Armed Officers: What type of weapon?

[Taser]

.45 cartridges with standard FMJ also have a stronger chance of "pass-through". I hope you don't work in any heavily populated areas, because when you discharge a .45 it won't be stopping for awhile.

With that said, I can kill you just as easily with a pen knife than I can kill you with a broadsword.

Remember, a .45 and 9mm kill just the same. They both leave holes in suspects, even though one may be bigger than the other.

I don't use a FMJ cartridge. Really my goal was to emphasize the rather large difference between the .45 and 9mm.

And yes, the .45 and 9mm do both leave holes, and I wouldn't want to be shot by either one of them, but in my opinion, it makes sense to me anyway, that the one that leaves the bigger hole is going to have the most effective stopping power. Especially at twice the bullet weight...

And maybe this is just an example of what someone else said earlier about the psychological affect having a .45 has on the shooter. In other words, I'm so confident in the .45 ACP that it gives me the peace of mind and comfort than when worse comes to worse I have some of the most solid stopping power out there.

And about the pen knife being as effective as the broad sword, I wouldn't bet on it. If you have to get close enough to kill me with a pen knife, I'm gonna go down fighting, that's for sure.

[jakeslife]

I hear ya. My company has one Glock 22 and the rest are Taurus .357's with .38S. We have to leave them at the office whil not at work, so that cuts down on liability.

One of our weapons, during a firearms certification, ejected the whole chamber while the officer was speed reloading.

Cost and liability is a huge thing for private companies. Our company is run by an attorney, which makes it even more painful. We are not allowed to tell soemone to "stop" (which has been used in false arrest cases), which conflicts with our training with firearms in saying "Stop or I'll shoot." In fact, state firearms training says that if they have MMO (Motive-Means-Opportunity) to harm you, you are justified in pulling on them. Company policy is that the person must have the weapon aimed at you, they must be verbal about their intentions, and you must first try to actively retreat before even pulling your firearm.

[OccamsRazor]

Company policy is that the person must have the weapon aimed at you, they must be verbal about their intentions, and you must first try to actively retreat before even pulling your firearm.

Good Lord, how ridiculous. As for the leaving your weapon at work, that wouldn't be "IC" that you work for, would it?

[N. A. Corbier]

I hear ya. My company has one Glock 22 and the rest are Taurus .357's with .38S. We have to leave them at the office whil not at work, so that cuts down on liability.

One of our weapons, during a firearms certification, ejected the whole chamber while the officer was speed reloading.

Cost and liability is a huge thing for private companies. Our company is run by an attorney, which makes it even more painful. We are not allowed to tell soemone to "stop" (which has been used in false arrest cases), which conflicts with our training with firearms in saying "Stop or I'll shoot." In fact, state firearms training says that if they have MMO (Motive-Means-Opportunity) to harm you, you are justified in pulling on them. Company policy is that the person must have the weapon aimed at you, they must be verbal about their intentions, and you must first try to actively retreat before even pulling your firearm.

The hell? The first time an officer is shot by a suspect, the company is going to lose its shirt. Unless your contracts are actually written so that the guard is not authorized to engage in conversations. I mean confrontations. (There are no officers in contracts, there are merely guards. Officer carries liability in itself.)

If the person already has their weapon aimed at you, you must actively retreat because your going to die anyway. Its too late. However, this sounds like a method to keep him from being sued for "excessive force," because pointing a firearm at someone who isn't an "immediate danger to life" is aggarvated assualt in most states. The Police are privalaged in that they may use this level of force. Citizens are not.

Wheel Guns are so old that the patterns of liability are fully established. What's the Glock 22 for? The owner?

[jakeslife]

IC? No.

The only reason our company is even armed is because that is what keeps most of our patrol and alarm response clients. If the company was not "armed" it would go to a different outfit, even though I am one of three armed officers, out of 16 altogether.

Our company is very afraid of liability, yet runs itself in circles so much that it gets blinded by it. For example, we did OC training months ago, the use of force policy signed by the owner and HR, and we got our face full of DefTec. The legal department authorized it and sent it back. The policy stated that after a subject has been sprayed, we are to restrain him and perform decon if safe to do so. Restrain? No, no, that's arresting, we can't have that. And now all we have is the memory of snot dripping down our face and our eyes being on fire.

There is also an unsaid policy at work that if you even pull your gun on anyone, you are fired. It's a liability for them. When we are hired, trained (you know, four hours of watching videos), and armed, we are explicitely told that the company accepts no liability for our actions, even when on duty in company vehicles. This conflicts with them seeing liability in restraints.

[jakeslife]

Oh, I know. Combined with the fact that you are not permitted to carry a round in the chamber, doubles your chances of being shot. But our company is a, "My name is Officer So and So of {insert company name here} and I represent the owner of this property. You are trespassing and I must request you leave."

