excessive force ruling in US circuit court involving security

[Mr. Security]

Have you ever had any defensive tactics training at all? If not your eye'sisn't playing tricks on you, you're simply misinformed. That's not my fault nor is it LPGuy's.

Edit: to clarify, I thought things were just so horrible too till I was actually trained to do it and had it done on me. It IS brutal, and that's reality.

No and I think it's fair to say most jurors sitting on such cases haven't either.

Regarding the Edit: I'm not saying that such "brutal" tactics are unnecessary, just overused.

[Black Caesar]

No and I think it's fair to say most jurors sitting on such cases haven't either.

Which is why judges should give good law instructions.

Regarding the Edit: I'm not saying that such "brutal" tactics are unnecessary, just overused.

And what evidence do you offer for them being overused, other than what you see on TV and your personal feelings about use of force? Do local cops routinely come on your work property or to your home and beat the snot out of people for no reason in front of you?

Or are you over-reacting to sensationalized media accounts? one thing that happens is that people don't realize how VAST this country is. 300 million people, 800,000 Law Enforcement Officers, at least 1.5 million private security officers ect ect. people see things in their small slice of Earth, or on TV (which makes everything look "local'") and think its a big problem. It's not.

Look at this article from O.com and try to see past the biased headline. CLICK HERE for article.

Read it, now look at it in context. 2-300 something federal brutality cases per year. Sounds terrible, only there are 800,000 cops working millions of man hours answering hundreds of thousands of calls for service and making thousands upon thousands of arrests per year. "2-300 something" out of all that is NOT a significant factor.


--------------------

I'm not trying to jump on you, but one of my pet peeves is how modern people take what they see on TV or the internet or in papers out of context.

Take guns for example. At least 200 million in the United States. Lots of guns, most of them in private hands. People here and abroad love to point out America's firearms murder "rate", they never mention absolute numbers.

Every year, 10,000 people are murdered by firearms and another 17,000 use guns in suicides. Tragic and terrible yes. But I'm sorry, 27,000 improper firearms uses out of a possible 200 million is not enough reason to get rid of guns. 1 gun illegally used for homicide or suicide out of every 7500 guns that exist in America does not demonstrate some kind of gun crisis, but if you watch TV and listen to anti-gun groups, it looks WAY worse.

Some thing happens to police. The Dallas PD shot and killed 8 people (out of 1.3 million people in Dallas) last year and the NAACP acts like DPD is mowing down whole communities.

The press helps, they mention the 8 shootings on 8 different days on the news. They NEVER say (on the day of a shooting) "out of 3200 Dallas PD officers who carried guns all day today and dealt with felons, 3199 of them Didn't shoot anyone today"

Nor do they say "Dallas police shoot people on 8 different days this year, shooting no one the other 357 days this year even though they were all carrying guns" lol.

I know I'm rambling, but when I see you or anyone else make what amounts to out of context comments about things, it irritates me greatly. it's like listening to Amnesty International complain about Tasers..

ok ok, rant over.

[msofin]

Any weapon that does not almost guarantee success against whatever you are fighting (and that you get to go homealive and uninjured at the end of your shift) is an inferior weapon.

NO club (including another baseball bat) fits the bill against any other club, period.



Did they actually teach you to go Force on Force with someone with the same or similar weapon? Really? That's just the most insane thing I've ever heard, period. That's just a good way to get you hurt or killed, it makes no sense to me at all.



???

No No No No No. I hope Bill Warnok doesn't read this one lol. Especially the part about 20 feet being ample time to draw a firearm against someone with a striking weapon LOL.

And you don't aim at someone who is 5 feet from you (of course no one but God and your spouse should BE within 5 feet of you ever, and only sometimes for the spouse). Down here my instructors in the Academy taught "Anchor Point" shooting (drawing the weapon and shooting from the hip without aiming). Every time we go to the Range anchor point shooting is part of the course of fire. Do they teach something like that in the class you took?



Yea, it is. Light Sabres being damn near magical implements of personal safety. If we were Jedi using a club against a bat would make sense, but we aren't and it don't lol.

Thank you for going into more detail.

To be honest, I have never heard of 'Anchor Point' shooting as it was never covered in the class I took. In fact, we never used holsters on the range for safety reasons. I have recently for practice, but not as much as I should. I will look into it more, as soon as finals week is over.

We were taught Force on Force, or I believe an other poster referred to it as "Matching Force". This is exactly what has been drilled into my head over the years, regardless who I worked for. I've heard of what you speak of but wrote it off as the guard was a compulsive lier, a 'wannabe' with out question, who was terminated a few months after I returned to school.

