Liability in Private Security Should be Considered When Choosing Your Tools

Private security firms have a challenging mandate. They are tasked by the building or business owner with the safety of building occupants and property. But their ability to respond to potentially dangerous situations is limited in several ways, including limitations established by the customer. And the tools they might use all present various drawbacks.

In a perfect world, private security would be an “eyes and ears only” solution. They would secure a facility well enough to observe and report potential threats and leave any active engagement of the threats to law enforcement.

The Distinct Line Between Former and Current Police Officers in Private Security Tools

While many guards in private security are former police, they are not currently police. They do not have the resources, nor the legal standing, of active-duty police. Therefore, they must be careful that anytime they are required to use force on the job that their response is reasonable, within the law, and strictly following their company’s procedures.

A Guard’s Tool Belt

Private security firms train their guards that the tools on their duty belts are their last resort. Of course, there are those outlying scenarios when disengagement is not an option, and devices may be deployed, especially defensively.

Yet the security firm opens itself to liability issues when any of these tools are used.

Liabilities with Private Security Tools

One of the most common results of these confrontations is allegations of assault and battery. Security guards are generally required to use the minimum force necessary to handle a potentially violent situation. But state and local laws vary widely in their interpretation of what constitutes reasonable versus excessive force.

Using hard weapons like a baton makes this potential liability worse. The defendants could claim that even carrying a baton is evidence of premeditation for conflict (if the baton is deployed quickly enough).

Even if there’s no threat of legal liability, it’s terrible optics to use a baton on an unarmed civilian. Every security firm’s worst nightmare is to have a video circulating on social media of their personnel beating someone with a stick.

Previously Available Private Security Tools Present Costly Challenges

Consider the other tools that a security guard might have at their disposal. Other advanced threat-control tools are usually expensive or require expensive training and remain largely ineffective. And we are well familiar with the shortcomings of pepper spray – we’ve written extensively on the drawbacks of OC or CS gas.

Ultimately, the choice of security devices will affect a firm’s profits and losses. This is because the tools on a guard’s duty belt can affect how much the business must pay for liability insurance.

While policies and procedures are different, each insurance provider, when quoting premiums, will consider what a security guard is likely to do or not on the job. It’s generally expected that firms whose guards carry and are likely to deploy more extreme threat-control tools will pay a higher premium than those who don’t.

The question for security firms is simple: which tools do you feel comfortable with your guards carrying, knowing that they might need to be deployed, that present a solution to the potential problem while not inviting further liability issues?

A Better Private Security Tool

Private Security firms report the higher liability associated with pepper spray as one of the main reasons they are switching to REPULS. REPULS offers security guards a proportionate response to a threat that has backed the guards into a defensive situation. This solution is easy to use, effective in stopping a threat, easy to mitigate, and less expensive than other security solutions.

It can be used in a hospital or other medical facility because it is direct target specific and not an aerosol. The chemical irritant will not be carried throughout a ventilation system. It will not contaminate the user or the deployed space.

“Crotega changed the game, in my opinion,” says Austin Seman of Fairline Security Services. “I tell everyone about them when I can.”

Crotega Security Solutions can provide you with information to help with your risk analysis.  Contact them today to set up a product demonstration or training.

Proper usage and mitigation of REPULS are essential to avoid adverse reactions—and it’s different from pepper spray.

REPULS is a revolutionary chemical irritant that offers clear advantages over traditional OC or pepper spray. But as REPULS gains greater acceptance in the field, it is critical to remember that it is a different chemical than pepper spray, so it must be treated differently as well.

Failure to understand the distinction between REPULS and pepper spray can expose people to potential harm. That’s why it’s important to know about proper mitigation before you use or train others in the use of REPULS.

Of course, exposure to any chemical irritant spray has some small amount of risk. It seems to be generally accepted that people exposed to traditional pepper spray will be in for a long, painful mitigation process, one that may have lasting effects.

The advantage of REPULS is that the irritation can be easily removed from the eyes and skin in just a few minutes.

Length of Exposure

When law enforcement is trained in pepper spray, they are trained in specific protocols. These include how long it is acceptable to expose someone to the chemical and the best way to mitigate the effects.

Crotega’s stance, consistent with use-of-force policies in police departments across the country, is that subjects should only be exposed to REPULS until they are compliant and in custody. The decontamination process should begin immediately after that and requires only flushing the eyes, face, and any exposed skin with water. And water only.

Dilution is the Solution

REPULS is a water-based, food-grade product. The active ingredient is ammonium propionate, but the solution is mostly water — 77%, to be exact. To lessen the irritation, REPULS needs to be diluted. Do not use baby shampoo or milk; instead, flush with water as quickly as possible.

If you do not promptly decontaminate the active ingredient in REPULS, the subject risks mild adverse reactions. These reactions include chemically induced conjunctivitis, like what you might get by swimming in a heavily chlorinated pool with your eyes open, or slight corneal abrasions.

