I thought this topic might deserve it's own thread.

Police agencies have policies governing their Use of Force and Responses to Resistance that come under scrutiny from time to time. Most of them indicate that if the subject does "A" then the officer can respond with "A".

The Subject's "A" might include one or several examples of typical low level resistance that don't normally pose a significant threat of serious boduily injury or death the the officer or others.

The Officer's "A" is intended to parallel the subject's resistance and be appropriate, justified and reasonable. It should allow for the officer's authority and tactical need for control if neccessary for safety but it should not be overly oppressive, aggressive, etc.

The officer's "A" includes a predictiable risk of bodily harm to the subject based upon an accepted reasonable level of peril related to their degree of resistance. For example, if the subject simply refuses to leave a bar parking lot after closing, striking him with a baton might not be a reasonable option under normal circumstances.

Army policy- 5 S's: Shout Show Shove Shoot Shoot.

Shout a warning or stop command. Show your weapon. Shove (if applicable). Shoot a warning shot. Shoot to kill.

I'm not sure of the point of this post. Everyone (at least in the United States) is governed by the laws for acceptable use of force in a self-defense situation. You can only use the necessary force to control a situation. You can't exceed the force being used against you. In a lot of locations (varies from state to state and county to county) you are required to run from a situation if the opportunity is available. If not then you may become liable for any injuries that you cause or charged outright with a crime yourself. The use of deadly force is a separate issue and has it's own set of guidelines.

sasori_te:

You are correct in that from a civilian standpoint, you don't have much variance. However, this is a forum for Security and Law Enforcement Officers. As a Security Officer, I can tell you, there is a different Level of Force Spectrum used.

We have always been told to use one step above what is being given:

Disturbance [aggressor level only]
Words
Display of Force
Empty-hand [non-striking]
Spray
Impact Weapon [non-deadly]
Lethal Force

If they then show a Display of Force [puffing up, putting up their dukes, etc.], we are required to take one step above that... defend, and diffuse. If they pull a knife, you pull the gun. Things of the like.

Would running be an option? At times, yes... at others, no. Federal statue under the Color of Law states that a Security Officer, even if non-sworn, has authority implied, and thus is required to act. If you fail to act, enjoy that lawsuit.

MikoReklaw

I too have been a security guard in Arizona and Texas as well as a Corrections Officer In Louisiana and Texas. I'm not sure who told you that you were allowed to do that as a security officer but unless TN has some laws that I don't know about (and I'll be the first to admit that they probably do) then what you are describing is against the law and can get you arrested just as fast as the suspect. What you are describing sounds like something the police might be able to get away with but there are no special laws for what security officers are allowed to do beyond what any ordinary citizen can do legally. That's been the training that I've had as a licensed officer in 2 states. Of course, most people aren't aware of what you can and can't do as an ordinary citizen. I would really be interested in that "Federal Statute" that you're talking about. Do you have a statute code or something so that I could look at it for myself? I'm not trying to imply anything, I do like learning new things though.

LEOs can go up to one step higher in the state of FL.

As I said, law enforcement works with a slightly different set of rules. I've never been any sort of cop so I can't say exactly what their rules are with any amount of certainty. I do have several friends and relatives that are law officers that constantly regale me with stories all the time.

I can't find the exact article I read...it's been a few years now.

However, this one does touch on it. It mentions security officers at the top, and I guess it might vary state-by-state, depending on the licensing processes of each state. It also mentions that it is wrong to "fail to keep from harm".

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/color.htm

Hope this helps.

MikoReklaw

All of the instances given in that article were for law enforcement officers. The bit at the top where it mentions security was an umbrella mention for the last part of the article. The only mention it gave to security personnel concerns was at the bottom:

"Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons."

Security guards have no special arrest powers beyond what the average civilian has (Citizen's Arrest). You can hold someone if you see them commit a crime and try to leave the scene. Even then you have to be careful about how you detain the person, Otherwise you can be charged with false arrest. Anyone can do this. However, if you attempt to detain someone against their will you better have other witnesses to the crime. Here's an Article .

As far as the use of force goes, it's the same same for security as it is for anyone else. That "failure to keep from harm" clause that you mention pertains to law enforcement only. Security personnel don't take oaths to protect and serve. Police Officers do. Even as a prison guard in two different states, I wasn't asked to put my life in danger to prevent injury to a prisoner if they were doing something dangerous and stupid. Sure, if it didn't put us directly in danger we were to intervene. Otherwise the RRT guys were called in to handle it.

Does it mention what happens to you when you try to keep someone from harm, misjudge the situation due to lack of proper training, and actually cause more harm than you were trying to prevent? That's why security officers aren't asked to be, nor are they considered LEO's. They simply don't have the training that the police do. Period.

If you were to fail to help someone as a security officer, if it made it to court, I would think only the company you work for would have any sort of liability. If the latter situation that I mentioned were to happen you could find yourself and your company being held liable, if not charged outright with a crime.

As a curiosity, what type of security company do you work for? This may change the situation a bit.

I am well aware of the rights of a security officer aren't different from those of a private citizen. However, we have certain rules we have to follow... and we can get in deep poodoo for not doing our jobs. There have been several lawsuits to this tune over the last few years for SO's "Observing and Reporting", rather than acting.

I don't work for a security company... I am employed privately by a Country Club. Also, as I said, this is not the original article. If I can dig it up, I will do so.

