Why O&R security does not work

[jeff194307]

A 61-year-old woman who was repeatedly punched in the face during a robbery in a store parking lot in Jackson has filed a lawsuit against the store, the store's security company and the two suspects in the assault.
Linda Knox is seeking $8.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages in the June 4 attack.
In the suit filed Tuesday in Hinds County, Knox said she has permanently lost sight in her left eye and that no one from the store or Security came to her aid as she was being beaten.
Isaiah Robertson and Lionel Kyles are suspected of attacking and robbing Knox and were arrested on June 25.
Both suspects, along with , the store, the security company,and 10 unnamed defendants were named in the suit

.

I think that this article demonstrates why observe and report is not always the proper way to operate. This lady, I believe has a very good case. It has been discussed in other threads that the warm body companies need to get modern and become more pro-active in providing security. There is a place for O&R, but it is not approprieate at sites that have access to the public as in this case, what are your inputs on this?

[FireEMSPolice]

Our policy, when it comes down to it, is O&R. However, we can intervene if someone is getting attacked. I do not understand why these Security Officers didnt. What company is this?

Since I work in mall, I wish we did more then O&R. I have no problem going to the courthouse and clerking an affidavit to pursue someone criminally. My company will not allow me to do this.

[integrator97]

Every company should at least have a policy of intervening in the case of bodily harm. Period.

[NRM_Oz]

9 years ago, I was co-ordinating the LP / Security shifts for 40 retail outlets for pre-xmas sales. Due to sickness I covered a 4 hour shift as a uniformed LPO. A manager asked me to escort him to the bank with the $3k US in deposits and I agreed since it meant a change of scenery for 15 mins.

Inside the bank, the manager had passed the cash to the teller and had asked for coins change. An elderly lady collapsed 4 feet from me and I knew there was no loose $$ so I checked on her as someone went to get a nurse from the Chemist. She had heat stroke and we attended to her for 5 minutes when a Dr arrived from a medical centre. I left my details for reports and went back to the store only to be ripped a new one by the manager for making him walk back with $100.00 in change alone.

I advised him of the no cash escort policy for LP with this company and agreed to do so as a favour when I reminded him that HE chose to walk back without me. When the SM arrived from lunch he ran off to report me when she ripped him 2 new ones when Mall Mgt had been informed by the bank mgr of what had happened. She made him apologise and to me that was thanks enough (it was Xmas and the time when families should be together).

Yes sometimes O and R does not work too !!

[SecTrainer]

"Strict O&R" security (as in you-will-be-fired-for-violating-this-policy) is not security at all. It is a scam that our industry perpetrates on the public in order to pander to clients.

In other words, the vendor and the client (and, in some cases, insurers) are acting in collusion for the sole purpose of creating a false impression of security for the client's employees, customers and visitors. They do this, of course, for one reason: Real security costs more than "faux security".

You might as well put up a handrail and anchor it in Jello because Jello is cheaper than concrete. After all, no one will know the difference, right?..that is, providing they don't lean on the rail.

[N. A. Corbier]

"Strict O&R" security (as in you-will-be-fired-for-violating-this-policy) is not security at all. It is a scam that our industry perpetrates on the public in order to pander to clients.

In other words, the vendor and the client (and, in some cases, insurers) are acting in collusion for the sole purpose of creating a false impression of security for the client's employees, customers and visitors. They do this, of course, for one reason: Real security costs more than "faux security".

You might as well put up a handrail and anchor it in Jello because Jello is cheaper than concrete. After all, no one will know the difference, right?..that is, providing they don't lean on the rail.

Like I said in the other thread, its about the money. By doing nothing, you don't have to invest in your employees. By saying, "You cannot do this," then you don't have the failure to train lawsuit hanging over your head.

Does it matter that a failure to maintain standard of care lawsuit replaces failure to train? Not to them, after all, they'll just pay those off.

