Just saw this misconception AGAIN. I really wish people – especially people who should know better – would stop putting this out there. I put it up on the blog but since this idea is so ingrained it probably needs more outing here...
If you are a civilian, your jurisdiction *may* require you to use the “least amount of force” in a self defense situation. You also may be required to retreat, or explain why you did not before you use force.
It is up to you to determine what your local laws say and act accordingly.
It is up to your instructor, whomever you choose, to either a) know that about your jurisdiction or b) admit they DON’ T KNOW and tell you to do that legwork yourself.
Why is that? Not only because that standard is not workable, it is also not required in all places….most places only expect you to use force that you “reasonably believe is necessary.” This is a VERY different thing, and is indeed the law enforcement standard.
If you are law enforcement officer you are SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED that you DO NOT NEED TO USE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF FORCE in a force encounter. This is so stated by the 9th Circuit Court, famous throughout the land as the “most liberal” court out there, in analyzing all use of force under the 4th Amendment appropos the Supreme Court of the land’s decision in Graham v. Connor.
You are required to use force that is REASONABLE. A lot goes into that “fact bound morass” that will determine what is or is not reasonable in that particular set of circumstances, and you are not by any means expected to be superhuman and understand what ”least intrusive” quantum of force will work.
If a least intrusive option is available, you have time to consider it, and think it will work, then by all means. This does not apply to all situations, and you are also not required to engage in “force experimentation” that means you try the least amount, then go a little more, then a little more until it works- this unnecessarily prolongs an encounter and might in fact lead to more force ultimately being used – unnecessarily. That is a problem.
This is also the reason that Force Continuums, by ANY name, are unworkable, not required by law, and ill-advised. It is why the federal courts have never required them (though - we can thank the 9th Circuit for some chilling language in the Glenn case out of Oregon that tends toward that direction....).It is why some have wondered why law enforcement even uses them, and why places like the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center recommends you get rid of them if your agency has them.
Get it? I hope so because people are out there teaching that DON’T.
Doesn’t seem to stop them from continuing to promulgate half-understandings in the name of making a name and dollar for themselves, and adding to the indecision and hesitation on the part of their students because they themselves don’t understand the very concept they are teaching, have reacted badly themselves during their own uses of force, both unwittingly and with foreknowledge brag about it (incredibly stupid from both a professional and personal standpoint), and pull the wool over the eyes of those that do not have the frame of reference to know the truth.