Should there be more armed Security Officers?

[FireEMSPolice]

In light of the awful shootings at Virginia Tech, should more public places (schools, malls, etc) have armed Security Officers? Nothing against them being unarmed but with recent shootings, having that means of defense is not a bad idea.

[ff000525]

Sure, it would help if it was regulated, the officers were very well trained to deal with an active shooter situation, the company had a good relationship with the local LE community and all the employees were screened carefully. As we all know these points are all hard to pile into one basket and achieve.

[mwprotection]

Of course there should be more armed security! Unarmed security is just another victim waiting to be shot. I understand why people don't want most security officers armed, but they shouldn't be a security officer if they are not competent with a firearm.

I also know a lot of you will disagree with me on this, but how many incidents like this does it take to make people understand?

You can blow your whistle and scream into your 2 way radio for the rest of your life, how long the rest of your life is depends on your firearm.

[power102]

I fully agree. An unarmed security officer is a sitting duck.

[john_harrington]

I can think of few colleges or universities that should not have both unarmed security officers to respond to door alarms, lockouts, etc and fully trained, armed police officers to respond to more critical duress alarms and other situations.

I, for one, would not put a blue uniform on without being armed.

[HotelSecurity]

Here I go again. Most people on this forum seem to think that Security Guards are Private Police. Enforcing laws & dealing with criminals is a very small part of what I see as Securiy Guards duties. We are there more to enforce company rules. Report & take actions to prevent fires & safety hazards. The Montreal Métro (subway) will be having the police department take over patrolling the subway to respond to ciminal matters starting June. Some of the present Security/By-Law Enforcement Agents are taking the training & will become part of the new police squad. The Transit Commission is not disbanding their security service however. There is a place for both. We have similar jobs but they are not exactly the same.

[Christopherstjo]

In light of the awful shootings at Virginia Tech, should more public places (schools, malls, etc) have armed Security Officers? Nothing against them being unarmed but with recent shootings, having that means of defense is not a bad idea.

Yes. HOWEVER, it is elementary commonsense that you do not put a loaded gun into the hands of a security officer, many of whom are barely adults themselves and many more with serious mental health issues, without making damn sure they are properly screened, qualified and trained.

[mwprotection]

Here I go again. Most people on this forum seem to think that Security Guards are Private Police. Enforcing laws & dealing with criminals is a very small part of what I see as Securiy Guards duties. We are there more to enforce company rules. Report & take actions to prevent fires & safety hazards. The Montreal Métro (subway) will be having the police department take over patrolling the subway to respond to ciminal matters starting June. Some of the present Security/By-Law Enforcement Agents are taking the training & will become part of the new police squad. The Transit Commission is not disbanding their security service however. There is a place for both. We have similar jobs but they are not exactly the same.

I don't think security officers are private police. And I agree, most of what we do does not involve enforcing laws and dealing with criminals. But what about the times that it does? I want every advantage I can have in winning the fight. I would like to go home and see my wife and daughter at the end of the day.

HotelSecurity

I realize you can't legally carry a firearm as a hotel security officer in Canada.
But just because your government says you can't, doesn't make it the right decision.

Most police officers retire without ever firing a shot. Yet it would seem ridiculous to send them out in uniform unarmed. Where did this preception that their lives are more valuable than ours come from?

Remember, you carry a firearm mainly to protect your own life. Regardless of what your job description is, you can't perform it if you are dead.

You can't observe or report without a pulse.

Another benefit of carrying a firearm is the deterrent factor. Most Criminals think twice before doing something stupid when armed security is present.

My question for those of you who believe in unarmed security, what is the upside? Or more to the point, what reasons do you have for not wanting to carry? If your afraid of shooting your eye out, maybe this is the wrong line of work.

Remember, rising competency leads to rising wages.

[HotelSecurity]

What I find strange is that in my 30+ years of working unarmed security the only security people I have ever heard of getting shot in my area were armed security guards working for armoured car companies or banks.

[Christopherstjo]

Here I go again. Most people on this forum seem to think that Security Guards are Private Police.

I think the subject of security officers having police powers is distinctly different from security officers being armed and it is important not to confuse the two subjects involved.

Likewise, I also think it is important to consider the geographical area a security officer works; many of us work in communities that are plagued with high crime rates; gang violence and so forth and thus, having a firearm can be a good visual deterant.

This does not mean that shootings involving security officers do not occur because they do, but I suspect the statistics of this happening are low in comparison to the total number of armed security officers nationwide.

[mwprotection]

What I find strange is that in my 30+ years of working unarmed security the only security people I have ever heard of getting shot in my area were armed security guards working for armoured car companies or banks.

Mar 21, 2005

10 Dead In Red Lake School Shooting
VIDEO: Jason DeRusha reports.
SLIDESHOW: Red Lake Shooting.
(WCCO) Minneapolis A student went on a shooting spree Monday afternoon in a Northern Minnesota high school, allegedly killing nine people and wounding as many as 15 others before turning the gun on himself, officials said.

The shootings, the nation's worst since the 1999 Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colo., occurred at the Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minn., approximately 240 miles north of Minneapolis.

A preliminary investigation indicated the suspect apparently first shot his grandparents, then went to the school where he allegedly shot a security guard, exchanged fire with police officers and opened fire on other students before killing himself.

