Arming Officers

[SecTrainer]

Picking up on the recent discussion regarding whether or when arming officers makes sense, it also occurred to me that while we looked at various permutations of "arming officers" (e.g., certain officers armed, armed but concealed, weapons cache, etc.) we didn't get to the question "armed with what?", and this is an important element of the discussion.

However, I'm not trying to resurrect the old perennial arguments about which caliber is best, revolver versus pistol, etc. Instead, in asking "armed with what?", I'd like to focus not on the weapon, but on the choice of ammunition specifically as it relates to the risk of arming officers in certain venues and that might otherwise lead to the conclusion that it doesn't "make sense" if you assume it means they're going to be carrying large-bore guns with "normal" ammunition.

There's been a lot of work done in the area of creating ammunition that has low-to-zero risk of wall penetration, richochet and splash-back. ICC, for instance, produces both training and duty versions of their frangible ammunition that meets FBI specs, available in common handgun, rifle and shotgun calibers. We sometimes forget about this option when we think about the risks of firearms.

http://www.iccammo.com/ (Google "frangible ammunition" or "safety ammunition" for lots of hits on what's going on with frangibles.)

As I said in the original thread, the question of "when does it make sense to arm officers" is a complex question that in great measure depends on EXACTLY what you mean by "armed", and in what specific setting. "Arming" officers in a residential community with .45's and "regular" ammunition might be too risky to "make sense", while a 9mm with frangible duty-grade ammo would be acceptable. Even if it's not your weapon of choice ("stopping power", etc.), something is better than nothing.

[Sytx]

One problem with restricting what caliber the officers use is some might not have that caliber of gun available and then you have to provide it/maintain it/etc. Company gun's kind of hold their own reputation from what I have seen. No one seems to like them at all unless they don't want to get their own sidearms and they are mainly used just to have a gun at that site. Not really for a true professional armed guard kind of job, more a "here is a uniform, be scared" kind of post if you understand what I am aiming at. As you said something is better than nothing, but think about this... if a crack head comes charging in and your officer's .40 or .45 is at home and he is carrying that 9mm with safety rounds when it is not required by the site and the lack of stopping power causes harm to come to him or someone else who would be responsible for restricting him to this? While I think it's a great idea and like it restricting them is what would concern me as I wouldn't want my officer's in unnecessary harms way.

Back to ammo... The requirements to use frangible would be good but I would also make sure you are providing it or it is easily accessible to the officers. Also if they have to go out and spend $20+ on special ammo they should be reimbursed. One such company I worked for had a contract with a hospital and they wanted our officer's to use Glaser rounds. They started stocking them in the company's physical store for the officers. As most that have been involved in fire fights know you need to carry extra mag's and we would only require the mag loaded into the weapon to have these rounds and would inspect this when at that site. They preferred Hydro-shock's for all other posts and stocked those as well. With shotguns it was always left to personal choice just nothing wild and crazy, buck shot or tactical slugs mainly. I believe that company gave a 10% discount for all employee's in whatever you bought from store from the "Rite in the Rain" notepads to mini-14's to light bars from their physical store so it made it easier for officers to equip professional equipment if they wanted to make a career out of the business or just grab the basic's if they were just in it for a paycheck.

Origional Post for reference (http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/showthread.php?t=9266)

[Sierra 1]

It's not with what (handgun) you arm them with, it's how you train them. Provide beyond the state standard of 4 hours in the classroom and 4 hours on the range. Develop a solid 18-20 hour armed training program that includes the basics of marksmanship, weapon's manipulation, safety, legal aspects/considerations, mental conditioning, and a qualification course that requires proficiency in all the elements mentioned.

By the way, the myth of the over-penetrating handgun round is sooooo tired............

About 80% of people shot with handgun rounds survive. Unfortunately this includes the bad guys.

[N. A. Corbier]

Florida, by administrative code, prohibits frangible ammunition, FMJ (except in 9mm), and other rounds that have "enhanced lethality" or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Honestly, I think EFMJ, Safety Round (Frang), duty frang, and other ammunition that transfers kenetic energy to the target without over-penetration is superior to simple penetration.

We shoot people to cause a loss of blood to the brain, rendering them unconscious. Until we have another method of rapidly decreasing blood pressure to the brain that doesn't have a high likely hood of death, that's what we have to work with.

Anything that lowers the target's blood pressure to the brain to cause unconsciousness even faster while lowering the risk of destroying property or injuring persons around the target is good.

