“In science, computing, and engineering, a black box is a system which can be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs (or transfer characteristics), without any knowledge of its internal workings. Its implementation is "opaque"…” - Wikipedia
In the spring and summer of 2021 I started taking private security courses at Knights School in Vancouver, WA. Why? Having worked many years during young adulthood in the domestic abuse field, I was concerned about the trajectory I saw of increasing civic violence. Who would protect the center-left electeds, I wondered, if the field of professional protection is dominated by folks on the right?
After Google searches to explore security schools approved by Oregon’s Department of Public Safety Standards & Training, I discovered Knights School. The Knights School tagline created by owner and lead instructor William “Mac” McKnight is “Training Knights for the 21st Century.” If I may be so bold, in Mac I found something of a kindred spirit. We’ve enjoyed repeated conversations on honorable service and the impulse to be a protector. Of course, he as a former police officer/police trainer, special forces soldier/trainer, defense attorney/expert witness in use-of-force cases, visiting criminal justice professor, and former State Department employee who helped stand up the national police force of Iraq knows much more of which he speaks.
Mac is an excellent teacher, with several books’ worth of knowledge just waiting to get out that could change the national narrative on violence (hit me up if you know a good agent!). I decided to invest in a number of courses with him that have cast light on an otherwise-inacessible area of human practice. And I’m glad I did.
When I wanted to simplify my life late in 2021 to allow more time for writing, I turned to part-time unarmed security work at a nearby data center—and it was an excellent fit. It paid reasonably well, allowed unimpeded think time, boosted my daily walking (5-7 mile days patrolling were not uncommon), and allowed a bit of income while campaigning for the Oregon Senate in 2022.
Upon moving to Seattle in January to be closer to Dad, I wanted to slide into some security work while getting set up in education. The latter takes longer with all the applications and establishment of a Washington teaching certificate, and I wanted to have something on the back burner for employment during the summer.
Eventually, I got a response to my security applications. An Operations Manager of a major security company that shall remain nameless suggested my best option for part-time work was overtime relief a day or two per week as an armed guard in different bank braches. I had an armed officer license in Oregon and completed all the coursework for one in Washington with Mac. However, in Washington the company holds the license, which means my 2021 qualification lapsed without an employer. Still, I knew I have the professional background to worked armed and was enthused, in a serious and sober way, to make more money and deepen my protective skillset.
Monday of this week I completed employee orientation. My Ops Manager, whom I shall call Angie, had said she needed to get me in the door with an unarmed job acceptance. But, during orientation and testing for the basic unarmed license, the staffer and I also checked the boxes for the expected armed license, including taking a special online orientation course. I was impressed by the training and competencies listed in the course for armed personnel—they mirrored courses I had sought out and received from Mac and his team, including deescalation, understanding legal and ethical implications of the use of force, handcuffing/restraints, taser, pepper spray, and baton.
One part of orientation DID leave a terrible taste in my mouth. To continue with employment in a role where I would be the first target of any criminals, I had to agree to a waiver surrendering my right to sue my employer or any client for damages, pain, and/or suffering caused as a result of their mistakes or misbehavior. All I was entitled to was Workers Comp.
But wait, there’s more.
After completing employee onboarding I was told to leave a message for my manager. Two days later she called back. And here’s where it gets sketchy.
We agreed that I would start by working on Tuesdays—with on-site orientation next week. She identified the branch location where I would start: in the highest-crime area of Seattle. I asked, “When will I receive my armed guard training?”
Oh…it turns out there’s a backup in the Washington Dept. of Licensing, and even if the company submitted all the paperwork it could be months before DOL processed your armed license. And the client is OK with having an unarmed person in that role. And you can wear your body armor (see the vest above).
Well, what about my training from the company?
Oh, we could put you on the list for the firearms qualification test, but it’s a couple months’ wait. (No mention of completing the classroom portion or learning what are called the “tools”—handcuffing, baton, taser, pepper spray.)
