Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
Australian Security Worker
 
  Return to Website Recent Posts HomeHelpSearchLoginRegisterBroadcast Message to Admin(s)  
 
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
To all guards, regarding Maglites. (Read 9742 times)
Reply #6 - 22. Jun 2015 at 01:07

Spectre   Offline
High Level Contributor
Unarmed Security
Victoria

Posts: 355
****
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Maglites (Streamlight Stinger or similar) all make an excellent choice for an "encounter light" due to their mass, runtime and robust design, mine is modified with a SSC-P7 class LED and driver circuit, the rise of this technology has resulted in designs being even more reliable (no more blown bulbs).

However 2 is 1 and 1 is none... carry a back up light (or lights)

As for the use of a Maglite (or similar) as an improvised impact device/weapon I would concur with the point regarding justifiable use within the use of force continuum...
« Last Edit: 22. Jun 2015 at 01:11 by Spectre »  

"Folks who think profiling has no place in the world we live and believe that all folks have good intentions are called victims of violent crimes." - David Burnell
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - 16. Nov 2014 at 16:56

dreadman   Offline
High Level Contributor
Security Service Industry
Award 2010, I cant even.

Posts: 420
****
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
An interesting, but real world experience from a guard that I had a talk to, regarding the use of torches as self-defence tool.

If your job requires the use of a torch to conduct searches, you can justify the use of a torch against an assailant if they intend to cause harm to you.

This person was patrolling this area in the dark by himself, the trespasser was hiding, and waiting for this guard to approach him to ambush him. The guard notice something odd, the guard flashed his torch to the person's face, temporally blinding them, which to his surprise, the person was holding a tyre iron . The trespasser was covering his eyes with his hands, which is a natural reaction when a bright light blinds you. Which gave him enough time to strike that would be assailant in the head, push him against the fence, which forced that would be assailant to drop it, and gave the guard enough time to runaway to safety. The guard swears by his 2D maglite saving his life. Based on what I have read and this person experience, which I can justify carrying 2 torches (which can go to 900-1200 lumens) when I do night work.

In my opinion, that was the best course of action. There is nothing wrong with getting away from danger, specially if you are alone. In security, you are not paid to be brave, which cannot be wise being hero, since you do not know if the person is not alone and if they are armed or not. Our main duties is observe and report, that is it.

If your partner is in danger, of course, you do not abandoned them. You stick with them, because in return, they will do same for you (in theory anyway).

I hope this can help some guards to consider in justifying carrying a torch when they do night work. It is a great tool specially if you work at night. Most of you would not believe how many night shifts I have done at night and I am the only guard with two torches. I was at this event where I was doing bag checks, and there was poor lighting. I was the only one with two torches(one main one and one back up) and had to let the other guard borrow my back up one. Other wise, bag checks are useless in the dark. Most companies that I work for, do not think ahead, or do not bother to foresee this kinds of problems . I carry two torches for my safety and in case my partner does not have one(which is 95% of the time).

For everyone sake, please do not shine your torches in your fellow security guards faces. I had a supervisor do this to me yesterday(while my vision was adapted to the dark) and blinded me. Luckily it was one them cheap torches, I was going to return the favour(with my 1200 lumen output torch) but I think I was going blind him for quite sometime. Cool

Lets all remember the use of force continuum. Please remember you cannot carry a maglite and use it as baton. For example, if it's day light and you take out to strike someone, you will have a hard time justifying it in court.
« Last Edit: 16. Nov 2014 at 22:39 by dreadman »  

"The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow." - Jim Hightower
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - 07. Nov 2014 at 21:23

dreadman   Offline
High Level Contributor
Security Service Industry
Award 2010, I cant even.

Posts: 420
****
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Asset Training Australia wrote on 07. Nov 2014 at 13:59:
Application of force includes the application of heat, light, electric current or any other form of energy, as well as the application of matter in solid, liquid or gaseous form (s. 31(3)).


I see what you mean Asset Training Australia. I missed it, but I re read what you wrote. Roll Eyes

In reality, you need to follow the "Use of Force Continuum".
http://www.combatkempo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87:use-o...

Understand 462A: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s462a.html
 

"The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow." - Jim Hightower
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - 07. Nov 2014 at 13:59

Asset Training Australia   Offline
High Level Contributor
Training Australia's Security
Professionals.
QLD

Posts: 80
****
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
I am not familiar with current training in VIC however the point I was trying to make with the light is that it is still assault and must be justified. This extract from the VIC Crimes Act 1958:

Assault is the direct or indirect application of force to the body of, or to the clothing or equipment worn by, a person (s. 31(2)).

Application of force includes the application of heat, light, electric current or any other form of energy, as well as the application of matter in solid, liquid or gaseous form (s. 31(3)).



When we train security officers to use batons we also train them that in the absence of a baton, where they would otherwise have reasonable cause to use a baton, they can use an improvised weapon similar to a baton in a similar way to how they would have used a baton if they had one. That would demonstrate the use of reasonable skill and care.

If you have not received baton training and are in a situation where you need to use a maglite or other improvised weapon (justifiably) for self-defence then all you need to do is justify that you used reasonable skill and care within your capabilities at the time. Those circumstances will vary for every person.


I doubt you will get any definitive answers from LRD on this, you might be better off looking for a local training provider who has done the research already and knows the application of those Acts within the security industry - in VIC I would recommend the guys at Complex Institute of Education.
 

Mark Costello
Director
Asset Training Australia

www.asset.edu.au
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - 07. Nov 2014 at 13:33

dreadman   Offline
High Level Contributor
Security Service Industry
Award 2010, I cant even.

