Words are Funny Things

[SecTrainer]

Consider these two sentences:

1. Sure, Mr. Client, we can provide unarmed officers.

2. Sure, Mr. Client, we can provide disarmed officers.

"Unarmed" conveys the idea "lower liability".

"Disarmed" conveys the idea "rendered helpless" - usually by an adversary.

Different words - same reality.

I was talking not long ago to a company executive who wanted to know how he should prepare a request for bids on a security contract. His company (aircraft parts mfr) has had one incident of a terminated employee threatening to come back and "shoot the place up" (but did not do so), has had some drug/alcohol incidents as well as internal theft, and is located in a rather seedy part of town. An employee was robbed a few weeks back in the company parking structure. Best police response time estimated at 5-6 minutes. He currently had his own "security force" consisting of a guard on a gate, one roaming the plant and a single officer at night. A potential client would not do business with him unless he improved security.

Of course, the subject of armed/unarmed came up. The first thing I did was ask him to just sit silently for 5 minutes (police response time). That 5 minutes seemed interminable as we looked at each other, looked at the wall, looked at our shoes, looked at the wall. He started to fidget long before the time had elapsed, but he got the message - 5 minutes is time enough for an attacker to do a lot of very bad things.

Then I said to him: "Okay - so that's how long 5 minutes really is...and that is the time that will elapse AFTER you've called the police, during which your security officers are the ones who are dealing with whatever is happening."

"We know intuitively that the first thing a bad guy would probably think about doing if you had armed officers would be to try to disarm them. Why? Because he has a very different problem with armed officers than he has with unarmed officers. Now, ask yourself why YOU would want to solve that problem for him by having disarmed the officers in the first place?"

Not to worry, Mr. Perp - you can come on in! I've already disarmed them for you!

His request went out for armed officers. In other words, I led him to understand that although "unarmed" officers might sound "safer", in reality they are no different from officers who have been "disarmed". When he started thinking "disarmed" instead of "unarmed", he got the message.

Sometimes all you have to do is help clients think about things from a different perspective other than their "popular" misconceptions (the silly idea that "unarmed" security is safe, "armed" security is dangerous).

[NRM_Oz]

A joke from my New Zealand colleagues was in their policing days - the bloke with the gun had to come over and make sure it was needed. I used to joke that 1 bloke had the gun and another bloke had the ammunition. So if 1 was on leave, you were in sewer big time.

1 client working a close up around 2200 commented to me once "well I have you here so I can have you to protect my staff at close up time". When I asked about being armed he was adamant that no firearms were to be used and that no batons or handcuffs were permitted. I thanked him for his offer and wished him a good day to read 2 weeks later that the night guard had been slashed by a bottle weilding druggo. We were contacted that week and immediately took over the armed contract until the building lease expired the next year - armed and with a K9 team for Friday - Sunday.

[bpdblue]

Now that's what I'm talking about.

SecTrainer, very nicely done.

The old saying about walking a mile in someone else's shoes certainly applied to this situation, and by taking the steps to show what reality would be like for the guard(s) for that company, you may indeed have prevented a future crime from happening, or helped to possibly save the life of a guard during a future confrontation.

VERY COOL INDEED!

[Nauticus]

My argument, though, is whether a person actually IS disarmed if he has no weapons.

In Canada, security does not generally get weapons. However, some armed guards do exist - usually armed transport, like money transportation and the like.

I argue that an unarmed security officer would rely on his instinct and hands a lot more than would a security officer with weapons. So, if a S/O with a gun lost his gun, he would be unarmed, while an S/O without a gun in the first place would be no less prepared for a situation than a disarmed armed guard.

[Tennsix]

Presumably, an armed security officer is trained in weapon retention and disarming a suspect. An unarmed officer would probably not be trained in such tactics. The unarmed (not disarmed) officer would be at a grave disadvantage, if confronted by an armed suspect.

[SecTrainer]

My argument, though, is whether a person actually IS disarmed if he has no weapons.

