"You're just a rent-a-cop", they said as I chased them from one end of the property to another. These particular trespassers had breached our property before and were stealing bikes from residents while they slept. But this day, I would not let them escape. As we got to the rear of the property, a large concrete wall appeared separating the property I was protecting and an adjacent housing area. Darn it. They were going to get away. I watched them scale that fence like the little, juvenile delinquent ninjas I knew them to be. The last one looked at me as he climbed the wall and yelled "Man, how can you be a rent-a-cop and live with yourself?. He then tossed several oranges at me and laughed. This was a weekly occurrence, as school recessed. That night, we lost an officer in the line of duty at another property doing the same thing I was doing.
I have countless stories like this from my time as a security officer. They all taught me a very valuable lesson - there is no such thing as a "rent-a-cop" or a guard. What security officers do and what they're responsible for requires a professional attitude and reception from both the people they protect and the public at large. However, that does not happen in the age where those who work security are often viewed as "wanna-be's", "rent-a-cops", "flashlight cops", and guards. We've all done it. I did it too. We go to our favorite shopping area and encounter a person who is obviously security. All we need is their physical appearance and a view of their demeanor for about five seconds to determine what category they fit. Yet none of us has ever contemplated the reasons why we have these officers in place.
Often, officers are viewed as a "necessary evil" deployed at the behest of an unknown proprietor who just wants to protect his property. Although, I have met managers and proprietors who treated security as though it was something they didn't want but felt they had to have for whatever reason. This perception of officers then makes its way to officers as well who view themselves as what they portrayed. This leads to a cadre of officers who either don't work to change that perception or who really do personify it to become employed in the field as a refuge.
So how do we change that perception? Well, we need standardization - the ugliest word in security. We need to set clear and concise guidelines as to what constitutes the duties, responsibilities, and authority of officers. Many proprietors and officers have no clue what their job is other than to "protect stuff and stay out of the boss' way". You see this commonly in establishments where officers have a very lackadaisical attitude to situation awareness and who lack a proactive approach to security. They walk around with glazed eyes, reading the latest crossword section, and not paying any attention or having any investment into having a secure environment. Supervisors of these officers are scarcely seen and are often reluctant to dispel the perception as well. Managers, proprietors, and security supervisors should have written guidelines and procedures for officers to study, be knowledgeable about, and follow strictly. They should also understand what authority they convey over occupants, tenants, and others on the property that extend to trespass warnings or even effecting arrests in some circumstances.
Next, better screening of officers to perform the duties required is needed. Why hire a senior citizen who can barely walk without assistance to patrol a strip mall on foot? You're certainly not deterring crime and are providing a presumably inadequate response element when an incident occurs. This screen should take into account the usual - felonies, misdemeanors, drugs, theft, etc. It should also recognize military and law enforcement service, previous security experience, and expectations for the job. That last item is very critical. When I worked security, I was appalled by the number of people I encountered who saw this as a just another job and not a potential career. Many believed the job was "beneath" them or was too tedious and felt underwhelmed. Managers should hire employees who see security as being an integral part of how companies protect their assets and their customers and who don't see the job in the same light as they do cooking burgers at a chain-restaurant.
We also need to change how proprietors view the profession. Some see those who do the jobs as something anyone can do. There is perhaps nothing that caused me more frustration than this attitude. Many times working security can be very hazardous and life-ending. My nights were often filled with "shots fired" calls and armed assailants. I was surrounded by drug dealers and other nefarious people daily. I had to learn a second language just to be able to do my job. I had to train in non-lethal techniques, hand-to-hand combat, marksmanship, first aid, and fire suppression. Tell me again how anyone can do this job.
Don't get me wrong. I realize not all companies or proprietors are like this. There are many who screen their officers, who deploy them with the expectation they will be utilized fully, and properly supervise them. There are some, though, who perpetuate the stereotype of "flashlight cops" by employing officers who conduct their duties in that manner. There are also proprietors who contract these companies because they are often the cheapest. This does little to provide meaningful protection nor does it provide an accurate portrayal of how professional officers conduct themselves. Many would say the easiest way to change this is with effective national legislation or at the very least legislation in states who have none for officers. Some states don't even make it a requirement to have officers be licensed. Having worked in a state that does, I can't imagine doing it without one let alone hiring a company that wasn't.
Nothing is perhaps more telling than the hazards officers face in this line of work. Take a look at these statistics from Private Officer International from 2011:
- Injuries and assaults saw a 17 percent increase over 2011.
- There were 112 on-duty deaths.
- 103 killed were male; nine were female.
- The media age of those killed was 46 years old; the youngest was 19.
- The top three places officers were killed were: nightclubs, residential areas, and retail centers.
- The top three places officers were assaulted were: retail centers, nightclubs, and hospitals.
- Top three causes of death were gunshots (65), trauma (14), and stabbing (9).
- There were four on-duty confirmed suicides
What I've outlined is a comprehensive plan to standardize, professionalize, and enhance the job of asset protection. The American Society for Industrial Security is at the forefront of this. They have published a guideline that is a standard-bearer in some organizations. We can no longer accept the mantra that those who work on the frontlines of crime are mere "rent-a-cops". If there is one thing we've learned in recent years, more and more officers are making the ultimate sacrifice. The shameful part of all of it is not their deaths but our apathy towards recognizing the distinct professionalism required to do this job.
