Use of Force Policy

[S/O245]

Iam watching a training webcast right now officer.com of use of force. They asked a question how many agencies have a use of force policy. When i was with Pinkerton we had use of force listed in our training books. But i got my manual for my current company we have nothing about use of force in it. But common sense use of force is only use enough force to defend your self and others. But still i dont understand why they dont have anything writen on it.

Do any of your security companies have use of force writen ?

Stay Safe All

[Defensive tactics]

It is possible that your company has litagaphobia. They dont want to encourage there security officers to go hands on with a suspect because then god forbid they might be liable for any injuries that insueed out of the arrest situation (not sure why else you would be going hands on unless to arrest them) I could be wrong of course but I am generalizing

[S/O245]

I can agree with that. But however Pinkerton didnt give me arrest powers. Some S/OS do have certain powers or special commissions. But what i mean is a S/O is attacked it should at least be in writing that you by law can only use reasonable self defense. I.E. now this is extrem example but hey it was in a dang tv show lol, not that i like media and tv they are fake alot. A Officer is attacked he stops the attack, takes control of the incident and picks up a garbage can and slams it acorss the stomach of a subject. That will be viewed as un reasonable and that S/O will probably face charges. Thats the thing i mean. Only use force in order to protect your self, others and stop the attack. Once a S/O becomes the offense they are in trouble etc. My thing is that S/O's are citizens and probably some havent even been given this information. If you ever listen to alot of citizens they will say i would do this and that. And that will get them in jail.

Also as i learned from the use of force training webcast on ofc.com they said write a good report. And include everything of how the subject acted, what they did to make you use force etc. How they were stating write a report so who ever reads it gets a picture in his her mind of what went down and maybe and make them scared just by reading it.

Stay Safe All

[Bill Warnock]

S/O245:
I would be interested to see what happened if the legal staff of your present company were to be called to court and asked about training and the "Use of Force." That would interesting indeed.
A lot of folks believe that it is a coin toss that determines the outcome. What would happen where the coin to land on its edge? Another imponderable, perhaps.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[S/O245]

See here my thing, if say something happened and i used force to (defend) my self and say the subject complained which they may LOL. If it goes to court and my compmay say tried to leave me out to dry i could say we dont even have a policy therfore we dont know what they want us to do. I just think it would be best interests of my company to have it written. I think thats a mistake on them. I think what they are thinking is just hope nothing happens. That may bite them on the hand one day

[HotelSecurity]

It is possible that your company has litagaphobia. They dont want to encourage there security officers to go hands on with a suspect because then god forbid they might be liable for any injuries that insueed out of the arrest situation (not sure why else you would be going hands on unless to arrest them) I could be wrong of course but I am generalizing

The Canadian Criminal Code allows the use of the force necessary to evict a tresspasser. It is not an arrest.

[N. A. Corbier]

Ok, there are multiple reasons why you can use force and only a few of them involve arrest or detainment.

1. To terminate physical attack on yourself or another person.
2. To terminate tortious interference with property.
3. To teriminate cirminal interference with property.
4. To prevent tortious or criminal interference with property.
5. To effect a physical arrest under statue or common law.

1, 2, and 3 can have nothing to do with an arrest. You are protecting yourself, someone else, or your assigned property. This could be removing someone from a property who is trespassing, stopping a fight in progress, stopping a violent crime, etc. 4 is to prevent a crime or civil infraction on your property, like using force to bar someone from entering who dosen't belong, etc.

5 is the actual arrest part. If the person resists, 1 comes into play. If they damage property, 3 comes into play, or 4 comes in to play to prevent that damage.

Most companies do not have use of force reports becuase the more paperwork the create, the more liability they create. By stating, "guards shall not use force," or "it is the personal decision of the guard to use force," the company believes themselves immune from liability - after all, the guard made the decision.

