Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intervention == Dismissal: SIW Story

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

  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Sounds like this guard was too good for the company he worked for anyhow. Let's hope that a better one hires him and the mall realizes how much protection (and I use that word loosely) they really are getting!

    Leave a comment:


  • 3rd_shift
    replied
    Most mall security I have seen does indeed have a few parking lot patrol units in most cases to find out the truth on what's going on and at least gotten a;
    "Oh ****, security!"
    out of the perpetrator.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    The settlement was won jointly between the mall management, the security company, and the department store, which provided its own security in the form of managers watching surveillance cameras. The responsibility assumed here was the responsibility to prevent the offense, not just to do what was convenient or conventional at the time and it was won through civil tort, not statutory responsibility. The lesson learned from this is that surveillance cameras do not replace the function of a real person investigating activity. Even if the mall security were to send a mobile patrol to that area of the parking lot they would have seen what was really going on, in my opinion. They did not, however, because the idea of "hands off" was so ingrained.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Due note: The security company still has a duty to report criminal activity to law enforcement, in some states. Even with the duty to report to client.

    This stems from the duty to "quell all disturbances and breaches of the peace, take said violators unto custody, and deposit them before a competent magistrate (or law enforcement officer)," that we derive arrest for breach of the peace from.

    Most times, you don't report things to LE that you know you should, and the client says no, it dosen't matter ... because it didn't get to LE's attention.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3rd_shift
    replied
    Guess what folks - they observed and reported and videotaped, but it was not enough.
    So, it was the mall and store that got hit with that one and not security?
    It looks like the security company did all they could with what resources, budget and training they had, or didn't have without getting into trouble themselves.

    Or was this the mall's "inhouse security" that got hit with that?

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    I have found, with every security position I have held, security companies and client businesses, some even on a nationwide corporate level, have policies in place that stem from ignorance of the laws of the state or political subdivision in which they are located. This is what I call the "fantasy world" mentality.

    Most companies I have seen believe the job of a security officer is to "observe and report" simply because they fear being sued so much; however, they do not take into account the vicarious liability of failing to act in some cases. They are ignorant of criminal laws regarding what is required or prohibited and are not privy to case laws and civil tort decisions for "failure to provide security."

    Try the $7 million settlement one crime victim won against a local shopping mall (who I will not name for fear of being sued, haha) and department store after she was kidnapped at the mall, brought to another location where she was raped, and then returned to the same spot by her abductor. The department store and the mall security were taping the whole thing with surveillance cameras, thinking it looked suspicious, not realizing it was a kidnapping in progress, but they failed to notify local police or take any other action. Guess what folks - they observed and reported and videotaped, but it was not enough.

    Then you have companies or clientele who have the opposite mentality. They want you to make as many arrests as possible and be as aggressive or even downright rude as possible since they perceive a crime problem that is "out of hand." They do not do their homework, however, to know what arrests, if any, are allowed to be made by security in their individual state.

    In my state, Texas, a person who is not police may only make an arrest for an offense within view that is a felony or an offense against peace or to detain for theft. People I have worked for expected me to arrest people for things such as criminal trespass, graffiti, burglary of vehicles (class a misdemeanor not felony), or for things like indecent exposure which may be considered an offense against peace, but if I didn't witness the offense I'm not allowed to hold the person. If you're going to pursue arrests then you really need to know what you're doing since losing even one element of an offense can not only invalidate your arrest, but land you in jail for unlawful restraint.

    Sound policies for security go past the simplified "observe and report" mentality that has been upheld for so long. The security companies should be well versed in laws and liability issues regarding their respective origins and train their people the right way and get out of the fantasy world.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3rd_shift
    replied
    Which would ultimately be held liable by the victim's family?
    A: The security guard.
    B: The security company responsible for the guards actions under thier employment.
    C: The client (property manager) who paid the security company to "maintain" the property rules.
    D: The client's boss (ie. building owner) responsible for the client's actions in hiring the security company.

    It all gets kinda interesting as to where the property rules originated from for security to uphold.

    All these levels of command can make things very tricky at some places.

    Edit:
    Just noticed your response 1stWatch.
    I'm so sorry that happened.
    Which mall (if I may ask) was it?
    I still have room in my private message inbox.
    Last edited by 3rd_shift; 12-24-2005, 03:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by 3rd_shift
    And yes, I would have done what N.A.Corbier said security was supposed to do and hated every minute of it.
    I remember working as an unarmed mall security guard. I did that job for four years and hated every second of it. On one hand, I was expected to render aid to people and intervene - up to a point - to prevent crime, with no weaponry available except a can of oc. I finally ended up being fired after using oc spray on a robbery suspect. The mall's expectation of the job did not match the state's expectation. Ever since then I could only stand to work fully equipped in a hands on environment.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    The only "good" thing that comes from static or mobile posts is that it does, at that point, become your problem. You have two trespassers. One has a legal right to be there (seeking aid from a citizen, as most state law gives a duty upon the citizenry to quell disturbances or breaches of the peace), and the other does not.

