Tucson Slaying Spurs Debate about Arming Arizona Security Guards

[Drizzt]

Copyright 2002 Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
Copyright 2002 The Arizona Daily Star
The Arizona Daily Star


July 31, 2002, Wednesday

KR-ACC-NO: AZ-SECURITY-GUARDS

LENGTH: 909 words

HEADLINE: Tucson Slaying Spurs Debate about Arming Arizona Security Guards

BYLINE: By Patty Machelor

BODY:
A Tucson security guard fatally stabbed Saturday outside the building where he worked was typical of private security workers in Arizona in that he didn't carry a firearm.

Most security firms in the state do not license their employees to carry firearms, according to the Department of Public Safety. Armed guards must undergo firearm training, which will become more rigorous under a state law that takes effect Aug. 22.

Security companies in Tucson, including the one that employed Kenneth Squires, have differing philosophies on whether their guards should carry guns. A criminologist who studies firearm use believes Squires and two other unarmed security guards slain here in recent years might have saved their own lives if they'd been armed.

"It's pretty clear that people who use guns for self-protection are less likely to be harmed or lose property than those crime victims who do other things to resist, or do nothing," said Gary Kleck, a professor with the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.

Kleck has completed two national studies on the defensive use of guns using U.S. Census Bureau data. He said his research shows carrying a gun in a visible place is good protection. "It could deter somebody from attempting an attack in the first place," he said.

But Nancy Hwa, a spokeswoman with the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence in Washington, D.C, said that while some security guards might need firearms to protect valuables, "the use of guns as a means of self-protection is way overblown."

Hwa said many companies do not hire armed guards because of the dangers involved as well as the costly litigation that could follow if a bystander were hurt or killed.

"I think that's a recognition of the real risks involved because they would rather lose their products or some sum of money than to face that risk and the negative publicity," Hwa said.

In the most recent Tucson case, police have accused Jamarall T. Jordan of fatally tabbing 41-year-old Squires on a Downtown street.

Squires' work required him to keep watch at the 22-story Bank of America plaza at 33 N. Stone Ave. He was outside the building when he called 911 about being attacked around 2 a.m. Saturday. Jordan, 21, was arrested on charges of first-degree murder a short time later and is being held at the Pima County Jail in lieu of a $ 1 million bond.

Police do not have a motive for the slaying but suspect Jordan had been using drugs or alcohol. Test results are pending, said Tucson Police Sgt. Judy Altieri.

Squires' death follows the March 2000 slaying of Grady Mitchell Towers, 55, an unarmed security guard at Tohono Chul Park. Jason Paul Doty was convicted this year in Towers' death.

And in March 1995, 22-year-old Kevin Sorrell was slain while he guarded a North Side bus depot without a firearm. His case remains unsolved.

ProGuard Operations Administrator Tim Mills said their employees carry a radio and a cellphone to keep in touch with patrol drivers during the day or a watch commander at night.

"They are trained in conflict resolution, how to try to defuse a situation and how to avoid it. If they can't defuse it, they are urged to call the police," he said. "Their job is to observe and report."

Barry Johnson, vice-president of Pinkerton/Burns-Securitas Companies, said they did away with employees' carrying any firearms a few years ago except for one guard post in Phoenix.

"Everyone has a different rationale on why they do and why they don't (arm guards)," he said. He questioned whether it's safer to have a guard carry a weapon if it could prompt a burglar to try using a weapon first.

Ron Kevwitch, the branch manager for Loomis, Fargo and Co. in Tucson, said all of his employees are armed in what he calls a "high risk business."

"It's for the customer, it's for our people and it's for the general public," he said. The company provides security for armored cars, ATM services and cash management and storage services.

ProGuard President Ron Oberholtzer would not comment on anything related to the death of his employee because of the criminal case, but said Squires' murder has not prompted him to change the company's policy.

He said that while training armed guards can be costly, he is more concerned about having his employees work for clients who want or need guards with firearms.

Arizona Department of Public Safety Sgt. Scott Hoffman, who works in the licensing division in Phoenix that oversees security companies, said there are 250 security guard companies in Arizona, but only about 50 provide armed employees.

Hoffman said security guards who carry firearms are currently required to undergo 16 hours of training to receive their armed-guard card. Beginning Aug. 22, a new state law will require that they undergo an additional eight hours of training within every two-year period. All guards, armed or not, must undergo criminal background checks.

State Rep. Linda Gray, R-Phoenix, has sponsored several bills in recent years to upgrade the state's licensing requirements, including this most recent change.

Gray doesn't believe it's necessary to arm all security guards. "In a lot of instances, they are mainly there to protect property and it's not necessary to have armed security there," she said.

"In a lot of instances, they are mainly there to protect property and it's not necessary to have armed security there,"

Huh?

[gorlitsa]

"I think that's a recognition of the real risks involved because they would rather lose their products or some sum of money than to face that risk and the negative publicity," Hwa said.

