Security Questions!

[Sud]

Hi guys. I'm new to this site. My name is Sud and I'm doing some research on the first person views of security guards. I'm writing this paper for school (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on) and I figure the views and attitudes of security guards isn't exactly well documented. I want to go in the direction mainly regarding the needs and fears of security guards. I go to the University of California, Irvine. I got most of my answers by reading the other threads but I had a few questions. I thank you in advance for your answers and opinions!


What is the one (or many) fear(s) of your job?

What is the biggest problem that you encounter on a daily basis?

Were you ever in a position you had to physically subdue somebody? Did you have any issues/reservations? How did you feel prior to and after?

If you had to physically subdue someone, what tools would you want to have with you?


Thanks again!

[zm88]

Hi guys. I'm new to this site. My name is Sud and I'm doing some research on the first person views of security guards. I'm writing this paper for school (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on) and I figure the views and attitudes of security guards isn't exactly well documented. I want to go in the direction mainly regarding the needs and fears of security guards. I go to the University of California, Irvine. I got most of my answers by reading the other threads but I had a few questions. I thank you in advance for your answers and opinions!


What is the one (or many) fear(s) of your job?

What is the biggest problem that you encounter on a daily basis?

Were you ever in a position you had to physically subdue somebody? Did you have any issues/reservations? How did you feel prior to and after?

If you had to physically subdue someone, what tools would you want to have with you?


Thanks again!

Eh i'll bite.....

1. My main fear is seeing one of my staff (more then myself) get hurt while working. We've grown close since i came back and it's like seeing a family member get hurt.

2. Although violence is what we typically deal with, my biggest problem is interference from the non-security side of management. I'm given alot of freedom with how i run my department, as oposed to those in the skate dept or snackbar or entertainment, but every now and then when they decide to overrule a decision i made it pisses me off. People who don't understand what we deal with daily and then act as if their decision was the best.

3. All the time. Sometimes prior you feel nervous depending on the situation. 2 people fighting is alot calmer then when you see 10+ kids jumping another(rare but more frequent a few years ago). You feel very aware, you almost get tunnel vision but thats when you can get caught off guard so i try to avoid it. Afterwards, a sense of relief, sometimes happy that you just were able to get thru it and not get hurt (or hurt too serious)

4. Well i don't want anytrhing (offensive/defensive) that could be taken from one of my staff and used against us or a patron so nothing except for our brain, mouth, eyes, ears and hands. Its very important to train your staff properly and practice all procedures and techniques so it becomes a reflex. Most situations i've encountered could have been difused alot quicker and wouldn't have had to be hands on if the person opened their ears and shut their mouth.

[SecTrainer]

May I chime in and ask responders to identify the type of venue where you work?

Sud - zm88, who responded above, provides security for a skating facility that has a large population of juveniles and young adults, so his issues will be somewhat different than those of someone else, for instance, who provides security for an industrial facility or a residential community. In your paper, you might want to differentiate the answers you receive by the type of facility where the respondent works.

[HotelSecurity]

I think you also have to identify where the person is located. Here in Canada Security Guards generally are not armed. We deal less with enforcing laws & more with enforcing rules and regualtions & deal with safety issues. A lot of members of this forum don't think we should be called Security. But that's what we are, here!

My biggest fears have always been in employment issues. Is a contract company going to take us over? Hotels can & do operate without a formal Security Department.

In my over 30 years of experience in this industry I have been involved in physical confrontations. How did I feel? Banged my my knee restling with someone once & was in pain for over a year :D

Tools? I do have access to an expandle baton but as mentioned at the begining this part of Security in my line of work is very rare so I rarely carry it. I do carry handcuffs but in 30 years have used them maybe 10 times. I do wish that we in Canada would be allowed to carry pepper spray.

[zm88]

May I chime in and ask responders to identify the type of venue where you work?

Sud - zm88, who responded above, provides security for a skating facility that has a large population of juveniles and young adults, so his issues will be somewhat different than those of someone else, for instance, who provides security for an industrial facility or a residential community. In your paper, you might want to differentiate the answers you receive by the type of facility where the respondent works.

sectrainer good catch, i knew i left something out. I work hands-on unarmed in boston,ma.

[Sud]

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. I didn't think of differentiating types of security jobs initially, but now I will. Good ideas.

It seems like physical altercations are part of the job. Do you think having a baton or carrying pepper spray is more for peace of mind? Or as a last resort? Or a first?

And also...what techniques or tools are there to restrain who is rowdy and is resisting? Are they pain compliant (pepper spray) or more like restraining techniques (arm moves or hand cuffs)?

[zm88]

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. I didn't think of differentiating types of security jobs initially, but now I will. Good ideas.

It seems like physical altercations are part of the job. Do you think having a baton or carrying pepper spray is more for peace of mind? Or as a last resort? Or a first?

And also...what techniques or tools are there to restrain who is rowdy and is resisting? Are they pain compliant (pepper spray) or more like restraining techniques (arm moves or hand cuffs)?

A defensive tool should not be used to mke someone comply unless they are presenting an iminent danger to yourself or others IMO. alooot of cowboys out there, but the minute you pull something out (ecspecially in a crowd) there's gonna be a person or more that will want to get it from ya. thats why we don't carry anything at my sight, the risk is too high. as i said talking the aggressor down should be a first option, my sight deals with youth so our methods are more "therupeudic" (sp?) then a bouncer at a bar. when something happens with a kid at my job chances are i know their first name and have some knowledge of what is going on in there life. Unless it's an active fight in progress im gonna spend a few minutes talking to them to calm them down an neutralize the situation. having all those "tools" is great, but it means nothing if thats all you have to rely on. as for restraint techniques pain compliance is a no no for my guys, we use restraints similar to the states dys staff.

