Legal Recourse?

[doulos Christou]

Let me preface this by saying, despite my ability to be a bit of a horse's arse here at times, I maintain as professional a disposition at work as anyone else I have ever seen in the field and it has been noted by supervisors, responding LEO's, and clients. I feel this should be noted as it is relevant to this thread.

At a post I used to stand with a different company(a good friend is now working there and loves the job outside of this issue) , there has been an increase of verbal abuse from some of the residents, including some of those in positions of authority, i.e. the board members and such. He is not the only officer experiencing such issues and, as the site supervisor, he is concerned at the increase of attacks on officers.

I had some of these issues and actually warned him of the potential before he accepted the post. He is much more level-headed than I could ever be/imagine, so I know it takes quite a bit for him to get riled up to the point of reacting.

While it may never happen, he and I do not put the possibility of a physical confrontation out of the picture. This site does not allow any form of protection for the officers and they are prohibited from carrying restraints as well. If a physical altercation was to occur and the officer was injured, do they have any legal recourse against the employer? Against the client?

He and I raised the same question as we both work sites on occassion that do not allow any forms of self-defense for the security officers on post.

[shadowmib]

So what you are asking if if one of the client's decides to physicalluy assault the guard. so they have any legal recourse? Well I would say calling the police and filing charges of assault or whatever would be a good idea. There is no reason a client should be verbally abusing the guards at any site.

[doulos Christou]

I think I could have worded the question better. That was, in fact, part of it. During the course of our discussion, he also asked if he would have any legal ground to stand on to press charges against the employer, whose prohibition of legal self-defense means directly contributed to his being injured, as well as the client whose post orders further prohibit any type of self-defense. Basically, would the company and/or property owner's board stand the risk of being sued into the ground if he was assaulted and injured.

My suggestion is to request another post if is much of a concern, but I know that the post is gravy otherwise. The abusive folks are few and far between, but they are the loudest and are dealt with regularly.

[txinvestigator]

I think I could have worded the question better. That was, in fact, part of it. During the course of our discussion, he also asked if he would have any legal ground to stand on to press charges against the employer, The term "charges" usually refers to criminal action. No, your employer would have no criminal responsibility for having such a policy.
whose prohibition of legal self-defense means directly contributed to his being injured, as well as the client whose post orders further prohibit any type of self-defense. Can you post those rules that "prohibit" self defense?

I just have to say, I do not consider words as assault or abuse, unless they threaten physical violence.

[SecTrainer]

Three points:

1. No one can prohibit anyone else from defending themselves, period. However, a security company (or its clients) can certainly prohibit employees from carrying or using restraints (i.e., cuffs) and from carrying or using weapons - whether "defensive" (i.e., OC spray) or "offensive" (i.e., firearm). Even when those are prohibited, however, the officer can still make himself proficient in methods of unarmed self-defense (and even in the use of everyday items as "unconventional" weapons if the threat level justifies it).

In other words, if an unarmed officer were attacked by a knife-wielding assailant, he would be justified in using some object in his environment (i.e., a piece of pipe) to defend his life and terminate the attack. Held and used properly, the sharp corners of a hardback book can be quite effective. Get one off the shelf and poke yourself in the face with a corner (gently!)...you'll get the "point". Held out with two hands, it can make an effective shield. All it takes to use unconventional weapons is (1) looking at objects to discover these possibilities and then (2) practicing with them. For instance, go to a store that carries a wide array of metal thermos bottles - especially with strong handles. Interesting possibilities, no? Wander around a hardware store, a camping store, etc. and let your brain float freely around all of the things you see.

I know an officer who is not permitted to carry a "weapon", but he does carry a very innocent-looking key ring and wears an equally innocent-looking necklace - neither of which would constitute a weapon by the furthest stretch of the imagination (you can carry them onto airplanes) but in his well-practiced hands...well...'nuff said. The end result is that he's armed quite effectively against the possibility of an attack, while carrying nothing that he's prohibited from carrying (and nothing that any citizen would be prohibited from carrying by law). I think he also carries a rattail comb in his back pocket, or used to. I have a couple of things myself that I can carry in situations where CCW is prohibited.

