Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

security officer involved i shooting at apt complex

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Then don't. Others have and will continue to do so.
    Where are you going with this? You tried to make an argument that if the security officer was not armed, he wouldn't have placed himself into a risky situation. You then acknowledge that the car thieves would likely have gotten away because the security officer would not have intervened.

    That's a no-brainer. Of course a non-intervention policy would have resulted in a different scenario. That's obviously not what the cliented wanted (non-intervention), or else they would not have hired an armed security officer.

    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    In your mind, perhaps. The car anology isn't mine and not one that I would use here anyway.
    The car analogy works perfectly well. Your argument is that by removing the gun from the equation, you prevent the situation from occuring. You thereby place the blame on the gun and not the criminals themself.

    I could carry that same argument over to anything else: if we didn't have cars, there wouldn't be traffic accidents, and if no one carried knives, the crime rate associated with stabbings would drop dramatically.

    I lived in Saudi Arabia for five years. I remember the logic that the police would use if your car was hit by another vehicle: you're at fault, because if you weren't there to begin with, this never would have happened.

    ??

    Comment


    • #17
      One problem - indeed, the main one - with a "nonconfrontation" policy is that the decision about confrontation is very often made by the perp, and the SO finds himself with no options about whether or not there will be a confrontation.

      Saw an SO the other day. He was wearing an LE style uniform and he had quite a few things on his belt so I had to look just right to see whether he was armed or not. Most criminals won't bother to look quite so closely - if they care at all.

      On the other side of this question, though, is whether I am necessarily implying that I require or expect officers to initiate confrontations merely because they are armed. I believe most officers should be armed for their own defense and that of others, given that there are few security venues in this country anymore that have a sufficiently low risk for armed confrontation initiated by criminals for the employment of unarmed officers to be considered good security practice.

      However, arming an officer for defensive purposes is very different, and that debate is a very different one, from whether I am necessarily expecting that the officer will initiate a confrontation merely because he is armed. There's no contradiction whatsoever between arming an officer defensively while also having a policy that he is not to initiate confrontations. In other words, he is not armed for purposes of enforcement but for defense.

      The analogy might be this: I will provide a fireman with full, proper turnout gear, but that doesn't mean that by providing him with such "defensive" gear I am implying that he is authorized or expected to run into a burning building contrary to departmental policies and procedures.
      Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-14-2007, 01:21 PM.
      "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


      • #18
        Originally posted by LPGuy
        Where are you going with this? You tried to make an argument that if the security officer was not armed, he wouldn't have placed himself into a risky situation. You then acknowledge that the car thieves would likely have gotten away because the security officer would not have intervened.

        That's a no-brainer. Of course a non-intervention policy would have resulted in a different scenario. That's obviously not what the cliented wanted (non-intervention), or else they would not have hired an armed security officer.



        The car analogy works perfectly well. Your argument is that by removing the gun from the equation, you prevent the situation from occuring. You thereby place the blame on the gun and not the criminals themself.

        I could carry that same argument over to anything else: if we didn't have cars, there wouldn't be traffic accidents, and if no one carried knives, the crime rate associated with stabbings would drop dramatically.

        I lived in Saudi Arabia for five years. I remember the logic that the police would use if your car was hit by another vehicle: you're at fault, because if you weren't there to begin with, this never would have happened.

        ??
        Obviously you don't agree with my post. The feeling is mutual. I stand by what I posted.
        Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

        Comment


        • #19
          Good points, SecTrainer. Any officer, armed or not, must obviously abide by their post orders. The client and security company will generally determine what level of enforcement that they'd like from their security officers.

          From what I've seen of apartment complex security operations, they tend to be hands-on and proactive as far as enforcement goes. An unarmed officer would be extremely unsuited for that job if they are expected to deal with car prowlers, out of control parties, drug houses, and worst of all, domestics.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by LPGuy
            Good points, SecTrainer. Any officer, armed or not, must obviously abide by their post orders. The client and security company will generally determine what level of enforcement that they'd like from their security officers.

