View Single Post
Old February 23, 2014, 11:19 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,546
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.
^^^^This exactly. I couldn't have said it better... even armed security around here is only paid 11.50 an hour. Unarmed? MAYBE 9 an hour but I doubt it. Most businesses will not pay for armed security unless there is a specific and directed threat or they are a high risk business.

FWIW, I think it's smart for anyone wearing a uniform to carry SOMETHING. It could be a small pocket can of OC, an ASP baton... anything. You need to carry something whether it's sanctioned or not. Being fired for having your supervisor (who, BTW, is very likely to look the other way) find it is better than being seriously injured or killed. I would NOT recommend carrying a firearm unless you have obtained that certification, of course. While it sucks working for a company that is not willing to pay for armed security, it is their wish to have that. If you aren't okay with it, then try to find another job. This isn't downing anyone working security, it's just stating the facts as I see it.
5whiskey is offline  
Page generated in 0.02110 seconds with 8 queries