Mall Security Robbed for Vehicle, ATM Stolen

[ACP01]

The job of mall security is three things and only three things - observe, deter, report.

Not apprehend, arrest or detain.

Actually that is determained by what the mall management wants.
If they want "observe and report", which is really just another way of saying Loss Prevention, so be it but if they are really serious about Security then they must have what is esentially there own armed private police force.

As someone said the armed SO will intimidate by presence just as well as an unarmed SO but if the really bad things happen then the armed SO has the ability to take action (after reporting..must get the calvary on the way) whereas the unarmed SO can call the calvary but then only get out of the way like everyone else.

It is a hard cold fact that flashlights, pepperspray, and batons, do not stop bullets nor do they do a very good job fighting a rear action while the innocents escape.

[N. A. Corbier]

N.A. Corbier that was an excellent post. I am going to synthesize that and propose adding it to my security guide. Before doing so, I'd like to run it by you to ensure nothing was missed from your post.
Again, well done friend.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

I don't think I missed anything in that statement.

EMTFirefighter notes that the job description of mall security is not protection, but observation.

That's something I've wondered. When did security get away from the goal of protection? The 1950s? 1960s or 1970s? The old Watchman was supposed to do more than "observe and report," he was supposed to club the bastard upside the head for breaking into his warehouse.

[Mr. Security]

The job of mall security is three things and only three things - observe, deter, report.

Not apprehend, arrest or detain.

You know that I'm a big proponent of unarmed security. That's what I do - observe, deter, and report. That works in corporate security, but not at a mall. If someone attacks me at the mall, the last thing I need is a s/o who stands by and takes notes for his incident report. I want a s/o to help me by stopping the attack and making an arrest.

That's why I don't work mall security. I don't want to be put in a position where I have to use a baton, OC, and make arrests. But someone needs to. That's the way malls are. Open access to the public and criminals.

[Mr. Security]

.... Perhaps a revamping of this sector of the security industry is in order, maybe call them "fire protection specialists" or "access control monitors" depending on your position....

Good point. I wouldn't mind the title of watchman because that's what I do unless I'm forced to defend myself. Save the title security officer for those who actually make arrests.

[Mr. Security]

It was so crazy at the mall I worked at. We were given handcuffs, but were only to use them to protect ourselves, not others. If I saw someone beating the Hell out of a shopper, SOP said I needed to call the police, not stop the attacker.

Of course, what SOP said and what actually was done were often quite different. When you did what you felt was right and disobeyed the post orders, you also ran the risk of getting fired. If you were creative when writing the report, you rarely ran into trouble.

I believe the same you do, unfortunately mall management only knows what they want - not the public who's shopping in their center.

I emphasize with you. I couldn't just stand by and watch someone get beat up either. The mall management is not being fair to the public. They (the public) see a security officer and they assume that you will come to their aid when in distress. It's a false sense of security.

[Bill Warnock]

I don't think I missed anything in that statement.

EMTFirefighter notes that the job description of mall security is not protection, but observation.

That's something I've wondered. When did security get away from the goal of protection? The 1950s? 1960s or 1970s? The old Watchman was supposed to do more than "observe and report," he was supposed to club the bastard upside the head for breaking into his warehouse.

N.A., I'm not worried about what you put in the post, it's me doing the rewrite. Having read it several times and making several attempts to make it fit, I've given up.
With your permission, I'd like to just transfer the whole thing into the guide with you as the author and your company.
A man has got to know his limitations, and I just bumped into mine. We should all have this written down for a mental refresher.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Bill Warnock]

I emphasize with you. I couldn't just stand by and watch someone get beat up either. The mall management is not being fair to the public. They (the public) see a security officer and they assume that you will come to their aid when in distress. It's a false sense of security.

Nice rejoiner! Mr. Security, I could not live with myself if I saw someone in distress and didn't do something. I should hope my years of training and doing would not fail me. I'd hope not to make the situation worse.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Mr. Security]

Nice rejoiner! Mr. Security, I could not live with myself if I saw someone in distress and didn't do something. I should hope my years of training and doing would not fail me. I'd hope not to make the situation worse.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Thanks Bill.

[N. A. Corbier]

N.A., I'm not worried about what you put in the post, it's me doing the rewrite. Having read it several times and making several attempts to make it fit, I've given up.
With your permission, I'd like to just transfer the whole thing into the guide with you as the author and your company.
A man has got to know his limitations, and I just bumped into mine. We should all have this written down for a mental refresher.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

You have my permission, and I'll send you the proper citation via PM.

EMTFirefighter: You have a point. Many companies want what we called "Non Functioning Guard - For Insurance Purposes Only" security guards. We had a sign made, and hung it in the guard shack of a rubber plant. $40,000.00 US Dollar CCTV system, fried by lightning two years ago, sat in it, as well. These are there soely to lower the property insurance values. The only reason a third party security company IS out there is because the insurance requires a third party. Otherwise, it'd be a 5.15 an hour internal position.

Mr. Security: Again, the public perception of protection vs. the security guard motto of "Observe and Report." Now, lets see how a partially biased take on this is. *Yells to GF in next room* My GF notes that before she met me, she thought that unarmed security guards at the mall were there to protect her. That, um, changed after I started ranting.

