Security Shot in Public Toilet

[N. A. Corbier]

Granted. My point is: Don't think it can't happen to you just because you've had training.

Oh, this is definate. My sig on SPE reads:

There will always be someone smarter, faster, stronger than you. This means nothing, you must still prevail.

And its true. Because, when it comes down to it, if you have to fight them, failure may mean death. Not only your death, but the deaths of others.

[medic15al]

I wont fall for that mindset as I've seen too many Cops and a few Security officers injured from it. Like I said, I will have a chance to survive and worry about the consequences later after I have survived, assuming I do. Death sure as hell ain't an option vs. civil bull****.

[Bill Warnock]

Granted. My point is: Don't think it can't happen to you just because you've had training.

What you have said is quite true; however, we must always try to stay at the top of our form and, as boring as this might sound, constantly play the mind game of

[Mr. Security]

Being armed is a trade off. However, if you are not armed, and you encounter a situation where you must contractually act with lethal force - you are screwed.

Your either going to be buried by six, or judged by twelve, or worse, one. (A civil trial judge.)

Granted. My point is: Don't think it can't happen to you just because you've had training.

[N. A. Corbier]

No matter what your training may be, you still can be overpowered and have your weapon taken from you under the right conditions. Go to ODMP and read about the POLICE officers who have suffered such a fate, despite their training. Do you think any of them started their shift believing that it would happen to them before the shift ended? Probably not.

Being armed is a trade off. However, if you are not armed, and you encounter a situation where you must contractually act with lethal force - you are screwed.

Your either going to be buried by six, or judged by twelve, or worse, one. (A civil trial judge.)

[Mr. Security]

I agree. My weapon! For me. not him. I am trained in weapon retention and tactics. Some from Waxkenhut, most from the PD I reserve at.

No matter what your training may be, you still can be overpowered and have your weapon taken from you under the right conditions. Go to ODMP and read about the POLICE officers who have suffered such a fate, despite their training. Do you think any of them started their shift believing that it would happen to them before the shift ended? Probably not.

[Bill Warnock]

You have to remember something, which is scary. The state trains security guards NOT to train them, but to regulate the industry. You are trained in the aspects of legally using the weapon you are priveliaged to carry openly. You are trained in the nomenclature of the weapon, so that you may properly articulate that nomenclature to whomever needs to hear about it (the court, usually.) You are trained in the legality of non-lethal force because the state would be remiss in discussing lethal without non-lethal. You shoot a qualification course to demonstrate to the state that you are competent enough with your weapon to put rounds on a target.

What the state courses are not, and probably will never be, is training in how something is done. It's liability management on a societal scale, and nothing more.

What does weapon retention have to do with ensuring that a private person understands the legal, social, and ethical ramifications of choosing to use lethal force?

N.A., as with your usual preciseness you have stated exactly what is wrong with the guard industry.
As for holster retention, early in my law enforcement career, I thought I knew what I was about. Wrong! I did not watch a female's actions carefully enough, giving deference to females, which could have cost me my life and that of my car captain.
I got smacked upside the head and went down. The female attempted to pull my Model J, Colt from its holster. I was wearing at that time, all the rage, a clam shell holster. She did not know about the spring lever.
My car captain took a 36" riot baton and whacked her across the buttocks and she went down. I was told about his action later.
I've always used this experience in demonstrating what happens when you loose sight of the "Ten Commandments of Security and Law Enforcement."
Again, N.A., as you have stated, nobody from the state regulatory agency is bothered with the holster retention issue. I think they should because it would lessen the possibility of a miscreant getting hold of a weapon and inflicting further harm upon society.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[N. A. Corbier]

You have to remember something, which is scary. The state trains security guards NOT to train them, but to regulate the industry. You are trained in the aspects of legally using the weapon you are priveliaged to carry openly. You are trained in the nomenclature of the weapon, so that you may properly articulate that nomenclature to whomever needs to hear about it (the court, usually.) You are trained in the legality of non-lethal force because the state would be remiss in discussing lethal without non-lethal. You shoot a qualification course to demonstrate to the state that you are competent enough with your weapon to put rounds on a target.

What the state courses are not, and probably will never be, is training in how something is done. It's liability management on a societal scale, and nothing more.

What does weapon retention have to do with ensuring that a private person understands the legal, social, and ethical ramifications of choosing to use lethal force?

[1stWatch]

The rest of it is not related to the security industry, according to the state.

To me, the idea of weapon retention is naturally imperative, but I think that is because I was training in the martial arts long before I ever got into security. I always followed the notion the weapon is an extension of the hand. No amount of reading about theory or taking written tests is going to teach a person what he or she needs to know physically. It takes a physical class with consistent drilling. State minimum training is always a joke compared to that and it will continue to be. The only state agency I've seen that has an absolutely grueling course is for the state troopers.

[medic15al]

Another problem with armed security. There's always at least one firearm at every confrontation.

I agree. My weapon! For me. not him. I am trained in weapon retention and tactics. Some from Waxkenhut, most from the PD I reserve at.

[N. A. Corbier]

I was lucky in that my Florida G instructor bothered with weapons retention. The state licensing curriclium does not require it, in fact, its mainly classroom on theory of operation, then liability and legality of lethal force, then some range time.

ALl the G course covers is Lethal Force from Firearms. That's it. Nothing is required to be said about retention, holster types (You only say it must be plainly visible, encased in a holster, while on duty), or any defensive tactics instruction whatever. This is because it teaches you to the state's satisfaction when, how, and why you should kill your fellow man with a .38 caliber or 9mm pistol.

The rest of it is not related to the security industry, according to the state.

[1stWatch]

Another problem with armed security. There's always at least one firearm at every confrontation.

In this case, it seems to be a problem of inadequate training in grappling and weapon retention. 30 or 40 hours of basic testing and a simple range qualification doesn't really cut it, but that's what most get.

[Mr. Security]

Another problem with armed security. There's always at least one firearm at every confrontation.

[1stWatch]

Guard was Ambushed

The security officer who was found shot regained consciousness and told police he was attacked by a man who took his weapon and shot him with it.

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=53720272/K=se...E14787,00.html

This is why body armor is such a great investment.

[1stWatch]

I'm sure they won't be able to properly investigate it until he regains full consciousness and mental health, provided there's no memory loss.