Badges, Shields & Stars

[N. A. Corbier]

Its not about "benefiting the industry," though. Its about "protecting the public from the dangers of wannabe cops." This is the same reason that many states either prohibit anyone from using the state seal, or specifically prohibit security companies from doing so. (The plumber can, but you can't.)

I have read case law where "investigators" from the regulating agencies in the state have stated, "wannabe cop issues are rampant in the industry, and must be stamped out through aggressive enforcement."

One of our members, who was banned for making repeated personal attacks against other users, is a contract security guard with federal arrest powers due to his client being the United States Army. As part of his duties as a reserve police officer with LAPD, he "enjoyed" writing citations for individual guards displaying oval badges (some city ordinance violation) after he was called to deal with the guard's legitimate police problem.

That's right, folks, the police can be more interested in "protecting the public from security guards" than answering a criminal complaint, merely because it was from a security guard.

The guy who was all, "I'll make sure it goes to the proper authorities" is most likely an active police officer, a freshly retired police officer who thinks he's on the job, or more likely, a reservist or special police officer.

Many times, the loudest guys are the ones who are security guards with contract arrest authority. If the DoD sticks "Police" in your title, you're automatically a brother in blue. If they stick anything else, you're an f-ing security guard that stole a real cop's job.

[SecTrainer]

I agree with much of what you say, Mr. Corbier.

Actually, the issue of "wannabe cops" presents more of a problem to our own industry than it does to the cops, IMHO, because we ourselves don't need such people. What if dental schools accepted people who really wished they could have been podiatrists and who then, after graduation, fiddled with their patient's feet while they're in the dentist's chair? That would be strange, wouldn't it? We would think that dental schools weren't doing a very good job of selecting applicants for the profession of dentistry, wouldn't we? Well, it's no different from selecting people for the field of security who wish they were cops and who then fiddle around with "cop duties" while they should be performing their security missions.

As a distinct (and, may I say, proud) discipline all its own, the security industry should be attracting people who want to be security professionals, and who understand that the security professional is not by any means the same thing as a cop. While there is some overlap with our cousin domain, for the most part both the bodies of knowledge (BOK) and the skill sets required for the practitioners in the private protection domain are very different from those required in the public domain - which is the main reason that cops do not necessarily (or automatically) make good security people. There may be as many cops who would be utter failures in security as there are the other way around...these are *different professions*.

It isn't, then, really a matter at heart of whether a seal is used on a badge or a patrol car...or whether the car is painted black and white. These regulations have often been necessary because of a more basic problem, namely that many in our own industry feel inferior to the police. Believing that the security profession is really "junior policing" - instead of being its own distinct and complex discipline - they have wanted to look more like "the grownups". Some, perhaps, have never really been clear about what being a security officer is really all about.

In many ways, the domain of policing is, indeed, more "grownup" and better respected by the public than the domain of security, but the answer to this problem is not to be found in trying to simply "look like police", which amounts to putting lipstick on the pig. Borrowing from Shakespeare: "The answer is not in the stars (on our shields), dear Brutus...it is in ourselves."

We can, however, take a page from police history. It was not but a few decades ago that policing was NOT considered a profession. The field was riddled with corruption and mismanagement, salaries were abysmal (and actually still are in some parts of the country), standards for hiring and training were lacking in all but the larger departments, and oversight was a joke. Policing was in some cases a refuge for misfits and you could find felons working as police officers just as you can now in security. The public perception of police officers was very low, and mothers weren't hoping their kids would grow up to be cops.

It took the Omnibus Crime Act, passed in response to zooming crime rates, to turn things around and I won't go into that history, which you can discover for yourselves. Suffice it to say that the development of standards, together with the funding made available for the LEEP program and for better academies, along with the creation of degree programs in universities, have all turned things around in the public domain. We can do the same in ours.

But...we face one huge hurdle that the public domain did not have to deal with, which is that we as an industry have exquisitely trained our clients to think almost exclusively in terms of the lowest bid as the only legitimate differentiator among security providers. This has resulted in a mad "race to the bottom" in which the drive to submit lower and lower bids has fallen mainly on the shoulders of the individual officer, who cannot be paid to be a professional - meaning: carefully selected, trained as such and properly equipped. I am not sure what it will take to change this culture of the price-based (commoditizing) business model, but if we all *want* to change it - and it is in all of our best interests to do so - I believe it can be done and *must* be done because we are not the only losers with such a model...our clients lose as well, only we make sure they don't know it. In some cases, clients are actually paying for increased liability and increased INsecurity because of the low-bidder system and the resulting crap they get for security officers as a result (please pardon my language, but no other word seemed to fit).

Who can doubt that the so-called "standards" for security agencies and officers that have been passed by the various states are ridiculous? And who can doubt that the very existence of such "standards" tends to suck the oxygen out of any efforts to pass REAL standards? The problem is that among the political forces who wish to maintain the status quo, the loudest are the security companies - especially the larger ones - themselves, and clients don't know they're being cheated, so the impetus for change must come from elsewhere. "Elsewhere", IMHO, can only be the creation of high standards at the state level as the federal government does not consider it proper to meddle in state control of the industry (or most other professions, either, for that matter). The only other source of change would be a professional organization such as ASIS, but ASIS is unfortunately held hostage to the "interests" of security companies.

