Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A more experienced officer...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A more experienced officer...

    What kinds of situations and occurances, good or bad, do you think

    contribute to a more experienced or capable Security Officer? Examples

    given are dealing with physical altercations and hostile individuals on a

    regular basis, being assigned to sites in "bad" parts of town, receiving

    additional training on one's own time, assuming supervisory positions, etc.

    I'm eager to read all of your responses and opinions.
    Last edited by FederalSecurity; 12-10-2006, 01:18 AM.
    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
    - Thomas Jefferson

    “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence.”
    — Vince Lombardi

    "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    IX. Strive to attain professional competence.

  • #2
    I don't know if this is the kind of answer you are looking for but..

    A lot depends on the SO and his/her frame of mind.
    Having said this just about any training, previous experience, or any other factor can be used to your advantage if you are willing to learn from it.

    Training and drilling with that training is what makes soldiers advance in a skirmish line under fire where it would make most people run and hide. It is also what makes us able to confront the fights, robbers, and other undesirables.

    Experience lets us refine our responses to these situations and prepares us for what we have yet to face.

    However if you are one of the "it will never happen here so why worry about it?" or a "H3ll, it only happened once in the 15yrs I've been here" then nothing will improve them.

    my 2 cents.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ACP01
      I don't know if this is the kind of answer you are looking for but..

      A lot depends on the SO and his/her frame of mind.
      Having said this just about any training, previous experience, or any other factor can be used to your advantage if you are willing to learn from it.

      Training and drilling with that training is what makes soldiers advance in a skirmish line under fire where it would make most people run and hide. It is also what makes us able to confront the fights, robbers, and other undesirables.

      Experience lets us refine our responses to these situations and prepares us for what we have yet to face.

      However if you are one of the "it will never happen here so why worry about it?" or a "H3ll, it only happened once in the 15yrs I've been here" then nothing will improve them.

      my 2 cents.
      ACP01, those 2 cents of yours our worth many gold coins. Training, training and more training and the experience factor are keys to success in security. Uniformed security and security management represent a paramilitary force whether we like to acknowledge it or not.
      The military's mantra is "sweat more now, bleed less later on."
      Enjoy the day,
      Bill

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Bill Warnock
        ACP01, those 2 cents of yours our worth many gold coins. Training, training and more training and the experience factor are keys to success in security. Uniformed security and security management represent a paramilitary force whether we like to acknowledge it or not.
        The military's mantra is "sweat more now, bleed less later on."
        Enjoy the day,
        Bill
        Good Bill,

        True,
        as a supervisor for a company providing off duty police officers, I can say that the quality is a LARGE difference. I have worked for security companies before and have been around security guards alot. they lack the training to descalate situations, deal with problems, and be proactive without having a vigilante persona... Now thats not true of all security officers though. I have worked with a "small" percentage of officers that took the initiative to go on law enforcement ride-a-longs, enroll in the police academy as an open enrollee, take law enforcement courses or law enforcement classes at local schools or PD's. Even though as a SO you are not a cop, those course teach the basic fundamentals and how to deal with the public in a productive manner. Taking the initiative to get that training will only better you as an employee, make you more promotable, and help keep accounts. Our company wins the majority of its business because the current security vendor has NO TRAINING, or the SO's just dont know how to do an effective job. Our newest contract, the SO's we replaced were described as Gestapo and Vigilante's. They were to over the top, yet another sign of not correct training. So in my "opinion" proper training is the most important thing to have as a SO. Understand though that training does raise Liability!

        Comment


        • #5
          A More Experienced Officer

          VertigoODO:
          I do not understand the last sentence in your posting about training increasing liability. I would suspect, the more training and experience one would have would lessen the chance of "crazy or an unfathomable response" to a out of the routine response.
          I would be interested in reading your thoughts. Perhaps it is I who has a Pollyanaistic view.
          Enjoy the day,
          Bill

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bill Warnock
            VertigoODO:
            I do not understand the last sentence in your posting about training increasing liability. I would suspect, the more training and experience one would have would lessen the chance of "crazy or an unfathomable response" to a out of the routine response.
            I would be interested in reading your thoughts. Perhaps it is I who has a Pollyanaistic view.
            Enjoy the day,
            Bill
            LOL, yes I know it seems that way. But in reallity I just attended a legal conference for security and found that the more experience and training your company provides or does, the more you increase your liability and decrease your protection when involved in a law suit. In simple terms what I asked the legal council for this was, "So what your telling me is that if I train my guards to make good decisions and they just so happen to make a dumb one, we can get sued for even more money than if we just hired idiots off the streets who make dumb negligent decisions all the time? (YES)" WOW!!! I was shocked and speechless. Who would have thought? I was very confused but did in fact verify it with our legal department. In California I guess I cant sue McDonalds for under-cooking my burger unless they are trainned not to undercook it. LOL, god this state sucks!

