Calling in License Plates?

[LPGuy]

Met a 12 year old with a boxcutter once, he slashed a garden associate. Met a 12 year old with a Glock, too.

All offenders should be processed equally, as they all equally have the ability to hurt you.

Very true. Our company policy allows us to handcuff anyone we apprehend, but in my impression, it has always seemed to be frowned upon unless you have a safety concern. Lately, though, I've been much more free with liberally applying the handcuffs, especially since I've seen a lot more people running, fighting, and threatening us recently.

In fact, one of the local police officers, upon responding to a juvenile shoplifting call, flatly stated, "I think you guys should handcuff everyone."

I usually play it by ear, based upon the subject's initial demeanor and actions upon contact, number of loss prevention officers involved, etc.

[N. A. Corbier]

People fear handcuffing, for the liability aspect. What they fail to realize is that their insurance company has already had its cow... You are deriving people of their freedom of movement by deed or action. Telling you to not apply restraints is closing the barn door after the entire farm has left.

You are already illegally detaining someone if you stopped them and prevented their freedom of movement. If its a lawful detainment, then adding handcuffs means nothing really. Same for illegal detainment.

There's also the "appearance," people think that if you don't handcuff people, the public won't be as "afraid" of "wannabe cops in their stores." Quite frankly, I think that a lot of people raise a ruckus when they feel their ability to act how they want (imposition of authority) is threatened. They accept that the police can impose authority because failure to accept that can result in a beating (I mean overcoming resistance...) They do not accept that "some security guard" can because of media portrayal and their idea that only the government controls them, not some security guard.

I've seen kids run, fight, and cry. If you're smart, you'll cuff them all, because they all can do you permenant damage, and the way our society is going... its dangerous to beat a cop - he'll shoot you. A security guard can't shoot you, he can't fight back, so beat him down freely.

I wish I wasn't quoting, but I am. There are several sites dedicated to "free speech" and a bunch of them is how to steal from stores, and most of them freely advocate fighting the stupid guards cause they can't do anything.

[LPGuy]

People fear handcuffing, for the liability aspect. What they fail to realize is that their insurance company has already had its cow... You are deriving people of their freedom of movement by deed or action. Telling you to not apply restraints is closing the barn door after the entire farm has left.

You are already illegally detaining someone if you stopped them and prevented their freedom of movement. If its a lawful detainment, then adding handcuffs means nothing really. Same for illegal detainment.

You really hit the nail on the head there. Companies are so worried about excessive force or unlawful detainment lawsuits nowadays.

I've seen kids run, fight, and cry. If you're smart, you'll cuff them all, because they all can do you permenant damage, and the way our society is going... its dangerous to beat a cop - he'll shoot you. A security guard can't shoot you, he can't fight back, so beat him down freely.

I wish I wasn't quoting, but I am. There are several sites dedicated to "free speech" and a bunch of them is how to steal from stores, and most of them freely advocate fighting the stupid guards cause they can't do anything.

That's really funny, actually. I personally find it humorous when someone tries to fight over a few items, turning a simple misdemeanor Theft III charge into felony robbery and assault charges. Plus, it just makes my day all the more interesting to chase someone, tackle them, and fight them into handcuffs. Of course, these are the people that generally have active warrants out for their arrest anyways.

[Mall Director]

Brings to light an interesting occurance..

As I am about to apply more fact behind everything that has been said, i had a most interesting occurance today. Recently, we hired on a new officer, who isnt new. He just got out of the Marines. Before going in, he worked for my department, prior to my arrival. After getting him into the system, and started on training, he discovered alot of new and exciting things that have changed with "the old department" he used to work for, and in turn I was enlightened to get a feel for the way things used to be before I took over.

He explained that alot has changd since he was gone. It used to be the kids, and gangs ran the mall, not the mall running itself. The old director did not allow the officers to make arrests, evict people from property for minor to medium level violations, and the major crimes that took effect, were only punishable by a 30 day barrment. If a crime took place, even in front of the officers, they were not allowed to take action.

Needless to say, he was very impressed with the way things had changed, and appreciated the aggressive nature that the "new department" demonstrated. He stated that he did not see nearly half the habitual violators and criminal offenders that he used to deal with. When he went out onto the "floor" for the first time, it was the first time for him that he received respect from the juveniles. He gave a directive, and it was followed, and not pushed. To add to his experience, a trespassor visited tonight. To his surprise, when he and his FTO made contact with the criminal violator, the new officer was shocked. The subject that was trespassing, he was familiar with, and to further impression, the subject complied completely, where as in the past many obsceneties and resistance was demonstrated by this subject.

