What's Your Company/Organization's Use Of Force Policy?

[Cobbdiesel]

Okay due to the good conversation from my Parkland thread, I figure I would move the focus a little...

What is your current company's use of force policy? Have you had to apply it? and what was the outcome?

I'll start, I work for the company with the 3 red dots (tomorrow is my last day) while their policy states in part..."when faced with a clear and immediate threat of bodily harm, the security officer must always consider retreating with any other people present to a secure position"...
...A security officer must only use the degree of force necessary to repel an attack or threat of an attack. The use of of deadly force should NEVER be considered"..

I haven't had to use force yet.

[Condo Guard]

It varies; generally in house has more leeway. Where I'm at we detain someone once or twice a year, but the issue recently came to a head because we had to arrest an aggressive mentally ill guy because three calls to the police produced no response, and he was headed into the most crowded part of the facility. One officer received a minor injury.

It comes down to training, conditions and situation. If you aren't trained or are not confident, retreat. I never received any self defense training at about 3/4ths of the contract companies I worked for, and never carried anything other than a flashlight and a radio, so I mastered the "tactical retreat" on more than one occasion. (On a side note, in WA you have to carry handcuffs if you carry anything else, because the assumption is if you have to spray or "tase" someone, you're going to have to detain them for everyone's safety.)

Where we're at the conditions are terrible - crowded, lots of stupid people that will walk right in the path of a crazy guy with a pipe because they're looking at their phone, and the ever present SJWs looking to make a name for themselves. If we can de-escalate and get the problem person to move along, that's what we do.

The specific situation is always the deciding factor - how many officers can respond, any weapons involved, etc. Sadly, with a mass shooting happening (it seems) every week now, deadly force is going to have to be considered at some point in time.

[copelandamuffy]

when faced with a clear and immediate threat of bodily harm, the security officer must always consider retreating with any other people present to a secure position"...

...

A security officer must only use the degree of force necessary to repel an attack or threat of an attack.

Yup that sounds about right

[Soper]

That is the one heck of a legally indefensible policy.

[copelandamuffy]

Most of contract security busineeses pounds this into your head

when faced with a clear and immediate threat of bodily harm, the security officer must always consider retreating with any other people present to a secure position"...

...
A security officer must only use the degree of force necessary to repel an attack or threat of an attack.

[Cobbdiesel]

Since my initial post I have switched security companies and the use of force policy is more robust and reads in part:

...Officers may use deadly force only under the conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed...Officers may not not use deadly force except in self defense or defense of another from imminent death or great bodily harm...

This policy has a little more meat and gives me confidence that if I should ever have to use force, deadly or otherwise the company will have my back as long as policy, procedure, training and the law were all followed.

[Soper]

That is legally defensible and worded correctly to limit liabilities. They will still pay, but you will do better in the court trial.

[Consolewatcher]

My only concern with the policy is saying that "deadly force should never be considered". It's fine to tell a guard not to enter a potentially dangerous situation, retreat if possible, comply with requests (such as giving them the money), etc. but if a guard is faced with a circumstance where the use of deadly force in self defense is necessary then he has every right to use it.

Of course, in that circumstance the guard wouldn't be worried about company policy anyway, but it would be interesting to see if the company would try to fire them with cause or similar over it.

[Cobbdiesel]

My only concern with the policy is saying that "deadly force should never be considered". It's fine to tell a guard not to enter a potentially dangerous situation, retreat if possible, comply with requests (such as giving them the money), etc. but if a guard is faced with a circumstance where the use of deadly force in self defense is necessary then he has every right to use it.

Of course, in that circumstance the guard wouldn't be worried about company policy anyway, but it would be interesting to see if the company would try to fire them with cause or similar over it.

Exactly! Which is one of the reasons I moved on to bigger and better things. In my opinion their use of force policy (if you can call it that) basically says stand there with your uniform and badge and if someone calls your bluff RUN! LOL!