Can security officers use physical force when necessary?

Security officers are indeed authorized to use physical force, but it is imperative that this force is employed judiciously and as a last resort when necessary. This approach aligns with the principles of proportionate response and the necessity to protect individuals and property while reducing the risk of escalation and harm.

The requirement for using physical force as a last resort means that security officers should first seek to de-escalate situations and use non-physical methods to resolve conflicts. Only when these methods have been exhausted, or when faced with an imminent threat to their safety or the safety of others, should they consider physical force. This limits the potential for excessive force and aims to protect the rights and dignity of all individuals involved.

In contrast, information indicating that force can only be used in self-defense is too restrictive and does not account for situations where officers may need to protect others. A blanket prohibition on the use of force would hinder security officers' ability to fulfill their responsibilities, while allowing force whenever officers feel threatened could lead to unnecessary escalation and misuse of authority. Thus, the correct stance is that security officers may use physical force, but it must always be the last option after seeking other resolutions.