Posts: 420
****
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Hello Asset Training Australia,

I do not think if you shine or hit strobe at someone's eye for a couple of seconds(0-20) will cause any permanent eye damage.  The natural reaction to this is to cover your eyes with your hands. I blinded my self a couple of times, with no permanent damage. I get my eyes tested every year, I have diabetes. If you shine the light at someone's face from 1 metre, the person does not close their eyes, and keep staring at it, then I would understand. See here:
https://www.healthtap.com/topics/how-easily-can-a-bright-led-flashlight-damage-y...

Lasers can damage your eyes because of the concentrated beam. Led lights are not concentrated beams. Have you seen those audi with those white HID beams? Most of the time I think they are in high beam, but they have them in low, and I have to stare away all the time when I am driving.

Regarding Maglites topic, you need training and be certified to carry a baton. Maglites are like a baton. The way I see it, if you carry a Maglite 3D in a holster, you use it as a last resort, then yeah, I can understand. But, it will take a while to reach it and strike someone. When you use a baton, you need to warn the person first and warn them that you will use it if they come any closer you will use it. If you already have your Maglite out when you are confronting the person, they you are not using it as an improvise self-defence tool. You already have intent to use it, If the Maglite happens to be around when someone tries to assault you and manage to reach it and use, then I would understand. I understand the continuum use of force, but it is not part of our training. I know the OH&S act of 2004 have section about not doing things that are outside of your training.

I will do research regarding this Maglite matter and call the LRD. I hope they can answer my question.

Thanks for your input Asset Training Australia.

« Last Edit: 07. Nov 2014 at 21:17 by dreadman »  

"The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow." - Jim Hightower
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - 07. Nov 2014 at 12:43

Asset Training Australia   Offline
High Level Contributor
Training Australia's Security
Professionals.
QLD

Posts: 80
****
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
Hi Dreadman,

That is not correct. I am not in VIC however the criminal and civil systems relating to assault are very similar across the country. Self-defence as a justification for an assault is assessed by the courts on a case-by-case basis to determine the circumstances, there is no blanket ruling on whether or not improvised weapons can be used, regardless of whether you have received security training or not.

If the circumstances dictate that use of a maglite or similar object as an improvised weapon in self-defence is reasonable and proportionate; and the security officer exercises reasonable skill and care; and the security officer only uses as much force as is necessary to stop the threat then there would be no legal (civil or criminal) ramifications from using the maglite as a defensive tool. On that note, keep in mind that by using a high powered strobe light you are assaulting the person as much as if you were using a maglite to strike them. The person could suffer retinal injuries from the strobe which is no less damaging than soft tissue injuries from a maglite strike.

I support your suggestion of distracting the person and escaping in preference to getting involved in a physical confrontation however you should not rule out alternate options that may be more appropriate depending on the circumstances.


dreadman wrote on 06. Nov 2014 at 21:49:
Please correct me if I am wrong, is not the whole purpose to have security is for insurance purposes?


Some clients may think like this but most do not. Security Officers provide a lot more valuable services to their clients than just reducing insurance premiums. If your client thinks like this then prove them wrong by providing the best and most professional service possible; they will soon change their perspective.
 

Mark Costello
Director
Asset Training Australia

www.asset.edu.au
IP Logged
 
06. Nov 2014 at 21:49

dreadman   Offline
High Level Contributor
Security Service Industry
Award 2010, I cant even.

Posts: 420
****
Alert Board Moderator about this Post! 
My current boss and flash light(torch) forums that I have come across have this false sense of security with carrying a 3 D battery Maglites. If you want to carry this Torch while not working and use it as means for self defence, go ahead knock yourself or others out.

When it comes to working as a security guard in Victoria, that is all it is to you, a torch and nothing else. You cannot use it to whack someone, even if its for self-defence, or it was your last resort. When you did your training to become a security guard through LRD(Licencing and Registration Department) guide lines to be trained, no where in the manual says that is okay to whack someone with a 3 D cell Maglite. You are only protected from legal ramifications if you follow what you have been trained. Arm locks(which are useless in my opinion) and open palm punches. Closed fist might seem more effective, but you are render defenceless if you end up breaking your hand. As with anything, if you do things that were not part of your training, you better have money to pay up when you get sued.

That is why I love those High lumen tactical lights, specially those that have a really good strobe function. You can use it to blind someone temporarily(couple of seconds) while you make your escape. You do not even need strobe, you can blind them with the light itself, and you could easily justify that you were trying to identify them. If the person has been in the dark for longer than 20 minutes, a 300-900 lumen light will blind them and force them to cover their eyes. Once again enough time to scape, you are not there to be a hero, you are there to observe and report.

Please correct me if I am wrong, is not the whole purpose to have security is for insurance purposes?

I hope this information makes you consider when thinking of using an improvised weapon for self-defence. Once again, if you are a regular person, you are fine, but when you work in security, there is too much legal ramifications from your actions. Everything you do will be scrutinize, because you have received training and sign every sheet back and front when you finished your modules for security operations. This states that you understood what being a security entailed and you understand the training and law. LRD keeps all of your paper work for 30 years, so if you do something you should not be doing, you cannot say, "I did not know that." Guess what? They will go back to your paper work, look at what you wrote, and see your signature where you stated that you understood. Now what are you going to do when you have no leg to stand on?

I know I sound like a broken record, but you only get one chance to get it right. In Work Safe eyes, ignorance is never an excuse. In the LRD eyes, ignorance is not excuse either. There is nothing wrong with keeping up with your training and the law. It will make you a better security guard/officer. Chances are, you will know what to do when the time comes and you will cover your butt.
« Last Edit: 07. Nov 2014 at 11:07 by dreadman »  

"The opposite for courage is not cowardice, it is conformity. Even a dead fish can go with the flow." - Jim Hightower
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print