Anyone, in fact, using force from a self defense perspective is best served by having countermeasures that begin with (assuming physical force is needed) control measures - i.e. those that provide ability to evade assault and to detain or capture individuals at the fairly low end of the spectrim. Most uses of force will in fact be here.
I disagree. This is the way it should be for those professionally involved i.e. LEOs, security, military. Professionals are forced to encounter violent situations when they are otherwise avoidable because they don't have the luxury of simply walking away. For the average Joe on the street, the only violent encounters he will have are those that are unavoidable. When faced with unavoidable violence, the safest course is to end it as expeditiously as possible.
Attempting to control your assailant creates a much more dangerous scenario which can be fatal to the person being attacked, or bystanders that you are trying to protect. The professional has to accept this as a danger inherent in the job they are being paid to do. To the average Joe, this is unwarranted risk. It is my personal philosophy that if someone physically attacks me, they are trying to kill me. Therefore, I will do what is needed to eliminate that threat by ending the attack as quickly and totally as possible. I will not attempt to control my attacker as I have no need to capture him. I do, however, need to render him unable to carry on his attack. Whether that is unconcious or dead is irrelevant to my mind as it is self defense. This very philosophy has gotten me out of a few fights here in redneck land as I told them about it when they wouldn't let me walk away. It's amazing how their mind changes when they discover that they may well die if they try what they've threatened.
Paul Smith
"Always keep the sharp side and the pointy end between you and your opponent"