tips and tricks

As I stated I know of no LP program that allows officers to carry weapons I did not say there are not any!

[Chucky]

Problem with that is I know of no Loss Prevention program that allows an Officer to carry such weapons!

Panther I would guess by this statement that you have never worked LP in the heart of any states intercity. One night a week I am part of a team that is the last hope that a chain has for a store that has tried all the conventional methods. Generally on a Friday night as that is one of the most active nights.Then we may switch to Saturdays for awhile.
Our company calls this a take back team. We go in well armed and armored. Officer Friendly has that night off. Word gets around real fast and seems to be very effective.

[Curtis Baillie]

This is a kindly suggestion that you keep such posts on the LP side. I do not know if Security Consultant will allow them here, but on my side, corrective actions will be made.

Lynch Mob's spam postings were reported to SIW Editor.

[N. A. Corbier]

"This kind of "mathematical calculation" about whether a particular bust is "worth it or not" is not good LP, and it's not smart policy."

- SecTrainer

This is a kindly suggestion that you keep such posts on the LP side. I do not know if Security Consultant will allow them here, but on my side, corrective actions will be made.

Problem with that is I know of no Loss Prevention program that allows an Officer to carry such weapons!

[BadBoynMD]

"This kind of "mathematical calculation" about whether a particular bust is "worth it or not" is not good LP, and it's not smart policy."

- SecTrainer

I've been trained on all my weapons "oc spray, expandable baton, firearm, and duty knife all stay on the strong side. When conducting the "interview" stance, you always angle your body so that you're weapons are opposite of the subject. Talking with your hands in front of you, or even crossed in front of you are the best ways to hold your stance. Also, keeping in mind that if you're taking notes to keep yourself at a reasonable distance from the subject.

We all, yes even security have to keep in mind that due to todays lovely technology, everyone is "watching".

[LPGuy]

Yes, I too have seen some variations. I remember that different departments place OC at different levels. Some at level 2 (with the impact weapons) and some at 3. If I remember correctly, the P.D. I used to work at placed it at level 3. School District? Great choice! The benefits were better than L.P. with PERS 2, etc... The community colleges are not too bad either (where I reside now).

On a 5-step model, our department places OC and baton strikes (only against primary targets) on a level 3, which would be against active resistance. Baton strikes against secondary targets would be on a level 4, and baton strikes against tertiary targets would be on a level 5.

The school district that I work at is indeed a great job, with much better pay and benefits than LP. In addition, you get all the vacations and summers off as well.

[LPGuy]

The only problem with the idea of "force continuums" (and sometimes the way they're taught) is that they tend to instill a "sequencing" frame of mind in some people. BG does 1, you do 2...BG does 3, you do 4...etc.

This "sequence expectation" can actually create a built-in delay in the officer's reaction that may be only a split-second, but it can be enough to get an officer into trouble. "WHOA! The BG went straight to #5! What happened to #1, 2, 3 and 4?" Sounds dumb, I know, but it's subconscious.

In my experience, the BG typically doesn't step through anything. He goes straight for whatever his "highest" level of force might be - whether that's #3, 4 or 5 - at the first opportunity, if he can. Training should keep the officer's decision-making as binary as possible and not get him snarled up in certain expectations. It's significant that you can find "force continuums" of from 4 to 6 "levels", a clear indication that this is just a training model that tries to teach a concept, in this case "judgement". As such, it should never be allowed to become a substitute for the concept it is trying to teach. You'll rarely have the opportunity in confrontations to "work the math" of "Let's see now...force level "Y" is "greater than" force level "X", so I can do "Z".

Great points. That's why I said a numbered model can be confusing, because it may instill that idea that you need to start at #1 and work your way up. A good model pairs suspect behaviors with your levels of force. That way, you know what actions are acceptable to use based on how they are acting.

For example, you'll know that an active resister is one who is displayed heightened physical resistance and displaying signs that he will actively resist your attempts to control him. That is directly tied to level 3 on my force continuum, which states I can use counter-joints and pain compliance, hair holds, take-downs, knee and elbow strikes to primary targets, OC spray and baton strikes to primary targets against this person.

[SecTrainer]

The only problem with the idea of "force continuums" (and sometimes the way they're taught) is that they tend to instill a "sequencing" frame of mind in some people. BG does 1, you do 2...BG does 3, you do 4...etc.

This "sequence expectation" can actually create a built-in delay in the officer's reaction that may be only a split-second, but it can be enough to get an officer into trouble. "WHOA! The BG went straight to #5! What happened to #1, 2, 3 and 4?" Sounds dumb, I know, but it's subconscious.

