Tweet
The idea of security officers receiving pre-employment psychological testing may look to be a straightforward issue. Yes, if the officer is going to be in an armed officer position and not necessary for an unarmed officer. Let’s bounce this around some.
We will, for the purposes of discussion, consider that said officers in this topic thread are NOT carrying firearms. Lets also assume the officer is sufficiently trained in any equipment they are carrying.
Now – let me define “armed” (remember no firearms will be carried). IMHO, I believe that if an officer carries any type of designed defensive equipment he should be considered armed. By “designed defensive equipment” I mean mace, OC, batons, Tasers, stunguns, etc. Some may disagree with me on this definition, but it is my belief.
An unarmed officer would have none of this. He/she may only be carrying handcuffs.
Now, under my definition of armed does an officer need to be psychologically tested? I say yes. I believe this simply because the officer is carrying equipment in which its use must be regulated appropriately under use of force doctrines. This then entails ensuring that the officer is of sound thinking, judgment, and mental character, and free from mental issues that may well cause inappropriate use.
So, with this short statement (I’m going to try and not be too long winded in this post) I am generalizing the needs to have a solid officer candidate.
Now what about an unarmed officer? Is psychological testing still required? I have thought about this, and in all honesty I haven’t arrived at a hard and fast belief. Currently I tend to lean to the yes side. Here’s why.
Unarmed officers still need to be in the category of having sound thinking, judgment and good mental character. We have read (even on this forum) and heard of officers who have taken it upon themselves to make themselves “heroes” by fighting mysterious fires, as an example. The officer, for whatever reason, has shown (again IMHO) that they lack some basic mental stability which may be the root cause for their need to be “somebody” to gain recognition. Even unarmed officers fill positions that carry important responsibilities, whether that might be working an entry gate checking for only authorized entries or conducting patrols around facilities containing high value property. Unarmed officers could be assigned to duties in monitoring centers wherein they succumb to engaging in activities that aid and abet criminal activities. Their work is an important aspect to the overall security of the client’s property too. Having a sound psychological makeup is not only reserved for those officers who are “armed” in their duties, especially if an armed officer is depending on them for his safety in detecting and warning of potential problems. Plus unarmed officers interact with the same types of people an armed officer does and may well confront the same types of issues.
It may well be that the psychological testing doesn’t need to be to the same depth as those officers in armed duties, but there still should be testing completed.
Like I said earlier, I am still fully undecided.
Thoughts anyone???
We will, for the purposes of discussion, consider that said officers in this topic thread are NOT carrying firearms. Lets also assume the officer is sufficiently trained in any equipment they are carrying.
Now – let me define “armed” (remember no firearms will be carried). IMHO, I believe that if an officer carries any type of designed defensive equipment he should be considered armed. By “designed defensive equipment” I mean mace, OC, batons, Tasers, stunguns, etc. Some may disagree with me on this definition, but it is my belief.
An unarmed officer would have none of this. He/she may only be carrying handcuffs.
Now, under my definition of armed does an officer need to be psychologically tested? I say yes. I believe this simply because the officer is carrying equipment in which its use must be regulated appropriately under use of force doctrines. This then entails ensuring that the officer is of sound thinking, judgment, and mental character, and free from mental issues that may well cause inappropriate use.
So, with this short statement (I’m going to try and not be too long winded in this post) I am generalizing the needs to have a solid officer candidate.
Now what about an unarmed officer? Is psychological testing still required? I have thought about this, and in all honesty I haven’t arrived at a hard and fast belief. Currently I tend to lean to the yes side. Here’s why.
Unarmed officers still need to be in the category of having sound thinking, judgment and good mental character. We have read (even on this forum) and heard of officers who have taken it upon themselves to make themselves “heroes” by fighting mysterious fires, as an example. The officer, for whatever reason, has shown (again IMHO) that they lack some basic mental stability which may be the root cause for their need to be “somebody” to gain recognition. Even unarmed officers fill positions that carry important responsibilities, whether that might be working an entry gate checking for only authorized entries or conducting patrols around facilities containing high value property. Unarmed officers could be assigned to duties in monitoring centers wherein they succumb to engaging in activities that aid and abet criminal activities. Their work is an important aspect to the overall security of the client’s property too. Having a sound psychological makeup is not only reserved for those officers who are “armed” in their duties, especially if an armed officer is depending on them for his safety in detecting and warning of potential problems. Plus unarmed officers interact with the same types of people an armed officer does and may well confront the same types of issues.
It may well be that the psychological testing doesn’t need to be to the same depth as those officers in armed duties, but there still should be testing completed.
Like I said earlier, I am still fully undecided.
Thoughts anyone???
Comment