    But, then that's the problem. Their post orders say "observe and report," on their own property, so someone came onto the property as a visitor seeking assistance. You get into negligent standard of care - security = protection, failure to provide protection to a visitor on property.

    Leave a comment:


  • Echos13
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    I would have to say that not even at a gate house do people NOT expect protection from uniformed security people. How many times across America have people run to the security gate house seeking protection from someone bad? What did they expect? The security officers to protect them, or to observe a person come onto the property, stand there frightened, another person/persons come onto the property and attack the first, then report it to law enforcement?

    Observe and Report is simple: Do not become involved. If the employee is not required to become involved by contractual rules, then they can be trained less, paid less, and won't expect as much.

    "Why don't you train your employees on use of force?"
    "They're ordered not to become involved, so they don't require force training."
    Those are good points indeed. Most of us with the company have the mentality to retreat if the avenue is there with the client we are escorting. Covering with our weapon (if its warrented) only for purposes of making sure we don't get it in the back or scrambling to protect the field client(s). I have on many occassions have had couples fighting. One of them (usually the female) runs over asking for help. I always assume it's a possible set up or distraction. I advise them to stand back and I dail 911 on my cell and let the GPS function do it's thing and continue to watch over the techs. If it looks like it's going to escalate I tell the tech to get in the van and stay put. I try to not get involved as best as I can. We have even totally left the area on various times with these types of incidents. Working a stationary post I can immagine is far more complicated. You can't exactly retreat and you can't exacatly ignore it. Those with such duties do indeed need to know what the post orders are and make sure they are up to date and even on site. I assume most such posts have thier people read and sign such post orders if they have them. If not I would most certainly want to have them in regards to issues of outside problems. It's a serious problem I bet for some sites and those working them. I honeslty would not get involved at all but then what happens when they as you say "attack" before you can even take that option. It's hard to observe and report while someone is trying to take off you head with a 2x4 or baseball bat because thier mate or friend fled and ended up at your gatehouse.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Arff312
    I know that the mall i work at is not an observe and report situation. We are allowed and have gone hands on with people before. I did just the other day for a fight. We carry cuffs for a reason and we are trained for a reason. I think the observe and report role is out dated now adays. As a person i can not stand around and watch some one get beat up or their car get broken into. Espically not if i am there to protect them being a client of the owner. Now there are sites (guard houses etc...) Where this is ok But at a mall i expect as a patron to be protected if i see uniformed security walking around with equipment. I am not sure if our mall is the exception to the rule but that is just how we operate.
    I would have to say that not even at a gate house do people NOT expect protection from uniformed security people. How many times across America have people run to the security gate house seeking protection from someone bad? What did they expect? The security officers to protect them, or to observe a person come onto the property, stand there frightened, another person/persons come onto the property and attack the first, then report it to law enforcement?

    Observe and Report is simple: Do not become involved. If the employee is not required to become involved by contractual rules, then they can be trained less, paid less, and won't expect as much.

    "Why don't you train your employees on use of force?"
    "They're ordered not to become involved, so they don't require force training."

    Leave a comment:


  • Arff312
    replied
    I know that the mall i work at is not an observe and report situation. We are allowed and have gone hands on with people before. I did just the other day for a fight. We carry cuffs for a reason and we are trained for a reason. I think the observe and report role is out dated now adays. As a person i can not stand around and watch some one get beat up or their car get broken into. Espically not if i am there to protect them being a client of the owner. Now there are sites (guard houses etc...) Where this is ok But at a mall i expect as a patron to be protected if i see uniformed security walking around with equipment. I am not sure if our mall is the exception to the rule but that is just how we operate.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    It would be wonderful if companies that did that had no employees, after the employees realized that they're pretty much doing nothing and getting pai...

    Wait, I think that's why people go and work for them. That whole doing nothing and getting paid for it business...

    Leave a comment:


  • 3rd_shift
    replied
    Some malls I have been to as an inquisitive shopper, did have law enforcement there working with security.
    Security's main job was to be a visual deterrent and when that failed,
    to get on the radio and vector in a swarm of leos to the scene.
    It kinda comes back to the mall and the city that draws tax revenue from it.
    I tend to stay away from malls that the city and/or mall management just doesn't care about as thier source of revenue.
    And yes, I would have done what N.A.Corbier said security was supposed to do and hated every minute of it.
    I then would have sought employment someplace else, if nobody gave a rats tail enough to bring in a few law enforcement to work with security there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charger
    replied
    Companies like that disgust me. Plain & simple. That kind of policy may work in some cases... guarding gates, for example... but in a public-rich environment like a mall? Ridiculous... simply ridiculous...

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X