|
A significant portion of security lawsuits are intentional torts. These litigations include false arrest, false imprisonment and excessive use of force. Among these intentional torts, excessive use of force is the source of a significant portion of security lawsuits. The preponderance of false arrest lawsuits occur in retail industries. However, this article will deal with the topic of the use of force. Lawsuits arising out of claims of excessive use of force can be found not only in the retail industry, but also in the hotel and casino industry, large entertainment/sports venues, the healthcare industry and the nightclub industry.
Let's examine some circumstances that may have the potential to produce a claim of excessive use of force. Casino security personnel throw a guest to the ground who they suspect may have been involved in an altercation, and cause serious injury. Hospital emergency room personnel wrestle a patient to the ground and apply restraints with no attempt to deescalate the behavior. Bouncers in a nightclub literally throw a patron out the door causing the patron to fall and suffer facial injury and the loss of teeth. All of these examples are real and resulted in costly lawsuits.
What are some of the common denominators in each of these examples?
Most of these cases, not all, have several factors in common. The most pervasive shortcoming was training. Second, closely related to training, was the lack of judgment. Third, machismo, there is a tendency for security personnel to become part of the problem as they actually escalate the confrontation. There are often too many security personnel involved in the confrontation as opposed to one or maybe two people who are skilled and well trained to manage aggressive behavior. A finally there is the factor of the emotional immaturity and the psychological stability of security personnel. That is, security personnel who easily loose their cool.
If your organization is going to allow security personnel, either proprietary or contract, to occasionally place hands on people, take into custody, use batons, use handcuffs and/or use pepper spray, you had better make sure they have the appropriate training. You have a choice, either prohibit the touching of anyone under any circumstances (a policy that may have its own inherent risks), or make sure there is appropriate training. Second, make sure your security personnel are thoroughly background screened. You do not want the double whammy of an employee who uses excessive force to be an ex-felon with a history of violence. That background check must include drug screening. You must also be assured of the psychological stability of individuals who may need to occasionally use force. Within the ranks of security personnel, one can often find police "wanabees". These are individuals who started out with the ambition to become a police officer, but never made the cut.
Probably the environment that is most likely to have inadequately trained security personnel, are entertainment venues, especially nightclubs with their bouncers. Bouncers are typically big beefy guys who spend a great deal of time in the gym lifting weights. This concept is not all bad. Some of these guys have calm dispositions and, because of their size, provide an effective deterrence. The problem arises when they have to act. This is when their lack of effective training puts their employer at great risk.
Based on our consulting practice and our work as security experts in numerous lawsuits, the two most common mistakes are the failure to see a confrontation developing in the incipient stage and the tendency to exacerbate an already volatile situation. All too often security people intervene too late. The earlier the intervention, the greater will be the likelihood of success.
What are some of the goals and elements of a sound training program?
If your organization expects security personnel to deal with aberrant behavior, and in particular, to use physical force to control people, they must be properly trained. The primary objective of any training program must be, first and foremost, the avoidance of injury. The avoidance of injury applies to both the subject of the force and the individual applying the force. It might be useful to provide an operational definition of appropriate use of force at this juncture. The appropriate use of force should demand that, once used there should only be enough force to overcome resistance and when resistance subsides, force should subside.
No matter what training program is selected, there are some elements that should be included in all programs. The first element is discipline. Individuals who may need to use force must have self discipline, which is only gained through training. They must have the ability to maintain control over their own emotions. If they are unable to maintain a level of professionalism, the person they are trying to control will most likely sense it and the aggressive behavior may escalate. Unfortunately, there are a small number of individuals who are drawn to both security and police work who actually "get off" on confrontation.
Second, the training program must contain a heavy dose of de-escalation. The program must acquaint the trainee with the symptoms of aggressive behavior when the aggressive individual is still in the incipient stage. As an individual moves up through the various stages of aggression, the chances for successful de-escalation are greatest the earlier in the process the de-escalation begins. The range of employees who should at the minimum, receive de-escalation skill training, is not limited to security personnel. This group might include bartenders, receptionists, clerks, and nurses, depending on the work environment.
Third, the training should avoid the use of the "gang- up technique, sometimes referred to as the swarm technique." There is a prevailing misnomer that an overwhelming show of force will mitigate aggressive behavior. It may in some circumstances, but the downside liabilities outweigh the benefits. The swarm technique is more difficult to control and coordinate as well as lacking consistency.
Fourth, the training should include the ability to recognize the symptomology of the various stages of aggression (usually three). This training should acquaint the student with both the behaviors and body language clues of each stage. Those who are trained to deal with all three stages in the escalation continuum should learn the remedies appropriate to each stage, both verbal and physical.
Fifth, management of aggression training uses specific terms to describe the escalation continuum and the methods to mitigate that escalation. It is important that the trainee learn that nomenclature so that the justification for those methods used are reflected in subsequent incident reports.
Sixth, those individuals who are to be trained to deal with all stages of aggressive behavior will need to be trained in the use of physical techniques necessary to control those individuals who are out of control. Even though the use of physical restraint is a last resort, as it should be, it is sometimes required.
The benefits of this training should seem obvious. Those who are properly trained are far less likely to use physical force. The head of security for a large hospital in the northwest remarked, "Since our staff has been trained in Management of Aggressive Behavior (MOAB) our take-downs have been reduced by 50%." Individuals who are properly trained are far less likely to use physical force because they are more competent, which in turn makes them more self confident and less likely to panic and to operate from a platform of fear. The potential for use of excessive force lawsuits is diminished considerably.
There are a number of training programs out there. We at SMSI have reviewed and evaluated a number of programs over the years. We believe one of the best programs available is offered by R.E.B. Training. |