For those who are interested, the necklace is sort of like the one shown below except it has a 1" round decorative wooden bead or knob secured at each end and uses those powerful magnetic clasps instead of the catch you see here. It's quite attractive as jewelry, but he can get it in his hand before you can count to 2.

2. Officers who find themselves working in environments like this can and should seek to gain skills in verbal judo, deescalation and other violence avoidance and reduction methods. Again, no one can prohibit (or should want to prohibit) them from using these tools.

3. There's a more fundamental issue going on in the situation you describe. There is such a thing as civil liability when an employer knowingly and unnecessarily permits an unsafe or "hostile work environment" to exist that the employer could and should attempt to mitigate, which clearly seems to be the case here.

No doubt, the courts would find that a certain amount of "hostility" is to be expected where security is concerned...but only to a reasonable degree (whatever that might be). At some point, the employer has an obligation to be doing something about this situation, and when things get to the point that an attack becomes reasonably foreseeable, that obligation becomes an urgent responsibility. In other words, this employer needs to be working with the client to put a stop to this situation. I would start by meeting privately with the board members who have been abusive and trying to get to the bottom of that particular element of the situation, because no doubt it has a lot of influence on what others believe they can get away with.

In doing this, I would wait until I had a very specific incident to investigate that involves a board member and tell the board member that my main concern was whether my officers had contributed to the incident. This would no doubt help to gain their cooperation - but that would not be the extent of my investigation, as they would discover, and on elucidating the board member's own contribution to the incident I would decide whether to give them a private warning about what would occur next if it happened again or taking the findings before the whole board.

A security provider cannot serve its clients properly by ignoring the misbehaviors, policy violations, dangerous activities, etc. of the client's own people - even if they're board members. It sounds to me like this security employer really needs to grow a pair.

[jtwestern]

Dougo,

What about a camera/recorder, something like that? Document that actions of the individual? Lots of cheap stuff out there, besides cell cams. Tape recorder would at least tape the audio part and show the situation as it's unfolding, especially if the S/O is using verbal tactics to try and quiet down the situation.

Attorneys hate that kind of thing in a civil suit. Plays well with the jury.

[centsec]

JT Western...you have to be careful recording "audio" without the knowledge of the person(s) be recorded. That itself can be illegal depending on the laws in your state.

Even if you are prohibited in defending yourself...I do not really think one would really think about that if they were on the other end of a violent attack. Your objective is to go home...no matter what!

[doulos Christou]

Can you post those rules that "prohibit" self defense?

That was poor wording on my part. I typed "self defense means" when I should have typed "means of self defense."


I just have to say, I do not consider words as assault or abuse, unless they threaten physical violence.

I consider cussing an officer out to be verbal abuse. I am not the only one of this opinion. Regardless, words are not the point. The point is that the verbal abuse has been increasing and my experience shows that it is only a matter of time before something physical happens.

[doulos Christou]

JT Western...you have to be careful recording "audio" without the knowledge of the person(s) be recorded. That itself can be illegal depending on the laws in your state.

IIRC Some states allow you to get around this simply by informing the person that they are being recorded. If they continue to speak, they have given consent to be recorded...


Even if you are prohibited in defending yourself...I do not really think one would really think about that if they were on the other end of a violent attack. Your objective is to go home...no matter what!

Agreed...I know exactly what I am willing to do if attacked. That was not the question. Here's a hypothetical: I am on post and approach a drunk who is belligerant and verbally abusive towards other persons on the site. I ask the man to leave and he advances towards me, threatening my safety. I am completely unarmed. A physical altercation ensues and I am injured to the point that I am unable to perform my duties for an extended period of time (think broken bone.) If I can prove the ability of intermediate force options in preventing these types of instances, would I have legal grounds for a lawsuit on my employer? Basically, they acknowledged that the environment was not safe(or they wouldn't need security in the first place) yet they did not allow for even basic means of protection for the officers...

