Mall Security Robbed for Vehicle, ATM Stolen

[1stWatch]

Annapolis, MD:
A mall security guard was robbed at gunpoint by four men wearing ski masks for a mall security vehicle. Later it was discovered an ATM was also missing. Police have since recovered the vehicle.

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/6838088/detail.html?rss=bal&psp=news

[1stWatch]

Now, is it just me or does anybody else think it is a really bad idea for mall security to be unarmed across the nation? :mad:

[Mr. Security]

Now, is it just me or does anybody else think it is a really bad idea for mall security to be unarmed across the nation? :mad:

Four to one? The guard may have been killed if he resisted. Just because there was only one gun shown doesn't mean that the others weren't armed. These robbers are brazen and likely prepared to kill. A mall can use unarmed security as long as they are backed by armed officers, security or LE.

[1stWatch]

Four to one? The guard may have been killed if he resisted. Just because there was only one gun shown doesn't mean that the others weren't armed. These robbers are brazen and likely prepared to kill. A mall can use unarmed security as long as they are backed by armed officers, security or LE.

Yes he could have. This is why places like that should stop having only one person on duty, even on the deep night shift. Most malls I have seen do not have backing by armed security or by law enforcement officers. The ones I have seen that do hire off-duty police use one of them for four hours per evening. They also do not prepare their people for situations such as this since they assume it will not happen. This is a job I have done before.

[Mr. Security]

Yes he could have. This is why places like that should stop having only one person on duty, even on the deep night shift. Most malls I have seen do not have backing by armed security or by law enforcement officers. The ones I have seen that do hire off-duty police use one of them for four hours per evening. They also do not prepare their people for situations such as this since they assume it will not happen. This is a job I have done before.

There's no question that complacency is a common problem. People just don't get it when it comes to security, or even safety for that matter. That's one of the challenges I have with my consulting business. Companies don't want to expend funds to protect their businesses when they don't believe that it can happen to them. I have warned businesses about some of these issues and they send me a letter saying that they don't need my services. I file the letter in the event something does happen. Guess who gets a copy of the letter if it does? That's right. The injured party?s attorney.

[N. A. Corbier]

Yes he could have. This is why places like that should stop having only one person on duty, even on the deep night shift. Most malls I have seen do not have backing by armed security or by law enforcement officers. The ones I have seen that do hire off-duty police use one of them for four hours per evening. They also do not prepare their people for situations such as this since they assume it will not happen. This is a job I have done before.

If I were a mall manager, I would not so much as CONCIEVE that the guard could be robbed and his truck stolen. Because if I concieve of it, that means I have to do something about it. And that costs money and resources.

And we all know that money and resources are better spent on wooing better tenants like Nordstrom Rack.

Seriously, though. They don't assume "it won't happen." They don't want to consider the posibility because that makes the negiligent if they knew of the pre-existing threat and failed to take steps to prevent it.

[1stWatch]

Seriously, though. They don't assume "it won't happen." They don't want to consider the posibility because that makes the negiligent if they knew of the pre-existing threat and failed to take steps to prevent it.

Out of sight, out of mind. This is the attitude so many take toward this and it is such a prevailing theme when a security officer gets killed. It is even the attitude many security companies take after one is killed. It's like they don't care if this person dies, they just don't want a vicarious liability suit.

Food for thought - the inability people such as these have to take care of themselves in this situation also reflects an inability to protect others from it.

[Mr. Security]

....Seriously, though. They don't assume "it won't happen." They don't want to consider the posibility because that makes the negiligent if they knew of the pre-existing threat and failed to take steps to prevent it.

True. I have encountered that "hear, see, speak no evil" mentality, especially at sites that hire WBS. Still, I believe there are a good number of people in management who think that it won't happen to them.

[1stWatch]

True. I have encountered that "hear, see, speak no evil" mentality, especially at sites that hire WBS. Still, I believe there are a good number of people in management who think that it won't happen to them.

In the case of mall security, I think this was a case of something they simply thought wouldn't happen to them. I remember when I worked that job, we did do drilling on how to respond properly to an armed robbery, including setting up a proper perimeter, training cameras if we had any, and maintaining contact with police and giving them information they would find to be useful. We also did training on setting up on a shoplifting, how to have the team set up on the hallways to intercept one who was running, and on some of the finer points of assault and vehicle burglaries.
In that job we even got certified training for the handcuffs and for first aid and fire extinguisher training, which are things other security positions didn't care to pay for certified training in. Actually we got training for most things except firearms and officer safety tactics dealing with those who do have firearms. This was one major area they were unprepared for. This was far from the idea of warm body security.

The problem I see now about it is they got wrapped up with the idea that whatever happens at a mall is also what happens in the rest of the city. The mall's corporate policies were more important to the security department than the actual law. They assumed that if it was mall policy, it fell in line with the law already. In some cases, this was not true. Many mall security officers I see these days lose sight of things that happen outside their environment such as this very incident.

Many of them drive around their expansive parking lot looking for car thieves and vehicle burglars, but those suspects are hardly ever caught since the security is clearly marked and in uniform. It is fortunate for them they don't catch some of these thieves since they do carry weapons and would not hesitate to use them on an unarmed security guard. This is why I believe malls should more thoroughly explore the idea of arming their security.