Safety is one of my big things. I've been pretty much railroaded off the Safety Committee because they were more focused on prodiving the on site officers with flashlights that read "Safety is a bright idea" and other such incentives for reporting wet floors that could cause accidents, and instituting a stretch and flex program to reduce the number of shift call offs. I was one who spoke up about vehicle safety (after I t-boned a van who ran a red light in front of me and I couldn't stop...no airbag deployment, even at 40mph), radio communications (current policy states that if we request police, the dispatched not call until we request again, used to intimidate the subject into leaving--also the fact that one dispatcher must man the comm system for patrol, a dozen ons ite guards in the area, field supervisors, and play secretary with the phones all night), equipment, uniform functionality, etc.

[N. A. Corbier]

IC? No.

The only reason our company is even armed is because that is what keeps most of our patrol and alarm response clients. If the company was not "armed" it would go to a different outfit, even though I am one of three armed officers, out of 16 altogether.

Our company is very afraid of liability, yet runs itself in circles so much that it gets blinded by it. For example, we did OC training months ago, the use of force policy signed by the owner and HR, and we got our face full of DefTec. The legal department authorized it and sent it back. The policy stated that after a subject has been sprayed, we are to restrain him and perform decon if safe to do so. Restrain? No, no, that's arresting, we can't have that. And now all we have is the memory of snot dripping down our face and our eyes being on fire.

There is also an unsaid policy at work that if you even pull your gun on anyone, you are fired. It's a liability for them. When we are hired, trained (you know, four hours of watching videos), and armed, we are explicitely told that the company accepts no liability for our actions, even when on duty in company vehicles. This conflicts with them seeing liability in restraints.

This lawyer is amusing. First off, you are an agent of that company. They cannot disavow liability for your actions, for your actions are in their steed. Vicarious Liability applies to the actions of the employee performing their duties. They can argue that "that wasn't his duties," but he better have FAST paper shredders, because his training manuals and all sundry materials will be subpoeaed.

This sounds like someone who is trying to beat the big three in the liability fear game. His insurance carrier was probably told that your unarmed, then a gun policy was added on. The "unloaded chamber" is an old mainstay from the 1960s, which means his insurance carrier probably gives him a discount on that. His insurance carrier may not even understand the guard industry.

The "Safety Committee" is pandering to the insurance company. "Safety is a bright idea?" Yeah, definately the insurance company. Probably free from them, as well. Stretching and stuff? That's classic "worker safety" straight from State Farm Casualty and Life.

It sounds like this lawyer has no idea how to run a security company, and instead is trying to minimize his loss and maximize his profit through traditional means. Pleasing his insurer. Using "tried and true" liability management concepts such as unloaded chambers, wheel guns, etc.

If he would bother to read the industry trade journals and insurance briefings on the security industry, he would notice in bold letters that they make specific policies to cover the things his insurer tell him aren't covered, such as intentional use of force when doing your job, theft on property, etc.

He may of gotten the city account by being the lowest bidder, or by dazzling them with a proposal.

As I have said, again and again, if you are up front with your insurer, you will have higher premiums, but they will back you. They know the risks your taking, they choose to insure you, and insure you they will.

[sssfjet]

New guy here. I carry the new XD Tactical in 45 cal. That's 14 rounds of 45. I carry it in the Blackhawk Serpa CQC holster.

[Mr. Security]

This is what I carry. Don't mess w/me!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Super-Soaker-Squirt-Gun-Basic-Fun-Keychain-Key-Chain_W0QQitemZ6620020219QQcategoryZ3628QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

[SgtUSMC8541]

[ycaso77]

Whatever semiautomatic handgun you purchase and/or own, insure it has a decocking lever if you chamber a round to facilitate an immediate first shot. This allows the cocked hammer to be safely lowered into the safety position without touching the hammer. Further, make sure it has a firing pin lock that provides positive safety with the hammer in either the cocked or decocked position. If the weapon is dropped or otherwise struck with a degree of force, the firing pin cannot strike the primer causing an unintended discharge of the handgun.
I know we have moved beyond the Colt Model 1911A1. In special situations, we were allowed to holster the 1911A1 in the Cocked and Locked mode. There were occasions when the weapon was dropped on concrete with a subsequent discharge. That problem when away when Air Force adopted the S&W .38 Combat Masterpiece. The modern double action revolver has a rebound slide and a hammer block. My two cents!
Enjoy the day,
Bill

I fondly remember the ole Model 15 with USAF issue ball-peen ammo. We used to tell the new kids if the suspect has a heavy coat, its easier to run up and hit them over the head with the butt. Generally on weapons I'm an advocate of department issue weapons. You can control and mandate ammo, training, and maintenance. Easier on possible liability cases as you have a strict firearms use of force and arming policy. And double action only with a decocking lever as you suggest- a heavy trigger so you know you have to pull it and not just sneeze on it. And before I even thought of issuing a weapon to anyone, a background check and psych eval followed by a 3 month unarmed period for well qualified personnel to observe the new hire for potential problems.