fight

Security Breakdown: Titles and Control

OfficerInsider General, News, Security Breakdown, Training , , , , , ,

In the course of your duties, you will often find yourself in a volatile situation where words need to be chosen carefully.  One of these instances happens to involve your title and role as a security guard or private patrol officer.

The Incident

The incident above took place on November 15, 2013 at a highschool hockey game in Westchester, PA.  During research for this article, I wasn’t able to determine if the subject of this video (identified as Aaron McLaughlin) faced any criminal charges for his actions, nor was I able to identify the event security worker and how bad his injuries, if any, were.  Some of the less reliable sources I reviewed indicated that the worker may have been an off-duty deputy sheriff working security as a secondary job.

If you’ve been working in the security industry for any decent length of time, you’ll quickly find that the majority of the public has a general lack of respect for your role.  You’ll often be mocked, degraded or treated with condescension.  If this bothers you, then my advice is to find another line of work to go into– before you get fired, arrested, injured, sued or some combination thereof.

With this in mind, the main point I’d like to make in this article is a simple one:

Don’t use your title or role to establish authority.

It often has no desirable effect and will cause anything from feelings of resentment, increased resistance, and at worst, violent reactions.

The Breakdown

In this particular incident, it appears Mr. McLaughlin had been asked to leave for an undetermined reason.  As the security worker is a representative or authorized person of the property (the ice rink where this took place), he is fully within his legal bounds to do so.  By willfully defying this order, Mr. McLaughlin violated Philadelphia penal code §3503(b) that defines a Defiant Trespasser, a 1st degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 5 years in prison, although Mr. McLaughlin was under 18 during the time of incident (relevant sections highlighted in red):

§ 3503.  Criminal trespass.
        (a)  Buildings and occupied structures.--
            (1)  A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
        not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
                (i)  enters, gains entry by subterfuge or
            surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied
            structure or separately secured or occupied portion
            thereof; or
                (ii)  breaks into any building or occupied structure
            or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.
            (2)  An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the
        third degree, and an offense under paragraph (1)(ii) is a
        felony of the second degree.
            (3)  As used in this subsection:
                "Breaks into."  To gain entry by force, breaking,
            intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through
            an opening not designed for human access.
        (b)  Defiant trespasser.--
            (1)  A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
        not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in
        any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
                (i)  actual communication to the actor;
                (ii)  posting in a manner prescribed by law or
            reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;
                (iii)  fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed
            to exclude intruders;
                (iv)  notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or
            reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at
            each entrance of school grounds that visitors are
            prohibited without authorization from a designated
            school, center or program official; or
                (v)  an actual communication to the actor to leave
            school grounds as communicated by a school, center or
            program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement
            officer.
            (2)  Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense
        under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
        degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally
        communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other
        authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v)
        constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it
        is a summary offense.

Note that in the video, it takes actual physical contact from a second security worker to Mr. McLaughlin’s right arm to actually cause him to begin leaving.  At that point, he turns and asks the first security worker “Who are you? Who are you?”

From my perspective, my thought would’ve been “Does it matter who I am? Who cares? He’s doing what I’m telling him.”  In this case however, the security worker responds with “I’m security, move.”

“I’m security, move.”

During any typical incident, there will be an initial struggle for control between the subject and you. Your job is to react to resistance, not encourage it, and there are many ways a subject might test your control, starting with words and escalating from there.

The faster you can establish and maintain dominance through language and presence, the safer and better things will turn out.

In this case, that’s what Mr. McLaughlin likely wanted– a response that he could use to regain some semblance of control with.  From his perspective, it makes sense– he’s outnumbered 2 to 1, he no longer can keep doing whatever he wants, and he has to leave when he doesn’t want to.  It’s pretty obvious the people in front of him are some sort of security personnel so by testing to see if he can get a response he wants, he feels like he regains control through cause and effect on a small scale.

The security worker’s response emboldened Mr. McLaughlin, at which point he mocks him and then turns around and something new happens: he shoves the security worker, stops leaving– and holds onto the security worker (assault). That’s another moment of escalation.

Up until that point, Mr. McLaughlin’s actions had pushed the envelope– throwing hands up, pushing the security workers– all signs of potential aggressive resistance, so it’s important to maintain somewhat of a safe distance from a subject when those signs are observed.  Since this isn’t possible, the security workers simply maintained neutral contact with Mr. McLaughlin’s arms as much as possible– using minimal force to overcome resistance.

The security worker attempts to redirect Mr. McLaughlin’s arm, which is tough in such tight quarters, fails, and attempts a full-on take down right afterward. The end result is not pretty.