            Comment


            • #7
              Ah - another "legal seminar" - may the good Lord preserve us from them, most of them being worthless! I stopped attending these after about my fifth, when I realized I was coming home with bags of utter bushwah. You'll get a lot more value from taking a few semester-long courses in business, contract, civil and criminal law at the university level, believe me. Why? Well, because the law is so complex that very little of it that's useful can be conveyed to lay people in the space of a seminar.

              The notion that increased training, per se, increases liability, per se, as a blanket statement is sheer nonsense. Although we should ask first, "liability for what, precisely?" since the legal notion of "liability" is far too deep to talk about in generalities, let's plow forward anyway.

              Every form of liability has distinct elements. For instance, in the security setting, negligence is the primary tort for which liability attaches, and I'm going to guess that this is what these people were talking about.

              These are the elements of negligence:

              1. Someone DOES or FAILS TO DO something...
              2. That is their DUTY to do or to refrain from doing...
              3. Meaning a duty to SOMEONE ELSE...
              4. Who is HARMED...
              5. As a reasonably foreseeable and direct (or proximate) RESULT of such action or inaction.

              In the common law of negligence, you need all of these elements for negligence to exist AND for liability to attach. Note that you can have negligence without liability attaching, by the way. (Again, it gets much more complicated than this, with "community standards" and state statutes that create liability, and lots of other factors more coming into it...which is why I recommend taking courses, not seminars.)

              Now...there are some special situations in which the second element, an individual's DUTY toward another, might conceivably arise in part - but only in part - from the training they have received. The liability never attaches merely "because they were trained". You are never liable because you "know how to do something" (have been trained), per se. The liability only attaches when something you do, fail to do, and/or the way you do it violates your reasonable or statutory duty to another and directly harms them...period.

              I might be trained as a pilot, but I'm not liable for anything until I get into a plane and fly it into something - contrary to my training, one would presume. Where training is related to liability is not that training itself per se increases liability, but rather in these ways:

              1. People were NOT trained to do something they are expected to do in the course of their employment. I have violated a reasonable training obligation by my failure to act.

              2. People are IMPROPERLY or INADEQUATELY trained to do what they are expected to do in the course of their employment. I have violated a reasonable training obligation by my failure to exercise due care in the way I trained people.

              3. People did not FOLLOW the training they were given. Perhaps I did not properly supervise their actions, implement appropriate policies and procedures, keep them current in their skills or otherwise did not exercise proper oversight.

              ...and even if I do ALL of these negligent things, there is no liability that will ever attach to me unless someone does something as a result that causes harm to another.

              However, if I think I can "escape liability" by simply not training people (an absurd notion...or else we should close down our police, fire and EMT academies immediately), see items #1 through #3 above - my real sources of liability with respect to training.

              Bottom line is, if you want to decrease liability, give your people ALL the training they need to do the jobs they are expected to do (and MORE than enough, if you can). There will NEVER be any liability attached to the mere fact that you have trained them. So - train them and train them good and proper in every duty they are expected to perform! This avoids liabilities #1 and 2 with respect to training.

              Then, realizing that in anything they do (including things you might not have trained them in at all, such as driving a car) liability will attach to you if they do them negligently, you must SUPERVISE them properly and make sure they KEEP CURRENT on their skills... in other words, train them SOME MORE, not less. That, and the ability to prove you have done so, by the way, with the proper documentation, will take care of #3. If you train people properly, supervise them properly and keep them current in their skills, you will NEVER, EVER be found liable merely "because you trained them".