After long viewing, the new officer was able to tell that there was peace finally in the mall, people cooperated, and shortly later on, the new officer understood how this happened. When the trespassor was contacted by the FTO, the FTO advised the subject to go with him. At first the subject was not receptive to being arrested verbally, and made comment to it. The FTO simply stated "If you wish to escilate this further, then go ahead, but you will find out that the consequences will not be what you expect." This violator thought on it for a second. One of the trespassors friends who has been around our officers when another subject chose this route of action had been "taken down" quickly and aggressively, made mention to his violating friend that it would be better to just do as told, then to find out "security aint joking man, do what they say". The trespassor listened to his freind.

Later on, it was explained to the new officer that this "freind" was present for another subject's arrest that became violent, and got the short end of the stick in the matter.

My point being that similiar to N.A. Cobeir, is that the image of "beating down a Security guard" is acceptable means to escape or getting away with a crime, was what was going on before at our facility, until new policies were enacted and reaction by the department was improved. Now, these people have spread enough of the word around that it is not a good idea to taunt or push issues with the security officers at this mall.

Does this mean it has stopped completely.. No, we still have a few people who request our help in "educating" them otherwise. And as kind hearted and caring as we are, we take time to stop and help teach. LOL.

My biggest point to all of this, is knowledge. We hear "Knowledge is power" and without really stopping to become educated, we wont fully understand the validity behind this saying, as it is very true. By our states law, citizens arrest laws are strong here. Private property laws are strong here as well. The previous director did not want to take the time to research this for himself, as it requires effort and time, leaving his staff incapable, incompetent, and in danger of doing their jobs. It is not easy to gain knowledge of what you can or can not do, or how to operate. It takes alot of effort, personal time to research, asking quesitons, and getting to know the system, before you gain knowledge. But once you have it, you can overstep that hurdle of "warm body" operations, and begin to be proactive.

- Its almost always a good idea to use restraints on a criminal violator, even of a small nature. Keep it a small nature, before allowing it to go to the next step.

- Take time to know what arrest and detention powers you have, then exercise them. If you dont, you wont gain experience.

- Dont rely on just one source of information. There are many sources out there, even in your area. Tap em, and make them work for you.

- Dont be afraid to make mistakes. Sometimes we dont gain knowledge or experience without falling down once or twice. Mistakes are natural.

- Fellow officers who tell you that you are actine like a "rent-a-cop" are stereotyping themselves, and lack interest in self improvement. It requires effort, and effort takes away from an easy job.

- Easy jobs are dangerous! Complacancy sets in, and the last nail is waiting for you to drive it into your casket.

- We all have a sense of survival. Trust yours. You know yourself better than anyone else, so dont let them tell you otherwise. If it doesnt sound safe, go with your gut instict.

[Mr. Security]

Handcuffing Children

I am against any policy that requires that children, 10 years old and younger, be handcuffed unless they are resisting. Do a proper weapon search with another witness present to refute false accusations of child abuse. If I did something as a kid, I would be scared enough w/o having to endure being handcuffed. Remember too, that kids bones contain much cartilage and soft tendons that can easily be injured by the hard steel from a pair of cuffs. Let's stop taking common sense and discretion out of our rigid no-exception policies, and instead learn how to use our thinking abilities.

[OccamsRazor]

If I did something as a kid, I would be scared enough w/o having to endure being handcuffed.

In your mind, in your day, yes.

Not everyone feels this way anymore. I won't get into a heredity/environment, nature/nurture argument, but y'all have seen this trend with violent offenders getting younger and younger.

As a cop, I arrested more than a few kids. The ones that stand out?

-The drunk nine-year-old who fought like a (small) wildcat,

-The six-year-old who was trying to shoplift cigarettes, and

-The seven and eight-year old sisters who were helping their 14-year-old brother sell meth.

All of the above resisted to some degree, the nine-year-old caused me a few bruises and my partner needed 7 stitches and a tetanus shot after the kid hit him with a rake.

Great parenting.

[Mr. Security]

In your mind, in your day, yes.
Not everyone feels this way anymore. I won't get into a heredity/environment, nature/nurture argument, but y'all have seen this trend with violent offenders getting younger and younger.

As a cop, I arrested more than a few kids. The ones that stand out?

-The drunk nine-year-old who fought like a (small) wildcat,

-The six-year-old who was trying to shoplift cigarettes, and

-The seven and eight-year old sisters who were helping their 14-year-old brother sell meth.

All of the above resisted to some degree, the nine-year-old caused me a few bruises and my partner needed 7 stitches and a tetanus shot after the kid hit him with a rake.

