Transit Security Guard Murdered in Brooklyn

[UtahProtectionForce]

http://www.nysun.com/article/50257

[SecTrainer]

Did you ever notice how when a cop is killed they will often run his photo and have a lot about his bio, sometimes even in a lengthy "sidebar", but you hardly ever see either one of those things when a security officer gets killed? We don't seem to merit "wasting" the column space, I guess - just another blip on the radar screen. You also don't usually see very many followup stories about the murder investigation of a security officer like you do with cops, or top-of-the-news coverage of the security officer's funeral. There are exceptions, of course, but that's been my general observation.

How often have stories about 9/11 given any information about the security officers who were killed that day? Well, you'll find thousands of stories about police, fire and ambulance victims while the true first responders were the on-site security staff, many of whom stood their ground and helped people to safety before the public responders had set foot out of their vehicles. Few memorials or honors have been given to them, though!

We, at least, must never forget them nor any of our other brothers and sisters who - often completely unarmed, ill-equipped, poorly trained and underpaid - brave the night and confront danger so that others might sleep unmolested in their beds.

[Eric]

We, at least, must never forget them nor any of our other brothers and sisters who - often completely unarmed, ill-equipped, poorly trained and underpaid - brave the night and confront danger so that others might sleep unmolested in their beds.

Well worth repeating, thank you.

[Investigation]

The reasoning behind this is that Police Officers, firefighters, and EMT personnel work for the general public while the majority of Security Guards work for private entities.

[N. A. Corbier]

The reasoning behind this is that Police Officers, firefighters, and EMT personnel work for the general public while the majority of Security Guards work for private entities.

Its not even this. Security Guards are a good headline when they do something wrong, even if they were a security guard in the 1960s. (Seriously, AP ran a story with a headline "Security Guard murders..." The man was a guard in the 1960s, not presently...)

Its simply that police officers dying are newsworthy. People "like to read" about police officers dying. They want to know about it, because it has the elements of crime, personal sacrifice, etc.

Whereas, a security guard is just "joe blow," and no one wants to read about that. Its the same question, "Why don't pizza drivers make the front page with a sidebar?" Because no one cares about the pizza driver. They care about THE POLICE. The police are an institution.

[Investigation]

Its not even this. Security Guards are a good headline when they do something wrong, even if they were a security guard in the 1960s. (Seriously, AP ran a story with a headline "Security Guard murders..." The man was a guard in the 1960s, not presently...)

Its simply that police officers dying are newsworthy. People "like to read" about police officers dying. They want to know about it, because it has the elements of crime, personal sacrifice, etc.

Whereas, a security guard is just "joe blow," and no one wants to read about that. Its the same question, "Why don't pizza drivers make the front page with a sidebar?" Because no one cares about the pizza driver. They care about THE POLICE. The police are an institution.

Same difference. The public cares about a security guard getting hurt about the same as a Wal-mart employee getting a splinter while moving a display (if not less). But, again, I kind of feel the same way even though I’ve worked in the industry for over 10 years. If I had a choice who I wanted to respond to my house for a burglar, it would be the police. Most people probably feel the same way and that’s why when one gets hurt, the public reacts. The police are the public’s protection. Security guards have a narrow focus while public law enforcement takes on a broader role that affects a larger amount of people.

Don’t get me wrong. I do care if someone from our profession gets injured, but I care about them as I would any other private citizen.

[Black Caesar]

Same difference. The public cares about a security guard getting hurt about the same as a Wal-mart employee getting a splinter while moving a display (if not less). But, again, I kind of feel the same way even though I’ve worked in the industry for over 10 years. If I had a choice who I wanted to respond to my house for a burglar, it would be the police. Most people probably feel the same way and that’s why when one gets hurt, the public reacts. The police are the public’s protection. Security guards have a narrow focus while public law enforcement takes on a broader role that affects a larger amount of people.

Don’t get me wrong. I do care if someone from our profession gets injured, but I care about them as I would any other private citizen.

On a side note, that is kind of like the reasoning behind why there are Campus Police. Back in the day (or today if the campus dosen't have police), people would say "security is coming" and the offender wouldn't blink. Now they say "the police are coming" and the offender is likely to bounce right on out of there. Hell, we're still "security" for the campus, but people respond better to the word police.

Like you said, give people a choice of who comes to help them (police or security), they'd pick police. It is a crying shame that S/Os aren't more respected, but given the general state of S/Os in this country, it's not suprising. Wal-Mart pays more than many of the S/O jobs in this country...

My condolences to the family of the Slain Officer.

