officer safety

[N. A. Corbier]

I don't believe "flight" is a felony, or constitutes a felony-in-progress (Florida), but you can bet your bottom some idiot would....haha.

If someone wants, I'll post 776 again. From what I remember, a person has the right to use deadly force to prevent the flight of a forcible felon if no other option is available to prevent them from escaping, and their remaining at large presents a greater danger to the public than his being allowed to live, basically.

You notice the wording in there. Florida usually has the same use of force authority (deadly force) for sworn police and non-sworn civilians. A police officer can shoot a convicted felon to stop their flight as they're legally "escaping jail." Someone who is not convicted, they have to follow 776 just like the rest of us. If someone just murdered some schoolkids, and is getting away, and you have no phone, you can most likely shoot them in the back.

Flight itself is not the felony, this only works with forcible felonies. You can use deadly force to terminate the forcible felony, or to stop the flight of a forcible felon if no other method exists.

Notice that 'no other method exists.' You better be damned well able to articulate why no other method existed.

I do remember a rape case that a friend worked. He discovered a rape in progress, and took protective action against the rapist. While jamming the barrel of his .357 against the bad guy's ear, he cut the bad guy. The bad guy's attorney tried to get damages, and the court found that the security officer was justified in using any force, including lethal, to terminate the rape, as its a forcible felony.

[bigdog]

[QUOTE=UncleDooly]While lying in the hospital, it will be very satisfying to know that the guy who hit me with a 2x4 is being prosecuted as a felon.

I think it is a reasonable law but, since we're the only ones who will know about it, .... revenge, after the fact is not very comforting....haha.

actually bay news 9 will probably do a piece on it if it p***es as a law. i have talked to a reporter about it. he said it would make a good story.

[N. A. Corbier]

[QUOTE=bigdog]

While lying in the hospital, it will be very satisfying to know that the guy who hit me with a 2x4 is being prosecuted as a felon.

I think it is a reasonable law but, since we're the only ones who will know about it, .... revenge, after the fact is not very comforting....haha.

actually bay news 9 will probably do a piece on it if it p***es as a law. i have talked to a reporter about it. he said it would make a good story.

If it p***es, I'll write a story for Cygnus Media myself on it. (If they publish it, or not, remains to be seen.)

I know in the Tampa Bay area, Bay News 9 will cover it, the Sheriff's Office will probally have something to say on it, KC will definately be on WTVT 13 about it, and the Saint Petersburg Times will have some commentary on it.

Especially after we email their media outlets and inform them of this, when it becomes law. I suggest not doing it before, because if the media outlet has a political agenda, they'll run negative story on it.

[N. A. Corbier]

how does the resist with violence statute apply to security officers?

This is where it becomes funny. Resisting Arrest with Violence does not apply to security officers, as they are not state officers as defined by the statue defining a "state law enforcement officer."

However, obstructing an officer HAS been used on people who obstruct an officer in the performance of their duties, who has a legal duty. It was written to encomp*** utility workers, who have a legal duty to restore and service power as public utility workers.

Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney successfully charged a man with obstructing a security officer because the man repeatedly attacked the security officer who was attempting to remove the man from his property, interfering with the security officer's lawful duty to remove the offender.

The Saint Petersburg Police Department wanted to charge the guy bad, a sergeant thought up the charge.

If can, and has, been argued that since the license is for a state "security officer," that they are a non-sworn state officer, licensed by the state, and has the authority of a non-sworn state officer: ie: None.

While there is no authority from the title, all those "officer" statutes that don't reference 931 (I think, its the state LE designation statute, I'm probally off) can be argued as they apply to the security officer.

Oh, there's an older law that states that resisting a watchman in a declared time of national war is a felony, and a watchman may detain any tresp***er. THe only problem is that a watchman is a night watchman as ***igned by the Sheriff to protect munitions, weapons, and military billets. It was from WWII.