In the past few years I have been armed I have caught people stealing cars and doing things such as breaking down apartment doors to steal. 90% of these people had weapons and they only gave up because I also had one and had it at ready before they did. Why should mall security have to deal with issues they are unprepared for?

I think it is because mall security organizations and the real estate corporations that employ them firmly believe in the concept of gun control. They believe they have the right, no not the right, the obligation to disarm any person who walks through their doors. An example of this is a problem I have had several times with them while working armed where I had assignments after hours at mall stores - the security telling me to disarm and I may not be in the mall with a weapon. I told each one of them in summary to get a deadlier flashlight and move out of the way and call the real police if they had a problem with that. When the police were called, they were told the same thing I told them - this person is working an armed assignment and you can't apply criminal trespass to him if you don't like it.

But back to my original point - if there are people coming in a mall who can legally carry a weapon and may not be disarmed and there are bad guys out there with weapons, why should the mall security be unarmed when they encounter these people? I think it doesn't fit at all.

[Mr. Security]

In the case of mall security.....
Many of them drive around their expansive parking lot looking for car thieves and vehicle burglars, but those suspects are hardly ever caught since the security is clearly marked and in uniform. It is fortunate for them they don't catch some of these thieves since they do carry weapons and would not hesitate to use them on an unarmed security guard. This is why I believe malls should more thoroughly explore the idea of arming their security......


Don't forget about the flashing yellow safety light to. :D As far as armed security, it may very well come to that. Currently, our mall is staffed by unarmed security with a police sub-station at the mall to augment security, should a situation escalate. If a mall in the US experiences a terrorist attack, unarmed security will likely go the same route as the dinosaurs.

[N. A. Corbier]

Don't forget about the flashing yellow safety light to. :D As far as armed security, it may very well come to that. Currently, our mall is staffed by unarmed security with a police sub-station at the mall to augment security, should a situation escalate. If a mall in the US experiences a terrorist attack, unarmed security will likely go the same route as the dinosaurs.

I guarantee you that if there is a terrorist attack, the mall's security force will immediately be replaced with rifle wielding police officers for about a month. After that, they'll release the site back to the WBS. No other changes will happen, most likely, because people are focused on 'police response' to terrorist threats.

[Mr. Security]

I guarantee you that if there is a terrorist attack, the mall's security force will immediately be replaced with rifle wielding police officers for about a month. After that, they'll release the site back to the WBS. No other changes will happen, most likely, because people are focused on 'police response' to terrorist threats.

You're right. After a month there will be something else happening for the public to focus their attention on. People quickly forget.

[ACP01]

Good points made by all.
The problem I have with relying PD sub-stations is that PD usually just uses them as a stop off point and are almost never manned thus providing a false sense of security even to the SOs.

At a large mall I USED to shop at it was posted with large signs saying firearms were not allowed. Shorly after this went into effect I talked to the Chief of Security who was a retired PD from the city I work in. One of my first questions was "Since the (unnamed) Mall is taking full responsibility for my safety do you realize you are also taking the full liability?" He answered that there was enough security that wasn't a problem. I pointed out that I had not seen ANY security in the parking garage and no cameras either. Anyway his answers were about all the same that security was fine and there would be no problems.

About a year later there was a shoot out between two lowlifes. I called to let him know what a great job he was doing. :rolleyes:

[1stWatch]

About a year later there was a shoot out between two lowlifes. I called to let him know what a great job he was doing. :rolleyes:

See, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. This manager, like so many others, chose to believe the fantasy world that was laid out for him by his employer.

A lot of malls I see do hire off-duty police some of the time. They don't seem to object to have police officers work for them, but they have some sort of fierce opposition to the idea of trained armed security.

[Mr. Security]

Our mall is manned by two police officers at all times and a dispatcher in the police substation. Still, they can't be everywhere and that's why they usually station themselves near the food court where fights are likely to occur. The s/o's are equipped with ASP batons, OC, handcuffs, and the like. They can handle most situations, but it's a risky job since the security people could easily be dealing with an armed individual. I don't think they wear body armor either. :eek:

[1stWatch]

Our mall is manned by two police officers at all times and a dispatcher in the police substation. Still, they can't be everywhere and that's why they usually station themselves near the food court where fights are likely to occur. The s/o's are equipped with ASP batons, OC, handcuffs, and the like. They can handle most situations, but it's a risky job since the security people could easily be dealing with an armed individual. I don't think they wear body armor either. :eek:

I would feel a lot safer in this environment than in one where you have a team of five or six unarmed security officers with no police around.

[Mr. Security]

I would feel a lot safer in this environment than in one where you have a team of five or six unarmed security officers with no police around.

Me to. However, I would purchase my own body armor if I applied and was hired by them.

[1stWatch]

Me to. However, I would purchase my own body armor if I applied and was hired by them.

I bought my own for my job. It was one of the more steep investments, but the advantage is I can take the armor with me to whatever job I go to next.
If I had to work unarmed mall security again, which I hope I never have to, I would be more interested in a stab resistant vest instead of a ballistic vest. I saw very few guns on suspects, but did have to deal with a knife wielding assailant twice.

