"This is a Hands-Off Site" has become increasingly prevalent in security, often articulated by clients, security employers, or other stakeholders involved in the safety and security landscape.
This article does not advocate for or against the Use of Force but rather seeks to facilitate a discussion that goes beyond the simplistic binary of green light versus red light when it comes to physical intervention.
In conversations with various organizations over the years, "Hands-Off" typically conveys that security personnel should refrain from initiating any form of physical restraint or aggressive eviction. It often reflects a client’s failure to anticipate specific scenarios where a Use-of-Force option may be necessary for ensuring safety. This raises important questions about the implications of such policies and the need for thoughtful consideration of the circumstances that may warrant a different approach to security measures.
Terminology
Understanding the terminology surrounding this topic is essential. Any policy regarding a site's culture must ensure that the terms used align with their intended meanings and are clearly defined.
For instance:
Physical Intervention refers to a set of techniques that involve applying physical control strategies to minimize the risk of harm during a situation with an immediate physical threat. The primary objective of these interventions is to de-escalate the situation and ensure safety. Once the immediate risk has been mitigated, control tactics are reduced, emphasizing the importance of maintaining open and persuasive communication throughout the process.
In contrast, Physical Force denotes any action reasonably likely to inflict physical pain (like pressure points) or possibility of injury. It encompasses any measure applied to an individual’s body to compel, control, constrain, or restrain their movements against their will.
As illustrated by these examples, each term has markedly different implications and applications, yet it is common for some organizations to mistakenly use them interchangeably.
This leads to an essential clarification: if a site is designated as "hands-off," does this imply that no form of physical intervention is permitted under any circumstances? This includes situations where clients, the public, or staff members are under direct physical assault. Understanding the policies in place is crucial for effectively navigating such scenarios while ensuring the safety and well-being of everyone involved.
What about Liability?
Liability is a term that often surfaces in discussions, sometimes to the extent that people choose to avoid the topic altogether. It can be likened to a double-edged sword, potentially benefiting or harming organizations depending on how it is managed.
When considering liability from the perspectives of policy, staff members, and the organization, evaluating the risks associated with taking action or remaining passive is crucial. It’s essential to weigh the consequences of intervening against the repercussions of inaction.
While there is a general consensus that the police should be contacted immediately in serious situations to ensure safety, one must consider the gap of time before help arrives. In many cases, police response times can range from 5 to 7 minutes. During this critical window, how effectively is the risk being managed?
If a public member sustains an injury because security personnel chose not to intervene, the organization could face significant liability exposure due to their failure to take action.
Conversely, many organizations harbour fears about the potential for security staff to injure or act excessively during incidents. This mindset poses a challenge, as it often blurs the line between what is within the organization’s control and what is not. Striking the right balance between proactive measures and appropriate caution is essential for effective risk management.
Controllable Factors
When viewed from a broad perspective, the general public lacks the ability to influence their own personal safety at your location through their individual actions and responses.
However, from the viewpoint of an organizational framework, four specific elements can be managed effectively. It is ultimately up to the security organization or department to determine whether or not to invest in training that addresses these areas. Nonetheless, it is essential to recognize that these factors are controllable and can significantly impact overall safety and security.
Soft Skills
Soft skills encompass the communication abilities, interpersonal skills, and various toolsets of security personnel. The concept of "uniforming" can significantly influence how these skills are perceived and executed. For instance, an overly authoritative or "enforcement" uniform style can hinder initial communication efforts, creating a barrier between security staff and those they are meant to engage with. Conversely, if a uniform is too generic, it may blur the distinction of security's role on site, making it harder for individuals to recognize the presence and purpose of security personnel.
To foster a harmonious atmosphere, it is essential to ensure that uniform guidelines align with the team's overarching soft skills training. This alignment promotes a consistent approach to appearance and interpersonal interactions.
Verbal and nonverbal communication skills should be developed consistently, practiced, and refined. Staff must understand when to adjust the pace of a conversation, whether that means speeding up to convey urgency or slowing down to allow for reflection. Knowing when to pause for effective influence or when silence can be a powerful tool to elicit a desired reaction is vital.
