eapon must be fully trained, licensed, and otherwise qualified to use the weapon and to recognize circumstances in which use of the weapon is acceptable.
Self-protection weapons as described by Fender (2008) are not limited to handguns, rifles, knives and other cutting implements, or the more exotic weaponry employed in the martial arts. Many individuals carry various sprays such as pepper sprays or mace. These weapons can disarm or deflect an attacker and are legal in most jurisdictions. Included among the kinds of weapons carried not only by private citizens but by hired security personnel are the new electric shock weapons such as tasers. However, Fender (2008) states that in most cases, self-protection weapons are fashioned to disable an attacker so that the putative victim can flee and seek help from either the law or others. Even when an individual is protected by a hired bodyguard, the goal of PDWs is simply to disable an attacker and not to kill the attacker.
Bostain and Miller (2008), officers with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Brunswick, Georgia, argue that the primary goal of protecting a private citizen or government official is to prevent the client from becoming a victim of an attack. It is not to terminate the attacker but rather to so disable the attacker that the client's safety is assured.
Issues regarding the amount of force that is acceptable in such circumstances are of significance. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court sets the legal standard for use of force in the United States. All force must be objectively reasonable. In the case of Graham v. Conner, a police officer was sued by a suspect who argued that unreasonable or excessive force was used during his arrest. The Court held in this case that a reasonable amount of force is permitted for law enforcement officers and, by extension, private security personnel. Aga...