Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Absoloulty no first punch

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

  • Absoloulty no first punch

    I am looking for ways to change my employers mind about a policy they have implemented.

    I am the new Training Manager for this company and I recently updated the use of force curriculum. I talk about force considerations and that there maybe times when the Security Officer may need to strike someone. That is when the HR people started jumping up and down and advised me that the Company has a STRICT “no first punch policy.” They also want something in there that states we are strictly a hands off company, but then there are accounts that require detention of shoplifters and are quite high risk.

    I don’t think this is a good idea and tried to articulated my opinion and the reasons why this is a liability issue for the company. I used an example of an Armed Officer you are not going to wait until the bad guy gets the first shot at you before you shoot him. Still no go.

    Any suggestions? Court decisions that could help? I don’t want to change the world, I just one sentence.

    and yes I know I made a spelling mistake
    Wisdom - Having a lot to say, but knowing when to keep it to yourself.

  • #2
    To cover the backsides of idiots who do as they please, you need to ensure they are in a picture form of what is required of them and examples and in their training sign off on it - as in - Non-Lethal Force does not mean being a security ninja with a pencil. If you can PROVE the person had training, knew the steps and then had no other option or over-stepped their boundaries then you are fine.

    I am also a certified and accredited trainer and if for example I certified you as competent and you weren't I could be held accountable for your actions (like the levels of force). Cover yourself with these training protocols and all should be well - but make sure they follow the standard practices first.
    "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" Sun Tzu

    Comment


    • #3
      Well...

      I don't ever "punch" someone I confront. Now, does this mean I don't grapple, choke, knee, throw, or wrist lock a subject? Absolutely not. Throwing the first punch makes you look like the aggressor to witnesses. It also makes it a little difficult to defend yourself in court. I would never take a punch from someone, but when they start making 'target glances' or getting riled up enough to fight, a little self-defense kicks in and I put them down...hard...

      Also, do like Oz says and like I do. Get as many certifications as you possibly can. If your company will approve something, do it. If they don't have a policy for certain training, research it and present it.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm not worried about me, I am a PPCT Instructor, ASP Instructor, OCAT, PATH, Monodnock, Glock, NRA LE Firearms (handgun, shotgun, patrol rifle, precision rifle) NRA Civilian Firearms (basic pistol, rifle, shotgun), Verbal Judo, this that and the other instructor.

        I document everything. What I am looking for is a little push to the upper management on allowing the officers to take initiative. Not really the first punch, unless it is necessary. What they are telling me is no hands on at all, unless it is to defend, and that is after they have taken a hit. That makes no sense at all to me. you should not have to take a hit before you are allowed to defend yourself.

        In fact even state law is more lax than that. I think I have an argument that will work but I was looking for some legal stuff that I could use to seal the deal. They dropped this stuff on me after I gave them a new restriction on force program and basicly lopped me off at the knees.
        Wisdom - Having a lot to say, but knowing when to keep it to yourself.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hmm...

          I would suggets a remedial reader's course for the mgmt. Then they could possibly learn through case study and training issues that 'self defense' does not mean waiting until your are attacked. It is proactive. I will be looking for some statutes, but they will be based on TX law. Might help a bit.

          Comment


          • #6
            Insurance and Hands On

            As a principal for a security company, I know for sure that the insurance rates almost double for hands on. During my first year of business I HAD to swear and sign my name in blood to have a hands off policy, or I couldn't get insured.

            I worked for a security that gave that exact response that you are getting. Hands off, but you are required to go hands on for thefts. They were attempting to bypass and push the blame to reduce costs. It won't work however. If you are a loss prevention officer that is required to apprehend offenders, with hands off, the insurance company will not cover the company and the LP officer has a case of neglect. OSHA rules are vague, but court cases vary as to who is liable. There haven't been enough big cases here to search exactly.

            States (courts) vary across the country. In Washington State, the company will be held liable for placing the officer in a position were they have to go hands on but with a hands off policy.

            Does that stop the companies from doing it? no way. guess it the dice haven't come up snake eyes yet.

            I pay the higher insurance costs.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's difficult to change the minds of any administrator who is more concerned about liability issues than their employees safety. The approach I recommend is to use that same thought process in your argument. There is deliberate indifference that can get your company sued if it can be proven that security officers are assaulted frequently, yet no effort was taken to allow or train officers in ways to protect themselves. The Vicarious Liability, a term your HR people are probably familiar with, in claiming to be able to protect persons and property but not insisting that this be done magically, without touching.