It is time, perhaps, that individual officers formed a PAC that would demand that the states initiate higher standards, realizing that this would not (as those with a corrupt interest in lower standards claim) result in a net loss of jobs, but would instead transform the industry and improve the compensation and other working conditions for officers, just as it did for police officers. Remember, exactly the same cry of complaint (higher standards==>higher wages==>fewer officers) was raised by police departments when they were first forced to accept higher standards, and we all know what happened instead. Public trust rose, and as it did so the public (the police "clients") proved willing to pay for more officers because they felt they were getting what they were paying for. The changes in policing were also well publicized so that the public understood that safety cannot always be purchased on the cheap. I think it is inarguable that everyone - both the police and their "clients" - have benefited from the transformation and I see no reason that the same would not happen in our domain as well. If security companies are too short-sighted to see this themselves and transform themselves, they will have to have transformation thrust upon them externally.

[T202]

One of our members, who was banned for making repeated personal attacks against other users, is a contract security guard with federal arrest powers due to his client being the United States Army. As part of his duties as a reserve police officer with LAPD, he "enjoyed" writing citations for individual guards displaying oval badges (some city ordinance violation) after he was called to deal with the guard's legitimate police problem.

That's right, folks, the police can be more interested in "protecting the public from security guards" than answering a criminal complaint, merely because it was from a security guard.

I believe that our ex-member's actions are the exception not the rule. I could have cared less what shape a security officers badge was.

[Mr. Security]

I believe that our ex-member's actions are the exception not the rule. I could have cared less what shape a security officers badge was.

Ditto with the local cops over here too. As long as you aren't trying to act like a cop, they have bigger fish to fry. Now, at the state level.....hope I never have to find out.

[Lawson]

Ive only met one officer in our state who may have a distaste for security officers. He was telling a story about a night when he went on a traffic stop and the guy he was trying to stop pulled over in the parking lot of a bar. So naturally everyone is heckling and yelling at him, and eventually a fight ensues and he isn't winning, he ends up saying, "eventually someone from ------ ------- Security stopped by, you know; one of those wanna-be's; and helped me out."

I was dumbfounded... you're in a losing battle, and a Security Officer helps you out and we're still "Wannabe's?" Kiss my ***.

[N. A. Corbier]

Would of been morbidly funny if the security person stopped, observed, reported, and left.

"Hey! You f-ing guard! Help me!"

"I can't, Officer, state law says that I can only observe and report, and not even you can override that."

[N. A. Corbier]

I believe that our ex-member's actions are the exception not the rule. I could have cared less what shape a security officers badge was.

It depends on the agency and the individual, honestly. I have seen deputies arrest a poor guy for driving a white/green security vehicle, in violation of Chapter 30, Florida Statutes. No one has even HEARD of Chapter 30 (Regulation of Sheriffs), yet these guys popped this poor guy for it.

Even better? The deputies who were "patrolling" the mall used to have the account, and when the mall changed hands... They were dumped for the management company's inhouse guards.

I don't think its so much an exception as a personal problem with the LEO in question. They have a chip on their shoulder against a segment of violators, and look to go after them aggressively during every contact. In this case, its security personnel.

[tlangsr]

I wear a "wash and wear" badge now, but when I was wearing one it was the wackenhut badge and while transporting I wore a 6 Pointed star.

[SecureTN]

Bad pic... Sorry for that. It says Correctional Officer across the top, Department Of Correction across the bottom, and has the TN State Seal in the middle.

[Qarlo X64]

The above is a picture of the "standard" baseball cap style patrol hat with the generic S/O badge on it that is the same as our duty badges, however the badge on the hat isn't from the company. I had to go out and buy my own cover + security officer badge to put on it. Most are only required to wear a black hat or beanie that state's "Security" in white letters, but I figured since the badge is the exact same one the PSC I work for uses on the uniform, might as well have it on the patrol hat. A lot of companies I've seen as of late have gone to either this template or another 3 different ones that are purely generic and universal, versus regular badges. *Apparently there is this horror story going around about how some LEO or PSO (don't remember which now) got his eye pierced with the sharp point of his badge, when an assailant ripped it from his uniform, so now due to liability issues, a number of companies are using these washable types. Personally I prefer the regular badges.

[UtahProtectionForce]

they are starting to do that here in utah 90 % of LEOs wear non metalic-sown in names and badges, many security companies out here have switched to that in the 2 years... same sort of thing.. .rumor of how bad guys are learning to rip the badges off uniforms and use them as weps.. about 75% of security companies out here now use the sown in type of uniform...

oh btw my current company uses generic style badges..

[SecTrainer]

"Pin-on" badges can get lost more easily, too.

Plus, there's this little thing about presenting a handy reflective target right above the heart and above the forehead - the two worst places to put targets, eh? I remember when one police department (in Australia? I don't remember) went to wearing badges on the right side after a shooting incident where the perp said he aimed at the badge, and there are real old photos floating around showing that the badge used to be worn in olden days on the right instead of the left.