views, experience, and opinions I've seen here on this forum........and also because I've seen (here and elsewhere) diffrent models of the deadly force triangle/force continuum.

I first learned of the 'triangle' many moons ago during military force protection training and the model has been unchanged (for me anyway) for several years now. It consists of Capability, Opportunity, and Intent. The FBI defines this as ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.
( Improving deadly force decision making | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The | Find Articles at BNET.com )

Let me be the first to say this is NOT an attempt start a discourse about "which model is better" (i.e. caliber wars) but as a vehicle for learning/reading about the 'diffrent' models that we have trained/learned about/follow during the course of our day-to-day lives. Although there may be several diffrent words/ways to 'put' forth the triangle, ultimately they all 'say' the same thing/have the same meaning.

so, with that said,
1) Which model (or how many diffrent models) do/have you used to train/study by and....

2) which one was/is the easiest for you to use/remember.

Randy

I use that model (AOJ) for LE classes and add "Preclusion" (AOJP) when instructing citizens.

I would also be interested in learning about other methods.

Randy

__________________
Defensive Training Concepts, Inc.
Staunton, Va.

kazzaerexys

Massad Ayoob uses AOJ in his classes, so that's what I have seen.

__________________
“What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?”

—Justice Antonin Scalia

DCJS Instructor

While I am no expert!

In my opinion AOJ is great however civilians or non-Law Enforcement must understand preclusion.

Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.

In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.

Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.

Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.

The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.

David in FL

As always, it's imperative that you understand the laws in your state.

In Florida for instance, if you're confronted with force, you may immediately respond with equal force. There is no requirement to consider any other "options", whether safe, or not.