4.2 Protection of Others & Property

Protection of another person

Delaware Code Title 11, Section 465 addresses force used to protect a third person. The actor must have the reasonable beliefs the statute requires about the circumstances, the person being protected, and the necessity of intervention. A guard cannot lawfully join a fight simply because one participant is an employee, friend, or client. First identify who is applying unlawful force, whether protection is immediately necessary, and whether intervention creates greater danger.

Practical options include calling 911, giving clear stop commands, directing uninvolved people away, creating a safe escape route, using barriers, and requesting trained backup. Hands-on force is one possible response only when justified by the actual threat. If both people disengage, the protective need changes. If facts are unclear, observation and separation may be safer than choosing a side based on appearance.

Protection of property is a different rule

Section 466 addresses force for protection of property in circumstances such as trespass, burglary, theft, or criminal mischief. The guard must reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the unlawful interference. As a general statutory condition, the actor must first request the person to stop, unless the actor reasonably believes a request would be useless, would create substantial danger, or would allow substantial harm before it could be made effectively.

That request rule reflects a basic security principle: clear direction can end many property conflicts without physical force. State the boundary or rule—“This area is closed; leave through the marked exit”—and allow compliance when safety permits. Record the direction and response. A silent rush into physical contact can create needless risk and make the reason for action harder to defend.

Life outranks replaceable property

Deadly force for protection of property is governed by exceptionally narrow statutory conditions. Ordinary shoplifting, vandalism, trespass, or a fleeing person with merchandise does not become a deadly-force situation merely because the property is valuable. An employer cannot authorize what the law forbids. A guard should not fire a weapon, use a vehicle as a weapon, apply dangerous restraint, or create a lethal fall simply to prevent loss.

If a property incident also creates a threat to a person, analyze the threat to the person under the appropriate self-protection or protection-of-others rule. Do not use the property label to hide the real issue. For example:

Agency and limits

A guard acts as the property possessor's agent only within assigned duties. Confirm that the owner or authorized manager actually wants access denied or permission withdrawn. Avoid resolving private ownership disputes, domestic disputes, landlord-tenant questions, or labor conflicts through force. When competing claims make authority uncertain, stabilize the location and request management or police assistance.

Post orders may impose stricter limits: no pursuit, no physical removal, no touching customer property, supervisor approval before contact, or mandatory police response. These limits are part of professional performance. A client demanding an unlawful shortcut does not protect the guard from personal, criminal, licensing, or civil consequences.

Response and documentation

After an event, identify what was being protected. State the observed unlawful interference, any request to desist, the person's response, why a request was not made if an exception was relied upon, the available alternatives, force used, point when force ended, injuries, aid, notifications, and evidence. Separate property value estimates from what you personally know.

Use the sequence identify—request—reassess—respond—report. Identify whether people or property face harm; request that property interference stop when the law and safety call for it; reassess the current need; respond within the correct legal rule; and report objective facts. The presence of property may explain a guard's attention, but it never makes punishment a legitimate objective.