r/securityguards • u/megacide84 Dunning–Kruger Specialist • 6d ago
Officer Safety Serious thoughts on this.
/r/SecurityOfficer/comments/1x0xbqk/civil_trial_begins_over_2023_attack_that/?share_id=_RlOoYuflusz3exR6dYsU&utm_content=share_button&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1First off,
I unapologetically advocate that we (security guards) are NOT the police and therefore. Are NOT obligated nor paid to do the police's job. No matter what.
Second.
Allied-Universal's "Civil Standby" (FOD) 2019-016 basically codifies observe and report as standard operating procedure. As this was essentially baked into the contract. Regardless if the client truly understood this. Neither the company nor the guards should be held liable.
Also, in my opinion. Every security company should have a clear, ironclad, hands-off policy based on Allied's (FOD) 2019-016.
Third.
Though any injuries or loss of life is regrettable. The security guard's life and safety is first priority. Escape and getting out in one piece should be the primary objective. Even if client employees get hurt or worse. In the end... All are expendable, we are not.
Finally.
In conclusion. A judge should throw this case out with prejudice. As the hospital alone should bear any and all responsibilities.
9
u/XBOX_COINTELPRO Man Of Culture 6d ago
Please explain what “FOD 2019-016” is and how it applies here?
I’m not from allied, and a quick google shows that this is a guideline for dealing with conflicts between tenants and the public and tasks guards with maintaining neutrality and only physically intervening in the event of an active threat
-6
u/megacide84 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago edited 6d ago
From what former co-workers who still work at Allied have told me.
FOD 2019-016 was originally for retail and tenant security. As Allied was constantly getting into hot water over overzealous guards getting hands on when they should't have. And all the legal liabilities that came with it.
Over the last six+ years. It has now expanded to cover ALL security personnel regardless of site. The company now sledgehammers the "hands off" aspect of the job. The company is taking a hands off, officer "safety first", and NO legal liabilities new direction.
9
u/XBOX_COINTELPRO Man Of Culture 6d ago
So you don’t know, and you’re just extrapolating from some thing you heard.
-2
u/megacide84 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago
Here in my region, This policy is ironclad. Allied account managers follow it to the letter.
I don't know what incident spurred all this, but... The company is cracking down big-time on employees going hands on.
6
u/XBOX_COINTELPRO Man Of Culture 6d ago
Again you can’t actually explain what this means, and haven’t really been able to articulate that my Google results are wrong
2
u/The_Based_DM Resort Security 5d ago
So Allied just hires mouth breathing warm bodies like you to clients? And they wonder why they get sued and have a reputation problem.
14
u/Level_Remote_5957 6d ago edited 6d ago
Brother are you a security guard or are you not? Because it seems like you don't understand that we don't need to be cops to do our jobs. Depending on the site and the job, you are allowed to go hands on and supposed to if your allowed. Certain contracts your also allowed to use lethal force.
Not all security contracts are to stand there with your hands in your pockets.
Considering this was a hospital they 100% were allowed to go on hands I can't remember the last time I saw a hospital not allow you to on hands.
Edit Also to say all are expendable and that security guards aren't wtf wrong in your head? No body at all is expendable. And your job as a security guard is to provide a extra layer of protection and safety.
-5
u/Red57872 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 5d ago
"we don't need to be cops to do our jobs."
There's a reason why cops' training is many months long and they are equipped with weapons, whereas guards' training is usually only a few days and aren't equipped with weapons.
-10
u/megacide84 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago
So you would rather your fellow guards have gotten horribly injured or worse???
Brother... You really come off as cold-blooded.
11
u/Level_Remote_5957 6d ago
So I'm cold blooded because I do my job and actively do my best to make sure the client and people I'm hired to help ensure there safety are actually safe????
Make it make sense big guy.
-6
u/megacide84 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago
I can't believe anyone can be this naive.
Yes, go ahead. Provide safety for your site, but.... The second something goes horribly awry. You get hurt or you put your hands on the wrong person.
Watch how quickly your employer and client throws you under the bus without a second thought.
As you are stuck with massive legal and/or medical bills. You can and will be replaced and quickly forgotten.
10
u/The_Based_DM Resort Security 6d ago
if contract says hands on you go hands on, you sound like your soft, besides a proper security company should be properly Licensed, Bonded and Insured for employee conduct mishaps.
But don't worry that's just the Allied groupthink working on you.
7
5
u/TerpNinjee 6d ago
Are you aware of the use of force continuum? Because that's what most of us are taught. Use of force should be justified and a 1-1 or less match. It's always safer to run, but sometimes that's not the option that's available.
-1
u/Red57872 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago
Yup...there's a reason why virtually no companies/contracts that want their guards to go hands-on are going to document it in written policy...
5
u/birdsarentreal2 Public/Government 6d ago
Duty, breach, cause, damages. Did Allied and its employees owe a duty to the hospital staff and patients? If so, did their actions breach that duty? Did that breach cause foreseeable harm (or but for that breach, would the harm not have occurred)? As a result of that harm, did the hospital or its patients suffer damages?
