Aleksandar Pašagić General Security d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA, aleksandar@generalsecurity.hr...

Aleksandar PašagićGeneral Security d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA,

aleksandar@generalsecurity.hr

Aleksandar PašagićGeneral Security d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA,

aleksandar@generalsecurity.hr

 4th International Conference Ergonomics 2010

 4th International Conference Ergonomics 2010

Types of operating environment for a security officer:low threat high threat

Available options vary according to the demands of the environment

Types of operating environment for a security officer:low threat high threat

Available options vary according to the demands of the environment

1) security officer’s presence2) verbal commands3) hands on/physical restraint techniques (including

the use of a baton where applicable)4) OC spray/EMI device (where applicable)5) firearm (where applicable) Options are always a compromise between effectiveness and liability

Number of incidents corresponds to the inverse use of force continuum

Escalating force implies increased liability

1) security officer’s presence2) verbal commands3) hands on/physical restraint techniques (including

the use of a baton where applicable)4) OC spray/EMI device (where applicable)5) firearm (where applicable) Options are always a compromise between effectiveness and liability

Number of incidents corresponds to the inverse use of force continuum

Escalating force implies increased liability

Objectives:

- project a civilized image

- distance the company from excessively aggressive image

- avoid negative publicity associated with violence

Objectives:

- project a civilized image

- distance the company from excessively aggressive image

- avoid negative publicity associated with violence

Objectives achieved through reduction in use of forceObjectives achieved through reduction in use of force

Compromise between effectiveness and minimal use of force: Non-Lethal Weapons

 Definition:“… weapons … explicitly designed and primarily

employed … to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment”

- United States Department of Defense Policy Directive 3000.3, Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons, July 9, 1996

 Alternative terminology – Less-Lethal Weapons

Compromise between effectiveness and minimal use of force: Non-Lethal Weapons

 Definition:“… weapons … explicitly designed and primarily

employed … to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment”

- United States Department of Defense Policy Directive 3000.3, Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons, July 9, 1996

 Alternative terminology – Less-Lethal Weapons

Impact weapons

Chemical compliance weapons

Electrical compliance weapons

Impact weapons

Chemical compliance weapons

Electrical compliance weapons

Advantages:- effective- cheap- simple to use 

Advantages:- effective- cheap- simple to use 

Disadvantages:- lack of damage control- associated negative image- not everywhere legal

Disadvantages:- lack of damage control- associated negative image- not everywhere legal

Advantages:- relatively cheap- perceived as non-threatening- good safety record- simple to use 

Advantages:- relatively cheap- perceived as non-threatening- good safety record- simple to use 

Disadvantages:- perceived as non-threatening- inconsistent results- limited in close quarters applications

Disadvantages:- perceived as non-threatening- inconsistent results- limited in close quarters applications

Advantages:- consistent results- no lasting harm Disadvantages:- high cost- escalation of force problem 

Generally considered the future of NLWs

Advantages:- consistent results- no lasting harm Disadvantages:- high cost- escalation of force problem 

Generally considered the future of NLWs

Probe applicationProbe application

Drive-stun applicationDrive-stun application

Severity scale0 – No observed adverse level1 – Effects not normally requiring medical treatment

for full recovery (incl. intended effect)2 – Effects requiring medical treatment, but are not

life threatening nor pose risk of disability after recovery

3 – Life-threatening effects, lethality, significant risk of disability after recovery

Severity scale can be used to assess the efectiveness of a NLW system

Severity scale0 – No observed adverse level1 – Effects not normally requiring medical treatment

for full recovery (incl. intended effect)2 – Effects requiring medical treatment, but are not

life threatening nor pose risk of disability after recovery

3 – Life-threatening effects, lethality, significant risk of disability after recovery

Severity scale can be used to assess the efectiveness of a NLW system

1. Ocular injury2. Seizure3. Ventricular fibrillation4. Fall injuries Potential for unintentional discharge

1. Ocular injury2. Seizure3. Ventricular fibrillation4. Fall injuries Potential for unintentional discharge

Perceived non-lethality leading to more frequent use of NLW

Increased probability of inappropriate application

Reduced sense of responsibility

Perceived non-lethality leading to more frequent use of NLW

Increased probability of inappropriate application

Reduced sense of responsibility

NLW are a useful set of tools to bridge the gap between unarmed response and lethal force

NLW positively influence the public image of private security company compared to firearms or impact weapons

but

Security officer education in use of NLWs crucial

Education on context of use, not only techniques

Inappropriate use of NLWs leads to negative public image and potential legal claims

NLW are a useful set of tools to bridge the gap between unarmed response and lethal force

NLW positively influence the public image of private security company compared to firearms or impact weapons

but

Security officer education in use of NLWs crucial

Education on context of use, not only techniques

Inappropriate use of NLWs leads to negative public image and potential legal claims

Aleksandar Pašagić

aleksandar@generalsecurity.hr

www.generalsecurity.hr

Aleksandar Pašagić

aleksandar@generalsecurity.hr

www.generalsecurity.hr