Previous work experience (at a casino in USA). Security existed for customer service, general rule enforcement where it could be done verbally, and to observe and document activities to be used later - like in court or by police. Professional eye witness.

Of course there are times hands-on action was taken but the vast majority was no touch communication and de-escalation followed by a whole lot of documentation coordinated with video surveillance.

+1

If the military, with their training, has trouble calibrating force when interacting with civilians.

And if police, with their less but still substantial training, have trouble.

... Then we probably don't want security guards, with even less training, commonly using force.

That some of them are ex-military or ex-police is immaterial, because there sure as hell isn't time made in their schedule to keep up to date.

The lack of calibration is ultimately due to a lack of consequences. If security guards are bound by the law, in the way that police officers are currently not, then I'd rather have security guards using force than the police.

I think private security is mostly for deterrence / theatre.

There's definitely a large theater aspect but they also act as professional witnesses so to speak. They're trained to look for and record a suspect's characteristics that a lay person might not notice. A lay person might get you a description like "the big dude with long hair who got into a silver car" whereas a security guard will (should) get you a fairly precise height and weight as well as a plate number and the fact that the dude had a subtle tatoo on his wrist.

That's really reasonable. Thanks for the perspective!