Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

excessive force ruling in US circuit court involving security

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

  • ok47s
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    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 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.
    Amen. I concur with this.

    Leave a comment:


  • msofin
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • craig333
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by craig333 View Post
    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!!

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by craig333 View Post
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • craig333
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maelstrom
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by LPGuy View Post
    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.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 12-20-2007, 06:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by msofin View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by msofin
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • msofin
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by msofin View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar View Post
    .....

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X