[Chucky]

Realistically a cop gets way more access to the public then S/O do. For the most part we work for low wages at night ,out of sight. When you have a problem and call 911 who shows up a cop or security guy?

Who walks down the street and pats little Johnny on the head and says good boy. Are you going to be a police man when you grow up? Who drives the shinny cruiser with the flashing lights and siren going? Who does Norman Rockwell paint sitting at a dinner surrounded by the all American family? Hint it's not an S/O. I think you get the idea by now.

A family friend went down off the SC coast on a Texaco oil freighter. On the 3rd page of the local news paper was a 2 inch piece about it. He went from a good human being to a one of 20 no name crewmen that went down on the ship. Had he been a sailor on a destroyer it would have taken the front page with a full biography. That's just how it works. Always has always will.

[SecTrainer]

The reasoning behind this is that Police Officers, firefighters, and EMT personnel work for the general public while the majority of Security Guards work for private entities.

Well, it's mighty poor reasoning. Most people will encounter some form of security almost every time they venture out in "public"....whether at work, a mall, a school, a government building, a sports arena, a hospital, and in many other settings. However, those same people (these members of "the general public") might not even see a policeman the whole day, or at most they might see a cop car cruising down the road (en route to take a report) or hiding behind a tree with a radar gun (Yoo-hoo...I see you!).

Because it is the responsibility of many private entities to protect "the general public" who come within their boundaries, security officers do, in fact, work for "the general public" in those venues. The distinction isn't whether security works for the "general public". The real distinction is that police are paid by government entities while security officers happen to be paid by private entities.

In my view, there is no LOGICAL reason why the public should care more or be more interested in the death of a cop than they are in the death of a security officer. In many cases, it was really that deceased security officer who was the one who actually kept them safe as they went about their business in the "public" (quasi-public) spaces, in which most people actually spend most of their time...and not the cops.

It was when I really came to terms with this cold reality as a cop and realized how little I was really protecting anyone, compared to reacting to things that already had happened, that I left LE. Not only was LE totally boring (I got no kick out of the siren and lights), but I got tired of forever riding around, taking reports and apologizing when people would ask "Where were you guys?" while they mopped up the blood or swept up the glass from the broken window. Like all LE agencies, we also had a depressingly low clearance rate even after the fact. The railroad police did better than we did, for Christ sake.

Even so-called "community policing" didn't change anything - it just meant that there were more avenues by which a million special interest groups could argue about what they thought the police should be doing. It was good for getting grants, of course...after all, it was the latest BUZZ!

By contrast, the security domain is one in which you do have at least a very real shot at preventing some things before they go down. Yes, it can be just as boring as LE, certainly. And yes, you'll still sometimes hear the question "Where were you guys"? But the difference in terms of being able to influence the situation preventively instead of just reacting to things is enormous.

The "general public" should be very, very interested and concerned when anyone in the major protective domain of society - which is so-called "private" security - is killed in the line of duty. They've just lost one of the people who really do keep them safe.

Incidentally, we ought to lose the term "private" security as it merely creates the wrong idea. Most "private" security is, in fact, "public" security for the reasons I've stated above. When you see a security officer in the mall, at the university, hospital, etc., you're looking at a public security officer, who is responsible for the safety of every member of the public who passes within his area of responsibility, not just some of them. Just because they happen to be on that campus does not make anyone any less a member of "the public" than they are out on the street...and the law supports my position on this. Try arbitrarily refusing to provide security services in these quasi-public spaces to any member of the public just one time, and you'll learn what I mean. Regardless of who is paying you, you're obliged to protect, to the best of your ability, every member of the public who enters that space and even your private employer cannot pick and choose who that will be. If your space is open to the public, you're a public security officer and we ought to care deeply when our public security officers are killed - the public has lost something.

[Investigation]

In my view, there is no LOGICAL reason why the public should care more or be more interested in the death of a cop than they are in the death of a security officer. In many cases, it was really that deceased security officer who was the one who actually kept them safe as they went about their business in the "public" (quasi-public) spaces, in which most people actually spend most of their time...and not the cops.


I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy your stint in LE as I did, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Security Guards are trained to observe and report activities to the police and NOT intervene. This is probably best considering that the majority of security personnel are not trained to the caliber of police. So, how are they protecting your car if it's getting broken into? How are they protecting you if you get assaulted? They are going to call the locals and then it's report writing for everyone! Sure, they can observe the suspect, but anyone on the street can do that. You are trying to glorify the industry as a whole! I believe that there are many highly trained professionals in the Security Industry who do a valuable service in protecting persons and property, but they are outweighed by the rent-a-cops that are placed on a job site with little training. You can try to dissect it any way you want, but the fact of the matter is that there are many other professions requiring more training than Security Guards that would receive even less respect in similar circumstances.

