- Posted by admin
- On July 16, 2018
It is important to note that a majority of the 110,000 security officers throughout the United States are unarmed. A majority of your security companies explain it away in four reasons. First is the liability of security firms having guards with firearms which is not true, my insurance and liability are actually lower with armed guards, the second is the lack of officers with adequate security training to carry a firearm which is true, the third is always the client either does not want to pay extra for armed security officers on the property, or the fourth is the client thinks it is a liability to have armed security officers.
So in layman terms, what that security company means is “We talked that client out of armed security officer which would have to protect their customers, employees, and assets and I just wanted a body in a uniform providing no services what so ever while I am raping them of money”
My very first question to all of my new client is always “why do you want security?” I always get the same stupid answers like “It lowers my Insurance” “They deter crime” “it makes my employees feel safer” “it protects my customers and makes them feel safer” and I always stop them right then and ask them what they know about premise liability and almost every time I get the same stupid look and the stupid as can be answer of “I don’t know”.
When third party criminal actors decide to commit a crime either because they are mentally ill or terrorists. The first assignment is to take out any type of security measures or in layman terms anything they believe may stop them from committing the crime in full. In a majority of cases where robberies are committed criminal researches a business or in Law Enforcement or street terms “cases” it so as to determine if the security officer is armed or not. Based on this, I always talk about what could happen and give clients my wise and professional advice about premise liability and armed vs unarmed security.
I love explaining to my new clients that there is no good outcome having a security firm if they are not willing to protect because they are not able to protect the employees, customers or assets of a business and that they may as well throw an employee in charge of cleaning the bathrooms in a uniform with a big security patch on the jacket and call it a day. As a former Police Officer and SWAT member I can honestly say that due to the lack of Law Enforcement personnel and their presence, active shootings and increased armed robbery cases are an almost every day occurrence across the United States. This explains, in clear terms, the need for a armed security officer.
A nice example I like using is, you hire a security officer to prevent your store from being robbed. Any robber who is determined to rob it will not be deterred from the act just because you have a person wearing a uniform in the store if they are unarmed. The robber is armed and without much effort, he robs you successfully.
Another perfect example I use daily on the phone across America and Overseas is having a large office building, Mall or any large venue area which we consider in the government security contract field as soft targets which in common layman terms means it is relatively easy to access by anyone be they civilians, terrorists or someone just wanting to kill as many as they can. The security in these places is most likely untrained and unarmed and it is vulnerable to any terror attack or mass murder because it is a large place of venue where many people are located and a majority of the victims will be caught off guard by the attack and most likely this will be a GUN FREE zone or as I like to call it a killing field. In this scenario, expecting the security guard who is unarmed to stop or prevent this such of attack when they are unarmed is like telling a marine to go into war with a super soaker and I would not expect them to do anything to stop it. With those two examples is it really a question of why you wouldn’t want armed security?
Now let us introduce liability into these scenarios and why I wrote a separate article on premise liability because store owners do not consider the type of security they hire or consider the liability.
The supreme court has ruled and forced businesses to pay large sums to victims who have been hurt or killed as a result of a robbery that occurs because there was no security or the irresponsibility on the part of the security companies. Let me be the first to inform you that we give a hold harmless agreement to every client we have and for you to totally understand what a hold harmless agreement is, it is for the actions of our security guards but the hold harmless does not protect a business owner as regards of the inability or incapability of the guards.
So what this means is if one of my security officers hurts a third party criminal during an arrest, we take full responsibility for this and our company will be sued. However, if an unarmed security officer is protecting your employees, customers because you do not want them armed. You and your business will bear responsibilities if your employees, customers or even the security officer is killed during a robbery incident.
It is important to note that if I have an unarmed security officer protecting your assets, employees, and customers, I will never expect them to try and stop an armed robber or active shooter because they have no means to do it nor will any other company.
In conclusion, when you consider armed and unarmed security you need to think about all of these scenarios we have discussed and you need to realize the end goal of hiring a security company. You want to hire a company who completely understands liability to keep your company protected and you want to hire a company who hires trained former military and law enforcement officers and has the trainers on hand who have regular training with your security officers.