Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Use of snipers in the security field

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

  • Consolewatcher
    replied
    Originally posted by Lunch Meat View Post

    Offer them a Hot Pocket?
    If it works, then yes, offer them a Hot Pocket.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post

    The third option would be calling the police and depending on the situation having security guard present in case the person becomes physically aggressive (in which case it may be necessary for security to detain/arrest the person or remove them by force).

    I think that most Use of Force training is woefully inadequate. As a result, while I would not say that a security guard should *never* use force, I think that it should be an absolute last resort. The way I see it (and the way I was taught) is that security using force or arresting someone can have negative consequences. *Not* using force or *not* arresting someone could also have negative consequences, and it should only be done when the risks of inaction appear to be greater than the risks of action.
    Offer them a Hot Pocket?

    Leave a comment:


  • Consolewatcher
    replied
    Originally posted by v859 View Post

    here in lies the problem. What if they are only being verbally aggressive but refuse to leave. You have two options. Either allow it to continue or use force in removing the person. Remember if you allow it to continue you could be considered as violating OSHA regulations on workplace violence which covers abusive language. Not to mention the lost business.

    And I understand hiring cheap but if that is the case then allow the police to do their jobs
    The third option would be calling the police and depending on the situation having security guard present in case the person becomes physically aggressive (in which case it may be necessary for security to detain/arrest the person or remove them by force).

    I think that most Use of Force training is woefully inadequate. As a result, while I would not say that a security guard should *never* use force, I think that it should be an absolute last resort. The way I see it (and the way I was taught) is that security using force or arresting someone can have negative consequences. *Not* using force or *not* arresting someone could also have negative consequences, and it should only be done when the risks of inaction appear to be greater than the risks of action.

    Leave a comment:


  • v859
    replied
    Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post

    If by "chimping out" he means attacking, then yeah, I would imagine that you would want someone to remove them from the store. If they were only being verbally aggressive then that's a whole other matter.

    If you were a business owner, would you be willing to pay the extra money that's required for a security company to hire and properly train and equip a guard in the use of force, or would you do like most other businesses and hire whoever's cheap?
    here in lies the problem. What if they are only being verbally aggressive but refuse to leave. You have two options. Either allow it to continue or use force in removing the person. Remember if you allow it to continue you could be considered as violating OSHA regulations on workplace violence which covers abusive language. Not to mention the lost business.

    And I understand hiring cheap but if that is the case then allow the police to do their jobs





    Leave a comment:


  • Consolewatcher
    replied
    Originally posted by v859 View Post

    If i owned a business and I had a customer or employee "chimping out" (racist?) I would want someone to remove them from the store and keep them from hurting my other customers and destroying my property. That is not an O&R guard who is going to say "Stop or I'll say stop again, then call 911 (for the police) and run and hide like 95% of the "security industry"
    If by "chimping out" he means attacking, then yeah, I would imagine that you would want someone to remove them from the store. If they were only being verbally aggressive then that's a whole other matter.

    If you were a business owner, would you be willing to pay the extra money that's required for a security company to hire and properly train and equip a guard in the use of force, or would you do like most other businesses and hire whoever's cheap?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    Originally posted by v859 View Post

    This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. You show me one LEGITIMATE source that proves this. And by legitimate I mean a recognized media source (AP or UP member), academic research article or law enforcement, security or loss prevention magazine.

    If i owned a business and I had a customer or employee "chimping out" (racist?) I would want someone to remove them from the store and keep them from hurting my other customers and destroying my property. That is not an O&R guard who is going to say "Stop or I'll say stop again, then call 911 (for the police) and run and hide like 95% of the "security industry"

    I would say to go on a ride along but I feel bad for whateve officer is saddled with you

    Leave a comment:


  • v859
    replied
    Originally posted by Squid View Post


    The current LEO habit/policy of overreaction and inappropriate behavior is a major factor in clients increase in hiring private security. If an employee or customer chimps-out a client will want it contained with as little disruption to business as possible. The last thing they want is someone who feels a need to stay "One Force Level Continuum" above/ahead of an emotional person.
    This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. You show me one LEGITIMATE source that proves this. And by legitimate I mean a recognized media source (AP or UP member), academic research article or law enforcement, security or loss prevention magazine.

    If i owned a business and I had a customer or employee "chimping out" (racist?) I would want someone to remove them from the store and keep them from hurting my other customers and destroying my property. That is not an O&R guard who is going to say "Stop or I'll say stop again, then call 911 (for the police) and run and hide like 95% of the "security industry"

    I would say to go on a ride along but I feel bad for whateve officer is saddled with you

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    Originally posted by v859 View Post

    This is getting a bit off topic but you don't seem get the point of police use of force. Police use of force is designed to effect an arrest, prevent escape, terminate a crime or protect officers and third parties. It is NOT to have a fair fight. It is to induce compliance. This is why to some extent the police are not restricted by what the suspect is using except when it comes to deadly force. A police officer is not going to sit there and argue for hours or get into a twelve round boxing match with someone.

    If you fail to comply with an arrest expect force to be used it is that simple. It is not about starting a fight where none exists. It is about society determining through the lawmaking process that the societal good of arresting criminals is worth the negative to an individual who chooses to resist

    You also don't seem to understand what is meant by proactive vs reactive. Proactive means trying to prevent crime before it starts or while it is at a low level.
    At our "cop visits Civics class" in Jr HS (1977) a student brought up an recent case where a town cop "didn't do anything for over an hour" but did THREATEN to write a woman a citation after she shoved the cop. It was explained that a lot of what cops do is "just listen", and that the cop still COULD write the cite and even make an arrest. Back then, you had to actually do something to a cop for violence to break out. If you didn't go along with an arrest the cops would first TELL you they were also gonna charge you with "resisting" unless you calmed down, and they might even explain how THAT would stick regardless of if you got off on the charges you didn't feel were justified.

    Later, about 1995, talking to some guys in Admin of Justice classes, I found it had all been changed, and you were allowed to make up stuff about their "stance" and you were supposed to be grabbing their hands and arms because they MIGHT have a weapon or be about to hit you, and as expected this was doing a great job filling up the jails, and that was considered a good thing.

    IMO much of that change was "shift in demographics" but also the end of Cold War. During the Cold War there was a vibe that our govt was worthy of support because it wasn't like the Commies ( or at least had the threat of Commies ready to offer an alternative) and was restricted in how it treated people, and would error on the side of caution and always "be the better man". Then that changed when War On Drugs at home replaced NORAD and NATO, and it was now cool to be "bad cop".

    Old long retired cops have told me "there is no 'law' anymore, its just another business".

    Some of this I blame on shift in TV. I've manned warm body posts with at least 1/2 guys on track to become cops, and every single one has been big fan of "gritty" cop shows and viewed the Bad Cops as role models. They all want to be Miami Vice, not Dragnet.

    The current LEO habit/policy of overreaction and inappropriate behavior is a major factor in clients increase in hiring private security. If an employee or customer chimps-out a client will want it contained with as little disruption to business as possible. The last thing they want is someone who feels a need to stay "One Force Level Continuum" above/ahead of an emotional person.
    Last edited by Squid; 03-05-2019, 11:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    Originally posted by Soper View Post
    Squid is just spouting more BS. He makes things up in order to satisfy his exaggerated ego. He’s an idiot, plain and simple.

    ANYTHING posted by him, Lunch meat, and lone wolf should be promptly ignored, since it’s all idiotic garbage. The Stupid is so epically strong with them, that it’s sad.

    This ENTIRE forum has been run into the ground by these three completely stupid dumbasses.

    Im hoping one of their mommies will show up soon and turn off the power to the basement.

    ANYONE who takes direction or follows the suggestions of LUNCH MEAT, LONE WOLF, OR SQUID, is going to end up unemployed and under arrest. These three fools are EPIC examples of how NOT to be a guard.

    Absolute epitome of losers. Being a guard is about the only job these guys can get, since the labor pool for Honey Bucket Operator is full.

    Pathetic.
    Donut eater

    Last edited by Lunch Meat; 03-05-2019, 09:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soper
    replied
    Squid is just spouting more BS. He makes things up in order to satisfy his exaggerated ego. He’s an idiot, plain and simple.

    ANYTHING posted by him, Lunch meat, and lone wolf should be promptly ignored, since it’s all idiotic garbage. The Stupid is so epically strong with them, that it’s sad.

    This ENTIRE forum has been run into the ground by these three completely stupid dumbasses.

    Im hoping one of their mommies will show up soon and turn off the power to the basement.

    ANYONE who takes direction or follows the suggestions of LUNCH MEAT, LONE WOLF, OR SQUID, is going to end up unemployed and under arrest. These three fools are EPIC examples of how NOT to be a guard.

    Absolute epitome of losers. Being a guard is about the only job these guys can get, since the labor pool for Honey Bucket Operator is full.

    Pathetic.

    Leave a comment:


  • v859
    replied
    Originally posted by Squid View Post

    some big change in Police Policy/Law happened a couple decades ago. Something about now staying "one force level ABOVE" the suspect, which translates into starting fights where no fight existed, due to newly recognized Police mind-reading ability. IIRC this kicked off the common use of the term "pro-active" (vs "reactive") among all sorts of dorks and sporks who wanted to be kinda cool like overly aggressive cops.

