Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Armed Or Unarmed??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I don't know if Workmen's Compensation in Quebec would allow you to have to be hit with a Taser in order to be certified. Most of my hotel employees (including security, Nathan ) take a course given by the Montreal Fire Department to civilians in order to teach them basic firefighting & evacuation. In the old days they would light up the wet hay in the basement of the smoke house & walk us through to give us a feel of what it was to be in smoke. Someone complained to the CSST (Worker's Compensation). They no longer use real smoke. They now use the non irritating theater smoke. It still gives you a little idea of what it is like to be in a smoky building but nothing like what it is really like.

    However since in Canada we can't have Tasers I guess it's a moot point
    I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
    Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

    Comment


    • #17
      I have been hit with the Taser... Not fun, and I don't plan on doing it again, I don't understand it.
      "What if this is as good as it gets?" ~ Melvin Udall

      Comment


      • #18
        The company I work for has tasers. It is all in house training and getting hit is not required. When they first got them they did do some training were employees voluntered to be hit. So far, the tasers have never been used in the field.

        In California: "Use of Tasers Propelled by Compressed Gas by Registered Security Guards

        The Bureau of Security and Investigative Services lacks jurisdiction to dictate whether a registered guard, while acting in the course and scope of licensed employment, may possess an “air” taser for self-defense. Existing law specifies how the devices may be used. Those laws prohibit the possession and use of tasers in specific places.

        No California statute prohibits the purchase of a taser or the use of a taser for self-defense. The Private Security Services Act does not specifically address the use of tasers in security guard employment.

        Therefore, the Bureau neither endorses nor prohibits the use of these devices."

        Comment


        • #19
          Purpose/Tased

          My thought is that being tased impresses the officer that it should not be used when other less forceful methods may work. You didn't like it, and neither will the subject.
          Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mr. Security
            My thought is that being tased impresses the officer that it should not be used when other less forceful methods may work. You didn't like it, and neither will the subject.
            I hope you don't think I would need to get shot in the leg to know what being shot does to me! LOL
            I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
            Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by HotelSecurity
              I hope you don't think I would need to get shot in the leg to know what being shot does to me! LOL
              LOL. Now that you mention it........
              Let us know which type of bullet is most effective.
              Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

              Comment


              • #22
                As far as the firearm being a detterant that is correct, it is. Look at the stats from the FBI about lawful citizens who stoped a crime with a weapon and didnt even have to use it, its in the high 90 % range i belive. However just beause you may carry on or off duty, never think that a violent suspect or suspects may be scared by that. Some simply dont care. Also if they are doped up or drunk they may do anything.

                A story of a lady who had her house broke into by a very crazed druggie had 2 big dogs. She had a security system. However he still broke into her home knowing she had a alarm and two dogs. The dogs however couldnt get to him. She called 911 she had no firearm in the house he tried to gain entry into her bed room he had a knife as a weapon. Two officers arrived ordered him to drop the knife he went against the commands and kept advancing towards the two officers. They were forced to use deadly force and killed the attacker. Just because you have a badge, uniform or any weapons yes they can keep bad guys from doing things but sometimes they just dont care. Those are the ones we all have to worry about.


                And if you carry on duty (open) carry that opens a new issue. Keeping your weapon from the bad guys. Because if its open (everyone sees it). Carrying CCW it may be hidden but also you have to protect the weapon carrying concealed. A simple assualt fight, not so simple when you are packin that weapon is it. Now you have to fight to defend your self and also at the same time make sure they dont get your gun. Because a simple fight may turn into a battle.

                Tasers:

                I agree that part of being shocked with a taser can be so you wont be so quick to use it. However many police officers i know never use any force unless they have to. And hey if the bad guys are causing a threat or an attack so be it. If it hurts then i say too bad. Hey dont do bad things to good people and you wont get hurt. If they didnt do bad they wouldnt be in that incident to begin with. When it comes to using "lawful" self defense and you must do it use it. Defend your selfs and others. The bad guy dont care what they do to others. So if they cry because they wanted to harm someone and in the end they lost i say good and that puts a smile on my face when the good win and the bad lose out.

                Stay Safe everyone

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by S/O245
                  .................

                  And if you carry on duty (open) carry that opens a new issue. Keeping your weapon from the bad guys. Because if its open (everyone sees it). Carrying CCW it may be hidden but also you have to protect the weapon carrying concealed. A simple assualt fight, not so simple when you are packin that weapon is it. Now you have to fight to defend your self and also at the same time make sure they dont get your gun. Because a simple fight may turn into a battle..................
                  When you work armed, there's always one gun at every call you respond to. You may or may not be the one who ends up using it.
                  Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Most, if not all, the people working armed are aware of that, and take steps to protect themselves. This is almost like saying "police shouldn't have guns because they bring a gun to every fight."
                    Some Kind of Commando Leader