Now for the rant. There are always people who are going to pay for minimum wage "watchstanders." who require zero training. Not even in fire suppression. They are there for insurance purposes only. This is one of the reasons the largest security companies rally so hard against mandatory updated training standards. That reason, of course, is because that training is wasted on the "Non Functional Guard" watchstander.

I don't believe the term "watchman" should be used, because our senior citizens may even remember what a "watchman" was, and believe he provides some sort of protection.

The whole cruix of this is that a "non functional guard" provides not protection, but documentation for insurance purposes.

"0120 Identified spilled gasoline on East Werehouse floor. Called client, Jerry in Maintenance. Client said to put rags on gasoline till morning."
"0147 Fire started somewhere in East Werehouse. Called 911. Left property to safe location."
"0156 Fire Department arrived."
"0200 Told to leave area by fire department. SO Jones Off Duty."

[Mr. Security]

The whole cruix of this is that a "non functional guard" provides not protection, but documentation for insurance purposes.

"0120 Identified spilled gasoline on East Werehouse floor. Called client, Jerry in Maintenance. Client said to put rags on gasoline till morning."
"0147 Fire started somewhere in East Werehouse. Called 911. Left property to safe location."
"0156 Fire Department arrived."
"0200 Told to leave area by fire department. SO Jones Off Duty."

I guess we differ somewhat because I recognize that unarmed security has its place and so does armed security. Based on your post, unarmed security is of little or no value and I cannot agree with that. In a corporate setting, unarmed security is VERY effective in serving as a deterrent to would-be criminals. The mere presence of a security officer has been proven time and time again to deter criminal activity. In addition, it provides a great opportunity to observe and report terrorist who are in the process of planning their attack. I see the value of armed security at malls, etc., why don't you admit that unarmed security is of benefit to, in the right setting?

[Bill Warnock]

I guess we differ somewhat because I recognize that unarmed security has its place and so does armed security. Based on your post, unarmed security is of little or no value and I cannot agree with that. In a corporate setting, unarmed security is VERY effective in serving as a deterrent to would-be criminals. The mere presence of a security officer has been proven time and time again to deter criminal activity. In addition, it provides a great opportunity to observe and report terrorist who are in the process of planning their attack. I see the value of armed security at malls, etc., why don't you admit that unarmed security is of benefit to, in the right setting?

Unarmed security guards do have their place in this business; however, when the unarmed are not allowed to do anything but stand there and in the incident related in Corbier's post do dumb things, it is an absolute horror.
I know of a shopping mall where they employ armed guards. The post orders state in no uncertain terms, "Firearms will not be displayed or discharged within the confines of the mall and its parking areas." Mr. Security, in this instance they are window dressing and window dressing only.
Unarmed security has and will continue to have its place in crime prevention and keeping the property free of undesirable people.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Mr. Security]

If you read NA's post, he uses the example of a warehouse, not a mall. I have stated on numerous occasions that malls are NOT the place for s/o's who simply observe and report. They DO work well at a warehouse because it has a perimeter and walls to prevent a security breach, and LE can quickly be summoned if a break-in is detected.

NA seems to market armed security as the preferred way to go in all situations. He has indicated that part of his marketing strategy is to emphasize that WBS (i.e., unarmed) has failed and his company is the solution. That may be true in certain settings, mall, etc. Nevertheless, the bulk of security is and will continue to be handled by unarmed officers.

[N. A. Corbier]

If you read NA's post, he uses the example of a warehouse, not a mall. I have stated on numerous occasions that malls are NOT the place for s/o's who simply observe and report. They DO work well at a warehouse because it has a perimeter and walls to prevent a security breach, and LE can quickly be summoned if a break-in is detected.

NA seems to market armed security as the preferred way to go in all situations. He has indicated that part of his marketing strategy is to emphasize that WBS (i.e., unarmed) has failed and his company is the solution. That may be true in certain settings, mall, etc. Nevertheless, the bulk of security is and will continue to be handled by unarmed officers.

The initial marketing strategy is to identify clients who have been failed by the warm body companies in the area - who plainly state: We don't have guns or weapons, only the police have those, its too "dangerous" to give a guard a can of mace.

I gave a scenerio where "non-functional guards" would operate, and even in that case, the client may of expected the guard to do more than just watch the place burn. Of course, the client's point of contact, in that fictional scenerio, was negligent by telling a guard to place RAGS on gasoline, and let it wait till the morning. An armed officer would not be the solution in that case, but an officer who was trained in fire prevention would of been. Also note that the guard went off duty in the log book after the FD told them to leave. No call to supervisor, no report, just "off duty." These are the types of folks you can get with a company that does NOTHING but provide "non-functional guards."

[Mr. Security]

That's part of the problem. Your scenario is fiction; not realistic. Even if you found an actual case that mirrored your scenario, it would not be a common one. I acknowledge that WBS has plenty of problems but let's skip the dramatics, please.

[1stWatch]

You know, I teach my recruits and probationary officers to keep the police car doors locked while driving. Most scoff when I suggest it is an officer safety issue. This thread is an example of how an officer can be victimized when (s)he becomes complacent. This incident is more about taking proactive measures to circumvent felonious assaults and property crimes more than should mall security officers carry sidearms.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to point out. A natural period of complacency is the most dangerous time.