12/07/2024
Memo’s From The Guard:
The establishment has engaged the services of an unarmed security personnel to safeguard its premises. As a standard operating procedure, the security officer is required to undergo thorough inspections at the beginning of each shift to confirm the absence of any weaponry or protective equipment.
The security officer is stationed outside the premises for an extensive 11-hour shift. This location is categorized as high risk due to prevalent drug and gang-related activities. The primary responsibility of the security officer includes monitoring and encouraging the movement of individuals away from the store's vicinity.
In accordance with Washington Law, the security officer possesses the authority to act in a complete protective and service capacity within the confines of their contracted assignment. However, the client's specifications limit the security officer's actions to a passive stance during most of the time.
In the event of an emergency situation, the security officer is expected to swiftly intervene to safeguard the establishment, its employees, and assets. For instance, during the course of their 11-hour shift, the security officer is allotted a 1-hour lunch break. It should be noted that the security officer refrains from taking regular breaks but adheres to the designated lunch break.
Regrettably, during this 11-hour shift, an unfortunate incident involving gunfire occurs, resulting in a bullet striking the store's window. Subsequently, attempts are made to reach out to the security officer by multiple parties to ascertain their safety, as the overnight shift personnel do not observe the security officer stationed outside the store.
At this particular juncture, the security officer happens to be on their lunch break and has chosen to rest in their vehicle, with their phone undergoing charging. Consequently, the security officer fails to notice the missed calls due to being engaged in their lunch break nap.
Regrettably, the security officer faces criticism for napping in their car during their designated lunch break. This critique insinuates that the unfortunate incident could have been averted had the security officer been present and not on their lunch break.
It is crucial to approach this situation logically, recognizing that incidents of crime often transpire irrespective of the presence of law enforcement or security personnel. This observation is especially pertinent in regions with stringent law enforcement measures in place.
It is important to reiterate that the hired security officer is unarmed and undergoes meticulous checks to confirm their lack of weaponry. Despite this, the security officer is entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding both lives and property.
