Empowering Security Officers —What’s the Real Solution?

Does Legislation Provide a Viable Solution to Behavioural Issues?

In recent discussions, there's been a growing focus on whether amending legislation could equip security officers with more authority to handle behavioural issues. These discussions stem from concerns about the increasing prevalence of incidents where security officers face violence or threats while carrying out their duties.

Proposals have ranged from allowing security officers to detain offenders to introducing harsher penalties for those who harm them during their duties. Some even suggest equipping security officers with tools such as handcuffs, pepper spray, or tasers, to bolster their ability to maintain control in high-risk situations.

However, I argue that security officers already possess the legal provisions necessary to operate safely, effectively, and proportionately.

They are empowered to protect property, ensure public safety, and, in certain circumstances, detain offenders until law enforcement arrives. The issue, therefore, lies not in the scope of their legal authority but rather in the practical application of that authority.

The Debate on Expanding Security Officers Authority

The debate around increasing the authority of security officers through legislation is gaining traction. Some advocate granting security officers additional powers, such as the authority to arrest and detain offenders, to improve community safety.

Discussions about equipping them with tactical tools to enhance their safety in high-pressure situations have also surfaced. However, these proposals raise significant concerns about the practical management and implementation of such measures. Introducing any tactical options without adequate training and certification would be ill-advised.

Passing laws permitting tools like Tasers or pepper spray is one thing; however, ensuring their correct and responsible use is another. Without adequate training, such tools can do more harm than good.

For legislation to be effective, the security industry must first address the logistical and practical aspects of deploying tactical options across various environments. Merely granting authority without ensuring officers know when and how to exercise it responsibly could exacerbate existing challenges rather than resolve them. 

Training, Not Legislation, is Key

The contrast in training and resources between the two groups commonly tasked with managing antisocial behaviour—police and security officers—is spectacular.

Police officers undergo extensive training and have access to a wide range of tactical options. On the other hand, security officers typically receive minimal training and have significantly fewer resources.

Enhancing the safety of security officers should start with more comprehensive training. Proper and comprehensive training is essential to ensure that security officers are not only aware of their legal rights and responsibilities but also equipped with the skills necessary to de-escalate situations and apply appropriate force when necessary.

By improving training programmes, security officers can operate within the existing legal framework more efficiently. This approach avoids the potential risks of over-militarising security roles, such as escalating confrontations or blurring the lines between security personnel and law enforcement officers.

Introducing new laws or tactical solutions without improved training only sets the security officer up for failure. This would improve their personal safety, confidence, and effectiveness.

The Case for Offender-Focused Legislation

Rather than the narrow-focused idea of increasing security officers' powers, a more practical approach might be introducing harsher penalties for offences committed against individuals performing their duties.

This would cover not only security and police officers but also capture anyone trying to do their job, including medical staff, teachers, retail staff, and anyone else an offender decided is an easy target.

The lack of deterrence for assaults and antisocial behaviour in the workplace should be concerning for everyone. For any deterrent to be effective, offenders must believe they will get caught and face the consequences of their actions.

Unfortunately, the current surge in crimes like smash-and-grab offences suggests that existing deterrents are failing.

Introducing targeted legislation that increases penalties for offences against those in vulnerable roles could prove more effective at protecting their safety, enable them to perform their duties confidently, and improve safety for everyone. 

Conclusion

Rather than introducing new legislation, we should prioritise providing security officers with accurate and contemporary training and certification. 

While new laws aimed at improving safety shouldn’t be discounted, practical support in the form of more comprehensive training would be far more beneficial in the long run.

The conversation should be focused on offender-based legislation that creates real deterrents for antisocial behaviour.

This would ultimately enhance the safety of everyone in vulnerable roles, including security officers, the police, and the public, who could get caught in an event they never intended to enter.