[Mr. Security]

I bought my own for my job. It was one of the more steep investments, but the advantage is I can take the armor with me to whatever job I go to next.
If I had to work unarmed mall security again, which I hope I never have to, I would be more interested in a stab resistant vest instead of a ballistic vest. I saw very few guns on suspects, but did have to deal with a knife wielding assailant twice.

You can buy a vest that's rated for both weapons. ;)

[N. A. Corbier]

Do not forget. The Police Officer's liability is covered by the agency, not the employer, because they are "always on duty." The second they take enforcement action, they become on duty police officers.

This is one of the reasons that clients like to hire off duty police officers. The liability instantly shifts to the city the second they go to make an arrest. And if you oppose the officer with violence, then he immediately goes to make an arrest.

[Bill Warnock]

You can buy a vest that's rated for both weapons. ;)
Always equip yourself for the existing threat and those that should be anticipated.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Tennsix]

You know, I teach my recruits and probationary officers to keep the police car doors locked while driving. Most scoff when I suggest it is an officer safety issue. This thread is an example of how an officer can be victimized when (s)he becomes complacent. This incident is more about taking proactive measures to circumvent felonious assaults and property crimes more than should mall security officers carry sidearms.

[histfan71]

You know, I teach my recruits and probationary officers to keep the police car doors locked while driving. Most scoff when I suggest it is an officer safety issue. This thread is an example of how an officer can be victimized when (s)he becomes complacent. This incident is more about taking proactive measures to circumvent felonious assaults and property crimes more than should mall security officers carry sidearms.

Great point Tennsix. Did you hear of the University of Nevada at Reno sergeant who was killed in his unit by a nut with a hatchet? One of the reasons the nut got to the sergeant was because the doors were unlocked!

[Tennsix]

Great point Tennsix. Did you hear of the University of Nevada at Reno sergeant who was killed in his unit by a nut with a hatchet? One of the reasons the nut got to the sergeant was because the doors were unlocked!
No, I hadn't heard of that incident. That is a hell of a way to go.

[histfan71]

No, I hadn't heard of that incident. That is a hell of a way to go.

Here is a link to the story on the Officer Down Memorial Page. Very sad.

http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=15036

[mallpopo]

That wouldn't happen to my vehicle.. I would pepper spray the heck out of those guys... And then I would detain them cause the cops in my town are lazy...

[N. A. Corbier]

Jimmyhat: A lot of folks would say that the "defensive system" is the police department, not "private citizens in uniforms playing police," or "my private security contractor, who is not immune from civil or criminal liability, unlike the police."

There's a very large hurdle that any private agency must overcome, and that's the perception of "powerlessness" that is portrayed by media, lawyers, and law enforcement officials.

As an example, EMTFirefighter is a sworn peace officer of the State of New York, and provides what many would believe to be law enforcement services to his employer. In as such, he is less a private security officer and more a private sworn officer, answerable to his employer as the municipality.

The_Mayor, on the other hand, is a private citizen with only the powers outlined under US and California law for a person in the security profession. He is granted the authority to carry a baton, if so certified. He is authorized to make private arrests, the same as any other person in California.

There is a likelyhood that if EMTFirefighter makes an arrest as a peace officer, he is shielded from personal liability by nature of his office. If The_Mayor makes an arrest, he is fully civilly liable for his actions, unless acting under a specific statute (Retail Theft Detention, etc) that provides the shield of immunity.

Many times, I have read that a private citizen has broad and near limitless investigation powers - on their property - as agent of the owner. They may question persons that the police would require probable cause to stop. The police, on the other hand, have blanket immunity from liability for all reasonable actions taken to effect compliance with a lawful order. (I found that's easier than saying "arrest," because even an arrest is a lawful order.)

As such, a private security officer is bound less by general policing restrictions and the body of law which regulates sworn peace officers, however, a peace officer is free to use reasonable force to effect compliance without fear of civil or criminal prosecution.

There is a mindset, which I'm still not sure where it comes from and what re-enforces it, that the private security force is there only to maintain a visible presence, and refer any incident to law enforcement for response. This mindset has moved private security away from "protection," and more towards "paid observer," which the industry and police lobby has stated was the job from the earliest days of Pinkerton. "Police protect, security observes."

The "Security Guard and Survellience Operator" Job Code at the Occupational Outlook Handbook of the Department of Labor indicates that a "Guards, who are also called security officers patrol and inspect property to protect against fire, theft, vandalism, terrorism, and illegal activity. These workers protect their employer?s investment, enforce laws on the property, and deter criminal activity and other problems. They use radio and telephone communications to call for assistance from police, fire, or emergency medical services as the situation dictates. Security guards write comprehensive reports outlining their observations and activities during their assigned shift. They also may interview witnesses or victims, prepare case reports, and testify in court." (Emphasis Added) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006-07 Edition, Security Guards and Gaming , on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos159.htm (visited February 15, 2006).)

The DOL OOH states that security guards are there to protect people and things. However, this popular image of "police protect, security report" is highly beneficial to both the largest companies (minimal training required to "report," extensive training required to "protect") and to the sworn police community (Extensive training is more marketable, blanket immunity also highly marketable.)

[Tennsix]

That wouldn't happen to my vehicle.. I would pepper spray the heck out of those guys... And then I would detain them cause the cops in my town are lazy...
Does your red cape get wrinkled while riding around?