I think that's why the next generation of taser round, the one that has a micro XREP cell in lethal ammunition, is being researched. If you can electrocute the target, scrambling their nervous system much like a XREP round does, then you need less bullets to render the target immobile.

Less rounds means less likelyhood of death resulting from massive trauma to the chest cavity.

[SecTrainer]

It's not with what (handgun) you arm them with, it's how you train them. Provide beyond the state standard of 4 hours in the classroom and 4 hours on the range. Develop a solid 18-20 hour armed training program that includes the basics of marksmanship, weapon's manipulation, safety, legal aspects/considerations, mental conditioning, and a qualification course that requires proficiency in all the elements mentioned.

By the way, the myth of the over-penetrating handgun round is sooooo tired............

About 80% of people shot with handgun rounds survive. Unfortunately this includes the bad guys.

Sorry - I disagree completely that the weapon and ammo do not matter when it comes to the risks associated with wall penetration, ricochets, etc. Even the world's most competent shooter can miss a shot, especially in combat situations.

[SecTrainer]

One problem with restricting what caliber the officers use is some might not have that caliber of gun available and then you have to provide it/maintain it/etc. Company gun's kind of hold their own reputation from what I have seen. No one seems to like them at all unless they don't want to get their own sidearms and they are mainly used just to have a gun at that site. Not really for a true professional armed guard kind of job, more a "here is a uniform, be scared" kind of post if you understand what I am aiming at. As you said something is better than nothing, but think about this... if a crack head comes charging in and your officer's .40 or .45 is at home and he is carrying that 9mm with safety rounds when it is not required by the site and the lack of stopping power causes harm to come to him or someone else who would be responsible for restricting him to this? While I think it's a great idea and like it restricting them is what would concern me as I wouldn't want my officer's in unnecessary harms way.

Back to ammo... The requirements to use frangible would be good but I would also make sure you are providing it or it is easily accessible to the officers. Also if they have to go out and spend $20+ on special ammo they should be reimbursed. One such company I worked for had a contract with a hospital and they wanted our officer's to use Glaser rounds. They started stocking them in the company's physical store for the officers. As most that have been involved in fire fights know you need to carry extra mag's and we would only require the mag loaded into the weapon to have these rounds and would inspect this when at that site. They preferred Hydro-shock's for all other posts and stocked those as well. With shotguns it was always left to personal choice just nothing wild and crazy, buck shot or tactical slugs mainly. I believe that company gave a 10% discount for all employee's in whatever you bought from store from the "Rite in the Rain" notepads to mini-14's to light bars from their physical store so it made it easier for officers to equip professional equipment if they wanted to make a career out of the business or just grab the basic's if they were just in it for a paycheck.

Origional Post for reference (http://forums.securityinfowatch.com/showthread.php?t=9266)

There's obviously a lot of misinformation to the effect that safety ammunition lacks stopping power. Nothing could be further from the truth. (MagSafe ammunition blew the competition away bringing down goats in the Strasbourg test, for instance.) and there's video somewhere of them bringing down hogs. Note that they're used by Navy SEALS and narco squads.

http://yp.bellsouth.com/sites/magsafeammo/page2.html

Granted, safety ammunition is best for shorter-range defensive situations, perhaps < 20 yards, as it's not quite as accurate at long range, but short-range situations are the most common for security officers, and would be most common in exactly the type of venue where you'd want them for other reasons. Not saying they're right for ALL venues. Watch video demonstrating frangible loads running through a Glock (toward the end of the video you see that he's blowing watermelons to bits from about 15 feet, so it's not all THAT close-up, either). And yes, I know the watermelon is just a poor-man's gelatin block, but it still makes the point.

http://www.watermelonshoot.com/

...and my whole point is not whether one type of weapon/ammo is right in all situations, etc., but merely to say that when we ask "When does it make sense to arm security officers?" we have to clarify that being "armed" means a lot of different things and might make sense if you're talking about one "armed configuration" but not another.

Nate - illegal in FL? Interesting. A quick web search shows that you can buy Glaser safety slugs, Pow'R Ball and Magsafe at gunshops in Florida - and in fact, Magsafe and at least one other frangible ammo mfr are actually located in Florida themselves.

[Sytx]

Great links and good info on the links.

I will elaborate on what I have heard about the safety rounds (this is in general over all the different types). Basically that they had higher accuracy due to being lighter and as such traveling at higher velocities and better penetration but that some were the same as being hit with a bunch of small bb's and would not always cause massive trauma and blood loss to the assailant. Also that we really won't know for sure if they are just as good until another 5 years or so pass and they are used more and more in actual situations.

