The Definitive Guide to Physical Intervention

It is an unfortunate truth that sometimes verbal mediation and de-escalation tactics simply do not work. In instances wherein a person has reached a crisis point, there is often nothing that can be done to help them return to rationality. In such instances, the security operative’s primary focus switches from conflict resolution to the protection of the individual and those around them.

In this guide, we will examine the concept of physical intervention from the perspective of the modern security operative, highlighting alternatives to physical intervention and methods of staying safe, as well as exploring the key differences between self-defence and physical intervention.

What is Physical Intervention?

‘Physical intervention’ is a broad term that covers a wide range of possible actions (including, but not limited to, holding and restraint techniques). In the context of security work, the term refers to any physical action taken to coerce or restrict the movements of a violent, uncooperative, or otherwise unruly person.

Examples of physical intervention may include gently guiding an unruly patron off the premises, physically blocking a patron’s path, the application of restrictive holds and even forcible removal from the premises.

For further clarity, the term ‘physical intervention’ in this context refers only to formal techniques taught by qualified instructors during SIA training courses. Other methods of restraint, (such as martial arts techniques, wrestling moves, choke holds or similar) should never be used offensively by security operatives.

In cases wherein a physical intervention is necessary, it is important to keep the patron, as well as the operatives themselves, safe. Operatives must always avoid applying pressure to the patron’s neck, spine, vital organs, or other vulnerable parts of the body, as serious injury and even death can (and have) occurred from such practices.

Physical interventions are performed to prevent harm to patrons, venue staff, or operatives, and must only be taken when all other options have been exhausted, and withdrawal is either impossible or inappropriate.

A physical intervention should only ever be performed as a last resort, i.e., only after other, non-physical strategies (such as verbal de-escalation tactics) have failed or are about to fail.

Alternatives to Physical Intervention

Some environments and situations will be more volatile than others. Certain venues have a rough reputation among security operatives – and this is usually well earned! Nevertheless, the rules are the same no matter the job, venue, or environment.

Wherever possible, verbal intervention must always precede physical intervention. People can’t always be reasoned with, but it is a security operative’s duty (not to mention responsibility) to try wherever possible.

Verbal de-escalation is the surest way to reach the number one goal of all security work: keeping people safe. Everyone benefits from a successfully handled de-escalation, from the would-be attackers avoiding criminal charges to staff and patrons who may have been hurt, venue owners avoiding potential legal headaches and, of course, the security operatives themselves.

Aside from verbal interactions, there are many steps that can be taken in place of a physical intervention. These may include radioing for assistance, threatening to call the police, openly switching on a body-mounted camera (BWC), or the application of other non-aggressive tools.

Sometimes, explaining to a hostile patron that they are on camera, and that they will certainly be prosecuted if they take any further action is enough to convince the patron(s) to leave the venue voluntarily.

‘Hands off’ reactive strategies, to cite another option, involve a level of sleight-of-hand and trickery to achieve their ends. So-called ‘reactive strategies‘ such as these are used by carers who must respond to challenging behaviours exhibited by those in their care but are easily transferable to security work. As with security techniques and training, the goal is the safety of all concerned.

Distraction, redirection (i.e, talking about something else, making a joke, pointing out something that the patron may not have noticed), and seclusion (an adapted-for-security-work version of which involves offering the patron a private space to calm down and collect themselves) are all ‘hands off’ reactive strategies that can help those who have reached (or may be about to reach) a crisis point to calm down and rethink their actions.

Reducing the Risks

Even with the presence of non-physical options such as those described above, there are still occasions wherein a physical intervention is necessary. In such instances, it is vital that those performing the intervention, as well as its recipient(s), are kept safe.

There will always be risks associated with physical interventions, and, more broadly, with security work in general. The job of any security operative is to mitigate these risks to as great a degree as possible.

Thankfully, there are several strategies that can ensure extra safety during a physical intervention. The first, and by far the most basic, is to choose the least forceful intervention possible in any given situation. Remember that a security operative’s duty of care extends even to the recipient of the physical intervention.

The appropriate technique that carries the lowest potential for injury should always be the first choice. This technique (such as a restraint hold) should then be relinquished as soon as it is safe to do so, at which point, de-escalation techniques and verbal mediations should be resumed.

Operatives also have a duty to monitor their colleagues, challenging (and, where necessary, reporting) any reckless, dangerous, or overly aggressive behaviour displayed by them.

If emergency services are present at the scene, operative(s) should describe in detail the techniques used, as well as any difficulties that occurred during their application. This helps to mitigate any potential medical complications that the recipient might experience because of the intervention.

Obviously, avoiding dangerous holds such as neck restraints, ground restraints, and others is a must. When physical techniques are applied, operatives must constantly monitor the subject’s wellbeing and health, avoiding causing excessive harm.

