How much training

[Arff312]

I was wondering earlier how many hours of training do you have in security / LE. Also what other experience do you have in the fieldI was speaking to some one earlier about this and was wondering what other people have and how it compares to the local police ( i know it doesnt come close but just wanna see). I have a total of 194 Hrs of training now. Not including my EMT and firefighting certs. The local police have over 900 Hrs of training.
8 Hrs - Power to arrest
4 Hrs - Chemical Agent
8 Hrs - Baton
16 Hrs - Firearms
4 Hrs - Taser
2 Hrs - WMD
32 Hrs - mandatory trainign for guard card in security
40 Hrs - FTO
64 Hrs - P. C 832 Arrest /Search and Seizure and Firearms (done in march)
16 Hrs - Yearly Military fire arms (M-16, M-9 for my military job)

2 Yrs as a police cadet, 3 Yrs military and 5 Yrs in the fire service.

[SecTrainer]

The local police have over 900 Hrs of training.

Excuse me, but I must respectfully ask what this has to do with anything? The training of the public police includes many subjects that have little or nothing to do with the private police domain unless you need to enforce the law pertaining to truck loading, serve court papers, investigate traffic accidents, enforce municipal ordinances, handle dog complaints between neighbors, etc.

I see "comparisons" like this on the board all the time and no one seems to stop and wonder whether there is really any relevance to the number of hours of training that the public police receive. For the most part, there really isn't any. Two different domains, and many different jobs within the private domain. What is important is that the training should be adequate and appropriate for the job, whether that might be 120 hours or 1200 hours. In any case, there would never be a need for 900 hours of basic officer training in the private domain, which is the comparison you're making here, so why compare them?

I do see a number of deficiencies in the training you describe in terms of what I believe should constitute basic training, both in terms of subjects not listed, and the hours given to some of the subjects you list. I've posted my ideas about a basic training standard elsewhere.

[Mr. Security]

I was wondering earlier how many hours of training do you have in security......

8 hours - state
40 hours - advanced company training

The 40 hours is optional. I passed the (3) supervised written tests during my first year and got a pin along with a "thanks." :rolleyes: "Since you can't take thanks to the banks," I see no reason to pay for additional training at my own expense simply to be posted at an O&R site.

[N. A. Corbier]

Excuse me, but I must respectfully ask what this has to do with anything? The training of the public police includes many subjects that have little or nothing to do with the private police domain unless you need to enforce the law pertaining to truck loading, serve court papers, investigate traffic accidents, enforce municipal ordinances, handle dog complaints between neighbors, etc.

I see "comparisons" like this on the board all the time and no one seems to stop and wonder whether there is really any relevance to the number of hours of training that the public police receive. For the most part, there really isn't any. Two different domains, and many different jobs within the private domain. What is important is that the training should be adequate and appropriate for the job, whether that might be 120 hours or 1200 hours. In any case, there would never be a need for 900 hours of basic officer training in the private domain, which is the comparison you're making here, so why compare them?

I do see a number of deficiencies in the training you describe in terms of what I believe should constitute basic training, both in terms of subjects not listed, and the hours given to some of the subjects you list. I've posted my ideas about a basic training standard elsewhere.

People compare the training of a police officer with the training of a security licensee usually because they see the security licensee "doing the job of the police," or "part of the job of the police."

I have heard many times people say, "Police officers automatically make good security guards, because they have so much training." This was brought up at our local courthouse, when the Sheriff's Union demanded that the court stop paying for a guard service and hire deputies for security (at overtime rates), since "deputy sheriffs are obviously higher trained than security guards."

Not withstanding that there is no state training requirement, law enforcement officers in Wisconsin have no training requirement for physical security services.

Why a deputy sheriff knows more about guarding something than a security guard, when deputies enforce laws and security guards guard things, I do not know.

[SecTrainer]

Not withstanding that there is no state training requirement, law enforcement officers in Wisconsin have no training requirement for physical security services.

I can tell you for a fact that after going through the 480-hour (at that time) POST academy (and I graduated 2nd in the class, so I wasn't sleeping!), plus six-week FT, and then serving in positions ranging from patrol officer to trainining officer, communications supervisor and acting chief of police, I didn't know THING ONE about security or loss prevention, yet I was hired to head up LP for a large store of a major national chain. I'm the first to admit that I was utterly unqualified for the position (in my defense, I would not have applied for the job had I realized this), and it showed in the results, believe me. This was a real, practical lesson to me that the public and private domains are different, and one I have never forgotten.

I will grant that an individual with public police training and experience does bring some things to the table that an utterly untrained individual does not, but there is so much that they do not know that I would not, for example, permit a former police officer to skip or "challenge" one minute of the Basic or the Advanced SOTA officer training programs (180 hours each) that are on the horizon even as we speak, nor skip one minute of the Line Supervisor or Command Officer certifications either, for that matter.

[Arff312]

Our training cirriculum for my company i work at has most of the same topics taught the police academies. Now we dont have nearly the same number of hours in the topics but it is like a fintroduction to most of the subjects. The purpose of thios thread is to get an idea of the tranign needed for different states. i was also wondering how each state differs in the training of the police also. I did not mean it as sa well i have 900 hours so i am a cop type of a thing. Just seeing the differences between states.

