Needing help and advice from INGOers!!!!!

[DocGlock86]

Well the objective of this thread is to obtain some information to help my supervisor and myself build a case that we can take to the main suits where we work and get us guards armed.

Here's the story
I am currently working for a bank (who will not be named) that employee's unarmed guards. When I hired on, I wasn't thrilled about working unarmed but at that time it was a job and actually really good money. The reasoning why the Main headquarters says no to armed guards is they believe that just a uniformed officer is enough deterrent to stop most robberies and the way stats look it does work for the most part. The Indiana region has had unarmed guards for about a year and half and so far only one robbery on our branch has occurred.

My problem with that is all we are actually doing is creating a bluff and eventually our bluff will be called. When that happens it will be a very very bad thing for us.

My argument to them would be this. If we are really trying to create a true deterrent why half a$$ it. I’ve always been told that a criminal will choose the path of lesser resistance, if that is true then why not provide as much resistance as possible. I understand that an unarmed uniformed guard can provide a deterrent in most cases but once a criminal see that all it is, is a smoke screen then we are no longer a resistance to them. If he/she comes in see’s an armed guard chances are if they attempt to rob the place there will be serious problems, so most cases they will go to the branch next door that doesn’t have a guard and hit them. The path of lesser resistance.

I know their counter argument will be they do not want to create a situation where a shoot out could occur and someone could get killed. I believe that one, if you put an armed guard in a bank you’ll automatically eliminate 90% of any chance of a robbery, therefore no shoot-outs. Two if someone still has the gall to rob the bank knowing an armed guard is there and there is a bank down the street without any guards, he’s wanting more than just to rob the place. That’s when you need well trained guards and guards who have the ability to know when pulling your gun and opening fire is the last resort thing to do.

That’s the story and my two cents. Grant it I’m not at all a professional and I could very well have my thinking wrong. That’s where I need you guys to help me out. My supervisor came to me and asked if I could get some information to help our case out. I need your guy’s opinions, thoughts, experiences, storys, anything that could help me out. Even if you have something that goes against what I’m thinking feel free to share. Any information is better than none at all.


Thanks INGO!!!

Also forgot to mention, if anyone knows where I could get information on getting training for bank guards on firearms please let me know.

 

[Roadie]

Well, I am no expert, but if I were you the first thing I would do is hit Google and try to find robberies in other bank branches in your company, then look for robberies at other banks with unarmed guards. Compiling real world data would be a good start to show them how ineffectual their policy can be.

 

[hookedonjeep]

While I can agree that a uniformed guard has the ability to provide a deterrent, it simply is not the case in a bank setting. A bank robbery is not a spur of the moment crime- like robbing a convenience store, or grocery store. A bank robbery is something that is planned out days or weeks in advance; to ensure a better chance of successful outcome, and to have time to practice all aspects of the job - again to help things go your way. Now - if there is an Armed guard, that is something that will make the person casing the bank take notice, and provide an actual deterrent. In the case of an Unarmed guard; that is a minor detail that can be either taken care of with brute force, or simply eliminated come the day of the job.

I would make that argument to your Supervisor - that you are there to provide cover for the persons in the bank, and by forcing you to go unarmed they are putting your lives at risk; and subsequently the lives of every other person in that branch. And if the suits at the top can't grasp that for a reason - slip in that IF you get injured as a result of their negligence (Failure to provide a safe working environment), that they may be subject to a HUGE civil penalty.

P.S. IANAL

 

[Eprobertson1]

Most banks that have armed security, have off duty police officers. They are going to be more of a deturent based on the perception of the public. A police officer (no matter where) is a highly trained professional. A security officer is preceved to be just a person wearing a uniform and not trained.
Our company had unarmed security for 30 + years and finally went to armed security. The only way the company would allow the security officers to be armed was for them to become Marion County Deputy Sheriffs Special Deputies. Good luck with your persuit and I hope that you can make your point without the Suits deciding to hire an outside security firm.

