Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
What a good post. I was an SIA trainer myself a while back for my sins
|
Just so many differing factors here that go for or against and you pointed out another earlier, 'Deterrent'. This is what I've always considered a Security Guard to be, this is a key reason they don't do mandatory physical intervention training when earning the certificate for the licence. Now they also mentioned in the article he was a 'Doorman' so without them actually confirming it, we'll say he could possess a DS Licence which means he would've participated in Physical Intervention, during which you'd note you never deliver floor restraints or takedown maneuvers because the SIA will not approve it. The entire course for both DS and SG are identical too bar the PI stage. The common theme of the course is justifiable force and whether anything you do is reasonable. Aegis are one of a few SIA Approved training providers that cover higher levels of physical intervention which include ground restraints and takedowns and even they stress that anything ground related is an absolute no go unless you have no other choice. So it's again a question if you think a bottle of booze is worth tackling someone. Obviously from an outside perspective people just go, ''He didn't know he had a glass bottle on him'' '' He never meant it'' That's something we know anyway, the point for anyone unaware of industry policy is the same as above, a ground restraint or anything that involves taking anyone to the ground is considered the riskiest and most dangerous on the SIA's own risk scale. People might think it's stupid but it's usually for reasons like this incident, or the ones where mighty doorman stuck his knee on the back of someones neck and pinned him to the ground.
Again though, I can't even come to any conclusion from this, it's 50/50 if you ask me. Feel for the guy but my input goes as far as a security perspective and not a lawyer. Just one of those adrenaline rush moments that clouded his judgement? inexperience is a factor given he could've only held a licence for under 3 years, that's assuming he turns 21 this year. (18 to possess licence) Then again as pointed out, he's a 20 year old lad, he has this on his plate for the rest of his days. There's no winner from all of this regardless of which way it goes.