swillden
Regular Member
imported post
I've been thinking a little about how to deal with establishments that decide to prohibit weapons.
The problem as I see it is that when, say, a mall security guard asks an OCer to put her weapon in the car, it's likely that the incident doesn't even get reported to upper management. The guard's boss will hear about it, and it get one step above that, but as long as the OCer is polite (as she should be), then there's no reason to report it all the way up to the policy level. Further, even if it does get reported, the incident will seem to have had a fully positive outcome.
Here a are a couple of ideas I have about how to push the issue further up the management chain, without putting the OCer in any kind of antagonistic position.
First, just to increase the impact of the prohibition on the mall staff, but in a reasonable and arguably positive way, I think the OCer should request that she be accompanied by the guard to and from her vehicle, around the mall and finally back to her vehicle, until she can rearm. Since the mall is refusing to allow her to protect herself, she requests that the mall security do the job (ignoring for the moment that mall security is untrained and unarmed). Tying down one of the handful of mall security personnel for 45 minutes or so is more likely to get the attention of management, and while the OCer's rationale for requesting such service will cause some eye rolling, it's not totally unreasonable.
Second, I suggest that we make up a simple one-page "protection contract" that makes the undersigned legally liable for the protection of the disarmed OCer. Then, the OCer should ask the security guard to sign it on behalf of the mall ownership. He will refuse, of course, which gives the OCer an opportunity to escalate the issue. The argument, of course, is that since the ownership is disarming the OCer, they are implicitly accepting responsibility for her safety, and she would like that responsibility made explicit. It's extremely unlikely that anyone will sign the contract, but the OCer should escalate as far as reasonably possible, and leave the unsigned document in the hands of the highest level of management that she reaches.
Of course, in the OCer should be unfailingly polite and positive throughout the whole encounter and if at any time she is asked to leave she should comply immediately -- requesting escort to her vehicle and leaving the contract.
Thoughts? Is this pushing too hard? The goal is to get the management thinking about the possibility that they may be increasing their liability by disarming their patrons, and also to make the point that some of their patrons take the issue very seriously.
I've been thinking a little about how to deal with establishments that decide to prohibit weapons.
The problem as I see it is that when, say, a mall security guard asks an OCer to put her weapon in the car, it's likely that the incident doesn't even get reported to upper management. The guard's boss will hear about it, and it get one step above that, but as long as the OCer is polite (as she should be), then there's no reason to report it all the way up to the policy level. Further, even if it does get reported, the incident will seem to have had a fully positive outcome.
Here a are a couple of ideas I have about how to push the issue further up the management chain, without putting the OCer in any kind of antagonistic position.
First, just to increase the impact of the prohibition on the mall staff, but in a reasonable and arguably positive way, I think the OCer should request that she be accompanied by the guard to and from her vehicle, around the mall and finally back to her vehicle, until she can rearm. Since the mall is refusing to allow her to protect herself, she requests that the mall security do the job (ignoring for the moment that mall security is untrained and unarmed). Tying down one of the handful of mall security personnel for 45 minutes or so is more likely to get the attention of management, and while the OCer's rationale for requesting such service will cause some eye rolling, it's not totally unreasonable.
Second, I suggest that we make up a simple one-page "protection contract" that makes the undersigned legally liable for the protection of the disarmed OCer. Then, the OCer should ask the security guard to sign it on behalf of the mall ownership. He will refuse, of course, which gives the OCer an opportunity to escalate the issue. The argument, of course, is that since the ownership is disarming the OCer, they are implicitly accepting responsibility for her safety, and she would like that responsibility made explicit. It's extremely unlikely that anyone will sign the contract, but the OCer should escalate as far as reasonably possible, and leave the unsigned document in the hands of the highest level of management that she reaches.
Of course, in the OCer should be unfailingly polite and positive throughout the whole encounter and if at any time she is asked to leave she should comply immediately -- requesting escort to her vehicle and leaving the contract.
Thoughts? Is this pushing too hard? The goal is to get the management thinking about the possibility that they may be increasing their liability by disarming their patrons, and also to make the point that some of their patrons take the issue very seriously.
