THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 3 THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY

INTRODUCTION

A well-established model utilised by psychologists and developed by the world-renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow is the so-called Hierarchy of Needs. This hierarchy of needs provides a tiered explanation for the manner in which humans address their needs. It commences with the fundamental requirements for survival (food and shelter) usually referred to as the physiological needs stage and moves through, security needs, social needs, esteem needs and finally onto self-actualisation. Second only to the fundamental needs for physiological requirements, such as food and water, is the need for safety (Maslow, 1943: 370-396). Maslow expands his ‘Safety Needs’ to include the following: personal security; financial security; health and well-being and a safety-net against accidents/illness and the adverse impacts thereof.
In essence, it is the function of security to create safety, i.e. security is any aspect, technique, piece of equipment or human deployment that is used to create safety. Safety is defined as: “The condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk or injury” (The Oxford Online Dictionary, 2010).
ASIS International, the world’s largest association of Security Managers defines security as:
The condition of being protected against hazards, threats, risks, or loss; Note
1: In the general sense, security is a concept similar to safety. The distinction between the two is an added emphasis on being protected from dangers that originate from outside; Note 2: The term « security » means that something not only is secure but that it has been secured (ASIS International online library, 2010).
Therefore, we can extrapolate that a security officer is an agent whose core responsibility is to ensure the safety of persons and/or property. In essence security officers provide various levels and tiers of protection. Swanton (1993: 1) defines protection as “controlling risks involving those things we value, such as our bodies, our families, public peace, integrity traffic safety and flow, personal belongings, state security and so on.”

BACKGROUND ON THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY

It is generally accepted that the core function for ensuring the safety of a community is a function that has traditionally fallen to government agencies (Minnaar, 2004 and Prenzler, 2005). Agencies such as federal and municipal police departments are responsible for the safety of citizens within the borders of their countries. Military structures are for the protection of the interests of countries externally or from external threat. The deployment of private security providers to supplement traditional policing structures and even military functions is now commonplace. This can be seen in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan where civilian contractors are utilised for a wide variety of support services and even protective services such as military base protection. In a recent survey of the security industry in the United States, Strom, Berzofsky, Shook-Sa, Barrik, Daye, Horsteman and Kinseny (2010: 1) stated that:
The private security industry is a crucial component of security and safety in the United States and abroad. Today, private security is responsible not only for protecting many of the nation‘s institutions and critical infrastructure systems, but also for protecting intellectual property and sensitive corporate information.
Over the past few decades there have been many studies that summarised the evolution and development of the industry. An excellent overview of this subject was compiled by Minnaar (2004) in his work titled ‘Private-public partnerships: Private security, crime prevention and policing in South Africa’. The modern-day reality is that it is a combination of policing and private security functions that ensure the safety and wellbeing of a community (Minnaar, 2007; Strom et al, 2010). By implication, the fact that we need police and private security means that there are inherent risks to which a community are exposed. Whilst there are certain differences, the term ‘private policing’ is often used synonymously with that of the security industry (Minnaar, 2004: 4-5) and as such no direct distinction will be made between these terms. At its core, protectors of society must be able to defend the people they protect from possible attack. The ability to defend others is not possible unless one is able to effectively defend oneself. In extreme circumstances this defence may include the use-of-force to protect oneself and others (even though the use-of-force may be a daily occurrence for some security officers). According to the United States Bureau for Statistics, approximately sixty percent of fatalities among Security officers in 2007 were caused by assaults and violent acts (BLS, 2009: 80).
In the developed societies of most first world countries such as Australia, and to a lesser extent South Africa, the basic physiological needs of the vast majority of its citizens are met. In other words, the majority of people living in these countries are not too concerned with the activities required to fulfil basic survival needs such as hunting or gathering food. This creates a reality whereby the next level of needs becomes the key concern (namely safety needs). This is primarily where the demand for private security services comes into play (Mead-Niblo, 1995: 8-12).
There are various reasons that explain in detail the motivation for the need of private security. This reasoning and the associated historical motivations are beyond the scope of this dissertation. However, the key consideration is the reality that there is the need for security services to protect the wellbeing of people and assets. For further information on the development of the private security industry, the following references provide more detailed information: Bruanig, 1993; King, 2001; Mead-Niblo; 1995, Minnaar 2004 and Prenzler & Sarre, 2000. The reality is that the private security industries in most countries are showing consistent growth (Prenzler and Sarre, 2009, Minnaar, 2007 and Strom et al, 2010). Despite the fact that in the United States growth may have slowed down in last few years (Strom et al, 2010) due to the of global economic recession, the security industry seems to have weathered this situation far better than other industries (Kotwica, 2009).
The reasons for development and expansion of the private security industry are a well-documented reality (Prenzler, Sarre & Earle, 2007; Prenzler, 2005; Minnaar, 2004). The majority of research resources on the topic of use-of-force seem to favour research into policing over research into private security, this despite the fact that in most worldwide locations, the security industries have a far larger manpower capacity then their policing counterparts (Prenzler and Sarre, 2008). Two global examples are as follows; the International Institute of Security and Safety Management believe that there are five times as many security officers as policemen in India. Minnaar’s (2004) research estimates that there are three times as many security officers as there are police officers in South Africa. Prenzler and Sarre (2009: 16) highlight the Australian 2006 census which illustrated that there were 226 police and 266 private security officers per 100 000 people in Australia.
From a macro perspective, the realities of information-based technology and ease of access to the internet have had a dramatic effect on the manner in which modern societies function and the proliferation of technology-based security solutions (internet-based CCTV, alarm signals sent direct to mobile phones, etc.). However, regardless of the sophistication of modern society, certain levels of crime and violence seem to be an on-going reality. This in turn creates an on-going need for private policing to counter and prevent these issues. The concept of private policing is not new and is utilised interchangeably with the roles and duties of Security officers whilst they fulfil certain functions of the private security industry. The specifics of the Queensland and South African private security industries and the services they provide will be discussed later in sections 3.7 and 3.8 of this Chapter.