[SecTrainer]

A defensive tool should not be used to mke someone comply unless they are presenting an iminent danger to yourself or others IMO. alooot of cowboys out there, but the minute you pull something out (ecspecially in a crowd) there's gonna be a person or more that will want to get it from ya. thats why we don't carry anything at my sight, the risk is too high. as i said talking the aggressor down should be a first option, my sight deals with youth so our methods are more "therupeudic" (sp?) then a bouncer at a bar. when something happens with a kid at my job chances are i know their first name and have some knowledge of what is going on in there life. Unless it's an active fight in progress im gonna spend a few minutes talking to them to calm them down an neutralize the situation. having all those "tools" is great, but it means nothing if thats all you have to rely on. as for restraint techniques pain compliance is a no no for my guys, we use restraints similar to the states dys staff.

zm88 - do you happen to have a reference for the DYS restraint policies and procedures?

[Mr. Chaple]

You may want to read Observe and Report (http://www.amazon.com/Observe-Report-Michael-Oden/dp/097855096X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288893613&sr=1-3) by Michael Odin, it is full of interviews with security guards.

[zm88]

zm88 - do you happen to have a reference for the DYS restraint policies and procedures?

Im on my phone so i can't link it on here. A good friend of mine was a worker and showed us 2 simple hold similar to a bear hug and another arm lock that are less likely to cause harm (shoulder dislocations, broken/fractured limbs) durring restraint. Mass.gov is the states website and all my policies are modeled after the pdf's on dys website. I think its mass.gov/dys. I've made my own changes so it would fit in more seeing how we are not a locked facility, most of our job is talking to the kids and when shtf safely removing them, isolating them and then releaseing them on their own, to guardian or bpd.

[SecTrainer]

Im on my phone so i can't link it on here. A good friend of mine was a worker and showed us 2 simple hold similar to a bear hug and another arm lock that are less likely to cause harm (shoulder dislocations, broken/fractured limbs) durring restraint. Mass.gov is the states website and all my policies are modeled after the pdf's on dys website. I think its mass.gov/dys. I've made my own changes so it would fit in more seeing how we are not a locked facility, most of our job is talking to the kids and when shtf safely removing them, isolating them and then releaseing them on their own, to guardian or bpd.

Thank you, sir!

[zm88]

Thank you, sir!

Your very welcome sir

[Sud]

Thanks zm88, sectrainer, and hotelsecurity! You guys/girls rock!

[amaygates111]

Hi guys. I'm new to this site. My name is Sud and I'm doing some research on the first person views of security guards. I'm writing this paper for school (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on) and I figure the views and attitudes of security guards isn't exactly well documented. I want to go in the direction mainly regarding the needs and fears of security guards. I go to the University of California, Irvine. I got most of my answers by reading the other threads but I had a few questions. I thank you in advance for your answers and opinions!


What is the one (or many) fear(s) of your job?

What is the biggest problem that you encounter on a daily basis?

Were you ever in a position you had to physically subdue somebody? Did you have any issues/reservations? How did you feel prior to and after?

If you had to physically subdue someone, what tools would you want to have with you?


Thanks again!

Your last question can be answered as

Almost all Security guards carry flashlights and two-way radios at a minimum. If they are in a position that might require a use of force or entail arrests, they carry handcuffs and a baton. Other equipment would include pepper spray, stun guns, body armor (especially if armed), proper uniform and footwear, foul weather gear, and metal detectors. The employer usually furnishes the equipment, except for firearms.

[FEDSEC]

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. I didn't think of differentiating types of security jobs initially, but now I will. Good ideas.

It seems like physical altercations are part of the job. Do you think having a baton or carrying pepper spray is more for peace of mind? Or as a last resort? Or a first?

And also...what techniques or tools are there to restrain who is rowdy and is resisting? Are they pain compliant (pepper spray) or more like restraining techniques (arm moves or hand cuffs)?

I am going to join in on this
PERSONALLY,

I believe that carrying Restraints, Collapsible Baton and other gear definitely gives you peace of mind as you KNOW that you are better equiped (provided that you are Properly Trained).

I wouldnt say that it is first resort however by carrying this equipment and having it visible provides a deterrent. I cant help but think everytime I walk past some Bank gaurd (up here in canada) that has NO equipment (sometime they got there cell on thier dollar store leather belt) and a nice bright YELLOW reflective jacket.. Really hes providing security? MY ASS I think its more like they just want a discount on insurance.

Up here in Canada(where I am at) we take a 40 hour course on PPCT (Pressure Point Control Tactics) and these do help controling people. Along side with your equipment of your choosing(Handcuffs, Batons,Flexi Cuffs).

Not that I am aware of.. are we allowed to carry Pepper Spray (OC). Only ones I know about that are is Police and Peace Officers. However In a mall area, or area with alot of guests I wouldnt want it anyways unless it was one of the gels ones. The chance of someone other than the one intended getting a woof of it would be to high then you got a law suit.

Any other questions

[HotelSecurity]

I am going to join in on this
PERSONALLY,

I believe that carrying Restraints, Collapsible Baton and other gear definitely gives you peace of mind as you KNOW that you are better equiped (provided that you are Properly Trained).

