Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Use of Force Policy

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

  • SecTrainer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • inman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • burley
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rentacop
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    [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)

    Leave a comment:


  • hisownhero
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LPGuy
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • bigshotceo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdog
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.



    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • S/O245
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • hisownhero
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X