Which of the following is a justified use of force?

Using reasonable force to protect property is recognized as a justified use of force because it aligns with the principles of self-defense and property defense. In situations where property is threatened, individuals are permitted to use an appropriate level of force to prevent damage or theft, provided that the force employed is proportional and necessary to address the immediate threat.

For instance, if someone is actively attempting to steal merchandise, a security officer may intervene with reasonable force to stop the perpetrator, ensuring the safety of the property in question. It's important to emphasize that the force must be proportionate to the threat faced; excessive or unreasonable force would not be justified.

In contrast, using force to intimidate a shoplifter or to punish someone for disorderly conduct does not meet the criteria for reasonable use of force. Intimidation does not promote safety or resolution and can lead to excessive force issues. Similarly, enforcing compliance through force without justification can lead to legal repercussions and is not within the scope of a security officer's authority. Thus, protecting property with reasonable force is the only action here that maintains legality and ethical standards in a security context.