I wouldnt say that it is first resort however by carrying this equipment and having it visible provides a deterrent. I cant help but think everytime I walk past some Bank gaurd (up here in canada) that has NO equipment (sometime they got there cell on thier dollar store leather belt) and a nice bright YELLOW reflective jacket.. Really hes providing security? MY ASS I think its more like they just want a discount on insurance.

Up here in Canada(where I am at) we take a 40 hour course on PPCT (Pressure Point Control Tactics) and these do help controling people. Along side with your equipment of your choosing(Handcuffs, Batons,Flexi Cuffs).

Not that I am aware of.. are we allowed to carry Pepper Spray (OC). Only ones I know about that are is Police and Peace Officers. However In a mall area, or area with alot of guests I wouldnt want it anyways unless it was one of the gels ones. The chance of someone other than the one intended getting a woof of it would be to high then you got a law suit.

Any other questions

You are allowed to carry Pepper Spray to defend yourself against dogs & other animals but not against humans.

BTW do you work for Flexi Cuffs? Do you get paid by them everytime you mention them in one of your posts?:p

[CTEXSEC1]

What is the one (or many) fear(s) of your job?

For a while, my biggest fear was loss of life. I worked a contract in a rough area, unarmed, and was concerned about my physical safety from day one. It turned out to be my best and most interesting contract ever. Currently, I am concerned about losing licensing. I work mostly in a bar and am subject to a whole new set of regulations and can be held liable for the actions of co-workers. I am also concerned about the safety of my co-workers, many of whom have become good friends.


What is the biggest problem that you encounter on a daily basis?

Irate, intoxicated persons.


Were you ever in a position you had to physically subdue somebody?

Repeatedly.


Did you have any issues/reservations?

Initially, I was foolishly concerned with legal issues when restraining a subject and got injured. After that, I do what it takes to make sure everyone else is safe.


How did you feel prior to and after?

I am usually a little shaky, but I feel fine afterwards. I have never questioned or debated whether or not I should have restrained someone, only if there was a faster, more effective, way to stop them. I learn from those mistakes and I always watch the video after an incident to learn.


If you had to physically subdue someone, what tools would you want to have with you?

Aside from the obvious, I would want a video/audio recorder and a partner. Being able to record the incident is helpful not only for training/after-action reports, but also in the event of charges being filed. For example, I was attempting to restrain a bar patron who was known to carry a knife (totally legal inside our club) who kept saying "I am going to kill you" while I was trying to restrain/remove him. He tried to sue the bar. Any of that conversation on audio would have helped our case immensely.

As far as having a partner. Sometimes it is easier to restrain someone if there are two people holding them down/watching each other's backs.

I also like using a Kubaton or Mini-Mag Lite when restraining/detaining/disarming a person. I do not use them as striking tools, they allow me to put more pressure on them in the event that they have a dangerous weapon or will not cooperate.

[CTEXSEC1]

It seems like physical altercations are part of the job. Do you think having a baton or carrying pepper spray is more for peace of mind? Or as a last resort? Or a first?

I think Oc/batons are very site-dependent. I have worked sites without them and wished they were available before. I have also seen them be very ineffective against a subject. My most effective use of OC was against dogs, really. Or younger delinquents. With them, I don't have to do any more than remove it from its pouch. Now that I work in a bar, it is not allowed because of the enclosed space, so I have to rely solely on my hands and my co-workers providing back-up.


And also...what techniques or tools are there to restrain who is rowdy and is resisting? Are they pain compliant (pepper spray) or more like restraining techniques (arm moves or hand cuffs)?

I almost always use a "chicken wing" hold to gain compliance. It is pretty easy to use since most of those I deal with are intoxicated. When they throw a punch or try to grab me, I grab on to any part of their arm, lock the wrist and put them to the ground while bringing their arm up behind their back, placing the wrist roughly between the shoulder blades. While they can still move, it is painful to do so. I then wait for back-up and we basically isolate a different limb and remove the subject. Then the PD takes over.

[iraqvetwpb]

Hi guys. I'm new to this site. My name is Sud and I'm doing some research on the first person views of security guards. I'm writing this paper for school (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on) and I figure the views and attitudes of security guards isn't exactly well documented. I want to go in the direction mainly regarding the needs and fears of security guards. I go to the University of California, Irvine. I got most of my answers by reading the other threads but I had a few questions. I thank you in advance for your answers and opinions!


What is the one (or many) fear(s) of your job?

What is the biggest problem that you encounter on a daily basis?

Were you ever in a position you had to physically subdue somebody? Did you have any issues/reservations? How did you feel prior to and after?

If you had to physically subdue someone, what tools would you want to have with you?


Thanks again!

Wow, for a college student, you have much to learn. For example, your statement. (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on)

Security guards were the first form of military and then law enforcement. Here in the US there was a security agency that was one of the first who was also considered private law enforcement, I would tell you who they were, but then you wouldn't have to do the research.

Security is different in every state as far as the authority they have and training required. You have security guarding this natins vital interest. You have security with law enforcement authority patrolling private communities and areas of some cities.

The history of security guards in this country is as old as the country itself. It has undergone many changes. In some places it is well respected, in others it is not.

The main difference between security and law enforcement, is that security is proactive and Law enforcement is reactive. But those lines are getting blured as in many places security has to be both.

Private security agencies have also transformed into private militaries in some places. Currently there is a private navy in the works.

I would suggest you research the subject further, then come back and ask some thought out questions.