The recipient must be able to breathe and should not be exhibiting signs of asphyxiation or cardiac arrest (such as chest pains, difficulty breathing, sweating, or nausea). If such signs are detected, the intervention must cease immediately, and medical attention be administered.

All incidents involving physical intervention must be recorded in the venue’s incident book and, where appropriate, be reported to management.

Self-Defence Vs. Physical Intervention

Although physical intervention may be correctly regarded as a form of self-defence in some situations, it is functionally much more than that.

Self-defence implies the existence of an attacker or threat against which one must ensure their safety. A physical intervention, however, should be carried out before the threat can truly present itself (or, failing that, shortly thereafter). It is, first and foremost, a pre-emptive measure aimed at restricting movement to prevent an attack.

This is a similar distinction to the one that some make between self-defence and martial arts. Martial arts training can undoubtedly be used for self-defence, but it usually works better in a competitive environment (i.e., a contest) than it does on the street. In a defensive context, most martial arts seek to eliminate the need for physical conflict entirely, rather than engaging in violence at all.

The best defence, as most of us know, is to stop a potentially violent situation from escalating in the first place.

The difference between a physical intervention and self-defence, however, runs deeper even than that. Defensive physical skills are, by definition, a set of tactics used to protect oneself from physical attack. A physical intervention, by contrast, involves impeding the would-be attacker’s ability to act in the first place. It’s about physically limiting their ability to attack, not responding to the attack itself.

Once an operative has been physically attacked, they will usually become engaged in self-defence. The avoidance of a potential attack through some means of restraint is a physical intervention. So, it is possible for a physical intervention to be a form of self-defence, yet at the same time for self-defence and physical intervention to exist as separate concepts, just as martial arts and self-defence do.

To sum up:

Self-Defence = Physically protecting oneself from an attack.

Physical intervention = Impeding another’s movement to prevent an attack.

Different Types of Physical Intervention

There are several different types of physical intervention.

Non-Restrictive Physical Interventions allow the would-be attacker the ability to remove themselves from the intervention. In these kinds of interventions, the patron retains the option to walk away and ‘save face’. Examples may include physically prompting or guiding the would-be assailant towards an exit or standing between them and an area they wish to enter.

Low Level Restrictive Physical Interventions involve adopting a light use of force to restrict or limit the patron’s movements. In most cases, the patron should not be harmed by light, but firm, physical contact that may be used to prevent them from striking other patrons, staff, or operatives.

Highly Restrictive Physical Interventions occur when the patron is becoming uncontrollable and has presented (or has begun to present) a significant threat to those around them. The goal is to severely limit the patron’s ability to move or fight. Although causing bodily harm should always be strenuously avoided, it is very possible that a struggling patron involved in a highly restrictive physical intervention will become injured during the process. These types of intervention are only to be used as a last resort in cases wherein an attack is clearly imminent or has already occurred.

De-Escalation Strategies

While we have covered many de-escalation strategies in greater detail elsewhere on the site (links below), we feel it is prudent to briefly discuss them here.

All de-escalation strategies rely on the person administering them to remain calm and relatively detached – objectivity, tempered with compassion, is the goal of all good mediation.

If the operative loses self-control, a bad situation becomes even more volatile, and everyone present is potentially in danger. It is therefore imperative to always remain calm.

It helps also to have a working understanding of anger. Anger is never born in a vacuum. It does not simply erupt from a person with neither rhyme nor reason (even if it can sometimes appear that way).

Any number of factors may cause a person to lash out. Anger can have many causes, including stress, emotional or physical pain, feeling threatened, lack of sleep, mental health issues, frustration, insecurity, distress, or feeling misinterpreted or misunderstood. Understanding that the patron isn’t angry simply because they are an unpleasant person is the first step towards regaining objectivity and discharging duties effectively. Many times, a person reacting in anger is, first and foremost, responding to pain.

Often, by listening to an angry person, and demonstrating empathy for their situation, an operative can diffuse a tense situation to everyone’s satisfaction.

It is also vital to practice active listening, which helps the patron to feel understood and respected, and is a highly effective technique for preventing violent outbursts.

New South Wales, Australia’s official government website offers the acronym LOWLINE to aid with active listening. It works like this,

Listen to the person and try to understand their concerns.
Offer small, reflective comments that show them you are paying attention.
Wait until the person has expressed their feelings before offering a response.
Look them in the eye while listening and speaking.
Incline your head, adopting a non-threatening posture.
Nod to confirm that you understand what they are saying.
Express empathy for the person and their situation.

Finally, an operative should always remember their training. Any SIA-licensed operative should be extensively trained in verbal de-escalation techniques, as well as conflict resolution and mediation. Whilst they are also trained in physical intervention techniques, if practiced properly, verbal de-escalation strategies should be far more commonly used.

The best way to ensure safety from violent incidents is to avoid violent incidents as much as possible. That’s why de-escalation techniques are so important, they literally save lives.