What counts as excessive force in custody, and why it matters for Ontario security teams.

Excessive Force on the Front Line: What Ontario Students Should Know

Let’s break down a simple but important truth: force is a last resort. In Ontario, as in many places, professionals in security and public safety are trained to use the minimum amount needed to keep people safe and to gain compliance. When a choice is made to use force, it should be measured, justified, and, ideally, prevent harm. That’s the mindset behind the term “excessive use of force.” And yes, this matters in everyday security work, not just in dramatic moments you might see on screen.

What counts as excessive? A plain-language guide

Excessive use of force happens when someone relies on more force than is reasonable or necessary to achieve a lawful objective—like making an arrest, detaining a person, or stopping an immediate threat. It’s not a fuzzy line; it’s about proportionality, necessity, and safety.

• Proportionality: The force used should match the risk. If the risk is low, minimal force should be enough. If the risk is high, more control options might be needed—but never more than what’s reasonable.

• Necessity: Was there a safer alternative that could have achieved the same result? If yes, using less force is the right move.

• Safety: The aim is to protect everyone involved, including the person in custody. Actions that cause needless harm or humiliation don’t fit the bill.

Let me explain with a familiar framework. Think of it like a staircase of response: presence, verbal commands, soft controls, harder holds, impact tools, and, in the worst case, lethal options. The goal is to climb only as far as necessary to prevent harm and move toward a safe resolution. If anyone leaps past the lower steps for no good reason, you’re looking at excessive force.

A quick look at the options in the scenario you might see in training

Consider these four scenarios. They’re the kinds of real-world moments you’ll be asked to judge or respond to in coursework and in the field. The question: which action may be considered excessive use of force?

• A. Handcuffing an individual after a lawful arrest

• B. Placing an individual in a wrist lock after a lawful arrest

• C. A man refusing to drop a tire iron while walking toward you

• D. Smacking a man placed in custody for not moving quickly enough

Here’s the takeaway: the correct answer is D. Smacking a man placed in custody for not moving quickly enough is a textbook example of excessive force. Let’s unpack why, and then we’ll compare the other options.

Why option D stands out

• It’s after the person is restrained: Once someone is in custody, the role of force shifts toward control and safety rather than punishment. Smacking someone as a reprimand crosses a line because it uses physical harm as a response to a minor lapse in obedience.

• It isn’t necessary for safety: Quick movement or compliance doesn’t justify striking someone who’s already restrained. The risk is already being managed; additional harm isn’t helping.

• It undermines dignity and trust: Respectful treatment is a core principle in many training programs. Using a punitive physical shove or strike erodes trust and can escalate fear, not resolve the situation.

Why A, B, and C aren’t automatically excessive, but require careful analysis

• A. Handcuffing after a lawful arrest: Handcuffing is a standard control tactic. It’s not excessive if applied correctly and safely, with attention to the person’s health and well-being. The key question is whether it’s done with reasonable care and for a legitimate purpose.

• B. Placing a wrist lock after a lawful arrest: Wrist locks (often part of control techniques) can be appropriate when used properly, but they must be proportionate and time-limited. If a wrist lock is applied too tightly or for too long, it becomes excessive. Training emphasizes using the lightest, least intrusive method that still achieves safety.

• C. A man refusing to drop a tire iron while walking toward you: This is a situation that can require decisive action to prevent imminent harm. The initial response should be verbal commands and the use of distance, barriers, and escalation steps. If the man continues to approach with a weapon, proportional force to create space or stop the threat may be warranted. The line is crossed if the force used goes beyond what is necessary to prevent harm.

The big picture: de-escalation first, force later

Ontario training and many policing and security programs emphasize de-escalation. That means slowing the tempo, using calm voices, giving clear instructions, and creating space whenever possible. De-escalation isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a strategic choice that often reduces risk for everyone involved.

• Verbal commands: Clear, concise, and non-threatening language can prevent a confrontation from getting out of hand.

• Time and distance: Giving space to let emotions settle or to allow others to comply can be more effective than force.

• Barriers and presence: Non-physical tools—barriers, positioning, and a confident, non-threatening stance—can prevent a situation from escalating.

• Alternatives to force: Where possible, removing hazards, securing weapons, or calling for additional support can reduce the need for physical intervention.

If force is used, it should be just enough, for as long as needed, and with a plan to step down quickly

Once force is engaged, the objective shifts to control and safety, not punishment. The best outcome is a quick, reversible impact that stops immediate harm and allows the situation to de-escalate. Afterward, the focus moves to accountability and documentation: why the force was used, how it aligned with policy, and what lessons can be drawn to prevent a future recurrence.

What to do if you’re in a role where this matters

If you’re preparing for a career on the security or public safety side in Ontario, here are practical steps to keep the line between effective control and excessive force clean:

• Learn your policy inside and out: Know the definitions of reasonable and necessary force, and the steps you’re supposed to take before escalating. Policies aren’t just rules; they’re guardrails.

• Practice scenario-based training: Realistic drills help you feel the rhythm of pulling back or stepping forward at the right moment. They’re better than any checklist for building intuition.

• Master de-escalation techniques: Your toolkit should include verbal skills, timing, and the ability to read a scene quickly. De-escalation can prevent violence and protect you and others.

• Use the minimum force path: Start with presence and verbal commands, then add soft control, and only then escalate—never skip steps.

• Document everything: After an incident, write a precise report that explains what happened, why you chose your actions, and how you ensured safety. Body cameras or witnesses can help verify the sequence of events.

• Seek feedback and reflect: After any incident, review what went well and what could be improved. Honest reflection is how you grow.

Relatable tangents that connect back to the core idea

You might be thinking, “What if a situation is truly unstable?” That’s when training counts even more. Real-world work isn’t a neat checklist; it’s a series of split-second decisions under pressure. Still, the goal remains steady: use the least force necessary, maintain the dignity and safety of everyone involved, and pivot toward de-escalation at the first sign you can. On the street, a moment of calm can prevent a cascade of escalation.

Another angle worth noting: the public’s perspective. Community trust often rides on how incidents are handled. When force is exercised with care and transparency, it reinforces trust rather than eroding it. So the standards aren’t just about compliance; they’re about safer neighborhoods and more confident interactions in daily life.

Practical takeaways for learners and future professionals

• Remember the core criterion: excessive force = more force than necessary or reasonable for the situation.

• When in doubt, opt for de-escalation first. It’s not weakness; it’s strategic safety.

• If a scenario involves a weapon or imminent danger, know your escalation ladder—and stay on it.

• After an incident, document clearly and seek feedback. The record matters for understanding, accountability, and improvement.

• Stay curious about policy changes and real-world cases. They’re the best teachers for safe, effective practice.

A closing thought

The line between firm control and excessive force is thin and easy to cross in the heat of the moment. But with solid training, thoughtful reflection, and a commitment to safety and dignity, professionals can walk that line without stepping over it. If you’re studying this material, you’re not just memorizing a rule—you’re building judgment. And judgment—the right kind—keeps people safer, including you.

If you want a mental model to carry with you, think of force as a ladder: use presence and communication first, move up to non-physical controls, and only rise as far as needed. And if you ever wonder whether a move is justified, pause, reassess, and choose the path that protects everyone involved. In Ontario, that’s the standard that matters most.