[Bill Warnock]

Jimmyhat: A lot of folks would say that the "defensive system" is the police department, not "private citizens in uniforms playing police," or "my private security contractor, who is not immune from civil or criminal liability, unlike the police."

There's a very large hurdle that any private agency must overcome, and that's the perception of "powerlessness" that is portrayed by media, lawyers, and law enforcement officials.

As an example, EMTFirefighter is a sworn peace officer of the State of New York, and provides what many would believe to be law enforcement services to his employer. In as such, he is less a private security officer and more a private sworn officer, answerable to his employer as the municipality.

The_Mayor, on the other hand, is a private citizen with only the powers outlined under US and California law for a person in the security profession. He is granted the authority to carry a baton, if so certified. He is authorized to make private arrests, the same as any other person in California.

There is a likelyhood that if EMTFirefighter makes an arrest as a peace officer, he is shielded from personal liability by nature of his office. If The_Mayor makes an arrest, he is fully civilly liable for his actions, unless acting under a specific statute (Retail Theft Detention, etc) that provides the shield of immunity.

Many times, I have read that a private citizen has broad and near limitless investigation powers - on their property - as agent of the owner. They may question persons that the police would require probable cause to stop. The police, on the other hand, have blanket immunity from liability for all reasonable actions taken to effect compliance with a lawful order. (I found that's easier than saying "arrest," because even an arrest is a lawful order.)

As such, a private security officer is bound less by general policing restrictions and the body of law which regulates sworn peace officers, however, a peace officer is free to use reasonable force to effect compliance without fear of civil or criminal prosecution.

There is a mindset, which I'm still not sure where it comes from and what re-enforces it, that the private security force is there only to maintain a visible presence, and refer any incident to law enforcement for response. This mindset has moved private security away from "protection," and more towards "paid observer," which the industry and police lobby has stated was the job from the earliest days of Pinkerton. "Police protect, security observes."

The "Security Guard and Survellience Operator" Job Code at the Occupational Outlook Handbook of the Department of Labor indicates that a "Guards, who are also called security officers patrol and inspect property to protect against fire, theft, vandalism, terrorism, and illegal activity. These workers protect their employer?s investment, enforce laws on the property, and deter criminal activity and other problems. They use radio and telephone communications to call for assistance from police, fire, or emergency medical services as the situation dictates. Security guards write comprehensive reports outlining their observations and activities during their assigned shift. They also may interview witnesses or victims, prepare case reports, and testify in court." (Emphasis Added) (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2006-07 Edition, Security Guards and Gaming , on the Internet at http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos159.htm (visited February 15, 2006).)

The DOL OOH states that security guards are there to protect people and things. However, this popular image of "police protect, security report" is highly beneficial to both the largest companies (minimal training required to "report," extensive training required to "protect") and to the sworn police community (Extensive training is more marketable, blanket immunity also highly marketable.)
N.A. Corbier that was an excellent post. I am going to synthesize that and propose adding it to my security guide. Before doing so, I'd like to run it by you to ensure nothing was missed from your post.
Again, well done friend.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Mr. Security]

That wouldn't happen to my vehicle.. I would pepper spray the heck out of those guys... And then I would detain them cause the cops in my town are lazy...

Pepper spray vs. hatchet? Nice knowing you. :D :p

[ACP01]

The job of mall security is three things and only three things - observe, deter, report.

Not apprehend, arrest or detain.

Actually that is determained by what the mall management wants.
If they want "observe and report", which is really just another way of saying Loss Prevention, so be it but if they are really serious about Security then they must have what is esentially there own armed private police force.

As someone said the armed SO will intimidate by presence just as well as an unarmed SO but if the really bad things happen then the armed SO has the ability to take action (after reporting..must get the calvary on the way) whereas the unarmed SO can call the calvary but then only get out of the way like everyone else.

It is a hard cold fact that flashlights, pepperspray, and batons, do not stop bullets nor do they do a very good job fighting a rear action while the innocents escape.

[N. A. Corbier]

N.A. Corbier that was an excellent post. I am going to synthesize that and propose adding it to my security guide. Before doing so, I'd like to run it by you to ensure nothing was missed from your post.
Again, well done friend.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

I don't think I missed anything in that statement.

EMTFirefighter notes that the job description of mall security is not protection, but observation.

That's something I've wondered. When did security get away from the goal of protection? The 1950s? 1960s or 1970s? The old Watchman was supposed to do more than "observe and report," he was supposed to club the bastard upside the head for breaking into his warehouse.

[Mr. Security]

The job of mall security is three things and only three things - observe, deter, report.

Not apprehend, arrest or detain.

You know that I'm a big proponent of unarmed security. That's what I do - observe, deter, and report. That works in corporate security, but not at a mall. If someone attacks me at the mall, the last thing I need is a s/o who stands by and takes notes for his incident report. I want a s/o to help me by stopping the attack and making an arrest.

That's why I don't work mall security. I don't want to be put in a position where I have to use a baton, OC, and make arrests. But someone needs to. That's the way malls are. Open access to the public and criminals.

[Mr. Security]

.... Perhaps a revamping of this sector of the security industry is in order, maybe call them "fire protection specialists" or "access control monitors" depending on your position....

