Use of force on a minor, an elderly person, or a person with apparent disability requires:
Explanation
Reasonableness under Graham v. Connor is fact-specific and considers all circumstances including the subject's physical condition, age, mental capacity, and apparent disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II, 42 U.S.C. §12132, and Title III places of public accommodation, §12182) also constrains how persons with disabilities are treated by entities receiving federal funds and is regularly applied in §1983 force litigation. Use of force may still be lawful in defense of self or others, but the calibration is more cautious. Options (a), (b), (d) misstate the analysis.
Law Reference: Cal. Penal Code §835a; Graham v. Connor; ADA Title II (42 U.S.C. §12132) and Title III (§12182)This topic, taught in full in the California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide. California Guard Card — Complete Study Guide (2026) — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California Guard Card (BSIS Security Guard) guide — PDF + EPUB, $9.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- Under BSIS regulations and BPC §7583.39, the security company (licensee) generally must:
- A guard encounters a person who appears to be in mental health crisis (disoriented, talking to unseen persons, no clear threat). The appropriate response is generally:
- Restraint techniques that compress the chest, neck, or place a subject prone with weight on their back for extended periods can cause positional asphyxia. Best practice and recent California training emphasize:
- Penal Code §835 distinguishes 'force' from 'restraint.' The proper relationship is:
- The so-called '21-foot rule' (Tueller drill) is best understood as:
- When confronted by multiple non-compliant subjects, the guard's force decision should consider:
Last reviewed: · editorial process