[N. A. Corbier]

Florida requires a 40 hour course, 24 before you start, 16 before your first 2 year renewal. (That's being changed to 180 days after license application...)

Wisconsin requires... you pay them about 150 bucks. That's it.

[HotelSecurity]

I do not agree with the statement that police officer necessarily make good security officers. Over the years I have hired a lot of students from a 3 year college program in Police Technology. (The one I took). I usually have to spend a lot of time training them that there is a difference. Lots of minor illegal activity occurres in hotels. As long as it does not effect other people or the hotel it'self we usually keep our eyes closed. Their natural reaction would be to report all crimes. The hotel is in the business of making money. It is not a church. Of course we do cooperate 110% when the police request it.

[T202]

I was wondering earlier how many hours of training do you have in security / LE.
To be a certified police officer here in Michigan you have to go through approximately 650 hours of training. To be a security guard you just have to have a background check. The state doesn’t require any training. The license holder for your security company can also authorize you to carry a tactical baton, no state mandated training required. This is not to say that a security company doesn’t have their own training requirements.
The in-house job I have required 80 hours of training plus AED and first aid. We also have additional in-house training every 3 months.

[locknid]

8 hour state mandatory training for unarmed guard
16 hour state mandatory training for armed guard x2
8 hour advanced hand gun techniques
4 hour prvate person arrest law/hundcuffing techniques x2
4 hour drug identification/enforcement
4 hour use of force law/defensive techniques
4 hour Patrol tactics(vehicle contacts, officer safety, etc) x2
4 hour incident/arrest report writing
4 hour arizona revised statute overview
8 hour ccw course(not really for work but still given there)

Total 80 hours all done in-house by ex LEO officer, certifications out the wazzu, and around 20 years security experience, probably more arrests then most LEO's get in their lifetime, certified use of force expert witness, etc.

[Black Caesar]

Lets see:

*Police Training*
-Basic Peace Officer: 560 contact hours
My Police Academy training was 560 contact hours + 40 for the "Police Survival course" (it's 618 now but the academy does 640, not counting Physical Training Hours). This a a break down (http://www.cedarvalleycollege.edu/ProspectiveStudents/ContinuingEducation/LawEnforcementAcademy/BasicPeaceOfficerCourseComponents.html) of the stuff they take now(this is where I went to the academy), the only differance from when I was there 10 years ago is the Patrol/Consular Notification block is twice as long now, and other sections are longer as well.

-Field Training Officer: 40 hours

-Basic Police Instructor: 40 hours

-Basic Crime Investigation: 8 hours (online from the States POESIT site)

-Organized Crime and Gangs: 3 hours (also POESIT)

-Terrorism Awareness: 5 Hours

Crisis Intervention: 16 hours (took this here at the college, but taught by the Dallas Police academy as part of their yearly mandated training, 50 DPD Officers including 2 chiefs and me in the class, I was a lil outgunned :) ).

Plus I've been through the Mandated Courses cycle 3 times (every 2 years you have to take 40 hours of mandated courses to keep your license; Identity Crimes, Family Violence, Sex Offender Characteristics, Sexual Assault , Child Abuse and Family Violence) for a total of 120 hours.


*Security Training*
-Lvl 1 Security officer: 1 hour

-Lvl 2 Security Officer: 3 hours
(yep, after 4 hours I was a fully loaded unarmed security officer lol)

-Lvl 3 Security Armed guard: 30 hours

-Lvl 4 Personal Protection Officer: 16 hours

(I did the lvl 1 and 2 at my 1st security job, Lvl 3 was when I was with Wackenhut, and Lvl 4 I took on my own Here, at the DFW Gun Club, great facility BTW (http://www.dfwgun.com/SecurityGuard.htm))

I also had a 40 hours training Course when I got hired on by Alrod Security at the Dallas Federal Building. That included acess control training and being trained on the X-ray machine (I was a bit overzealous, twice I picked out a comb as a gun, better safe than sorry thought lol).

*Detention Officer and Civilian Police employee Training*
-Basic Jailer Certification :80 hours
-Public Service officer: 40 hours

*Emergency medical*
Emergency Care Attendant: 40 hours
("ECA" is a First Responder , It's a step under "EMT-Basic", i took this course for resume purposes lol)

An ECA course link (http://www.howardcollege.edu/academics/AlliedHealth/emt/ecahome.htm)

*Federally mandated Training*
-FEMA's NIMS/ICS training (about 24 hours)
-Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) 24 hours (had to take this when i worked for a compnay at Lockheed Martin)

And just for kicks:

*Off the wall training*

-Professsional Bodyguard Network/Omni Institue training: About 30 hours (i didn't finish, i got hired by a security company and needed the pay more than I wanted to be a bodyguard lol).

