Via Scott at Spartan Cops, I came across a study on less lethal weapons and use of force titled “Less Lethal Weapon Effectiveness, Use of Force, and Suspect & Officer Injuries: A Five-Year Analysis” by Charlie Mesloh, Mark Henych and Ross Wolf.
While the use of force (UOF) by Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) is different from UOF by citizens in terms of goals, there are also a lot of similarities. This document is well worth reading to gain further understanding of UOF issues, particularly regarding less lethal weapons. I will point out a few items from Scott’s post that are relevant to the ongoing Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) discussion here at Brillianter.
The ability to end a confrontation between officers and suspects is the measure of the effectiveness of a force level or weapon. This report lists the success rate of weapons and control techniques that were attempted at the beginning of a confrontation:
Taser – 69%
Police K9 – 69%
Chemical agents – 65%
Impact Weapons – 45%
Takedowns – 41%
Compliance Holds – 16%
The authors point out that previous research looks at the highest levels of suspect resistance and police force as the only factor of a confrontation. This study looks at the whole event and examines each point where officers used force to overcome the suspect’s resistance. It then studies the cumulative effect of all those points and finds that both officers and suspects are more likely to sustain injuries the longer the confrontations go on.
[emphasis mine]
As Mostly Genius has mentioned, stopping a confrontation in its earliest stages can be critical in avoiding serious injury or death.
The authors coin a term, “force deficit”, which describes when officers consistently use less force than may be justifiable or necessary to subdue the suspect and end the confrontation. A force deficit causes the incident to drag out longer and raise the cumulative amount of force used. They point out that decisive force early on appears to be the solution and reduces the likelihood of additional injuries caused by the subsequent applications of force.
[emphasis mine]
Using the appropriate amount of force at the earliest stages not only resolves the confrontation quickly and therefore reduces injuries on both sides, but also shields the defender from legal liability for inappropriate (excessive) use of force. As mentioned previously, the lack of alternatives to deadly force can create a situation where someone can be seriously injured or killed simply because the defender doesn’t know what else to do. Ideally, we want to avoid having to kill anyone.
The authors recommend that officers should be prepared to use decisive force when verbal techniques of de-escalation fail. When a suspect engages in active physical resistance, the authors show that immediately using a TASER, Police K9, or chemical agent is the most reasonable method to quickly end the confrontation.
[emphasis mine]
A few bloggers have stated that they have been sprayed with OC and were less than impressed with the results. I also have been sprayed and sprayed others. I have seen the gamut of reactions exhibited by people who have been sprayed, ranging from panic to indifference. Basically, I have a good idea of what to expect when I spray someone, and I think it is worth carrying.
Some things to keep in mind when using OC is that it is a very low level of force, less force than grabbing or punching someone. Also, the element of surprise is a significant factor in making it effective. Warning someone before you spray them allows them to prepare themselves both physically and psychologically. Resolute, goal oriented people, whether they are protesters passively resisting police, law enforcement or military personnel completing a training event or aggressive assailants firmly intent on committing acts of violence will not be effected by OC the same way a less committed aggressor will be. This does not mean it is worthless.
Those people who dismiss OC as worthless for self defense are missing a valuable capability. The overwhelming majority of confrontations in your lifetime will not be deadly force encounters. Carrying a firearm for defense is certainly useful, and when deadly force is called for, OC is clearly not appropriate. This is not an either/or decision, since they are on opposite sides of the force continuum and are not a substitute for each other. OC is not a deadly force tool, and a firearm obviously cannot be considered less lethal. In between these two ends of the continuum, there are numerous other force options, but deadly force, which so many people seem obsessed with, is only justifiable under a very specific set of circumstances, extreme situations where all other means of defense have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Contrast this with OC, which can be employed quite freely with little worry about liability. Determining what type of situation you are facing and choosing the appropriate course of action (OODA loop) is a matter of experience and training.
There are also some people who recommend martial arts or less lethal techniques only, as a catch all solution to all confrontations; they are also wrong. Martial arts, combatives, defensive tactics or whatever you want to call them are certainly a valuable component of a well prepared person’s self defense plan, but they fall somewhere on the lower side of the middle in terms of the force continuum. They are valuable techniques and like OC, they are more broadly useful than deadly force options like knives and firearms, but they don’t replace them, either. All of these methods have an appropriate place and they are generally poor substitutes for one another.
Some people complain that carrying all these tools and learning all these techniques is a burden. Presumably, they would rather carry only handguns and knives and call it a day. They have very good and redundant deadly force capability, but ignoring the remaining five or six levels of the force continuum does not actually prepare someone for most defensive situations.
Subscribe to 
