Generally, organizations around the world often contract private security companies to protect their employees, facilities, operations, and assets. The private security companies then dispatch their personnel to the client’s facilities to provide the necessary protection. In the course of duty, the security officers may be compelled to use a certain degree of force to restrict the public from gaining unauthorized access to client’s facilities (Brooks & Corkill, 2014). Besides, some criminal elements may vandalize or steal property. Businesses do not operate in a vacuum and there is need to consider the potential impact of the current security arrangements on the customers and local communities. This can be confirmed by the recent incident involving the company’s armed security officers and the public. The armed security officers are accused of using excessive force against the public visiting the international import complex. The international import complex is a beehive of activities, with hundreds of visitors coming to the facility on a daily basis. Activists and protestors are also part of the people visiting the facility apparently due to the fact that the facility features a diverse product import base that is likely to kill local businesses. The daily crowds present a unique security challenge to the security officers who are frequently called upon to disperse crowds and remove unruly guests from the complex. As the organizations corporate security director, I am responsible for ensuring that the security officers act within the law and maintain appropriate ethical standards.
Initial and Secondary Actions
The increasing pressure from the public and activists requires that the organization releases a detailed statement addressing the complaints about excessive use of force. The initial step will be to engage the community in order to establish a positive working relationship. Basically, the public should not feel that the organization is ignoring their concerns, particularly following the recent allegations on use of excessive force. The corporate security director will consult the company’s community relations team. The community relations team will help in creating or identifying opportunities to speak with the community members. The private security provider has the responsibility to communicate its security arrangement to the import complex employees and the community. This is aimed at involving the community members in discussions about the security arrangements that could affect them. This is important because the community members are part of the stakeholders in the business to which the organization provides security. Basically, the security arrangements should ensure that the public is involved. If the community members are aware about the security arrangements in place, they will know what to expect if they engage in certain actions that may compromise the security in the international import complex. The members should be informed about how the armed security officers respond to certain actions carried out by the public. For instance, the community relations team can communicate with community members regarding the likely responses of the security officers in cases involving riots of unauthorized entry to the facility. The community members can then strive to avoid any actions that may be deemed inappropriate while in the facility.
Training on the Use of Force
Training the armed security officers on the use of force is another alternative available to assist in addressing the current problem. The complaints against several of the company’s security staff indicates that there is need for more training relating to the use of force while on duty. The security officers should be trained on how to avoid using excessive force unnecessarily. They should learn to exhaust all relevant means before resorting to the use of force. As much as the security officers should provide protection, they should ensure that they protect the rights of the people visiting the international import complex. While restraining the public from accessing certain parts of the complex, the security officers avoid using unnecessary amount of force in the restraint. Due to the fact that the security officers are frequently called to control crowds or remove unruly guests from the premises, they may be compelled to use some force. However, the organization should account for such use of force by providing public reports relating to use of force. This will limit the number of protests relating to use of excessive force by the security staff. Essentially, people are increasingly aware of their rights in today’s litigious world, indicating that security officers are at a greater risk of finding themselves in tricky situations when it comes to restricting entry or removing unruly guests from the facility.
The crash training program will utilize the Dynamic Resistance Response Model developed by Chick Joyner and Chad Basile to train the officers on how to appropriately respond to security situations in the complex. The model determines the security officer’s response and classifies suspects into four different categories: compliant, non-threatening resistance, threatening resistance, and deadly resistance (Joyner & Basile, 2007). The model will provide an effective framework for determining the most appropriate responses to suspect behaviors threatening security.
The Dynamic Resistance Response Model
The Dynamic Resistance Response Model will help the security officers understand when to use force and when not to. As such, the model will help regulate the use of force among the security officers. The training will help the officers effectively determine which situation requires them to apply force (Brooks & Corkill, 2014). Basically, the presence of the security forces alone is often effective in discouraging the public from engaging in behaviors that may compromise the security of the complex. For instance, the sight of armed security officers is an effective deterrent to trespassers and thieves.
Compliant suspects (Not resistant).
The compliant suspects refer to suspects who do not resist and instead follow all commands as directed by the security officers. For such individuals, the security officers should be asked to avoid using force against them. This is because force is generally inappropriate in dealing with such suspects. Thus, the presence of the security officers and verbal commands are enough to deal with the compliant suspects. Coercive physical contact is generally irrelevant in such circumstances.