Asking why officers carry some of the equipment they carry isn't what I would call a thought out question. You could have answered that yourself if you would have just thought about it. In most states to carry those items we need the same classes and certifications the police have. We work the same areas, deal with the same people. We carry for the same reason the police do and are held to the same restrictions as to when and how we use them.

Do some better research, don't just go on threads asking questions.

Here is a brief history which you would have found had you looked. There is a lot more on this subject you stated there is little data on. I have some contacts out at the University of California, maybe I should give them a call and have them read this.

Security guard - History
The vigiles were Roman soldiers assigned to guard the city of Rome, often credited as the origin of both security personnel and police. There have been night watchmen since at least the Middle Ages in Europe; walled cities of ancient times also had watchmen.

It was a security guard, Frank Wills, who detected the Watergate burglars, ultimately leading to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon as President of the United States.

Christoph Meili is another security guard who became a whistle blower in 1997. While Meili was a night guard at a Swiss bank he found out that the bank destroyed records of holocaust victims whose money the bank was supposed to return their heirs. Christoph Meili managed to get some records out of the bank and to pass it through to a Jewish organization, which immediately filed a complaint with the police against the bank. The Swiss authorities reacted with an arrest warrant against Meili, who was able to escape the country. Meili and his family received political asylum in the United States.

Derogatory terms for security guards include rent-a-cops, toy cops and imitation bacon (after the derogatory slang "pig" for "policeman"). Some people do not like security guards because their duties include enforcing rules and serving as a symbol of authority. Others believe that security guards are "wanna-be" or would-be police officers, or have had bad experiences with security guards in the past. In recent years many private security companies have tried to make the term "security officer" standard for this occupation, feeling the term "guard" to be somewhat demeaning. (This is similar to the movement to redesignate "prison guards" as "prison officers", "correctional officers" or "corrections officers".)

[CTEXSEC1]

Wow, for a college student, you have much to learn. For example, your statement. (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on)
I would suggest you research the subject further, then come back and ask some thought out questions.


Do some better research, don't just go on threads asking questions.



Erm...the OP was clearly asking for our thoughts and fears, etc...

Research...almost as good as reading the OP:


Hi guys. I'm new to this site. My name is Sud and I'm doing some research on the first person views of security guards. I'm writing this paper for school (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on) and I figure the views and attitudes of security guards isn't exactly well documented. I want to go in the direction mainly regarding the needs and fears of security guards. I go to the University of California, Irvine. I got most of my answers by reading the other threads but I had a few questions. I thank you in advance for your answers and opinions!
!

[ONLP]

Hi guys. I'm new to this site. My name is Sud and I'm doing some research on the first person views of security guards. I'm writing this paper for school (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on) and I figure the views and attitudes of security guards isn't exactly well documented. I want to go in the direction mainly regarding the needs and fears of security guards. I go to the University of California, Irvine. I got most of my answers by reading the other threads but I had a few questions. I thank you in advance for your answers and opinions!


What is the one (or many) fear(s) of your job?

What is the biggest problem that you encounter on a daily basis?

Were you ever in a position you had to physically subdue somebody? Did you have any issues/reservations? How did you feel prior to and after?

If you had to physically subdue someone, what tools would you want to have with you?


Thanks again!

1. injuries

2. company policies. If we do not have selection of the merchandise on video we cannot make the stop. That crackhead did not bring in those 10 video games just to rip them open, shove the discs down his pants and then hide the empty packaging.

3. more times then i could count. I have no issues doing this it is part of the job. besides the adrenaline rush I feel the same as I did before.

4. Handcuffs and someone to call the cops.

I work Loss Prevention for a national retailer

[5423]

I think Sud's long gone (the OP); last logged-in 11/04/10. Interesting discussion, though...

[FEDSEC]

You are allowed to carry Pepper Spray to defend yourself against dogs & other animals but not against humans.

BTW do you work for Flexi Cuffs? Do you get paid by them everytime you mention them in one of your posts?:p

Here in canada you cant carry "pepper spray" they have Dog Spray that is legal as long as you define to a cop that its intention is to stop a dog from attacking as soon as you mention it is for defense or such .. MIGHT AS WELL BEND OVER

I dont work for Flexi Cuffs (my brand is the ASPs and I love them) .. However ever walk someone down in flexi's wow the looks people give the guy and you PRICELESS ... If I got paid everytime I mentioned thier name I would be doing this

FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs FLEXI CUFFs
because Im :cool: lol

But with the Dog Spray it KINDA works on people however you want to do a good joke to a buddy (WHICH I DONT RECOMMEND BUT I AM JUST SAYING) go to mc dicks get a large frys spray that crap all over the fries and go up to your buddy and trick him into eating it... It isnt recommended however usually you get a good laugh (takes about 10-15 mins to wear off).

:D

[N. A. Corbier]

...

You realize that there's a chemical in bear spray that is injurious to humans, right? And I'm not taking about the OC. I don't know why its in there, but the warning label gives a real reason why not to use it on humans.

Its not pepper spray. Don't use it as such.

[SecTrainer]

...

You realize that there's a chemical in bear spray that is injurious to humans, right? And I'm not taking about the OC. I don't know why its in there, but the warning label gives a real reason why not to use it on humans.

Its not pepper spray. Don't use it as such.

Some bear sprays are nothing more than hotter (20%) OC, but the problem even with these is that the delivery volume, range and pattern are not appropriate for our work, and your decon wipes won't work very well on it either. Don't ever get caught (on the job) using something that has warning labels saying not for use on humans. Do I have some for home defense? I just couldn't say....

