View Single Post
Old February 20, 2014, 08:23 PM   #2
DT Guy
Senior Member
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 931
Here's the reality of why 'armed security' is on the decline:

Security liability is based on 'reasonable standards of care' and 'foreseeability'; contracting unarmed security is generally seen as sufficiently proactive to forestall many of those claims.

Armed security officers offer a liability that isn't capped in any way; if they accidentally (or even purposely, correctly) employ deadly force, the company can be bankrupted by the litigation, if not the judgement.

On the other hand, employee injury suits are limited by workman's compensation liability, which is a fairly low level of judgement compared to most liability.

Essentially, dead employees are cheaper than dead non-employees, so it's cheaper to not arm them and let them take their chances.

And don't get me started about magnetometer stations with UNARMED security manning them; those people are completely sacrificial, in essence; you hear them getting popped and it gives the important people a chance to flee.

He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast.

Government, Anarchy and Chaos
DT Guy is offline  
Page generated in 0.03398 seconds with 8 queries