Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3286 to 3290 (15-19 August 2016)
TieDyeKat:
I'd suspect that, since Elliott likely works outside the door most of the time, he is exempt from the uniform.
But.... WIL! *swoons*
Mr. Skawronska:
--- Quote from: jwhouk on 15 Aug 2016, 00:43 ---Presence, Dialogue, Control Alternatives, Protective Alternatives, and... Deadly Force.
Sometimes you have to escalate.
--- End quote ---
That's a variation of the use of force continuum I have not seen. Ours is Presence, verbal, soft hands, chemical, taser, hard hands, secondary impact, deadly force.
It's amazing how things change, yet remain the same, over time.
--- Quote from: BenRG on 15 Aug 2016, 00:15 --- I'm talking nerve clusters and possibly dislocated shoulders.
--- End quote ---
Yeah. Nerve clusters and pressure points can be really unreliable against drunks. Pain compliance can be unreliable against drunks. Dislocations and destabilizations of critical mobility points ARE effective but tend to come with lawsuits.
--- Quote from: explicit on 15 Aug 2016, 00:32 ---As someone who's worked security at a bar we were told to simply incapacitate. Generally that means holding onto the guy and using your body weight until help arrives. However, I imagine a bouncer who's by themselves would have to deviate from that plan sometimes. I only worked big events so we could simply use numbers and throwing punches was more likely to just get someone else (or ourselves) hurt.
--- End quote ---
Absolutely. Except nowadays businesses don't want to pay for the manpower. So they use one bouncer instead of three, and only figure out that this raises their liability in medical claims and lawsuits only after they are financially crippled by them. Some folks are penny-wise but dollar foolish. Numbers are by far the safest way to handle situations like that. Both health-wise and financially.
The worst employers of security are those who don't understand the concept of medical liability in an enforcement context, whose eyes light up with "get something for nothing" when you tell 'em you're medically trained (and they couldn't tell you the difference between CLS, ACLS, EMT, or PMD, and they don't care), not realizing that practicing medicine without a license is a crime and the liability that goes with it trying to get medical personnel who are not properly covered on the cheap, employed (and paid) as security, without medical direction, is a recipe for EPIC disaster.
It's no wonder Elliott doesn't want to talk about his other job. That fits with everyone else who's done it or doing it who is any good at it.
jwhouk:
--- Quote from: Mr. Skawronska on 15 Aug 2016, 05:57 ---That's a variation of the use of force continuum I have not seen. Ours is Presence, verbal, soft hands, chemical, taser, hard hands, secondary impact, deadly force.
It's amazing how things change, yet remain the same, over time.
--- End quote ---
I'm facing a different population than you, obviously.
Mr. Skawronska:
--- Quote from: jwhouk on 15 Aug 2016, 06:14 ---
--- Quote from: Mr. Skawronska on 15 Aug 2016, 05:57 ---That's a variation of the use of force continuum I have not seen. Ours is Presence, verbal, soft hands, chemical, taser, hard hands, secondary impact, deadly force.
It's amazing how things change, yet remain the same, over time.
--- End quote ---
I'm facing a different population than you, obviously.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. With a different set of laws and rules of engagement. But the similarities are there. Just different verbiage.
Neko_Ali:
It might be because of the location and the employer as well as the time period. For instance, when working at department stores when I was younger I was often tapped to assist Loss Prevention when they expected to have trouble because I used to be big and intimidating looking. Our rules were that we had to be entirely hands off unless we were clearly physically defending ourselves and under no circumstances were we to use weapons of any kind. All for fear of lawsuits by people trying to steal from the store. Similarly I applied for mall security work before and the rules were pretty much the same. We were not allowed to carry anything more dangerous than a walkie talkie. Not even tasers or mace. Basically, if we couldn't intimidate someone into leaving via physical presence we had to call the police and let them deal with it. We were never allowed to actually touch someone.
On the other hand my room mate also worked LP and security jobs and was required to be armed while on duty. But they worked in much more dangerous areas. Not only were their issues with shoplifters and employees stealing, but sometimes they had to deal with armed robbery and the like. So again, there are a lot of factors that play into responses. I doubt that Elliot goes armed in part because of his personality. And probably for legal complications. Incapacitating weapons can have odd effects on people who are intoxicated. I can't think of any case I've heard of where a bouncer was carrying. Most of them seem to go for physical intimidation or incapacitation via grappling of by sheer size/weight. And I image Elliot is immune to the dress code because he needs to be clearly identified as security. Hence the big word across his chest.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version