[Nauticus]

Wow, for a college student, you have much to learn. For example, your statement. (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on)

Security guards were the first form of military and then law enforcement. Here in the US there was a security agency that was one of the first who was also considered private law enforcement, I would tell you who they were, but then you wouldn't have to do the research.

Security is different in every state as far as the authority they have and training required. You have security guarding this natins vital interest. You have security with law enforcement authority patrolling private communities and areas of some cities.

The history of security guards in this country is as old as the country itself. It has undergone many changes. In some places it is well respected, in others it is not.

The main difference between security and law enforcement, is that security is proactive and Law enforcement is reactive. But those lines are getting blured as in many places security has to be both.

Private security agencies have also transformed into private militaries in some places. Currently there is a private navy in the works.

I would suggest you research the subject further, then come back and ask some thought out questions.

Asking why officers carry some of the equipment they carry isn't what I would call a thought out question. You could have answered that yourself if you would have just thought about it. In most states to carry those items we need the same classes and certifications the police have. We work the same areas, deal with the same people. We carry for the same reason the police do and are held to the same restrictions as to when and how we use them.

Do some better research, don't just go on threads asking questions.

Here is a brief history which you would have found had you looked. There is a lot more on this subject you stated there is little data on. I have some contacts out at the University of California, maybe I should give them a call and have them read this.

Security guard - History
The vigiles were Roman soldiers assigned to guard the city of Rome, often credited as the origin of both security personnel and police. There have been night watchmen since at least the Middle Ages in Europe; walled cities of ancient times also had watchmen.

It was a security guard, Frank Wills, who detected the Watergate burglars, ultimately leading to the resignation of Richard M. Nixon as President of the United States.

Christoph Meili is another security guard who became a whistle blower in 1997. While Meili was a night guard at a Swiss bank he found out that the bank destroyed records of holocaust victims whose money the bank was supposed to return their heirs. Christoph Meili managed to get some records out of the bank and to pass it through to a Jewish organization, which immediately filed a complaint with the police against the bank. The Swiss authorities reacted with an arrest warrant against Meili, who was able to escape the country. Meili and his family received political asylum in the United States.

Derogatory terms for security guards include rent-a-cops, toy cops and imitation bacon (after the derogatory slang "pig" for "policeman"). Some people do not like security guards because their duties include enforcing rules and serving as a symbol of authority. Others believe that security guards are "wanna-be" or would-be police officers, or have had bad experiences with security guards in the past. In recent years many private security companies have tried to make the term "security officer" standard for this occupation, feeling the term "guard" to be somewhat demeaning. (This is similar to the movement to redesignate "prison guards" as "prison officers", "correctional officers" or "corrections officers".)

Not always true at all. Yes, police are reactive, but security is not always proactive.

[HotelSecurity]

Not always true at all. Yes, police are reactive, but security is not always proactive.

You didn't keep reading: "The main difference between security and law enforcement, is that security is proactive and Law enforcement is reactive. But those lines are getting blured as in many places security has to be both."

[HotelSecurity]

"Security is proactive and Law enforcement is reactive".

Step out of your role as a Security professional & step into the role of a businessman that pays for private security. Is the above not your preference? Wouldn't you rather your security force was preventing crime rather than catching criminals after a crime had been committed, having to go to court etc?

[CTEXSEC1]

"Security is proactive and Law enforcement is reactive".

Step out of your role as a Security professional & step into the role of a businessman that pays for private security. Is the above not your preference? Wouldn't you rather your security force was preventing crime rather than catching criminals after a crime had been committed, having to go to court etc?

Exactly. The big purpose of having us on a site is to stop/slow crime on that site. People see the officer walking around with the badge/gun/radio/flashlight/death ray and should be dissuaded from criminal activity.

[SecTrainer]

Not always true at all. Yes, police are reactive, but security is not always proactive.

The police engage in a number of proactive (preventive) activities such as community-based or problem-oriented policing, fielding school officers, crime prevention officers performing property assessments, overseeing neighborhood watch activities, etc. The practice of crime analysis within the police agency has the objective of planning effective preventive action as one of its primary missions.

By the same token, security people are often required to react to a variety of emerging situations from alarm signals to trespassers to an employee who forgot his ID badge to a car that someone parked in the fire lane to a dispute between employees....etc. Security can be very reactive!

It's probably more accurate to say that the scope of police responsibility is so broad that they have less time and manpower to focus on preventive measures, while security forces typically have a much narrower scope of responsibility and this gives them the "luxury", if that's the word I want, of being more proactive. Otherwise, I don't really believe that we should conclude that there's a fundamental difference in philosophy between LE and security. I've never met a cop who wouldn't prefer to prevent a crime if possible instead of having to chase down the slimeball after the crime's been committed.

[HotelSecurity]

ST wouldn't you agree that Security has an easier time in doing prevention than the Police? All Security has to do is to prevent crime from occurring at the post they are paid to protect. The Police have to prevent it everywhere.

[CTEXSEC1]

ST wouldn't you agree that Security has an easier time in doing prevention than the Police? All Security has to do is to prevent crime from occurring at the post they are paid to protect. The Police have to prevent it everywhere.

I would say that police probably are better equipped to prevent crime, but the primary function I have seen is responding to crime that has already occurred. I think I would say they prevent repeated crime by arresting criminals and, to a lesser extent, prevent crime in general by existing as a law enforcing body. Of course, there are always exception to every rule, so I realized this doesn't cover every department's mission.

[5423]

ST wouldn't you agree that Security has an easier time in doing prevention than the Police? All Security has to do is to prevent crime from occurring at the post they are paid to protect. The Police have to prevent it everywhere.

