Our regular contributor Peter Whitehead turns to force and violence, because, as he writes, store detectives (SDs) have often been subjected to violence while detaining thieves.
Most store detectives have stood alone in frightening situations, and to keep a clear head can be difficult. Also, during the 1990s many body-protection manufacturers refused to supply private persons such as us with safety products. In 1994 I was saved from death or injury because in 1992 I had purchased Kevlar tape and resin and made two ‘under shirt’ breastplates, one to test and one to wear at known ‘high-risk’ venues. I don’t expect that many police have needed to go to such lengths to provide protection for themselves. And on the flip side of the violence coin we also needed to be able to protect ourselves from criticism or arrest after incidents where we had needed to use reasonable force.
Training in the use of force for private security operatives is inadequate and I don’t expect that it will be comprehensive in my lifetime. It’s good for door supervisers and guards to learn about ‘on the mat’ self defence, conflict reduction techniques and time spent on ‘offences against the person’, ‘public order’ law and other ‘force’ offences such as criminal damage, but that is only 70 per cent of what is required. The other 30pc is about legal safety after incidents.
Store detectives, door supervisers and guards have always been in legal danger after incidents, and they do not have a representative body to speak for or advise them. I have trained thousands of SDs and guards, and one of the most upsetting and infuriating situations is to get a call from a store detective to explain that s/he has signed a police caution after being accused of assault or criminal damage. Some police will exert considerable pressure on private security operatives to sign a caution ‘and it will be over’ rather than go to court and risk severe sentence. Further to this, some lazy defence solicitors will do the same. Please let me give you one example:
L, a store detective, watched an older man steal tools from a shop and leave. L believed that he could cope and went out with a witness to speak with the man. But the man had three friends waiting, and these were upon L before he could think. They beat him severely, and his witness ran to safety because L always insisted that witnesses ‘stay back’. The men then jumped into their car and made to drive away. L, injured, traumatised and not thinking clearly, staggered to his feet and kicked at the car as it raced past him, denting a panel. The four men disposed of all evidence of the theft, then the car’s owner alone drove to a police station and reported L for criminal damage. L’s witness was unable to identify any of the men or their vehicle. Injured, frightened, and confused, L was guided easily into signing a caution and losing his livelihood after speaking with a (lazy?) duty solicitor.
Here, a store detective saved his reputation. R watched a woman steal spirits from a store. She left and R went out to meet her with a witness, but a huge man who waited for her outside surprised R, punching him to the ground. The man and the woman got into their car and were trying to start its engine when R, disoriented and shocked, reached up from the ground and grabbed the top of the open near-side front window with both hands. The woman began to wind that window up as the car’s engine started, and R felt the first pressure of the glass trapping his fingers, so he pulled with all his force and the glass shattered. The car drove away but the police found it easily because R’s witness had taken the registration and it was raining heavily, so only one vehicle in thousands had a near-side window open. The woman admitted theft, but the man denied any wrongdoing and accused R of deliberately breaking his window. The police later visited the store and confronted R over the damage to the window, saying that he must come to the police station with them. R had recovered by then, and explained that he believed he was about to be dragged to his death and that he only wanted to free his hands when he pulled them away. He told that he would need to defend himself in crown court if any case was brought against him. The police took the matter no further.
Neither of the above store detectives should have lost their jobs or reputations over the above incidents, but one did, out of scores of security persons that I have known who have signed cautions when frightened and traumatised, and out of hundreds or maybe even thousands in Britain over the years. Can you imagine how many door supervisers this must have happened to? I remember being beaten badly by a thief in 1991 but I held on and he was arrested by police. (Ashford 1991). The thief complained that I had bruised his wrist in the incident. A police constable tried to pressure me into signing what amounted to a confession in her notebook. I asked to see a sergeant and was released soon afterwards. So the other 30 per cent of training required in the section on conflict is ‘legal safety for operatives after conflict situations’.
One more….. a store detective and police constable struggled to hold a violent thief, who hurt both of them. Both constable and SD were taken to hospital, where the constable was seen immediately at 1715 hours. At 2315 hours the SD, who believed his nose was broken, was seen by a doctor. How do I know about this? I was the store detective! So there can be a difference between how private sector persons might be treated by comparison with police officers after an incident. (Ashford 2000).
In recent years the media has reported on several incidents where police have been accused of using excessive force. I don’t know why, but some police spokespersons seem to derail as soon as they have to defend the actions of their colleagues. Let me give you one example that I have witnessed. Nearly 30 years ago I attended a security association meeting where police officers from one constabulary introduced us to the weapons that they could use at that time. We handled various ‘hand’ and ‘shoulder’ guns and were shown (separately!) their ammunition, which at that time mainly consisted of unencased lead projectiles. After the lecture the audience was invited to ask questions, and a person asked about the projectiles used, because no unencased lead bullets were supplied to military forces under a Geneva Convention ruling; he asked what the police ‘position’ was in relation to this.
All that police officer had to tell us was that police forces were not classed as military units, and some of the best ambulance response times and medical care in the world was available almost instantly to tend to injuries after any incident by comparison with what could happen during military conflict. Also, where police were trying to save innocent life from criminal killers, a sure-fire knock-down missile was probably required rather than a ‘wound-only to waste manpower’ missile.
We did not get a professional answer, the attending senior police officer derailed. He repeatedly shouted: ‘You want to see what they throw at us!’ He became immensely emotional and rushed over to the person who had asked the question to demand the person’s name. This is one extreme but true example of just how unprepared some police can be to defend their actions. Not once in recent situations have I heard a police spokesperson tell us good sound reasons why officers can be filmed apparently using unreasonable levels of force, and it could be so easy to defend all but the clearly cynical assailants. It is surely all about trauma, stress, shock, distress and levels of fear being experienced over seconds, minutes or hours which reduce reasonable judgement. It may be that police spokespersons are not allowed to talk about this because this suggests that under certain conditions officers can lose ‘reason of the mind’, thus leaving constabularies open to the foulest abuse from any irresponsible journalist out for a shock headline. And so police constables are expected to become perfect robots who react perfectly and consistently in every situation, with nobody able to defend their mindsets to an over critical and demanding public.
But as a retired store detective trainer I will leave the police to defend their actions, because I must first tell of the dangerous legal insecurities that await our lone private sector operatives after many conflicts, who have no spokespersons or sure-guide to support them.
