In which situation is the use of physical force by a security officer justified?

The use of physical force by a security officer is justified in situations where they are attempting to prevent a crime in progress. This approach aligns with the security officer's role, which includes protecting property and persons, as well as acting within the parameters of the law that allows for reasonable force in specific scenarios.

When a security officer observes a crime unfolding, they have a duty to intervene to stop the illegal act in order to secure safety and prevent further harm. The use of physical force must be proportional to the threat, and the officer is expected to use the least amount of force necessary to prevent the crime while ensuring their own safety and the safety of others.

While feeling threatened, the officer's perception of danger (as presented in other choices) can be a factor in their decision-making process, it does not automatically authorize the use of force. Similarly, the justification for making an arrest or responding in life-threatening situations brings additional legal considerations and is subject to specific laws regarding the use of force by private security personnel. Thus, the most direct justification for the use of physical force remains the prevention of an ongoing crime, establishing that the officer's role is proactive in safeguarding individuals and property.