[Mr. Security]

Iam watching a training webcast right now officer.com of use of force. They asked a question how many agencies have a use of force policy. When i was with Pinkerton we had use of force listed in our training books. But i got my manual for my current company we have nothing about use of force in it. But common sense use of force is only use enough force to defend your self and others. But still i dont understand why they dont have anything writen on it.

Do any of your security companies have use of force writen ?

Stay Safe All

Yes. We are only permitted to use force for self-defense if retreat is not an option, or to protect another person from harm if they are in the same situation. It's in writing, but I'll not identify the company for confidentiality reasons.

[bigshotceo]

A couple of years ago at York University up here in Ontario there was an incident in which an individual was attacked by one or two other people. The security guards, although being well-trained and outnumbering the attacker(s), stood by and yelled to the effect of "stop! we've called the police!". The individual ended up being up beaten severely by his attackers. The problem was that the the security guards had been trained that NO MATTER WHAT they were not to physically interfere in ANYTHING. Later one someone (not sure if it was the university president or the security director) said that it wasn't the guards' job to interfere because that was the job of the police. Of course, morale dropped, and the security service's credibility dropped.

[N. A. Corbier]

A couple of years ago at York University up here in Ontario there was an incident in which an individual was attacked by one or two other people. The security guards, although being well-trained and outnumbering the attacker(s), stood by and yelled to the effect of "stop! we've called the police!". The individual ended up being up beaten severely by his attackers. The problem was that the the security guards had been trained that NO MATTER WHAT they were not to physically interfere in ANYTHING. Later one someone (not sure if it was the university president or the security director) said that it wasn't the guards' job to interfere because that was the job of the police. Of course, morale dropped, and the security service's credibility dropped.

I've read several tort cases where the judge in Florida lambasted the company and client for calling that "security," but noted that those who were attacked, robbed, raped, etc... Had no claim against the company as "hiring a guard does not equal providing security."

ON the other hand, if people expect security from the guard service, and it can be proven that they do... The guard is going to be sued, the guard service, and the client for "standard of care" issues.

If the service provides no expectation of security, then they're safe for doing that. But, if you put someone on a property and tell people, "We have a security guard for your safety..." Then he better be there to protect people.

[Mall Director]

I've read several tort cases where the judge in Florida lambasted the company and client for calling that "security," but noted that those who were attacked, robbed, raped, etc... Had no claim against the company as "hiring a guard does not equal providing security."

ON the other hand, if people expect security from the guard service, and it can be proven that they do... The guard is going to be sued, the guard service, and the client for "standard of care" issues.

If the service provides no expectation of security, then they're safe for doing that. But, if you put someone on a property and tell people, "We have a security guard for your safety..." Then he better be there to protect people.

Articulated perfectly!

Our departments use of force, which can be detailed down to a great level, is basically set as "The absolute minimal use of force is permitted to control the situation". What it essentially describes as it goes on, is that using the minimal force necessary to control the crime, safety or security violation that may, is or has occurred. It has much more detail to it, but this is summed up, as I dont want to type all night.

If a crime is comitted, and an arrest has been determined to be made, what ever minimal force necessary to effect the arrest can be made, also involving the safety of the subject, others around, and the officer.

Examples in the past:

A subject steals from a store. The clerk observes this and reports it. The security officer can effect an arrest, as per state law, and what ever the officer needs to do, within reason and minimal force, to keep the subject until LE arrival. So the officer states to the subject that he/she is under arrest, then explains why and what will occur if the subject becomes violent or attempts to leave. The subject flees. The officer apprehends the subject and uses open hand force to place the subject in restraints and control the situation to prevent harm to the officer, others and the subject. THe subject does not strike at the officer, but resists. Using PPCT, the officer uses what ever minimal force, up until the subject is under control. This goes the same for trespass issuance and violators.

