No announcement yet.

excessive force ruling in US circuit court involving security

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I know the feeling well. Thats why I'll continue to work dangerous sites until I find a better job. It might be interesting to see what the unemployment people would rule if I was fired for wearing a vest.


    • #47
      Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
      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."
      Sounds like this supervisor is recognizing the fact that is putting ill-equiped guards on higher risk posts. WOuldn't the company be liable if any one was injured due to the fact that there is forseable danger there?


      • #48
        Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
        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 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.
        Amen. I concur with this.


        • #49
          Originally posted by msofin View Post
          All of my training in Pennsylvania (Act 235, Allied, Wackenhutt, Vector..) told us we can only use the minimal force to end the attack. For example, if someone comes at you with a baseball bat, you can use your baton to deflect blows. But pulling your firearm and using it would be considered excessive fore. An other example, if someone charges at you and the only weapons are their fists than 'survival dancing' and use of OC spray would be appropriate but the use of a baton would be excessive.
          What type of hallucinogenics are Pennsylvania Bureaucrats using these days?.They doubt a baseball bat is a deadly weapon?,send them to me,i shall demonstrate otherwise .Deflecting baseball bat blows with a baton?,good luck "An other example, if someone charges at you and the only weapons are their fists than 'survival dancing' and use of OC spray would be appropriate but the use of a baton would be excessive." How about"disparity of force"?,how big are you in comparison to the attacker?.Example: You: 5'6",150 lbs. Him: 6'5", 260lbs.,don't you think a BG that size would be capable of inflicting great bodily injury or even death?.Sounds like a taser or ASP kind of moment to me.