PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICERS.   Term Paper ID:23996 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Use of force by, laws covering, corp. responsibility, court decisions, training.... More...

7 Pages / 1575 Words 6 sources, 18 Citations, MLA Format $28.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Use of force by, laws covering, corp. responsibility, court decisions, training. Paper Introduction: USE OF FORCE BY PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICERS Introduction Increasingly, business and property owners are turning to private security officers to protect their interests (Clark 48-49). The primary reason for this trend appears to be that the level of criminal activity in the United States is overwhelming the capacity of the public police forces to cope with the problem. The security officers to whom business and property owners are turning either are employed by independent security firms that contract with owners to provide protection or these officers are employees of the owners whose interests they protect. Providing security for business and property in the United States is no longer a task that can be accomplished by “showing the flag.” Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. The degree of legal responsibility for physical intervention byprivate security personnel in a violent incident is often unclear (Jackson65-67). Medical acceptability. All techniques and procedurescontained in a court-defensible program must produce predictable andreasonable results every time (Jackson 67). People injured inphysical confrontations with private security personnel or by lack ofphysical intervention in violent incidents by such personnel frequentlyclaim unnecessary or excessive injuries resulted from either the actions orinactions of the private security officers. Thus, in spite of the breachof duty by McDonald's, the acts of the gunman were a superseding cause ofthe plaintiffs' injuries and could not have been prevented by McDonald's. As anyone can foresee that a crime may be committed anywhereand at anytime, the term foreseeability is not applied in the literal senseor confused with the term possibility. Nevertheless, the public expectation is that private securityofficers do bear such a responsibility, and civil courts frequentlyvalidate this expectation with large monetary awards. 2. Medically acceptable techniques are backed bymedical evaluations and research that documents and predicts the result ofthe technique. All security officers, however, face the possibility ofusing force at some time during their careers. The courtheld that McDonald's should have had an unarmed security officer on thepremises. Opposed to thisposition are those people who contend that anyone has the right to protecther or his interests through the use of force if necessary, and that thisright extends to the employment of private security officers to providesuch protection. The shooting a few years ago at a McDonald's restaurantprovides an example. An effective, use-of-force training program that will stand up incourt should meet an established standard such as the Components ofAcceptability (Jackson 66). The Components of Acceptability state that tobe court defensible, a use-of-force training program must meet tactical,legal, and medical standards of acceptability. In such cases,the safety of both the guard force and members of the public must be theprimary consideration. The primaryreason for this trend appears to be that the level of criminal activity inthe United States is overwhelming the capacity of the public police forcesto cope with the problem. One outcome associated with the cost of crime is the increasein the frequency of premises-liability lawsuits, in which victims ofviolent crimes sue the owner of the business or property where the attackoccurred. Whether force is used tosecure physical assets or in defense of self or others, it is sometimesnecessary and justified. All techniques must meet legalstandards for the acceptable use of force by private security personnel(Jackson 67). At the subsequent trial, the court found that, as the restaurant waslocated in a high-crime area, McDonald's had breached its duty by failingto provide adequate security precautions (Feliton and Owen 127). They can be foundliable in such cases as long as a court finds that they could have foreseenthe possibility of a crime. USE OF FORCE BY PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICERS Introduction Increasingly, business and property owners are turning to privatesecurity officers to protect their interests (Clark 48-49). This research examines the issue of whether private security officersshould be allowed to use force when necessary in the exercise of theirduties. "A Disarming Question." Security Management, 39 (October 1995): 49-5 .Feliton, J. These standards are asfollows: 1. Private security officers, however, should not bepermitted to assume their duties until they have received training in theuse of force that is defensible in court. I. Within the context of a security officer's liability for third-partycriminal acts, a crime is a superseding act if the security officer'salleged breach of duty was unrelated to the assailant's presence on theproperty and did not aid or assist in the commission of the crime (Felitonand Owen 127). A conceptual model must be included intraining to teach how to select the proper time to use physical force andthe proper type of force for various situations. Although theprincipal consideration is notice of prior similar acts, the courts alsoexamine the nature, condition, and location of the property that is beingguarded. Royal Investigation & Patrolheld that a security officer could have breached a duty for failing tophysically intercede in a violent criminal attack (Feliton and Owen 128).Although a security officer has no greater authority to arrest anindividual than any other private citizen, according to Marios v. Improper decisions by a security officerabout what is an appropriate type and level of force, however, can quicklyturn a good arrest into costly civil suit. Thus, inmany instances, if security officers are to provide the protection forwhich they are employed, they too must be prepared to use force againstoffenders. To hold up in court, a program must include training