THE EVOLVING SCIENCE OF SECURITY

The delivery of security services and the art of protection are constantly evolving. Leading academic institutions such as the University of South Africa and Edith Cowan University in Australia began referring to the study of security issues as the field of the “Security Sciences” (www.unisa.ac.za, 2009 and www.ecu.edu.au, 2011). The scope and development of the Security Sciences has dramatically transcended the mere provision of manpower (ASIS Foundation, 2009; Minnaar, 2007d). The world’s largest association of security professionals; the American Society for Industrial Security (referred to as ASIS international) now has over 37 000 members around the world (ASIS, 2010).
As a result of the outcomes of a meeting of security experts in 2008, wherein it was stated that in defining security there were 18 core elements that had to be identified. According to the ASIS Foundation (2009: 3-4), these 18 elements are subfields in their
own right but include the following:
1. physical security;
2. personnel security;
3. information systems security;
4. investigations;
5. loss prevention;
6. risk management;
7. legal aspects;
8. emergency and contingency planning;
9. fire protection;
10. crisis management;
11. disaster management;
12. counter-terrorism;
13. competitive intelligence;
14. executive protection;
15. violence in the workplace;
16. crime prevention;
17. crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED); and
18. security architecture and engineering.
As can be seen by the comprehensive nature of subjects included in the above-mentioned list, there can be little doubt that the field of Security Science is in need of further research. The nature of the industry is constantly growing and expanding as technology, terrorist and criminal activities evolve. This expansion and development is also mirrored by the improvement in training standards and the formulation of more technical and sophisticated training.

