Response 2 101
Write a 100-word response with 1 reference in APA
The role of security officer/manager and law enforcement officer have the same main goal being crime prevention, but the reasons for preforming the duties, target “audience”, and delivery method are quite different as we see on figure 7.1 in Private Security and Law by Charles Nemeth. First is the reason for crime prevention. Security companies need profits from clients to operate and provide crime prevention services when paid by a specific client for a specific job. Law enforcement agencies provide crime prevention services on the tax payers dollar and preform this task in order to keep the peace in the general area of their jurisdiction not just a specific client in a focused area. The target audience for security companies is whoever has them on their payroll and in contrast law enforcement agencies provide this to all citizens within their area of operation. When examining table 7.1 and 7.2 in Private Security and Law we also see that the importance of each task ranked by importance to each type of officer. In table 7.2 for the law enforcement officer we see that the arrest and prosecution of criminals is much higher on the list when compared to privatized security officers. A security officer will stay at his post and prepare for a known criminal to try to breach his layers of security and try to prevent this. A law enforcement officer may do the same at public events, but they will also go out into their communities and actively search for these criminals in a general area.
A security officers actions may not only effect himself but also the company he works for as made evident on page 156 of Private Security and Law. An employer will be held liable for any actions made by their employee. The videos we watched in week one come to mind again with security officers pulling out weapons unprovoked and then immediately being held responsible for their negligence. If someone had died the officer, security company, and business hiring the security company could be held liable.
We also see in Private Security and Law on page 233 that officers who restrain or detain an individual without a proper reason “…may be criminally liable for false imprisonment.” If a security officer impedes on a citizens rights knowing they haven’t actually done anything wrong or are they are the first aggressor in a violent act they will be held liable for the outcomes of those situations and put the companies employing them in a compromising position.