"We don't have any real great desire to be in the patrol business. Imagine this - you're in Detroit, you get an alarm at 10 p.m., 11:30 at night. I've got to send a guard, most are unarmed, and they've got to go into somebody's backyard in the middle of the night? There are liabilities. We're not trained like a police officer."
-- David Goldstein, president of Guardian Alarm Co., discussing the challenges of verifying burglar alarms
So, my question to you guys (and gals) is whether you would want to do this kind of work, where it's a random patrol check at a most likely false residential alarm?
Personally, I'd want a bulletproof vest before checking an alarm late at night at some home where the owner might/might not be home, might/might not be a proud NRA member, might/might not have missed the message that the alarm firm is sending you.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 31
08-26-2011, 01:13 PM #1Administrator
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
How comfortable are you with this?
08-26-2011, 05:27 PM #2Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Vancouver, BC
I definitely get your point. On the other hand though, if the company or the staff won't provide a satisfactory service that the client is paying for, then the company should not offer that service, and the employee should not be employed in that service.
08-26-2011, 05:32 PM #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
Personally, I believe that alarm companies should staff and field their own specially trained and equipped alarm response teams; alarm response calls are a nightmare looking for a victim to happen to - YOU. Farming the physical response out to other security companies is, in my never-humble opinion, irresponsible and dangerous to the SOs involved.
There are a million ways an alarm call can go south on the responding officer(s); I hated 'em as an armed and armored deputy; wouldn't consider doing them as an unarmed SO.
I have a wife; we all know that barring an unforeseen accident or illness, she'll someday be a widow. There's no reason to rush the process needlessly - and foreseeably."I'll defend with my life your right to disagree with me" - anonymous
08-26-2011, 06:00 PM #4
If the guards he hires or contracts for are inadequately equipped or trained; that is a problem with his business/contract. It is a not a problem with the new law. I imagine his real concern is customers dropping service altogether, rather that paying the necessarily higher contract fees. While alarm response is not my preferred niche, if I were out of work and a responders job was listed I would be perfectly comfortable applying for and accepting it. I am not comfortable with how prevalent Mr. Goldstein’s and Mr. Belisle's attitude is in our industry.
In my opinion alarm verification is a lot like the bounty hunter debate we are having in another thread. It is a way to lesson another way to lessen the burden on the tax payers.
That said, I think that Detroit has gone too far by insisting on verified response only. I think a fine system would have been a lot more reasonable, and it would generate revenue.
Dealing with homeowners is another training issue, but honestly the police do not even have it down yet*. However, if we had more proud NRA members we would probably have less need to hire a vendor for alarm verification.
*This is why “not getting shot by the police” is an important part of any defensive firearms curriculum.
Last edited by Mr. Chaple; 08-26-2011 at 06:03 PM."A good deed’s like pissing yourself in dark pants. Warm feeling but no one notices." - Jacob Taylor
08-26-2011, 06:34 PM #5
Does it happen often in the US where uniformed security are shot in the backyards of NRA members?
Here in Montreal we no longer have armed security that respond to alarms. All our people are unarmed. I have never heard of one being shot by either the home owner or criminal.I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
08-26-2011, 06:50 PM #6Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Los Angeles, CA.
article you linked said "98 % of the burglar alarms that police respond to are false alarms" (in Detroit)
They simply say, "We are too busy. Let alarm company go check it first. if civilian S/O need our help then we go"
because 98% are false alarm.
if "98% alarm are false" is true, civilian S/O will be very safe at 98% of time.
What about 2% ?
when S/O find out "Oh sh-t ! I got to call police", where LEO will be ?
it's like recon mission without guaranty of tank support.
Problem is "98% of alarm is false".
City of LA, Beverly Hills and more cities charge fee to resident if LEO respond to false alarm.
(no charge if real crime situation)
I don't know much about alarm industry but I think many of alarm company in LA change to two way communication system.
if alarm go-off, company call resident and ask password, if resident claim as "Kids opened back door" "Dog jumped to alarm sensor" they don't go.
if nobody answer or wrong password, officer go but I see many of them are armed and inner vest in amber light bar.
I wouldn't go if I were them if I have no weapon, no vest.
I will stand behind LEO, I will park my amber light behind of red-blue.
My main business is Limo business (as my handle shows)
I don't go anywhere without vest when I'm armed (even Beverly Hills and Bel Air)
I concern my own safety.
08-26-2011, 09:42 PM #7Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Back in mobile I did this all the time, then again we aren't allowed to be armed in Canada, never had an issue though.
08-26-2011, 10:43 PM #8
08-27-2011, 12:15 AM #9Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
I did this kind of work before as part of my duties as a patrol officer for a security company. It is bad news when not done right.
Two officers should be dispatched and they should be be armed. I went alone and wasn't armed.
A local company called GSSC seems to do things right. We have a bank at one of our sites and when the alarm goes off, two armed security officers show up.
08-27-2011, 12:18 AM #10Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
My personal opinion about risk-management purely by statistics is that the statistics are meaningless when there's rounds cracking past your head.
Many, if not most, of us know at least one or two people who fell into the statistical cracks; I know one guy who's been struck by lightning four different times - and survived. Another who had been shot three times and stabbed once, on the job - all within his first six months after graduation from LA Fire Dept Academy. I myself have been shot several times - twice in hunting accidents, a year apart... by the same guy (yep; the first time was his fault, for over-swinging; the second time was my fault, for going hunting with him again!)
Statistics ain't worth s***, when someone's life is on the line. It's the ramifications of a possible incident that we've gotta cogitate, when we're considering assigning someone else to potentially step into the line of fire.
Again: good point, Limo!
Oh, PS: the LA firefighter was shot the first time while extinguishing a rubbish fire in a backyard of a single-family residence; the resident, who reported the fire, saw all the commotion (like, a Big Shiny Red Fire Engine with lights flashing parked in his alley, and four guys in bright yellow turnout gear with reflective striping all over it...) in his back yard, grabbed his Iver Johnson .32 revolver, and shot through his the screen door into the yard. The bullet missed Ron's spine by about an inch, at about T-3 level. Point is, this was an alarm response by any possible definition of the word, called in by the shooter, who simply panicked and opened fire. He was old, and legally drunk at the time...
Last edited by 5423; 08-27-2011 at 10:53 AM."I'll defend with my life your right to disagree with me" - anonymous