Red Lake Shooting

This was an unarmed school security guard, did Columbine teach us nothing? This could have ended before it began.

You say the only security officers getting killed are bank and armored car drivers. This makes sense because they are in very high risk security jobs. Do you think the robbers would let them live if they were unarmed?

I think the subject of security officers having police powers is distinctly different from security officers being armed and it is important not to confuse the two subjects involved.

Likewise, I also think it is important to consider the geographical area a security officer works; many of us work in communities that are plagued with high crime rates; gang violence and so forth and thus, having a firearm can be a good visual deterant.

This does not mean that shootings involving security officers do not occur because they do, but I suspect the statistics of this happening are low in comparison to the total number of armed security officers nationwide.

Red Lake is not known as a high crime area, yet this school security guard gave his life. I bet he woke up that day thinking it would be another boring day at the front door of the school. Complacency is the mother of all F*** ups.

No one ever killed him till Mar 21, 2005. Should he have been armed? I think so.

[mwprotection]

What I find strange is that in my 30+ years of working unarmed security the only security people I have ever heard of getting shot in my area were armed security guards working for armoured car companies or banks.

A quick search revealed this:
Gatineau security guard dies after altercation with teens

A firearm also helps even the score when faced with multiple assaliants. Maybe they wouldn't have risked their lives attacking him if he would have been armed???

[Lawson]

where he allegedly shot a security guard

Probably not a wise color choice...

Other than that, I can see a need for armed as well as unarmed security. I think anywhere where you are dealing with a high amount of the public on a routine basis, should be an armed post. These are places such as:

-Colleges
-Hospitals
-Airports/Seaports
-Malls
-Bus/Train Stations
-Sporting Venues
-Uniformed work in grocery/convenience stores
-etc...

However, there is a place for unarmed security. Posts where it is also access control. Obviously a lot of workplace violence happens from within, so arming these places would be a good idea in my opinion.

I do agree with the general concensus that the guard needs to be well qualified, well trained, and well prepared for the duty he is going to undertake. You need people that will be able to hold their own out there, not the guard who was a goober in school or the guard who is retired but, "wants something to do" and has to read post orders with a magnifying glass.

[N. A. Corbier]

Ok, ok... First, you do not enforce the law with a firearm. You protect yourself and other people with a firearm. Police officers are armed because they 'frequently encounter lethal force situations.' I put that in quotes because many, many, armed professionals simply don't do this, but statistically, the industry does.

This is the same as Private Investigators. They are authorized to carry a concealed weapon (in most states) because as an industry, they are required at times to use lethal force to protect themselves (or another) from violent lethal attack.

Two of the biggest hurdles to "strapping a gun on" an armed officer are liability and public perception. Many clients go through the roof when their insurance company tells them the hike increase for hiring armed guards. While the contractor assumes liability for the firearms, some insurance companies will want the client to get a rider or simply jack up their gen liability coverage for having an armed contractor on site.

The second, of course, is public perception. People don't like seeing guns on security guards. They feel unsafe. The police are everywhere, and they've gotten used to that. But when they see a "security guard" with a gun, they think one of four things: This place isn't safe, that idiot will flip out and kill me or himself, lets go f- with the Five-O with the gat, or I wonder why they need an armed guard here?

Between these two issues, it is easier to have police officers be armed. After all, the police are covered under qualified immunity. The police go everywhere, so people don't make the connection between "armed police" and "they have armed police providing security."

I have not done the analysis of the Virginia Tech incidents, I understand there were two shooters and two separate incidents within two hours of each other (WTF?!), so I have no idea if an armed security presence would of denied or destroyed the threat.

But, what I do know, is that an armed officer can do everything an unarmed officer can do, because I've done it. Even carry one of those stupid Guard Tour Management Systems, and count water pipes. The only difference is that the armed officer generates more liability for the company, is able to respond to lethal threats to their life, and usually is able to respond to non-lethal threats because they carry other equipment between "hi" and *BANG*

[power102]

Here I go again. Most people on this forum seem to think that Security Guards are Private Police. Enforcing laws & dealing with criminals is a very small part of what I see as Securiy Guards duties. We are there more to enforce company rules. Report & take actions to prevent fires & safety hazards. The Montreal Métro (subway) will be having the police department take over patrolling the subway to respond to ciminal matters starting June. Some of the present Security/By-Law Enforcement Agents are taking the training & will become part of the new police squad. The Transit Commission is not disbanding their security service however. There is a place for both. We have similar jobs but they are not exactly the same.

I also used to work as an un-armed security guard - Mostly PR work (behind the desk & opening the door for people). I did the tie & blazer gig for about 2 years (felt more like secretarial work).
I agree that there is a place for both but I'm a little reluctant on labeling "security officer" and "security guard" as two of the same.
IMO...A security guard is what I mentioned above. (PR) - Not speaking bad about it (cuz it is needed)
The security officer (a dying breed ) fits more along the lines of the people who are assigned to respond to potentially dangerous alarms, a domestic dispute ect. ect.
Then you've got airport, armored truck, nightclub bouncers and bank security...which is a mixture of both.
<<<<Not saying that unarmed guards are not benificial to have...but I think they should have the option to be trained & commissioned to carry firearms. Hell, I think meter maids should carry too.

Just though I'd clear that up.