Grand total: Around 1,120 contact hours as best I can figure.

~~~~

As far as police training and security goes, I TOTALLY disagree, I think police training makes for superior S/Os.

I went to the academy, graduated and worked as a reserve police officer while I was still working security. The Security training was a joke (no reflection on my fine trainers at Wackenhut and DFW Gun club, just that the training was too short to be useful IMO).

The quality of SOs i've personally known who were ex-military, ex or reserve law enforcement or emergencgy medical personell (at Wackenhut, Lockheed and the Fed Contracts) was VASTLY superior to SOs who didn't have any of that for the most part. i did know some very superior SOs who had none of that, but honestly, very very few.

And many of the areas we covered in the academy directly translated to security work, like:

Report Writting, Prfessionalism and ethics, multi culturalism and human relations, arrest search and seizure (well, the arrest part), Spanish (Im in Texas, duh), Force options, Emergency Medical Assistance, emergency Communications, problem solving and critical thinking, hazardess materials awareness, and interviewing techniques.

Sure, you do things differant as private security, and no you don't get any "loss prevention" or "Facilty security" stuff, but all that stuff helped me be a better S/O, AND got me the job as a Custom protection officer with Wackenhut, helped me get the federal contract job and the security job and Lockheed martin missles and fire control too.

It's just like how police departments give prefferance to ex-military people. Unless you were an MP, you didn't get police training, but the training and discipline you did get usually make for better cops.

Cop training (and military experiance BTW) in my experiance genrall make for a superior "rank in file" Security Officer. Sure, you might have to do a little "De-training" (we have to do this too, we're Campus Police, when we hire former street cops sometimes we have to deprogram them 1st lol), but overal I think it's way worth it.

[SecTrainer]

As far as police training and security goes, I TOTALLY disagree, I think police training makes for superior S/Os.

Guess we should probably just "agree to disagree" on this score. With two state POST academies (there was no reciprocity at the time, even though they were neighboring states), medical first responder (60 hours, not 40), FBI fingerprint tech training, forensics, emergency management certification, terrorism training (United Nations), police supervision cert, and others that I can't even think of off the top of my head (I have two manilla file binders full of diplomas and certificates), I'd have to say that the great majority of the LE training I've had is utterly useless even though I can still run a radar gun, weigh a commercial vehicle, draw up an accident diagram and I think I still remember how to do a rough speed estimate from a test skid. I'd have to brush up on some things, like whether kids can go door-to-door selling magazines without a license, how far from the curb a street vendor has to be, or whether possession of a micro-milligram of coke constitutes a misdemeanor or a felony these days.

What I have benefited from enormously are the security-specific courses I've taken for my security management degree because there is a huge theoretical and technological element to the field of private policing in the 21st century. Among the degree courses I've taken (associates and bachelor's programs) that I actually use and wouldn't trade for any LE training I had are the following :

* Commercial Security
* Industrial Security
* Alarm Systems
* Access Control Systems
* Fire Protection Systems
* Patrol Procedures & Mgmt
* Principles of Loss Prevention
* Security Law
* Computer Crime Law
* Crime Analysis for Security Operations
* Criminal Intelligence Operations
* Open Source Intelligence Collection
* Industrial Espionage
* Security Supervision
* Principles of Security Management
* Risk Analysis
* Evaluation of Security Programs
* Contemporary Issues in Security Management
* Security Administration
* Information Security
* Security Technologies
* Border and Coastal Security
* Consequence Management

...plus the business management courses, naturally. The private domain is also a business domain!

What you learn from this kind of exposure is how much there really is to know, much of which is applicable even to the line officer (not merely "theory")....and practically none of this body of knowledge is even touched on in LE POST training, field training...or in most LE college programs, for that matter. The new generation of security academies that are coming in the next few years will, I guarantee, teach the essentials of many of these topics that are or will be needed by the 21st century private police officer just to do his job properly.

I can give you countless examples of how this knowledge is not just "theory", but directly applicable to the line officer "where the rubber meets the road" in the private domain. Just as one simple example, however, let's acknowledge that it's the line officer who will have to respond repeatedly to a system that's issuing false alarms. Does the officer have a sufficient understanding about what causes such alarms with respect to the specific type of sensor involved to be able to offer the systems people useful information that perhaps only he might observe? A fence strain sensor, for instance, can be impacted by the wind, but also by other things. Perhaps ONLY the line officer will be in a position to observe that the false alarms are coincident with particularly windy conditions. He'll never make that observation if he doesn't understand how fence strain sensors work. Or, as another example, does the officer know about "piggy-backing" when it comes to access control systems? If not, he might not be able to make an educated guess how someone entered a controlled area without provoking an alarm. You don't learn about fence strain sensors, the impact of a single burned-out light bulb (or replacing it with a too-bright bulb either) on a camera system, "piggy-backing" or a million other issues in POST training or most LE courses, either.

I'd also have to say that I can't honestly say that ex-LE people have made any better security officers than people without any LE background who were properly selected and received the **proper** amount of training in security. Nor, in my experience, is the "de-training" (and additional training) that is required for former LE officers who enter the security field insignificant by any means.

I've said it before. Private policing is a very different domain from public policing and the overlap in the body of knowledge between the two domains is much smaller than many understand, to say nothing of the applicable laws, the strategic objectives, the focus, the technology, the tactical tools available, etc., etc., etc.. All of the things where there is overlap - i.e., self defense, firearms, etc., can be taught equally well within a security academy. I can take any good prospect without any LE experience or training whatsoever and turn him into a superior officer, and the fact that I can do that is all the proof you need that LE training is largely irrelevant.

Bottom line: I have no preference whatsoever for hiring people with POST training. Basically, my reaction to that is "Ho hum, got your radar cert, do you? Know the allowable weight per axle for an 18-wheeler, do you? Memorized the 10-codes, have you? That's nice, if you're staying in LE. So, can you tell me what the operational differences are between a microwave sensor and an IR sensor? How about the differences between a dry-pipe and a wet-pipe fire system? Do you know the proper way to scan four camera monitors simultaneously? Can you even describe the fundamental mission of every private police force? No? Well, those things are important, so get ready for another academy, cause you're going through it just like everyone else!" It's interesting how many former LE expect you to fall on their necks and fling purses of gold at them just for walking in the door. ...And not a few of them expect to start off as supervisors, for crying out loud!

I admit that I had that attitude at first myself when I changed domains. I was pretty hot stuff. Once I finally found out how much I didn't know, I became a lot less reliant on my LE training, which wasn't applicable to much of anything on the private side. I went out and found the education and training that I needed to be effective in the private domain (obviously).

I'm happier if LE guys with the same know-it-all attitude that I had at first decide to work for someone else because there's too much they don't know that they don't even know they don't know, and many times you can't teach them what they don't know either. They know it all! In a good PRIVATE police academy, they will discover just what they didn't know that they didn't know...a different world, really. And, they either wise up or they leave. I've never particularly cared much which choice they make because there's no problem whatsoever in producing absolutely top-notch private police officers from a field of good willing candidates who have never even seen the inside of a police station.

The private police domain today...and increasingly in the future...is one that operates at the interface between human officers, human threats, natural events, technological systems and a million laws impacting the activities of people in the private and quasi-public space (as opposed to the criminal law). Line officers must increasingly understand how all these elements interface with one another and how one impacts the other, even if all they are required to do is to intelligently "observe and report", much less respond and intervene in a way that is appropriate to the private police domain...not the public domain. The private domain has very different interests and strategies from those of the public domain, and has vastly more tools at its disposal than does the public domain. In many ways, the private domain is much more powerful than the public domain when it comes to shaping the protective environment. It follows, then, that private police officers must be taught those tools, their power in shaping the battle field (for better or for worse), and how to use them properly and wisely. It would not surprise me if you dug me up out of my grave in the year 2050 and told me that private police officers had become the ultimate "robocops" due to their use of technologies, and were required to complete MORE hours of training than POST academies. This will, in turn, become affordable because in the year 2050, new technologies will allow one officer to do the work of four or five now. Many of these new technologies will NOT be available to the public LE officer for constitutional and other reasons.

[Black Caesar]

Everytime I read one of your "private police (don't like the word security?) Dissertations" I can't help but think to myself "WOW this is the most optimistic person ever".

*On the issue of "private police"

Do you actually think the nature of capitalism is going to change sooooo much in the near future to make "lowest common denominator" security go away? As long as there is a buck to be made, warm body security will always exist and thus will always constitute the majority of private security. Security is a COST, one the private sector considers a necassarry evil, but evil all the same.

The problem that will always keep the "private police" down is the very reason private enterprise exists.....the need to be profitable, a supreme limitation public safety forces do not have to worry about.

Then add to that how resistant the industry itself is to change, lobbying AGAINST higher basic standards for security personell.

And on top of all that society won't allow it. Just ask NA Corbier, lots of people wrongly think Private policing and the expansion of private security is a George W/Neocon police State plot already. The same forces that are weary of public police are scared witless by the prospect of "private police".

I think you suffer from very serious wishful thinking, but that reality just dosen't work that way. For things to be like you'd want, you'd damn near have to change the laws of human nature (or have some kind of earth shattering disaster). Sure a segment of the private protection industry will grow as you'd probably predict, and global corporate interests invest more in high end security for their high end interests (turing private security in this segment more into paramilitary mercenaries than private police, see Blackwater).

But rank and file and small business private security (the majority) will stay much the same (and training standards won't go much beyond checking a new hire's pulse.....), because thats all people are willing to pay for....

Sorry, no Shadowrun for us I'm afraid....
~~~

*As to the training issues*

My experiances say you are totally off base, but it's all just opinion either way. Nothing is set in stone, but MOST of the time I've seen that:

-Officers (public or private) with prior police experiance tend to make better Campus police and jailers.

-Officers (public or private) tend to make better officers of any kind if they have atleast some college

-Officers (public or private) tend to be of better quality if they have military experiance

-Officers (pulic or private) who are older generally have fewer problems that we have to deal with than younger officers.

The key word is TEND, I've had trainees who were all of the above and made poor detention officers of campus policemen. Nothing's Sure in this world.

I also think you're "Field Police" past is increasing your bias in this regard, as you have an antiquated view of what public policing is (ie you seem to think it's about enforcement, where as here in the modern era, It's about community policing and interaction). Maybe the 2 POST) Academys you went to were "less than modern", i don't know, mine spent lots of time on instruction that I see as having "Dual Use" (public and private).

I know many older police officers who talk of how there training "back in the olden days" centered on Enforcement. Mine just didn't. you can read the links from the CVC LE Academy for yourself.

In my experiance (which began as private security and continues as public security police, with brief layovers in Field Policing and Jailing), there is VERY little differance in the day to day mission of police and security. We're all looking out for trouble so others don't have to.

This is why in many states like mine, Police are exempt from private security laws, and why so many police work training security officers in their spare time, ect ect.. It's why Wackenhut pays you more for police traing and other things (not just the perception they are selling but having "police trained CPOs", but by the fact that police training is relevant to security).

With the exception of small things like understanding the general workings of the x-ray machine at a federal building, my security training MIRRORED my police training, except that there was a whole heck of a lot of the police training.

My opinion isn't based on what I want it to be or what I think it should be, but what (where I am) IS, in the here and now.

[HotelSecurity]

My wish is the the insurance industry would get more involved in establishing standards for private security. A company that hired watchmen type security would pay a higher premium than a company that hires highly trained securtiy officers. In business, money talks. If having better trained people would lower the insurance rates, then we would see a difference.

[Black Caesar]

My wish is the the insurance industry would get more involved in establishing standards for private security. A company that hired watchmen type security would pay a higher premium than a company that hires highly trained securtiy officers. In business, money talks. If having better trained people would lower the insurance rates, then we would see a difference.

In some places I think you do. In talking to our College District's Risk Management folks (who are our sometimes allies, but mostly they are the Bane of our existance LOL), we're told that the College District gets a serious insurance discount for having Campus Police rather than Campus Security (you get a discount for having on site regualr security to BTW, but since security's mandated training is so low, it's not much), even though the really equal the same thing.

Bigger Colleges/Universites (that have public Saefty departments of combined police and security, and in some cases organic fire fighting and emerggency medical functions) get a better deal still.

The College Dsitrict also gets a discount for having College Nurses on each campus.

[Chucky]

Caesar
When it hits the fan and I'm looking for someone to cover my back then I sure hope that you are the one. You seem to be an in the trenches kind of guy that is in the real world of security. I also worked for one of the worlds leading Tech Schools. In the business portion we had professors that could write about every and any rock in the universe but couldn't tie their own shoes. Then there were the ones that got down and dirty, went on field trips and experienced it first hand.

[Black Caesar]

Caesar
When it hits the fan and I'm looking for someone to cover my back then I sure hope that you are the one. You seem to be an in the trenches kind of guy that is in the real world of security. I also worked for one of the worlds leading Tech Schools. In the business portion we had professors that could write about every and any rock in the universe but couldn't tie their own shoes. Then there were the ones that got down and dirty, went on field trips and experienced it first hand.

I sure appreciate that Chucky. I try to "keep it real" and not get to big headed. I like it "in the trenches", I tell everyone "I'm just a foot shoulder, go talk to the General over therre" then point to my buddy, who is also my Lt. It's so fun to kick things upstairs, ain't it :) .

Working at a College I know the type of "hyper-academic" you're talking about. Some of our discussions on campus are....interesting....to say the least.

Cheers to ya Chucky....

[N. A. Corbier]

My wish is the the insurance industry would get more involved in establishing standards for private security. A company that hired watchmen type security would pay a higher premium than a company that hires highly trained securtiy officers. In business, money talks. If having better trained people would lower the insurance rates, then we would see a difference.

No, you do not. Insurance companies do not like human security, they don't like armed security, they don't like security to be first responders to anything. The more that you do, the higher risk you are to the insurer. The company that hires the watchman gets an insurance discount for having security.

The provider that so much as looks at someone who's fallen ill, wants to have their employees use fire extinguishers, touch suspects, make arrests, or anything except "observe, report, flee" gets hit with huge premiums for the risks they expose the insurer to.

Take a look at a security guard insurance application sometime. Brownyard group, I believe, has theirs online.

1. Do your guards carry weapons?
2. Do your guards make arrests (or detentions)?
3. Do your guards confront anyone?
4. Do your guards enforce client policies?
5. Do your guards carry firearms?
6. Are your guards responsible for:
6a. First Aid
6b. Fire Suppression
6c. Loss Prevention
6d. Transporting Prisoners

It just goes on and on. If you answer wrong... You're not getting insured, you're too high a risk.

[SecTrainer]

Everytime I read one of your "private police (don't like the word security?) Dissertations" I can't help but think to myself "WOW this is the most optimistic person ever".

It's not a term I invented, BC. The term "private police" is the proper term for this whole domain of protective services. For instance, the very first authoritative study on the state of the "security" field (the one that started many initiatives for improvements in our field), produced by the Rand Group in 1971, is entitled "Private Police in the United States: Findings and Recommendations" - here's a link to that report if you would care to read it:

Rand Report (http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2006/R869.pdf)

If you Google the phrase "private police" (including the quotes so it searches on the phrase), you'll find many other authoritative references using this terminology as well. These references come not only from academics, but also from within the industry and even from writers on the public police side of the line as well.

[SecTrainer]

Caesar
When it hits the fan and I'm looking for someone to cover my back then I sure hope that you are the one. You seem to be an in the trenches kind of guy that is in the real world of security. I also worked for one of the worlds leading Tech Schools. In the business portion we had professors that could write about every and any rock in the universe but couldn't tie their own shoes. Then there were the ones that got down and dirty, went on field trips and experienced it first hand.

Well, there are "professors" and there are "professors", Chucky.

As someone who will gladly compare my hours on patrol with yours or Black Caesar's, I can't help but chuckle a bit at the thinly-veiled contempt for "academics" (as opposed to those who are "in the trenches") in your little sidebar conversation with BC...and his references to my "dissertations" (a comment made, incidentally, in a post that is at least as long as any of my own!). To these comments I would only say that none of us (including myself) can hold a candle to the "trench credentials" of any one of my academic professors in the field, and most instructors in college courses on the LE side have also earned their stripes "in the trenches" as well. Yes, they have degrees, as well as CPP, CISSP and other top-notch certifications in addition...but they also have the time behind the wheel, in the field (FBI, Secret Service, military intelligence, etc)...etc., so any suggestion or implication that they're "just academics" or "just professors" who don't know anything about "the trenches" (why heck, they "can't even tie their shoes", right?) is a supremely ignorant suggestion, indeed. It's always the most ignorant people - and the people who are the most sensitive about their own ignorance - who laugh at people who have education, I find. It's a very unattractive personality trait, really.

Let me just rip off for you a bit of the bio of my instructor in the course "Intelligence Applications", for instance. I'll omit his name and location information, as this is a public forum.

"______ is an Intelligence Research Analyst with the United States Border Patrol in ______.....He retired in 1994 from the US Air Force after 24 years of active duty service including intelligence assignments with the _____ Wing in the United Kingdom, the Strategic Air Command in Omaha, Nebraska and Joint Task Force Six (Counterdrugs) in ______. His military intelligence experience includes IMINT (imagery intelligence), ELINT (electronic intelligence) and narcotics intelligence support for law enforcement agencies. He is the recipient of (listing of awards)....a member of (listing of memberships in organizations for which neither you nor I would even qualify)...and "has provided instruction to INS agents at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center...he was elected the Director of Training, Education and Career Development for the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, and was appointed one of ten Governors for the Society of Certified Criminal Analysts....(it goes on to list his numerous degrees)."

...and I challenge you to read this last one from top to bottom for my instructor in Global Terrorism:

"_____ was educated at the King's School Canterbury (UK), following which he served in the Surrey Police and London Metropolitan Police (New Scotland Yard). It was in London that he first became interested in terrorism, as part of a team securing a high-level terrorist awaiting trial. He was subsequently on duty at the 1980 Iranian Embassy Siege in central London. He later entered the 5th (V) Battalion of the Queen's Regiment (Infantry TAVR), as an Officer Cadet and lectured on the detection of terrorists and anti-handling devices on IEDs (improvised explosive devices).

He later served in a TAVR squadron of the Corps of Royal Military Police (V). In 1983, he was appointed to the United Nations Secretariat and shortly afterwards in the Department of Peace-Keeping Operations, holding field security, political, and logistics positions. He has worked in New York, Geneva, Vienna, Jerusalem, Damascus, Naqoura, Luanda, Rawalpindi and Srinagar.

In Angola, ______ was involved in a firefight with armed elements trying to loot the UN Headquarters, and having defacto command of an Angolan infantry MG (machine gun) team, successfully repelled the attack. Later, following intermittent bombardment upon outbreak of war, he successfully co-negotiated release of himself and a UN agency member, after their building was assaulted and they were seized by a group of irregular armed elements.

While attached to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), he was appointed as the Political Assistant by the General Officer Commanding (Chief Military Observer). He subsequently authored a 570-page guide with campaign maps, on the dispute in the former Princely State of Jammu Kashmir, plotting (and very occasionally reconnoitering and photographing) more than one hundred guerrilla-terrorist training camps, infiltration extraction routes and assembly areas in the Kashmir environs. In monitoring military ceasefire, guerrilla and terrorist activities in Kashmir and its environs, he gathered intelligence in the field from military, civilian, public, media and armed element sources, and first reported a token Muslim Brotherhood (Alqa’ida) and Taliban presence in the Kashmir Valley during the mid-1990s. He attended the scene of the 1995 Egyptian Embassy bombing in Islamabad, minutes after his son was lightly injured by flying glass at the adjacent British school, where all the windows were blown out.

_____ holds a B.Sc. in Political Science (National Security), an M.Sc. in Criminal Justice (Terrorism) and a Ph.D. in Political Science (Kashmir conflict) from the Pacific Western University, USA. He holds a further Ph.D. from Middlesex University, London UK, in Political Science (Terrorism Research).

He is a UNITAR Special Fellow of the Institute (UN Institute for Training Research, Geneva), a terrorism, security and Kashmir expert, and course author with UNITAR-POCI (New York) and an consultant expert with the UN IAEA’s Office of Nuclear Security. _____ teaches as an Adjunct Professor with the American Military University (Departments of Unconventional Warfare, Intelligence Studies and Criminal Justice). In a 2001 American Counsel of Education (ACE) evaluation-review of over 40 courses by three well known subject matter experts (external Professors), _____ course received the highest marks within the Criminal Justice Department."



Trenches, eh? I can give you two dozen more similar bios with similar or more "trench credentials" for literally all of the so-called "academics" who instructed the courses I took. So, stifle the snickers. Neither you, Black Caesar nor I would care to match the "trenches" we've seen with these "professors" - I dare say they all know how to tie their shoes, as you put it. The question really is...Do you? I think if I see you and BC stroking each other as "the professionals" on this forum much more (and oh, yes - the "humility" of BC as "just one of the foot soldiers"...the practical people in the trenches, as it were, as opposed to those funny theorists in their ivory towers), while at the same time you're belittling (quite UNprofessionally) other people who you know nothing about, but to whom neither of you can compare for sheer years and breadth of experience as well as expertise, I'm positively gonna hurl. Maybe you two should get a room or something; it's becoming downright embarrassing now.

[Black Caesar]

I think if I see you and BC stroking each other as "the professionals" on this forum much more (and oh, yes - the "humility" of BC as "just one of the foot soldiers"...the practical people in the trenches, as it were, as opposed to those funny theorists in their ivory towers), while at the same time you're belittling (quite UNprofessionally) other people who you know nothing about, but to whom neither of you can compare for sheer years and breadth of experience as well as expertise, I'm positively gonna hurl. Maybe you two should get a room or something; it's becoming downright embarrassing now.

OMG that's the run-on sentence from hell......

Touch a nerve, did ole Chucky lol?

As for the length of your posts, I'm be more than happy to compare the numbers of words in your posts, and the average number in mine. Heck, you have 11 few posts than me, dispite having joined our merry group here 7 months after I did lol.

