In more and more areas of everyday life the exercise of enforcing law and order is taken over by private security firms rather than being done by the police force. Whether it is on public transport, in shopping centres or at large events, the majority of people come into contact with private security staff first before coming into contact with police officers. If conflicts arise, simply too much is expected of those affected: the rights and responsibilities of private security staff are unknown and very obscure . This fact, that the rights and responsibilities of security staff are unknown, results from an ironic situation: Although private security firms are assigned more and more tasks in a (partially) public area , there is still no legal framework for these tasks to fit into.
The rights of security staff, department store staff, bouncers and supervisors are primarily based in two areas: the first area concerns the basic human rights that everyone is entitled to. The use of violence can, on the one hand, be legitimised through self-defence in emergencies, the defence against an unlawful attack, for example when someone attacks you for your money. On the other hand, everyone has the right to retain someone until police assistance arrives, if a person has caught another red-handed.
The second area is the law for the Domestic Authority Law. In many partially public areas private security firms exercise the Domestic Authority Law. In doing so they have the possibility to argue for people to stay away from the house when there has been an alleged infringement against the rules of the house. They are also allowed to enforce this using proportional violence - for example in which they remove people from their properties. Some local authorities have also assigned the enforcement of administrative regulations in public areas, such as parks for example, over to private security firms.
The rights of private security staff can also not be compared to those of police officers. Security staff are not allowed to force people to show their identity, they are not allowed to search people, their belongings or take anybody into custody. Security staff are only allowed to use violence in a very few situations and even then it must always be relative.
While the police force may claim to be a governmental institution which serves the greater good it is clear that private security guards are not so entitled but are obliged to serve the single interests of their employer. More and more public places are being privatised and therefore it seems as if the whole of the town centre is becoming one big department store. People who can or do not want to be consumers in this partially public area are displaced and pushed out. In many cases this brings private security firms into the same league as those who work in the munipical department for law and order and the riot police.
There is a long list of people who are unwanted: whether it is homeless people who are just looking for a warm place to lie; Motz-sellers who just want to earn a few euros ; or punks who want to take back their public space. It is understandable that this displacement does not take place without conflicts. The existing authoritarian behaviour and prejudice of staff at private security firms is frequently strengthened in view of this exclusion and discriminatory job and this is a dangerous mix. If those asked to leave certain areas do not immediately comply with this discriminatory practice or if they protest too loudly against it then they come into contact with physical violence. It is clear to see the motivation behind violation by the insults which accompany it.
The practice of using physical violence and insults is approved by many companies: The workers are sometimes uneducated or not educated at all and are therefore poorly paid. A Watchman in Brandenburg earns 4.33 Euro per hour – that it, if the employer fulfills the working contract. Instead of having further education and on-the-job training for the workers the work load of the worker is increased and therefore the pressure put upon them also increases. If the firm is threatened with loss of reputation because one of their workers has hit someone too hard or has been publicly violent then this is disputed on the street. More often than not, there is a turn around of workforce every 6 months.
It is harder for victims to resist violation from security staff than to resist violation from a police officer: On the one side the rights of private security staff are obscure and mostly unknown, on the other side there is a lack of any supervision mechanisms. Therefore a complaint can only be made against a single worker. In view of the high fluctuation of workers at private security firms and the short lifespan of the company the hope that something will be worked out legitimately (when security staff receive a complaint) is less than that by the police force. At the same time cooperation between the police force, the judicary and private security firms is becoming tighter and therefore the interest in getting explanations for the violation is, at the same time, also less. If it comes to a conviction, the worker at the company would receive a suspended sentence or only a monetary penalty, however, by the time the conviction is processed, the individual employee may have ceased to work for the company.
© Anti-Diskriminierungsbüro (ADB) Berlin e.V.
Ausstellung: „Vom Polizeigriff zum Übergriff”
www.polizeigriff.de