Absoloulty no first punch

[LiveNlearn]

I am looking for ways to change my employers mind about a policy they have implemented.

I am the new Training Manager for this company and I recently updated the use of force curriculum. I talk about force considerations and that there maybe times when the Security Officer may need to strike someone. That is when the HR people started jumping up and down and advised me that the Company has a STRICT “no first punch policy.” They also want something in there that states we are strictly a hands off company, but then there are accounts that require detention of shoplifters and are quite high risk.

I don’t think this is a good idea and tried to articulated my opinion and the reasons why this is a liability issue for the company. I used an example of an Armed Officer you are not going to wait until the bad guy gets the first shot at you before you shoot him. Still no go.

Any suggestions? Court decisions that could help? I don’t want to change the world, I just one sentence.

and yes I know I made a spelling mistake

[NRM_Oz]

To cover the backsides of idiots who do as they please, you need to ensure they are in a picture form of what is required of them and examples and in their training sign off on it - as in - Non-Lethal Force does not mean being a security ninja with a pencil. If you can PROVE the person had training, knew the steps and then had no other option or over-stepped their boundaries then you are fine.

I am also a certified and accredited trainer and if for example I certified you as competent and you weren't I could be held accountable for your actions (like the levels of force). Cover yourself with these training protocols and all should be well - but make sure they follow the standard practices first.

[doulos Christou]

I don't ever "punch" someone I confront. Now, does this mean I don't grapple, choke, knee, throw, or wrist lock a subject? Absolutely not. Throwing the first punch makes you look like the aggressor to witnesses. It also makes it a little difficult to defend yourself in court. I would never take a punch from someone, but when they start making 'target glances' or getting riled up enough to fight, a little self-defense kicks in and I put them down...hard...

Also, do like Oz says and like I do. Get as many certifications as you possibly can. If your company will approve something, do it. If they don't have a policy for certain training, research it and present it.

[LiveNlearn]

I'm not worried about me, I am a PPCT Instructor, ASP Instructor, OCAT, PATH, Monodnock, Glock, NRA LE Firearms (handgun, shotgun, patrol rifle, precision rifle) NRA Civilian Firearms (basic pistol, rifle, shotgun), Verbal Judo, this that and the other instructor.

I document everything. What I am looking for is a little push to the upper management on allowing the officers to take initiative. Not really the first punch, unless it is necessary. What they are telling me is no hands on at all, unless it is to defend, and that is after they have taken a hit. That makes no sense at all to me. you should not have to take a hit before you are allowed to defend yourself.

In fact even state law is more lax than that. I think I have an argument that will work but I was looking for some legal stuff that I could use to seal the deal. They dropped this stuff on me after I gave them a new restriction on force program and basicly lopped me off at the knees.

[doulos Christou]

I would suggets a remedial reader's course for the mgmt. Then they could possibly learn through case study and training issues that 'self defense' does not mean waiting until your are attacked. It is proactive. I will be looking for some statutes, but they will be based on TX law. Might help a bit.

[VSTORM]

As a principal for a security company, I know for sure that the insurance rates almost double for hands on. During my first year of business I HAD to swear and sign my name in blood to have a hands off policy, or I couldn't get insured.

I worked for a security that gave that exact response that you are getting. Hands off, but you are required to go hands on for thefts. They were attempting to bypass and push the blame to reduce costs. It won't work however. If you are a loss prevention officer that is required to apprehend offenders, with hands off, the insurance company will not cover the company and the LP officer has a case of neglect. OSHA rules are vague, but court cases vary as to who is liable. There haven't been enough big cases here to search exactly.

States (courts) vary across the country. In Washington State, the company will be held liable for placing the officer in a position were they have to go hands on but with a hands off policy.

Does that stop the companies from doing it? no way. guess it the dice haven't come up snake eyes yet.

I pay the higher insurance costs.