While it is sometimes to make lenghty posts on complicated subjects, it dosen't need to happen every time lol. No big deal though.

~~~~

As for the rest, you continue to totally miss the point. This is not some pissing match. It is a differance of opinion. My opinion remains that your opinions don't seem to be grounded in the present, or in easily observable reality. In otherwords, its mostly (but not all) wishful thinking fueld by (understandable) pride in one's profession and maybe (just maybe) too much "schooling". On the plus side, atleast what you say is coherant, unlike some others.

I too am proud of my profession (PROTECTIVE SERVICES, which includes police, security, corrections, fire and emergency medical as far as I'm concerned). But I'm not letting pride cloud my judgment.

I find it troubling that an obviously educated person seems to want to find division in our mutual profession (and get defensive when soeone calls them on it lol). That the same person is responsible for instructing others who are new and impresionable into our mutual profession is even more troubling.

But oh well, to each his own I always say.

[Black Caesar]

It's not a term I invented, BC. The term "private police" is the proper term for this whole domain of protective services. For instance, the very first authoritative study on the state of the "security" field (the one that started many initiatives for improvements in our field), produced by the Rand Group in 1971, is entitled "Private Police in the United States: Findings and Recommendations" - here's a link to that report if you would care to read it:

Rand Report (http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/2006/R869.pdf)

If you Google the phrase "private police" (including the quotes so it searches on the phrase), you'll find many other authoritative references using this terminology as well. These references come not only from academics, but also from within the industry and even from writers on the public police side of the line as well.

I'm aware of all that. Still, "Private Police" IMO is not a good term to use to describe the ENTIRE private industry. We both know what the word "police" really means, but common usage is differnet. in common usage, people think of the word police and imagine people who enforce public law. Most in private security don't.

I reserve the term Private Police to people like :

-Private College and University and Hospital Police

-Contracted Federal Security Police (Knew some guys with Wackenhut who were Security Police at a Nuke facility, people like that, also Officer who work on the U.S. Marshal Service contract, as opposed to the Guards who worked the GSA contract like me)

-Private Company Police like what you find in North Carolina and Washington DC among other places.

It's a matter of preferance I know, But I dont call anyone police till they've been through a Police Academy and are entitled to wear the word "Police" (no matter whether they are public or private, theres a guy who posts here, Talon, he's a private policeman in NC I believe). some guy of the street with the same 4 hours lvl 1 and 2 security training I had when i began is not IMO any kind of "police officer". Just like badaging my daughter's Boo boos and being a trained ECA dosen't make me a Paramedic.......

[SecTrainer]

It's a matter of preferance I know.....

Not really, any more than it's a matter of preference whether to call footwear a "shoe" or a "cabbage". The usage of the term "private police" is far too well-established for it to be a mere matter of preference. However, the quibble isn't worth more of my time, except to say that there are important reasons that the term is far more accurate than the term "security". Your analogy that compares the difference between "security" and "police" to the difference between "bandaging boo-boos" and "paramedics", by the way, is a disgraceful betrayal of how trivially you apparently view what some of our officers do...or else it's a very bad analogy. I hope it's the latter.

Anyway, you certainly can use whatever term you want in your posts. I've never taken issue with the terminology you choose to use, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you, thanks.

As for the crack about "touching a nerve", please don't flatter yourself. As they say, I've been insulted by experts, so that shot simply isn't on the board for you. And, you and Chucky can stroke each other all you want; stroke away...or stroke out, for that matter! I just wish you'd do it in private (we do have the PM function) so that I don't have to read down through that kind of nonsense just to get to a post with something interesting or useful to say.

Is that short enough for you? :D

[Black Caesar]

Not really, any more than it's a matter of preference to decide to call a door a cabbage. The usage of the term "private police" is too well-established for it to be a mere matter of preference.

So well establish that when I look on places like Dictionary.com I get:


There are no dictionary entries for private police, but private, police are spelled correctly.

Or from Merriam-Webster:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

Or Farlex's Free Dictionary:



Phrase not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia. Please try the words separately:
private.. police

And, on the same sites, when you DO search just for police, none of them even mention private police at all. Enter Security Guard and that's different, but not much. On Farlex's entry fo Security Guard, it offers this Thesaurus entry:


Noun 1. security guard - a guard who keeps watch
watchman, watcher
private security force, security force - a privately employed group hired to protect the security of a business or industry
bank guard - a security guard at a bank
fire watcher - (during World War II in Britain) someone whose duty was to watch for fires caused by bombs dropped from the air
guard - a person who keeps watch over something or someone
lookout, lookout man, picket, scout, sentinel, sentry, spotter, watch - a person employed to watch for something to happen
night watchman - a watchman who works during the night
patroller - someone on patrol duty; an individual or a member of a group that patrols an area
port watcher, portwatcher - a watchman on a wharf

No mention of the word police.

The Common, Modern use of the word police means "people who work for the government and enforce public law". We know that's not accurate, Private police exist.

But WHO we call private police is a matter of preferance because there is no common usage to say otherwise...

My opinon is as stated. Yours is that the entire industry is private police. I disagree.



As for "touching a nerve", don't flatter yourself. You and Chucky can stroke each other until the cows come home if you want; I just wish you'd do it in private.

Noted, but since you're not an admin, i think we'll continue our stroking in public *blows kiss at Chucky....in a manly, non-threatening way*....



Is that short enough for you? :D

Geting there lol.

EDIT for your edit, you should have stopped after the 1st take LOL. NOW, it's too long.....

[SecTrainer]

Let's drop it, please. Your (cough!) "analysis" just doesn't rise to the level of a response.

You call it what you want and I'll do the same. I have no vested interest in your opinions or your preferences, and I'm sure you have none in mine. Let's get back to discussing something that will advance our profession, whatever you call it.

'Kay?

[Black Caesar]

I'll stop, but this one you added on edit was too good to ignore.



Your analogy that compares the difference between "security" and "police" to the difference between "bandaging boo-boos" and "paramedics", by the way, is a disgraceful betrayal of how trivially you apparently view what some of our officers do...or else it's a very bad analogy. I hope it's the latter.

Lets see now. 4 hours for Texas level 1 and 2 Security Officer. 560 hours (when i took it, 618 hours now) for the lowest BASIC Peace officer certification....

You need 140 times more training to get the basic most police certification than what you need to be get the basic most security officer certification here In my state.

And you say my analogy isn't apt? ooookkkkk, sure, got ya.

Oh, i'm sure there are many in private security with excellent training that exceeds my own, inculding the good folks who post here. But for the majority, i think my analogy sticks. Hell, in some places (as mentioned by someone else in this very thread), you don't need ANY training to be licensed.

Don't blame me for a shameful industry training standard.

[Black Caesar]

Let's drop it, please. Your (cough!) "analysis" just doesn't rise to the level of a response.

You call it what you want and I'll do the same. 'Kay?

I accept your Unconditional Surrender, and will thus now refer to you as "France"....

[Chucky]

Maybe you two should get a room or something.

You know Trainer sometimes you do have a good idea. I myself would think something overlooking the High Sierras or even possibly something on the East Coast of Canada. Perhaps overlooking the Bay of Fundy. Although it will be a tad bit cold this time of year. A hot tub in the snow. Yes! Yes! Yes!. Oops sorry got carried away. Let me check with BC and don't be surprised if you get a post card from Canada. http://bestsmileys.com/mail/5.gif

[MartinMc]

Here's my training to date:-

24 hours D license
28 hours G license
1 1/2 hrs weekly of shooting drills on the range

Still more training to come in the coming months though.... at my own expense i'm sure

Slan
Have a great day
Marty

[james2go30]

Florida requires a 40 hour course, 24 before you start, 16 before your first 2 year renewal. (That's being changed to 180 days after license application...)

Wisconsin requires... you pay them about 150 bucks. That's it.you know that changed....all our new officers are taking the full 40 hours before they can be put on a site. No more of that 16 hrs before the first 2 year renewal anymore.

[N. A. Corbier]

you know that changed....all our new officers are taking the full 40 hours before they can be put on a site. No more of that 16 hrs before the first 2 year renewal anymore.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if that hit this year or next year. They put that into some bill, I forget which, I think it was the Port Security Act.