[UncleDooly]

If someone wants, I'll post 776 again. From what I remember, a person has the right to use deadly force to prevent the flight of a forcible felon if no other option is available to prevent them from escaping, and their remaining at large presents a greater danger to the public than his being allowed to live, basically.

You notice the wording in there. Florida usually has the same use of force authority (deadly force) for sworn police and non-sworn civilians. A police officer can shoot a convicted felon to stop their flight as they're legally "escaping jail." Someone who is not convicted, they have to follow 776 just like the rest of us. If someone just murdered some schoolkids, and is getting away, and you have no phone, you can most likely shoot them in the back.

Flight itself is not the felony, this only works with forcible felonies. You can use deadly force to terminate the forcible felony, or to stop the flight of a forcible felon if no other method exists.

Notice that 'no other method exists.' You better be damned well able to articulate why no other method existed.

I do remember a rape case that a friend worked. He discovered a rape in progress, and took protective action against the rapist. While jamming the barrel of his .357 against the bad guy's ear, he cut the bad guy. The bad guy's attorney tried to get damages, and the court found that the security officer was justified in using any force, including lethal, to terminate the rape, as its a forcible felony.

I (just my opinion) consider 776 to be superceded by the Florida Security Officer Handbook. After shooting someone, who I determine has committed a felony and who is fleeing the scene of what I determined to be a felony, I would hate to be in court with some lawyer asking me to find justification for my actions in the Fl. SO handbook - or, asking who, specifically, I considered to be in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the time of my action and, I'm sure, a dozen other legal points to muddy the issue.

I prefer to act (again, just my opinion) strictly within the parameters described in the handbook. The handbook suggests that officers read Chapter 493 for increased understanding of the law. Unfortunately, lawyers exist to convince courts that, although you've read the law, you don't understand it or have misinterpreted what it says.

I have to stand by my statement: Shooting anyone who is running away from you, and who is not, immediately, threatening anyone, will, in all probability, land you in a world of trouble. Why take the chance?

[N. A. Corbier]

I (just my opinion) consider 776 to be superceded by the Florida Security Officer Handbook. After shooting someone, who I determine has committed a felony and who is fleeing the scene of what I determined to be a felony, I would hate to be in court with some lawyer asking me to find justification for my actions in the Fl. SO handbook - or, asking who, specifically, I considered to be in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the time of my action and, I'm sure, a dozen other legal points to muddy the issue.

I prefer to act (again, just my opinion) strictly within the parameters described in the handbook. The handbook suggests that officers read Chapter 493 for increased understanding of the law. Unfortunately, lawyers exist to convince courts that, although you've read the law, you don't understand it or have misinterpreted what it says.

I have to stand by my statement: Shooting anyone who is running away from you, and who is not, immediately, threatening anyone, will, in all probability, land you in a world of trouble. Why take the chance?

The Florida Security Officer's Handbook is an interesting book, at that. To be honest, I would check the latest edition for what they changed, then grab a copy of Florida Statutes, and anything that was amiss in the Handbook, we'd run through corporate counsel.

The reasons I distrust the handbook in some cases (776 isn't really one of them, though) is because the Division consistantly states that the job of security is not to protect anything or anyone, but merely to report requested activities to their employer (Not law enforcement or the client.)

The Division maintains that the job of crime prevention (Protecting property from criminal interference) is the job of law enforcement (Crime Prevention Bureaus), and that the job of protecting people is the purve of law enforcement, and private investigators.

Due to the industry refusing to lobby the state on just about anything that would protect them from liability, perfering to use the standard "If something bad happens, we just fire the guard and blame him" approach, the state still believes these things, and actively informs the law enforcement agencies that these are the jobs of security, spending your (and mine) tax dollars, to the tune of several hundred thousand on flyers and etc.

A perfect example was Varnador or whatever his spelling was, stating in a conference that "The 9mm semi-automatic is the thinking man's gun, security guards could never handle it." The handbook is written the same way.

[UncleDooly]

....snip, snip...
"If something bad happens, we just fire the guard and blame him"
...snip...

Haha..... exactly!