[jmaccauley]

It's difficult to change the minds of any administrator who is more concerned about liability issues than their employees safety. The approach I recommend is to use that same thought process in your argument. There is deliberate indifference that can get your company sued if it can be proven that security officers are assaulted frequently, yet no effort was taken to allow or train officers in ways to protect themselves. The Vicarious Liability, a term your HR people are probably familiar with, in claiming to be able to protect persons and property but not insisting that this be done magically, without touching.

As for the Use of Force Continuum, follow the lead set by many progressive police departments. Using Supreme Court guidelines (Tenn. v Garner, Graham v Conner) the continuum is being replaced by allowing officers to justify their responses to resistance by the "totality of the circumstances." Teaching specific techniques to counter specific actions is both dangerous to the officer and the suspect. Knowing that some force is necessary will cover most agencies. However, it must be explained and justified.

[doulos Christou]

This is almost as bad as my current employer. No pursuit, no touch policy. I don't bother arguing it with them. What bothers/confuses me about them is the no self-defense tools policy. We have officers all around Texas, but Austin is the only branch where we are not allowed to carry any form of self-defense. I have heard rumor that even my pocket knife I have carried since the Boy Scout days is a no-no. This, my friends, is why I am searching for employment elsewhere. I have trained and paid to be licensed and do not care for a no carry company.

[Alaska Security]

Guess entering the force matrix at the level required to contain the situation (which includes more force than the aggressor) goes out the window with that company.

[N. A. Corbier]

This is one of those stupid liability moves. The idea is that its easier to show in a tort case that the guard could not of been the aggressor.

After all, the guard was required to be struck by the attacker, proving that the guard could not be the aggressor.

[LiveNlearn]

It all comes down to the company gambling that it won't happen to them, or their officer.

I have seen this with other companies and every one of them have had it come back to bite them.

Why listen to someone with a tad of experience and knowledge on the subject.

Anyone looking for a trainer? hehehe I might have some free time soon

[Maelstrom]

Some management types want to have their cake AND eat it too, I really don't see the issue as there's quite a difference between defensive tactics and offensive techniques... perhaps a little Q & A session with case studies & real physical demonstrations (combined with Incident reports of serious events) for these HR bean counters would be most productive ;)

You could always go the other route and agree with a non pro-active approach right up to where you explain (to management) you'll be instructing security operatives to let offenders walk rather than get physical and apprehend if verbal requests are ineffective :D

[N. A. Corbier]

Some management types want to have their cake AND eat it too, I really don't see the issue as there's quite a difference between defensive tactics and offensive techniques... perhaps a little Q & A session with case studies & real physical demonstrations (combined with Incident reports of serious events) for these HR bean counters would be most productive ;)

You could always go the other route and agree with a non pro-active approach right up to where you explain (to management) you'll be instructing security operatives to let offenders walk rather than get physical and apprehend if verbal requests are ineffective :D

I'm not sure you understand what private security, by and large, does in America. The companies that tell you to apprehend people are the minority. The companies that tell you to touch people are the minority.

The 'other route' is the route in America for the majority of security firms.

As far as defensive and offensive... It doesn't matter. The bottom line is, the firm is afraid that if you touch someone for any reason you're going to cost them money. They can't tell you to stand there and allow yourself to be beaten, but they can tell you that you're not allowed to stop someone from hitting you, only defend yourself after being hit.

[NRM_Oz]

Ironically the laws changed in my state last year and this includes more power for arrests and searches (yes we can conduct pat downs legally if I fear for my safety) but I won't be unless my life is in danger and I had no other choice.

PPCT, I completed my training around 10 10 years ago - best method of control I have EVER come across in close confined spaces like clubs and sporting centres as well as escorting people from premises in corporate environments. It was used in correctional centres for years but outlawed by Maelstrom's state police were all filmed using these methods for moving protesters off from a march about 10 years back but were all aimed at using PPCT on the Carotid artery (bloody dangerous). I think.

As for no contact security this is important with the likes of LP or removal of intoxicated persons who may attack you and the company policy will dictate - no contact so your argument is about defending yourself to the law.

