Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should there be more armed Security Officers?

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

  • #31
    Alright, a bunch of things here...

    1. Out of character, there is a huge positive spin coverage on several "guns are illegal at VT" stories on Digg.com, which the folks who use Facebook and MySpace love. Basically, they want the ability to protect themselves, and they're drowning out the comments about "I'm a pacifist and none of you should have guns." Because they don't want to die, nor do they trust the police to protect them. I expect this petition to make the front page of Digg.

    2. Mr. Cross, it doesn't matter if "there is more training," there is still the simple fact that insurance companies consider having the power to end human life a high risk rider for a policy. Bottom line, even if field robots that are 100% accurate and always 100% justified, the insurance company knows that statistically, they're going to have a loss, and that loss will be big. Why do you think municipal bonds are so attractive to police departments? They just throw up a bond of several million for their lethal force rider, because its astronomical to get a GL rider for an agency that is known to kill statistically.

    3. Public perception may not matter to you, but it matters to your employer. It especially matters to the client. The same kind of client who thinks "vests make guards look more menacing, or that the property is unsafe." The same kind of client who says, "I don't like guns, I have to let the police carry them, I don't have to let you."

    Remember, most security forces are there for insurance purposes, and most security forces are there as a deterrent.
    Some Kind of Commando Leader

    "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
      ...insurance companies consider having the power to end human life a high risk rider for a policy. Bottom line, even if field robots that are 100% accurate and always 100% justified, the insurance company knows that statistically, they're going to have a loss, and that loss will be big. Why do you think municipal bonds are so attractive to police departments? They just throw up a bond of several million for their lethal force rider, because its astronomical to get a GL rider for an agency that is known to kill statistically.
      First, I've never quite bought into the insurance companies' position because I've never seen any real loss numbers. If we have, say, 1.5 million security officers in the US and if 5% are armed (I've seen figures ranging from 3 to 5%, so let's use the top estimate), that's around 62,500 armed officers. How many incidents are there in a year in which an officer is involved in a "liability shooting" - i.e., a "bad" shooting that invokes liability? More to the point, what, really, are the total losses to insurance companies from such liability?

      Second, I have wondered how such perceived liability from insuring armed officers really balances out against the victims' claims arising from deaths and injuries that could have been prevented by an armed officer. It doesn't take a genius to know that lawsuits will be arising out of the V-Tech incident, for instance.

      Is the OVERALL insured risk, when you bring victims' claims into the picture, really greater with armed officers, or could it even perhaps be LESS?

      What obscures this question from being explored is that the insurer who covers the security company is rarely the same insurer who covers the client for GL, which means that the OVERALL risk never comes home to roost on the doorstep of any single insurer. If it did, I imagine that the actuarial picture for the TOTAL liability would change significantly. The "separability" of the total liability picture creates a crack, and what falls through the crack too many times is the crucial decision not to arm officers even in venues where the risk of armed incidents made this a poor decision because the absence of an armed officer was what really ultimately resulted or at least was strongly contributory in the victim's loss.

      When thinking about this, imagine if you will that a police department suddenly decided to disarm its officers in order to save on insurance premiums. Suddenly, it's okay for police officers to dive under a desk or behind a rock during an armed incident - after all, they aren't armed. Predictably, victim lawsuits against the city for losses directly arising from this decision would skyrocket - including claims from injured/killed officers and their families themselves! In other words, this would be a situation in which the total liability for loss (armed officers AND victim claims) WOULD come home to roost on the doorstep of one insurer, and you can easily imagine how this would play out. We would very shortly hear that the city's insurer was demanding a reversal of the decision not to arm police officers, or it would not cover the city's police department at all.

      Lawyers handling claims for victims should be trained to look all the way back to the decision not to arm officers, and to challenge that decision when the risk profile would have predicted the need for such. Clearly, we have enough evidence now to know that schools of all kinds represent targets of opportunity, and concomitant risk to our children and young people. They are very obviously "too soft", and provide situations in which many potential victims are clustered together in classrooms, etc. as "easy targets". How many incidents such as this are necessary before the obvious becomes obvious? And, the same could be said of many workplaces. The truth is, 3 to 5% armed officers is really a shockingly low number, and it means nothing more or less than that clients who prefer to save some insurance premiums are being allowed to get away with sacrificing human life to the god of money.
      Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-19-2007, 08:47 AM.
      "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

      "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

      "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

      "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

      Comment


      • #33
        I think the big thing is that many large security companies enjoy lower rates because they use the "risk index" or whatever its called to their advantage. Since they are very observe-deter-report orientated, the insurers believe there's "less loss" than those companies who use the "observe-deter-intervene-report" model.

        When one asks, "Ok, what will the insurer think about the risk of X happening," the company will reply, "We're not liable for X happening, our guards only observe X and report it to the client." The insurers, of course, know that this only works so well...

        But its a numbers game, it always has been. The insurance industry is a gambling operation, where they gamble on losses. Like any good gambling operation, they stack the odds in their favor heavily.
        Some Kind of Commando Leader

        "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
          I think the big thing is that many large security companies enjoy lower rates because they use the "risk index" or whatever its called to their advantage. Since they are very observe-deter-report orientated, the insurers believe there's "less loss" than those companies who use the "observe-deter-intervene-report" model.

          When one asks, "Ok, what will the insurer think about the risk of X happening," the company will reply, "We're not liable for X happening, our guards only observe X and report it to the client." The insurers, of course, know that this only works so well...

          But its a numbers game, it always has been. The insurance industry is a gambling operation, where they gamble on losses. Like any good gambling operation, they stack the odds in their favor heavily.
          Yes, but we regulate insurers, and there are some other odds that they are not allowed to "stack", so we don't just have to buckle under to whatever numbers happen to please them if society is damaged in the process.