USE OF FORCE AND PRIVATE SECURITY: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

We exist in a global economy where businesses operate without borders. This is also happening in the security industry. An example of this is the increasing global concern aimed at private security companies that offer military-type services in high level conflict zones (which are not necessarily ‘war zones’). It has been well documented that the delivery of security services in countries that may be considered ‘war zones’ is creating much deliberation from a best practice and ethical standpoint (Aguirre, 2007; De Nevers, 2009; Minnaar, 2007; Stoddard, Harmer & DiDomencio, 2008).
The issue of security companies providing military-type services is not a new issue. There is a common misconception that all private security personnel operating in foreign conflict zones are mercenaries. This is not an accurate perception as many contractors are employed by legitimate governments and as such are bound by the laws and rulings of the countries in which they operate. However, with cases of excessive use of force having occurred on a semi-regular basis and the consequent media exposure of many of these incidents, a public outcry for answers and accountability has been created (Stoddard et al, 2008).
According to De Nevers (2009: 170) the issue of use of force by such companies which have become known as PSCs or PMCs (Private Security Companies/Private Military Companies) has become a priority for governments utilising their services including the USA and UK. An example of an incident of this kind was discussed in point 1.3.3 above. Many governments have chosen to utilise the services of PSCs for numerous reasons, including the lack of manpower and capacity within their existing armed forces as well as the political deniability that the use of outsourced security provides. In recent times, the issue of use of excessive force by private security contractors working in Iraq was exacerbated by a legislative glitch that basically enabled security contractors to utilise whatever force they believed was necessary without any criminal or civil consequence.
The importance of these macro issues to this study is that whilst there is no focused use-of-force studies for the domestic private security industries in South Africa or Australia, use of force by private security officers is considered a large scale problem by many independent research organisations (Aguirre, 2007; De Nevers, 2009; Minnaar, 2007; Stoddard, Harmer & DiDomencio, 2008). This problem is not limited strictly to the use of force but extends to a lack of oversight and reporting or non-reporting of misconduct. In many countries such as Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom the private security industries have been regulated by government authorities. This regulation and oversight is commonplace but does differ in shape and form from region to region (Minnaar, 2006b).
An overview of the application and implementation of the legislation and subsequent regulation for this industry in both South Africa and Australia (with specific focus of Queensland) will be discussed in the next section of this Chapter.

REGULATORY STRUCTURES

In order to assess the regulatory levels of a country, Schneider’s (2005: 33-37) model of regulatory classification in the private security industry, will be utilised. This model can be applied to specific sub-sectors of the private security industry. As an example the sub-sector of Crowd Controllers will be discussed. This approach basically identified two key areas that an industry must have in place to be considered ‘regulated’ namely, a training regulatory structure that sets standards and ensures that training is delivered effectively and a regulatory/licensing authority that ensures compliance and best practice among firms and security officers that work in the industry.
The table below, which has been modified to fit the specifications of Crowd Controllers, illustrates this model of regulatory explanation. According to the model, the Queensland Crowd Control industry could be defined as a regulated industry. In contrast, the South African Crowd Control industry, would accordingly be defined as partially regulated. The status of being ‘partially regulated’ can be attributed to the enforcement and monitoring of legislation not being effectively applied. It is difficult to assess countries such as Australia with its six federal states (Prenzler, Sarre & Earle, 2009: 408-412). Even more so the United States where each state has its own licensing structures and requirements (Strom et al, 2010: 68). In assessing the private security industry as a whole, it is clear that it has come a long way from self-regulation. Despite this consideration it has been stated that: “Until ‘smart co-regulation’, where governments, professional associations and operatives work together to create the highest possible standards in security work there will not truly be an efficient industry” (Prenzler, 2007: 37).