in theconcepts of when and how force is justified under diverse circumstances.Many programs stress the physical techniques but fail to teach theappropriate decision-making skills. R., and Owen, D. An arrest by definition requiressome use of force. Examination of the Problem The cost of treating a crime-related physical injury in the UnitedStates averages $41, , and all the injury-causing crimes that occur in ayear in this country ultimately cost $2 2 billion in medical fees,psychological costs, and productivity losses over the victims' lifetimes(Buss 17). All tactically acceptable physicalcontrol or defensive techniques must be supported by research documentingthat they are easy to learn and retain (Jackson 66). The use of force by private security officers, however, is acontentious issue. Effective training in the use of force, thus, may provide a defensefor private security officers against claims of injuries resulting from theuse of inappropriate or excessive force (Nichter 75-78). In this case, Toscano-Lopez v. Although many factors argue against requiring private securityofficers to protect the public from criminal activity, the primaryconsideration in establishing a legal duty is a finding of foreseeability(Feliton and Owen 126). Nevertheless, in this case McDonald's was absolved fromliability because of the random nature of the crime. A. Undue concern about the injury of acombative person typically results in a failure to use appropriate forcequickly and decisively. A total of 21people were killed before the gunman was shot and killed by a public policeSWAT team. The type and amount of force used, however, variesaccording to the circumstances. Private security officers frequently are expected to protect the livesof employees and the public as well as the physical assets of the businesspremises (Jackson 65-67). Under California law, as an example, foreseeability is aflexible concept that seeks to determine the probability and predictabilityof an event. Tactically acceptabletechniques also must be effective when used by private security officers ofany size, sex, or age, and must work when used in real encounters on thejob. "Guarding Against Liability." Security Management, 38 (September 1994): 125-13 .Jackson, L. Providing security for business and property in the United States isno longer a task that can be accomplished by "showing the flag." More andmore persons bent on criminal behavior in the contemporary period arewilling to risk encounters with security personnel, and when suchencounters occur, such persons increasingly are willing to resort to theuse of force against security officers, other employees where suchincidents occur, and customers who may be present (Clark 48-49). Retail security officers, as an example, are expected to arrestshoplifters and thieves, and often must use physical restraint toaccomplish this task (Jackson 65-67). "Training on Trial." Security Management, 4 (September 1996): 75-78. Royal thecourts may require security officers to use reasonably available force insome situations to protect the public from physical harm. Legal acceptability. On one side of this issue are those individuals whocontend that only the public police should be permitted to use force toprotect the interests of business and property owners. More than 1, such cases are filed each year in the UnitedStates. Rather, legal foreseeability ismeasured by all of the circumstances surrounding the crime. The security officers to whom business andproperty owners are turning either are employed by independent securityfirms that contract with owners to provide protection or these officers areemployees of the owners whose interests they protect. Many managers prefer to avoid the issue ofphysical force. "A Call to Arms." Security Management, 39 (October 1995): 48-49.De Geneste, H. In 197 lawsuits filed from 1983 to 1992 by victims of violent crimewho accused business or property owners of providing inadequate security,and where the suits went to trail as opposed to being settled out of court,jury verdicts averaged $2.2 million for wrongful deaths, $1.8 million forrapes, $1.2 million for assaults, and $7 , for robberies (Buss 18).Business and property owners, thus, face crime-related liabilities that canhave a substantial impact on their financial position. The victim sued the parent company because thestore's clerk did not come to his help when called. Conclusion Legally, private security officers likely will be held responsible fora failure to use force in certain situations. Tactical acceptability. Therefore, private securityofficers should be allowed to use force as necessary to effectivelydischarge their duties. The position of this writer is that private security officersshould be allowed to use the degree of force necessary for them todischarge their responsibilities. It is impossible for privatesecurity personnel to make appropriate decisions on the use of technique ifthey are uncertain of its results. Such outcomes often areattributed to either a lack of training or inadequate training of privatesecurity officers in the use of force. Works CitedBuss, D. The court determinedthat no reasonable security precautions, including an unarmed securityofficer, could have prevented the shootings. D. The issue becomes even more divisive when the question ofarming private security officers is introduced into the equation (Clark 48-49; De Geneste 49-5 ). B. Private securityofficers must be taught minimum use of force techniques. A Maryland appeals court ruled, as an example, that business ownersand employees must come to the aid of customers being assaulted if theythemselves (the business owners and employees) are in no danger (Buss 18).The ruling stemmed from a beating suffered by an individual in the parkinglot of a convenience store. 3. The criteria for establishing foreseeability varyby state. "Using Force Wisely." Security Management 36 (May 1992): 65-67.Nichter, D. McDonald's, a heavilyarmed individual entered the McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro,California, and opened fire on the restaurant's customers. "Combating Crime." Nation's Business 82 (March 1994): 16-23.Clark, B. Notwithstanding the above case and disregarding the obvious danger tothe security officers, the court in Marios v. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.