psych eval?

[tlangsr]

On tuesday three LEO's were shot by a S/O in fresno, CA. His parents admit that he was mentally ill.(Three Officers Shot ) Given what just happened I have a question.

Should the states require Security Officers to take Psych Evals in order to gain employment in this industry.

[GCMC Security]

FL does require it for armed....well the MMPI which I don't think is a good judge of it but it's something at least

[Mr. Security]

Yes they should be tested, especially if armed.

Regarding this guy; he would have done it whether he was a security guard or not. He was already a ticking time bomb.

[Bill Warnock]

There should be BI's and psychological testing of all guards regardless of status, armed or unarmed. If the wind is not favorable for such measures, then at least for the armed category.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[N. A. Corbier]

FL does require it for armed....well the MMPI which I don't think is a good judge of it but it's something at least

This is actually untrue. You are only required to take a "written assessment or psychological interview" for the temporary Class G license. The only requirement is a background investigation for the G license.

If you do not get your Temp G, you are not required to undergo a psychological assessment under Florida Law.

I did not take the MMPI II for my Temp G. I took a "Security Guard Assessment" by some company in New York, that was about 20 questions and included, "Do you feel like killing yourself" and "If a man steals from your store, will you shoot him?"

[N. A. Corbier]

It would be a good idea, yes, but there are three strikes against it.

1. Companies do not want to take the expense to do background checks, let alone full blown psychological assessments.
2. The Security and PI Regulation Association has no position on this, which means that the industry position is all the government will listen to.
3. For unarmed positions (where the ability to end human life is low), the company would have problems demonstrating why they must lawfully violate the Americans With Disabilities Act and discriminate against the mentally ill in employment matters. Remember, there are states where felons may work security if the conviction was not related to the industry.

Number 1 means the companies don't want the expense.
Number 2 means the people who make the laws, the IASIR, has no position on psych tests for security guards, so the industry is the 'expert testimony'
Number 3 means that it takes even more money to have corporate counsel write up why your company is lawfully violating federal anti-discrimination laws.

[T202]

Unless the testing is done one on one by a true professional, it would be a waste of time. And doing it this way would cost too much so I don't think you will ever see it.
Edit-After I typed this I found a case where a company did evaluate their security employees and did find one of their security officers not fit to carry a firearm, "aggressive tendencies. It ended up in court.
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinio.../06me130le.pdf

I knew a cop that was involved in a lot of shootings. The Dept had him evaluated and ended up giving him a early retirement. Just what he wanted.
He bought a boat and named it " Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't".

[Chucky]

I fully believe that would be a good thing although how many armed guards have you ever heard of doing this same type of thing? When I filled out the forms for my cert the only question close in nature to the subject was "Have you ever been committed against your will for a period of more than 3 days to a funny farm? (To early to look up proper spelling) I said to myself are you kidding that's all they require?
I would think that guys dad would have intervened and had his guns taken away long before this shooting happened.

[tlangsr]

I fully believe that would be a good thing although how many armed guards have you ever heard of doing this same type of thing? When I filled out the forms for my cert the only question close in nature to the subject was "Have you ever been committed against your will for a period of more than 3 days to a funny farm? (To early to look up proper spelling) I said to myself are you kidding that's all they require?
I would think that guys dad would have intervened and had his guns taken away long before this shooting happened.

he is the only one I've heard of, but that doesn't mean much considering some S/O still use dope, and some dopers do stupid stuff.

As far of his dad not intervening, any "normal" parent would have intervened.

[Charger]

It's definately a good idea, but as N.A. said, unlikely to become a requirement anytime soon..

Of all the different companies I've worked for, the ONLY one that issued a psych test, was the first one... Working UNarmed at a mall...

[SecTrainer]

Should the states require Security Officers to take Psych Evals in order to gain employment in this industry.

Instinctively, the answer to whether armed security or police should be screened for mental illness is not only "YES" but "HELL, YES!"

But which mental illness? The American Psychiatric Association puts out this enormous publication called the DSM-IV that, in simple terms, defines "mental illness". They have even debated including "nicotine addiction", and they have a powerful incentive to call virtually any kind of "unusual" or "undesirable" behavior a mental illness...because that means that insurance will have to pay them to treat it. It's very much the fox guarding the chicken coop and the conflict of interest here is absolutely blatant.