For the most part, I'd have to agree with this, due to the "everywhere" (within the LEA's jurisdiction) statement. But remember, there's more to a PD/SO than patrol division: for example, prevention is one of the major missions of Intel. And some of 'em are pretty darn good at it!

[SecTrainer]

ST wouldn't you agree that Security has an easier time in doing prevention than the Police? All Security has to do is to prevent crime from occurring at the post they are paid to protect. The Police have to prevent it everywhere.

Prevention is much easier for security than it is for the police, not only because of the difference in the "size" of their respective areas of responsibilities relative to their respective resources, but for other reasons.

The police, for instance, must operate within certain constitutional constraints (in the US) that limit their range of permissible "preventive" actions. These constraints will, in some cases, effectively hold the police at "arm's length" until an individual actually commits a crime. The threshold for certain actions (probable cause and searches, for instance) is higher for the police. Merely gathering information (by the police) can be construed as constitutionally invasive, but perfectly permissible in the security space. For instance, could police set up a system of cameras that recorded the license plate of every vehicle on the streets of a community? I heard recently about one community that proposed to do such a thing and it raised howls of protest. On the other hand, security can record the license plate of every vehicle entering and leaving its space without raising a whisper of objection, much less any "constitutional" issues.

The relationship between the police and "the policed" (the citizens) is also different from the relationship that exists between security and "the secured" (the employees of a company, for instance). Even in a large company, a security officer is likely to have more personal knowledge of a much higher percentage of the people he protects than a police officer can possibly acquire in his space.

The relationship between "the policed" and the public space is also different from the relationship between "the secured" and the private space. This, in turn, translates to differences in the level of control and interdiction that are permitted to the police and those that are permitted to the security force. The owner of a private space has much more scope to decide who may be in his space, what they are permitted to do, etc. than the government can dictate with respect to the citizen in the public space. Since the police act as the agents of the government and security act as agents of private owners, the difference in their respective scope of "ownership" control is directly reflected in differences in the permissible scope of action of their agents.

There is a difference in the dispersion and nature of technologies as well. For instance, security has the luxury of working within a facility that is "blanketed" by CCTV cameras versus the police, who work in the community where we would never tolerate that level of surveillance. This means that the police have access to relatively sparse public camera coverage - if any - and enormous areas that are not covered. Or, consider that there is no such thing as a "city access control system", or a "city intrusion alarm system", but thanks to such systems installed in a facility the security force can not only be aware of everyone moving within its space but can also decide whether, and under what conditions, they are permitted to be there. A police officer can't do much more than harass a crack dealer standing on a street corner, hoping he'll move along, but a security force can eject that same individual from the private space and can take actions to deny him any access whatsoever. Displacement is a legitimate preventive tool for security forces that doesn't work very well for the police, who must only deal with the individual somewhere else (unless he completely leaves the jurisdiction, and "get out of Dodge" will only get the police a lawsuit - these ain't the Gunsmoke days).

Police also tend to patrol in vehicles due to the large areas they must cover. However unwittingly, the patrol vehicle creates an "isolation bubble" that separates the police officer from "the policed" unless or until a "situation" brings them together, in some cases not entirely unlike an alien leaving his space ship to mingle with the earth creatures. Security officers, on the other hand, typically work on foot, and are in much more intimate, personal contact with "the secured".

These and other factors could be thought of as "conspiring" to give a "reactive bias" to police work while permitting (but not necessarily guaranteeing) a "prevention bias" to security work. However, these are systemic differences regarding the legal, physical, operational and cultural environment in which each performs his duties. They are not to be construed as reflecting differences in their fundamental philosophy.

[HotelSecurity]

Police at least here in Canada are begining to use cameras on the tops of their cars & computers that search if the cars have been reported stolen etc. (I've seen them in use by parking enforcement in the US as in " Parking Wars" on TV).

As for citizens not accepting cameras in public areas. This is more of a North American thing. In the UK there are public cameras everywhere. We even have a few on some "party" streets here in Montreal.

[SecTrainer]

Police at least here in Canada are begining to use cameras on the tops of their cars & computers that search if the cars have been reported stolen etc. (I've seen them in use by parking enforcement in the US as in " Parking Wars" on TV).

As for citizens not accepting cameras in public areas. This is more of a North American thing. In the UK there are public cameras everywhere. We even have a few on some "party" streets here in Montreal.

No, they're not "everywhere" by a long shot, HS - even in the UK. And those that do exist have sparked considerable outrage. The UK has just about reached the limit of what the public will stand and have been forced to remove some of those cameras because they could not justify exactly why they placed cameras in a particular location in terms that are based on the government's legitimate interest. Government cannot spy on you with cameras merely because they think it would be "useful" or because they "might" help prevent a crime. But, with very few limitations (e.g., rest rooms), the owner of a private space can put a camera pretty much anywhere he wants, and without having to explain his reasons to anyone. As such, you could never get away with the degree of camera surveillance in the public space that is routinely implemented in the private space - nor could governments even afford to do so.

The use of license plate cameras on cop cars also doesn't come near to what I was referring to in that regard either. In the first place, they don't see every vehicle that is moving in the public space - only those that happen to come within camera range of a police car. In addition, these systems are operated under strict controls over what actually gets recorded and retained. It is the difference between random checks of bags on the subway by the police (which are barely tolerated), and security checking all bags and briefcases that enter/leave a private facility because the right of security to do that is generally recognized and because organizations can afford to do this while public entities never could afford to do so.