            From what I've seen of apartment complex security operations, they tend to be hands-on and proactive as far as enforcement goes. An unarmed officer would be extremely unsuited for that job if they are expected to deal with car prowlers, out of control parties, drug houses, and worst of all, domestics.
            Im unarmed and am expected to deal with all of that.
            "Get yourself a shovel cause your in deep Sh*t"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bigdog
              Im unarmed and am expected to deal with all of that.
              If your venue experiences more than the very occasional car prowls, GTAs and other felony crimes (drug houses are mentioned), and if you are expected to intervene (OR if there is a foreseeable likelihood that you might encounter or be confronted by these felons, whether you are expected to intervene or not), it is my professional judgment that it is very poor practice that SO's in your venue are not armed for at least defensive purposes.

              Whereas "car prowls" were once primarily the domain of kids stealing stereos and GTAs were more often "joy rides", we now know very well that some of the people engaged in these particular crimes are often organized, often work in groups, and that some are violent enough to kill those who confront them or stumble onto them.

              This is especially true if you are in a "three-strike state" (over half of the states have some such provisions), where the possibility of violent reaction to perceived intervention/arrest is more acute because a perp with 2 strikes figures he has nothing to lose. This is one of the unintended consequences of three-strike laws - i.e., that any felony can be the trigger for violence, and this elevated potential for violence in a confrontation must now be considered when making the armed/not-armed decision in these states.

              (Of course, there are differences among three-strike states as to which felonies trigger the life sentencing provisions. For some any felony is sufficient, while for others only certain felonies are triggers. The problem is, even in states where only certain crimes trigger the three-strike provisions, you're counting on the felon to understand this little legal distinction when you say "Oh, we don't have three-strike type crimes being committed in our venue" and thereby relying on the perp not to know that he shouldn't worry about the three-strike law. Perps are rarely Philadelphia lawyers. Chances are, all the perp knows about "three strikes" is that a third conviction for any serious crime will get him a life sentence.)
              Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-15-2007, 09:47 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


              • #22
                Originally posted by bigdog
                Im unarmed and am expected to deal with all of that.
                Personally, I'd be looking for new employment elsewhere...

                Comment


                • #23
                  His client does not consider the site high risk, and when I worked it, it was not. I'm not sure why he keeps finding all these things, but normally, his client expected unarmed guards with no duty gear.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                    His client does not consider the site high risk, and when I worked it, it was not. I'm not sure why he keeps finding all these things, but normally, his client expected unarmed guards with no duty gear.
                    Nathan, if the security climate has changed, would not you expect the response to that climate change as well. As bigdog describes it crime has exponentially grown since he first assumed the post. Might I infer "no duty gear" means no method of communications or am I reading something into that statement. Your description of the post is backwater and now it is full of activity. I have to agree with SecTrainer, it is time to move on. The client just might find a lifeless body at the start of business hours.
                    Enjoy the day,
                    Bill

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                      His client does not consider the site high risk, and when I worked it, it was not. I'm not sure why he keeps finding all these things, but normally, his client expected unarmed guards with no duty gear.
                      We need to get this straight once and for all in our industry. "Client expectations" are not, and cannot be, the final word in security matters when such "expectations" are improper. An architect would not omit the rebar from the foundation of a building merely because of "client expectations".

                      When are such "expectations" improper?

                      1. When they do not meet minimum mandated standards for security, where such mandates exist.

                      2. When they do not meet minimum risk-based standards for security as determined by standard, well-known risk analysis methods.

                      3. When they destroy or substantially diminish the effectiveness of other aspects of the security program.

                      4. When they expose security personnel to unreasonable levels of risk.

                      5. When they expose occupants of the venue to unreasonable levels of risk.

                      "Client expectations" VERY frequently fall into one or more of the categories mentioned above - and we must not permit them to go unchallenged if we pretend to be professionals ourselves.

                      "Risk" is a complex assessment of the consequences and the probabilities of loss or injury due to various foreseeable adverse events. No untrained layman is capable or qualified to conduct a proper risk assessment any more than an untrained layman is qualified to diagnose his own illnesses, nor is any untrained layman qualified to fully evaluate the merits of various security configurations and programs.

                      When the contemplated loss or injury is in the category of "catastrophic", which homicide of either a resident or an SO surely would have to be considered to be, "probability" fades considerably from the equation. Clients and their occupants - INCLUDING THE SO'S WORKING IN THOSE VENUES - must be protected from catastrophic events to the reasonable extent possible regardless of probability. More and more security experts are coming to this conclusion.

                      ...and, of course, we're not arming our officers even when the probability is relatively significant, in many cases.