THE POLICING/PRIVATE SECURITY CROSSOVER

Despite the differences (geographic and government mandated authority) between private security and public law enforcement, their missions are not in conflict, but in fact are complementary, and often closely related (Strom et al, 2010: 57). One of the fundamental differences between police and private security is the motivation behind the delivery of services. The state policing organisations are government funded and therefore paid for by the country’s citizens via their taxes. The focus of their service is therefore generally considered to be centred on the delivery of a service that is in the best interests of a community. On the other hand, private security functions as a business and as a result focuses on the remuneration for services and the profitability of contracts (Strom et al, 2010:14). The lack of ‘official power of arrest’ makes the roles of private security different in many ways from those of state authorised Police officers according to Mead-Niblo (1995: 14-18) and Swanton (1993: 1).
A wide range of private security offerings may be directly related to high levels of violent crime and even welcomed by Law Enforcement agencies (Minnaar, 2005: 85) This is especially prevalent as a result of the comparatively high crime rates in South Africa (SAPS, 2010). With reference to the Australian security industry Prenzler, Earle and Sarre (2007: 1) state that:
Police necessarily retain the major role in enforcing the law after crimes have been committed and offenders have been apprehended. However, given that public sector policing draws heavily on equipment and personnel services supplied by private providers, and that public Police officers have many offenders handed over to them by the private sector, private security could be considered ‘the primary protective resource’.
Market demand is a driving force in the development of a country’s private security industry. Minnaar (2004: 4-6) alludes to this concept but differentiates between “private policing” and “guarding” as related yet separate concepts. There are many reasons why the growth of a specific private security industry may be stifled or demonstrate dramatic growth based on the relevant police structures and their performance. Minnaar (2008:132) states that: “It is a given fact that the ‘privatisation of crime control’ in the last few years has become more evident”. There is a clear and direct correlation to a government’s ‘moonlighting’ policies and the size, scale and development of a country’s private security industry. The Police’s attitude to ‘moonlighting’ may also play a role in the relationships and cross over between the private security sector and police agencies. ‘Moonlighting’ refers to the activity of sworn law enforcement officers working in the private security industry after hours or when off-duty (the utilisation of a typical shift schedule of four days on and four days off by public policing agencies creates the opportunity for such moonlighting by police officers to occur). Strom et al (2010: 66), state the following with regard to moonlighting activities in the United States:
Moonlighting poses some problems, especially in issues of liability. For example, if an officer makes a mistake, the police department and the private company must determine who should be responsible. They must also decide who pays for sick or disability leave. Some states have enacted statutes that determine the officer‘s duty to act while off-duty; others without such legislation must rely on judicial interpretation.

Overall performance of the police in delivery of a safe environment

The more effective the police are at creating and maintaining a safer environment the lower the levels of violent crime (Bratton & Kelling, 2006; Minnaar, 1997; Minnaar & Ngoveni, 2004; Minnaar, 2005). This would mean that there would be very little requirement for high level tactical-type private security. The converse of this is also true. The two regions (Queensland and South Africa) selected as comparisons are pronounced examples of this. In South Africa, a wide range of tactical-based security solutions are available to the general public. These tactical offerings include services such as armed response, armed residential guards, 24/7 CCTV surveillance and control room services and even tactical vehicle tracker (by satellite) and recovery units (such units respond and recover hijacked or stolen vehicles).
All of these services (with the exception of CCTV surveillance) are unheard of in the Australian market and many of them are illegal in terms of the Australian security legalisation. This is a clear example of how in a less secure environment, the more requirements there are for a broader range of security offerings and a larger private security industry. The South African security industry is said to have between three hundred and four hundred thousand active registered Security officers (PSIRA, 2010; Minnaar, 2007b and 2007d) the Australian industry at last census in 2006 had 113 867 (Prenzler & Sarre, 2009: 21).