I pretty much agree with your entire post but the above is tattooed on my forehead so I don't forget it. I always glance at the mirror before making decisions.

I worked for a company, here in the Tampa Bay area, which, at the time, was CIS's only competition on this coast. I really enjoyed the proactive, no-nonsense approach to the job (and, I admit, the action) but the "swat team" mentality of most of the officers was, frankly, at least to me, often comical. I only stayed about a year. (I understand the company has done some housekeeping since then. I hope so. There were some great guys there)

I prefer residential or corporate posts, many of which pay better than armed posts. My opinions are only valid (when they are valid at all....haha) for the average, but professional, officer on the average, but serious, contract post. I tend to err on the side of "conservative but efficient."

(but, sometimes, I'd just like to shoot em all....hehe)

[N. A. Corbier]

Haha..... exactly!

I pretty much agree with your entire post but the above is tattooed on my forehead so I don't forget it. I always glance at the mirror before making decisions.

I worked for a company, here in the Tampa Bay area, which, at the time, was CIS's only competition on this coast. I really enjoyed the proactive, no-nonsense approach to the job (and, I admit, the action) but the "swat team" mentality of most of the officers was, frankly, at least to me, often comical. I only stayed about a year. (I understand the company has done some housekeeping since then. I hope so. There were some great guys there)

I prefer residential or corporate posts, many of which pay better than armed posts. My opinions are only valid (when they are valid at all....haha) for the average, but professional, officer on the average, but serious, contract post. I tend to err on the side of "conservative but efficient."

(but, sometimes, I'd just like to shoot em all....hehe)

Did you work during the Dixon/Alba era, or the Furtick era?

Things got better after Furtick was made Ops Manager. I kinda figured you worked for who I thought you did, at some time. Everybody makes their rounds of all the companies, and depending on the time period, moved on or moved out of the industry.

[bigdog]

so what do u think the chances are this bill will p***? also have u checked out change493.org

[UncleDooly]

Did you work during the Dixon/Alba era, or the Furtick era?

Things got better after Furtick was made Ops Manager. I kinda figured you worked for who I thought you did, at some time. Everybody makes their rounds of all the companies, and depending on the time period, moved on or moved out of the industry.

hahahaha........ Dixon (whom I loved dearly as a person, well, not loved, exactly, but didn't get along with at work)

[N. A. Corbier]

hahahaha........ Dixon (whom I loved dearly as a person, well, not loved, exactly, but didn't get along with at work)

Joe was insane, but a good guy. I remember doing Station 2 and Joe would show up, and he'd be like, "Kill anyone who follows me." I mean, what do you say to that?

I also remember a wonderful and touching story about Alba and his OC canister. Moral of the story, imparted to us all: Be VERY carefuly with Freeze +P canisters when you carry them upside down, or you will feel the burn in places you wish you never did.

[bigdog]

how much force can u use to detain someone? also do they have the right to resist since we r not sworn?

[N. A. Corbier]

u mean mike furtick

Without the Major present, I tend not to involve his full name. Furtick is just a surname, one that can't be identified by someone casually. However, I will note that if anyone has any ill words about him, I'll be happy to take that person up in debate here.

[N. A. Corbier]

how much force can u use to detain someone? also do they have the right to resist since we r not sworn?

That entirely depends on what your doing. Why are you detaining them, first? Is it because they committed battery upon you, and continued to attack you after you pushed them back? If so, then whatever force is required to stop their attack and place them into custody for your safety and theirs.

If you are operating as an agent of a retail establishment (retail theft), then you can use reasonable force to secure the person after informing them that they are being detained for suspicion of retail theft for the purposes of turning them over to law enforcement.

Florida Statutes don't give statutory authority for use of force in a common law detention. However, it is generally accepted that if you are detaining for a felony, you can use what force is reasonable to effect the detainment, because your initial force was verbal. You then blocked their way, and they struck you, then your stopping their attack.

[bigdog]

major furtick is a great guy. have u ever worked in our company