Don't confuse superficial similarities with equivalencies. If you try to imagine a city or a town that implemented the same type and degree of surveillance and control technologies and procedures that private property owners are privileged to deploy, you would be imagining....a police state. You would have "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" rolled into one and pumped up on steroids. ("It's time to do your Physical Jerks, Comrade Smith!")

[Secret spuk]

I would say that police probably are better equipped to prevent crime, but the primary function I have seen is responding to crime that has already occurred. I think I would say they prevent repeated crime by arresting criminals and, to a lesser extent, prevent crime in general by existing as a law enforcing body. Of course, there are always exception to every rule, so I realized this doesn't cover every department's mission.

Give that man a cigar!!!!

[Secret spuk]

How exactly does Security prevent crime?

[SecTrainer]

How exactly does Security prevent crime?

Are you asking how security prevents crime in general, or prevents crime being committed on a particular site?

If security displaces crime (as it sometimes does, quite legitimately), it's not preventing it per se, but merely preventing it from happening at that particular location.

The "rational criminal" theory says that when a criminal isn't acting randomly, or irrationally, he evaluates targets by comparing the (perceived) risks to the (expected) rewards. The visible presence of a strong security posture increases the perceived risk, hopefully to the point that he decides that the expected reward isn't worth it. This does happen all the time, and interviews with criminals have documented this fact very thoroughly when they have been asked how they picked their targets.

Now, there are irrational criminals. There are criminals who underestimate the risk or overestimate their own prowess. There are criminals who are, for lack of a better word, mentally deficient. There are impulsive criminals. There are the desperate criminals, the dopers, etc. Any of these might well not be deterred from at least attempting the crime, which is when we must go into "reactive mode". Those whom we cannot deter, we must detect, delay, deny, delimit, detain and perhaps in some cases even destroy.

We cannot prevent every criminal from making a bad decision. But we can make sure that it is a bad decision (in terms of the outcome for him), and we can mitigate the harm or loss that he causes.

[Secret spuk]

Are you asking how security prevents crime in general, or prevents crime being committed on a particular site?

If security displaces crime (as it sometimes does, quite legitimately), it's not preventing it per se, but merely preventing it from happening at that particular location.

The "rational criminal" theory says that when a criminal isn't acting randomly, or irrationally, he evaluates targets by comparing the (perceived) risks to the (expected) rewards. The visible presence of a strong security posture increases the perceived risk, hopefully to the point that he decides that the expected reward isn't worth it. This does happen all the time, and interviews with criminals have documented this fact very thoroughly when they have been asked how they picked their targets.

Now, there are irrational criminals. There are criminals who underestimate the risk or overestimate their own prowess. There are criminals who are, for lack of a better word, mentally deficient. There are impulsive criminals. There are the desperate criminals, the dopers, etc. Any of these might well not be deterred from at least attempting the crime, which is when we must go into "reactive mode". Those whom we cannot deter, we must detect, delay, deny, delimit, detain and perhaps in some cases even destroy.

We cannot prevent every criminal from making a bad decision. But we can make sure that it is a bad decision (in terms of the outcome for him), and we can mitigate the harm or loss that he causes.



Another cigar please!!! ( dead on point)

[CTEXSEC1]

How exactly does Security prevent crime?

I would not say that security prevents crime totally as much as it prevents crime from occurring on a particular site. I worked armed at a bank. It was not robbed, but the Wells Fargo down the road with no S/O presence got hit more than once. Did I prevent crime? Sort of. I prevented my client site from being a victim. That is how security "prevents" crime. As SecTrainer put it, security "displaces" crime. Another example: when a security company does a saturation campaign in a crime-ridden housing complex, they are not stopping drug dealers, pimps, gangbangers, and thieves from doing what they do for their ill-gotten wages, they are simply making it easier for them to leave and do it elsewhere. This, really, appears to be what the client wants. Sometimes, their work leads to arrests/convictions, but the primary preventive measure taken is to persuade criminals to go elsewhere.

I also think specific sectors of security are more successful at preventing crime. Companies that do A/T operations are primarily in place to prevent man-made catastrophe. LP, as far as I can tell, are usually pretty good about preventing shoplifting. Private Investigators, psuedo-security, are utilized to prevent fraud in many cases.

[SecTrainer]

And the line between prevention and reaction isn't always distinct. Let's say you're a disgruntled stockholder of my company. You enter corporate headquarters intent on killing the CEO and the Vice President. You succeed in killing the VP, and I react to that crime immediately, taking you out before you get to the CEO. I have reacted to one crime, but I have prevented the second one. As with a lot of preventive actions, it might be hard to prove this aspect because we might never know that you were going to kill the CEO if you had not been stopped. We might just think that we had stopped you before you could escape, and would (erroneously) consider this to be a "reactive" action when in fact it was both reactive and preventive.

As you approach the customer service desk, an obviously agitated customer suddenly smacks the employee behind the counter. You take this customer to the floor just as he's pulling a knife out of his pocket. You reacted to the battery, but you (probably) prevented it from becoming an aggravated battery. Would he have stabbed the employee? Well, that's the rub when it comes to prevention, isn't it? By its very nature, prevention stops something from happening, and as such we can never know for sure what he would have done. We can only infer or deduce from the circumstances that we prevented an aggravated battery on this employee.

