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.