                    "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                      Most, if not all, the people working armed are aware of that, and take steps to protect themselves. This is almost like saying "police shouldn't have guns because they bring a gun to every fight."
                      My post was simply a reminder, similar to the ones that you might post that most, if not all of us, have heard before.
                      Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Yes, firearms are a visible deterrent, and most security officers will jump at the chance to carry one if offered. Often when you see or have discussions in regards to arming security officers, it is from a legal aspect. Many companies make attempts to give the proper training when arming their employees from a legal standpoint, but very few address the psychological aspects of being armed. What, if anything, is being done to psychologically prepare a security officer to use that firearm? I am of the school of thought that once you draw a weapon, you better be committed to using it. As a CEO, it is my responsibility to ensure that my personnel are not only legally, but psychologically prepared to carry and use that firearm. The legality of carrying a weapon only solves part of the problem...instead of having a "let's wait and see" approach to carrying, why not be proactive instead of reactive...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I'm of the personal opinion that in many venues the phrase "unarmed security officer" represents the ultimate oxymoron and has likely been responsible for many assaults on security officers. That being said, however, I think that the liability issues are sufficiently complex that none of us should be offering legal advice to others on that subject. Let the company's attorneys earn their money instead.

                          Tactically, it should be noted that "armed" does not necessarily mean "displayed". If, as is usually the case, the primary purpose of DRAWING the weapon is to enable the officer to USE IT to protect his own life and that of others when in immediate grave danger (and IMHO it should never be drawn otherwise), it means that a situation likely already exists in which the so-called "deterrence value" (of a visible weapon) is zero to none. Thus, the question of whether to wear the weapon displayed or concealed is reduced to one of client/employer preference as to the public impression they wish to create.

                          Second, there is an interesting fact about the use of firearms, which is that the "use of force continuum" is actually very rarely an operational factor in such incidents. We tend to think of the "use of force continuum this way: He clenches his fist...you draw your OC spray...he picks up a chair...you go for the baton...he pulls a knife...you drag out your Taser or firearm, etc.. Specifically, it has been shown that in situations requiring the use of deadly force, there is very rarely any "progression" or "continuum" of force involved because the bad guys will almost invariably go straight to their best weapon right away - and will often already have it deployed before you arrive on scene, in fact.

                          For this reason, the best firearms training in the world is the training that teaches two simple things: (1) how to recognize the "reasonable deadly force situation" immediately, and (2) preparing the officer both psychologically and in terms of physical skills to move directly to that level of force and use it effectively. The decision tree is simple and binary: Life situation exists? If "Yes" - then go directly to armed mode. If "No" - then do something else (read, other training in SD measures is implied). A "life situation" is very simple and as unambiguous as possible: The perp is obviously equipped and reasonably believed to be capable of taking human life if not immediately interrupted. Whether this means he has a lead pipe, a knife, a screwdriver, the detonation device for a bomb, is about to run over someone with a car, or even if he is completely unarmed but is about to push someone off the roof of a building does not matter at all. If there is immediate danger to human life, the use or threat of deadly force is justified.

                          Along those lines, by the way, I know of no law (case or statutory) that suggests that in such life-threatening situations a "desist" command delivered over the barrel of a drawn weapon presents any increased liability (criminal or civil) to an officer as someone seemed to suggest in this thread, so long as there is the justification to pull the trigger if the command is not immediately obeyed. While one must be prepared to use a weapon if it is drawn, there is no commandment to do so should the perpetrator respond to an immediate command by the officer that eliminates the need to shoot.
                          "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                          "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                          "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                          "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by SecTrainer
                            I'm of the personal opinion that in many venues the phrase "unarmed security officer" represents the ultimate oxymoron and has likely been responsible for many assaults on security officers. .
                            If you read through my many posts on the subject you will see that I do not agree that unarmed security officer is an oxymoron. I've been doing hotel security in a downtown Montreal hotel for 25 years, unarmed and if I say so myself, I do a damn good job protecting the hotel & it's staff & guests.
                            I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                            Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by HotelSecurity
                              If you read through my many posts on the subject you will see that I do not agree that unarmed security officer is an oxymoron. I've been doing hotel security in a downtown Montreal hotel for 25 years, unarmed and if I say so myself, I do a damn good job protecting the hotel & it's staff & guests.
                              Here here, HotelSecurity, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                ...and if you would read my post more thoroughly, you'll note that I said "in many venues the phrase 'unarmed security officer' is an oxymoron"...obviously not applying my comment to "all venues". If, in your particular venue, working unarmed is a reasonable model that's fine with me. In many others, this would not be the case and the failure to arm the security officer is a very poor decision, resulting in no security officer at all, but an INsecurity officer, which is the oxymoron to which I refer.

                                Thanks for reading my posts more carefully in the future. I do try very hard to say *exactly* what I mean so that I don't have to respond to things I don't say.
                                Last edited by SecTrainer; 11-26-2006, 11:14 AM.
                                "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                                "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                                "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                                "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X