Does this woman not realize that three security guards have been killed recently? That goes way beyond 'products' or money.

[another okie]

"Hwa said many companies do not hire armed guards because of the dangers involved as well as the costly litigation that could follow if a bystander were hurt or killed. "

A rare moment of honesty by the anti-gun forces.

Workers killed on the job receive only the relatively small benefits available under workers' compensation.

But anyone injured by a worker can sue in regular court for unlimited payments.

So it's cheaper for a business to eat the costs of many dead security workers than to pay for one wrong shooting. It's the same reason businesses generally prohibit CCW holders from carrying at work. It's basic risk assessment, but I hope the security guards understand that their employees are weighing their lives on the scales and choosing to risk them.

[Jim V]

And a large number of security companies consider their employees as expendable. If they did not, they would do a better job in hiring and do more to keep the good ones. Besides an armed guard should get more money than one who is un-armed.

[C.R.Sam]

bottom line....money.
Same reason most "stop n rob" chains do not allow armed employees even tho it is a very dangerous occupation.

Cheaper to get another employee than risk a suit.

Sam

[tyme]

"They are trained in conflict resolution, how to try to defuse a situation and how to avoid it. If they can't defuse it, they are urged to call the police," he said. "Their job is to observe and report."
Apparently that's not true. Their job seems to be "observe, report, and die."

[Blackhawk]

But Nancy Hwa, a spokeswoman with the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence in Washington, D.C, said that while some security guards might need firearms to protect valuables, "the use of guns as a means of self-protection is way overblown."

Sure.... As if she knows....

[hansolo]

I guess guns weren't really necessary in winning WWII...?
Why not just dis-arm LEOs?... send soldiers into battle with plowshares!!

Who's side is this Bi*ch on? I hope she gets into a life and death situation where someone armed with a gun could save her life and have him/her look at the weapon, holster it, and say, "the use of this gun is highly overrated."

...maybe she thinks this is consolation to the unarmed guards' families.

HWA=idiot

[KSFreeman]

So, accroding to this Hwa person in D.C.--the fountainhead of all knowledge--firearms are useful for protecting property but not lives? Typical, bet you that Hwa lives in a condo staffed by men with guns in Georgetown who have a direct line to other men with guns on the DC Metro.

Ms. Hwa, if guns are not useful, please tell the Secret Service to send me theirs.

[OF]

Nancy Hwa. How do these people keep getting called for their opinions? Freaking Nancy Hwa commenting on security!!?? ***, over.

- Gabe

[clem]

Well, first of all the article was written by an employee of the "Arizona RED Star" and second. As mentioned, it is cheaper for a security company to pay a death benifit to the family of one of their employees then get sued by some dirt bags family.

Ain't you all tired of it yet?

[PaladinVC]

Well, I like that Gary Kleck fellow:

It's pretty clear that people who use guns for self-protection are less likely to be harmed or lose property than those crime victims who do other things to resist, or do nothing

Attaboy, Gary.

[blades67]

Pinkerton considers all of their uniformed employees to be expendable.

[mrat]

[B]He questioned whether it's safer to have a guard carry a weapon if it could prompt a burglar to try using a weapon first./B]

This guy is a moron. I have heard this "they won't use a weapon if you don't have one" argument before, it is amazing that any adult with any brain cells would utter it.

[Hal]

Gabe,

This is why--Knight Ridder/Tribune.

KR = anti gun.

[Futo Inu]

It's not rocket surgery.....

[C.R.Sam]

It's not rocket surgery.....Futo Inu

Keyboad wash time. Oatmeal n coffee n Futo; bad mix.

Sam

[4V50 Gary]

Nancy Hwa of the Center to Prevent Handgun violence is way off mark. Armed security guards who carry firearms don't do so to protect valuables. Very few states allow the use of deadly force to protect chattel (goods). They carry them so as to have the means to protect that "most" valuable thing they have - their lives. Wake up Nancy!

[Zander]

"the use of guns as a means of self-protection is way overblown."

There'll be a special place in Hell for panderers of this sort.

[tmills]

"They are trained in conflict resolution, how to try to defuse a situation and how to avoid it. If they can't defuse it, they are urged to call the police," he said. "Their job is to observe and report."
Apparently that's not true. Their job seems to be "observe, report, and die."

Apologies for bumping this YEARS later, I just did a google search for my name and city and found this gem of a thread and this nugget of a post within it.

You, sir tyme, are ignorant and it is a rather tragic statement about your attitude that you would post such a cavellier response about a situation where someone was brutally stabbed to death.

Some facts that you probably didnt know, (if you are even still around to read this):

Ken Squires was trained to stay inside a locked high-rise building during the nighttime hours for his own safety. Ken was a "1%er" type of person, the ones that give anything to help others when he saw them in need. He was active in his church and I looked up to him as a person of qualities that I wish I possessed more of.