Private security-policing partnerships

The growth of partnership arrangements between the police and private security agencies often referred to as private-public partnership (PPP) initiatives between police agencies and the private security industry is proving to be a very well accepted tactic (Strom et al, 2010; Minnaar, 1997, 2004 & 2005; Minnaar & Ngoveni, 2004). In the year 2000 there were 60 private security-policing partnership programs in the United States. In 2009 such projects have grown to over 450 initiatives (Strom et al, 2010: 62). Minnaar (2004: 9) highlights the benefits of Private Public Partnerships (PPPs) and provides the following list of examples where PPPs in the South African private sector generally apply:
• Responding jointly to crimes in progress;
• Investigating crimes;
• Sharing of crime intelligence;
• Joint crime intelligence gathering (for example by means of joint surveillance teams or CCTV operations);
• Sharing of expert knowledge (for example on the latest technology (private sector) or training methods (police);
• Accessing of and supplying official crime information;
• Joint planning and policing of special events;
• Assistance with training (for example in computer forensics by the private sector companies or in collecting and correct control of evidence at a crime scene by the police); and
• Crime prevention advice (sharing of risk analysis and audit information).
Minnaar (2004: 37), however, also warns that there are complications and problems around PPPs, particularly on issues such a vicarious liability. The most notable Australian initiatives in this line were PPPs during the Olympics held in Sydney in 2000 that were hailed as being highly successful based on the high number of security officers deployed and the comparatively low number of incidents that occurred (Prenzler, Earl & Sarre, 2007: 409). Whilst the PPP approach seems simple, there are many issues to address in terms of the so called animosity between police agencies and private sector companies. As Swanton (1993: 7) states: “Police and private protection communities lead largely separate existences and a degree of tension exists between them, more so from the former toward the latter”.

Barriers to entry in the security industry

Governments pass laws to control their private security industries. Examples of this are the South African Governments revision of the Foreign Military Assistance Act (Act 51 of 1998) with the new Prohibition of Mercenary Activities and Regulation of Certain Activities in Country of Armed Conflict Bill (Bill No. 27, 2006), which many believe is designed to stop South Africans working for PSCs abroad (Le Roux, 1998; Minnaar,2007). Another example is the Indian government’s policy that any company providing physical security services in India must be 51% Indian owned.18
These laws and policies create barriers to entry into the security industry for many companies or individuals. This should not to be confused with general licensing and regulation, which focus on the registration of persons or companies required to operate in the private security industry and designed to enhance the safety of all. An example of this is the fact that persons who have been guilty of certain crimes in a period of ten years prior to their application may be denied permission for a security officer licence in Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General, 2008g).