Both reactions can likely be treated with medicated eye drops. But anyone who experiences these reactions should consult a doctor immediately and follow their specific treatment. Both reactions can be avoided in the first place by following proper use and mitigation protocols.

Less-Than-Lethal Chemical Irritant: How REPULS® Compares to OC and CS

Chemical irritants are a standard piece of equipment for law enforcement officers worldwide. But traditional irritant sprays present enormous drawbacks. Let’s discuss the two most common sprays and REPULS compared to pepper spray and tear gas.

Pepper Spray (OC)

Also called mace or OC spray (for oleoresin capsicum), pepper spray was initially developed as a defense against wild animals, which is why you might still hear it referred to as “bear spray.” The active ingredient is capsaicin, the spicy compound found in chili peppers from the genus Capsicum.

Capsaicin is not water-soluble and cannot be flushed out with large volumes of water. Various topical treatments can help soothe the pain, with varying degrees of success. Those exposed to OC spray are often asked to blink a lot to induce the flow of tears to wash away the irritant. But the only real mitigator for OC spray is time.

This is the spray that you’ll find on the duty belt of most officers, although they admit a reluctance to use it. NYPD officers didn’t want to risk pepper spray contaminating themselves or their vehicles. Because the optimal conditions for pepper spray rarely exist, they kept it holstered and defaulted to more escalatory techniques – fists, flashlights, et cetera.

REPULS Compared to OC

REPULS offers law enforcement a more proportionate response to passive resistance.

• REPULS is water-soluble. The effects can be easily flushed away with water.
• The effects of REPULS can be mitigated in fewer than five minutes.
• REPULS has a targeted spray that vastly reduces the risk of blowback to the user.
• REPULS will not contaminate vehicles during the transportation of the person exposed.

Tear Gas (CS)

Several kinds of irritants and riot control agents are colloquially lumped under the banner of “tear gas.” The most common of these used by police today is chlorobenzylidene malononitrile or CS gas. It’s called “CS” for the names Corson and Stoughton, the scientists who first synthesized the compound in 1928. CS is not a gas; it’s a powder at room temperature. It becomes a cloud that looks like a gas by propellent agents that release it into the air.

CS gas is considered safe to use on civilians, though it has been shown to cause complications for surgical patients exposed to it and life-threatening and long-term health effects on those exposed to CS in an enclosed space.

The best practice for mitigating CS gas from the eyes and nose is with water or a saline solution, but it takes a consistent, steady stream and does not come off quickly. It is equally difficult to remove from any exposed skin – it leaves an oily residue that stings terribly when scrubbed from the skin (dish soap seems to be the favored method).

REPULS Compared to CS

CS gas is an extreme response by law enforcement. Anyone who saw footage of the 2019-2020 democracy protests in Hong Kong can attest to this. In contrast, REPULS offers a humane, while still effective, deterrent.

• All of the ingredients in REPULS are food-grade and certified environmentally safe.
• REPULS can be safely used indoors – it is not a fog or aerosol spray and will not obscure any means of egress from a building.
• REPULS causes mild irritation to the skin and can be easily mitigated with water.

Hospitals Still Vulnerable to Attacks

In 2018, a dispute in the parking lot of a Chicago hospital ended in the shooting death of one of its doctors. But the violence against hospital staff didn’t stop there.

The perpetrator then ran into the hospital to evade first responders, continuing to shoot at people who were not involved in the initial dispute. A 25-year-old pharmaceutical resident lost her life before the attacker succumbed to gunfire, as did one of the police officers.

Employees described the outpatient area of the hospital the gunman entered as “relatively open.” This is the case for countless hospitals across the country that now face threats like never before.

Violence Against Hospital Staff is a Growing Concern

Hospitals remain under tremendous stress since the beginning of the pandemic. Beyond the increased patient load, incidences of physical violence against hospital staff are on the rise. Some visitors have waged assaults after becoming angry about a hospital’s COVID protocol or perceived medical mistreatment. Sadly, many medical personnel consider this spontaneous violence “just part of the job.”

And just as with other types of facilities like schools and religious buildings, hospitals are now experiencing more calculated incidences of violence that go far beyond routine lost tempers. Take this 2022 attack at a dentist’s office in Tyler, Texas, in which a patient became aggravated and went out to his car to retrieve a gun before coming back into the clinic and killing both dentists.

Low Security Measures in Place

Hospitals and other medical campuses are intentionally “soft” targets; their facilities are designed to be easily accessible to the public. Emergency departments are considered particularly vulnerable areas of a hospital. This makes sense because EDs are built to get people in quickly rather than shut people out, and it’s where much hospital violence has historically taken place. It’s also where emotions run high, and interaction with police is commonplace.