              As for the Use of Force Continuum, follow the lead set by many progressive police departments. Using Supreme Court guidelines (Tenn. v Garner, Graham v Conner) the continuum is being replaced by allowing officers to justify their responses to resistance by the "totality of the circumstances." Teaching specific techniques to counter specific actions is both dangerous to the officer and the suspect. Knowing that some force is necessary will cover most agencies. However, it must be explained and justified.
              Jerry
              http://personalprotectionconcepts.info

              Comment


              • #8
                Well..

                This is almost as bad as my current employer. No pursuit, no touch policy. I don't bother arguing it with them. What bothers/confuses me about them is the no self-defense tools policy. We have officers all around Texas, but Austin is the only branch where we are not allowed to carry any form of self-defense. I have heard rumor that even my pocket knife I have carried since the Boy Scout days is a no-no. This, my friends, is why I am searching for employment elsewhere. I have trained and paid to be licensed and do not care for a no carry company.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Guess entering the force matrix at the level required to contain the situation (which includes more force than the aggressor) goes out the window with that company.
                  Overmotivated and Underpaid... I'm a Security supervisors wet dream...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This is one of those stupid liability moves. The idea is that its easier to show in a tort case that the guard could not of been the aggressor.

                    After all, the guard was required to be struck by the attacker, proving that the guard could not be the aggressor.
                    Some Kind of Commando Leader

                    "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It all comes down to the company gambling that it won't happen to them, or their officer.

                      I have seen this with other companies and every one of them have had it come back to bite them.

                      Why listen to someone with a tad of experience and knowledge on the subject.

                      Anyone looking for a trainer? hehehe I might have some free time soon
                      Wisdom - Having a lot to say, but knowing when to keep it to yourself.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Some management types want to have their cake AND eat it too, I really don't see the issue as there's quite a difference between defensive tactics and offensive techniques... perhaps a little Q & A session with case studies & real physical demonstrations (combined with Incident reports of serious events) for these HR bean counters would be most productive

                        You could always go the other route and agree with a non pro-active approach right up to where you explain (to management) you'll be instructing security operatives to let offenders walk rather than get physical and apprehend if verbal requests are ineffective
                        "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give" - Winston Churchill

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Maelstrom View Post
                          Some management types want to have their cake AND eat it too, I really don't see the issue as there's quite a difference between defensive tactics and offensive techniques... perhaps a little Q & A session with case studies & real physical demonstrations (combined with Incident reports of serious events) for these HR bean counters would be most productive

                          You could always go the other route and agree with a non pro-active approach right up to where you explain (to management) you'll be instructing security operatives to let offenders walk rather than get physical and apprehend if verbal requests are ineffective
                          I'm not sure you understand what private security, by and large, does in America. The companies that tell you to apprehend people are the minority. The companies that tell you to touch people are the minority.

                          The 'other route' is the route in America for the majority of security firms.

                          As far as defensive and offensive... It doesn't matter. The bottom line is, the firm is afraid that if you touch someone for any reason you're going to cost them money. They can't tell you to stand there and allow yourself to be beaten, but they can tell you that you're not allowed to stop someone from hitting you, only defend yourself after being hit.
                          Some Kind of Commando Leader

                          "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ironically the laws changed in my state last year and this includes more power for arrests and searches (yes we can conduct pat downs legally if I fear for my safety) but I won't be unless my life is in danger and I had no other choice.

                            PPCT, I completed my training around 10 10 years ago - best method of control I have EVER come across in close confined spaces like clubs and sporting centres as well as escorting people from premises in corporate environments. It was used in correctional centres for years but outlawed by Maelstrom's state police were all filmed using these methods for moving protesters off from a march about 10 years back but were all aimed at using PPCT on the Carotid artery (bloody dangerous). I think.

                            As for no contact security this is important with the likes of LP or removal of intoxicated persons who may attack you and the company policy will dictate - no contact so your argument is about defending yourself to the law.

                            N.A. we thankfully don't have the % of law suits in Australia as the USA has now progressed with, and I do know the cost of insurance premiums are through the roof as the risks involved are continually climbing due to lack of certification and individual assessment. The only solution is a blanket policy of YES CONTACT or NO CONTACT due to the misinterpretation or ego trips by most people through stupidity of innocence.

                            I posted our knife laws before but anything over 1.5 inches or 4 cm blade is considered and offensive weapon and could have me charged.
                            "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" Sun Tzu

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Alaska Security View Post
                              Guess entering the force matrix at the level required to contain the situation (which includes more force than the aggressor) goes out the window with that company.
                              The problem with any force matrix, or cintinuum, is not knowing how much force will be required to handle the situation until after you begin. The Supreme Court actually used this analogy: "How much water does it take to put out a fire?" Of course, the answer depends on many factors but the point is, "as much as it takes." If the contracting agency promises something to the client and has absoluely no way to deliver it, guess where the liability lies?
                              Jerry
                              http://personalprotectionconcepts.info

                              Comment

                              Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X