Great parenting.

Now I REALLY feel old. I think I'll check on my SSA benefits.

[Jackhole]

Remember too, that kids bones contain much cartilage and soft tendons that can easily be injured by the hard steel from a pair of cuffs.

Childrens' bones (or even adult bones, for that matter) contain cartilage and tendons?

That's a new one on me...

[Mr. Security]

Childrens' bones (or even adult bones, for that matter) contain cartilage and tendons?

That's a new one on me...

Jackhole, you seem to be having some difficulty grasping the point, so let me see if I can make it a little simpler for you:

- Children are more fragile than adults; they are injured easier because their bodies are still growing.

Got it? Good.

[Jackhole]

Jackhole, you seem to be having some difficulty grasping the point, so let me see if I can make it a little simpler for you:

- Children are more fragile than adults; they are injured easier because their bodies are still growing.

Got it? Good.

So it's ok to use false information in a discussion, as long as the main point is valid?

[LPGuy]

I am against any policy that requires that children, 10 years old and younger, be handcuffed unless they are resisting. Do a proper weapon search with another witness present to refute false accusations of child abuse. If I did something as a kid, I would be scared enough w/o having to endure being handcuffed. Remember too, that kids bones contain much cartilage and soft tendons that can easily be injured by the hard steel from a pair of cuffs. Let's stop taking common sense and discretion out of our rigid no-exception policies, and instead learn how to use our thinking abilities.

I don't think anyone was advocating "rigid no-exception policies" that require every person to be handcuffed. We were, instead, talking about handcuffing almost all violators. Of course, common sense judgement is always used in situations that are outside the norm (very young children or elderly).

That reminds me of an oral board question that came up when I recently applied for a school district security position. The question was along the lines of, "If you encountered a six-year-old child who was causing a problem, would you be able to handcuff him or her?" I answered, "I would, of course, use common sense in any situation involving young children. If the child posed a safety risk to himself, myself, or anyone else present, I would then place him into handcuffs for those reasons."

I received skeptical looks, which I knew were meant to test my resolve. I was asked, "So you'd just slap cuffs on a child?" I repeated, "Yes, if the child posed a safety risk to himself or others, then it would be in everyone's best interest for me to do so." The board members appeared satisfied with that answer.

Recent case in Miami, I believe it was, where a six-year-old broke a framed picture from off of a wall and used a large shard of glass to ward off school employees and security officers. Miami Police had to use the Taser. Of course, the community was outraged.

[Mr. Security]

So it's ok to use false information in a discussion, as long as the main point is valid?

You knew exactly what I meant. Your post was designed to stir up controversy. You seem to enjoy playing your little mind games. I doubt that your academy instructors will find your games very amusing.

[Mr. Security]

I don't think anyone was advocating "rigid no-exception policies" that require every person to be handcuffed. We were, instead, talking about handcuffing almost all violators. Of course, common sense judgement is always used in situations that are outside the norm (very young children or elderly).
That reminds me of an oral board question that came up when I recently applied for a school district security position. The question was along the lines of, "If you encountered a six-year-old child who was causing a problem, would you be able to handcuff him or her?" I answered, "I would, of course, use common sense in any situation involving young children. If the child posed a safety risk to himself, myself, or anyone else present, I would then place him into handcuffs for those reasons."

I received skeptical looks, which I knew were meant to test my resolve. I was asked, "So you'd just slap cuffs on a child?" I repeated, "Yes, if the child posed a safety risk to himself or others, then it would be in everyone's best interest for me to do so." The board members appeared satisfied with that answer.

Recent case in Miami, I believe it was, where a six-year-old broke a framed picture from off of a wall and used a large shard of glass to ward off school employees and security officers. Miami Police had to use the Taser. Of course, the community was outraged.

That's the point I wanted to make. Some departments take the discretion away from the officer. I don't like to see that happen. I say: "Officer knows best."

[CorpSec]

At my site, there are a few officers, including myself, that will let dispatch know when we are out of our vehicle investigating a suspicious vehicle. We will call in our location and the vehicle license plate.

I've had officers ridicule me for doing this, saying that I'm being a cop wanna-be. I see it as a safety measure, as some of our properties are gated, but others are open to anyone.

Does anyone else do this?

Well, the behavior you describe is "cop like". But, you know why cops do it? Because it is common sense officer safety.

When I worked more traditional security I would hear the "acting like a cop" thing sometimes when I would ask people to keep their hands out of their pockets or shine my flashlight around the interior of their cars looking for anything that might harm me.

Hey, if doing things that help ensure that I'll live to see another day is acting like a cop, so be it.