Active Assailant Preparedness Plans

The rise in planned attacks has forced medical facilities to develop active assailant preparedness plans in which medical staff is trained to Run > Hide > Fight. These directions are widely used in emergency protocols, yet this approach is flawed in several ways.

People can’t know which way to run if they don’t know where the shots are coming from, and the more common response in the face of an active assailant is to panic and freeze. Hiding spaces only offer concealment rather than any actual defense. And even though “fight” is the last resort, no unarmed personnel stand much of a chance in these scenarios.

But the ultimate problem with the “Run > Hide > Fight” protocol is that it still puts staff in the tragic position of simply waiting. Waiting for police, waiting for the assailant to take their own life, waiting and hoping and not doing anything proactive to keep themselves safe.

Unarmed Security At Entrances

Johns Hopkins Hospital reviewed a shooting at their Baltimore hospital in 2010 and data involving active assailants in other hospitals. They concluded that metal detectors or hand-held magnetometers might have helped identify an assailant sooner. Our experience suggests this is true, with the caveat that these security measures will most certainly not stop them. The unarmed security staff at these stations have been the first fatality in past incidents.

But more entrance security is not the answer, either. According to Dr. Christina Catlett of Johns Hopkins, “people won’t tolerate an obtrusive level of security, and it probably isn’t obtainable in most hospitals.”

ID Checks to Deter Assailants

Hopkins’ research suggests that entrance security, with unarmed guards, ID checks and visitor badging, is a good starting point for a hospital’s security posture. But as we’ve learned with school shootings, if someone is determined to get a gun past entrance security, they can and will—every time.

Hospitals are often equipped with secure doors into individual clinics that require a staff ID badge and can be locked down in an emergency. But building entrances remain particularly vulnerable. Many of these entrance stations, or stations for intake nurses, may have a button to alert security and first responders, but they remain an “eyes and ears only” solution.

A New Solution to Violence Against Hospital Staff

Perhaps it’s time for a proactive security solution that won’t leave medical staff completely helpless until law enforcement arrives. Crotega manufactures safe yet effective tools that can be deployed to confront a violent threat immediately. No more waiting around.

In 1984, Dan Murphy entered the New York City Police Academy and underwent the typical six months of training. A part of that training was the use of the approved firearms and chemical mace.

Learning the Challenges of Mace

Training to use mace consisted of 5-10 minutes of discussion, followed by all the trainees assembling at an outdoor shooting range. They unholster their mace canisters and point them at arm’s length towards the target stanchions. On the mark, they are instructed to lift the cap and send a 2-3 second burst downrange. At that point, trainees are officially certified to use mace.

Afterward, the trainers brought everyone back into the training room. Murphy recalls receiving the following advice: “Don’t use it in windy conditions, don’t use it around other cops, and never use it indoors”. Essentially, don’t use it unless optimal circumstances exist.

Absolute Precaution Required

The message was received. Almost no one used it, ever. When someone did, they had to deal with the lingering effects of contamination on their eyes, uniforms and squad cars. Instead, Murphy and his fellow NYPD officers relied on old-school tools to handle physical confrontations with suspects: fists, nightsticks, mag lights and portable radios. In short, whatever was in their hands at the time.

Police Officers Armed With Mace

The City of New York felt the need to arm its police force with a chemical irritant to have as an alternative to tools with greater lethality and liability. So, they spent a fortune on mace canisters which went largely unused by tens of thousands of NYPD officers across several decades.

After retiring from the NYPD in early 2004, Murphy entered corporate security. He worked with contracted guard services who never seemed to be equipped with anything to use against an aggressor. The risk of having guards equipped (thus encouraging physical confrontations) is deemed too high for many companies, resulting in unarmed, “eyes and ears only” security guards.

REPULS’ Debut as an Alternative to Pepper Spray

Murphy left the corporate world and, in 2017, had the opportunity to meet the founder of Crotega, Jody Allen Crowe. Crowe described his invention (SentriZone) a revolutionary threat suppression system for buildings. However, when Murphy learned about REPULS™, the water-based chemical solution used in the suppression tanks, and about the properties that made it different, he saw an opportunity to expand its use.

He thought back to his police career and how many incidents resulted in physical confrontations. These events might have easily ended with a better irritant, one safer to the officer and easier to mitigate. REPULS fit the bill. Murphy urged Crowe to create hand-held canisters to deploy the REPULS solution.

The Better Way Than Pepper Spray

Crotega has since introduced the new alternative to pepper spray to the law enforcement market. After receiving samples and conducting independent testing, both private security firms and law enforcement agencies have begun to make the switch.

The REPULS solution gives anyone tasked with protecting others, or themselves, a new tool that is both highly effective and easy to mitigate, with no known lasting injuries. Law enforcement leaders are currently exploring tools to help their departments remain impactful without causing avoidable injuries to civilians. REPULS represents that kind of system that officers can confidently deploy.