I should be able to resume posting shortly.

Video: Three Natural Laws of Security is currently unavailable. Seeking new hosting site.


No way out ...

Security interaction with subject in the bar ...
I'm going to limit my comments to the first of the three videos. It's always risky to assume too much from any particular segment of surveillance video, but I think a few comments are in order.

It looks like the subject has been playing some video poker and having a few beers. It then looks like he had a flash of anger at having lost the last of his credits. In anger, he slams his beer bottle down on the counter and then probably demands another from the bartender. The bartender realizes that the subject has had enough (and probably had enough prior to drinking the beer that occupied the bottle he just slammed on the bar). The bartender then likely told the subject that he would be happy to serve him a cup of coffee, which didn't fly with the subject so the bartender called for Security. In that the subject didn't put the bottle through the CRT, Security should, at this point, just be wanting the subject to 'call it a night' and go home or to some other property (or anywhere he will no longer be a problem for them).

1) The officers keep a good distance from the subject until there are enough of them to ensure the outcome (They keep their invisibility fairly high relative to the subject until they've marshaled their invincibility).

2) The first officer contacts the bartender and makes sure he knows what's going on before they approach the suspect (This is also an invisibility move but this time it's making sure that they're acting in a manner that will keep them invisible relative to the casino big-shots, the prosecutor and/or the contingency attorneys).

3) The officers then approach the subject and tell him to set down the bottle and call it a night. This is where it appears that they may have made an error. The officers need the subject to leave , but they leave no adequate opening for the subject to leave through (if they intended to detain the subject from the get-go, the officers would have been quite a bit more tensed up on the approach rather than being all relaxed and waiting to see how this one was going to go, and there wouldn't have  been any need for all the discussion).

Upon being ordered to leave the premises, there is no direction that the subject can go in that won't result in him going TOWARD a Security Officer. Under the circumstances, the subject is going to feel that doing such would most certainly be perceived by the Security Officers as provocative.

This is not some obscure technical consideration.

The subject is now drunk and no doubt frightened because of all the uniformed attention he's suddenly getting. The fear will have dumped adrenaline into his system and this flood of adrenaline will have narrowed his perception of available options to three: fight, flight or freeze.

The Security Officers have sufficient numbers to ensure victory, so fighting isn't a valid option, and they've formed a half circle around him with the bar blocking the other 180deg so there is no way for him leave without it looking like he's starting to fight, so flight isn't a valid option. All that's left is freezing, or standing still, and that's what he does. Security apparently takes that as recalcitrant non-compliance rather than fearfulness and proceed to detain him (never assume that smack-talking precludes fearfulness, it doesn't).

Had they formed a quarter circle around him with an obvious opening in the direction they wanted him to go, it's possible that the detainment and everything that took place afterward could have been avoided.

The Security Officer's concern about the beer bottle they refer to in the subsequent video is most likely concern that the bottle will be thrown through a window or something rather than concern that it will be used on one of them.  I say this because when they approach him they're close enough to prevent him from breaking it and then cutting one of them, too close to avoid being hit if he uses it for a striking weapon and not close enough to prevent him from using it that way. The urge to throw it through something can normally be suppressed by having an 'interceptor' out in the general direction you want the subject to go in so he knows he won't get away if he does throw it, but not close enough for his movement in that direction to feel like it will be perceived as threatening.

Caveat: Despite having participating in hundreds of this sort of Op, I could still be misreading this one. Don't take any of what I say here as criticism of the Security Officers or their performance. SecOps tend to have a life of their own and don't always go according to the nearly non-existent text-books. I offer these comments strictly to provoke thought about some less obvious aspects of our craft.