Use of Force Policy

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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