1. Aleksandar Pašagić General Security d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA, aleksandar@generalsecurity.hr Aleksandar Pašagić General Security d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA, aleksandar@generalsecurity.hr 4 th International Conference Ergonomics 2010 4 th International Conference Ergonomics 2010

2. Types of operating environment for a security officer: low threathigh threat Available options vary according to the demands of the environment Types of operating environment for a security officer: low threathigh threat Available options vary according to the demands of the environment

3. 1) security officer’s presence 2) verbal commands 3) hands on/physical restraint techniques (including the use of a baton where applicable) 4) OC spray/EMI device (where applicable) 5) firearm (where applicable) Options are always a compromise between effectiveness and liability Number of incidents corresponds to the inverse use of force continuum Escalating force implies increased liability 1) security officer’s presence 2) verbal commands 3) hands on/physical restraint techniques (including the use of a baton where applicable) 4) OC spray/EMI device (where applicable) 5) firearm (where applicable) Options are always a compromise between effectiveness and liability Number of incidents corresponds to the inverse use of force continuum Escalating force implies increased liability

4. Objectives: - project a civilized image - distance the company from excessively aggressive image - avoid negative publicity associated with violence Objectives: - project a civilized image - distance the company from excessively aggressive image - avoid negative publicity associated with violence

5. Objectives achieved through reduction in use of force

6. Compromise between effectiveness and minimal use of force: Non-Lethal Weapons Definition: “… weapons … explicitly designed and primarily employed … to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment” - United States Department of Defense Policy Directive 3000.3, Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons, July 9, 1996 Alternative terminology – Less-Lethal Weapons Compromise between effectiveness and minimal use of force: Non-Lethal Weapons Definition: “… weapons … explicitly designed and primarily employed … to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment” - United States Department of Defense Policy Directive 3000.3, Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons, July 9, 1996 Alternative terminology – Less-Lethal Weapons

7. Impact weapons Chemical compliance weapons Electrical compliance weapons Impact weapons Chemical compliance weapons Electrical compliance weapons

8. Advantages: - effective - cheap - simple to use Advantages: - effective - cheap - simple to use

9. Disadvantages: - lack of damage control - associated negative image - not everywhere legal Disadvantages: - lack of damage control - associated negative image - not everywhere legal

10. Advantages: - relatively cheap - perceived as non-threatening - good safety record - simple to use Advantages: - relatively cheap - perceived as non-threatening - good safety record - simple to use

11. Disadvantages: - perceived as non-threatening - inconsistent results - limited in close quarters applications Disadvantages: - perceived as non-threatening - inconsistent results - limited in close quarters applications

12. Advantages: - consistent results - no lasting harm Disadvantages: - high cost - escalation of force problem Generally considered the future of NLWs Advantages: - consistent results - no lasting harm Disadvantages: - high cost - escalation of force problem Generally considered the future of NLWs

14. Probe application

15. Drive-stun application

16. Severity scale 0 – No observed adverse level 1 – Effects not normally requiring medical treatment for full recovery (incl. intended effect) 2 – Effects requiring medical treatment, but are not life threatening nor pose risk of disability after recovery 3 – Life-threatening effects, lethality, significant risk of disability after recovery Severity scale can be used to assess the efectiveness of a NLW system Severity scale 0 – No observed adverse level 1 – Effects not normally requiring medical treatment for full recovery (incl. intended effect) 2 – Effects requiring medical treatment, but are not life threatening nor pose risk of disability after recovery 3 – Life-threatening effects, lethality, significant risk of disability after recovery Severity scale can be used to assess the efectiveness of a NLW system

17. 1. Ocular injury 2. Seizure 3. Ventricular fibrillation 4. Fall injuries Potential for unintentional discharge 1. Ocular injury 2. Seizure 3. Ventricular fibrillation 4. Fall injuries Potential for unintentional discharge

18. Perceived non-lethality leading to more frequent use of NLW Increased probability of inappropriate application Reduced sense of responsibility Perceived non-lethality leading to more frequent use of NLW Increased probability of inappropriate application Reduced sense of responsibility

19. NLW are a useful set of tools to bridge the gap between unarmed response and lethal force NLW positively influence the public image of private security company compared to firearms or impact weapons but Security officer education in use of NLWs crucial Education on context of use, not only techniques Inappropriate use of NLWs leads to negative public image and potential legal claims NLW are a useful set of tools to bridge the gap between unarmed response and lethal force NLW positively influence the public image of private security company compared to firearms or impact weapons but Security officer education in use of NLWs crucial Education on context of use, not only techniques Inappropriate use of NLWs leads to negative public image and potential legal claims

20. Aleksandar Pašagić aleksandar@generalsecurity.hr www.generalsecurity.hr Aleksandar Pašagić aleksandar@generalsecurity.hr www.generalsecurity.hr