Which two groups have justification to use physical force according to legal standards?

The justification for the use of physical force in legal standards primarily applies to peace officers (such as police) and private citizens under specific circumstances. Peace officers are authorized to enforce the law and may need to use physical force when apprehending suspects or protecting themselves and others from imminent harm while performing their official duties. Their actions are governed by both statutory laws and departmental policies.

Private citizens, on the other hand, may invoke the standard of self-defense. The legal framework allows individuals to use reasonable physical force to protect themselves from immediate threats of violence, as long as the response is proportionate to the level of threat they are facing. This right is recognized to ensure that individuals can defend themselves effectively in dangerous situations.

In contrast, judges and jurors typically do not have any reason to use physical force in their roles, as their responsibilities are centered on adjudicating legal matters and delivering verdicts. Government officials and security guards may have different levels of authority, but their use of physical force is often not as broadly justified under the law as that of peace officers and private citizens. Emergency responders and healthcare professionals are more focused on providing care and assistance, and their training does not generally include the legal justification for engaging in physical force. Therefore, the combination of peace officers