Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Armed Or Unarmed??

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

  • james2go30
    replied
    Hey

    Originally posted by 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.
    Sounds like how we have to work...tons of drunks and like 1 officer per shift...thought I had it bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • officergossman
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    My opinion is if you are security at a gated community, you might as well be private police. I'd arm my officers if I was the main guy for that firm. Yeah there is liability but I would feel safer if my officers were safe, imho

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Three words best describe the need to be armed or unarmed; they are, in their proper order: "Sensitivity, Criticality and Vulnerablity."
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    ...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.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPS-CEO
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPS-CEO
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • S/O245
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X