Troopers 2016

[2muchcoffeeman]

If there's a police investigation or any hint of litigation afoot, any lawyer would advise Troopers to say nothing.

[PamahoNow]

If there's a police investigation or any hint of litigation afoot, any lawyer would advise Troopers to say nothing.

Then that is what I would hope the Troopers say.

[TroopAlum12]

I've thought (and suggested) that we hear from Troopers management ASAP. This will go a long way to clearing the air.

They won't comment until everything is sorted out. I know they are currently trying to midigate the social media response and keep misinformation from running wild until they are able to say exactly what is happening. All the legal procedures and decisions by staff need to be in place first, and all the administrators are currently seeing the corps off and heading home from tour. They need time.

[Liahona]

If anything...I honestly think the troopers need to address this fiasco publicly before it gets any further out of hand...albeit even the differing opinions of use of violence/non-violence...waitng to respond is a BIG mistske IMO

Edited August 15, 2016 by Liahona

[KVG_DC]

CSC is legendary around stadia for having incidents like this. While most CSC people are fine, they do seem to get the "so full of their authority with that yellow security jacket on" type frequently enough to be in the news now and then.

University of Houston dropped their contract after an assault issue

http://abc13.com/news/uh-ends-contract-with-security-company-after-fan-assault/1111983/

[Kyle B]

I'm an usher at a major stadium, I am constantly around our security guys all the time, and they are always very helpful to me and I see the procedures they go through when there is an issue. What the employee did was highly wrong. While I'm still 50/50 on Tim getting in that last hit when he was down, there is no excuse for the security to sucker hit him, let alone put him in a choke hold.

[AlexL]

Ok... as someone that worked in security for a firm for a few months, between jobs, when I was out of college, and studying for a Brokers exam, I can tell you that we were always instructed never to initiate ANY physical contact with a person that failed to follow our directions. The protocol was to immediately use the horn to call for back up.. even a supervisor.. to bring them in to persuade the person that they needed to follow directions.. or else. Sometimes 5 or 6 security would show up, and that'd be enough to get our directions followed, or an agreeable compromise would usually be arrived at. Even in the few situations where a person got a bit violent, the 5 or 6 of us could grab him, put in in the security vehicle, and escort him off the premises.. or in rare cases, contact the local police to arrive for assistance with the violent person or persons. This Lucas Security Guard had no right to put his hand on the Troopers staffer.. and certainly not an elbow thrust to the staffers throat, no matter WHAT the staffer might have said to the security guy here. I'm pretty sure that Lucas Security Supervisors will conclude that proper security protocol by this security guard was not properly followed here. The reason proper security protocol would not allow this behavior from the guard is to avoid the very escalation that then became the aftermath of the guard's response to his directive that apparently was not immediately complied with. We were also told that it is US that has the power of enforcement over the individual. We have the obligation then to have our directions followed by verbal means with the public at all times, except if we are attacked first, then naturally the guard has the right to use physical force that is neccessary and proper to get the situation under control. This Trooper staffer however was apparently no physical threat at any time to this security person. As such, the security guard had no right at all to toss his elbow at his throat like this as an initiation of the physical violence between the two of them. None. The guard here lost control.. and thus things here quickly unraveled for both of them. I blame the Guard primarily for this. He did not follow the directions of his firm on how to properly handle directions that may not be immediately followed on the part of the public. I'm pretty confident the guard's firm will conclude this as well after a proper review of the incident here.... the only other issue here then is whether or not the Troopers were in violation of any Lucas guidelines. The guard here thought so. But the staffer looked likje he was not going to comply with the guards orders to do something... what that something was, is unclear to me at the moment. I'm no sure whether or not the Troopers were in some stadiums violation of stadium rules here or not. But thats for another discussion perhaps... but in either case, it does not exonerate the guard from his unwarranted use of physical violence upon the staffer that caused this all to go downhill in violence from there.

Seconding this as another who also spent a few months working security. This guy's job is to verbally enforce the rules, then call in for backup if they are not followed (or potentially a supervisor couldve let the troopers continue as they were). Never, ever is it his job to physically enforce any rules. 100% in the wrong, and id give high odds on the reports of him being fired being true.

[Kyle B]

Seconding this as another who also spent a few months working security. This guy's job is to verbally enforce the rules, then call in for backup if they are not followed (or potentially a supervisor couldve let the troopers continue as they were). Never, ever is it his job to physically enforce any rules. 100% in the wrong, and id give high odds on the reports of him being fired being true.

If by physically you mean hitting him, then you are correct. But if you are saying that security can never physically restrain someone, then it's going to depend on what the policy is from the company.

[AlexL]

If by physically you mean hitting him, then you are correct. But if you are saying that security can never physically restrain someone, then it's going to depend on what the policy is from the company.

My area wasnt event management, but i'd assume at very least it'd be protocol to get backup involved (both for the safety of security, an additional show of force to encourage voluntary compliance, and to provide secondary validation for the decision) before attempting to physically remove someone.

[D41145]

These people on here kill me. So when a guy hits you first, you will respond with, "oh please can we settle this a different way?" I'm pretty sure anyone and everyone would have done the same thing.