 

[DocGlock86]

While I can agree that a uniformed guard has the ability to provide a deterrent, it simply is not the case in a bank setting. A bank robbery is not a spur of the moment crime- like robbing a convenience store, or grocery store. A bank robbery is something that is planned out days or weeks in advance; to ensure a better chance of successful outcome, and to have time to practice all aspects of the job - again to help things go your way. Now - if there is an Armed guard, that is something that will make the person casing the bank take notice, and provide an actual deterrent. In the case of an Unarmed guard; that is a minor detail that can be either taken care of with brute force, or simply eliminated come the day of the job.

I would make that argument to your Supervisor - that you are there to provide cover for the persons in the bank, and by forcing you to go unarmed they are putting your lives at risk; and subsequently the lives of every other person in that branch. And if the suits at the top can't grasp that for a reason - slip in that IF you get injured as a result of their negligence (Failure to provide a safe working environment), that they may be subject to a HUGE civil penalty.

P.S. IANAL

My supervisor is on the same page as me. He's all for talking to them and has briefly mentioned it to his director. His director seems to think if we could provide a good enough argument, getting us armed could very well happen.
Do you really think there could be liability issues? Even if I chose to work there knowing the circumstances. Because I think if I could make it a money thing, that would be a HUGE selling point.

Most banks that have armed security, have off duty police officers. They are going to be more of a deturent based on the perception of the public. A police officer (no matter where) is a highly trained professional. A security officer is preceved to be just a person wearing a uniform and not trained.
Our company had unarmed security for 30 + years and finally went to armed security. The only way the company would allow the security officers to be armed was for them to become Marion County Deputy Sheriffs Special Deputies. Good luck with your persuit and I hope that you can make your point without the Suits deciding to hire an outside security firm.

They actually used to have off duty LEO's for the longest time but then figured they could cut a decent amount of cost just by hiring guards instead. I'm not to worried about them hiring another firm because in a couple other states they allow their guards to be armed, so it's not a foreign thing for them. Also when they we getting rid of LEO's they tossed out the idea of contracting security.

 

[snorko]

This is an off the cuff, civilian, all respect to law enforcement, etc. reply.

It seems to me the main purpose of a security guard is deterrent to problems and incidents other than armed robbery.

Bank robbery, being a federal rap, tends not to be profitable. They get caught. If let go with the loot they stand a very good chance of being caught almost immediately. This is a good thing. On the other hand, a shoot out in a crowded bank is not a good thing. No matter how well trained the security units are, they are still dealing with a jacked up, idiot robbing a bank with a gun.

 

[rambone]

I know their counter argument will be they do not want to create a situation where a shoot out could occur and someone could get killed. I believe that one, if you put an armed guard in a bank you’ll automatically eliminate 90% of any chance of a robbery, therefore no shoot-outs. Two if someone still has the gall to rob the bank knowing an armed guard is there and there is a bank down the street without any guards, he’s wanting more than just to rob the place. That’s when you need well trained guards and guards who have the ability to know when pulling your gun and opening fire is the last resort thing to do.

If some nut robs the place, unarmed guards will be just as powerless as the customers. You will all be pushing for the door. There is no point to having a guard if you will not be armed.

When the "suits" say they "do not want to create a situation where a shoot out could occur," they need to realize they are not creating anything. The robber creates the situation. The fact that the bank exists makes it a target. It will probably be robbed someday, and will likely be armed robbery. You can either give your guard a chance or make him a defenseless victim.

The best guard detail would be a plain-clothes guard, armed, that mixes up his routine, sometimes visible, sometimes unseen watching cameras. He should work with the tellers to develop secret hand signals or other discrete warnings when they detect something suspicious.

Point out armed robberies that turned into murders. Point out robberies that were stopped by an armed citizen.

 

[singlesix]

Is there a cost difference between Armed and Unarmed guards? That maybe a driver.