          This is one that we should start to look at very closely and, if necessary, pass laws that prevent the insurers from shaping the security industry in a way that actually lowers security.

          I know that the insurers are "elephant in the room", so to speak, but it's time to notice that the elephant crap is starting to pile up just a little bit too high now.
          Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-19-2007, 08:56 AM.
          "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

          "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

          "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

          "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
            Mr. Cross, it doesn't matter if "there is more training," there is still the simple fact that insurance companies consider having the power to end human life a high risk rider for a policy
            Be that as it may be, the fact remains that we have no credibility in the eyes of others and a large part of this stems from the overwhelming fact that we are not provided proper training opportunities. In other words, insurance compaines see it like putting a loaded gun into the hands of a 2 year old, and in many cases this is what is being done.

            Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
            Public perception may not matter to you, but it matters to your employer.
            I didn't say that public perception is not important, I just said that I, personally have not run into the kind of public perception you described.

            Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
            Remember, most security forces are there for insurance purposes, and most security forces are there as a deterrent.
            True, but then there also are those of us who are there to take more proactive roles.

            Comment


            • #36
              I definitely agree with you about the elephant problem. When I wrote an application for insurance, put down that it would be an armed company operating in SE Wisconsin, and submitted training and documentation.

              It was denied, simply because the pool said, "We don't do security guards with guns."
              Some Kind of Commando Leader

              "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by power102
                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.
                Speaking strictly from what I have seen, bank security with rare exceptions are unarmed do the PR type work that was metioned earlier.

                Armored car guards do not however perform ANY kind of security work. If you stop and look at us we are basically UPS with a gun. All we do is pick up and deliver.

                Now I understand that most companies do not want an armed officer/guard on the property for whatever reason (insurance,appearance...) But why not suggest that the security office itself have weapons available should the need arise? I agree with power 102 in that officers/guards although unarmed should have firearms training and permits.
                The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke.

                Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?

                www.patrol4u.com


                sigpic

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by mwprotection
                  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???
                  Gatineau/Hull is across the river from Ottawa. That's over an hour drive from Montreal. I still stick to my satement: In 30+ years I can't remember hearing of an unarmed Security Guard being killed in Montreal but I have heard of armed ones being killed.
                  I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                  Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    If you stop and look at us we are basically UPS with a gun.
                    LOL! Nice way to put it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      A thought comes to mind, and it's this... every issue and problem springs from

                      the fact that unlike the Police (in the eyes of society), who are the

                      representatives of government and the defenders of society, the Private

                      Security sector is, for the most part, a capital venture. I think the only ones

                      who have the power to eradicate this are company owners and officials who

                      believe in what they are working for as opposed to what kinds of paychecks

                      they are recieving... the ones who actually give a damn...
                      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
                      - Thomas Jefferson

                      “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence.”
                      — Vince Lombardi

                      "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

                      IX. Strive to attain professional competence.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by gonzo1510
                        Now I understand that most companies do not want an armed officer/guard on the property for whatever reason (insurance,appearance...) But why not suggest that the security office itself have weapons available should the need arise? I agree with power 102 in that officers/guards although unarmed should have firearms training and permits.
                        Because of two things.

                        1. A weapon locked in the guard shack is useless when something happens that requires immediate response. The guard will simply be shot in the back trying to get to it.

                        2. The insurance company (both client and contractor) still sees it as an armed site, after all, the guard has access to a weapon during his shift.

                        Florida puts it best: An unarmed officer may not be posted to a gate shack which has shotguns locked inside if the officer has the ability to open the lock. If he has the possibility to touch a gun, he's armed.
                        Some Kind of Commando Leader

                        "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by FederalSecurity
                          I think the only ones
                          who have the power to eradicate this are company owners and officials who
                          believe in what they are working for as opposed to what kinds of paychecks
                          they are recieving... the ones who actually give a damn...
                          Where do we find those???

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by wilrobnson
                            Where do we find those???
                            I am lucky enough to work for a worthy private company on my time off

                            of the Federal gig. Hands down, it is the best leadership I've ever had in

                            any Security company, including the Feds.



                            If worthy leadership is ever more widespread than just my private part-

                            time position, I'll let you know, Will. Cause I'm still looking for it myself!!!
                            Last edited by FederalSecurity; 04-20-2007, 10:41 AM.
                            "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
                            - Thomas Jefferson

                            “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence.”
                            — Vince Lombardi

                            "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

                            IX. Strive to attain professional competence.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by gonzo1510
                              But why not suggest that the security office itself have weapons available should the need arise? I agree with power 102 in that officers/guards although unarmed should have firearms training and permits.
                              Well, there are two problems there.

                              1) When you need a firearm, most of the time you need it RIGHT AWAY, not as soon as you can get back to the office and remove it from a locking mechanism.

                              2) Most companies/law enforcement agencies argue that any situation that would require you to respond by bringing a firearm is better left to the police; the reason that guards are armed is in case someone uses/threatens deadly force against the guard in the course of their regular duties.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I need some clarification on this Hopefully. If the Federal government (FBI) is a big part of the process of me getting a LTC/CCW then why is it illegal for me to carry in a Federal facility while I am performing business there? IE Post office
                                VA etc.

                                Of all the shootings at a post office I can't remember a time when the perp had the weapons at work with him. He always came to the PO armed to the hilt form the outside for the sole purpose of killing. Do they not trust their own background checkers? It's kind of like the DMV issuing a drivers licence then telling you not to drive on state roads.
                                Attached Files
                                THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A 911 CALL IS FOUR MINUTES
                                THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A .357 MAGNUM ROUND IS 1400 FEET PER SECOND?
                                http://www.boondocksaints.com/

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X