Church Security Team help!!

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


rotor
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3021
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:26 pm

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#16

Post by rotor » Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:16 pm

RossA wrote:
rotor wrote:I understand the need but what does the church's insurance say about setting up security forces? I see tremendous liability problems in these situations once it is an organized church sponsored security force. I am not against it but I wonder about the legal issues and whether an attorney has been consulted. Real police if there is a suit are covered by the police force (taxpayer). Church though? Individuals in that security force? Who pays the legal bills if there is a shooting? There is another post running now about a woman who killed a BG that was trying to kill a cop. She is now being sued in civil court. Tough decisions. I wish that there was some kind of good samaritan law to protect the good guys.
Insurance and legal liability are always issues. But only to those who have survived a shooting. The first goal is to survive. Everything else is secondary.
I agree with you but the church pays for insurance and they should find out if they will be covered having a security force. If not then time to look for new insurance. These are things that need to be done in co-ordination with setting up the security force. Perhaps consultation with an attorney might be a good idea. As the Boy Scouts say "Plan Ahead". Obviously we all hope that they never need the force but just working on one aspect without the rest (insurance and liability) don't fulfill your needs. Remember, real police have insurance and are covered for lawsuits. Without it I don't know that there would be police. All of the city and county employees that might go after the security force for "criminal" charges have their own insurance. Important.

User avatar

couzin
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 941
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 7:12 pm
Location: Terrell, Texas

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#17

Post by couzin » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:06 am

RossA wrote:Insurance and legal liability are always issues. But only to those who have survived a shooting. The first goal is to survive. Everything else is secondary.
But it has to be a consideration. Our church insurance policy is $8k a year. We don't have the membership to either self insure or stand a rate increase because we tell the insurance company we need an armed security team. We have the standard safety and security plan covering tornadoes, fire, active shooter, and armed response by law enforcement. My fellow Elders are that team. But we don't discuss nor train for armed response by the pastoral flock. Those of us that are armed know each other and have discussed and mapped our potential response to an active shooter. There is a lot of information available from multiple sources for church security plans. However, I really have not come across one that discusses armed security response by concealed carry type folks. In (partial) defense of the OPs identified security lead proposing to place 30.06 signs, it was likely a position of attempting to prevent unknown (licensed) individuals joining a firefight without any coordination or acknowledgement from the known security team. Simply, you have to know who your enemy is...
“Only at the end do you realize the power of the Dark Side.”

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24021
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#18

Post by The Annoyed Man » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:51 am

My church has a “first responders” team. All members of the team wear a polo shirt identifying them as a “first responder”. The guys with the blue polo shirts are all active or retired LEOs who attend there. The guys will the red polo shirts are all medical/EMS people. But other than the color difference, they both say “first responder”, and nothing else, on the left breast of the polo shirt.

I am personally acquainted with most or all of the blue shirt guys, and they all know I carry. The church has compliant 30.07 signs posted at all entrances, but it is quite accepting of concealed carry, and a lot of our members do carry. Average attendance on any weekend is around 1500+, broken out into two large Sunday morning services, and one smaller Sunday evening service.....so probably about 700 people in each of those two morning services, and maybe a 100-150 in the evening. It’s a safe bet that as many as 40-50 people are carrying in each of the morning services, and maybe 8 or so in the evening service.....and that’s just congregants and doesn’t include “first responders” in blue polo shirts.

What I’m getting at is that this seems to be a good way to cover security - to have “first responders” with color coded shirts, rather than to have shirts that specifically say “security” or “medical” on them. The last time I heard an announcement from the pulpit about it (about a month ago), the speaker announced a meeting after the service for people who were interested in volunteering in a security or medical first response capacity. Although he mentioned LEOs specifically, he seemed to leave it open for non-LEOs to be blue-shirts. But as far as I know, all blue-shirts are LEO. I considered volunteering, but realized that I have neither enough training, nor am I in good enough physical condition to take on such a thing. Plus, I already volunteer a fair amount in a worship team capacity, and don’t want to bite off more than I can chew.

The one thing I wish they would do - but I understand that there may be some legal and/or insurance issues - would be to organize a meeting for people who are not on the team, but who do carry, and who (A) want to make themselves known to the team so that if they ever have to draw their gun in an active shooter situation, they won’t get shot by a blue-shirt; and/or (B) who are willing to be “reservists” who can be called on in the event that additional people are needed before local law enforcement can arrive. I would be willing to be a “reservist”. And reason (A) is exactly why I took the time to introduce myself to most of the blue-shirts back when the church first started this program.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4419
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#19

Post by ScottDLS » Sun Jul 29, 2018 2:54 pm

Am I slowly going blind (quite possible) or has anyone else in DFW noticed 30.06/7 signs removed from Catholic Churches in the Ft Worth Diocese? I'm pretty sure they were gone when I attended one this morning... :???:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


strogg
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:51 pm
Location: DFW (Denton County)

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#20

Post by strogg » Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:09 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 2:54 pm
Am I slowly going blind (quite possible) or has anyone else in DFW noticed 30.06/7 signs removed from Catholic Churches in the Ft Worth Diocese? I'm pretty sure they were gone when I attended one this morning... :???:
It's not just you. I make it a point to go to the Ft Worth diocese churches instead of the Dallas ones for that exact reason.