Good point. I wouldn't mind the title of watchman because that's what I do unless I'm forced to defend myself. Save the title security officer for those who actually make arrests.

[Mr. Security]

It was so crazy at the mall I worked at. We were given handcuffs, but were only to use them to protect ourselves, not others. If I saw someone beating the Hell out of a shopper, SOP said I needed to call the police, not stop the attacker.

Of course, what SOP said and what actually was done were often quite different. When you did what you felt was right and disobeyed the post orders, you also ran the risk of getting fired. If you were creative when writing the report, you rarely ran into trouble.

I believe the same you do, unfortunately mall management only knows what they want - not the public who's shopping in their center.

I emphasize with you. I couldn't just stand by and watch someone get beat up either. The mall management is not being fair to the public. They (the public) see a security officer and they assume that you will come to their aid when in distress. It's a false sense of security.

[Bill Warnock]

I don't think I missed anything in that statement.

EMTFirefighter notes that the job description of mall security is not protection, but observation.

That's something I've wondered. When did security get away from the goal of protection? The 1950s? 1960s or 1970s? The old Watchman was supposed to do more than "observe and report," he was supposed to club the bastard upside the head for breaking into his warehouse.

N.A., I'm not worried about what you put in the post, it's me doing the rewrite. Having read it several times and making several attempts to make it fit, I've given up.
With your permission, I'd like to just transfer the whole thing into the guide with you as the author and your company.
A man has got to know his limitations, and I just bumped into mine. We should all have this written down for a mental refresher.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Bill Warnock]

I emphasize with you. I couldn't just stand by and watch someone get beat up either. The mall management is not being fair to the public. They (the public) see a security officer and they assume that you will come to their aid when in distress. It's a false sense of security.

Nice rejoiner! Mr. Security, I could not live with myself if I saw someone in distress and didn't do something. I should hope my years of training and doing would not fail me. I'd hope not to make the situation worse.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Mr. Security]

Nice rejoiner! Mr. Security, I could not live with myself if I saw someone in distress and didn't do something. I should hope my years of training and doing would not fail me. I'd hope not to make the situation worse.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Thanks Bill. :)

[N. A. Corbier]

N.A., I'm not worried about what you put in the post, it's me doing the rewrite. Having read it several times and making several attempts to make it fit, I've given up.
With your permission, I'd like to just transfer the whole thing into the guide with you as the author and your company.
A man has got to know his limitations, and I just bumped into mine. We should all have this written down for a mental refresher.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

You have my permission, and I'll send you the proper citation via PM.

EMTFirefighter: You have a point. Many companies want what we called "Non Functioning Guard - For Insurance Purposes Only" security guards. We had a sign made, and hung it in the guard shack of a rubber plant. $40,000.00 US Dollar CCTV system, fried by lightning two years ago, sat in it, as well. These are there soely to lower the property insurance values. The only reason a third party security company IS out there is because the insurance requires a third party. Otherwise, it'd be a 5.15 an hour internal position.

Mr. Security: Again, the public perception of protection vs. the security guard motto of "Observe and Report." Now, lets see how a partially biased take on this is. *Yells to GF in next room* My GF notes that before she met me, she thought that unarmed security guards at the mall were there to protect her. That, um, changed after I started ranting.

Now for the rant. There are always people who are going to pay for minimum wage "watchstanders." who require zero training. Not even in fire suppression. They are there for insurance purposes only. This is one of the reasons the largest security companies rally so hard against mandatory updated training standards. That reason, of course, is because that training is wasted on the "Non Functional Guard" watchstander.

I don't believe the term "watchman" should be used, because our senior citizens may even remember what a "watchman" was, and believe he provides some sort of protection.

The whole cruix of this is that a "non functional guard" provides not protection, but documentation for insurance purposes.

"0120 Identified spilled gasoline on East Werehouse floor. Called client, Jerry in Maintenance. Client said to put rags on gasoline till morning."
"0147 Fire started somewhere in East Werehouse. Called 911. Left property to safe location."
"0156 Fire Department arrived."
"0200 Told to leave area by fire department. SO Jones Off Duty."

[Mr. Security]

The whole cruix of this is that a "non functional guard" provides not protection, but documentation for insurance purposes.

"0120 Identified spilled gasoline on East Werehouse floor. Called client, Jerry in Maintenance. Client said to put rags on gasoline till morning."
"0147 Fire started somewhere in East Werehouse. Called 911. Left property to safe location."
"0156 Fire Department arrived."
"0200 Told to leave area by fire department. SO Jones Off Duty."

I guess we differ somewhat because I recognize that unarmed security has its place and so does armed security. Based on your post, unarmed security is of little or no value and I cannot agree with that. In a corporate setting, unarmed security is VERY effective in serving as a deterrent to would-be criminals. The mere presence of a security officer has been proven time and time again to deter criminal activity. In addition, it provides a great opportunity to observe and report terrorist who are in the process of planning their attack. I see the value of armed security at malls, etc., why don't you admit that unarmed security is of benefit to, in the right setting?

