Unarmed S/O shot, killed.

[jimmyhat]

From the Virginia citizens Defense League Newsletter, 16OCT06:

http://tinyurl.com/uaoxx

"Unarmed security guard" - isn't that an oxymoron? As EM Sandy
Ferris pointed out to me, this says it all:

"Wally's family thinks he might still be alive if he had a gun. 'My
brother-in-law is supposed to be protecting campus and
everything,' said Lori Swan. 'How can he if he can't protect himself?'

What's wrong with university and college presidents that they spend
so much time in la-la land? This statement from Wesleyan College's
president shows the mind-set that has yet again proved fatal for an
innocent life:

"'This has never happened before,' said VWC President William Greer.
'We like to think of it as Camelot.'

Wally, like the rest of the security guards at the college, did not
have a gun. The college president said he doesn't think they need
them."

Camelot? Grow up, Mr. Greer. Even after this horrible event, Greer
STILL doesn't think the guards' or students' lives are worth
protecting! Absolutely shameful.

If Mr. Greer represents 'higher education,' we might be better off
being illiterate:

[jeff194307]

I currently work at a small private college, we are also unarmed. My view is this. If I am ever injured/killed on duty by another person either myself or my wife will become wealthy from the school's 15 to 20 year lapse in reality. Today's criminals do not care who the authorities are, they just take them out of the equation by any means that they can. If the school is not able to understand why we should be armed, then they deserve to lose money when their luck runs out.

[N. A. Corbier]

There's a high possibility that you won't have a LOD benefit or suit waiting for your next of kin. Look carefully at your job duties and your required expectations. Unless you are given no choice through a legal duty to apprehend someone, then there's always a way out for the employer.

"The guard didn't have to get in that situation, he could of walked away. The guard took it upon himself to do that. We are not liable for the guard's wanna-be cop tendances."

This has been used countless times. For those who are injured and the security force did nothing:

"Your honor, the client hired our guards for observation and summoning of police. We do not, nor is it our policy, permit our guards to intervene in any situation. They are there as the eyes and ears of the police, to summon police assistance when needed. We move that this case be dismissed."

And many times... It is. Because the client knew that they were buying the apperance of security, the guard company knew it was selling it, and the public was given no reason to believe they would be protected. If the public takes it into their own head a uniform = protection, the court finds that its their problem, not the defendant's.

[HotelSecurity]

Nathan,

I read all the time that you can get sued if you use phoney cameras because "it gives a false sense of security". Could the same not be said about having uniformed observe & report only watchmen?

[N. A. Corbier]

It can, if the public or client is lead to believe that they are actually supposed to protect something. Companies are careful to make sure that this belief never happens, or that they have a way out of it.

One company went as far as to call their guards "gate attendants." The Client never noticed it, until it was time to be sued. When the judge noticed it... "I see nothing to indicate there was a contract for security services, only people to control traffic at a gate."

[HotelSecurity]

Nathan,

I read all the time that you can get sued if you use phoney cameras because "it gives a false sense of security". Could the same not be said about having uniformed observe & report only watchmen?

Did you notice I called them "Watchmen, not Security Officers"?

[N. A. Corbier]

Did you notice I called them "Watchmen, not Security Officers"?

Not really. AMusingly enough, that seems to be a reserved title in some states for a probationary police officer, and "was never intended for use by security guards."

Revisionist history?

[jeff194307]

we are instructed to not touch or chase subjects. My meaning about the use of a lawsuit is not associated with the company that I work for, I am refering to the client, who I believe has a liability here because they want us to approach subjects who we do not know their condition or what agenda they may have, therefore, I think that the client has a vicarious liability because they know that the people we are charged with identifying are unprodictable in there actions. If we simply were told to call the police each time, it would be different.