[SecTrainer]

I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy your stint in LE as I did, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Security Guards are trained to observe and report activities to the police and NOT intervene. This is probably best considering that the majority of security personnel are not trained to the caliber of police. So, how are they protecting your car if it's getting broken into? How are they protecting you if you get assaulted? They are going to call the locals and then it's report writing for everyone! Sure, they can observe the suspect, but anyone on the street can do that. You are trying to glorify the industry as a whole! I believe that there are many highly trained professionals in the Security Industry who do a valuable service in protecting persons and property, but they are outweighed by the rent-a-cops that are placed on a job site with little training. You can try to dissect it any way you want, but the fact of the matter is that there are many other professions requiring more training than Security Guards that would receive even less respect in similar circumstances.

Oh, I enjoyed some of it, don't get me wrong. I just wasn't protecting anybody very much of the time and the realization of that (as I took my 392nd burglary report) made me realize that I was getting paid for something we weren't doing very well.

Your questions cause me to think you're missing the whole point of security in the first place, if you'll pardon my saying so.

Have you ever wondered how "observe and report" can be called "security" in the first place? I mean, at a superficial level it seems so ineffective. "Observe and report"...How can we even call something like that "security" at all?

Well, at least half the value of "observe and report" is not the officer observing the perp, but the perp observing the officer, who he sees is observing him!! In other words, with good "observation and reporting", that car break-in you ask about doesn't even require "intervention" because it doesn't happen.

Security is about PREVENTION more than INTERVENTION. Overwhelming evidence has shown that the vast majority of crime IS prevented by VISIBLE GUARDIANSHIP. You place security officers around at strategic locations, and you have them patrol, so that potential perps will see them proactively guarding their area and go somewhere else. You make cameras visible to perps so they will see them and go somewhere else. You put signs on property warning about a security presence so that perps will see them and go somewhere else.

So, if the security operation - even one restricted to "observe and report" is effective, the relative minority of perps who decide to commit the crime anyway will be a very bad one whether it's the police or the security force who actually "intervene" and make an arrest...what difference does it make? Security has done its job either way.

You say I'm "glorifying" the industry as a whole, but then you would seem to go the other way - trashing the industry by your "rent-a-cop" characterization of security officers, wouldn't you agree? I'm an ardent proponent of more training, but the fact is that prevention always does require less training than intervention because there is no incident to handle when prevention is successful and nothing happens! Since prevention can never be perfect, however, I do argue that officers should be better trained to intervene, but that's a different subject.

Academy or not, training doesn't make anyone a good cop, and it never has. Similarly, a lack of formal training does not mean a man is necessarily a bad officer. Throughout history there have been damned fine cops who never had even as much training as the average security officer receives today. The name "Pinkerton" might be familiar to you - a man with a very interesting history who became the equivalent of the nation's first Secret Service officer, and an intelligence officer to boot. I suppose you'd not mind knowing that Pinkerton was the officer sitting in your guard shack, eh? Or would he be disqualified and called a "rent-a-cop" due to his "lack of training"?

Training is a good thing. However, we shouldn't be too snobbish about who has what training and we certainly shouldn't draw any straight lines between "hours of training" and crime-prevention value. If such a relationship existed, given the training that cops get now the crime rate in America should be somewhere close to zero and we have a very hard time explaining why the crime rate rocketed during the 1990s at the very same time we were doubling and tripling the hours in POST academies. The crime rate has dropped or stabilized somewhat in recent years, but it's highly likely that this is due to the aging of the American population and enormous increase in the incarcerated population more than any true preventive actions by the police who are still pretty much doing the same things they've always done...riding around, writing traffic tickets and taking crime reports. The real improvements in police work have mostly been in the "reactive" areas like the forensic sciences and what proactive measures the police do manage to take looks (surprise!) very much like so-called "private security", including even "observe and report".

[Black Caesar]

All I want to know is: what is it with you SecTrainer, why this big chip on your shoulder about police. The Death of this Transit S/O had nothing to do with police at all, but you introduce the topic (in rather whining fashion). Everyone else understands why people pay more attention to public police rather than private security.

In the very next thread (about the S/O who died after calling 911) you said "
I wonder what the response time was. Unfortunately, these calls usually aren't treated with the same urgency as when a cop calls for backup...but they probably should be".

The article says nothing about response time, it does mention the 3 or 4 LE agencies are working the case of this S/Os death.

But anyways, did you have a bad experience as a cop or something, because you rarely have anything good to say about police.

