From the Security Director News:
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week ruled that judges did
not need to instruct juries on deadly force in excessive force cases
involving police or security officers.
That
ruling might have reduced liability for organizations involved in such
cases, but it didn't clarify the definition of excessive force.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit case upheld a verdict that rejected Elizabeth
Acosta's civil rights complaint against the city of San Diego. She
alleged that security officers and police at San Diego's Qualcomm
Stadium violated her civil rights when an officer slammed her to the
ground after she continued kicking him when she was removed from a
stadium bar.
"It's a very subjective judgment," said William
McShane, director of corporate loss prevention and life safety for
Denihan Hospitality Group. "A jury could easily take a look at a
situation and say a 6-foot-4, 250-pound security guard grabbing a
5-foot-1, 105-pound woman is excessive force and rule in favor of the
woman although the security guard's actions weren't malicious."
Both
Robbie Foster, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough, and McShane said training is the best way to protect an
organization against excessive force claims.
"There is just not
a clear definition that you can tell security officers as to how they
should handle that situation," Foster said. "It takes judgment,
training, and the professionalism of a security officer not to lose his
cool."
Full Story