N.A. we thankfully don't have the % of law suits in Australia as the USA has now progressed with, and I do know the cost of insurance premiums are through the roof as the risks involved are continually climbing due to lack of certification and individual assessment. The only solution is a blanket policy of YES CONTACT or NO CONTACT due to the misinterpretation or ego trips by most people through stupidity of innocence.

I posted our knife laws before but anything over 1.5 inches or 4 cm blade is considered and offensive weapon and could have me charged.

[jmaccauley]

Guess entering the force matrix at the level required to contain the situation (which includes more force than the aggressor) goes out the window with that company.
The problem with any force matrix, or cintinuum, is not knowing how much force will be required to handle the situation until after you begin. The Supreme Court actually used this analogy: "How much water does it take to put out a fire?" Of course, the answer depends on many factors but the point is, "as much as it takes." If the contracting agency promises something to the client and has absoluely no way to deliver it, guess where the liability lies?

[LiveNlearn]

I had the meeting of meetings today, boy did minds come together on this one.

Still the same policy, I tried to explain it three different ways, used as many examples, demonstrations, case law, and statutes I could find.

Bottom line - don't touch anyone, ever. All well and good till you tell me in the same breath I have to teach these guys and galls how to install handcuffs on shoplifters.

I have worked for some backward thinking places in my time but this takes the cake.

Maybe I need to think about a career change, completely different industry. hmmmm.... hoe bout a cat-burglar, that sounds exciting. heheh high-angle fishing guide? think about it, fly fishing mountain streams suspended by rope and carbiner directly over the stream - an adventure sport if i ever heard of one.

I wonder who they will be using as their use of force expert at trial? hmmm... won't be me

[J_Stokes]

That high angle fishing thing sounds like it might be an interesting experience.
But really a no hands on policy is great until you are the one who gets assaulted, from first hand experience it's nearly impossible to not defend yourself no matter what the corporate policy. j.

[doulos Christou]

Can't OSHA have a field day if you get hurt because the company doesn't provide reasonable means to defend yourself? Or do S/O's get screwed there?

[jmaccauley]

I had the meeting of meetings today, boy did minds come together on this one.

Still the same policy, I tried to explain it three different ways, used as many examples, demonstrations, case law, and statutes I could find.

Bottom line - don't touch anyone, ever. All well and good till you tell me in the same breath I have to teach these guys and galls how to install handcuffs on shoplifters.

I have worked for some backward thinking places in my time but this takes the cake.

Maybe I need to think about a career change, completely different industry. hmmmm.... hoe bout a cat-burglar, that sounds exciting. heheh high-angle fishing guide? think about it, fly fishing mountain streams suspended by rope and carbiner directly over the stream - an adventure sport if i ever heard of one.

I wonder who they will be using as their use of force expert at trial? hmmm... won't be me
You might want to become a shoplifter. What are the chances they could catch and hold you? Maybe you could start teaching your folks to hand the cuffs to the suspect and explain how to cuff themselves. It would make for an amusing class if nothing else.

[SecTrainer]

"No first punch" doesn't necessarily mean, as I take it, "no defensive response".

There's an excellent new "dynamic response" model for use of force that was published in the September, 2007 issue of the FBI Bulletin. You can read it here: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2007/sept07leb.pdf

It is based on 4 levels of resistance (well, actually only 3):

1. No resistance. Subject is compliant. Officer presence and/or commands are sufficient.

2. Passive resistance. Subject either simply refuses to comply or attempts to escape. Various "holds", "locks" or "come-alongs" are appropriate responses by the officer.

3. Aggressive resistance. Subject acts in some physically threatening way (see below). Officer defends himself with hands (defensive techniques), baton, spray, Taser using sufficient force to subdue the other.

4. Deadly resistance. No explanation necessary. Officer responds with sufficient force, up to and including deadly force, to extinguish the threat.

"Aggressive resistance" does not have to be allowed to move to the point of an actual blow of some kind (kick, etc.) landing on your person. An attack usually actually begins in the form of some kind of "loading", positioning, etc. In other words, you never have to "give" the other individual the "first punch" (kick, grab, etc.) before his behavior is considered to be "aggressive resistance". The fact that he is getting ready to attack is, in fact, the beginning of the attack. Refusal to comply with verbal commands, combined with threatening behavior of any kind (for instance, subject makes threats and starts to close on the officer) can by any "reasonable person" standard be lawfully interpreted as aggression toward you.

