Mall Security Robbed for Vehicle, ATM Stolen

[1stWatch]

Annapolis, MD:
A mall security guard was robbed at gunpoint by four men wearing ski masks for a mall security vehicle. Later it was discovered an ATM was also missing. Police have since recovered the vehicle.

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/6...s=bal&psp=news

[1stWatch]

Now, is it just me or does anybody else think it is a really bad idea for mall security to be unarmed across the nation?

[Mr. Security]

Now, is it just me or does anybody else think it is a really bad idea for mall security to be unarmed across the nation?

Four to one? The guard may have been killed if he resisted. Just because there was only one gun shown doesn't mean that the others weren't armed. These robbers are brazen and likely prepared to kill. A mall can use unarmed security as long as they are backed by armed officers, security or LE.

[1stWatch]

Four to one? The guard may have been killed if he resisted. Just because there was only one gun shown doesn't mean that the others weren't armed. These robbers are brazen and likely prepared to kill. A mall can use unarmed security as long as they are backed by armed officers, security or LE.

Yes he could have. This is why places like that should stop having only one person on duty, even on the deep night shift. Most malls I have seen do not have backing by armed security or by law enforcement officers. The ones I have seen that do hire off-duty police use one of them for four hours per evening. They also do not prepare their people for situations such as this since they assume it will not happen. This is a job I have done before.

[Mr. Security]

Yes he could have. This is why places like that should stop having only one person on duty, even on the deep night shift. Most malls I have seen do not have backing by armed security or by law enforcement officers. The ones I have seen that do hire off-duty police use one of them for four hours per evening. They also do not prepare their people for situations such as this since they assume it will not happen. This is a job I have done before.

There's no question that complacency is a common problem. People just don't get it when it comes to security, or even safety for that matter. That's one of the challenges I have with my consulting business. Companies don't want to expend funds to protect their businesses when they don't believe that it can happen to them. I have warned businesses about some of these issues and they send me a letter saying that they don't need my services. I file the letter in the event something does happen. Guess who gets a copy of the letter if it does? That's right. The injured party?s attorney.

[N. A. Corbier]

Yes he could have. This is why places like that should stop having only one person on duty, even on the deep night shift. Most malls I have seen do not have backing by armed security or by law enforcement officers. The ones I have seen that do hire off-duty police use one of them for four hours per evening. They also do not prepare their people for situations such as this since they assume it will not happen. This is a job I have done before.

If I were a mall manager, I would not so much as CONCIEVE that the guard could be robbed and his truck stolen. Because if I concieve of it, that means I have to do something about it. And that costs money and resources.

And we all know that money and resources are better spent on wooing better tenants like Nordstrom Rack.

Seriously, though. They don't assume "it won't happen." They don't want to consider the posibility because that makes the negiligent if they knew of the pre-existing threat and failed to take steps to prevent it.

[1stWatch]

Seriously, though. They don't assume "it won't happen." They don't want to consider the posibility because that makes the negiligent if they knew of the pre-existing threat and failed to take steps to prevent it.

Out of sight, out of mind. This is the attitude so many take toward this and it is such a prevailing theme when a security officer gets killed. It is even the attitude many security companies take after one is killed. It's like they don't care if this person dies, they just don't want a vicarious liability suit.

Food for thought - the inability people such as these have to take care of themselves in this situation also reflects an inability to protect others from it.

[Mr. Security]

....Seriously, though. They don't assume "it won't happen." They don't want to consider the posibility because that makes the negiligent if they knew of the pre-existing threat and failed to take steps to prevent it.

True. I have encountered that "hear, see, speak no evil" mentality, especially at sites that hire WBS. Still, I believe there are a good number of people in management who think that it won't happen to them.

[1stWatch]

True. I have encountered that "hear, see, speak no evil" mentality, especially at sites that hire WBS. Still, I believe there are a good number of people in management who think that it won't happen to them.

In the case of mall security, I think this was a case of something they simply thought wouldn't happen to them. I remember when I worked that job, we did do drilling on how to respond properly to an armed robbery, including setting up a proper perimeter, training cameras if we had any, and maintaining contact with police and giving them information they would find to be useful. We also did training on setting up on a shoplifting, how to have the team set up on the hallways to intercept one who was running, and on some of the finer points of assault and vehicle burglaries.
In that job we even got certified training for the handcuffs and for first aid and fire extinguisher training, which are things other security positions didn't care to pay for certified training in. Actually we got training for most things except firearms and officer safety tactics dealing with those who do have firearms. This was one major area they were unprepared for. This was far from the idea of warm body security.

