We were already leaving Ontario Mills because dogs aren’t allowed. An armed security officer still told us: “I’m gonna kick you out of the mall.”
I had an interaction at Ontario Mills today that left me questioning how private mall security is trained to deal with customers who are already complying.
Here’s the context, because I don’t want to leave out the reason we were asked to leave:
We had a dog with us. Ontario Mills does not allow dogs inside, so security told us we needed to leave. We did not refuse. We were already leaving the mall.
I’m not disputing the mall’s right to enforce its no-dog policy.
That isn’t the issue.
The issue is what happened while we were complying.
During the interaction, one of the security officers, who was visibly equipped/armed and acting in an official security capacity, told us:
“I’m gonna kick you out of the mall.”
The statement is captured on video with audio.
And that’s the part I can’t reconcile.
Kick us out for what? We were already leaving.
There was no need to convince us to leave. We understood that dogs were not permitted and were on our way out.
So what exactly was the security officer trying to accomplish by escalating the language?
If “kick you out” simply meant “you need to leave,” that instruction was already being followed.
If she meant that she was prepared to physically remove us, then that raises an even more serious question:
Why would physical removal even be contemplated against customers who were already voluntarily leaving?
Maybe “kick you out” was just an expression.
But when those words come from someone exercising security authority while visibly carrying security equipment/a weapon, customers should not have to determine in real time whether “kick you out” is figurative or whether physical action is about to follow.
There was an extremely simple professional way to handle this:
“Dogs aren’t permitted inside the mall. Please take the dog outside.”
We would have left.
In fact, we were leaving.
That is why I think this raises a broader issue than whether somebody was simply “rude.”
Private security officers are given significant authority by property owners. With that authority should come an obligation to use proportionate, professional and de-escalatory communication, particularly when the person on the receiving end is already complying.
I have preserved the original video and audio. I plan to formally ask Ontario Mills/Simon Property Group to preserve its surveillance footage and answer several questions:
What threat or resistance was the security officer attempting to overcome if we were already leaving?
Does Simon consider “I’m gonna kick you out of the mall” appropriate language for security personnel addressing customers who are complying with an instruction?
What did the officer mean by “kick you out”?
And if physical removal was being contemplated, what exactly were we doing at that moment that supposedly made physical intervention necessary?
I understand some people will say, “It’s private property. If they tell you to leave, leave.”
I agree.
That’s exactly what we were doing.
And that is precisely why I’m questioning what happened next.
Having the authority to enforce a rule and having a legitimate reason to escalate an encounter are not the same thing.
So I’m curious, especially from people who work in security, law enforcement, property management, or risk management:
If customers are already voluntarily leaving after being told about a no-dog policy, is this how professional mall security is supposed to handle the situation?