THE AUSTRALIAN PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY

As a whole the security industry in Australia is a critical component to national security, which protects key government installations, assists with loss prevention in business and enhances the safety of Australians and their possession’s (Prenzler and Sarre, 2009: 1-8). This section will provide a fundamental understanding of the Australian security regulatory structure as well as the industry as a whole. The definition by Prenzler and Sarre (2009: 4) to describe ‘private police’ will be utilised:
Private police are those persons who are employed or sponsored by a commercial enterprise on a contract or ‘in-house’ basis using public or private funds, to engage in tasks (other than vigilante groups) where the principal component is a security regulatory function.
A useful consideration when assessing the viability of studies that focus on the Australian private security industry is the reality that the private security in Australia, as in many other countries, is growing at a rate that exceeds expectations. In Australia, the manpower within the private security industry already outnumbers that of the police (Prenzler, 2005; Prenzler, Sarre & Earle, 2009). In order to understand the way the security industry now operates it is useful to consider the service offerings that are available within the industry. To provide a more detailed understanding of the titles,roles and duties within the private security industry, Prenzler and Sarre have subdivided and explained them in the Table below. It should be noted that whilst these are used to describe the Australian industry they would be applicable to almost any other country’s private security industry:
To be more specific, the Security Industry in Queensland as a whole is best classified by the licensing categories or classes mandated by the licensing authority, which in this case is the Department of Justice and Attorney-General’s, Office of Fair Trading (OFT). These categories are divided into two license classes and are outlined below:
Class 1 licence: A licence to perform one or more of the following functions:
– Bodyguard;
– Crowd Controller;
– Security officer;
– Security officer: Unarmed;
– Security officer: Cash-in-Transit;
– Security officer: Dog patrol;
– Security officer: Monitoring; and
– Private investigator.
Class 2 licence: A licence to perform one or more of the following functions:
– Security adviser
– Security equipment installer19 (Department of Criminal Justice and the Attorney-General, 2008a-k).
Out of the private security industry categories, Crowd Controllers and Security Guards account for the majority of the industry (Prenzler & Sarre, 2005: 13). This is consistent with findings in the United States. Strom et al (2010: 38) found that the security industry in the United States employs about one million guards and the guarding sector (armed and unarmed) amounts to over fifty percent of the service offerings of the industry. From these classifications, with specific reference to use of force, the vast majority of security officers that have the maximum exposure to potentially violent incidents are Crowd Controllers (Prenzler, Sarre & Earle, 2008: 412). This is in-line with findings from research conducted in similar countries such as the United Kingdom (Winlow, Hobbs, Lister & Hadfield, 2001). The research for this study clearly identified that from an Australian perspective, priority needs to be given to the Crowd Controller sub-sector. It for this reason, that Crowd Controllers, their training and use of force best practice will be utilised as one of the example groups throughout this paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION FORM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
NOTES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESEARCH CONCEPT
1.3 AN OVERVIEW OF USE OF FORCE
1.4 RESEARCH OVERVIEW
1.5 BACKGROUND TO THIS STUDY/RATIONALE
1.6 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
1.7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1.8 BENEFITS OF THE RESEARCH
1.9 THE CONCEPT OF ‘REASONABLE FORCE AND THIS RESEARCH
1.10 KEY THEORETICAL CONCEPTS
1.11 LAYOUT AND STRUCTURE OF DISSERTATION
Chapter 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 VALIDITY, RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF COLLECTED INFORMATION
2.3 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
2.4 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED WHILE DOING RESEARCH
2.5 APPROACH TO THE LITERATURE REVIEW
2.6 THE RESEARCH APPROACH
2.7 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH: INITIAL LITERATURE REVIEW AND INTERVIEWS
2.8 DETERMINING OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, DESIGN OF RESEARCH TOOLS AND CONFIRMATION OF TARGET POPULATION
2.9 DESIGN OF RESEARCH TOOLS AND CONFIRMATION OF TARGET POPULATION
2.10 CONSOLIDATION OF RESEARCH, DESIGN AND REVIEW OF BEST PRACTICE MODEL
2.11 SUMMARY
Chapter 3: THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 BACKGROUND ON THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY
3.3 THE EVOLVING SCIENCE OF SECURITY
3.4 USE OF FORCE AND PRIVATE SECURITY: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
3.5 REGULATORY STRUCTURES
3.6 THE POLICING/PRIVATE SECURITY CROSSOVER