[Bill Warnock]

I guess we differ somewhat because I recognize that unarmed security has its place and so does armed security. Based on your post, unarmed security is of little or no value and I cannot agree with that. In a corporate setting, unarmed security is VERY effective in serving as a deterrent to would-be criminals. The mere presence of a security officer has been proven time and time again to deter criminal activity. In addition, it provides a great opportunity to observe and report terrorist who are in the process of planning their attack. I see the value of armed security at malls, etc., why don't you admit that unarmed security is of benefit to, in the right setting?
Unarmed security guards do have their place in this business; however, when the unarmed are not allowed to do anything but stand there and in the incident related in Corbier's post do dumb things, it is an absolute horror.
I know of a shopping mall where they employ armed guards. The post orders state in no uncertain terms, "Firearms will not be displayed or discharged within the confines of the mall and its parking areas." Mr. Security, in this instance they are window dressing and window dressing only.
Unarmed security has and will continue to have its place in crime prevention and keeping the property free of undesirable people.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Mr. Security]

If you read NA's post, he uses the example of a warehouse, not a mall. I have stated on numerous occasions that malls are NOT the place for s/o's who simply observe and report. They DO work well at a warehouse because it has a perimeter and walls to prevent a security breach, and LE can quickly be summoned if a break-in is detected.

NA seems to market armed security as the preferred way to go in all situations. He has indicated that part of his marketing strategy is to emphasize that WBS (i.e., unarmed) has failed and his company is the solution. That may be true in certain settings, mall, etc. Nevertheless, the bulk of security is and will continue to be handled by unarmed officers.

[N. A. Corbier]

If you read NA's post, he uses the example of a warehouse, not a mall. I have stated on numerous occasions that malls are NOT the place for s/o's who simply observe and report. They DO work well at a warehouse because it has a perimeter and walls to prevent a security breach, and LE can quickly be summoned if a break-in is detected.

NA seems to market armed security as the preferred way to go in all situations. He has indicated that part of his marketing strategy is to emphasize that WBS (i.e., unarmed) has failed and his company is the solution. That may be true in certain settings, mall, etc. Nevertheless, the bulk of security is and will continue to be handled by unarmed officers.

The initial marketing strategy is to identify clients who have been failed by the warm body companies in the area - who plainly state: We don't have guns or weapons, only the police have those, its too "dangerous" to give a guard a can of mace.

I gave a scenerio where "non-functional guards" would operate, and even in that case, the client may of expected the guard to do more than just watch the place burn. Of course, the client's point of contact, in that fictional scenerio, was negligent by telling a guard to place RAGS on gasoline, and let it wait till the morning. An armed officer would not be the solution in that case, but an officer who was trained in fire prevention would of been. Also note that the guard went off duty in the log book after the FD told them to leave. No call to supervisor, no report, just "off duty." These are the types of folks you can get with a company that does NOTHING but provide "non-functional guards."

[Mr. Security]

That's part of the problem. Your scenario is fiction; not realistic. Even if you found an actual case that mirrored your scenario, it would not be a common one. I acknowledge that WBS has plenty of problems but let's skip the dramatics, please.

[1stWatch]

You know, I teach my recruits and probationary officers to keep the police car doors locked while driving. Most scoff when I suggest it is an officer safety issue. This thread is an example of how an officer can be victimized when (s)he becomes complacent. This incident is more about taking proactive measures to circumvent felonious assaults and property crimes more than should mall security officers carry sidearms.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to point out. A natural period of complacency is the most dangerous time.

[1stWatch]

I have family that lives literally around the corner from the mall where this incident occurred. I took a trip to see what was up, and I found the same Security laps that one would expect at just about every mall. #1 Unarmed Security. Nothing more needs to be said about that. #2 Patrol Vehicles with pretty amber lights, constantly activated. You show me mobile ambers, and I'll show you the location of at least five bad guys, directly on the other side of the lot with one lookout watching the roving flashlight. #3 Signage pointing out that "No Firearms Allowed Herein." Translation: Law Abiding citizens must disarm themselves before entering, and criminals may go about their usual non-compliance with the rules and carry firearms without fear of returned fire.

Interestingly enough, a Bank located on this mall property, not connected to the main building, is manned by two, TWO, armed S/O's. Albeit they were carrying .38's, but it's still a good start.


I'm privy to an excercise that recently took place in my area (and the mall ownership/management co. would surprise you) where mall security played a significant role in the evacuation, and security of patrons at rally-points (assembly areas for you Navy Vets.) Not surprising, these S/O's were impeccable in their professionalism, and conduct. Up to and including radio procedures that matched exactly with County P. D., and a rank structure that mimics a military unit. A PD/Security liaison, and Sec. Supervisors with direct comm.s to PD Dispatch. It's good to see a professional security operation in progress.

With that, Anti-Terror training and Security Rifle employment are becoming an increasingly common factor in these parts. I'll bet private sector and local government cooperation/deployment becomes the standard during disaster response in the near future.


What's unnecessary about it? An Armed S/O can deter so much criminal activity with just presence alone. And what's unnecessary about enabling a defense system that matches the aggresive tactics of criminal predators who out-gun and overcome decent citizens everyday in this country. That includes people who go to the mall!!!

Jimmyhat, I love the way you think. Your idea of preparedness and professionalism are congruous with mine.

[1stWatch]

That wouldn't happen to my vehicle.. I would pepper spray the heck out of those guys... And then I would detain them cause the cops in my town are lazy...