You might find this interesting, as I did remember this morning. When I was certified for OC spray (OCAT certification) my trainer did tell me if I was ever sprayed with OC by an actor I would be justified in pulling my firearm. Nothing similar was ever covered in regards to a striking weapon such as a bat.
Any thoughts on this?

I certainly am being exposed to different ideas and training experiences from other posters that I am not familiar with. Exactly what I was looking for when I joined the forum! I hope everyone realizes I'm not trying to stir anything up, I do have a good amount of training for an entry level guard but still (and it seems to show) I'm pretty naive in many aspects of the profession. Patience is certainly appreciated!

[Mr. Security]

...... 2-300 something federal brutality cases per year. Sounds terrible, only there are 800,000 cops working millions of man hours answering hundreds of thousands of calls for service and making thousands upon thousands of arrests per year. "2-300 something" out of all that is NOT a significant factor....

Those are just the ones we know about. Furthermore, it might be a factor if you or a family member ended up in this "insignificant" number. Let's agree to disagree on this matter and leave it at that.

[Black Caesar]

Those are just the ones we know about. Furthermore, it might be a factor if you or a family member ended up in this "insignificant" number. Let's agree to disagree on this matter and leave it at that.

Multiply those 300 by 10, you get 3000. STILL less than 1 half one one percent. We can disagree, I'm simply pointing out that you're again letting a certain bias override your judgment.

No one is claiming all cops are angels who do everything right, but people in difficult positions doing things for us (like rolling on the ground fighting with some scum of the earth hook) should get the benefit of the doubt. That so many people\ find it necessary to dump on Law Enforcement is sad.

And to beat a dead horse, I'll say it again what I've said here before: It's even sadder when it comes from people in Private Security (with all of that industry's well known short comings and problems) [i]who should by nature be sympathetic. Security officers should understand what it is to be unfairly maligned and misjudged by people who don't walk in their shoes, yet they are some of the worst when it comes to doing so to cops. It's rank hypocrisy.

[Mr. Security]

.....

No one is claiming all cops are angels who do everything right, but people in difficult positions doing things for us (like rolling on the ground fighting with some scum of the earth hook) should get the benefit of the doubt. That so many people\ find it necessary to dump on Law Enforcement is sad.

......

That's all I was saying. You may feel that I am "anti-cop." That's not true. If cops weren't here, there would be no unarmed security and I have already stated on here that I would help a cop in trouble.

[N. A. Corbier]

Thank you for going into more detail.

To be honest, I have never heard of 'Anchor Point' shooting as it was never covered in the class I took. In fact, we never used holsters on the range for safety reasons. I have recently for practice, but not as much as I should. I will look into it more, as soon as finals week is over.

We were taught Force on Force, or I believe an other poster referred to it as "Matching Force". This is exactly what has been drilled into my head over the years, regardless who I worked for. I've heard of what you speak of but wrote it off as the guard was a compulsive lier, a 'wannabe' with out question, who was terminated a few months after I returned to school.

You might find this interesting, as I did remember this morning. When I was certified for OC spray (OCAT certification) my trainer did tell me if I was ever sprayed with OC by an actor I would
be justified in pulling my firearm. Nothing similar was ever covered in regards to a striking weapon such as a bat.
Any thoughts on this?

I certainly am being exposed to different ideas and training experiences from other posters that I am not familiar with. Exactly what I was looking for when I joined the forum! I hope everyone realizes I'm not trying to stir anything up, I do have a good amount of training for an entry level guard but still (and it seems to show) I'm pretty naive in many aspects of the profession. Patience is certainly appreciated!

Your training is from a large national guard firm what wants to limit their liability, not teach you to defend yourself or your client.

Force on Force training, actually, means something completely different in "DT" circles than "If someone hits you, you have to hit them. If someone pulls out pepper spray, you have to spray them. If someone pulls out a chain, you have to hit them with a baton." It means "I'm gonna beat on you (safely), and you're gonna react."

Now, here's the thing. No matter what you read here, you have to follow your MEB training while on the job. Because that is what a company trained you in. Of course, if you are trained in something illegal, you may not follow those illegal orders, but you can't invent your own training or use training you "got off an internet forum."

As to shooting without holsters, this is standard for armed permit mills that run a bunch of guards who have had training in: State Law, Nomenclature of the Weapon, Theory of Operation, and Company Policy, then given the weapon the first time on the range. State only requires X amount of hours for you to receive training to a minimum standard, and giving you more costs money that they can't recoup.

[msofin]

Your training is from a large national guard firm what wants to limit their liability, not teach you to defend yourself or your client.

Force on Force training, actually, means something completely different in "DT" circles than "If someone hits you, you have to hit them. If someone pulls out pepper spray, you have to spray them. If someone pulls out a chain, you have to hit them with a baton." It means "I'm gonna beat on you (safely), and you're gonna react."

