Armed Or Unarmed??

[RSTING69]

We are a gated community with a population of 6000 residents. Our officers are responsible for responding to calls for service within the communiy, assisting local law enforcement agencies, responding to medical and fire related calls as well. Currently we do carry any form of defensive protection let alone ballistic vests.
Our board of directors is reviewing the possibility of arming our officers, does anyone have any pro's vs. con's to this position, we are setting forth stringent guidelines, hiring requirements, testing requirements, and seeking outside liability insurance through special security guard insurance services.

[N. A. Corbier]

You should not be responding to calls for service if you are not arming your employees with defensive weapons (not firearms) and ballistic vests. If your agency is responsible for protecting life, safety, and property, then they should be armed to protect themselves and others as well as trained in the use of those weapons and defensive tactics.

If your agency is not responsible for the protection of persons, there is no need to arm them with firearms as they may never deploy their weapons unless directly attacked while attempting to protect property. Since they are not directly responsible for the safety of others, there may be insurance issues if they use lethal force - it is not in the line of duty as they have no duty to protect others.

Cons: More money, requires training in more than just firearms (defensive tactics, criminal law and the application of force, civil liability for security, professional communications, just at a minimum), requires screening employees (They are no longer untrained obsservers, they have the power to take life), buying firearms, buying duty gear and intermediate weapons, certifying in ASP/PR-24 and OC and handcuffing...

The moment you strap a gun on, you need to have the whole kit. Why? Because if you have two levels of force, "Stop" and "I'll shoot," your going to jail, the agency is gonna get sued...

[Eric]

6000 Residents, that is a small city, and I believe anyone responding to complaints should then have Police training and even that level of power in a gated commuinty or not. And back up, and support from the Residents Group.

[HotelSecurity]

500 rooms in the hotel x 4 drunk Spring Breakers per room with only 2 unarmed Security Officers on duty Sometimes only 1 Officer.

[N. A. Corbier]

6000 Residents, that is a small city, and I believe anyone responding to complaints should then have Police training and even that level of power in a gated commuinty or not. And back up, and support from the Residents Group.

Depending on where the guy is, they probably don't even have citizen's arrest powers, let alone police powers. It honestly sounds like Florida.

[Guest]

Rsting,

Are the guards there in-house, or contract? That would make a big difference. Do you have citizen's arrest powers? That would also make a difference.

I have always felt that if you are going to be enforcing laws and arresting people, then you need to be armed with a firearm. Of course, I am also of the opinion that security guards should leave actual arrests to the trained professionals (i.e. the police), otherwise I will echo what N.A. Corbier has told you.

[HotelSecurity]

Rsting,

Are the guards there in-house, or contract? That would make a big difference. Do you have citizen's arrest powers? That would also make a difference.

I have always felt that if you are going to be enforcing laws and arresting people, then you need to be armed with a firearm. Of course, I am also of the opinion that security guards should leave actual arrests to the trained professionals (i.e. the police), otherwise I will echo what N.A. Corbier has told you.

I'm a "trained professional." My profession is hotel security.

[FDG06]

I know I'm a newbie on the forum here but not to the industry.
I can tell you, if you have the option of being armed, take it. Yes it requires more training, licensing, gear,etc & the Co.s liability sky rockets. ..but this applies to most things in life that require an elevated responsability.
From an experience stand point, if you in a hot zone,(I've been in many, including fire free zones) the simple fact that you have the ability to respond with deadly force if the situation warrants it, not only makes you far more effective as an officer,even at low risk incidents, but it actually is less likely then, that you would need to use such force to de-escalate a situation or effect control over an individual. It works in reverse many times.

The power of a firearm on ones hip is not its actual fire power 99% of the time, but the implied knowledge by all parties, that it can be put to use. (LFI teaching) How many people every year are held up, robbed, raped & all other host of nasty human scum behavior, with toy guns or guns that were never used, actually seen, etc..see my point.
There are arguments on both sides of course, but the fact that I was armed ( as an officer & yes always with the whole kit) has more then once, made the sole difference in a situation. Ask yourself how effective you could be, if you had an active shooter situation 10 ft from you and you were unarmed..unprepared (both literally & training wise) to effect the nessicary response to save an innocents life, your fellow officers, principle's life or your own.
On a personal note, It also is an advancement in your experience / training life profile, should you ever want to move onward or upward (going from anunarmed to an armed position).
Always wear your vest (get your own new one, not a hand down used 20yr old issued piece soem co's hand out) when your openly carrying a firearm on the job..if your Co has a policy that doesnt allow vest, but issues you a firearm, find another job!
Also push (if you can) for less then lethal devices, such as OC &/or batons, what you dont want is to ONLY have the deadly force option available to you, when responding to whatever just kicked off. Its all or nothing..1/2 way just wont cut it. Best of luck.
Yoda

[cnick001]

Short of taking the leap to firearms, the taser pistols now on the market are another idea if they are legal in your area. They offer deturrent, protection for yourself, as well as lesser liability, and less required training.