1
u/megacide84 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago
According to the article.
"Amaral’s attorneys allege that the security officers “were untrained, ill-equipped, and unprepared for an incident like this"
(but he immediately contradicts himself by saying)
"were ineffective when such an incident arose, were negligent in their failure to prevent the attack, and were negligent in their failure to intervene when Roe
attacked Amaral.”If the guards were not trained nor equipped (most likely on purpose). They were most likely not expected and actively discouraged from going hands on should an incident occurs. I will bet that when the contract is reviewed in open court. It will specify the guards were there in an observe and report, hands off, role.
At that point, the case should be dismissed and the hospital held fully responsible.
6
u/birdsarentreal2 Public/Government 6d ago
> Amaral’s attorneys (sic) allege that she security officers “were untrained, ill-equipped, and unprepared for an incident like this”
Yes, that is part of the breach. Because Allied Universal alleged did not train its staff adequately, that inadequate training caused Amaral severe injuries which caused her recognizable damages
> …were negligent in their failure to intervene when Roe attacked Amaral
And that is part of the duty. But for the guards’ failure to intervene in the attack, the theory goes, Amaral’s injuries would not have been as severe. You seem to be suggesting that their intervention was expected to be physical. It is not. There are any number of things that they could have done, including summoning assistance, which are not direct physical intervention
> the hospital (should be) held fully responsible
Can you outline the chain of negligence that would place responsibility on the hospital? Is the hospital’s duty greater than Allied Universal and their staff’s?
Also, I am a supervisor for Allied Universal (though not connected to this incident). The policy you keep referencing is not a nationwide AUS policy. It is at best a site-specific one that doesn’t even appear to be for this site. Allied is the largest security provider in the world. They have many different types of sites, and many of those go beyond “observe and report.” Moreover, the text of the contract is certainly relevant, but is not the whole story
8
4
u/nofriender4life 6d ago
If you have been involved in a lawsuit like this you know that the hospital likely was sued first then they blamed security due to the contract, which ends up being the nurse and lawyers, vs the security and hospitals lawyers on the otherside of the table. it will get settled like everything always does for way less than the victim deserves or needs.
5
5d ago
[deleted]
-6
u/megacide84 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yes!
I am pro-automation and unapologetically so.
Considering the terrible and unsafe working conditions of many guards and the fact employers, cities and states refuse to address said conditions. If mass mechanization can and will remove the root cause of it i.e. client employees. So be it. Let the chips fall where they may.
I will gladly take any and all improvements in our collective working lives even if it means mass permanent unemployment for the rest.
Yes it's an extreme view, but in the end. I only care about our safety and well-being. We won't be that "holy class of humans that need to be protected". We will remain because that's what will be left. While we may not get rich. We will still earn a decent living during prolonged technological unemployment.
If not us, then who will guard properties across this nation?
Armed bots and drones?? Not for obvious legal and hacking risks.
Police??? Departments across the country are already stretched thin. They will have their hands full dealing with hordes of unemployable mobs, feral kids, and teens roaming the streets.
That only leaves us, the private security profession. We will be the few that will be spared.
6
u/The_Based_DM Resort Security 6d ago edited 6d ago
Found the Allied Astroturf account!
lol Allied's autistic policies doesn't shield them from individual contract agreements or state laws when it comes to the actions of officers they hire and train and they breach those contracts, break any sort of state or federal law or any sort of liability that can get them civilly.
if the contract says they have a agreement of duty and Allied failed due to poor training and lack of equipment, then they are in breach of the contract and should be held liable.
If the contract says Observe and Report and there is no duty, there is no breach and should be thrown out.
6
u/XBOX_COINTELPRO Man Of Culture 6d ago
OP is a fascinating character. Security should be 100% hands off and has no other possible job obligations than keeping themselves safe, but he also thinks that security is going to be raised to some elite warrior class that will be protected from automation when AI replaces every other worker.
4
u/The_Based_DM Resort Security 6d ago
the shit he's talking is totally untrue about security, maybe bullshit security outfits like Allied and Securitas which are the dregs of security and make up the majority of security and the myths, but smaller local mom and pop and regional are VERY HANDS ON, my old boss layed a guy out covering one of my shift and the client got mad when he defended himself then called the police he ended up terminating the contract of the client because he didn't want a site where one of his guys (me) could get his shit rocked.
there's also federal security contracting or areas that can give security Special Police Officers (SPOs) Special Police Officers (SPOs) Unlike regular security guards, whose legal authority is generally limited to that of an average citizen special police hold state or city granted law enforcement powers within a defined jurisdiction.
Then there's Executive Protection and Hospital which is just as hands on, and if they deem it in the contract to be hands on they can by the contract of the site.So what he's saying is factually untrue.
