Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Man Suing Walmart For $5 Million After Being Wrongly Arrested And Tased

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Soper
    replied
    [QUOTE=ContractSec Level III;14608. Private cops are a lot more ethical than public cops working for a private employer, yet the latter is legal in most states whilet the former is illegal.[/QUOTE]

    Where do you get this stupidity from?

    Leave a comment:


  • ContractSec Level III
    replied
    i am against using off duty officers for any security capacity. their equipment, training, and uniforms were all provided by the city. yet they will work for a private entity. furthermore, who are they accountable to? They swore to protect, the citizens of the city, yet will only protect the interests f the private entity. there are also a lot of use of force issues like in this article. This could open up a whole lot of liability. there are no good reasons for having off duty officers. if a company requires a police presence, they should just be able to get SPOs. they are solely employed by the private company, so they will only be needed to protect the companys property and personnel. Private cops are a lot more ethical than public cops working for a private employer, yet the latter is legal in most states whilet the former is illegal. this is backwards thinking

    Leave a comment:


  • capurato
    replied
    I worked at a mall that had a police retail theft unit (plain clothes state police). The entire mall anchors, mall security and the police were on the same channel. The cops would stop people all the time based off suspicion from a few retailers. In one year, they processed 3091 theft subjects (credit card, shoplifting etc) and broke up a few multi state rings.

    When the state police worked directly for us, bad news. When they worked the RTU, they were ok.

    Instead of hiring two off duty Leo PT hours for holiday, we hired ten FT hourly door guards at $10/hr.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soper
    replied
    Curtis,

    As I posted earlier, you are correct. LE will ALWAYS default to being LE. The issues that causes have been discussed. ODO's for LP and basic security work are a bad idea, especially if allowed to do it in their agency uniform. It sends too many wrong signals and taxpayers should be upset.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    Originally posted by zm88 View Post
    Certain elements are either involved or absent during cases like these. You either missed a step, or there was a explanation that you just didnt catch. I see the use of LE as loss prevention not exactly a great thing, as we have different protocols to follow than PD. Store having a detail officer, not a problem. Store using an independent contractor of police officers for security related issues, thats when you statt seeing incidents like this.
    I will add, the use of off-duty LE for retail security positions is just a bad idea. I've been on both sides of the coin. When in LE O worked both plain clothes and in uniform for a few different retailers and as a Director, hired both plain clothes and uniformed LE to perform retail security duties. It just does not work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    Originally posted by Wild Dog View Post
    All I'm saying is that we get second guessed by the media, lawyers, police, public, that we shouldn't be jumping on each other's case but defending each from those on the outside.
    Even if the security officer is totaly wrong? And...we are talking about the article, not your coming to another posters defense. Don't try to confuse the issue here.

    Leave a comment:


  • zm88
    replied
    Certain elements are either involved or absent during cases like these. You either missed a step, or there was a explanation that you just didnt catch. I see the use of LE as loss prevention not exactly a great thing, as we have different protocols to follow than PD. Store having a detail officer, not a problem. Store using an independent contractor of police officers for security related issues, thats when you statt seeing incidents like this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wild Dog
    replied
    Originally posted by Curtis Baillie View Post
    OK, let's, just for arguments sake, say the article is what happened. If the security officer was in the wrong, do you mean you would support him, even if he is completely wrong?

    You have, in the past, posted some venomous stuff here on the forums. You even admitted to "drunk posting" and you disappeared for awhile. Then you posted this and I had to close the thread as I'm convinced you posted as you are only fishing for arguments. I gave you a warning - keep it up and you will be gone for good.
    All I'm saying is that we get second guessed by the media, lawyers, police, public, that we shouldn't be jumping on each other's case but defending each from those on the outside.

    Leave a comment:


  • zm88
    replied
    I wont go into specifics, but im very comfortable with our policy regarding it. I would love to see the CCTV as well as incident report from this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    There are many retailers who have their LP departments work credit card cases.

    Leave a comment:


  • zm88
    replied
    Its a stolen card case (allegedly), and a very murky area to be involved with on our end. There are so many factors amd probable explanations for someone else using another persons card, I wouldn't touch it. I don't doubt that the customers behavior amounted to disorderly as I'd be pretty pissed myself if I was accuses or denied service because of an allegation. Still shouldn't have happened in the firat place IMO.

    What I dont get is if they had a question about the card, why not ask for ID?

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    Originally posted by Wild Dog View Post
    Wow...an officer makes a judgement call in the heat of the moment and everybody's MMQB him. I thought we were supposed to have each other's back. I am so disappointed.
    OK, let's, just for arguments sake, say the article is what happened. If the security officer was in the wrong, do you mean you would support him, even if he is completely wrong?

    You have, in the past, posted some venomous stuff here on the forums. You even admitted to "drunk posting" and you disappeared for awhile. Then you posted this and I had to close the thread as I'm convinced you posted as you are only fishing for arguments. I gave you a warning - keep it up and you will be gone for good.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Anyone who's been involved in an incident that subsequently got reported in the news media will know how distorted the truth can be - not only because all the parties interviewed try to put the best face on their own actions, but also because a lot of reporters have their own biases that come out in the way they write the story.

    So if you take everything that people in this story said about what they said and did with a grain of salt, there's still one part of the story that makes me think it's a good bet that the store AND the company that the officer worked for will be paying some money - the statement by the store that essentially "disowns" the officer (not our employee!) and then there's this, which is even more telling:

    "We regret that the situation....escalated."

    I don't have much doubt that the "victim" here probably was a lot more obnoxious and/or aggressive, uncooperative etc. than his own account of his actions would have us believe, but when businesses start issuing "apologies" and "regrets", etc., you can say "Ka-ching!"

    Incidentally, on the other point raised in this thread: Yes, there are lots of potential problems with using off-duty police officers in the private space - both legal and practical problems, to say nothing of the typically higher cost. And often, there really aren't enough advantages to offset the disadvantages. I've posted several times about this before.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-27-2014, 09:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zm88
    replied
    In the LP niche that a few of us work, we often have to make that call in the heat of the moment. Failiure to follow policy, or taking somebody when you're not sure they actually have something reaults in a bad stop and ultimately a very nice payout.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wild Dog
    replied
    Wow...an officer makes a judgement call in the heat of the moment and everybody's MMQB him. I thought we were supposed to have each other's back. I am so disappointed.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X