And then, there's the question: Once we decide which mental illnesses we should exclude, what degree of those mental illnesses are we talking about excluding? Literally millions of Americans suffer from some mild form of "clinical depression", for instance - at least the way the APA defines it.

And finally, there's an even bigger question: How do we reliably screen for these mental illnesses? If the "experts" can examine the same individual and come out on on opposite sides of a black/white question like legal insanity, each one swearing the person was or was not capable of something as basic as distinguishing right from wrong, how can we get agreement on all the possible shades of gray? And, every single one of the so-called "screening instruments" like the MMPI (in all of its versions) have been the subject of serious controversy.

So, it's a very, very thorny question, and one that police, military, intelligence and other organizations have struggled with for years, throwing literally $millions at the question, and they still have had only mixed success. As some have already pointed out, the security industry isn't going to spend much if anything on this question anyway, so it's really hard to see where we go from here.

Maybe the only answer for now is a more practical, or "intuitive" one: Get to know a little about the people you hire, and don't hire them - especially as armed officers - if your gut feeling tells you that there's something squirrely about them. If you've already hired someone and you find yourself worrying that they're going to do something crazy with that gun, maybe you should seriously consider moving them to an unarmed position, at least.

"Instinct" is the name we give to warnings or impressions that come from the subconscious. We can't explain how it works, but instinct seems to be a way that the brain puts together all kinds of signals that we're not even aware of consciously. So, it can be a very good idea to pay attention to instinct and we usually ignore it at our peril. If you're an experienced security officer and someone you're working with "bothers you" in terms of their mental stability, I'd bet money there's some reason and it's probably a good one.

[ValleyOne]

Perhaps I am the only one in the dark on this discrimination issue. Why or more to the point how could it be seen as discriminitory if you screen people who are typically-not always-in a postion of authority, especially people carrying guns, using a psych eval? Several non government occupations require the evals and, to my knowledge. have not been deemed discriminitory

I agree this is a far off to be seen in wide practice in out field, and that is solely a financial reason.

[SecTrainer]

Perhaps I am the only one in the dark on this discrimination issue. Why or more to the point how could it be seen as discriminitory if you screen people who are typically-not always-in a postion of authority, especially people carrying guns, using a psych eval? Several non government occupations require the evals and, to my knowledge. have not been deemed discriminitory

I agree this is a far off to be seen in wide practice in out field, and that is solely a financial reason.

Screening instruments (like any tests used for employment) should be free from any elements that might discriminate, even inadvertently. Since all language is influenced by culture, it requires special care to be sure that you're not asking questions that might be expressed in a way that people of some cultures might not understand or would misunderstand.

While a number of occupations - security/police or not - do require evals, the requirement itself is not where the question of discrimination comes in, but in what instruments are used for the evals. Some well-known eval tests have been shown to have discriminatory flaws that have resulted in fairly significant penalties. Seems to me I read of one not too long ago involving a state police agency, in fact, and it was forced to revise it's whole eligibility process. If I remember correctly, this involved male/female discrimination, not racial. Can't put my finger on it now.

[sgtnewby]

1 flew over the cookoo's nest...

Minnesota does not require psych evals as a state requirement for security personel. But my employer, Hennepin County Medical Center, does require us to take the MMPI, the California version (I forget what it's called), and one other that I can't remember the name of. So, three total, and sometimes people get called back for an interview with a doctor for what they call "answering too honestly." I used to work armed security here and they don't even require a drug screen. I think the whole process here needs an overhaul.

Nate

[OccamsRazor]

I had to take two for this job, one when I first began working unarmed wile waiting for the armed license, and the MMPI clone before the "training" for the armed fed contract. Nothing like the 9 hour battery of tests and an hour long interview with a shrink to get my last LE job though.

One of my friends took the MMPI-wannabee test for the armed contract here, and was told he'd failed. He requested a review from the testing company, Choicepoint, and was told he'd been turned down due to "authoritarian tendencies".

Is it any shock we get some wackjobs?