Good luck. :p



(Once upon a time there was a troll named Iggy. He lived under a bridge.)

[1stWatch]

I emphasize with you. I couldn't just stand by and watch someone get beat up either. The mall management is not being fair to the public. They (the public) see a security officer and they assume that you will come to their aid when in distress. It's a false sense of security.

This is why I do not work for mall security anymore. I was fired from one mall after taking such action, yet others who did similar things on a regular basis remained employed. Cronyism reared its ugly head in a blatant fashion. Of course, now I do not worry about such things since it is within my job description to intervene in such situations.

[1stWatch]

If you read NA's post, he uses the example of a warehouse, not a mall. I have stated on numerous occasions that malls are NOT the place for s/o's who simply observe and report. They DO work well at a warehouse because it has a perimeter and walls to prevent a security breach, and LE can quickly be summoned if a break-in is detected.

NA seems to market armed security as the preferred way to go in all situations. He has indicated that part of his marketing strategy is to emphasize that WBS (i.e., unarmed) has failed and his company is the solution. That may be true in certain settings, mall, etc. Nevertheless, the bulk of security is and will continue to be handled by unarmed officers.

Looking at this area of discussion, I see valid points made by both sides of it.

The point Mr. Security makes is true, unarmed security does make up the bulk of the business of security. I do agree with the viewpoint that unarmed security can be used in a very effective manner and many situations involving security are not relevant to sidearms. Many of the assignments I worked that were unarmed yet were not warm body positions emphasized public interpersonal contact, tact, and preparedness. Training such as first aid and fire prevention took precedence over defensive tactics.

I remember the security dept at the mall where I worked did quite a few wonderful things that did not relate to weapons. There were incidents where we were the first responders to disasterous medical incidents and applied first aid. One incident I remember involved us stabilizing a person with a compound fracture and applying bandages to serious bleeding until EMS arrived and took over. Another time we pulled a suicidal suspect out of a car she had set on fire. We also worked vehicle accidents on the property.

Out of the things I remember happening, though, I believe the type of thing I was most proud of was being able to go to the scene of some disturbance in a store there and be able to successfully mediate a situation between a store clerk and an upset shopper who had knocked all the display items off the counter and by the time we were finished talking, both parties came to a mutual agreement over whatever the dispute was or in some cases one party would volunteer to leave in a calm fashion. This was an example of professional unarmed security. These scenarios were worked with reason and respect, not with intimidation and threats of force.

On the other hand, the points N.A. Corbier makes about the armed security officer being the one who is more prepared I also agree with. Many of us who worked for armed security companies choose to work only armed because of things we have seen happen on the field or because it just feels more preferable since we have encountered forceful situations in life. When relating a viewpoint or situation in a forum like this, it is common to describe the type of environment, company, and incidents we have personally seen.

In every case I have seen, state governments mandate more training for armed security than for unarmed. This usually places the armed guard in a more prepared mindset to deal with many situations that arise, especially in a public access or outdoor environment. On the other hand, this should not be indicative of each individual who does each type of security work. Just because a state government does not fashion or encourage a certain type of training does not mean it doesn't exist or people don't seek out such education. I can think of several security officers I have worked with who were law enforcement certified and one who has a degree in criminal justice, but they all have the same job recognized by Texas: security guard. No credit or credentials recognized for their personal efforts, only 30 hours of certified training.

I think any one of us who has worked in a supervisory fashion has seen the results of sloppy workmanship and inadequate training. The activity report portrayed in N.A. Corbier's previous post was a classic example of what many people who "sit post" write. The reality of a "warm body" company is alive, well, and thriving, unfortunately. I can remember having to respond to guard incidents such as one where a guard watched a car burn down in the parking lot and he called no one. He said it wasn't in his post orders. The only training he had gotten was 20 minutes of "OJT" and the company expected him to learn the rest by osmosis if at all. Suffice it to say we lost the contract with the business the very next day. The only thing written on his report was this:
1800 S/O (Joeschmoe) on duty.
1800-0600 Monitor parking lot.
0600 S/O (Joeschmoe) off duty.

Of course, this individual and others like him were all unarmed. This type of person was unkindly referred to by all who worked in the armed and patrol areas of the company as a "goober guard". They would be making disrespectful jokes behind the backs of new hires who came in with no experience, calling them the same type of names. They were equally deficient, though, because they failed to help their fellow officers who went to work there. This contributed to the negative environment and high turnover rate.

Many armed security guards fall into a mindset of their unarmed counterparts as being less trained or educated in many areas. I believe this is a stereotype that is easy to fall into believing, even inadvertently. Each individual has his/her own experience and a viewpoint that is shaped from that experience.

It is important to remember to look at the big picture of things and remember that we are all fellows in the same type of work. Look at another security officer and remember he is your brother, whether in arms or not. Who is out there handling business at his place of work? He is.
If I look at someone in a security uniform and think "if this person died today or tomorrow, would I go to his funeral?" I think the answer would be yes, if I would be capable of doing so.
If no, why wouldn't it be? Do I hate him so much? Would the answer be no because he doesn't wear a gun? Or maybe for something more subtle that annoys the crap out of me like he doesn't bathe enough or he picks his nose? Or maybe I just don't care about it anymore, if I ever did. If I don't care about that, I'm probably just in this job for a mere pay cheque.