Oh, and the part about LE not protecting anything... There are about 55,000 College, university, school, hospital, airport, transit, railroad and Court police officer who would disagree with you....

[SecTrainer]

Hey, BC - nice to hear from you again. You just don't read very well, do you? By that, I don't just mean my posts...I just mean LE and security literature generally.

I'd be happy to provide you with sufficient references so that, if you read them, you'll finally realize that these are not merely my observations, but those of others including many whose reputations are such that you would be unable to respond to them in your weak fashion by means of insults, speculations and other nonresponsive garbage as in your post above.

We might start with the elements of proper argumentation, which will teach you that it doesn't matter in the slightest what 55,000 anythings, or a million anyones, "have to say". What matters is what can be objectively proven and there, my friend, I'm afraid you're at a disadvantage. PM me if you'd like to learn but would prefer, perhaps, not to "go to school" in public.

I will, however, clarify that I was referring, by "LE", to municipal and county agencies. Some of those that you specifically mention - despite the word "police" in some of their names - actually work on the "private security" model more than they do on police models. They can do so because they are responsible for very limited jurisdictions (and in fact, I mentioned in one of my posts that the "railroad police" were more successful than we in LE - meaning the municipal/county police - were...evidence again of the value of actually reading my posts). As such, these organizations which are able to operate under the security rather than the police model and do enjoy some "prevention" success by virtue of that fact are actually arguments for my position rather than against it.

[Black Caesar]

Hey, BC - nice to hear from you again. You just don't read very well, do you? By that, I don't just mean my posts...I just mean LE and security literature generally.

I'd be happy to provide you with sufficient references so that, if you read them, you'll finally realize that these are not merely my observations, but those of others including many whose reputations are such that you would be unable to respond to them in your weak fashion by means of insults, speculations and other nonresponsive garbage as in your post above.

Non-responsive garbage. Lol, that's so funny.

Let's get this straight, I'm not the one who decided to make this S/O's tragic death yet another anti-police/jealousy of police Jihad. That was you.



We might start with the elements of proper argumentation, which will teach you that it doesn't matter in the slightest what 55,000 anythings, or a million anyones, "have to say". What matters is what can be objectively proven and there, my friend, I'm afraid you're at a disadvantage. PM me if you'd like to learn but would prefer, perhaps, not to "go to school" in public.

So, basically what your saying is all the different special policemen I listed, myself included, don't really protect anything, but if we changed our names back to security, everything would be ok?

Yea, that makes total sense.

Look, whatever issues you have are fine, but we have a saying here in Texas: "Don't start none, won't be none". If you can't take the heat about your (very odd and obviously outdated) opinions, you shouldn't offer them on a forum that's open to the public.

[SecTrainer]

Yes, but you didn't answer. Would you like to learn or shall we limit this to a good ol' boy Texas folk-wisdom down-on-the-ranch "homey sayings" duel at 20 paces? I have a spittoon around here somewhere....I mean somewheres.

I know I'll have to spit reel straight, podnuh, because sooner or later someone from Texas claims to have said just about everything, don't they?

Well, here's my first shot: "When you're in a hole, stop diggin'".

[Black Caesar]

Yes, but you didn't answer. Would you like to learn or shall we limit this to a good ol' boy Texas folk-wisdom down-on-the-ranch homey duel at 20 paces? I have a spittoon around here somewhere....I mean somewheres.

After reading the multi-page dissertations you write for every post, no thinks, I have better things to do with the next 40 years of my life. Besides, all you're going to do is refer me to some biased "study" or another created by people in the private security business who are chasing the next contract, or some rusty old tome from 1970 something.

No thanks, I'll stick to reality.....

Oh, and you didn't answer my question either. What is your beef with the police. It must be something bad, because in the last 2 posts in this secition, your very 1st sentence had something to do with police, when neither S/O's death was directly police related.

Forget, let me refresh your memory:

From this thread, the 1st sentence of your 1st post....


Did you ever notice how when a cop is killed they will often run his photo and have a lot about his bio, sometimes even in a lengthy "sidebar", but you hardly ever see either one of those things when a security officer gets killed?

From the tread about the S/O killed after calling 911.....


I wonder what the response time was. Unfortunately, these calls usually aren't treated with the same urgency as when a cop calls for backup...but they probably should be.

I'll ask again, what is your hang up with police that would make you sully a S/O LODD thread?

[SecTrainer]

No thanks, I'll stick to reality.....

I accept your unconditional surrender.

I think that's a "Texas saying", isn't it...or did you borrow that from someone? Wutta mutt!

[Black Caesar]

I accept your unconditional surrender.

I think that's a "Texas saying", isn't it...or did you borrow that from someone? Wutta mutt!