In Canada, security does not generally get weapons. However, some armed guards do exist - usually armed transport, like money transportation and the like.

I argue that an unarmed security officer would rely on his instinct and hands a lot more than would a security officer with weapons. So, if a S/O with a gun lost his gun, he would be unarmed, while an S/O without a gun in the first place would be no less prepared for a situation than a disarmed armed guard.

Sorry, Nauticus, but your argument simply doesn't hold water. An armed officer would be trained in all of the "heads and hands" methods used by unarmed officers - perhaps even more so. Armed security officers do not merely rely on their weapons, and an unarmed officer has absolutely no skill advantage in "nonlethal" or "nonviolent" tactics compared with an armed officer. Where do people from outside the US get the idea that armed officers are dumb "cowboys" running around waving their guns all the time and in any situation, just itching for a chance to shoot someone? The "cowboy" image is just that - an image derived from the movies. The typical armed officer is both trained in nonviolent skills, and will do everything in his power to avoid pulling his weapon.

...and, as Tennsix says, if he's properly trained, you'll play hell getting his weapon away from him, either.

Obviously, I carried a gun when I was a cop, and I've carried them privately, both on the job and under CCW licensing off the job. We're talking years and years, and I can count the times I had to pull a weapon confrontatively on the fingers of my hands (not counting clearing alarm sites, etc.) I had to use "hands" methods, as you call them, more often, of course, but in those situations I didn't pull my gun, nor did I lose it. The vast majority of the time, you negotiate, command and/or persuade others verbally. I was trained in those skills, and the fact that I was armed didn't change my approach.

By the force of your argument, we should disarm the police so as to give them all the "advantages" that you claim for unarmed security officers in handling situations nonviolently, and also so the police would be less helpless in case they should they lose their guns. I doubt you would actually make such a silly proposition, but if you did I don't imagine the RCMP would pay much attention to it. The sad fact of this world is that there ARE some situations that ONLY an armed officer can handle, while there are NO situations that ONLY an unarmed officer can handle. Armed officers do just fine in situations that call for "heads and hands" rather than weapons, thank you. Or perhaps you worry that you, personally, would be inclined to do what you claim that others do, if you were armed?

[N. A. Corbier]

My argument, though, is whether a person actually IS disarmed if he has no weapons.

In Canada, security does not generally get weapons. However, some armed guards do exist - usually armed transport, like money transportation and the like.

I argue that an unarmed security officer would rely on his instinct and hands a lot more than would a security officer with weapons. So, if a S/O with a gun lost his gun, he would be unarmed, while an S/O without a gun in the first place would be no less prepared for a situation than a disarmed armed guard.

Lets consider something else? Are you, as a requirement of your employer or province, trained in self-defense / defensive tactics / taking people into custody?

Any courses you have taken personally, for whatever reasons, are not applicable to the question.

The average unarmed American security guard has three points of training:
How to conduct patrols.
How to write reports.
Security guards are not police officers, and cannot make police arrests.

This is all the training that most states actually give security personnel. That's it. The "training" is to protect the public from rogue security guards, not to protect the guard from the public.

Armed guard licenses usually teach functioning of the weapon, nomenclature, deadly force law, and verify that the guard may hit the target through qualification.

[HotelSecurity]

I wxpect it from the general public but I am surprised to see it from security professionals. In my brief career in contract security few of my posts were there to arrest people. I was there mainly to do patrols looking for fire & safety hazards. In hotels I consider my work as that of a first responder but not only for the police but also for the fire department & ems. I also enforce hotel rules, not laws.

Also, it might be because we have less guns on the street in Montreal but presently there are NO armed security in any hotel in Montreal. There has not been in over 10 years. No Security Officer has ever been shot as far as I know in my 30+ years. I have never seen a gun except being carrried by police & armoured car people.