Or, I break into your warehouse while you're at the other end of the facility. That, in and of itself, is a crime (breaking and entering). You react to the radio dispatch from the control center, detect my location, detain me and deny me from escaping with your stuff. Have you reacted to a crime (B&E), or have you prevented a crime (theft)? The answer is: A little bit of both. The distinction isn't black and white. But again, you might not know for sure just what you prevented. Yes, I was captured with blank company checks in my possession so you're on pretty safe ground assuming you prevented that theft. But what if I had planned to set a fire before escaping in order to cover my crime? If you prevented an arson, the chances are that you'll never know. Prevention success is difficult to prove.

Another example of the indistinct line between prevention and reaction: When we put systems into place that are intended to be primarily preventive - such as access control systems - one of the critical factors we must consider is our ability to react to breaches or attempted breaches of those systems because we know they will not deter everyone. The same is true of physical measures such as locked doors, which are preventive in nature. We ask, how long would this locked door delay an undeterred intruder? And the reason we ask this question is we want a sufficient delay to give our security forces time to react to someone attempting to break through the door.

So, you traverse the pathway that an intruder would take, calculating the time it would take him to defeat each of the preventive measures he would encounter, reach his target, accomplish his mission and make his escape. Then (ideally), you shape your forces in such a way that you can effectuate a timely reaction. If you cannot respond in time (say, due to the dispersion of scarce forces), your only other option is to shore up your preventive measures so that they provide more time to respond. But the point for this discussion is that your design must take both preventive and reactive elements into account. They are, in a sense, merely different sides of the same coin. Put another way, prevention and reaction are complementary to one another. You can't do one well if you can't do the other well.

This is one reason that, in my opinion, using the police as your "reactive" force is a very dubious approach. We have studies in the public space showing, for instance, that police response is only effective (on average) if it arrives in less than 5 minutes of the commencement of the crime. "Effective", in this case, means interdiction (detain, deny) while the criminal has not completed the crime and made his escape. (It's easy to see why we would use this definition.) Yet we also know that the sequence of events that must take place (security personnel recognize a crime in progress, call 911, give the information, a unit is dispatched - assuming one is free!, unit arrives on scene, assesses or is informed of situation, takes action) will, the majority of the time, take longer and perhaps much longer than 5 minutes.

Now, since we have security personnel already on scene, just what is our justification for their not being the ones who respond? Almost always, it is the fact that they are not trained, equipped, etc. to respond. You really have to ponder on this silliness to get a grasp of just how enormously ridiculous it is. You have taken a potentially highly capable, useful asset and you have reduced it to nothing more than some eyeballs and a mouth (oh yes, and a dialing finger). And in the process of doing this, you have practically guaranteed an ineffectual response to crime being committed on your site.

So, then the argument is that behaving in this nonsensical way actually makes sense because it reduces other risks - specifically the liability that might attach to a more capable security responder. But the fact is, this is probably nothing more than a religious dogma based on bad evidence, if any at all. As far as I have been able to determine, it is one of those "truths" that have been perpetuated for years, but which has never truly been proven..even by those who should have proven it, i.e. the liability insurers. It has persisted because it has been more convenient to believe it, because it is cheaper (up front) to believe it, and/or because everyone thinks that someone else has proven it to be true. Perhaps it has persisted because it presents insurance companies an opportunity to increase their profits. But as to its veracity, I have seen no actuarial evidence of any kind.

Common sense alone should call this dogma into question, at least enough to generate some interest in examining whether it is true. Is there really, in experiential terms (which insurance companies are supposed worship), actual evidence that the liability attaching to armed security officers exceeds the liability that would otherwise exist? How much is paid out to unarmed officers or families when they are injured or killed? How much is paid out to the victims and families when a Virginia Tech goes down? How much crime and associated loss could be prevented if security forces in general were more capable, but is not prevented because criminals know that they are not capable?

I suggest that the real difference in liability (dollars actually paid out for officer-caused damages) associated with arming security officers compared with unarmed officers is probably VERY small. Have there been incidents involving armed officers? Of course, but they may be no more frequent than there are with the police.

I suggest to any insurer reading this that the actual liability experience with armed officers is much less than you have claimed because you simply don't know any better...OR that you DO know perfectly well that the liability is less than you claim and that you use this "convenient UNtruth" as an excuse to jack up your rates on companies that use armed officers. If I had to choose between whether you are merely foolishly ignorant or greedy, I'm afraid on the basis of my experience with the insurance industry that I'd have to pick the latter.

Well, someone had to say it.

[amaygates111]

Hi guys. I'm new to this site. My name is Sud and I'm doing some research on the first person views of security guards. I'm writing this paper for school (the paper is to research a field there is not much data on) and I figure the views and attitudes of security guards isn't exactly well documented. I want to go in the direction mainly regarding the needs and fears of security guards. I go to the University of California, Irvine. I got most of my answers by reading the other threads but I had a few questions. I thank you in advance for your answers and opinions!


What is the one (or many) fear(s) of your job?

What is the biggest problem that you encounter on a daily basis?

Were you ever in a position you had to physically subdue somebody? Did you have any issues/reservations? How did you feel prior to and after?

If you had to physically subdue someone, what tools would you want to have with you?


Thanks again!


Hi Sud,

I can answer some your questions.
1. What is the one (or many) fear(s) of your job?
Ans. Sometimes it happens that we get hurt from long lasting injuries.

2. What is the biggest problem that you encounter on a daily basis?
Ans. Problem occurs when you want to solve the case in your own ways but higher authorities interrupts.

3. Were you ever in a position you had to physically subdue somebody? Did you have any issues/reservations? How did you feel prior to and after?
Ans. Many times