High Risk Ops & Tactics.

[talon]

I wanted to start this thread because when you say SECURITY most people think of the 80 year old man with white socks and the key clock. I want people to know that Private Security can be as dangerous as any Police job... and I want the Police to know that they don't hold a monopoly on tactics...what I mean by that is if a S/O has to cuff someone using sound tactics, doesnt mean he's trying to be a P/O it means he's trying to be as safe as possible.

So If anyone here has any Tactical advise whether S/O, P/O or SPO, sound off.

[Mr. Security]

I wanted to start this thread because when you say SECURITY most people think of the 80 year old man with white socks and the key clock.

Stop talking about me!

[Serpico]

At the time, I wasn't security, per se. I was a PI but we did several high risk operations. Sometimes we'd be on a house that was in the middle of nowhere and the only way to get a position on the residence would be to have a 2 man team. One in a full guille (sic) suit who would either be lying in the grass/weeds/cornstalks/tree/etc and the other who'd be in a vehicle about 10 minutes away on the nearest throughofare.

Sometimes things got harry. I remember I was in the vehicle and got a call to get to the position immediately. Evidently, the guy were were watching had let his 4 Dobermans out and then were closing in on my partner. Nothing like seeing a guy in a full sniper's outfit running like hell while carrying a $4000 camera.

Another time I was in the cornstalks and the guy I was watching decided to have some target practice with the path of the projectile directly in my way and about 50 yards from where I was sitting.

That really wasn't on topic, but I felt the need to share anyways.

[1stWatch]

I want people to know that Private Security can be as dangerous as any Police job... and I want the Police to know that they don't hold a monopoly on tactics...what I mean by that is if a S/O has to cuff someone using sound tactics, doesnt mean he's trying to be a P/O it means he's trying to be as safe as possible.

mmk, where to start?
1) About the dangerous part: It certainly can be, according to the type of job. Some jobs even more so since you're working alone, without the benefit of backup or expedious police response.

2) The monopoly on tactics: Tactical training certainly is available to police officers, but I would certainly like to see more of them practice proper tactics on a uniform basis. I see the street level patrol officers make mistakes all the time, and these are the officers who need proper tactical training the most.
An example would be going to a disturbance call at an apartment where one party "may" have a weapon and both officers stand side by side at the door while knocking - no thoughts on the cover element standing away from the door or on the stairs or at the bottom of the stairs to avoid being shot through the door or at least to see who may come around the corner. Then they stand there talking to the suspects with their hands in their pockets or while leaning over on the railing next to the door, nullifying the use of hands and exposing the duty belt to the suspects.
I got to a point where if that type of police showed up at the complex where I worked I would go hide at the other side of the complex since they would do things like order me to stand side by side next to them by the door for additional "cover". Not like they meant any wrong or malice, but that was just the way they were schooled and, to me, it was the wrong schooling.
The officers in other divisions than patrol seem to have a tighter grasp of officer safety.

Okay, off that tangent. There certainly is training available to security officers in officer safety and tactics, but we have the burden of having to have the desire to receive such training and to seek the training out and then to evaluate the training and its usefulness, since there is a plethora of information out there, some good and some - well - pure crap.
That is in contrast to a law enforcement agency, where training is mandated and all officers receive, or at least supposedly, all the same training for the same number of hours. According to this training model, every person receives the same proficiency as well.

In my humble opinion, if you find a video of practical skills that is marked "restricted" for certain individuals' use, it is pure fantasy and not worth your time to look at in the first place. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can replace drilling with real live training partners. Proficiency differs between individuals, as their actual development differs. Monopoly on training is an illusion.

3) Security officers and handcuffs: I have heard two different sets of complaints about security with handcuffs.
a) It was not legal for security to handcuff the person. Make sure you know your state's laws on restraining people and when it is and is not permitted. The state's government spells this out, your company does not.
b) Security was not proficient with the handcuffs - the handcuffing failed and the suspect got away, the handcuffing failed and the suspect beat the hell out of the security guard, the handcuffing was successful but too much effort had to be used to get them on, or the handcuffing was successful but the suspect got away with the cuffs on.

This goes back to practical drilling, which should be done every single day. You will be able to handcuff a compliant suspect well after around a week of drilling. To be able to handcuff a non-compliant suspect, which unfortunately is more often the case, you have to drill with the handcuffs a lot more. Also, the person is not necessarily under effective restraint just because the bracelets are on. It may take other levels of force or having multiple officers present to bring the person into compliance.

Showing proficiency will gain you respect, whether it be from the cops, from the client, or from the general public. Showing a lack of proficiency, a lack composure, or excessive force will gain you the opposite.