    These were everything from school admins to sales managers, and suddenly it was cool to create problems for others that didn't exist before.

    A typical police shooting involves police rushing up on someone hoping for a minor drug bust, then shooting "in self defense" when the subject makes a movement, because the cop has put himself in a danger zone (very close to subject, no cover).

    Modern Policing is AKA "Community Policing" is not about "service"(solving crimes) its about "production" (creating a situation using a proven script).

    This is getting a bit off topic but you don't seem get the point of police use of force. Police use of force is designed to effect an arrest, prevent escape, terminate a crime or protect officers and third parties. It is NOT to have a fair fight. It is to induce compliance. This is why to some extent the police are not restricted by what the suspect is using except when it comes to deadly force. A police officer is not going to sit there and argue for hours or get into a twelve round boxing match with someone.

    If you fail to comply with an arrest expect force to be used it is that simple. It is not about starting a fight where none exists. It is about society determining through the lawmaking process that the societal good of arresting criminals is worth the negative to an individual who chooses to resist

    You also don't seem to understand what is meant by proactive vs reactive. Proactive means trying to prevent crime before it starts or while it is at a low level.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    Originally posted by Lunch Meat View Post



    Originally posted by v859 View Post


    Civilians can not antagonize someone into a situation where force needs to be used



    true but neither can cops.by Lunch Meat
    some big change in Police Policy/Law happened a couple decades ago. Something about now staying "one force level ABOVE" the suspect, which translates into starting fights where no fight existed, due to newly recognized Police mind-reading ability. IIRC this kicked off the common use of the term "pro-active" (vs "reactive") among all sorts of dorks and sporks who wanted to be kinda cool like overly aggressive cops.

    These were everything from school admins to sales managers, and suddenly it was cool to create problems for others that didn't exist before.

    A typical police shooting involves police rushing up on someone hoping for a minor drug bust, then shooting "in self defense" when the subject makes a movement, because the cop has put himself in a danger zone (very close to subject, no cover).

    Modern Policing is AKA "Community Policing" is not about "service"(solving crimes) its about "production" (creating a situation using a proven script).


    Leave a comment:


  • Lunch Meat
    replied
    Originally posted by v859 View Post
    Security guards are civilians.
    So are cops. So is anyone who isn't .mil


    Originally posted by v859 View Post
    Civilians have a duty to retreat before using deadly physical force
    That would depend on your local and state laws. Assuming deadly force is justified I have absolutely no duty to retreat where I'm at before employing it.

    Originally posted by v859 View Post
    Civilians can not antagonize someone into a situation where force needs to be used
    true but neither can cops.

    Originally posted by v859 View Post
    Force can only be used if reasonable and necessary
    Again, true but it still applies just as much to Cops as it does to civilians
    Last edited by Lunch Meat; 03-05-2019, 11:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • v859
    replied
    Let me explain this to you again:

    Security guards are civilians.

    Civilians have a duty to retreat before using deadly physical force

    Civilians can not antagonize someone into a situation where force needs to be used

    Force can only be used if reasonable and necessary

    If you are in a concealed position on a roof and you pony a laser at some one to antagonize them into pointing a gun in your direction then:

    1. You did not retreat when you had the safe opportunity to do so
    2. You antagonized someone by pointing a laser at them
    3. Force may have been allowed but was not Necessary or reasonable because you didn't give any opportunity to surrender.

    This means that force was not justified, necessary or reasonable and you go to jail. Got it?

    the only exception would be if they exit the bank and point their weapons at someone on the ground or otherwise put someone in immediate danger of death or serious injury (ie start beating someone with a club, etc).

    Also the scenario would be different if you were only pointing a weapon at them while effecting an arrest. But in this situation you admit your intent is to shoot them.
    Last edited by v859; 03-05-2019, 12:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Squid
    replied
    Originally posted by v859 View Post
    deadly physical force CAN NOT be used if you instigate the need for such force. So having your "fake sniper" aim at someone who then raises their weapon is not enough to shoot them. In certain states deadly physical force can be used to affect an arrest of a robbery suspect if it is NECESSARY. Having a weapon not raised is not enough
    Nice tip, but not sure what it really means.

    I'm pretty sure you are Green Lighted to fire on anyone raising a weapon on you while they are committing a crime.

    I'm pretty sure you are allowed freedom to do anything to misdirect or distract someone you find committing a crime for your own safety and tactical advantage.

    Is a bank guard is allowed to draw on a bank robber even if the guard doesn't see a gun?

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X