There were several mistakes the security worker made prior to the fight.  Here they are (along with better alternatives):

  • Answering a bait question with a predictable response: Always answer questions as neutrally as possible. You don’t want your answers to embolden a subject. If at all, you don’t even have to answer. But if I had to answer those questions, I might say any of the following:
    • “I’m just a guy at work.”
    • “An employee.”
    • “I’m Spencer.”
  • Giving unnecessarily authoritative commands: In this case, there was no need to follow up with “move,” like the security worker did after identifying himself.
    • The subject already knows he has to leave, he’s not going to be able to go back to where he was standing, what other choice does he have than to leave?
    • It’s possible that structuring a command into a request may have worked better, such as “Please continue down the steps.”
  • Physical contact with zero advantage: The security worker was on a narrow step, in tight quarters, and his backup was stuck in the crowd behind him. If a take down was needed (it may very will have been, I don’t know if a come-along hold would’ve worked too well since the subject in this case was too low to gain leverage), some precautionary measures I would’ve taken are:
    • Wait for my backup to get closer/take a position of advantage.
    • Direct my backup to the rear of the subject.
    • Ask nearby persons to clear away as much as possible.

Conclusion

As I continue to develop this site, I hope to make these breakdowns a regular on-going series.  I hope you found this article helpful, and if you did, please take a moment to leave your thoughts below, or shoot me an email.  Until next time, stay safe!

The Protective Diamond: Prioritizing Your Responsibilities

OfficerInsider General, Training , , , , , , , ,

Photo credit: Michael Dornbierer
During critical situations, you must be able to prioritize your efforts for maximum efficacy. Photo credit: Michael Dornbierer
A few years back, I had a conversation with one of the veteran police officers that patrolled near my site, whom I highly respected (and still do till this day).

We were discussing different situations concerning officer safety and he posed the following scenario, one he’d once been presented with in his earlier years (much of it’s paraphrased, but gets the point across):

“Due to a mandatory training event, every officer has been pulled off the streets, leaving just you and one other unit to patrol your sector for the night.

As your shift is about to end, you get two calls simultaneously from dispatch:

  • A priority multi-vehicle accident with reported injuries.

  • A priority call advising you that while on an assignment, the other officer in your sector has stopped responding to his radio.

You are advised of the accident location and the other officer’s last-known position. The calls are located on opposite ends of your sector.  Assume that there is no supervisor available to consult with.

Time is ticking.  Which call do you respond to first?”

I pondered this scenario for a moment, then said I’d take the accident. The cop gave me a sly grin and asked why.

I explained that my duty was to public safety, and that with injured civilians, the accident would take precedence.

The cop eyed me kindly as he promptly informed me I was wrong.  I’ll save his explanation for the end of this article, but give it some thought yourself to see if you can come up with the answer yourself.

As a police officer (or security officer in my case), your primary function of course should be to protect life before everything else.  However, it’s easy to forget that this also directly applies to yourself and your team members as well.

Below I’ve created a visual presentation of what I refer to as the Protective Diamond.  Its purpose is to help you understand who you’re responsible for keeping safe, and the priority they should take when you perform your duties.

The order you do it in does not change, and some of you will find this uncomfortable to digest.  It’s always in this sequence:

diamondpro

  • You: No matter how much training you have or how great your tools, if you are incapacitated you are useless to everyone.  If you are wearing a uniform, you might now become a target for additional harm.  If you work armed, your weapons now become a safety hazard, as those with bad intentions now have an opportunity to arm themselves with your gear.  By safeguarding yourself first, you are not being selfish.  You are maximizing your potential to safeguard others now and well into the future.
  • Your team: There is indeed strength in numbers, but even the mightiest of forces can be weakened, then defeated, if slowly whittled away a little at a time.  Everything in the previous bullet point applies here in terms of risk if a member of your team is incapacitated.  Additionally, failing to adequately extract a team member from danger can prove damaging for morale afterward, and even encourage would-be criminals to take advantage of a perceived opportunity to wreak havoc.
  • The public: This refers first and foremost to the client you’re serving, of course.  Police officers have a duty to protect everyone, however your job is much more concentrated– you’re only responsible for the people either on your property or directly charged with protecting.In the course of your duties, you’ll often have limitations on what permitted actions can be taken if you observe a danger unrelated to your client’s interests.  Be sure to pay attention to these, as it will reduce your liability in the long run.  Remember, the top priority here is you, and you’re useless if you’re incapacitated.  Being sued into bankruptcy and losing your job can certainly be considered incapacitating in a non-physical way.  Remember– safeguard yourself first.
    • NOTE: If you work as a body guard, close protection agent or in a similar executive protection role, your client comes before you and your team.  There’s no room for negotiating on this, so if you’re unwilling to put someone else’s life before your own for a paycheck, this field of work isn’t for you.  There’s a reason why EP personnel are the among the highest-paid security workers in the industry.
  • The suspect(s): Suspects aren’t suspects without reason or cause (and if they are, you need to reevaluate your judgement and decision-making skills).  They have, by definition, exhibited behavior that indicates potential criminal activity of some sort, and therefore may pose a risk to the safety of those around them.
    However, this doesn’t mean that they themselves don’t have rights.  After all, this is good ol’ America, where our rights are unalienable.  If you are an impartial, professional security worker, you will recognize that it is not up to you to play judge or jury, and you shouldn’t be biased in the execution of your duties.

