Home | Products | Directory | e-Updates | Digital Editions | Calendar | Advisory Board | Videos | Corporate Videos | Media Kit
Access Control Access ControlIT Security IT SecurityCCTV CCTVLegislation LegislationAssociations AssociationsRisk Management Risk ManagementEducation EducationIntegration Integration

Blog Roll
Latest Articles
How much has changed since Shand? PDF Print E-mail
Death in Hamilton sad reminder industry is still waiting for improvements
 
Written by Brian Robertson, on 25-07-2008 11:58
Average user rating    (0 vote)

A young black man enters a chain store and attempts to shoplift a small item. Caught in the act, he flees the store, pursued by a security officer and some store clerks. They catch up with him, physically wrestle him to the ground, and hold him there.  He tells them he can’t breathe, but they continue to hold him down.  He loses consciousness and subsequently dies of asphyxiation.


Patrick Shand, right? Could be. Or it could be Djo Bwabwa Kalamba, a 21 year-old Congolese immigrant who died in Hamilton June 26, under circumstances that are disconcertingly similar to those under which Patrick Shand died. The similarities were not lost on the media who reported on Bwabwa Kalamba’s death.  A June 28 story in the Hamilton Spectator referenced Shand’s death and reported that “A 2004 inquest into his death led to major operating changes in the security industry.”  That evening, when Hamilton’s CHCH television news covered the story, they reported that the Shand inquest had "led to new rules for security guards."

Is this true? Has the Shand inquest “led to major changes” in terms of how the security industry in Ontario is regulated? Well, yes and no. Proprietary security in Ontario are now licensed, and it’s harder to get a licence if you have a criminal record than it used to be, and there is a more robust public complaints process in place than there was before. But the security officer whose handcuffs held Patrick Shand’s arms behind his back was not unlicensed. Nor was he a former criminal who somehow got past Wackenhut’s background checks. Patrick Shand died because the security guard who supervised his arrest was badly trained.

If there had been mandatory use of force training in Ontario prior to Patrick Shand’s death, he might still be alive today. But as of now, nine years after his death (Shand died on Sept. 14, 1999), mandatory use of force skills training for security officers in Ontario is still at least two or three years away. This spring we learned that use of force theory training will not now become mandatory in Ontario until the fall of 2009, and that mandatory use of force skills training – including training on the use of handcuffs — will not become mandatory until sometime after that (2010? 2011?)

At a Canadian Security Magazine industry round table discussion on Ontario’s new legislation held in May, Jim Watts (President and CEO of the Commissionaires Great Lakes) expressed the frustrations of many when he said, “Here we are (many) years later and … can I say the citizens of Ontario are safer than before the legislation was passed?  Absolutely not. This has accomplished nothing. The fact it has taken so long to even think about how we’re going to do this training and testing is an embarrassment – we’re the laughing stock of the world.” (See “Regulation Overload” in our June/July 2008 issue.)

In Ontario, where 70,000 licensed security professionals go to work every week, we still don’t have mandatory use of force skills training in place for those who forcibly restrain people as part of their jobs. In Hamilton, one man is dead, and the lives of dozens of others — those who either knew him or who were involved in his death — have all been changed for the worse.  And a 50-year old security guard who thought that June 26 was going to be like any other day at the Canadian Tire Store where he worked now wonders if he should have or could have done things any differently that day.

There is no way of knowing whether or not Djo Bwabwa Kalamba would be alive today if a provincial requirement for use of force skills training for retail security personnel in Ontario were already in place.  But if you ask the Province why it is necessary to impose a mandatory training requirement on the industry at all, the Province will readily tell you that it is necessary because it will help to ensure that what happened to Patrick Shand doesn’t happen again.

Too late.




Last update: 28-07-2008 15:33

Published in : Legislation, Editorial

Users' Comments (4)
Posted by Mohamed Ismail, on 09-12-2008 18:40, IP 24.65.69.199, Guest
1. Elect technologist
A year and half ago i have walked into a store to buy a bulk candy for my visiting nephews. As i walked into the store and went to the section where the bulk candies were i was approached by store security and was asked to leave the store. when I asked why, was told that i was shop lifting as I started to walk out of the store, three store security starts to follow me till i got outside than they start jumping on me literally beating me. When police arrive the scene they found nothing on me than i asked the police to charge me shop lifting or charge them with assault. 
 
black=no justice
 
» Report this comment to administrator
» Reply to this comment...

Posted by S.Anonson, on 11-11-2008 02:48, IP 70.74.214.108, Guest
2. common sense
I have only worked in security for a short time, but I have noticed a few things that should be common sense..that are obviously not, when you have someone in cuffs, either have them on their side, in the same position used to prevent death from choking on vomit in an unconscious person as taught in any first aid course, or have them seated with legs extended in front of them so they cannot try to stand and run.while this seems to be common sense to me, I have seen other security staff sit on someones chest, apply their knee to the throat or back of the neck, which is breathing restrictive.
 
» Report this comment to administrator
» Reply to this comment...

Posted by Sharon Madott, on 06-09-2008 10:22, IP 76.70.113.38, Guest
3. Security guards,,
Our new license is a way for easier background checks for our security agency's and to stop anyone who thinks they have the right to ruff up people from private property owners. But we need also a exam for when we renew our security license. I've worked only for one year in security and found many not knowing the criminal code for security and there is many different level of training for security, not all are the same. Some are light and boring others alert and ready for emergency. If this is private (security agency) not municipality where is our $80. renewal going.
 
» Report this comment to administrator
» Reply to this comment...

Posted by The Mississauga Muse, on 31-07-2008 12:08, IP 74.61.194.117, Guest
4. Act doesn't apply to municipal guards
Quote from Canadian Secuirity Magazine, "The fact it has taken so long to even think about how we’re going to do this training and testing is an embarrassment – we’re the laughing stock of the world.” I'm conducting research into the security practices of several Ontario municipalities. Most of it is through Freedom of Information. 
 
I'd suggest that the biggest laughing stock of all is that (I was told this by one municpality) does not apply to municipality security guards --ONLY private. And you should SEE what Freedom of Information has revealed about the bottom-of-the-barrellness there
 
» Report this comment to administrator
» Reply to this comment...

Add your comment



mXcomment 1.0.9 © 2007-2009 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved
< Prev   Next >


About Us | Media Kit | Subscribe | Contacts | Site Map
© All materials on this web site are copyright protected and the property of CLB Media Inc.
For permission reprinting or reproducing any materials please email your requests.
© CLB MEDIA INC., 2009 Canadian Security Magazine
Privacy PolicyTerms & Conditions
[ Top ]