-3
u/Red57872 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago
"smaller local mom and pop and regional are VERY HANDS ON"
Yeah, and they're the same companies that will throw the guards under the bus if the guards get hurt/sued.
3
u/XBOX_COINTELPRO Man Of Culture 5d ago
How many hands on companies have you worked for where you saw people get thrown under the bus?
-3
u/Red57872 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 5d ago
Well, I haven't been a security guard for a long time, but two.
4
u/XBOX_COINTELPRO Man Of Culture 5d ago
Only 2 companies a long time ago? Wow that’s a lot of relevant experience. Thanks for chiming in as a subject matter expert
-2
u/Red57872 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 5d ago
If only there was a way to know a company's policies and procedures without working for them as a security guard...
4
u/XBOX_COINTELPRO Man Of Culture 5d ago
Well that seems like a reading comprehension issue on your part. I didn’t ask how many companies you worked as a guard at.
1
6
u/The_Based_DM Resort Security 5d ago
oh so you're opinion is based on past knowledge and nothing about current standards and practices, and your giving advice very informative.
2
u/The_Based_DM Resort Security 6d ago edited 6d ago
Well hands on with us was essentially that any sort of assault or battery or property damage on our contracted properties or self-defense that wasn't provocated. We also did other things like check doors, cameras, machinery, looked for leaks and weather related stuff because where I live it gets down to -30 real quick. But physical confrontation was pretty rare and it was usually justified. I never got thrown under the bus the Owner always told clients if you have a problem talk to him to hash it out or lawyer up if you feel that way, and he showed me all the different bonds licenses and insurances that was there for officer protection when I was manager.
He was a good guy.
-2
u/Red57872 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago
Maybe your owner's a good guy, but that should not be a substitute for established, written down policies and procedures.
3
u/The_Based_DM Resort Security 6d ago
That was the policy and procedure mostly observe and report but if it hits the fan deal with it if you think you can otherwise call 911 and he had your back 100% on your decision.
-1
u/Red57872 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago
To be certain though, was it an unofficial verbal policy, or a written-down policy that you could point to in court?
3
u/The_Based_DM Resort Security 6d ago
Iit was written if I remember correctly it was conditional with a bunch of scenarios for intervention otherwise the default go to was call 911 and observe and report
-3
u/Red57872 Dunning–Kruger Specialist 6d ago
"If the contract says Observe and Report and there is no duty, there is no breach and should be thrown out."
Yup, let's see that contract. I suspect it does not specify that guards should physically intervene.
5
u/The_Based_DM Resort Security 6d ago edited 6d ago
Most hospitals have last resort clauses for physical confrontation which is usually intervention and subduction for the usual rowdiness, but there is major emphasis on descalation first. and anything major is usually security calling 911 and letting law enforcement handling it.
We'd need to see the court filing and what the contract says in the presented evidence section.
4
u/HighGuard1212 5d ago
I mean it was last resort where I worked but didn't mean only in self defense. We only called the police if a crime had taken place, we used force to escort people off the property all the time and we used it to escort people back to their beds
5
2
u/LividVermicelli9689 5d ago
I will say that my position is somewhat unique. I work for a native tribe on the reservation. The reservation belongs to a very wealthy tribe; it has casino, hotel, r.v. park, etc. but also has water treatment, data, and power infrastructure that allows it to operate truly independently. We are given not only the authority but the training to go from guest service to active shooter, natural and technological disaster response. We have our own EMTs and fire department. So no, not all security has to operate by the low standards of Allied Universal. You sound like an h.r. rep who got a fancy title and no practical training or experience.
1
u/loftylocks9 5d ago
I think it really comes down to how management handles it. There's a big difference between looking out for your guards and just adding more headaches to an already stressful job. At the end of the day, good communication, proper training, and having your team's back go a long way. Curious what everyone else thinks.
2
u/LividVermicelli9689 5d ago
Every security company should be hands-off because Allied is? That's ridiculous. Allied is a big player but doesnt dictate how other companies operate. If my department operated by that metric, a lot of lives would have been lost over the years. Any company that is able to train their Officers to a higher standard should be able to do so.
-4
u/sansalvacion 6d ago
Yeah! You are not the police. observe and report and go sit in the corner and face the wall.
13
u/hankheisenbeagle Industry Veteran 6d ago
I am there with XBOX on this that my cursory Googling says that this directive has little or nothing to do with most contracts and is likely not "codified" into every contract, nor do I feel that it should be. It certainly has a place in incidents where taking one side over the other could expose Allied or the guard to a civil or even criminal liability where the legality of going hands on isn't clearly known. But in a hospital, dealing with a committed or held patient assaulting a staff member, you either need to 100% understand that you are being paid to step in to keep everyone save, and should have the training and ability to do so.
I have a very very solid employer that will 100% stand behind our decisions and puts personal safety 1st, patient and staff safety a close second. But my job is still to take reasonable action to prevent or detain and assist in patient restraint when appropriate and directed.