No one knows why he went outside of the building that night. The person who stabbed him was running around outside naked and screaming something about Jesus, and I can only speculate that maybe Ken saw a person in distress and went to help. The man attacked Ken and then stabbed him with Ken's own knife, (which he should not have had on him by the company policy). The attacker tested negative for drugs and was later clinically diagnosed with schitzophrenia.

=======================

To say the company did not care about it's guard or that he was not given the training or support needed is just wrong.

To say it's cheaper to let guards die rather than risk injury is wrong, too. Injuries are covered by worker's compensation insurance and deaths are covered by a company purchased life insurance policy. Either way, the company pays for a premium and it is the insurance companies that would pay extra if a person were injured or killed, not the security company.

If people want to be mad at this event, be mad at the person who killed the guard, he's the evil one here and not the guard, the guard company, or any other people behind the business. Ken was a gentleman and had the highest respect from all of the staff at his company.

[sholling]

State Rep. Linda Gray, R-Phoenix, has sponsored several bills in recent years to upgrade the state's licensing requirements, including this most recent change. Gray doesn't believe it's necessary to arm all security guards. "In a lot of instances, they are mainly there to protect property and it's not necessary to have armed security there," she said.

Then she should be required to walk the walk and spend 6 months as an unarmed security guard in a bad neighborhood - working the 10PM to 7AM shift. Just to show us that she really believes what shes saying.

[armoredman]

I spent several years as an armed security guard in Tucson, both standard rent-a-cop, and 8.5 years in armored trucking. Bottom line - security companies are NOT police departments, and will not act as one. As long as the security guard calls PD for the report the insurance company requires, they are not supposed to do anything else, especially anything that may put the company at risk. If they go one iota beyond that company mandated stance, the company will back off, hands raised, saying "Whoa, we never told him to do THAT!" Hard hearted? Of course, welcome to the real world. Fuzzy bunnys get eaten here.
And guess what? They're right. Fail to follow company policy, like remaining on your assigned post, and you're looking for a new job. Period. Do something outside the scope of your employment that puts the employers' assets at risk in potential lawsuits, and how far do you think they'll back you up?
Even when I worked my first armored gig, a great and fun job, the sidearm was for deterrance, not actual asset protection. How else can you explain Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp requiring the use of 158gr LRN in company issued Taurus Model 82 38 Spl revolvers? They are out of business, thankfully.
ATS was far more advanced, allowing the use of decent sidearms and ammo, and attitudes were differant - protect yourself. Money is insured, protect yourself. Still a company will weigh potential risks to thier own financial future before committing to assisting you in any legal defense, or even acknowledging that you were within policy and guidelines.
This is one good reason I work for the state, now!

[Dewhitewolf]

I took a course in the use of force and force options (as they apply under NJ law and AG regulations), we covered a little bit about armed guards. Technically, you cannot use arms to protect money or valuables; they can be insured.

However, armed guards have a job to protect valuables. The position they basically take is this--"if you want this money (or jewelry, whichever), you have to get through me to get it." Now, this creates the necessary requirement for self defense, which is threat to life.

So, Nancy Hwa and Linda Gray are both wrong--security guards cannot legally use force to protect property. They can only use force when their lives are threatened.

[Rifleman 173]

Hwa is really working for who??? The Socialist International? World Communism? The American Democratic Party? Everyone of these anti-gunners are just plain stupid. They're so ignorant that to lend legitimacy to their assinine opinions is just dumb.

From about 1917 to 1945 communist nations held one meeting each year in one of their capitols. During those years the topic of discussion pretty much was: "Be it Resolved: How do we expand communism across the world?" In those days, the idea was for everybody to get together and talk about how to bring down England, Spain, the rest of Europe, north, south and central America, all of Africa and so on. They wanted to make the world "perfect" in their communist image.

After 1945 the communist nations modified their meetings in a couple of different ways. The first way was that their meetings now had a political side and a military side. The second thing was that in some years the communists would hold two or more meetings. And the third thing that they changed was the topic: "Be it Resolved: How do we invade, conquer and control the United States and other capitalist nations?" Our little communist friends were forever coming up with all sorts of ways to lure the United States and other capitalist nations into a war in Europe, defeat them and then figure a way to get to the USA and invade it. Our military did the same thing but we called our stuff "contingency planning."

We really got to believing that the communists were serious when our intel guys came back and said, "Guess what? The communists have amassed enough bridge and water-crossing equipment so that they can go from western Russia right up to the English Channel. And on top of that, there is some sort of peninsula of theirs between eastern Russia and Alaska that they're looking at for a possible forward base to use when they invade North America."

The only thing that I can figure is that American anti-gunners have GOT to be getting their marching orders from their overseas masters in Beijing or somewhere. I would NOT be shocked to find out that money from some overseas internationsl communist group funded or funds these radical anti-gun groups in some subtle fashion. So, Komrade Hwa, the overwhelming majority of American citizens spit on your silly ideas.