Armed Security

On the basis that no vessel with armed security has ever been taken gives a a massive amount of credence for the ability to shipping companies / vessels to self protect.
I am not yet involved in MARSEC but hope to be soon.
The problems I see are that if things go wrong ie a pirate is shot and killed by a MARSEC operative then that incident should be fully justified ........... In that potentialy the matter can end in a court of law of the flag nation or elsewhere. ..... Does the operative have the financial backing through insurance etc to defend his actions? Does the MARSEC company have action plans / rules of engagement which should justify any use of lethal force in the protection of life and property?
The Master of the vessel is / should be in charge at all times even during a pirate incident. Again I do not speak from experience but my thoughts are that the MARSEC operative is there to act as a tactical adviser and give options to the master ???????
Unless of course this is covered in some kind of pre deployment contract?

The overiding defence in international law is one of self defence. Briefing / intel / rules of engagement = justification of actions should an incident reach the ultimate conclusion

My apologies if I am "gobbing off " but I stand to be corrected and educated. These opinions are purely from someone who has a lack of knowledge in MARSEC. Clearly the debate will continue until the MARSEC industry is regularised.

My opinion is that armed security is a requirment and will continue to be so
 
shipmate said:
On the basis that no vessel with armed security has ever been taken gives a a massive amount of credence for the ability to shipping companies / vessels to self protect.
I am not yet involved in MARSEC but hope to be soon.
The problems I see are that if things go wrong ie a pirate is shot and killed by a MARSEC operative then that incident should be fully justified ........... In that potentialy the matter can end in a court of law of the flag nation or elsewhere. ..... Does the operative have the financial backing through insurance etc to defend his actions? Does the MARSEC company have action plans / rules of engagement which should justify any use of lethal force in the protection of life and property?
The Master of the vessel is / should be in charge at all times even during a pirate incident. Again I do not speak from experience but my thoughts are that the MARSEC operative is there to act as a tactical adviser and give options to the master ???????
Unless of course this is covered in some kind of pre deployment contract?

The overiding defence in international law is one of self defence. Briefing / intel / rules of engagement = justification of actions should an incident reach the ultimate conclusion

My apologies if I am "gobbing off " but I stand to be corrected and educated. These opinions are purely from someone who has a lack of knowledge in MARSEC. Clearly the debate will continue until the MARSEC industry is regularised.

My opinion is that armed security is a requirment and will continue to be so
Click to expand...

Nobody can lift the Master's authority in any situation!
The Captain is ALWAYS responsible of the actions taken on his ship.

One could argue lethal force used by ANY person on board to the right of self-defence.
Right of self-defence is stated in the UN bill of human rights, most civilized countries have this written in their constitution as well.
The right to use up to lethal force to defend your life ( or others ) in case of an illegal and immediate attack...
No Master can override this basic human right.

We can write all fancy RUF's in the World, several pages, most will still state in the last sentence : " However, if ones life is in immediate danger, the use of issued weapon for self-defence up to lethal force is justified ".

This kind of washes away everything that is previously written in ones RUF.
I remember having this same issue discussed in lenght while in Iraq as a contractor.

" I feared for my life, and the life of my fellow crewmembers.... " - This will take you far in ANY court of law ANYWHERE in the World.

All these issues will be tested one day in some court of law, make no mistake about that.
If you find yourself in that situation one day, you better be sure you have your Ducks in a row!
 
We live in a ever changing world. Armed Prodessional security is the way ahead, our hand is being forced by the pirates, no one else.
The way ahead is a governing body to weed out the crap, clear rules of engagement and case law in relation to armed security engageing pirates. Lets hope they sort it out soon.
 
shipmate said:
On the basis that no vessel with armed security has ever been taken gives a a massive amount of credence for the ability to shipping companies / vessels to self protect.
I am not yet involved in MARSEC but hope to be soon.
The problems I see are that if things go wrong ie a pirate is shot and killed by a MARSEC operative then that incident should be fully justified ........... In that potentialy the matter can end in a court of law of the flag nation or elsewhere. ..... Does the operative have the financial backing through insurance etc to defend his actions? Does the MARSEC company have action plans / rules of engagement which should justify any use of lethal force in the protection of life and property?
The Master of the vessel is / should be in charge at all times even during a pirate incident. Again I do not speak from experience but my thoughts are that the MARSEC operative is there to act as a tactical adviser and give options to the master ???????
Unless of course this is covered in some kind of pre deployment contract?

The overiding defence in international law is one of self defence. Briefing / intel / rules of engagement = justification of actions should an incident reach the ultimate conclusion

My apologies if I am "gobbing off " but I stand to be corrected and educated. These opinions are purely from someone who has a lack of knowledge in MARSEC. Clearly the debate will continue until the MARSEC industry is regularised.

My opinion is that armed security is a requirment and will continue to be so
Click to expand...

Regarding armed security in maritime i'm agreed with you.

But there is one thing you must understand : as security operator you CAN NOT ENGAGE,it's not allowed to you by any low worldwide.In security we only have RULES OF USE OF FORCE (RUF), ROE doesn't exist in private security cause only military can engage.If you're messing those things can find your self in some unpleasent jail.It doesn't matter if you're working as DoD independent contractor or on some comercial contract,only RUF is the only thing that counts.

