You posed the following question:
Are Lawyers training or trained in "Force Option"? Myself if in such a situation I would consider also hiring an expert with such knowledge as an expert witness.
Much like medicine, you will find very few lawyers who are self-defense experts except for those who practice criminal law or have a hobby like karate, weapons and other such subject matter.
The important distinction is whether or not the person is a good trial lawyer well experienced with criminal practice and procedure.
Such an attorney will have the means of studying the cases and statutes necessary to represent a client in cases of excessive force or issues of self defense.
The lawyer can advise you of the need for expert witnesses, and what should be done in the presentation of the case.
What is necessary for a lawyer to know is any cases which resemble yours and the decision or philosophy in the courts when deciding the matter.
For example from a real case was the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Steven Miller.
Steven was arrested by police on a charge unrelated to weapons. He emptied his pockets and a folding knife with a six inch blade led to charges of violation of state law, to wit carrying a dangerous weapon, a dirk knife. A dangerous weapon if carried under the applicable statute carried a two and one half year felony jail sentence.
The court took a real interest in the case and overruled the lower court on the ground that the weapon known as a dirk knife was really a short bladed sword such as the Scottish HIlanders or other Celtics carried as ceremonial.
The court examines how the weapon is employed or is intended to be by the carrier.
Steven took the knife out of his pocket un-opened.
Despite its appearance, it complied with the law because it was not capable of automatic release.
The court could confer that its use was merely as a jack knife.
In another case, a prostitute was arrested while turning a trick in a grass field. In her pocket book was a small kitchen knife common in any kitchen.
She was asked why she was carrying the knife to which she replied that it was only for self-defense.
She was convicted of having a dangerous weapon because she intended to use it on a person and not an apple of food.
You have to know how the court thinks.
You might want to look at the cases reported in Martial Arts and the Law forum in the past.
I hope that this helps you.
"The Goddess of Justice is Blind"