Now that we agree somewhat, who origianlly told you to use force one step above what was being used on you? I agree with tis somewhat from a standpoint of physical force, but even then, this rule of thumb (I'm assuming that's what it is anyway) is ambiguous enough to get you into some serious trouble. Observe and report sounds good to me, especially for what most SO's get paid.

It is what I have been taught from several different sources... the TN Certified Security Instructor I qualify with each year, my MARS Instructor, my Chief, who's been in the field as long as I've been alive, even had a few cop friends say something along the lines.

The question begs to be asked... I have to act. It's part of my job, it's part of my post orders, and it's part of who I am. When I act, if I don't take one step higher than the aggressor, does that not guarentee defeat?

Don't get me wrong, it's not a quick climb up most of that ladder. If someone is talking a bunch of crap, I just let it slide off. If they swing at me, I will deflect it, and let it go the first time. If they try to tackle me, ground work is acceptible, as long as I keep a reign on it.

However, if someone pulls a knife on me, I will, without hesitation, do the two-step-drop. Take two steps back, and drop the hammer.

-shrugs- Different training, different areas... tis what tis.

OK Robocop

Good luck with that. When you're in prison I'll send you a "Hope you get out soon card" and a tube of KY Jelly and some Preparation H.

Well, lets see... been doing it for five years now. I'm not in jail yet, so I don't see it coming any time soon.

Thanks for the thought, tho.

Contrary to popular belief there are some private security guards that are required to do a bit more than "observe and report". So they do have to learn a force continuum or ladder of force. Not all security guards are a biological security camera.

Fletch1
Yes I may have over-simplified a bit in the beginning. However you seem to be doing a bit of glossing yourself.

Let's also not forget that reasonable and proportionate not only applies to you but to the people that will be the jury if it goes to court. What you deem to be reasonable better seem reasonable to your peers.

As for your second argument, there better already be a verbal threat on the part of the assailant or they better be brandishing a weapon. Otherwise, if you just thought you were going to be attacked and attack first you could be in a bit of a bind.

AS for your third point, every state that I've lived in requires that you remove yourself from a situation if you have the opportunity (unless it happens in your home or an extension of your home like your car). For instance, I'm about to move to North Carolina and I've already checked some laws there with a friend who was a LEO there. If a physical assault happens everyone goes to jail automatically with a disturbing the peace charge. Assault charges follow for the guilty party later.

laf7773
I'm not up on international law concerning use of force but I would think that a security guard would fall under the same use of force policies that are used for the civilian population of the country in question. Almost every country in the world has law enforcement. If that's the case then why would security guards need police powers when it comes to use of force? I was offered a postion with CSC/Dyncorp a few years ago in Iraq. Considering that they wanted me to qualify with a 9mm, an m-16, a 60mm machine gun and an M-2 .50 cal I don't think they had much observing and reporting in mind. However, that doesn't make it legal to over-react to a situation. Look at what happened with Black Water Security there. While nothing will probably ever be done about it, what they did was illegal if it went down like all of the civilians reported.

You are correct, not all guards are "biological cameras". However, that doesn't mean that they have any more rights than an ordinary citizen.

Well i'm not referring to security guards overseas. Just because my profile says Greece doesn’t mean that’s all I know. I'm talking about those in the states. There are several security guards that have the same responsibilities as law enforcement minus arrest authority. There are private communities that employ armed security patrols that can perform all the same tasks as a police office short of physically placing you under arrest. We have armed private security guards manning the gates for many military installations now (mostly Navy and Air Force). When it comes to physical action or reaction it comes down to what is being protected and the laws of the state they are in or if they are on government property. You seem to be under the impression that in every state a citizen isn't allowed to defend themselves and is required to run away from an attacker, this isn't true. In some states both citizens and security guards have the right, in some cases a requirement, to physically defend themselves and others even with deadly force. By your logic there would be no need for armed security guards in the United States because if they ever had to use their weapon they would go to jail. The fact is many are trained to use a baton, OC, fire arm and how to make arrests. The only thing they really don't have is arrest authority with the exception of citizen’s arrest. You can bet that if a security guard has reason to believe his life or the life of another is in danger and they are able to articulate that belief properly and they shoot you, they are not going to jail. The “primary” responsibility of security is to observe and report but it’s not always their only responsibility.

The smart thing for those in the security business, as well as civilians, is to learn what your legal rights are in your area regarding self defense and defense of others.

Wow , it seems that you're reading a lot into what I said, or maybe I didn't make myself clear with what I said. I have been security like the security you're talking about. What I'm saying is that these special security details don't carry any more rights than a regular security detail. The companies guarding special installations such as military bases and nuclear facilities are noexception to the rules that I was talking about. Of course, if someone is credibly threatened with death or a weapon then you are allowed to use lethal force. What I'm saying is that you better have your bases covered when you do it. That applies to anyone not just security personnel. I don't recall ever having said that a citizen couldn't defend him or herself. What I said was some states require you to exit a situation if there is an opportunity to do so. I was not talking about lethal force situations.

I will fully agree with you about one thing. It is the smart thing to do to learn your local laws and how they apply to you especially if you are in security. I make all of my martial arts students know the laws concerning their rights in defending themselves at a state county and town level. They can all be slightly different and the town ordinances where the incident takes place supercede the state regulations as long as the town or county ordinance is more strict and not less.