Moreover, does your organization actively employ de-escalation strategies? Staff must possess a clear understanding of the achievable goals inherent in these tactics and have the training necessary to implement them successfully. Security personnel's effectiveness often hinges on their ability to communicate skillfully and anticipate the dynamics of every situation they encounter.
Common Goals
Build rapport and cooperation over time.
Attempting to slow down or stabilize the situation so that more time, options, and resources are available to resolve the incident.
Creating physical distance by employing tactical repositioning to maintain the benefit of time, distance, and cover may include placing barriers or using existing structures to provide a shield or other protection between security and a subject.
Requesting and using available support and resources, such as a crisis intervention team, a designated crisis responder, or backup security for Tap-Out.
Disengagement is if there is no threat of imminent harm and no crime has been committed, is being committed or is about to be committed.
Environmental
In situations where soft skills are failing and concerning behaviours are escalating, it is crucial to differentiate between a progressive behaviour pattern and mere time expenditure. Time can be managed effectively if the problematic behaviour does not intensify.
Environmental controls often exist but are frequently overlooked. These can include strategic crowd management techniques to minimize the number of onlookers and passive spectators, thereby reducing potential triggers for the individual in crisis. The elements of embarrassment and privacy are potent factors that can be manipulated to regain control over a situation.
Isolation strategies may limit the subject’s freedom of movement within a designated area. This can be achieved by carefully placing staff members, who can create ample space for movement while monitoring and managing the available exit routes. In circumstances where more robust measures are necessary, containment may become essential. This involves implementing environmental controls and non-restrictive safety interventions such as securely locking doors, establishing access control, and ensuring the removal of all bystanders and staff from the vicinity.
For instance, picture a busy office lobby on an ordinary afternoon. A former employee of one of the tenants approaches the security desk, requesting permission to go upstairs. Security personnel are already aware of this individual’s concerning history, which includes threatening calls and emails directed at their previous workplace; hence, a BOLF (Be On the Lookout For) report has been filed. As a proactive measure, security initiates a containment procedure in the lobby.
To prevent accidental encounters with bystanders, the elevators are taken out of service, lobby doors are promptly locked, and the area is cleared of unnecessary personnel. Effective communication strategies are established to inform tenants that the lobby is currently inaccessible and direct them to use only the parkade and stairwells for exits.
When law enforcement arrives in response to the established threat protocol, the situation has been contained within a manageable and open space, facilitating a more organized and efficient police operation for engagement and control.
Lock-Down
A Lock-Down process represents an elevated form of environmental control, typically implemented in multifaceted settings or where individuals may be at risk. Typical venues that adopt Lock-Down protocols include shopping malls, sports arenas, and community centers. During a Lock-Down, all perimeter and interior doors are secured and locked to create a barrier, limiting movement within the facility. The primary objective of this approach is to ensure the safety of all individuals present by restricting access to and from the premises, thereby enhancing security during potentially hazardous situations.
An example of this could be a shopping mall. If someone attempts to steal products from a retail store, security attempts to stop the subject. The subject may have a bear spray canister to spray toward security to avoid restraint.
In this instance, a mall lockdown procedure may be a consideration for that specific mall region. The subject may enter another store space and, in their fight or flight response, may discharge more bear spray or escalate further. Alternatively, you have bystanders unknowingly enter an area of high risk, increasing the impact factors.
Disengagement
Disengagement can take two primary forms: verbal disengagement and physical disengagement. Verbal disengagement involves recognizing that the presence of staff may escalate a situation. This strategy requires the staff to be attuned to the individual’s emotional state and the dynamics at play, aiming to defuse tension through communication rather than confrontation.
A common practice in verbal disengagement is to escort an individual outside, beyond the physical access control point, such as a secured door. While the individual technically remains on the premises, successfully guiding them outside can serve the principal objective of de-escalation. Once this has been achieved, security personnel should calmly disengage from the situation and return to the building, ensuring the door is securely locked behind them.