    With that said, because of the aforementioned risk for danger, your first goal (after ensuring the safety of yourself, your team and the public, in that order) is to ensure that the suspect poses no threat before extending them the same protection you afford your public/clientele.

If you use the Protective Diamond’s hierarchy to help you prioritize, you will increase your odds of safety and survival every time you become involved in an incident.  As promised, the cop’s answer to the scenario presented above:

“You choose the call to back up your fellow officer every single time because you’d want the same if he were you and you were in trouble.  Communication is extremely important in this line of work and the fact that he stopped answering his radio could mean that he’s incapacitated.

If he’s incapacitated, his weapons are available to whomever wishes to take them.  His life could be in danger.  And if you respond and he’s okay, he knows you’ve got his back.

Plus, it’s not just us on the streets you know.  Vehicle accidents with injuries happen, and we’ve got paramedics, fire and rescue for that.  Always protect yourself and your team first.”

Stay safe out there.

Why Are You Fighting? (How Not to Get in Trouble)

OfficerInsider News, Training , , , , , ,
Photo credit: Aislinn Ritchie
If you look like this during a physical altercation, you might consider another line of work. (Photo credit: Aislinn Ritchie via Flickr)

One of the distinct traits that separates incompetent security personnel from the professionals is their intent during a physical altercation.

Security personnel should never, under any circumstances, fight with the intention of deliberately harming a suspect.  In fact, while I’m at it, no security personnel should ever start or become embroiled in a physical altercation to:

  • Teach the suspect “a lesson”
  • Release anger
  • Prove their “worth” or mettle

In fact, the word “fight’ is used here a bit erroneously.  The suspect may be fighting you, but you should be focusing on the following, in order of importance:

  • Protecting yourself
  • Protecting those around you
  • Subduing the suspect

That’s it.  Any physical action you take with any other intention is most likely excessive, unnecessary, or downright criminal.  I have worked with many security personnel who had zero arrest training, but stuck with the job because they thought it gave them the right to hurt people they didn’t approve of with impunity.  If you ever find yourself working with someone like this, avoid them at all costs.  They will end up dragging you down with them eventually.  At best, you’ll get fired.  At worst, you may be criminally charged.

I’ve been in plenty of scuffles, enough to have learned the hard way– the longer a fight goes on, the more likely someone will get hurt.  That someone could be you.  You may not care about the suspect getting injured, but you should care what sort of options injuries will make available to him/her, because in today’s litigious society, even a legitimate arrest with no serious injuries can garner attention and result in a civil lawsuit.  Here’s an excerpt from the article:

From ABC7’s Eileen Frere on 07-08-15:

In a statement, Knott’s Berry Farm officials say while a security officer was investigating [a] theft Reedburg “became verbally abusive and was asked to leave the park. [Reedburg] refused to leave and then physically assaulted several of our security staff members, which led to an arrest made by the Buena Park Police Department. We take matters of this nature very seriously.”

Reedburg insists he didn’t touch anyone and that staff members never asked him to leave the park. When Eyewitness News asked Reedburg if he had been arrested, he replied “no comment.”

In this instance , the personnel involved were smart enough to document everything, probably have video evidence of some sort and the support of an official police report detailing the ultimate arrest of the suspect, all of which will probably be enough to get any lawsuit he brings against the security team dismissed.  Here’s a raw video of the incident (via YouTube, taken from ABC7):

Note several things seen here:

  • The security team is working to control the limbs of the suspect in order to subdue him.  There are no strikes involved.
  • Although this incident can indeed be considered a fight, the security team is not using force in a non-subduing capacity.
  • Despite the fight starting over the suspect allegedly physically assaulting a security staff member, it is clear that there is no intent to deliberately injure the suspect or to extract “retribution.”
  • The security team shows great restraint in the use of force and utilizes only the sufficient amount of force needed to subdue and restrain the suspect.
  • One of the suspect’s wrists has been cuffed prematurely (prior to placing the suspect in a P.O.D.), a no-no I cover in this article.  With less personnel, the cuff may have become an improvised weapon in the hands of an already-combative subject.

As this site develops and I get more content up, there will be plenty of other articles on my opinions of use-of-force.  However, from my experience, there are only two situations in which any security agent should ever use force to take a suspect into custody:

  1. Someone has hurt or is hurting you.
  2. Someone has hurt or is hurting someone else.

During the incident, your focus should be to restrain, not injure. Situations that would not validate a use of force include:

  • Theft of property without violence
  • Damage to property
  • Verbal threats
  • Disorderly conduct
  • Any non-violent misdemeanor

Property can be replaced– let it go.  Money can be replaced– let it go.  People cannot get un-injured or un-hurt easily.  If you’re going to use force, be sure you can justify it.