Stunned, I tried to process this in the moment and asked to at least start in a less dangerous area. OK, I would start in Federal Way, south of Seattle. I asked and she confirmed that I would be paid at the lower, unarmed rate of $21/hour, vs. the armed rate of $24 (which was still lower than other companies I had seen advertising online).
It took probably 20 minutes after we’d hung up for me to reflect on how wrong this all felt—both the dubious claim about WA DOL turnaround time and the massive lack of company resources devoted to standing up armed guards. I texted her: “Hi Angie, I was hired under the expectation of working armed. Upon reflection I do not feel safe working in a role that should be armed, yet lacks the training or support. So, I will need to decline the offer of employment at this point.”
Let’s recap what’s happening behind the scenes of this security company, about which the client probably knows nothing.
Big company wins big-name bank client by promising top-of-the-line protection, which includes armed guards in their bank branches.
Company guts armed guard training program, saving money.
Company guts armed guard training program, limiting the legal liability that comes with more armed officers.
Company keeps bank client by explaining “there’s just a shortage of armed officers.”
At the branch, the security officer, bank staff members, and customers are deprived of any genuinely defensive recourse to armed attack—unless a customer happens to be carrying concealed.
Company pays unarmed guards less to risk their lives in high-threat environments worthy of armed guards—and saves $$ on both training and salaries. COMPANY WIN!
This sickens me.
I doubt anyone in management of a company that hires armed security will ever become aware of the duplicity and underinvestment at play—and thus know the right kinds of questions or checks to institute. But, hey, if you know someone who’s a decider in banking, please pass this along.
Meanwhile, I will focus on a near-term paraeducator sub job (classroom educational aide) while the teaching job search plays out. Paras are paid the same as unarmed security officers. (I should be safer, thought with the epidemic of school shootings, you never know…)
Wish to dive into the complexities of gun violence? This morning I stumbled upon a popular Twitter post by Alyssa Milano. Browsing the responses to her good-faith question seems to capture the wide variety of issues/approaches involved.
A Mac story for these times
Lest we end on an entirely sour note, here’s a detour to my favorite Mac story.
I did tools training at Knights School while working for an online high school. I was able to rearrange my schedule for one day off (Thursday) to take tactical baton, then to come back on Saturday for the third in the series, handcuffing. On Friday I would work from the hotel, postponing pepper spray and taser for another day.
Thursday night I was browsing the SmartNews app and came across an article in USA Today on tasers: “Lethal force? Tasers are meant to save lives, yet hundreds die after their use by police.” I started reading and found it utterly compelling. I was struck by the irony that it was almost “taser day” and here I was reading an article about tasers. I wondered what Mac would think of the article, and pondered emailing it. Would that be obnoxious, especially since it called into question the utility of tasers? And, he might not get as excited about complex ideas as I do (I later learned he does).
So, I held off and kept reading. Then I ran across this:
Some experts suggest Taser’s reputation as a “less lethal" weapon may give officers a false sense of security.
“It’s not like a nightstick where you can control it,” said William McKnight, a former police officer and visiting criminal justice professor at Stockton University in New Jersey. “Once you fire it, it’s gone.”
Yeh, my instructor was quoted in the article. On Saturday, Mac said he’d had the class discuss the article the day before.
Mac is also the one who alerted me to the existence of the “Officer Down” website, which tracks (undercounted) private security officer deaths. His November 2021 newsletter discussed the fact that private security officers are more at risk than American soldiers in Afghanistan:
“[S]ecurity officers are in the line-of-sights. Not counting 472 COVID deaths in our ranks, knife attacks or vehicle deaths, 38 US security officers have been shot to death thus far this year; almost as many violent security officer deaths this year as US casualties in Afghanistan for the last 3 years, making it statistically more dangerous to work security on our streets than in Afghanistan.”
I’d like to honor Gavin Boston, age 40, whom Private Officer Down reports as the first private security officer killed in an on-duty shooting in 2023 and the third officer killed while on duty.
Please spare a moment of thought for the security folks who haven’t read Mac’s newsletter, who will agreeably put themselves, when directed by their employer, unarmed into the most dangerous places in our cities.