As I said I do like the idea of safety rounds. Specifically for me in home safety where my wife's son is in the room next to us and if I am unloading into a trespasser if that is what it takes rather than one Hydro-shock that stops the trespasser and goes through the house and hits him I am thinking of investing for this reason alone. We all went though training where we were taught to be responsible for each shot fired so we know how these things work and anything to aid that is more than worth it.

I am also with you on the taser rounds, those will be well worth it. We were banned for using them at a former place of employment as two fatalities had occurred from usage. I think they should have just added more training to the requirements instead of removing a fantastic non-lethal tool. Some genius (PD not us, I remember it in the local news even) tasered a man attempting to set him self on fire as the reached for the lighter to light himself on fire... obviously all this did was the job for him. The second was legal and a aggressive elderly vet that was drunk and had pre-existing heart conditions and the whole thing was on CCTV if I remember correctly which saved the officer's butt. I believe it was one of our officer's in the second incident but as most our people were PD also and just worked Security in their spare time and it came through the channels I can't be sure.

[SecTrainer]

Great links and good info on the links.

I will elaborate on what I have heard about the safety rounds (this is in general over all the different types). Basically that they had higher accuracy due to being lighter and as such traveling at higher velocities and better penetration but that some were the same as being hit with a bunch of small bb's and would not always cause massive trauma and blood loss to the assailant. Also that we really won't know for sure if they are just as good until another 5 years or so pass and they are used more and more in actual situations.

As I said I do like the idea of safety rounds. Specifically for me in home safety where my wife's son is in the room next to us and if I am unloading into a trespasser if that is what it takes rather than one Hydro-shock that stops the trespasser and goes through the house and hits him I am thinking of investing for this reason alone. We all went though training where we were taught to be responsible for each shot fired so we know how these things work and anything to aid that is more than worth it.

I am also with you on the taser rounds, those will be well worth it. We were banned for using them at a former place of employment as two fatalities had occurred from usage. I think they should have just added more training to the requirements instead of removing a fantastic non-lethal tool. Some genius (PD not us, I remember it in the local news even) tasered a man attempting to set him self on fire as the reached for the lighter to light himself on fire... obviously all this did was the job for him. The second was legal and a aggressive elderly vet that was drunk and had pre-existing heart conditions and the whole thing was on CCTV if I remember correctly which saved the officer's butt. I believe it was one of our officer's in the second incident but as most our people were PD also and just worked Security in their spare time and it came through the channels I can't be sure.

Hopefully everyone knows that there are OC sprays that should never be used in conjunction with Tasers unless you also carry a fire extinguisher on your belt. :rolleyes:

http://www.policeone.com/less-lethal/articles/128036/

[N. A. Corbier]

There's obviously a lot of misinformation to the effect that safety ammunition lacks stopping power. Nothing could be further from the truth. (MagSafe ammunition blew the competition away bringing down goats in the Strasbourg test, for instance.) and there's video somewhere of them bringing down hogs. Note that they're used by Navy SEALS and narco squads.

http://yp.bellsouth.com/sites/magsafeammo/page2.html

Granted, safety ammunition is best for shorter-range defensive situations, perhaps < 20 yards, as it's not quite as accurate at long range, but short-range situations are the most common for security officers, and would be most common in exactly the type of venue where you'd want them for other reasons. Not saying they're right for ALL venues. Watch video demonstrating frangible loads running through a Glock (toward the end of the video you see that he's blowing watermelons to bits from about 15 feet, so it's not all THAT close-up, either). And yes, I know the watermelon is just a poor-man's gelatin block, but it still makes the point.

http://www.watermelonshoot.com/

...and my whole point is not whether one type of weapon/ammo is right in all situations, etc., but merely to say that when we ask "When does it make sense to arm security officers?" we have to clarify that being "armed" means a lot of different things and might make sense if you're talking about one "armed configuration" but not another.

Nate - illegal in FL? Interesting. A quick web search shows that you can buy Glaser safety slugs, Pow'R Ball and Magsafe at gunshops in Florida - and in fact, Magsafe and at least one other frangible ammo mfr are actually located in Florida themselves.

Florida Administrative Code has a list of things you cannot use as ammunition while using your Class G firearms license. You have to use factory ammunition. You can't use FMJ except with the 9mm (No .38 Special FMJ rounds in your revolver.) You can't use frangible ammunition.

FAC 5N-1.129 AMMUNITION covers what a Licensed Security Officer or Private Investigator may carry for ammo in their weapon(s) while performing duties. Last updated in 1995.