                      Yes, we naturally take client "expectations" and contract specifications into account, but that does not mean yielding to them when they are improper. It is time, in this industry, that every vendor refuse to bid altogether on contracts that incorporate "expectations" that, if realized, do not provide adequate security according to professional assessment of the risks to which the client and/or his occupants are exposed. Or, those which do not permit the adequate safety of security personnel!!

                      Let's face it. Clients really would prefer to have no security at all. They would like it much better if they could be allowed to work from the assumption that there would be no crimes, no natural disasters, no manmade emergencies whatsoever that would ever affect their properties or their occupants. They would like it much better if the law would simply immunize them from any liability whatsoever, and they could keep all those lovely profits for themselves without any regard whatsoever to adverse events. And, they seem to get much more exercised when someone "steals their stuff" than when a crime against persons is committed (unless the publicity is bad).

                      In short, clients cannot be trusted to step up and ask for even the minimum level of security that their risk profile really demands they provide and pay for. As such, WE CANNOT COLLUDE WITH THEM in their quest for superficial, inadequate, and unprofessional security programs "on the cheap".

                      As things stand now in our industry, we DO collude with them, and it is to our everlasting shame - and to the detriment of our profession - that we do so. It's small wonder, then, that we are not regarded by many as professionals. Professionals adhere to independent, objective standards that are not derived from the demands of clients, patients, etc. And, if and when they do violate those professional standards, perhaps under pressure from clients or patients or purely from profit motives, laziness or indifference - they are disciplined. They have their licenses revoked and they are sued in the civil courts...and sometimes they are even prosecuted when there are elements of crimes such as fraud involved.

                      If the security profession had equivalent practice standards to those of medicine, law, accounting, architecture, engineering, etc., I'm not sure that a great many "security vendors" would not be liable for the full extent of those same sanctions - including fraud - by virtue of pretending to provide "security services" that they know very well are, in fact, no such thing at all in order to win contracts. Ironically, if no security vendors would bid on improper bid specs in the first place, most clients could not simply decide not to have security at all...they would face other liabilities far greater if they did...and security contracts would be more, not less, profitable.

                      "Security", like any other professional service, is not a commodity, and when professional services are falsely commoditized the result is as predictable as it is inevitable...they are cheapened and corrupted to the point that they have little or no value at all. You don't have to ask whether this is true in our profession. We're looking at it every single day.

                      Dennis Dalton analyzes our problem as being the fault of many different stakeholders - including the police, college officials, etc., etc. - in his book Rethinking Corporate Security In the Post-9/11 Era...and he is right to some extent. But the real fault, ultimately, lies with ourselves. We have only ourselves to blame, and the most critical way in which we slice ourselves to pieces is by COLLUDING WITH CLIENTS when what they ask for should never be provided.
                      Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-15-2007, 12:56 PM.
                      "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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                        His client does not consider the site high risk, and when I worked it, it was not. I'm not sure why he keeps finding all these things, but normally, his client expected unarmed guards with no duty gear.
                        One reason is I do proactive enforcement. my other officers are more reactive.
                        "Get yourself a shovel cause your in deep Sh*t"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ValleyOne View Post
                          First off, Good job Gass, and good shot.

                          Secondly, from the decent report it would appear our brother in arms (sic) did his job and did it well. He utilized the tools of the job to do his job effectively.

                          I mean crap, he fired ONE round, 1, uno. One round, not one magazine. He did better than damn near every LEO involved shooting you hear about where the officer goes through 12-43 rounds and misses the target (badguy). So kudos to him.

                          As far as the repoted detainment, I am actually suprised that we are even discussing it. I mean, even saying "Don't go anywhere till we release you. We need your statement and for you to walk us through the scene." IS DETAINMENT. How many of us have had it hammered into our tiny skulls that you can unlawfully detain someone without placing them in cuffs, a car, etc.

                          Now then, onto the armed or unarmed argument. If you have ANY reservations about the taking of a humanlife I HIGHLY suggest you not go and get yorself armed, or go get on with a company that is armed because it is cool. Being armed typically places you, your parnter (if your lucky enough to have one) in higher risk environments. There is a REASON you have that firearm, you may use it to kill someone. I said kill, not stop the threat, as there very well could be a time that killing someone is the only way to stop the threat. My dad, a lifetime LEO, told me a loooong time ago; "Being armed only brings a gun into every situation." Unarmed newbies, those that haven't carried before-stop and think about that.