Non-threatening resistance refers to the failure to follow commands from the security officers. However, the actions of such suspects are generally neutral or defensive. In such a situation, the officers do not actually feel threatened. It is important to realize that it is the officer’s perception of the threat that is important in assessing the extent and the nature of risk posed by the suspect. Thus, if the officer does not feel that the suspect poses any physical threat, he is not allowed to use excessive force. However, the officers may use pressure points and take-downs for situations calling for arrest, particularly if felony or breach of peace is observed.
Threatening resistance refers to offensive actions from suspects that require the security officers to defend themselves. The security officers can defend themselves by responding with appropriate force that is enough to eliminate, control, or stop the threat. There are various justified responses to offensive actions by suspects. For instance, if the security officer feels threatened by the suspect’s actions, he can use pepper sprays, batons, and fists to control or eliminate the threat. The officers will be trained to ensure that the subjects’ behaviors are actually physically threatening before they can consider resorting to personal weapons, paper sprays, or batons.
Additionally, security officer may recognize such pre-incident indicators as suspects assuming a fighting stance and clenching fists. Such indicators suggest that the suspect intends to fight the security officer. The indicators are generally classified as threatening resistance even if an actual attack has not been committed. Another such indicator is the verbal threat to commit harm. The officers should be trained that it is actually reasonable to feel threatened under such circumstances. As such, the security officers are justified to utilize personal weapons, paper sprays, and batons to neutralize the threats.
Deadly resistant suspects can also present themselves at the facility. Such suspects have the potential to seriously injure or even kill the security officer or another individual, particularly if no action is taken to neutralize the threat (Hansen Löfstrand et al., 2016). In such situations, the security officers are generally justified in using force, including deadly force (Alpert, 2016). This is because all appropriate means should be used to overcome the offender and effect custody. However, the security officers will be trained to remember that deadly force is a last resort. The officers will be urged to determine the appropriate tool to use based on the suspect’s level of resistance.
The action plan for dealing with excessive use of force among the security officers is developing an effective use of force policy. The policy will help regulate the use of force among the company’s armed security officers offering protection for the international import complex. It is important to realize that company policies help in maintaining order within the organization, as well as ensure that people are treated fairly and equally (Saetren, 2014). Additionally, policies are instrumental in helping employees understand what is expected of them. The objective of the policy is to ensure that the officers desist from using unnecessary force in controlling crowds and regulating entry into the complex’s facilities. The policy will deal with the issue of excessive use of force among the security personnel now and in the future.
The policy will describe how the security officers will use force to control crowds and remove unruly guests from the facility. The policy will describe the situations that require the use of force and specify the appropriate level of force to be applied as well as the tools to be used. Basically, the Dynamic Resistance Response Model will form the basis of the policy to be developed.
Implementation and Monitoring
The security officers will be trained on the policy. They will also be invited to suggest any modifications to the policy if necessary. This will ensure that the security officers feel part of the process of improving service delivery and meeting public expectations. The security officers will be more likely to support the implementation process. Essentially, strategic implementation processes in organizations require the attention and work of employees within the business (Saetren, 2014). This is because the process has the potential to impact a wide range of duties and responsibilities. Additionally, the employees need to understand the changes that will affect their job duties. The support of employees is critical for the success of the implementation process.
The policy will be monitored for effectiveness through regular reports. The security officers will be required to provide reports on the incidences that involved the use of force (Baskerville et al., 2014). This will help in determining whether the policy guidelines are adhered to. Any deviations from the policy will be addressed appropriately. Additionally, the community relations team will be requested to carry out customer surveys relating to whether the security officers are dealing with them appropriately or not. The customer feedback will help in identifying the areas requiring improvement.
- Alpert, G. P. (2016). Toward a national database of officer‐involved shootings: A long and winding road. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 237-242.
- Baskerville, R., Spagnoletti, P., & Kim, J. (2014). Incident-centered information security: Managing a strategic balance between prevention and response. Information & management, 51(1), 138-151.
- Brooks, D. J., & Corkill, J. (2014). Corporate security and the stratum of security management. In Corporate security in the 21st century (pp. 216-234). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
- Hansen Löfstrand, C., Loftus, B., & Loader, I. (2016). Doing ‘dirty work’: Stigma and esteem in the private security industry. European journal of criminology, 13(3), 297-314.
- Joyner, C., & Basile, C. (2007). The dynamic resistance response model: A modern approach to the use of force. FBI L. Enforcement Bull., 76, 15.
- Saetren, H. (2014). Implementing the third generation research paradigm in policy implementation research: An empirical assessment. Public Policy and Administration, 29(2), 84-105.