[N. A. Corbier]

A taser is never a substitute for a firearm.

When people suggest this, it tells me that they've never held, used, or been certified with the weapon. It has one shot. It can only effectively hit a target from 7 to 15 feet. If you get a disconnect or low-muscle mass hit, it won't work as well or at all.

Never, ever, bring a taser or a baton or anything but a gun to a gun fight. My old boss wanted to drop firearms for tasers. After he actually watched the Taser videos, he understood why you should keep your guns and put tasers on the belt as a less-lethal weapon.

Never confuse a less-lethal weapon for a lethal one.

[N. A. Corbier]

Also push (if you can) for less then lethal devices, such as OC &/or batons, what you dont want is to ONLY have the deadly force option available to you, when responding to whatever just kicked off. Its all or nothing..1/2 way just wont cut it. Best of luck.
Yoda

I've seen many companies issue a firearm with no additional ammunition and six bullets. Usually .38 caliber revolvers. Some may authorize a flashlight and pair of handcuffs. Some tell you to wear the firearm on the trouser belt, because only police need duty belts.

You have three force options:
- Talk
- Run
- Kill

You are only certified, if you live in a state that requires it, in one, and that isn't talking or running. The gun is mainly a visible deterrent, like everything else, and is mainly worthless.

Since these companies state you will not respond to anything, what good is even having the gun present?

[FDG06]

I guess I'm out of the loop on what some considered "armed security/guard" or just been lucky in gig'n GSA deployments.
I'd never carry a firearm, especially a revolver without back up ammo, even when off duty concealed carry. I'd never carry a weapon openly while in uniform, without a vest, period. A great company would require it, a good company would recomend it and a bad one would not do either & I would not work for a bad company.
My primary job#1 is to go home each day.
I've always had a required full kit (OC, Baton, Folder under 2.5 inches, Duty weapon..normally a 9mm berretta, 3 full 15rnd mags, a primary flashlight, 2nd small tactical light, hand cuffs, flex cuffs (un-staged hiding around the duty belt) and at minimum a Lvl IIA Vest) and the statutory authority to use them.

I agree, as stated, that the firearm in most all cases is simply a deterent, the point being made however, that its hardly useless even if thats the only role it ever plays. It can often make the only difference in keeping a potentially violent situation from going seriously sideways..but its not a cure all for crime. I hope I didnt portrait that idea previously. I have been in spots, when it (on me or out at arms length) and all my closest armed friends in blue, didnt make a difference in the world..the guy was going to do, what he felt he needed to do regardless. The relavent detail is, I had it - versus not.

I'm "iffy" on the taser deal, I'd rather go with OC personally, since the response it creates is nearly always consistent if you deploy correctly. I've watched guys get hit once with a taser & settle right down with the program, then I've seen guys, even 1 girl, get hit, do the horizontal scream N freak till it cycles out & pop right back up for more. In these cases, if memory serves me, the officers resorted to batons/firearm drawn, so the taser in effect was nothing more then entertainment value.
The range & repeated application handicaps are a genuine issue, the visual & audioable deterent & the fact that once they cycle out & the tiny barbed dart holes scab off, there is no permenent injury or pain, make them a valueable LESS LETHAL tool for those that want it, but certainly no replacement for any primary firearm.
Personally, I got enough crap to carry.. dont need anything else strapped to my off side leg if I can avoid it, plus I'm not real crazy about the cert process of taking a hit for the enjoyment of your fellow sidekicks..I am sure glad they dont shoot me to certifiy me on firearms... I think off cuff, if you bring a taser to a gun fight, your not going to do so well on the priority job #1 objective!
Yoda

[N. A. Corbier]

Good News: Taser International does not require you to take a hit any more than Beretta and Safariland would like you to test their vest.

[FDG06]

In WA & a few other states I have friends working, in order to obtain a state working LEO cert for taser, you have to get hit once for the crowd.
I think, (not 100% sure), that some companies, like Boeing Security Police, who do carry tasers at the supervisor level, dont have to get hit in order to carry on the job..be intersting to hear from anyone working a gig at boeing or similar co's. who maybe in the know.
Yoda

[Charger]

Good News: Taser International does not require you to take a hit any more than Beretta and Safariland would like you to test their vest.

I'm still trying to understand the reasoning behind taking a taser hit as part of the certification...

With OC, you get sprayed and, (if you have a good instructor), have to perform tasks such as cuffing, baton use, etc. The purpose is so that you know what your own body is still capable of doing if you get exposed to it in a fight. (Backspray from wind, rushing in to cuff before allowing it to dissapate, etc.)

With a taser, you already KNOW what your body will do. Spasm & stiffen up until the hit ends. Aside from the mentioned 'entertainment factor' for your coworkers, I just don't get it.