Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

security officer involved i shooting at apt complex

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

  • #31
    update to this shooting, it is closed, now life goes on.

    This officer won the civil trial 12 to 0. The Jury foreman/forewoman was an internal affairs officer for the Dept of Corrections for Ca. The other two individuals that were arrested that morning committed suicide. One just a few days after the shooting and the other 9 days after the civil trial was over.
    "You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em."
    (Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, USMC, Marine, 1962.)

    Comment


    • #32
      Since one cannot be armed in security work in Canada, with the one exception of armoured car personnel, I can also say that I've dealt with issues that represent pretty much everything mentioned in this thread without a weapon. Does that mean I should have, that I was expected to, or that I would do it again? Absolutely not.

      The way I see this, an armed security officer has different responsibilities than an unarmed one. I don't see how this can be practically disputed, although I do know that many clients do not see it this way.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BadBoynMD View Post
        I have to envoke Murphy's law here.
        Murphy was an optomist
        Murphy was an optomist.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Razor View Post
          What are you thoughts regarding the statement made by the assistant manager of the complex Charles Lash given the incident. (See in highlight below)




          Also take into account the following data.






          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.
          Hello, to all. All parties were sued in this matter. However, the contract was for an unarmed officer with the understanding that from time to time a supervisor would be standing the site. The supervisor did talk to the tenants and management for quality control. In the contract, it did state that all supervisors were armed and would work the site armed. The apartment complex did in fact go to bat for the company. I know that is rare, but it does still happen when you have an excellent rapport with the client and the job performance is oh such a high standard the client has that much faith in the company.
          "You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em."
          (Lieutenant General Lewis B. Puller, USMC, Marine, 1962.)

          Comment

          Leaderboard

          Collapse
          Working...
          X