Aleksandar PašagićGeneral Security d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA,
Aleksandar PašagićGeneral Security d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA,
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
www.generalsecurity.hr
Aleksandar Pašagić
www.generalsecurity.hr
Recommended