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?ID=5N-1.129


5N-1.129 Ammunition.
Licensed agencies shall allow licensed employees to use only factory ammunition of a type and load which is appropriate for the location and duty requirements of armed employees, not including the following types of ammunition which are prohibited:
(1) Glaser type or any other pre fragmented type bullets.
(2) Exploding bullets.
(3) Full metal jacket (fmj)/full metal case (fmc) bullets (this can be used in semi automatic pistols only).
(4) Teflon coated (ktw type) or any other type of armor piercing bullets.
(5) Full wadcutter bullets (except on the firing range).
(6) Reloaded ammunition (except on the firing range).
Specific Authority 493.6103 FS. Law Implemented 493.6115(3), (4), (6) FS. History–New 11 25 92, Amended 5 15 95, Formerly 1C-3.129.

Yes, they regulate what you can use on the firing range, too. The way 493 is setup, as long as you hold a license, you are subject to all the rules, on duty or off duty, there is no difference to the state. Your defense to this FAC rule while not performing duties is that the licensed agency has no control over what you do off duty, and who the hell is gonna bring an administrative sanction against an employee for something off duty?

(The answer is the State of Florida, due to the way the law is written, I was still bound by FS 493 when I was an active licensee in Wisconsin, and any person bringing a complaint against me in Florida would of been heard by the state.)

[SecTrainer]

By gar, Nate - it's true. Every time you mention the word "Florida", I know I'm going to read something that's even stranger than the last thing you posted. It has become an article of religious faith with me to avoid the state of Florida even if it means I have to swim around it (beyond the 12-mile limit, of course). I don't even buy Florida orange juice - the pits might be illegal or something.

Where but in Florida (also known as the Dark Side of the Moon) would citizens be able to use ammunition that's both safer and more effective than the ammunition allowed for security personnel to use?

[N. A. Corbier]

By gar, Nate - it's true. Every time you mention the word "Florida", I know I'm going to read something that's even stranger than the last thing you posted. It has become an article of religious faith with me to avoid the state of Florida even if it means I have to swim around it (beyond the 12-mile limit, of course). I don't even buy Florida orange juice - the pits might be illegal or something.

Where but in Florida (also known as the Dark Side of the Moon) would citizens be able to use ammunition that's both safer and more effective than the ammunition allowed for security personnel to use?

Where but in Florida can a janitor use force to prevent property crimes, but a licensee may not?

[SecTrainer]

Where but in Florida can a janitor use force to prevent property crimes, but a licensee may not?

Ah, I think I see the answer, Nate. Let's you and I go down to Florida and start a janitorial service that just happens to provide security. We could call it "The Clean & Mean Brigade", and I, of course, shall be your top-kick commando while you do the legal thing you do so well.

We could give a whole new meaning to a motto like "Cleaning Up Miami", or "We'll Dump Your Trash - Permanently".

I'll shoot you a PM as soon as the MGM (machine-gun mop) is perfected.

[N. A. Corbier]

Ah, I think I see the answer, Nate. Let's you and I go down to Florida and start a janitorial service that just happens to provide security. We could call it "The Clean & Mean Brigade", and I, of course, shall be your top-kick commando while you do the legal thing you do so well.

We could give a whole new meaning to a motto like "Cleaning Up Miami", or "We'll Dump Your Trash - Permanently".

I'll shoot you a PM as soon as the MGM (machine-gun mop) is perfected.

Unfortunately, FSS 493 expects this, and has provisions in it to prevent janitorial service companies from providing security guard services without being subject to 493.

I want you all to think about that, they've had to address that before.

[SecTrainer]

Unfortunately, FSS 493 expects this, and has provisions in it to prevent janitorial service companies from providing security guard services without being subject to 493.

I want you all to think about that, they've had to address that before.

Please, Nate - I just can't stop laughing.

Wait...I've just spent all this money developing the machine-gun mop, and for nothing?!

<Laughter subsides to a whimper>

[N. A. Corbier]

I think the funniest thing I saw in Florida was a security company calling it "Something Services," removing all mention of "Security" from its name and job duties, and then hiring a bunch of people to do non-security related functions.

I was a licensed officer, so I had 5 retired cops who got a job as "ushers" under my "operational authority." They would ask for tickets, tell people where to park, etc. If they found something, they had to call me, the D licensee for that area of the performance center. Then I would have to do it.

They wore light blue uniform shirts instead of white, and the same cheap 5 dollar badge as well as patches.

The state routinely inspected us to ensure that the D officer was doing all security related functions.