In short, though, my take on the difference between WBS security and professional security is not just one of being equipped, but of being prepared and having a sense of professional and personal pride and purpose about what you do. One image or another is normally the take on an entire company as well.

[Mr. Security]

....Looking at this area of discussion, I see valid points made by both sides of it.

The point Mr. Security makes is true, unarmed security does make up the bulk of the business of security. I do agree with the viewpoint that unarmed security can be used in a very effective manner and many situations involving security are not relevant to sidearms.

In short, though, my take on the difference between WBS security and professional security is not just one of being equipped, but of being prepared and having a sense of professional and personal pride and purpose about what you do. One image or another is normally the take on an entire company as well....

1stWatch: I think you have just identified the key to a good security officer. It's not just based on whether he/she is armed or unarmed. Rather, it based on what I highlighted in your comment. NA is a professional and so am I. Instead of butting heads, we need to recognize that top-notch s/o's can be found in both types of security. They are just not as common in the companies I have worked for. :)

[N. A. Corbier]

Keep in mind, I used to work unarmed. I don't believe that putting a gun on someone will cure everyone of their wills.

My expectation is to hire people that actually care about what they're doing. They're either experienced professionals (up front expensive), or willing to learn how to be experienced professionals (training investment expensive).

Sure, we'll get the group of wackaloos who couldn't cut it at the local PD (They don't even require college for 5 years, just an application). And then we'll determine why they couldn't cut it, and if required, ensure we don't have to "cut them."

One of the major things about all the security companies (3) in my area are they are unarmed and eschew all forms of weapons. They advertise - specifically, they are observe and report without interference. Even the one that calls themselves "private police."

People can't really hire armed security in this area without going to Madison or Milwaukee. That includes the city and county.

Am I saying we'll have nothing but armed security? I don't believe it'll be completely armed, but the initial contracts I wish to pursue to "get on the map" are places that I would not put an unarmed man or woman, no matter how badass their ninja skillz.

However, I do not believe in sticking unarmed folks in a marked patrol car. They're now a bad guy magnet. Every armed officer who has opposed that bad guy, every idiot who can't tell the difference between them and "the police," and every DUI on the road may want to have a "talk" with the driver of that truck/car about how they hate cops or hate my employees. They may let S&W do the talking.

[Mr. Security]

Agreed. :) A patrol car is asking for trouble if you work unarmed. I feel comfortable in my position because I have lots of barriers between me and the bad guy. Excellent perimeter fencing, multiple locked doors, and state of the art CCTV. If an intruder gets to me, it will be my own fault because either I let him in or "I fell asleep at the switch." If I have to confront a trespasser, I can safely do it from a distance with a bull-horn that I purchased with my own money. Dealing with fires is possible for me because I have taught fire prevention and response procedures, discharged numerous fire extinguishers, used fire hoses to put out practice fires, and served on a factory fire brigade.

Some other s/o's where I work are former marines, reserve police officers, or currently serving as EMT's. Other sites are staffed with Barney Fifes. It just depends on who they hire. Fortunately, my post is staffed with the good ones (although there have been exceptions).

[TheShortWesker]

I am an Officer with the Annapolis Mall Security.

First: No one bothered to get the truth out about the incident, which happened back in February. In actuality, the security officer was working with the robbers. None of us want to admit that one of our own would be willing or able to do something so heinous, but they do. So many of our fellow security professionals abuse their jobs, and neglect their posts.

Second: They have 2 officers at night, of course neither of which sees each other except when the lots are being roped off. We should at least be given pepper spray.
The only thing we have to defend ourselves with are those rediculous tourtrax wands. You can throw it at someones head, or you can use it like a blackjack, but that's about it. Someone needs to enact some sort of legislation requiring us to be certified to carry something to protect ourselves. Of course the companies we work for would much rather not have us certified to carry anything to defend ourselves, because that means they would have to pay us more. We should at least be able to carry OC Spray and an ASP.

[SD Security]

I never heard about this incident which is really weird. TheShortWesker you have TourTrax and CASE Global, isn't that all you need? lol

[Mall Director]

I am an Officer with the Annapolis Mall Security.

First: No one bothered to get the truth out about the incident, which happened back in February. In actuality, the security officer was working with the robbers. None of us want to admit that one of our own would be willing or able to do something so heinous, but they do. So many of our fellow security professionals abuse their jobs, and neglect their posts.

Second: They have 2 officers at night, of course neither of which sees each other except when the lots are being roped off. We should at least be given pepper spray.
The only thing we have to defend ourselves with are those rediculous tourtrax wands. You can throw it at someones head, or you can use it like a blackjack, but that's about it. Someone needs to enact some sort of legislation requiring us to be certified to carry something to protect ourselves. Of course the companies we work for would much rather not have us certified to carry anything to defend ourselves, because that means they would have to pay us more. We should at least be able to carry OC Spray and an ASP.

I feel for your dilema. When I first took over the current department I am at, there was no defensive measures for the officers. Our corporate wasnt to enclined to be assistful. Once we provided the reports showing the violence we encountered daily, it changed their minds. I would fight for it hard in your case. It never hurts to have additional tools to help fix the problems!