User avatar

Stan U
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:22 pm

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#21

Post by Stan U » Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:34 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:51 am
My church has a “first responders” team. All members of the team wear a polo shirt identifying them as a “first responder”. The guys with the blue polo shirts are all active or retired LEOs who attend there. The guys will the red polo shirts are all medical/EMS people. But other than the color difference, they both say “first responder”, and nothing else, on the left breast of the polo shirt.
Shouldn't medical wear blue tunics and security wear red?

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24021
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#22

Post by The Annoyed Man » Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Stan U wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:34 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:51 am
My church has a “first responders” team. All members of the team wear a polo shirt identifying them as a “first responder”. The guys with the blue polo shirts are all active or retired LEOs who attend there. The guys will the red polo shirts are all medical/EMS people. But other than the color difference, they both say “first responder”, and nothing else, on the left breast of the polo shirt.
Shouldn't medical wear blue tunics and security wear red?
I don’t think it matters.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4009
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#23

Post by srothstein » Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:50 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:48 pm
Stan U wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:34 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:51 am
My church has a “first responders” team. All members of the team wear a polo shirt identifying them as a “first responder”. The guys with the blue polo shirts are all active or retired LEOs who attend there. The guys will the red polo shirts are all medical/EMS people. But other than the color difference, they both say “first responder”, and nothing else, on the left breast of the polo shirt.
Shouldn't medical wear blue tunics and security wear red?
I don’t think it matters.
I believe that was a reference to the Star Trek uniform colors, where the shirt color tells people which division you are in.

It would also be worth noting in that case, that the security could never leave the church itself. The red shirts on the away team never survived.
Steve Rothstein

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24021
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#24

Post by The Annoyed Man » Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:58 pm

srothstein wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:50 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:48 pm
Stan U wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 4:34 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:51 am
My church has a “first responders” team. All members of the team wear a polo shirt identifying them as a “first responder”. The guys with the blue polo shirts are all active or retired LEOs who attend there. The guys will the red polo shirts are all medical/EMS people. But other than the color difference, they both say “first responder”, and nothing else, on the left breast of the polo shirt.
Shouldn't medical wear blue tunics and security wear red?
I don’t think it matters.
I believe that was a reference to the Star Trek uniform colors, where the shirt color tells people which division you are in.

It would also be worth noting in that case, that the security could never leave the church itself. The red shirts on the away team never survived.
:lol: I guess I’m not much of a Trekkie.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

User avatar

thatguyoverthere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:51 pm
Location: Fannin County

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#25

Post by thatguyoverthere » Sun Jul 29, 2018 10:10 pm

I volunteer in our (very) small church's informal security team. I'm not sure how (or if) our team members would be covered by our church's insurance policy if there ever were any kind of incident (yes, I definitely need to check into that).

But, I do know that representatives of the self-defense insurance policy that I carry personally have told me that my policy would NOT cover me if I were involved in an incident while working as a volunteer security team member on behalf of my church.

Just another point for potential volunteers to consider.


Rob72
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:08 am
Location: Gulf Coast

Re: Church Security Team help!!

#26

Post by Rob72 » Mon Jul 30, 2018 8:32 am

RossA wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:08 pm
rotor wrote:I understand the need but what does the church's insurance say about setting up security forces? I see tremendous liability problems in these situations once it is an organized church sponsored security force. I am not against it but I wonder about the legal issues and whether an attorney has been consulted. Real police if there is a suit are covered by the police force (taxpayer). Church though? Individuals in that security force? Who pays the legal bills if there is a shooting? There is another post running now about a woman who killed a BG that was trying to kill a cop. She is now being sued in civil court. Tough decisions. I wish that there was some kind of good samaritan law to protect the good guys.
Insurance and legal liability are always issues. But only to those who have survived a shooting. The first goal is to survive. Everything else is secondary.
If we were discussing the aftermath of a shooting incident, and a lack of planning/preparation that resulted in substantive legal/financial loss, that would be a valid statement.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the purpose of planning and discussion is to mitigate the risks in a forseen situation. If the sum total of the planning discussion months or years before a critical incident is, "kill the bad guy!", the critical failure is not the entry of an aggressor into the protected zone, but the sequelae of handling that entry.

Ok, we effectively stop a bad guy, but the family of the BG files a civil action and the denomination drops the congregation because they failed to take reasonable efforts to reduce legal liability and the pastor and senior staff lose everything (as they will following the advice of Bubba Gump). This assumes that no innocent people were injured, directly as a result of inadequate/improper training, resulting in criminal liability.

What have we, "protected"? The church is bankrupt, the congregation is most likely highly divided because of the incompetence involved, and several people are irreparably impacted. I cannot define that as success, when proper prior planning would have prevented most of the potential negative consequences. Taking the lowest common denominator as our highest goal should not ever be considered success, in the application of lethal force.

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”