                          I strongly urge ALL to read or attend any conference by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman Especially his books On Killing, and On Combat. Along with anything else.

                          In closing the S/O stopped the threat, and saved his own bacon.

                          You guys with 24/7 LE presence are lucky. Try it without on a burg call.
                          ValleyOne, well said. I would have to so agree with you.
                          "You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em."
                          (Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, USMC, Marine, 1962.)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Dennis Dalton analyzes our problem as being the fault of many different stakeholders - including the police, college officials, etc., etc. - in his book Rethinking Corporate Security In the Post-9/11 Era...and he is right to some extent. But the real fault, ultimately, lies with ourselves. We have only ourselves to blame, and the most critical way in which we slice ourselves to pieces is by COLLUDING WITH CLIENTS when what they ask for should never be provided.

                            I agree!

                            We have a high risk post (Very) by definition, by location. Behind the location, 50m behind, across a rear parking area, never used for parking, lies the HOOD, the closest store to our Clients is a Check Cashing business!

                            The incidents that caused the hiring of our Company all occurred in the last two hours prior to closing, and as the staff left for the evening, exit via the front of the store, wait in POV till the alarm set senior person locks up after setting the alarm. We are armed for that purpose, 9mm modern pistols, since we told the client at the start of the contract that loss prevention is not our concern, we are not ever in a "I want you to do this, or that" confrontations. Any suggestion's we have made to enhance Security have been accepted, and followed.


                            Our job is to protect life. We are quite prepared to shoot people who threaten our, or the employees lives, that is why we are trained, and armed.


                            We are happy with the job, the Client is happy with us, Oh and yes, the Gang Bangers don't come around any more.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Details

                              What are you thoughts regarding the statement made by the assistant manager of the complex Charles Lash given the incident. (See in highlight below)


                              Originally posted by bigdog View Post
                              Guard to face no charges in fatal shooting

                              Charles Lash, assistant manager of the complex.

                              Lash said the apartment complex does not require that its security guards be armed. The facility houses about 300 tenants, most of whom are students at nearby California State University, Sacramento, and it uses security "to make sure the students are safe," Lash said.
                              Also take into account the following data.

                              From Jan. 1, 2006, to Feb. 28, police responded to 121 vehicle burglaries in the Campus Commons and Sierra Oaks neighborhoods surrounding the complex, according to Sacramento police crime data.

                              In that same time, police responded to 60 auto thefts, 186 total burglaries, 68 larcenies and 14 robberies, figures show.

                              and it uses security "to make sure the students are safe," Lash said.
                              Lash states the Complex does not require armed however states it uses security "to make sure the students are safe,".

                              It appears he is trying to avoid civil liability from the incident, however is he not opening up the Complex to other civil liabilities by not requiring armed, "to make sure the students are safe,". Think in terms of the student suit and security officer suit.
                              Last edited by Razor; 06-04-2008, 09:59 AM.
                              There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root. ~Thoreau

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
                                That's a no-brainer. Of course a non-intervention policy would have resulted in a different scenario. That's obviously not what the cliented wanted (non-intervention), or else they would not have hired an armed security officer.
                                From the article:
                                Lash said the apartment complex does not require that its security guards be armed.

                                The complex was getting an armed officer without paying for one. Good deal for them, and fortunate for the security officer in this instance, but it may cause them problems in a civil suit.

                                I never carry a firearm - or any other weapon - that the client does not require or isn't paying for. Even if they "don't care if we carry them."

                                Let's say that I carry my ASP at an account that does not require or allow an ASP by contract, and I use the ASP and cause damage to a person. Even if the use of the ASP is justified under the circumstances, there's a good chance I will be sued. The scumbag will argue that if I wasn't "acting outside the scope of my employment" by having the "unauthorized" ASP in the first place, he wouldn't have been injured. I talked to an attorney once who sues people for stuff like this, and he told me this is the course he would take. Would the client come to my defense and say that it was "okay with them" if I carried the ASP not specifically authorized by contract and accept some of the liability? I think not.

                                I really hope this security officer gets through this okay. He did what he had to do, and he sounds like a guy I'd love to have on my crew.
                                Last edited by Badge714; 06-04-2008, 10:59 AM.
                                "Striking terrific terror in the hearts of criminals everywhere" Since 1977.

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X