              I ran the topic of this thread by our legal counsel to make sure I wasn't misspeaking, and he actually started to giggle over the phone. It's always disconcerting to hear your legal counsel, who usually sounds like he swallowed Black's Legal Dictionary, start to giggle. Made me think I'd dialed the wrong number. Specifically, he said "When I defend companies in actions like these, my first job is always to show that people were properly trained, and then to show that they did what they were trained to do. If I had to stand up there and say 'Members of the jury, this officer isn't liable because fortunately his company made sure that he's butt-ignorant', I'd get into another line of work."

              All of this being said, I am not offering anyone legal advice here. Everyone should seek the advice of their own corporate counsel if they have questions about any of this discussion.
              Last edited by SecTrainer; 12-11-2006, 05:59 PM.
              "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

              "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

              "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

              "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by VertigoODO
                LOL, yes I know it seems that way. But in reallity I just attended a legal conference for security and found that the more experience and training your company provides or does, the more you increase your liability and decrease your protection when involved in a law suit. In simple terms what I asked the legal council for this was, "So what your telling me is that if I train my guards to make good decisions and they just so happen to make a dumb one, we can get sued for even more money than if we just hired idiots off the streets who make dumb negligent decisions all the time? (YES)" WOW!!! I was shocked and speechless. Who would have thought? I was very confused but did in fact verify it with our legal department. In California I guess I cant sue McDonalds for under-cooking my burger unless they are trainned not to undercook it. LOL, god this state sucks!
                This is the prevailing thought in Warm Body Security. If you train someone to use an ASP, then they can "use it wrong." If you give it to them and do not train them, then it is a "billie club" only to be used in a lethal force encounter. You can't screw "trying to kill you" up.

                Now to read SecTrainer's post on why this is the stupidest thing to come out of our insurance company's six.
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  One of the biggest problems with liability in security is that the companies want to maximize profit, and are looking for reasons to do so. Others fall in line with "oh, training costs more in liability than its worth," etc. Same with arming employees or having employees taking protective action.

                  As far as applying security liability to emergency services (fire, police, EMS), these companies will be the first to note that "We do not have the same liabilities that they do, as we only provide observation and reporting. It is the job of the police/fire/EMS to actually intervene."
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My biggest repsonse to this is interaction. The placement of new officers, or rookies, into environments in which they are kinda pushed out of the nest after a good amount of training, and allowed or permitted to having to make decisions that are consequential to good results, or results that can be very negative.

                    I changed our departments motto, in that any new of rookie officer, after completing their training, is thrown into a big hot mess, and then the senior officers stand by to assist if it gets too far out of control. its more of a "sink or swim" deal for the new officers. Yes, granted many of them have absolutely no experience what so ever. The mall we operate in is dangerous and has a rougher crowd that visits. But, by doing this, if they "swim".. great! Training was adaquate, and they build experience off of it. If they start to "sink" and before going in too deep, the seniors pull them out. The new officer gains from this experience, and carries onto the next call of disaster.

                    After having to clean house when i first took over the site I am at, I found that some of my most capable applicants were thoe that passed all the requirements, and were interested in learning this "industry". Alot of them have never had any type of C.J. training or exposure. So the chances of them falling, were very high. Having taken a college kid, whos only job he has ever had in life, was laying pipe for a construction company for three months, then having been issued equipment of our trade, and training, then throwing him into a mess of gang bangers and expressing to him that "i need you to expell them from the property, after you process them!", is no way a easy chore, and the new officers tend to have this very frightened look as they listen to me before venturing off. This once rookie officer, now is more then confident to handle any kind of mess that falls before him, and teaches all new officers so well. The results from this have been a much improved environment!

                    You can only shelter people fo rso long and from so much, before it is time to cut them loose and let them gain knowledge and experience. I didnt get where I am today by being sheltered, so why do the incourtesy to others!
                    Deputy Sheriff

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Mall Director,

                      Wow! I tip my hat off to you, sir. I'd be willing to make a bet that you

                      have given many security officers some valuable experience and insight into

                      the profession. My belief is that training is good and experience is a plus, but

                      training combined with experience is the best way to go.
                      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
                      - Thomas Jefferson

                      “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence.”
                      — Vince Lombardi

                      "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

                      IX. Strive to attain professional competence.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I agree Mall Director.
                        You can only learn so much until you do it yourself and then your real training starts. The back-up senior officer will also give the newbe an emotional support as well.

                        Doing, making mistakes and learning from them is what makes good officers and better future leaders.

                        Comment

                        Leaderboard

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X