Now, here's the thing. No matter what you read here, you have to follow your MEB training while on the job. Because that is what a company trained you in. Of course, if you are trained in something illegal, you may not follow those illegal orders, but you can't invent your own training or use training you "got off an internet forum."

.

Well Said!

I will be going back to Allied in January and looking forward to it. I am pretty lucky that my district management is not only very good but very approachable. I will ask my district trainer about the bat scenario we've been discussing and what the proper 'Allied' response should be...

[LPGuy]

We were taught Force on Force, or I believe an other poster referred to it as "Matching Force".

It's late, so I won't give a use of force class here, but you may legally use the force that is reasonable and necessary to overcome the force used by someone else. There is no guarantee of your safety if you merely "match" the suspect's amount of force. As Black Ceaser already stated, it's ludicrous that you were trained to, in essence, swordfight with a suspect who is carrying an impact weapon. Are you a Kali master? If not, then I'd think of transitioning to a firearm real quick.

You might find this interesting, as I did remember this morning. When I was certified for OC spray (OCAT certification) my trainer did tell me if I was ever sprayed with OC by an actor I would be justified in pulling my firearm. Nothing similar was ever covered in regards to a striking weapon such as a bat. Any thoughts on this?

Shooting a suspect who is attempting to utilize OC spray against you is perfectly reasonable. Remember, if you carry a firearm, there's a gun present at every call you respond to. You are responsible for retaining that firearm because it can be used against you. If someone were to spray you with OC spray and take your firearm while you're incapacitated, they could then take your life. It's no different than if someone were to beat you unconcious or dead with a baseball bat or other impact weapon.

Remember, you may use a firearm to defend against not only deadly force, but force that may cause great bodily injury. If the force that is being used against you may incapacitate you, render you gravely injured or disabled, or otherwise place your life in jeopardy, it's time to defend your life with reasonable and necessary deadly force.

[Black Caesar]

When I was in the academy they video taped us being sprayed with OC. The Academy retains a copy and we each recieved a copy (I have mine locked up with other important papers and such). The tape shows us fully engaged with another person and then sprayed with OC. It's not pretty what happens after getting sprayed lol. I did manage to retain my weapon (we were carrying Red Gun mock-ups for this training) in the insuing ground fight with the instructor for 51 seconds which was the 3rd highest time in the class (thankyouverymuch ), but I ended up "dead" all the same.

It's ready made evidence that if I were sprayed with OC I would be incapacitated to the degree that I could not properly defend myself or retain my weapon and thus would be justified in using Deadly Force. Same reason the Tasing was recorded. Good thing to have if you find yourself in that kind of Deadly Force Scenario for real

[SecTrainer]

It's late, so I won't give a use of force class here, but you may legally use the force that is reasonable and necessary to overcome the force used by someone else. There is no guarantee of your safety if you merely "match" the suspect's amount of force. As Black Ceaser already stated, it's ludicrous that you were trained to, in essence, swordfight with a suspect who is carrying an impact weapon. Are you a Kali master? If not, then I'd think of transitioning to a firearm real quick.



Shooting a suspect who is attempting to utilize OC spray against you is perfectly reasonable. Remember, if you carry a firearm, there's a gun present at every call you respond to. You are responsible for retaining that firearm because it can be used against you. If someone were to spray you with OC spray and take your firearm while you're incapacitated, they could then take your life. It's no different than if someone were to beat you unconcious or dead with a baseball bat or other impact weapon.

Remember, you may use a firearm to defend against not only deadly force, but force that may cause great bodily injury. If the force that is being used against you may incapacitate you, render you gravely injured or disabled, or otherwise place your life in jeopardy, it's time to defend your life with reasonable and necessary deadly force.

That is correct. "Reasonable force necessary to overcome or defend" is so ubiquitous that it can be called a de facto "national standard". If the training you receive presents the "force-matching" principle, which is not only ludicrous on its face but a misrepresentation of the LAW on this subject, I suggest that you find another job immediately because you ARE working for a turkey outfit that doesn't have a clue what it's doing.

The faster that security officers come to realize that at least half of the security companies operating in the US are indeed turkey outfits that have no business being in business - including some big ones - and REFUSE TO WORK FOR SUCH COMPANIES, the better off our industry will be. It seems never to occur to us that we have the fate of such companies in OUR hands.

I rather wish we would start a TURKEY LIST of clueless security companies that are screwing up our industry, and that every member of the forum would refuse to work for them. For starters, this would include companies that accept "unarmed" mandates from clients when they know full well that such demands are inappropriate in that client's venue, and that they are jeopardizing the lives of their officers by accepting such terms. These turkey outfits should also be sued out of business for creating an unsafe workplace for their officers when the inevitable occurs, and OSHA should be pursuaded to become involved as well.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had about enough of seeing our brothers and sisters being forced to be defenseless, and being injured and killed in environments where such injuries were perfectly predictable based on the KNOWN history of the client's venue while the security company made bad decisions for the sole purpose of sucking in revenue. It is becoming more and more difficult these days to find venues where "unarmed security officer" is NOT an oxymoron. What's that? What about churches, you say? Hmmmm? Schools? Universities? Hmmmm? Perhaps not.

I hear the old argument: "Observe and report posts need not be armed", and I just look at such people in amazement. The risk to an officer (AND TO THOSE HE PROTECTS) has nothing to do with post orders, which I would just guess that darned few assailants will take the time to read before they shoot the officer (OR THOSE HE PROTECTS).

I seem to see the scene: "Pardon me, officer. May I read your post orders to see whether I need to shoot you or not? Ah, yes, I see. You're just O&R, and I see that you are only armed with a toothbrush and your toenail clippers, so of course I wouldn't dream of shooting you. Hardly sporting, eh old top? Not cricket! Besides, it would violate the Robbers Code of Honor, which all of us must sign.

Well, thank Heaven that I can save the cost of ammunition...it costs so much to feed this Uzi these days, and lower overhead means more profit! Please just sit quietly over there whilst I robbeth this establishment. You may report the robbery, including my description, vehicle description, license number and direction of travel after I take my leave. By the way...can you guess my weight? What? Ha ha! You're so wrong, but of course this black sweatsuit is rather slimming, don't you think? Here...take my driver's license in order that you may be better informed when you report me to the police, and will be a better witness against me at my trial. Take notes so you don't miss anything because I'd like nothing better than for your testimony to put me away for about 25 years!

What's that? Even though you're "just O&R", you thought robbers were inclined to murder witnesses? Oh, my goodness...that's so last-year. We don't do that sort of thing these days! Sure, there was a time when we'd murder the security officer first, just to open the act with a bang (so to speak), and it did delight the audiences to see him flopping around on the floor with blood pouring from several holes in his skull, but we're more sophisticated now. We don't go for the cheap thrills anymore. 'Leave 'em laughing and capable of testifying against me because I really like the food in prison and being someone's girlfriend in the showers'...that's how your modern robber thinks!"

The risk to an officer arises ENTIRELY from the nature of the threats presented to security officers in society generally, and also in the particular environment where he works specifically. Such risks are becoming worse by the day, and the only difference between an unarmed "O&R" officer and one who is required to intervene (but still unarmed) is whether the officer is more likely to be shot in the back while he is running away to "report", or in the front while he is trying to intervene. Let's wise up and lets start forcing security companies to force their clients to wise up - and grow up - as well. If a potential client has a "horror of guns" when armed officers are clearly called for, let them guard their own properties. They will learn the hard way. Period. End of song.

[Maelstrom]

I agree 100% with what you've written there SecTrainer, it's high time that forcing inadequately trained and/or equiped SOs to work venues with obvious inherent risk factors (which is akin to construction workers on a site without scaffolding & hard hats) is recognised as a definite Occupational Health & Safety issue!

[craig333]

Couldn't agree more. I did a four hour shift at a shopping center last night in a very rough neighborhood. Insane to work there unarmed. How they get people to do that I have no idea. The guard that relieved me (both of us had never worked this site) said "screw this, I'm sitting in my car the rest of the night". If todays medical exam doesn't go well (no reason to think it won't) and I dont get the job I"m after, I'll definitely be looking for a new company come the new year.

[N. A. Corbier]

Couldn't agree more. I did a four hour shift at a shopping center last night in a very rough neighborhood. Insane to work there unarmed. How they get people to do that I have no idea. The guard that relieved me (both of us had never worked this site) said "screw this, I'm sitting in my car the rest of the night". If todays medical exam doesn't go well (no reason to think it won't) and I dont get the job I"m after, I'll definitely be looking for a new company come the new year.

They need money, and don't think they can do anything else. So, till they're attacked (or sometimes even after), they'll do what they're told.

One of the supervisors at the company I worked at (And Bigdog works at) would order employees to work posts without anything on their belt (because unarmed means unarmed) and when someone would say, "Are you mad? Its dangerous there," his sole reply would be, "You knew the risks when you signed up for the job."

[SecTrainer]

Couldn't agree more. I did a four hour shift at a shopping center last night in a very rough neighborhood. Insane to work there unarmed. How they get people to do that I have no idea. The guard that relieved me (both of us had never worked this site) said "screw this, I'm sitting in my car the rest of the night". If todays medical exam doesn't go well (no reason to think it won't) and I dont get the job I"m after, I'll definitely be looking for a new company come the new year.

Good luck!!