The problem I see now about it is they got wrapped up with the idea that whatever happens at a mall is also what happens in the rest of the city. The mall's corporate policies were more important to the security department than the actual law. They assumed that if it was mall policy, it fell in line with the law already. In some cases, this was not true. Many mall security officers I see these days lose sight of things that happen outside their environment such as this very incident.

Many of them drive around their expansive parking lot looking for car thieves and vehicle burglars, but those suspects are hardly ever caught since the security is clearly marked and in uniform. It is fortunate for them they don't catch some of these thieves since they do carry weapons and would not hesitate to use them on an unarmed security guard. This is why I believe malls should more thoroughly explore the idea of arming their security.

In the past few years I have been armed I have caught people stealing cars and doing things such as breaking down apartment doors to steal. 90% of these people had weapons and they only gave up because I also had one and had it at ready before they did. Why should mall security have to deal with issues they are unprepared for?

I think it is because mall security organizations and the real estate corporations that employ them firmly believe in the concept of gun control. They believe they have the right, no not the right, the obligation to disarm any person who walks through their doors. An example of this is a problem I have had several times with them while working armed where I had assignments after hours at mall stores - the security telling me to disarm and I may not be in the mall with a weapon. I told each one of them in summary to get a deadlier flashlight and move out of the way and call the real police if they had a problem with that. When the police were called, they were told the same thing I told them - this person is working an armed assignment and you can't apply criminal trespass to him if you don't like it.

But back to my original point - if there are people coming in a mall who can legally carry a weapon and may not be disarmed and there are bad guys out there with weapons, why should the mall security be unarmed when they encounter these people? I think it doesn't fit at all.

[Mr. Security]

In the case of mall security.....
Many of them drive around their expansive parking lot looking for car thieves and vehicle burglars, but those suspects are hardly ever caught since the security is clearly marked and in uniform. It is fortunate for them they don't catch some of these thieves since they do carry weapons and would not hesitate to use them on an unarmed security guard. This is why I believe malls should more thoroughly explore the idea of arming their security......

Don't forget about the flashing yellow safety light to. As far as armed security, it may very well come to that. Currently, our mall is staffed by unarmed security with a police sub-station at the mall to augment security, should a situation escalate. If a mall in the US experiences a terrorist attack, unarmed security will likely go the same route as the dinosaurs.

[N. A. Corbier]

Don't forget about the flashing yellow safety light to. As far as armed security, it may very well come to that. Currently, our mall is staffed by unarmed security with a police sub-station at the mall to augment security, should a situation escalate. If a mall in the US experiences a terrorist attack, unarmed security will likely go the same route as the dinosaurs.

I guarantee you that if there is a terrorist attack, the mall's security force will immediately be replaced with rifle wielding police officers for about a month. After that, they'll release the site back to the WBS. No other changes will happen, most likely, because people are focused on 'police response' to terrorist threats.

[Mr. Security]

I guarantee you that if there is a terrorist attack, the mall's security force will immediately be replaced with rifle wielding police officers for about a month. After that, they'll release the site back to the WBS. No other changes will happen, most likely, because people are focused on 'police response' to terrorist threats.

You're right. After a month there will be something else happening for the public to focus their attention on. People quickly forget.

[ACP01]

Good points made by all.
The problem I have with relying PD sub-stations is that PD usually just uses them as a stop off point and are almost never manned thus providing a false sense of security even to the SOs.

At a large mall I USED to shop at it was posted with large signs saying firearms were not allowed. Shorly after this went into effect I talked to the Chief of Security who was a retired PD from the city I work in. One of my first questions was "Since the (unnamed) Mall is taking full responsibility for my safety do you realize you are also taking the full liability?" He answered that there was enough security that wasn't a problem. I pointed out that I had not seen ANY security in the parking garage and no cameras either. Anyway his answers were about all the same that security was fine and there would be no problems.

About a year later there was a shoot out between two lowlifes. I called to let him know what a great job he was doing.

[1stWatch]

About a year later there was a shoot out between two lowlifes. I called to let him know what a great job he was doing.

See, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. This manager, like so many others, chose to believe the fantasy world that was laid out for him by his employer.

A lot of malls I see do hire off-duty police some of the time. They don't seem to object to have police officers work for them, but they have some sort of fierce opposition to the idea of trained armed security.

[Mr. Security]

Our mall is manned by two police officers at all times and a dispatcher in the police substation. Still, they can't be everywhere and that's why they usually station themselves near the food court where fights are likely to occur. The s/o's are equipped with ASP batons, OC, handcuffs, and the like. They can handle most situations, but it's a risky job since the security people could easily be dealing with an armed individual. I don't think they wear body armor either.