[ExecPro]

Basically, they acknowledged that the environment was not safe(or they wouldn't need security in the first place) yet they did not allow for even basic means of protection for the officers...


Your above statement doesn't make sense. You are basically implying that anytime an unarmed security guard is hurt while conducting his duties, the company should be open to suit.

Your options would be the same for any other person, call the police and file charges against the person who attacked you, then file for workers compensation.

[doulos Christou]

Your above statement doesn't make sense. You are basically implying that anytime an unarmed security guard is hurt while conducting his duties, the company should be open to suit.

The fact that you cannot comprehend something does not mean that it does not make sense. I did not make any sort of implication. I asked a question and presented a hypothetical situation for someone who appeared to misunderstand, or they just didn't read, the OP.

I personally think that too many people in our country use lawsuits as a means to throw a temper tantrum when they do not get their way, so they are obviously an absolute last resort. However, it seems entirely reasonable that an employer should have some sort of liability for the well-being of their officers, especially in a situation when they flat-out forbid any means of personal protection. That was the subject of the discussion that prompted this thread and that was the point that you missed.

[ExecPro]

I was responding to the statement I quoted, that's why I quoted it.

I think my comprehension is just fine, perhaps you need to better articulate certain statements in your posts. You would also benefit from speaking to people in a more professional manner and subtract the aggressive and insulting tone.

I really don't need you to educate me in civil law, I've conducted hundreds of civil investigations and I don't feel obligated to provide assistance to someone who speaks to others in such a poor manner.

Good luck with your situation.

[doulos Christou]

I was responding to the statement I quoted, that's why I quoted it.

I think my comprehension is just fine, perhaps you need to better articulate certain statements in your posts. You would also benefit from speaking to people in a more professional manner and subtract the aggressive and insulting tone.

I really don't need you to educate me in civil law, I've conducted hundreds of civil investigations and I don't feel obligated to provide assistance to someone who speaks to others in such a poor manner.

Good luck with your situation.


Are you done yet?

[SecTrainer]

If the decision not to arm security employees is made despite demonstrable or reasonably foreseeable risks of their being involved in armed confrontations, there is every reason that the employer can and should be sued if an officer is subsequently harmed in such an incident. This is absolutely no different from refusing to provide an employee with a hard hat despite the demonstrable risk of head injury.

It's a generally recognized principle of labor law in the US that employers must take appropriate measures to protect employees who are at risk. While society has been somewhat slow to apply this principle to people in emergency and protective occupations, it is happening now. We're seeing it with regard to the fire service, EMT service, law enforcement, etc.

It is utterly despicable for any security employer to place unarmed officers in positions that have a reasonably foreseeable risk of armed confrontation merely for reasons of cost savings/profit. It is equally reprehensible for security vendors to accept contracts with clients that insist on officers being unarmed even when such a demand is professionally unacceptable in view of the risks to those officers.

The callous disregard for the lives of security officers by their employers MUST BE BROUGHT TO AN END ONCE AND FOR ALL, and it seems that only punishing such employers and/or driving them out of business will accomplish this. More lawsuits - not less - are in order and should be encouraged because these are not "trivial" matters by any stretch of the imagination or by any moral code or ethical standard that I'm familiar with. I am sick to death of unarmed officers being gunned down at their posts, unable to defend themselves, when it was completely predictable that just such a thing might happen.

[ExecPro]

Are you advocating that unarmed security be outlawed?

[N. A. Corbier]

I think he's advocating that everyone have the basic means to protect themselves from harm that their employer purposefully puts them in. And yes, it is purposeful. It is purposeful because the security company is knowingly placing its employee in a situation where the guard may come under attack.

Most guard firms attempt to mitigate the risk by proving that the security company could not have known that there was a foreseeable risk.

[ExecPro]

I'm in argeement with both of you, it's just that there is always a "foreseeable risk."

Guards have been attacked, killed, and injured at posts that have a relatively low risk level and Sectrainer states we should protect employees who are at risk (which I argee); however I'm not sure where to draw the line in doing so.