You got it backwards France....I mean SecTrainer.

Out of respect for the Dead S/O (remember him, he was the one we were talking about before this latest anti-police jihad of yours), I'm not going to continue this here. Feel free to come to the open discussions area.

[SecTrainer]

You got it backwards France....I mean SecTrainer.

Out of respect for the Dead S/O (remember him, he was the one we were talking about before this latest anti-police jihad of yours), I'm not going to continue this here. Feel free to come to the open discussions area.

I have no problem continuing this right here, since my whole point was to demonstrate the value of this (and other security) officer(s), and to explain why the public should be as concerned about the deaths of security officers as they exhibit when a police officer is killed.

You quote me selectively and conveniently ignored the paragraph immediately beneath the one you quote, so I'll repeat it here:

I will, however, clarify that I was referring, by "LE", to municipal and county agencies. Some of those agencies that you specifically mention - despite the word "police" in some of their names - actually work on the "private security" model more than they do on police models. They can do so because they are responsible for very limited jurisdictions (and in fact, I mentioned in one of my posts that the "railroad police" were more successful than we in LE - meaning the municipal/county police - were...evidence again of the value of actually reading my posts). As such, these organizations you name and which are able to operate under the security rather than the police model do enjoy some "prevention" success and by virtue of that fact are actually arguments for my position rather than against it.

[Black Caesar]

I have no problem continuing this right here, since my whole point was to demonstrate the value of this (and other security) officer(s), and to explain why the public should be as concerned about the deaths of security officers as they exhibit when a police officer is killed.

You quote me selectively and conveniently ignored the paragraph immediately beneath the one you quote, so I'll repeat it here:

I will, however, clarify that I was referring, by "LE", to municipal and county agencies. Some of those agencies that you specifically mention - despite the word "police" in some of their names - actually work on the "private security" model more than they do on police models. They can do so because they are responsible for very limited jurisdictions (and in fact, I mentioned in one of my posts that the "railroad police" were more successful than we in LE - meaning the municipal/county police - were...evidence again of the value of actually reading my posts). As such, these organizations you name and which are able to operate under the security rather than the police model do enjoy some "prevention" success and by virtue of that fact are actually arguments for my position rather than against it.

I didn't ignore anything, as usual you edited your post afterwards.

This really is my last post in this thread, butt you're wrong (as usual). The organizations I've named (and worked for in 2 cases, a hospital and a college) don't follow any private security model.

Police model, private security model? Tell me, how long ago was your post training????? As I've explained to you before, things have changed...

[SecTrainer]

This really is my last post in this thread, butt you're wrong (as usual). The organizations I've named (and worked for in 2 cases, a hospital and a college) don't follow any private security model.

I can only conclude that you don't know what the terms mean, BC. Since we don't have a common frame of reference, let's just drop it and agree to disagree, shall we? (I know, I know - here comes another "France" reference again. Oh well, I suppose we all do the best we can and that's fine, but I'm afraid that in terms of your knowledge of this subject you have a strange persistent tendency to let your battleship mouth overload your rowboat a$$. Watch out for sharks!)

[talon]

Hey Sectrainer...I like your style, you think alot like I do and you don't give in to the hype of "Law Enforcement" most of them are legends in their own minds.

You know, alot of people watch Cops and think that its on the level and don't realize that alot of it is made for TV and not "real TV" per say.

Your average Police Officer does just what you said earlier, write tickets & take reports. There is not alot of jumping over cars, brawling or shooting involved.

I have always loved it when the Public Police would show up and critique everything you just did and alot of the times take the suspects side against you.

[T202]

Words of wisdom from the other half of the Marchetti twins.

[talon]

I know its tuff to accept that some people live in reality and not in a fog created by media, hype and propoganda... but we do exist.

We call things as they are and not how we wish they could be or how someone wants us to see them.

We do not delude ourselves into believing that the "Police" are the only profession that could be killed at any minute.

We understand that many jobs are dangerous and that all things are relative. In other words a police officer in rural Michigan is probably in less danger on average than a security officer working the projects... but who gets the glory?

I am sorry if I hurt the almighty, all knowing public police officers feelings, but if the shoe fits...you know what to do.

[T202]

Don’t worry, it would take more than the opinion of a Special Police Officer to hurt my feelings. You have had some bad experiences with the “Public Police” so you have the right to hate them all. Most of you posts are basically the same. I’m not going to try and change your mind, I don’t have the time. I’m still trying to get my shoes on. I do have one question though, What’s glory? If you mean a paycheck every two weeks, then I did get the glory.