A fight has been reported on the property. The officers arrive to find a large crowd gathered around four subjects "duking" it out. The officer yells out once for everyone to clear away or further action will be taken. Once the warning has been given, a couple seconds later the fogger (OC) is brought out and used for the officer to flood the crowd, until they dispurse. If the fighting subjects continue, then they are exposed to direct OC, then physically placed in restraints. This action has to be taken immediately, as harm to others can/will/ and has occured, and by furthering the fight to continue will cause harm further more.

As stated in the quote above, the assumption of safety and security by the eyes of others, and by the contract of the agency, holds the agency liable if no prevention or action is taken, as it is reasonably assumed that this is the purpose of the Security agency.

[N. A. Corbier]

Keep in mind that in most states, purposefully exposing those watching a fight to chemical agent is illegal, as they are not actively resisting. A law enforcement officer might be able to do this to arrest them for "failure to obey a lawful order," but this is debatable from state to state.

However, in states like Wisconsin, you can spray the entire crowd with fogger while trying to hit the combatants after warning everyone, "Get out of the way," and this accidental exposure is priveliaged under Wisconsin's use of force laws - you may accidently expose someone to harm less than great bodily injury/death while trying to protect yourself or another from harm if there was no reasonable alternative.

Summoning police then doing nothing is not considered a reasonable alternative as you are contractually obligated (which Wisconsin considers a legal duty) to protect people and restore "order and sense of security" to the client property.

Conversely, in Florida, accidently exposing people to OC is aggrivated battery, and you can be arrested for it.

[hisownhero]

My company use to be one of those "observe and report only" types of security company's. The only time you could use force is if you were being attacked. That all changed however when at one of the hospital job sites, a patient began attacking a staff member. The security guard just stood there and didn't do anything other then call the cops. Needless to say, the staff member got the crap kicked out of them, and the hospital said "whats the point of having security if they aren't going to do anything but stand around and watch whats going on. We can do that ourselves." After that and several similar incidents, a policy was adopted that allows us the use of force for any incident on the property we're working where physical force is needed to stop an attacker or to physically slow down somebody who is gradually becoming physically violent.

[S/O245]

yes im sure it is. In cincinnati when we had the riots a woman had made a complaint she got sprayed with a riot sized OC. I think she came all the way from Lexington KY to Cincinnati because of the riots. Cincinnati had the field forces out (Tact Units of all the officers) they call em field forces on radio give the team a number etc. They kept telling her to get back she wouldnt do it. And a sgt goes spray her. She got sprayed and cried bout it after. How iam i say well im sorry i know it must have hurt. But too bad. You did it. You had several chances to comply, you didnt so go cry to the tooth fairy or somethin i dunno. Its all down to do what your told things will go alot better. They had called out OSP Troopers for reinforcedment because the officers in the riot were doin 12 16 hr shifts. I hear a story bout OSP Troopers came in and the curfew was up people wouldnt leave they gave them one warning one. Then they took out the expandable batons and everyone left lol. GVIT R DONE boys

Stay Safe All

[bigdog]

Keep in mind that in most states, purposefully exposing those watching a fight to chemical agent is illegal, as they are not actively resisting. A law enforcement officer might be able to do this to arrest them for "failure to obey a lawful order," but this is debatable from state to state.

However, in states like Wisconsin, you can spray the entire crowd with fogger while trying to hit the combatants after warning everyone, "Get out of the way," and this accidental exposure is priveliaged under Wisconsin's use of force laws - you may accidently expose someone to harm less than great bodily injury/death while trying to protect yourself or another from harm if there was no reasonable alternative.

Summoning police then doing nothing is not considered a reasonable alternative as you are contractually obligated (which Wisconsin considers a legal duty) to protect people and restore "order and sense of security" to the client property.

Conversely, in Florida, accidently exposing people to OC is aggrivated battery, and you can be arrested for it.

exposing a person to oc accidentally is simple battery not aggravated becasuse its not a deadly weapon.

ALso gathering to watch a fight is unlawful assembly.