"Use of force" is not about "who punches who first" (a silly idea, indeed!), but about making the appropriate response to the observed behavior and intent of the other individual. No use of force model that I am aware of requires you to give anyone a freebie. As I have said here before, you threaten me verbally and take a step toward me, you'll find that I'm going to do everything in my power to see that I'm there firstest with the mostest.

You know, folks, these situations don't just "materialize", as a general rule. Sure, there are "surprise" attacks, but in most cases you have some period of interaction with the other individual that tells you this guy thinks he is going to be trouble for you. The very SECOND that this begins to dawn on you, begin to prepare for response at the very FIRST offensive action that he takes. Such response should be HIGHLY PRACTICED for different situations. You're maintaining reach-distance and already should KNOW that if this guy takes a step to close the distance you're going to...what? Stand there flat-footed?

YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ANYONE A FREE PUNCH AT YOU BEFORE STRIKING ANYMORE THAN YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM A FREE SHOT AT YOU BEFORE SHOOTING THEM. All they have to do is to threaten you, coupled with the apparent ability and readiness to carry out the threat. Some guy has a gun. You tell him to drop it but he doesn't. Now, what - he gets a free shot at you? Nope - all he has to do is to start to swing the gun in your direction and you are entirely justified in blowing his tits off.

Regarding a nondeadly assailant, you might spray him or Tase him if you already have these in hand. However, in my experience you probably won't have them in hand because we usually wait too long. In that case, the best response in my experience is to close on him FASTER than he does, with your first strike (for me, this is usually a foot-stomp, heel-of-hand strike to the chin or rabbit-punch to the solar plexus) already loaded up and my second move already selected and loaded up. I don't wait to assess the result of my first move and he'll get at least two strikes from me in close order. If I don't see immediate submission, he'll get a third and a fourth...I am going to get inside his decision cycle and put him on the ground, period. And, every strike is the full-tilt boogie, meaning everything I've got behind it. Have I put people in the hospital? Absolutely. The bed already had their name on it when they undertook to attack me. Have I ever regretted doing so? Nope...not for even one tiny second. But I bet they regret making the decision to attack when it didn't have to be that way. It was THEIR DECISION, not mine.

They wanted to fight, and a fight can only end up in one of two ways, boys. You're either the guy standing, or you're not. This isn't the playground where little boys holler "Uncle" and the fight's over.

So, I will launch first if possible, but remember, HE HAS ALREADY MADE AN AGGRESSIVE MOVE...I did NOT "start the fight". In other words, I see this thing coming and I've decided exactly what I'm going to do, and what behavior of his will trigger my response. Threaten me and take a step toward me, and I'm going to do my best to see that's the last thing you do. I'm nobody's punching bag, thank you. I'm already responding to his FIRST AGGRESSIVE ACTION before he can launch a punch - even while he's still loading it up, if possible. I TAKE THE INITIATIVE, and I sure don't worry for one second about all this "first punch" garbage. One way or another, I'm going home after this fight and he's going to jail or to the hospital, and I frankly don't care much which. I take the initiative to make sure that this is how it turns out - I never, never, never give the initiative to anyone else.

The one thing an aggressor NEVER expects is that you're going to seize the initiative and that he will suddenly find himself shifting to defensive mode. If you MOVE, and do so decisively and swiftly, very few punks know what to do when that happens. I wish I could describe some of the looks of surprise I've seen...

Threatening behavior is threatening behavior. Everyone recognizes it exactly for what it is. Most sadsacks telegraph everything they're going to do, if you're paying attention. If you're maintaining reach-distance during a confrontation, what's the first thing he HAS to do? It's not hard to figure out, and when he takes that very first step toward , he has, in effect, already begun his attack. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT ONE MILLISECOND LONGER TO RESPOND.

Practice with someone in different scenarios, and practice a lot.