[Black Caesar]

Don’t worry, it would take more than the opinion of a Special Police Officer to hurt my feelings. You have had some bad experiences with the “Public Police” so you have the right to hate them all. Most of you posts are basically the same. I’m not going to try and change your mind, I don’t have the time. I’m still trying to get my shoes on. I do have one question though, What’s glory? If you mean a paycheck every two weeks, then I did get the glory.

Ok, so I lied, THIS is my last post in this thread LOL.

But you know I'm with you. I just can't imagine the shear amount of bitterness, resentment and even hate that drives some people like Marchetti, Talon and Sec when it comes to public police. It's like a variation of a Napoleon Complex or something

Heck, all of us have run into idiots in uniform (police or security or whatever), even those of us who work for other public agencies. You don't broad brush everyone as bad because of it, because the truth is most of us are just working stiff trying to make another day...

...Especially when you should know better. People are unfair to private security, not because most people in private security are bad, but because THEY had some bad PERSONAL experiences with a S/O or 2, which is dumb. For private security to turn around and look down on Public Law Enforcement is the worst kind of hypocrisy no matter what a cop did to you in the past.

BTW, I never got my question answered. What do the deaths of the last to private security professionals have to do with the police to begin with, and why did SecTrainer think it necessary to go of on that particular tangent?

[SecTrainer]

Ok, so I lied, THIS is my last post in this thread LOL.

But you know I'm with you. I just can't imagine the shear amount of bitterness, resentment and even hate that drives some people like Marchetti, Talon and Sec when it comes to public police. It's like a variation of a Napoleon Complex or something

Heck, all of us have run into idiots in uniform (police or security or whatever), even those of us who work for other public agencies. You don't broad brush everyone as bad because of it, because the truth is most of us are just working stiff trying to make another day...

...Especially when you should know better. People are unfair to private security, not because most people in private security are bad, but because THEY had some bad PERSONAL experiences with a S/O or 2, which is dumb. For private security to turn around and look down on Public Law Enforcement is the worst kind of hypocrisy no matter what a cop did to you in the past.

BTW, I never got my question answered. What do the deaths of the last to private security professionals have to do with the police to begin with, and why did SecTrainer think it necessary to go of on that particular tangent?

If you had simply asked questions, BC, they would have been answered. Instead, you went off on a rant about how I "hate the police", which could not be further from the truth. I simply entertain none of your fantasies about them, just as I don't buy into "popular mythology" about doctors, lawyers, ministers, priests, rabbis, politicians or tax accountants, either.

Obviously, I felt that the topic in question was relevant in some way. Just because you can't see the relevance doesn't make it irrelevant. In this case, I was pointing out that the public and the press should be more concerned than they are when security officers, who provide most of the real "protection" in society, are killed in the line of duty. This position regarding who protects what can be supported in many ways, incidentally, and really isn't a matter for argument. If you were to learn something about the field, you would discover this cold, hard fact almost immediately.

Now, any time that you would care to respond to one of my posts without complaining that it challenges your attention span, and without jumping to conclusions about what my attitudes are, without resorting to juvenile tactics such as the tiresome reference to "France", and without assuming that you know everything when in fact you appear to know very little, I'll be happy to bring you up to speed on anything in any of my posts that you find confusing.

[talon]

I would never try to hurt anyones feelings on purpose I just want to tell the truth about it.

The problem alot of times is that you take a young kid and give him power over others, you tell him that he is better, you tell him he is all knowing and not to be questioned and you pay them more than they would ever be worth in the private sector...do that for 20 years and at the end of the day you have a self aggrandizing know it all that believes what they say is gospel.

As for "glory", what I was speaking of is that as a Public Police Officer you can sit around and tell tales of daring do and the public buys it because they have been brainwashed. However, a Security Officer can face the same dangers and it is not treated as the same, as though danger can somehow differentiate between public and private.

[tlangsr]

I would never try to hurt anyones feelings on purpose I just want to tell the truth about it.

The problem alot of times is that you take a young kid and give him power over others, you tell him that he is better, you tell him he is all knowing and not to be questioned and you pay them more than they would ever be worth in the private sector...do that for 20 years and at the end of the day you have a self aggrandizing know it all that believes what they say is gospel.

As for "glory", what I was speaking of is that as a Public Police Officer you can sit around and tell tales of daring do and the public buys it because they have been brainwashed. However, a Security Officer can face the same dangers and it is not treated as the same, as though danger can somehow differentiate between public and private.

Get over yourself, I know many Police officers non of them are how you are describing them.

[Black Caesar]

If you had simply asked questions, BC, they would have been answered. Instead, you went off on a rant about how I "hate the police", which could not be further from the truth. I simply entertain none of your fantasies about them, just as I don't buy into "popular mythology" about doctors, lawyers, ministers, priests, rabbis, politicians or tax accountants, either.