3.7 THE AUSTRALIAN PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY
3.8 THE SOUTH AFRICAN PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY
3.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Chapter 4: CRIMINOLOGICAL, VIOLENCE REDUCTION AND RELATED THEORIES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 THEORIES OF VIOLENCE REDUCTION AND AGGRESSION MANAGEMENT
4.3 UNDERSTANDING VIOLENCE
4.4 UNDERSTANDING AGGRESSION
4.5 SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
4.6 FLIGHT-OR-FIGHT AND INSTINCTIVE RESPONSE TO AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE
4.7 CONTROLLING ADRENAL RESPONSE AND ENHANCING PERFORMANCE DURING SURVIVAL BASED ACTIVITIES
4.8 THE FOUR PRIMARY TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING ADRENAL RESPONSE
4.9 STRESS MANAGEMENT
4.10 SECURITY AND CRIMINOLOGICAL MODELS AND THEORIES
4.11 THEORIES OF EMOTIONAL SELF-REGULATION, VIOLENCE AND CRIME
4.12 THEORIES OF CRIME PREVENTION AND VIOLENCE REDUCTION
4.13 SECURITY AND CRIME PREVENTION MODELS
4.14 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Chapter 5: USE-OF-FORCE MODELS AND RELATED THEORIES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 USE-OF-FORCE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY
5.3 COMMONALITIES OF POLICE USE OF FORCE STUDIES
5.4 THE CONCEPT OF REASONABLE-FORCE PRACTICE
5.5 THE USDOD DEFINITION
5.6 THE UN PRINCIPLES AND USE OF FORCE (IHL)
5.7 THE CORE CONCEPTS OF MINIMUM-FORCE
5.8 USE-OF-FORCE MODELS/FORCE CONTINUUMS
5.9 EVALUATION OF USE OF FORCE MODELS
5.10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Chapter 6: USE-OF-FORCE TOOLS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 LEGISLATION AND USE OF FORCE
6.3 MARTIAL ARTS AND DEFENSIVE TACTICS
6.4 USE-OF-FORCE TOOLS AND OPTIONS
6.5 EDGED WEAPON COMBAT
6.6 IMPROVISED WEAPON COMBAT
6.7 USE OF ALTERNATIVE WEAPONS
6.8 FIREARMS USAGE AND APPLICATION
6.9 THE USE OF CANINES AS A FORCE OPTION
6.10 REQUIRED ATTRIBUTES
6.11 CRITERIA FOR AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSIVE TACTIC
6.12 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Chapter 7: USE-OF-FORCE TRAINING
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 WHAT IS EFFECTIVE USE-OF-FORCE TRAINING?
7.3 THE CONTENT OF THE USE-OF-FORCE TRAINING
7.4 THE FOCUS OF USE-OF-FORCE TRAINING
7.5 THE DURATION OF THE TRAINING
7.6 THE TRAINEE’S PROFILE
7.7 THE INTENSITY OF THE TRAINING
7.8 THE INSTRUCTOR’S SKILLS
7.9 THE MATERIALS AND TRAINING VENUES
7.10 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Chapter 8: RESEARCH FINDINGS: QUESTIONNAIRE
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 THE QUESTIONNAIRE
8.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
8.4 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION ONE
8.5 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION TWO
8.6 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION THREE
8.7 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION FOUR
8.8 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION FIVE
8.9 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION SIX
8.10 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION SEVEN
8.11 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION EIGHT
8.12 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION NINE
8.13 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION TEN
8.14 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION ELEVEN
8.15 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION TWELVE
8.16 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION THIRTEEN
8.17 FEEDBACK FROM QUESTION FOURTEEN
8.18 SUMMARY OF CORE FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEYS
8.19 CONCLUSION
Chapter 9: RESEARCH FINDINGS: INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP
9.1 INTRODUCTION
9.2 ABOUT THE INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP
9.3 PERCEPTIONS OF THE SECURITY AND TRAINING SECTORS
9.4 INTERACTION WITH THE POLICE AND OTHER OFFICIAL ORGANISATION
9.5 USE-OF-FORCE TRAINING
9.6 USE-OF-FORCE CONTINUUMS
9.7 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
9.8 TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT
9.9 LIMITATIONS OF TRAINING AND WORKING IN THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY
9.10 TRAINEE CONSIDERATIONS
9.11 ISSUES REGARDING REGULATION
9.12 THE SPECIFICS OF THE FOCUS GROUP FEEDBACK
9.13 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Chapter 10: RESEARCH FINDINGS: RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE PRACTICAL USE OF FORCE TRAINING MODEL (PUoFTM)
10.1 INTRODUCTION
10.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRACTICAL USE OF FORCE TRAINING MODEL
10.3 GENERAL CONTENT AND STRUCTURE APPLICABLE TO THE PRACTICAL USE OF FORCE TRAINING MODEL
10.4 TRAINING OUTCOMES AND THE NEED FOR AN ON-GOING OFFICER
DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
10.5 PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: THE STRUCTURE OF THE PRACTICAL USE OF FORCE TRAINING MODEL
10.6 COMPETENCY AND ASSESSMENT ASPECTS OF THE Practical Use of Force Training Model
10.7 VALIDATION AND TESTING OF THE MODEL (EVALUATION RESEARCH PHASE)
10.8 AREAS IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
10.9 CONCLUSION
LIST OF REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT