Why New DOJ Guidelines on Use of Force Matter to Security?

“The use of force must be both necessary and proportionate… Officers must constantly assess and reassess.” — one of the basic principles of law enforcement officials‘ use of force and firearms.

That’s not just advice for federal agents anymore; it’s the new measuring stick in courtrooms across the country. Whether you run a small patrol team or a multi-state security operation, you’re being compared to law enforcement standards you never signed up for. And the gap between what your guards are trained to do and what courts now expect could quietly be putting your entire business at risk.

The updated guidelines on the use of force place strict limits on how and when force can be used, with special attention paid to de-escalation, intervention, and accountability. While they were written for federal officers, they’re being cited in lawsuits against private security firms, especially when force goes too far. And suddenly, “reasonable force” doesn’t mean what it used to.

If you think this only affects cops, think again. Attorneys are using DOJ language to challenge your policies. Clients are asking tougher questions. And insurers? They’re watching too.

What’s Actually Changed and Why It Matters to Security Industry

You might not be a federal officer, but your courtroom standards are starting to look like theirs.

You might not be carrying out federal arrests, but when something goes wrong on a job site, the expectations being placed on your guards aren’t far off. The DOJ’s Use of Force policy goes far beyond just “don’t use excessive force”—it outlines how officers must think, act, and follow through. That same blueprint is now quietly becoming the standard by which private guards are judged, especially when litigation is involved.

DOJ Guideline UpdateWhat It MeansWhy It Matters to Private SecurityDe-escalation FirstMust attempt to defuse tension before using forceIf force is used too quickly, it’s seen as unjustified, even if lawfulBan on Chokeholds & No-KnockProhibited unless deadly force is necessaryTechniques still used by some firms can flag outdated or unsafe policiesDuty to InterveneOfficers must stop others from using excessive forceIgnoring misconduct—even passively—can create vicarious liabilityMandatory Incident ReportingMust document all uses of force clearly and promptlyWeak or missing reports leave firms exposed to lawsuits and claimsAffirmative Duty to Render AidMust provide medical care when force results in injuryDelayed or no aid after restraint or takedown is increasingly litigatedTraining RequirementsTraining must reflect the use-of-force policy and include de-escalationInsurers and courts will ask: “Can you prove your guard was trained on this?”Security Guard Charged in Shooting of Man Playing Pokémon Go: A Case Study

A late-night security patrol turned deadly when a routine encounter escalated into a fatal shooting, raising urgent questions about training, authority, and accountability in private security.

Background

On January 26, 2017, in Chesapeake, Virginia, 60-year-old Jiansheng Chen was fatally shot by Johnathan Cromwell, a 21-year-old private security guard employed by Citywide Protection Services, Inc. Chen had driven into the River Walk clubhouse parking area late at night, reportedly while playing the mobile game Pokémon Go.

Cromwell, on patrol, blocked Chen’s van, exited his vehicle, yelled “Stop,” and fired multiple shots. Chen (who spoke no English) was struck five times, including four times in the chest.

The shooting sparked widespread public outrage and community demands for justice. Cromwell turned himself in and was charged with second-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Problem

The incident revealed several critical failings in the operation and oversight of private security services:

• Excessive Use of Force: Cromwell used lethal force in a situation that, based on evidence, posed no immediate threat.
• Lack of Proportionality: Chen was unarmed, seated in his vehicle, and attempting to leave when shot—calling into question the rationale of self-defense.
• Training Gaps: Cromwell’s response did not reflect appropriate use-of-force de-escalation protocols, especially for non-law enforcement personnel.
• Inadequate Surveillance: The only security camera on-site was not functional, leaving critical gaps in evidence and oversight.

Cromwell’s actions were judged against standards mirroring U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) policies, which emphasize that deadly force must be a last resort, proportional, and justified by an immediate threat to life.

Solution

Based on the evidence and investigative findings, the Chesapeake Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office filed criminal charges against Cromwell. While the private security firm claimed self-defense, prosecutors determined the use of force was unjustified. Chen’s family, supported by legal counsel and a vocal community, praised the charges as a meaningful step toward justice.

Although the River Walk community had only contracted for unarmed patrol services, Cromwell was legally armed under Virginia law. This disconnect between contracted expectations and real-world enforcement authority raised important questions about risk, regulation, and communication between property owners and security providers.

Reflection

This case underscores a pressing issue for the private security industry: private guards must not operate under a false sense of law enforcement authority. Cromwell’s use of deadly force–against an unarmed, non-threatening civilian–revealed the dangers of poorly enforced use-of-force standards and inadequate situational training.

Aligning security company protocols with DOJ-style accountability standards is not only a legal safeguard but an ethical imperative. As this case illustrates, guards must be trained to assess risk proportionally, de-escalate where possible, and understand the legal limits of their authority. Firms must ensure consistent oversight, clear contractual terms regarding armament, and reliable equipment–including surveillance systems–to maintain transparency and public trust.

What’s at Stake for Your Firm (and What to Fix First)

When force makes headlines, it’s often the security company (not the guard) left picking up the pieces. The DOJ policy isn’t just a manual for officers–it’s becoming a measuring stick for anyone hired to “keep order.” And when things go wrong, security firms aren’t judged by what’s written in their contracts. They’re judged by what their guards did—or failed to do.

Here’s where you should be looking at:

Operations

• Update use-of-force policies to reflect de-escalation-first language
• Require scenario-based de-escalation training (with proof of completion)
• Clarify protocols around medical aid and duty to intervene
• Audit post-incident reporting practices…make sure nothing gets missed
• Standardize incident response across all job sites

Legal Exposure

• Review previous force incidents–especially “minor” ones swept under the rug
• Define legal responsibility in all vendor/subcontractor agreements
• Train supervisors to document and address complaints immediately
• Align internal policy wording with federal/state legal expectations
• Keep a litigation-prevention checklist per contract/client site

Public Perception

• Assume every guard interaction is being recorded (train accordingly)
• Ban high-risk restraint tactics, even if technically legal
• Have a media statement ready before you need one
• Monitor local and national trends in force-related lawsuits
• Engage with clients on reputational risk–they care more than ever

Compliance & Documentation

• Keep signed copies of all use-of-force training records
• Log and archive all incident reports. No gaps, no excuses
• Track continuing education for armed guards
• Conduct annual policy reviews and internal audits
• Ensure supervisors can locate relevant policies immediately if needed

People & Culture

• Prioritize mental health check-ins for frontline staff
• Promote guards based on conduct, not just seniority
• Reward calm, well-documented conflict resolution—not just “tough” response
• Create a clear whistleblower policy for internal misconduct
• Set the tone from the top: professionalism beats brute force

Fix It Before It Fails: A 5-Step Action Plan for Security Firms

When force incidents happen, the worst time to check your policy is after the lawsuit has already landed on your desk. You don’t need generic advice…you need real fixes you can put into motion now.

These five steps are designed for security firms under growing pressure from clients, insurers, and courts. Use them as an internal blueprint before that next use-of-force report becomes a legal liability.

Step 1: Audit and Update Your Use-of-Force Policy

Start by comparing your current use-of-force protocol with the DOJ’s policy. Do you emphasize de-escalation before physical intervention? Do you ban high-risk techniques like chokeholds? Does your policy mention a duty to intervene or render aid? If not, you’re behind the legal trend—and potentially out of step with what juries and insurers now expect.

Step 2: Make De-escalation Training Mandatory And Traceable

Every guard, regardless of experience, should complete updated de-escalation training that mirrors DOJ language. This includes non-lethal tactics, verbal control, and post-incident protocols. Just as important: keep signed, dated training records and test results on file. If you can’t prove it, it didn’t happen.

Step 3: Review Contracts for Force-Related Gaps

Too many firms overlook how vague force expectations are in client contracts. Are your guards expected to intervene in fights? Are they allowed to physically detain shoplifters? Spell it out—and confirm your contract indemnifies your firm if a guard acts within defined policy. A contract that’s silent on force is a contract that exposes you.

Step 4: Get a Legal and Insurance Review

Have your attorney cross-check your revised SOPs and contract language to avoid common liability traps. Then, schedule a policy review with El Dorado Insurance. They’ll help you match your documentation and training to what carriers are now requiring–especially for armed assignments or high-risk posts.

Step 5: Prepare for the Camera (Because It’s Already Rolling)

Assume every incident will be recorded and potentially clipped for social media or court. Train guards not just on physical tactics but on how they look and speak under stress. Include modules on tone, posture, and post-incident behavior. Also, decide now how you’ll handle footage requests and release policies before your first viral moment.

Don’t Wait for a Lawsuit to Rewrite Your Policy

Federal use-of-force standards are setting the tone, even for private security. Whether or not you’re held to the DOJ’s rules directly, courts and clients are already treating them as the baseline. Staying ahead of these expectations isn’t just about legal compliance—it protects your team, your contracts, and your ability to get insured. The smart firms are updating now. The others will wish they had.