[SecTrainer]

I wxpect it from the general public but I am surprised to see it from security professionals. In my brief career in contract security few of my posts were there to arrest people. I was there mainly to do patrols looking for fire & safety hazards. In hotels I consider my work as that of a first responder but not only for the police but also for the fire department & ems. I also enforce hotel rules, not laws.

Also, it might be because we have less guns on the street in Montreal but presently there are NO armed security in any hotel in Montreal. There has not been in over 10 years. No Security Officer has ever been shot as far as I know in my 30+ years. I have never seen a gun except being carrried by police & armoured car people.

Hmmm...it doesn't appear that guards in BC quite agree with you. Here is their online petition requesting to be armed with OC spray, Tasers, etc. You'll notice the paragraph in which they assert that "every year many guards are attacked and injured or killed...."

Perhaps you should also read information posted at this Security Officer Memorial Site, so that you won't post misinformation about whether Canadian SO's get attacked and shot. (Link shown at bottom). Here's what they have for Canada (and this has not been updated since 2003):

Rhoan Gooden, a Security Staff Member at the Tropical Nights Restaurant/Club in the City of Scarborough, Ontario, Canada was shot by an assailant on Sunday August 4th, 2002. On Tuesday August 6th, 2002, Mr. Gooden succumbed to his injury. After a segment on Rhoan Gooden murder was aired on America's Most Wanted, a suspect was arrested in New York City where he had fled.

Roy Jones - 5 February 2001 - A 28 year old Security Officer with First Choice Security, was shot and killed outside his home in Ajax, Ontario. Police thought that the killng was related to a trial that Roy was appearing as a witness of a crime on the site where he worked as a security officer.

Landon Pitre, 25, a off-duty security guard in the Midtown Plaza shopping mall in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, died Oct. 20, 2003, after being stabbed in the chest by a 17-year-old youth who was looking for a fight with a rival gang. The youth was sentenced in September 2006 to three years in custodyand three years of community supervision after his release from a youth facility. (THREE YEARS FOR MURDER! WHAT CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE THINKING, CANADA?)

Dale Statham - 14-01-1999 - A motel security guard in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, died after being stabbed and having his throat cut by a man who had told a friend "I feel like killing someone, but I don't know who?" The man and his friend were driving a stolen vehicle. The killer was apprehended, charged and convicted of second degree murder.

Patricia Sullivan - 57 years old, killed 09/21/2002 Postal Security Ontario,Canada.

You will find this page here.

Security officers are targeted for attack in EVERY country on the face of the earth, whether it's the US, Canada, the UK, Japan...you name it.

Canada has plenty of crimes involving guns, incidentally. Perhaps the government hides the extent of the problem from their citizens, having sold the citizens a pig-in-a-poke about the value of restrictive gun laws. More than one Canadian newspaper has published articles bemoaning the fact that Canada's gun laws have not solved the problem of gun-related crimes.

As someone said: "A man who hides his head in the sand is only showing the world another part of his anatomy." Be informed.

[msofin]

Consider these two sentences:

1. Sure, Mr. Client, we can provide unarmed officers.

2. Sure, Mr. Client, we can provide disarmed officers.

"Unarmed" conveys the idea "lower liability".

"Disarmed" conveys the idea "rendered helpless" - usually by an adversary.

Different words - same reality.

I was talking not long ago to a company executive who wanted to know how he should prepare a request for bids on a security contract. His company (aircraft parts mfr) has had one incident of a terminated employee threatening to come back and "shoot the place up" (but did not do so), has had some drug/alcohol incidents as well as internal theft, and is located in a rather seedy part of town. An employee was robbed a few weeks back in the company parking structure. Best police response time estimated at 5-6 minutes. He currently had his own "security force" consisting of a guard on a gate, one roaming the plant and a single officer at night. A potential client would not do business with him unless he improved security.

Of course, the subject of armed/unarmed came up. The first thing I did was ask him to just sit silently for 5 minutes (police response time). That 5 minutes seemed interminable as we looked at each other, looked at the wall, looked at our shoes, looked at the wall. He started to fidget long before the time had elapsed, but he got the message - 5 minutes is time enough for an attacker to do a lot of very bad things.

