Unprepaired DS...

Drinks01

Hi guys and gals,
Just a quick question, if anyone could help me out. Anybody who doesnt have a criminal record can become a DS. Other than a criminal check no other checks are done. Why isnt there a course/test on self defence when you do DS training? lads come into a busy, rough nightclub environment and dont have a clue how to defend themselfs or fellow DS's. This is whong on so many levels. It puts your work mates lives at risk bigtime. There should be some sort of couple of days type course to teach defence and the right way to lock (restrain) a difficault customer.
Hope someone can shed some light on the matter.
DRINKS

sinx9

The sia reqiured course is pen and paper nothing that will prepare you for the job my first council badge the course i did wasnt pen and paper it was all hands on if you did somthin wrong the trainer would put one on your jaw hed ask you to stick out your jaw and jab you just hard enough so you got the message.
now that was a course

you can do a seperate course on restraint tactics and i would reccomend it
the best advice i ever got was if it works use it if it doesnt figure out quick what will and do it

hope this helps

scotty

wullie reilly

most security companys that employ DS are supposed to run c/r training i teach c/r and breakaway training to DS staff some of the door staff i have worked with dont have the training ask your security boss for the training i beleave the use of c/r is a last resort .

stay safe

wullie reilly

floatingmetal

I'm new to this and not a lawyer but as far as I can tell it's two words - Reasonable Force. Easy to say, reasonably easy to explain for a multi-choice test like the DS exams. But you really had better make sure you did it right and have your notebook up to date for when you have to go in to court to explain why you did whatever you did, especially some time after the event.

Rightly or wrongly, not teaching physical restraint for the basic SG and DS in some respects actually seems to widen your choices in terms of defence and restraint. If you've been properly trained in a range of locks and holds and then you *don't use them* and something goes badly wrong, then you could potentially be in very serious trouble.

I'm open to corroboration or correction if anyone knows any case law but it would seem that without the training, as long as you can convince the court that whatever you did was reasonable against the perceived threat there's a reasonable chance you'll be OK. Whether that's a good environment (physical or legal!) to work in is another matter entirely.

And let's not even start on handcuffs or similar restraints...

(If anyone can reccommend a good restraint course that runs at weekends, I'm all ears... Or if anyone has been to the Krav Maga classes at Oxford Circus, likewise!)

kate

I think alot of companies are afraid to run control and restraint courses now to be honest, it seems to be a question of liability. Its not a question of should the door supervisor be trained in effective techniques but a question of liability if their staff actually use them. As far as I am aware, with the exception of the Maybo Physical Intervention course, there is no accredited and recognised control and restraint course out there, and my knowledge on this is a little dated, things may have changed and i apologise if i am wrong. As above, the term justifiable reasonable force floats around hanging over all security operatives head like a lead weight and not many private security companies are willing to put themselves on the line in that manner by attaching themselves to an urecognised course even if it is in the best interest of their staff. I feel it all comes down to the licence, getting the license is easy (yes i know the sia are a pain and it takes forever), keeping the license is a different matter!

80085

Hello sorry if this sounds very hypercritical, but surely you telephone the training provider to see what content is in the course that you are attending, and paying good money for.

I would suggest doing this before you part with your money, as decent DS trainers will include some type of break free or restraint training if not both. This is not a requirement on the course, why I do not know. I think also a basic first aid course should also go hand in hand with DS training. Bearing in mind that you will be in confrontational situations, along with glass bottles and the like, not to mention the drunk and not so reasonable person you are being confronted by. Though some places are now using plastic pints and bottles.

It is only the basic course requirement , that you do when you do a DS training. You will learn more when you are working on the doors and gaining experience. It has been said many times before not just with DS training, but if you read some of the posts on the CP forum, you will see that investing in training for yourself, helps build on the foundation of the minimum requirement; as is set out by the sia (bless them).

My advice to anyone taking out a course, be it SG, DS or CP, shop around ask questions. If restraint is not part of the course, then invest some money and do a separate course, if there is not a DS training provider who can offer it on your course. Self investment is worth every penny.

Regards

Lildev666

__________________
.

AVL

It is great to see people finally thinking...........I run DS courses and I have recruited an independent trainer who will come along and run a session in break away/control techniques, but you do have to remember reasonable and justifiable action, but any GOOD trainer will/should keep you right on relevant legal requirements of the work. And for your own sake to not accept a course which offers a shorter delivery than four days, one it is illegal and two you will not receive the essential underpinning knowledge.

A

floatingmetal

I think another "problem"(*) is that the DS license covers such a wide range of skills and working requirements whether it's for static/site guarding, Door Supervision for a rowdy nightclub, festival security and so on. There's a whole bunch of stuff that I'd have liked to see at least mentioned (appropriate PPE, to pick one at random).

In many ways it's a bit like the driving test - it's something you have to get past before you can get some experience and learn how to do things properly. And as with driving some if not most will think "right, passed that, don't have to think about it again" and others will make sure they keep their skills up to date and learn new stuff when they can.

(* opportunity, issue, call it what you will)

VICTORMACE

Well when Belfast tried to implement a DS course 5 years ago a little chat with the police was included. Trying to pin down the police officer on what was reasonable force or equivalent force was near impossible they just did not want to committ themselves to a diffinitive answer, DS who might have to appear in court could then quote constable such and such said we could when he spoke to us on the course amd leave the PSNI open to criticism. So if the police won't committ themselves to whats reasonable or equivalent force it must be almost impossible for the training companies to implement a control and restraint module that would keep them out of the legal limelight.

jmaccauley

We in the US law enforcement arena, have seen the Use of Force criteria evolve quite a bit over the years. Obviously, every successful lawsuit brings about the change/restriction. 20 years ago we a 6 level Use of Force Continuum, It was designed to simply say, "if they do this, you can meet or exceed that level by 1."Then it developed, completely by mutation apparently, into about 18 subsets. This of course led to more lawsuits. Finally, the courts held that officers who were in dynamic, fast evolving situations couldn't possibly determine the appropriate level of resistance nor decide what 1 level above would be. Still, the agencies held onto it, fearing liability.

Now, more and more courts are allowing officers to base their response on the "totality" of the circumstances. This was meant to include size , weight, age, skill level of aggressor, weapons present, bystanders or confedrates, etc.. This at least gives the officer a fighting chance on the street as well as in the courtroom.

As for training, a recognized term has emerged in defending an officers actions. It's "Untrained, but Justified." This is explained by the above totality of circumstances and level of training/resources available at the moment.

It has put a lot of so-called training "systems" out of business and rightly so. These companies have a vested interest in you only doing so-called "approved" techniques in the heat of battle. Managers like the idea because they can push the liability off on the trainers, but the guys who need the training need to think of themselves first. That most often means seeking individual training that suits one, not everyone.

Jerry