Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Use of Force Policy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Keep in mind, if you spray the crowd, you're probably going to piss of an already emotionally-charged group. So, not only do you have to pry apart two combatants (who may very well end up going after you) you have a crowd of people who probably want to kick your ass.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 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
      Despite what your company policy actually says, you are still responsible for acting within the scope of the law. "My company doesn't give us a use of force policy" would not be a valid defense in a court of law, since you are expected to know and understand the law and only use reasonable and necessary force if the situation calls for it.

      In general, you are able to meet a suspect's level of force and rise one step above it to end a threat. You should research some use of force models and also have a good definition of "necessary" when it comes to force, should you ever need to testify concerning it.

      Defense attorney: "You say that you used 'necessary force' upon my client. Just how do you define 'necessary'?"

      Security officer: "It was necessary in the fact that no reasonable alternative to the use of force appeared to exist, and the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended."

      Comment


      • #18
        You definately have to use proper judgment and act within the scope of the law whenever using force. The lack of proper training excuse won't stand up in court when the plantiff shows up with two broken arms, a black eye and on crutches all because he threw a punch at you for instance. Companies should have at least a roughly outlined policy on the use of force but they can't cover everything because force must be applied in different amounts depending on the situation. My company for instance has a policy that no force is to be used unless either yourself or someone else on the site you are working is being attacked. I've worked for companies though that have no policy and just throw you to the wolves the minute something goes wrong so I definately know where your coming from.

        Comment


        • #19
          [QUOTE=LPGuy]Despite what your company policy actually says, you are still responsible for acting within the scope of the law. "My company doesn't give us a use of force policy" would not be a valid defense in a court of law, since you are expected to know and understand the law and only use reasonable and necessary force if the situation calls for it.

          In general, you are able to meet a suspect's level of force and rise one step above it to end a threat. You should research some use of force models and also have a good definition of "necessary" when it comes to force, should you ever need to testify concerning it.

          Defense attorney: "You say that you used 'necessary force' upon my client. Just how do you define 'necessary'?"

          Security officer: "It was necessary in the fact that no reasonable alternative to the use of force appeared to exist, and the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended."[/
          QUOTE]


          Similar Answer: I define it as the state statute does. (Quote the statute and tie your actions into the definition)
          Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

          Comment


          • #20
            Here in Canada it doesn't matter what your companies policy is on use of force. You have a right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to ensure your own safety under the Canadian Rights and Freedoms Act. If you are a civilian then that of course would not include a firearm but martial arts, hand to hand combat etc would all be fine in court. Now I believe that if you are in a position such as security and someone approached you with a gun then you have a right to draw your own firearm to defend yourself and whatever you have been hired to guard.

            When in doubt, move to Texas, at least there you can shoot first and ask questions later... lol J/K

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rentacop
              Here in Canada it doesn't matter what your companies policy is on use of force. You have a right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to ensure your own safety under the Canadian Rights and Freedoms Act. If you are a civilian then that of course would not include a firearm but martial arts, hand to hand combat etc would all be fine in court. Now I believe that if you are in a position such as security and someone approached you with a gun then you have a right to draw your own firearm to defend yourself and whatever you have been hired to guard.

              When in doubt, move to Texas, at least there you can shoot first and ask questions later... lol J/K
              Just a caution. In Canada it is not "with as much force as needed" it is with the "force necessary". It has to be in relation to the threat. It is a very grey line with no legal definition. If the judge had an arguement with a security officer the day of your trial you could be found guilty of using force that another judge might not have come to the same conclusion.
              I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
              Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

              Comment


              • #22
                Canadian Citizen's use of force

                This is the law in Canada with respect to how much force a regular citizen can use.

                The Criminal Code of Canada justifies the use of force for self-defense. Security Officers using force for self-defense must ensure that the law is adhered to.

                Self-defense against unprovoked assault - Extent of Justification

                34.(1) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

                (2) Everyone who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

                a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

                b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

                Preventing assault - Extent of Justification

                37.(1) Everyone who is justified in using force to defend himself or anyone under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.

                (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the willful infliction or any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

                And if anyone's interested Security Officers use the next CC Section to arrest when required.


                CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA - Citizens Powers of Arrest

                Arrest without Warrant and Release from Custody

                Arrest without warrant by any person

                494.(1) Anyone may arrest with warrant
                (a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or
                (b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

                (i) has committed a criminal offence, and
                (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have
                lawful authority to arrest that person.
                Arrest by owner, etc., of property

                (2) Any one who is
                (a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or
                (b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.
                Delivery to peace officer

                (3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

                R.S., c. C-34, s. 449; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s.5.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 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.
                  A prime example of what I like to call "Corporate Thinking".. We fix a policy after the harm to a person falls at our doorstep. What a mess! I am glad your departments policy changed!
                  Deputy Sheriff

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I am scheduled to travel to North Carolina on the 28th to take an instructors course on use of force continuum, and when I return, I will be putting together the training for our officers.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      A word of caution. I'm seeing things here that are really not good statements of the law involved with respect to the use of force, and a couple of further precautions are that (a) both the statutory and case law varies from state to state, and (b) the role played by the service contract as well as written company policies and procedures will differ in terms of the degree of judicial notice, as well as the effect and interpretation of such terms and policies by the courts - not in terms of overriding statutory law regarding such matters, of course, but in terms of implementing the law and in terms of the findings of fact in any particular case that might arise. Both the criminal and the civil law are involved here.

                      In short, the question should be taken up with your company management and if that doesn't provide satisfactory answers you have no option but to seek professional legal advice.
                      "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                      "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                      "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                      "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                      Comment

                      Leaderboard

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X