No announcement yet.

Use of force

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by jeff194307
    I feel that I must reply to this. If you are going to use force in your duties, you must be trained in escalation/deescalation tactics. Any officer that uses force on a subject without deescalating once they have control is going to be in court along with the client and employer. You must learn the steps before you even consider use of force. I think most of you already know to go from verbal orders to physical to less lethal to lethal. But how many know when to de escalate? LEO's recieve ongoing training in this, most security officers never are trained in this. The ironic thing is that the warm body companies emphasise the observe and report philosipy wihout regard to the possibility of a subject initiating the need for force (i.e. self defense). These companies are, by their lack of action, placing themselves in a position for a big buck lawsuit. Have they considered the risk or are the just gamblers? So who could sue them? Well, the injured security officer, the injured subject, the client, the ACLU, and who knows the others. Why are they taking these risks?
    As for a partial answer as to why are these "Observe + Report only" agencies taking these risks.. I can give you somewhat of a decent answer in the Corporate Security world..

    Employing and implimenting "active" and "proactive" Officers, to get the job done and ensure safety on this level, requires the one thing you have already hit on... Training. O+R (Observe + Report only) Security Companies have minimal operational costs. These agencies, for the most part are making so much $$$ an hour they contract. Then, with the income, comes the cost. You now have to fill the man hours with people. These people cost. THen uniforms for each officer, insurance, site materials (paper, utensils, radios, and so on). So its budgeted. After you accomplish the basics getting covered, you have to train the Officer for the job. Standard O+R training not only costs in materials, but 2x the time of man hours. You have to fill the position needed with one person, and then pay another to undergo training, as they are not yet ready to even O+R. This is standard amung the Observe and Report agencies.

    Now, you want better quality of Officers, to handle situations better. We all know that a poorly paying agency will employ those that really are "not up to speed" to handle anything more and O+R. So, for better quality Officers, you have to meet the job market standards of pay.. more cost.

    Better training, means better quality of Security. Training costs, and it costs big time. You pay for an officer to go through training in paying the officer, the course if not certified to train on site, the materials and so on.

    All of this adds up. I am in no way justifying this type of operation, as I am completely against the system of "to costly" excuses. Major corporates fight with the system of "If it hasnt happened, we evidentally do not need to spend on it". Then when a liability does happen, such as innocent injuries from criminal actions, then they have justification to spend more for future protection in that area.

    I agree that this is the type of thinking that causes more cost, and Security in general, is supposed to stop loss of client assets, including injury suits. Injury of an innocent person getting harmed by criminal ellements, fire, accidents and so on. Its the justificaiton that is what is causing the hang up on better quality. Every one wants proof first that it is a problem in order to spend money on it. They just dont happen to think ahead, that prevention may be the better route, or a civil suit later on!

    I know that our training costs are pretty high. Our training program takes the average newly hired Security Officer 90 days just to complete the basic skills portion. Then its on to more training afterwards for advanced courses. So this whole time, we are paying someone out of cost to train. What really hurts, is if they dont pass...
    Deputy Sheriff


    • #17
      I think that the answer is very simple. Security Companies advertize in the media for inexperienced people with a minimum of a GED and certion age required by the particular state that they operate in. Most security jobs pay more than the jobs at fast food places. It is the fault of the security company that they have people who can do no more than observe and report. If the company would have a higher requierment for new hires, then the turn over rate would go down. There is in my mind, no reason that people could not be hired who were trainable, and that training could, in a large part be accomplished on site as on the job training. If that were done, our industry would evolve from warm body to proffesional. The contract companies need to quit with the nightwatchman mentality and join the modern world.
      Murphy was an optomist.


      • #18
        Why whould they? The clients won't pay for much more than that.
        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by jimmyhat
          The clientele in my neck of the woods are becoming very savvy to the new trend of aggressive private protection. I'm sure you've met with residential property managers before, most of whom are notoriously cheap and absolutely unable to be consoled on security issues. However, pressure from the residents can be a great motivating factor for the PM's to step up the game.

          I can't provide proof of a trend, but I can say I've sat on at least ten bids this year where the client has expressed a need for higher-caliber personnel, and they have been willing to pay the extra cost. I was fortunate enough to witness one client say "I don't care what it costs, just fix the problem."

          I remember when the entire atmosphere of a bid-meet centered around "how little service can we get away with, provided for the least amount of cost". Now, clients are routinely looking for the maximum amount of protection they can afford.

          Again, my expertise here is based on a specific geographical region, but I believe significant progress is being made. The big WB's are getting bounced, slowly but surely.
          The problem is costing them revenue in inability to keep occupancy, and worse - fines or assessments from the police department and cities that respond. Of course they're after private police - they don't get hit with "public nusance" issues.
          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