BS. I've yet to see you post a dissertation length diatribe about doctors, lawyers, ministers, priests, rabbis, politicians or tax accountants. Everyone else here can see what a hard on you have against public police. All you have to do is look at your post history, which I'm more than willing to post excerpts of.

Any intelligent person can understand that if you communicate an negative tone over and over and over again, people will assume that the poster has a negative view of the topic. What do you think Marchetti's view of police was, and why do you think we all think it's negative?

Because everything he had to say about the police was almost universally negative. Your's is only slightly less so.



Obviously, I felt that the topic in question was relevant in some way. Just because you can't see the relevance doesn't make it irrelevant.

So you're saying that you can't understand why starting a totally tangential and overly whiny "why don't they like us as much as they should" rant about something you think is "unfair" in a post dedicated to the tragic death of a professional in this industry is relevant?

That you can't grasp the idea that every pet peeve of yours is not a national security issue for the rest of us speaks volumes. Everyone else here (as has been demonstrated) understands why public servants get more attention in the papers.

I have to deal with similar whining from new recruits because "we don't get as much respect as city cops" (how many times do you see articles about Campus cops versus city cops?). Well (and this goes for you the same as it does any recruit I train), If you want that "glory", go be a city cop. A true professional needs no recognition, we do the job, a job people look down on, because it needs to be done, not because we are attention seeking prima donnas with ego issues. Atleast, most of us aren't....



In this case, I was pointing out that the public and the press should be more concerned than they are when security officers, who provide most of the real "protection" in society, are killed in the line of duty. This position regarding who protects what can be supported in many ways, incidentally, and really isn't a matter for argument. If you were to learn something about the field, you would discover this cold, hard fact almost immediately.

If you would learn some humility (the same humility you say is lacking in police), we'd never have a problem, you and I.

What you said above is no different from what Marchettis was saying with the whole "we're older, LE is our little brother ect ect" claptrap.

The fact is that the bulk of your vaunted "Private Police Industry" consists of mainly untrained, underpaid and in some cases even unqualified (or should be disqualified because of various instabilities, just look at BoxerGuard) persons, who still, miraculously get the job done despite your own industry's every attempt to hold them back. You'd do better leaving off the police rants and worrying about your own house.




Now, any time that you would care to respond to one of my posts without complaining that it challenges your attention span, and without jumping to conclusions about what my attitudes are, without resorting to juvenile tactics such as the tiresome reference to "France", and without assuming that you know everything when in fact you appear to know very little, I'll be happy to bring you up to speed on anything in any of my posts that you find confusing.

No one has to jump to any conclusions, anyone who can read English and can tell what your attitude is. There is no confusion, as I'm not the only one here who has called you on your negative attitude.

As time went by, you seemed to be moderating your views as oppsoed to when you 1st came here, which was good. But you proved to be the same old Zealot that you were then.

