Had an interesting discussion with a co-worker. I'll boil it down to the basic points. My co-worker feels that clients make security appear to be first responders, and often times we are the first to see or deal with a situation. To not arm and train security officers so they can respond to any emergency, including mass shooters, is to put their employees at risk and deceive their workers about safety. (We had a brief discussion about how modern America has essentially put "legal violence" only in the hands of agents of the state, but that's a whole other conversation.)
I agreed with him up to the point where he said, in so many words, that unarmed security is useless and a deception. I tried to explain that risk mitigation is a scale - I can deal with all kinds of problems big and small on my own or with other staff, and that has value. The uniform is both a deterrent to lazy criminals and a means to quickly identify me, but I don't see it as a "false promise" of 100% safety. As a trained observer, I can still do a lot of good just by relaying accurate and timely information to police / fire / EMT.
Anyways, it was one of those things that had me thinking the rest of the night. Kept me awake and flexed some out of shape brain muscle.
I agreed with him up to the point where he said, in so many words, that unarmed security is useless and a deception. I tried to explain that risk mitigation is a scale - I can deal with all kinds of problems big and small on my own or with other staff, and that has value. The uniform is both a deterrent to lazy criminals and a means to quickly identify me, but I don't see it as a "false promise" of 100% safety. As a trained observer, I can still do a lot of good just by relaying accurate and timely information to police / fire / EMT.
Anyways, it was one of those things that had me thinking the rest of the night. Kept me awake and flexed some out of shape brain muscle.

Comment