[integrator97]

Same type of thing in electronic security, with the national companies & dealers, and some local, that offer the 2 doors, a motion and inside siren for next to nothing. They don't want to and often won't do more, cause all they want is that monthly monitoring. More means more labor and time. Not enough money in that.

They're not offering real security either. Just peace of mind, to those gullible enough to fall for it.

[Guest]

As a former O&R company peon

The general consensus is that we will not intervene for $8-ish/hr. It is not worth it to a great number of guards. I will jump in a fray if it will save someone, but the average guard will refuse.

[Mr. Security]

O&r

One size doesn't fit all. O&R may be just fine for some sites and a poor choice for others. You wouldn't use a scewdriver to frame a house and you wouldn't use a hammer to install cabinet hardware. There is a proper tool for every application and a proper type of security for each site. You get the idea.

[SecTrainer]

One size doesn't fit all. O&R may be just fine for some sites and a poor choice for others.

In my opinion, there is no security venue of any kind for which "strict O&R" (meaning, under all circumstances, security officers will do nothing other than O&R) is appropriate. This is a policy that:

1. Does not create security by any meaningful definition of that word, and...

2. Would never satisfy the demands identified by any properly-conducted risk analysis with respect to any venue of which I am aware.

"Strict O&R", as a security policy, amounts to nothing more or less than magical thinking.

[NRM_Oz]

I agree that sometimes it MAY suit a situation and it may NOT suit other situations. But what gets me to me are these armchair experts who sit back and make decisions based on their own limited experience of reading from books who don't even work within the industry. If you would not go to the dentist for heart surgery why would you take advice from someone with only book knowledge ?

Perhaps in this cost cutting world we could consider the implications of what cost cutting will do for the worst case scenarios and sometimes we need to protect the staff rather than the company's profits.

[Mr. Security]

In my opinion, there is no security venue of any kind for which "strict O&R" (meaning, under all circumstances, security officers will do nothing other than O&R) is appropriate. This is a policy that:

1. Does not create security by any meaningful definition of that word, and...

2. Would never satisfy the demands identified by any properly-conducted risk analysis with respect to any venue of which I am aware.

"Strict O&R", as a security policy, amounts to nothing more or less than magical thinking.

When you look at the number of officers who work in O&R security with companies like Guardsmark, Securitas, and the like, you have to recognize that most clients do not share your viewpoint. Also, the companies that I mentioned do not forbid taking appropriate action as circumstances require and state law permits.

Even if a company was STRICTLY O&R, it is better than nothing since it is well established that a presence will deter many from committing a crime simply because the risk of apprehension is greater when wrongdoing is witnessed. (Example: Neighborhood Watch programs)

I respect your viewpoint and agree that such security has limited value. Still, it is here to stay.

[Mr. Security]

I agree that sometimes it MAY suit a situation and it may NOT suit other situations. But what gets me to me are these armchair experts who sit back and make decisions based on their own limited experience of reading from books who don't even work within the industry. If you would not go to the dentist for heart surgery why would you take advice from someone with only book knowledge ?

Perhaps in this cost cutting world we could consider the implications of what cost cutting will do for the worst case scenarios and sometimes we need to protect the staff rather than the company's profits.

I know it's frustrating and it does happen even in the medical field. Think of all the decisions made by hospital executives who may have little or no training in medicine. Often, they frustrate doctors and other health care professionals who see the ignorance in their decisions and policies. Unfortunately, this happens in most fields....

[Guest]

O&R certainly does not project an image of security for the people who should matter. For example, at my university (I started late), our "guards" are essentially designated 911 punchers. Totally useless if SHTF. There are a few, I used to work for them, that are 'willing' to take on the responsibility if they have to actually act on a situation. For the most part, I have seen O&R as a serious misallocation of funds that could be put to better use anywhere. Most O&R guards are the equivalent of a worn-out CCTV system; they watch things happen and then offer up what happened to the best of their recollection later on,with shoddy reliability, all the while doing nothing to stop a problem.

[Mr. Security]

O&R certainly does not project an image of security for the people who should matter......

What do you mean by the part in bold?