Regards!

A.G.
 
shipmate said:
..... Snipped
The Master of the vessel is / should be in charge at all times even during a pirate incident. .....Snipped
Click to expand...

In charge of the vessel yes! In charge of defending the vessel against pirates ??? That is debatable. Whole can of worms, that can go either way and I suppose one day the situation will come when the doodie hit the fan and the defense team say so and the Master says something else.

I know what I will do when the time comes. :)
 
Zapman said:
In charge of the vessel yes! In charge of defending the vessel against pirates ??? That is debatable. Whole can of worms, that can go either way and I suppose one day the situation will come when the doodie hit the fan and the defense team say so and the Master says something else.

I know what I will do when the time comes. :)
Click to expand...

As far as the law and authority goes, there is no debate.
The Master is in charge, no matter: pirate, fire, explosion, collition, grounding, mutiny, polution, hostage, terrorist....

As I mentioned before, Captain can't refuse your right of self-defence if the situation would justify self-defence.
That would be an unlawful order, and you don't need to obey it.
 
I am not in the legal profession and so I cannot argue what is black or white however, what I will say is that I believe there to be no substitute for armed security. The only reason why you wouldn't arm a security detail is because of the legal issues involved.

Whether you are in Helmand with the Infantry, at sea with the Navy, in a PSD role in Iraq or a MARSEC role on a bulk carrier off Somalia; if someone is firing automatic weapons and RPGs at you with an intent to hijack you if not, kill you, your best means of defence is a professional security detail (military or civilian) with weapons of their own.

The fight against armed security, as far as I can see and funnily enough, is coming from those who are not actually on the ships themselves. Every Captain I have come across has been 100% for armed security.

Sorry about the rant, but it winds me up.
 
Richierobertsonmci said:
I am not in the legal profession and so I cannot argue what is black or white however, what I will say is that I believe there to be no substitute for armed security. The only reason why you wouldn't arm a security detail is because of the legal issues involved.

Whether you are in Helmand with the Infantry, at sea with the Navy, in a PSD role in Iraq or a MARSEC role on a bulk carrier off Somalia; if someone is firing automatic weapons and RPGs at you with an intent to hijack you if not, kill you, your best means of defence is a professional security detail (military or civilian) with weapons of their own.

The fight against armed security, as far as I can see and funnily enough, is coming from those who are not actually on the ships themselves. Every Captain I have come across has been 100% for armed security.

Sorry about the rant, but it winds me up.
Click to expand...

I think the question for many Captains that are against armed security is that they rather step on their own dick than have someone other stepping on it!;)
 
I'll be honest ,the law important but not so important then my life.
Example the feckers try to board a ship i'am on ,I'am armed so i drop them.
Dead men don't talk!!!!!!
captain happy i'am happy everyone happy.
end off go ashore have a beer.
 
Kurt said:
As far as the law and authority goes, there is no debate.
The Master is in charge, no matter: pirate, fire, explosion, collition, grounding, mutiny, polution, hostage, terrorist....

As I mentioned before, Captain can't refuse your right of self-defence if the situation would justify self-defence.
That would be an unlawful order, and you don't need to obey it.
Click to expand...

I concur, that was what I was trying to get across.
 
Kurt, I agree. I know of a number of companies out there that have already stated that should they move onto armed security it will be through the military rather than a PSC for that exact reason.
 
ronald said:
I'll be honest ,the law important but not so important then my life.
Example the feckers try to board a ship i'am on ,I'am armed so i drop them.
Dead men don't talk!!!!!!
captain happy i'am happy everyone happy.
end off go ashore have a beer.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!! and thats the way alot of crews work today. that is what they plan on doing even though they do focus on anything that will protect their ship beforehand. Arms? I would believe thay all have. Legal or not... is another question. there are always special procedures to follow in case of contigencies that aim at avoiding those legal issues!!!
 
Zapman,

Wouldn't it be nice if the full responsibility was with the security team but it's not just like Kurt says and also you have to remember what the team is on the boat / vessel to do, that is to ADVISE. Thats why no matter what happens the Capt is informed at all times and as already stated he will make the final decision especially when he has a few million dollars worth of a vessel and ex amount of crew members lives to answer for.

If this was to change and an individual is allowed to "crack on" i feel we will get the same out come as we have had in the middle east with certain individuals working for certain companies and basically thinking they are god!

Regards

Damain
 
Hopefully the first mate acts on advise he is given while the Captain is informed.

I do understand that the Captain has the last say, but hell it would be VERY frustrating if he decides in all his wisdom, "just to give up", or procrastinate about the decision, when we know that sometimes decisions has to be made in split seconds.
 
Zapman,

at the end of the day thats why as operators we hope we get a Captain who has some "balls" and to have confidence in his security team on board and then give the order to fire warning shots first and then if necessary the order to fire at the pirates.

Instilling confidence to the Captain should be easy for a good Team Leader.
 
Back
Top