In my experience, the BG typically doesn't step through anything. He goes straight for whatever his "highest" level of force might be - whether that's #3, 4 or 5 - at the first opportunity, if he can. Training should keep the officer's decision-making as binary as possible and not get him snarled up in certain expectations. It's significant that you can find "force continuums" of from 4 to 6 "levels", a clear indication that this is just a training model that tries to teach a concept, in this case "judgement". As such, it should never be allowed to become a substitute for the concept it is trying to teach. You'll rarely have the opportunity in confrontations to "work the math" of "Let's see now...force level "Y" is "greater than" force level "X", so I can do "Z".

[Investigation]

I became curious and started looking around on the Internet at various use of force continuums, and I see that some places actually use a 6-step model. In that model, contact controls would be at a level three (with presence being the first level and verbal commands the second).

I've always been taught a 5-step model, which places officer presence and verbal communication in the same first level. Those two elements make up the vast majority of officer contacts every day, whether or not they have to do with apprehension of a criminal suspect.

A six level model seems very redundant to me.

Yes, I too have seen some variations. I remember that different departments place OC at different levels. Some at level 2 (with the impact weapons) and some at 3. If I remember correctly, the P.D. I used to work at placed it at level 3. School District? Great choice! The benefits were better than L.P. with PERS 2, etc... The community colleges are not too bad either (where I reside now).

[LPGuy]

I became curious and started looking around on the Internet at various use of force continuums, and I see that some places actually use a 6-step model. In that model, contact controls would be at a level three (with presence being the first level and verbal commands the second).

I've always been taught a 5-step model, which places officer presence and verbal communication in the same first level. Those two elements make up the vast majority of officer contacts every day, whether or not they have to do with apprehension of a criminal suspect.

A six level model seems very redundant to me.

[LPGuy]

Well, I don't know what your company guidelines are, but that is similar to the model that is used by the C.J.T.C. here in Washington State (as I was taught in the academy). Also bear in mind that the levels are very fluid and that "reasonable and necessary" force can be used to protect yourself. Think about this, if you are "escorting" an individual and they feel that they not feel free to leave, you are using a level of force (regardless if they are being processed for theft or not). I know a bit about the work that you do considering that I worked in L.P. / L.P. management prior to working in L.E.

I'm actually former LP and no longer work for a private company. I now work for a school district and most of our policies (especially use of force guidelines) are taken straight out of the local police department's manual. They are also identical to what I was taught by police officers in CJ classes. Then again, these guidelines can and do change over time as court cases effect them.

The original point that I meant to make was that contact controls and escort techniques may lawfully be used on anyone that is being less than fully compliant and cooperative. That includes argumentive subjects, people going limp and/or dragging their feet, etc. Those are all forms of passive resistance which allow you to place your hands on them to facilitate cooperation.

[Investigation]

To better clarify, an escort technique such as a palm forward is not classified as "using force" on someone, just as handcuffing someone is not classified as a "use of force," either.

Well, I don't know what your company guidelines are, but that is similar to the model that is used by the C.J.T.C. here in Washington State (as I was taught in the academy). Also bear in mind that the levels are very fluid and that "reasonable and necessary" force can be used to protect yourself. Think about this, if you are "escorting" an individual and they feel that they not feel free to leave, you are using a level of force (regardless if they are being processed for theft or not). I know a bit about the work that you do considering that I worked in L.P. / L.P. management prior to working in L.E.

[LPGuy]

A palm-forward escort is not considered a use of force, at least not in Washington State.

To better clarify, an escort technique such as a palm forward is not classified as "using force" on someone, just as handcuffing someone is not classified as a "use of force," either.

[LPGuy]

In Washington State, the taught Continuum of Force is as follows:

1. Visual presence
2. Verbal commands/de-escalation
3. Touching subject/joint manipulation/physical escort
4. Impact weapons
5. Deadly force

In Washington State, you may legally perform contact controls and escort techniques at a level two use of force. A better model also adds suspect behavior as a reason for your actions. Contact controls and escort techniques may be used on passive resisters.

By "joint manipulation," I assume you're referring to counter-joints, which are in fact pain compliance techniques. These would be used on a level 3 use of force, which is reserved for active resisters.

In addition, a numbered model such as this could be somewhat confusing--for example, there is no need to progress through steps 1 and 2 if you need to immediately perform 3. If someone needs to be controlled immediately, you can indeed take them into an escort hold upon contact.