Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

750k Stun Baton = G or D?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • iwicgsr
    replied
    Uniformity

    The laws on these weapon scenarios vary greatly form state to state.
    In our state there is no conceal permit. It is just a standard carry permit.
    Obtainable through the county sheriff after you complete a BCA approved
    course, As for carry on the job in my company no one can unless he or she
    has had considerable training and experience in addition to that aforementioned permit. In my case, I worked two years as a armored
    car gaurd and ATM tech. before coming to my current position.

    The firearm training for AT systems and Loomis, at least in this town,
    was extensive, including all laws and statutes pertaining to use of
    deadly force. Also one must be state certified in asp, taser, hand cuffing, ect. to use or carry them.

    I wish more of these standards fell under federal authority for sake of
    uniformity.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    I've made a number of recommendations elsewhere regarding useful things that FOPSO could do. Certainly, taking a proactive stance with respect to police/security relations is one of them.

    FOPSO could begin by conducting a survey of Florida police departments asking certain questions pertinent to police/security relations:

    1. Does your department have a written policy expressing the desirability of developing and maintaining good professional relationships with the private security officers working in your jurisdiction?

    2. Does your department have a specific mechanism or means by which appropriate and relevant crime statistics and other analytical crime information and intelligence is shared with security agencies operating in your jurisdiction?

    3. Does your department participate in regular police/security meetings to discuss matters of common interest and concern, whether at the executive level or below? If so, how often does this group meet?

    4. Does your department participate with security agencies in joint exercises of any kind (e.g., disaster drills, training, etc.)?

    5. Has your department established a communications radio channel to be used for joint tactical purposes when needed by security agencies operating in your jurisdiction?

    6. Do your field officers receive any training in the principles, methods, objectives and the role of the security officer in protecting society?

    7. How do you believe security officers working in your jurisdiction would rate the cooperation and respect, or lack of same, that they receive from your officers? ____ Excellent ____ Good ____ Fair ____ Poor

    ...etc., etc. More questions can be derived from the reports of the IACP, DOJ, DHS/FEMA and others who have recommended ways for security and the police to partner, asking whether any of these are in place.

    FOPSO would then also create a survey for security officers in which they would rate specific police agencies on a number of cooperation issues.

    Upon receiving the responses (and you'll have to kick some of the recipients to get their response), FOPSO can publish a report entitled "Report to the Public On Police/Security Relations in the State of Florida Six Years Post 9/11". It shouldn't be hard to find a criminology prof or someone like that to help analyze the responses and produce a very substantial report. I'd say it'll probably be a hot little number that demonstrates that the police do very little to promote cooperation with private security, will compare the responses quite unfavorably with the IACP's own recommendations on this issue, and I'm sure it will get some press.

    And, I'd be willing to bet my shirt it will cool some jets where "bullying cops" are concerned, as well, because of course there will be anecdotes of "official abuse" and disrespect sprinkled throughout the report in "sidebar" sections that will probably open the eyes of some police executives.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-06-2007, 12:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    I had a police officer tell me once my uniform looked too much like theirs with duty gear. My reply was, "A reasonable person doesn't think so," and walked off.
    Bully for you!! (No pun intended)

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    We do.

    Now, one point of "technical law." FSS 493 authorizes a security officer or private investigator to be armed anywhere in the state if in performance of his duties. Which means that you can run to the car, get the rain coat, then put it on while showing the handle of the revolver and the ASP.

    I've had probationary officers on other forums in Florida ask me about PIs, 493, and Gun Free School Zones. Because a PI is in performance of his duties while going to a public school to get information for an investigation, a police officer cannot arrest him for carrying concealed, as his Class G license works anywhere Florida Law does.

    I have carried my revolver in uniform walking through the halls of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office while getting paperwork, and no one past the front desk deputy had a problem. His sergeant informed him that security guards can carry under 493, and he authorized my carry cause he didn't want to be responsible for keeping my gun.