I'm just not getting it, what happened to you to cause the kind of resentment that would have you constantly in rant mode against police...And remember, your post history is here for everyone to see. As I said to Marchetti, I know actually crooks who don't talk about police as much as yo do.

~~~~

Which brings me to a point I've wanted to stress here for a while, but haven't had the chance too.

If you want your industry to come out for the shadow of law enforcement, to stop being seen as wannabes and jealous ego trippers, to stop being seen as LE's bigger, older but lesser known and slightly retarded brother how about you stop talking about LE in every other post.

I'm serious. Dead serious. I'm willing to bet money (seriously) SecTrainer that a good 1/3rd of your posts mention police somewhere in them. And you aren't alone by far.

Look at the General Discussions board on this the SecurityInfoWatch site. 14 or so out of 20 threads in there mention public police atleast 3 times over the life of that discussion. 2 of them actually contain the word "police" in their titles. If you don't read closely, sometimes you'd think this was a police website lol.

Go to any police website, and count the number of times you see a reference to any private security industry worker or job description. Go ahead, I'll wait. But you know what the results wold be. It's like the security industry is Canada (bigger, but less powerful) and the police are the hated United States (smaller, but everyone knows them).

You don't need to define your industry against the police you know.....

[SecTrainer]

BC, I'm sorry that you so thoroughly misunderstand my posts, and that it is so apparent that you do not really take the time to read them. Drawing distinctions (or observing similarities) between the two domains cannot in any way be interpreted as "defining one in terms of the other". If you've read many other of my posts, I have said repeatedly that the domain of security is a distinct entity unto itself. Just as humans and gorillas are distinct species, it is still possible to compare and contrast their similarities and differences without "defining one in terms of the other".

However, I accept full responsibility for my apparent failure to make my meaning sufficiently plain. Perhaps it's this electronic medium, or perhaps I just don't write well. Either way, the fault, I am sure, is at least partly mine.

On your part, I think you've adopted a prejudicial attitude toward my posts as well which is interfering with your ability (or perhaps your willingness) to read and understand them. Not a few of your replies have betrayed this "disconnect" between what I said and what you understood me to say.

Given this dynamic, it seems unlikely that we will ever understand one another unless we both make a better effort to communicate and to understand one another. I am certainly willing to make the effort.

[Mr. Security]

......
I'm serious. Dead serious. I'm willing to bet money (seriously) SecTrainer that a good 1/3rd of your posts mention police somewhere in them. And you aren't alone by far.

Look at the General Discussions board on this the SecurityInfoWatch site. 14 or so out of 20 threads in there mention public police atleast 3 times over the life of that discussion. 2 of them actually contain the word "police" in their titles. If you don't read closely, sometimes you'd think this was a police website lol.

Go to any police website, and count the number of times you see a reference to any private security industry worker or job description. Go ahead, I'll wait. But you know what the results wold be. It's like the security industry is Canada (bigger, but less powerful) and the police are the hated United States (smaller, but everyone knows them).

You don't need to define your industry against the police you know.....

So what? :confused: There are similarities between the two professions and some members are retired LE officers. That doesn't indicate anything to me.

[Black Caesar]

So what? :confused: There are similarities between the two professions and some members are retired LE officers. That doesn't indicate anything to me.


Many people in LE started in private security as well, but you don't see them harping on the private industry on their forums.

What makes it bad is it MAKES "us" (meaning those of us who are private security, or who aren't what people traditionally call police, like me) look like wannabes because we're talking about them all the time, and THEN some of us turn around and (in whiny fashion) and say "but cops aren't all that..

Hell, cops must be "all that" because we here are talking about them all the time.

Yes, there are similarities, Like in the example I used about Canada and the US (both are countries lol).
But when you see one side so focused on the other, it makes that side seem like it's jealous.


I see it everyday on my job, we've got some young Campus Police Officers who have never done anything else, and they are always talking about some city PD or another, and about how they think things should be done, and it's irritating. WE ARE POLICE, we don't need to bow and scrape to Dallas PD (though we need to respect them, they are our "Cavalry"), nor do we need to get upset when some of them don't treat us as equals..

The State of Texas says we're police, so we know it, the state knows it, and God knows it, and thats all who needs to.

I don't know if I'm explaining it well, but for the private industry to "come into it's own", people in the private industry need to stop worrying about what the police, or the public think about them and just do the job that needs doing, with humility tempering our pride.

[Mr. Security]

Many people in LE started in private security as well, but you don't see them harping on the private industry on their forums.

What makes it bad is it MAKES "us" (meaning those of us who are private security, or who aren't what people traditionally call police, like me) look like wannabes because we're talking about them all the time, and THEN some of us turn around and (in whiny fashion) and say "but cops aren't all that..

Hell, cops must be "all that" because we here are talking about them all the time.

Yes, there are similarities, Like in the example I used about Canada and the US (both are countries lol).
But when you see one side so focused on the other, it makes that side seem like it's jealous. I see it everyday on my job, we've got some young Campus Police Officers who have never done anything else, and they are always talking about some city PD or another, and about how they think things should be done, and it's irritating. WE ARE POLICE, we don't need to bow and scrape to Dallas PD (though we need to respect them, they are our "Cavalry"), nor do we need to get upset when some of them don't treat us as equals..

The State of Texas says we're police, so we know it, the state knows it, and God knows it, and thats all who needs to.

I don't know if I'm explaining it well, but for the private industry to "come into it's own", people in the private industry need to stop worrying about what the police, or the public think about them and just do the job that needs doing, with humility tempering our pride.

That's true. One reason for talking about the police is because we call them for help, not the other way around. That means that we need to interact with them more than they do with us.

Sometimes you see the same comments when patrol officers deal with detectives, IA, or the fed's. I think the real problem is when an individual member harps on the police all the time. Then I agree, there's a problem.

[tlangsr]

This subject can go on and on, the simple fact of the matter is that evrything in life has to start some where. In order to get respect you must give it. In order for the client to trust you you must earn their trust, in order for the public to trust you you must earntheir trust. In order for the police to trust and respect us we need to earn their trust and we must show them respect. Any negative comment on the Police, such as many of marchettis comments, can make us look like we are idiots and can take away some of the trust and respect we have earned.