In scenarios where an individual is in a space such as a washroom and appears to be escalating toward potential physical harm, the safest strategy may involve a tactical disengagement. This might mean exiting the washroom to reassess the situation or seek alternative containment strategies without directly confronting the individual.
On the other hand, physical disengagement pertains to situations where security personnel may be unprepared for an unexpected event or lack a clear pathway to effectively control the situation. In such instances, staff must avoid physical struggle or grappling for control. If immediate control is not achievable, the best action is to disengage, maintain a safe distance, and re-evaluate the circumstances.
The importance of staff training and skills development cannot be overstated. Often, self-defence and disengagement training do not adequately reflect the real-world threats and challenges staff may face, leading to ineffective responses in critical moments. Therefore, training programs should evolve based on incident reports, near misses, and observed behaviours to remain relevant and practical.
Specific training techniques that have proven effective in real-world scenarios include:
- Defending against wrist grabs
- Responding to choking attempts from both the front and rear
- Managing situations where the subject is grappling without striking
- Dealing with scenarios in which staff are stable and not thrown off balance
- Navigating environments where the subject is yelling or creating noise without contributing to confusion among staff
Incorporating these elements into training helps staff be better prepared to handle challenging situations effectively and safely.
Physical Intervention ( Use of Force)
When discussing Physical Investigation, several critical circumstances must be thoroughly understood to equip security personnel to make informed decisions. Each scenario presents its own challenges and necessitates a unique approach.
Common Circumstances:
1. Defense of Self: Protecting oneself during a confrontational situation.
2. Defense of Others: Safeguarding the well-being of bystanders or distressed individuals.
3. Single Subject: Encountering one individual who may pose a threat.
4. Multiple Subjects: Dealing with several individuals, which complicates the response.
5. Subject with Non-Lethal Weapon: Addressing a scenario where an individual is armed with a weapon that does not have lethal capabilities.
6. Subject with Lethal Weapon: Encountering someone armed with a potentially deadly weapon, necessitating a heightened response.
7. Loss Prevention (Retail Theft): Strategies focused on preventing theft within retail environments.
8. Physical Eviction/Ejection: The process of removing an individual from a premises safely and legally.
9. Single Guard Response: Situations where only one security guard is present to address an incident.
10. Multi-Guard Response: Scenarios that require the coordinated efforts of multiple security personnel to effectively manage a threat.
11. Resistive Arrest: Instances where an individual actively resists being detained or arrested.
Each of these scenarios demands careful consideration of specific objectives, situational awareness, and the application of various skills. The more extensive the training received by staff members, the greater the potential for skills to overlap and reinforce one another.
It is crucial to approach Use-Of-Force training cautiously, particularly in programs with exceptionally high pass rates. The unsettling truth is that only a tiny minority of individuals possess the ability to perform effectively under high-stress, high-threat conditions.
Furthermore, there are practical situations where "hands-off" policies may necessitate a physical response from staff. In this context, adopting terminology such as "hands-last" or "Safety Intervention Only" might be beneficial, highlighting a more cautious approach to engagement.
Continuous training is essential for developing practical psychomotor skills in security personnel. Unfortunately, many programs, workshops, and instructors emphasize mere mimicry. If students can replicate actions accurately in a controlled environment, they may be allowed to pass the course. This can foster a dangerous sense of overconfidence, leading security staff to believe their skills are more advanced than they actually are, with potentially severe consequences, including injury.
Conversely, some participants may struggle with mimicry during training. However, if evaluated appropriately, their ability to grasp underlying principles can shine through, demonstrating a practical understanding of techniques that yield positive real-world results.
Conclusion.
Regardless of the philosophy guiding your site, clients, and employers, it's crucial to recognize the potential for physical necessities. Are your staff equipped to identify these situations proactively? Do your policies, terminology, and management style foster an atmosphere where employees feel empowered to acknowledge safety concerns and report them? It's essential to ensure that these issues can be addressed promptly when the need arises.
Comments