Then I said to him: "Okay - so that's how long 5 minutes really is...and that is the time that will elapse AFTER you've called the police, during which your security officers are the ones who are dealing with whatever is happening."

"We know intuitively that the first thing a bad guy would probably think about doing if you had armed officers would be to try to disarm them. Why? Because he has a very different problem with armed officers than he has with unarmed officers. Now, ask yourself why YOU would want to solve that problem for him by having disarmed the officers in the first place?"

Not to worry, Mr. Perp - you can come on in! I've already disarmed them for you!

His request went out for armed officers. In other words, I led him to understand that although "unarmed" officers might sound "safer", in reality they are no different from officers who have been "disarmed". When he started thinking "disarmed" instead of "unarmed", he got the message.

Sometimes all you have to do is help clients think about things from a different perspective other than their "popular" misconceptions (the silly idea that "unarmed" security is safe, "armed" security is dangerous).

Nicely said!

[Minneapolis Security]

Hmmm...it doesn't appear that guards in BC quite agree with you. Here is their online petition requesting to be armed with OC spray, Tasers, etc. You'll notice the paragraph in which they assert that "every year many guards are attacked and injured or killed...."

Perhaps you should also read information posted at this Security Officer Memorial Site, so that you won't post misinformation about whether Canadian SO's get attacked and shot. (Link shown at bottom). Here's what they have for Canada (and this has not been updated since 2003):

Rhoan Gooden, a Security Staff Member at the Tropical Nights Restaurant/Club in the City of Scarborough, Ontario, Canada was shot by an assailant on Sunday August 4th, 2002. On Tuesday August 6th, 2002, Mr. Gooden succumbed to his injury. After a segment on Rhoan Gooden murder was aired on America's Most Wanted, a suspect was arrested in New York City where he had fled.

Roy Jones - 5 February 2001 - A 28 year old Security Officer with First Choice Security, was shot and killed outside his home in Ajax, Ontario. Police thought that the killng was related to a trial that Roy was appearing as a witness of a crime on the site where he worked as a security officer.

Landon Pitre, 25, a off-duty security guard in the Midtown Plaza shopping mall in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, died Oct. 20, 2003, after being stabbed in the chest by a 17-year-old youth who was looking for a fight with a rival gang. The youth was sentenced in September 2006 to three years in custodyand three years of community supervision after his release from a youth facility. (THREE YEARS FOR MURDER! WHAT CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE THINKING, CANADA?)

Dale Statham - 14-01-1999 - A motel security guard in Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, died after being stabbed and having his throat cut by a man who had told a friend "I feel like killing someone, but I don't know who?" The man and his friend were driving a stolen vehicle. The killer was apprehended, charged and convicted of second degree murder.

Patricia Sullivan - 57 years old, killed 09/21/2002 Postal Security Ontario,Canada.

You will find this page here.

Security officers are targeted for attack in EVERY country on the face of the earth, whether it's the US, Canada, the UK, Japan...you name it.

Canada has plenty of crimes involving guns, incidentally. Perhaps the government hides the extent of the problem from their citizens, having sold the citizens a pig-in-a-poke about the value of restrictive gun laws. More than one Canadian newspaper has published articles bemoaning the fact that Canada's gun laws have not solved the problem of gun-related crimes.

As someone said: "A man who hides his head in the sand is only showing the world another part of his anatomy." Be informed.

I hear this kind of stuff from Canadians and the British all the time, yet they have the same problems with guns and violence that we do in the good old US of A. If guns aren't effective in detering crime, why do police officers carry them? Isn't crime deterence one of their primary functions?

I hear stories of armed defense all the time, there are many printed in each months issue of American Rifleman.

Most people like to think that nothing will ever happen to them, simply because it hasen't happened yet. You can only be murdered once, why not have the proper tools to deter this?