    (Full Disclosure: I was a explorer at PCSO, which may of helped. I do not know if I was recognized or not. I also "look" like a police officer in uniform, i.e. I wear a uniform and duty gear correctly and do not look like a "guard" in one.)

    You are right, however, about these technical violations of law being enforced. 9 times out of 10, a police officer will harass a security officer on a technical violation of 790 or another law, even if 493 authorizes said weapon (firearms.)

    Other times, if a police officer can't tell from 25 feet you are a security guard, you are in for a ration of hell about how he could arrest you for impersonating. The really, really smart ones say they'll take your license for impersonating official authority (A 493 violation), etc.

    The reality, though, is that they never do this, because its a cheap charge and they only want to screw with someone lower on the uniform food chain. I had a police officer tell me once my uniform looked too much like theirs with duty gear. My reply was, "A reasonable person doesn't think so," and walked off.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by GCMC Security
    I'm just curious as to what you would sue him for?
    Oh, I'd leave that to my attorneys. It would depend on the circumstances and on whether there were a pattern of this sort of thing, but you can be sure there's a remedy at the bar for every form of abuse of authority. Any cop who believes he is protected from liability by making appeal to "the letter of the law" is a fool, as it would take a law school freshman less than 30 seconds to show that he does not, in fact, enforce the letter of the law (because it's impossible that he would) except in selected cases, and right there begins his problem.

    "..and so, Officer Jones, you acknowledge that you do not, in fact, enforce the 'letter of the law'. You look the other way when motorists make 'rolling stops' at stop signs or drive 5 miles over the speed limit or when a vendor places a display 6 inches too close to the curb. You overlook offenses committed by your "informants", and every day you drive right past vacant lots with weeds and debris that violate the city's ordinances, but suddenly, on the 18th of April, you decided to enforce the "letter of the law". In fact, Officer Jones, from other testimony here, we see that security officers seem to be the ONE class of citizens toward whom you have selectively adopted that quaint philosophy of law enforcement, is it not? In fact, Officer Jones, you are using the law as your own personal weapon in order to harass and bully this specific group of citizens in ways that you do not harass and bully others, are you not, sir?"

    "What's that? You deny the charges, sir? (Oh boy, he says under his breath, we've got him now.) Well, please describe for me the last time you peeked under a banker's raincoat to be sure he had no weapon. Never? How about a secretary? No? Nuclear physicist? No? College professor? No? Well, let's do this. Instead of running through the entire list of professions and receiving, I'm sure, negative responses to each one, tell us this: Just what WAS the last similar such arrest you made with respect to anyone wearing a raincoat other than a security officer? None? What about a maintenance worker, who wears tools on his belt that could easily be classified as "weapons" and who might desire not to be soaked in the rain and so decides to don his raincoat, thereby taking the awful risk that Officer Jones might happen his way and throw him in the pokey? What's that? You've never arrested a maintenance worker wearing a raincoat that covered all those sinister weapons on his belt? Criminy, you've missed some great opportunities by limiting your harassment to security officers, Officer Jones!"

    "Now, Officer Jones, what was the disposition of this arrest? Oh, it never made it to court? We'll not strain your legal knowledge to ask why you think that was the result."

    "...and finally, Officer Jones, are you aware of any other officers on the department who have arrested security officers for wearing raincoats that happened to temporarily cover a baton? No? May we suppose, then, that at the conclusion of this hearing you will be filing charges against your fellow officers for dereliction of their duty? No? What a pity...we might have rounded up all the security officers in the city."

    "Now, Officer Jones, I presume you've had training in the use of the baton? Good. Let's talk about what happens when a baton becomes wet...perhaps the word 'slippery' comes to your mind. As a tool of your trade, Officer Jones, and as someone with training in its use, is it your practice, for example, to spritz your own baton with water prior to its use, just to make sure it's good and slippery, or do you, in fact, make every effort to see that it remains dry and protected from the rain? Why is that, Officer Jones? Could it be that it becomes more dangerous, less controllable, and could even be taken away from you more easily when it's wet and slippery than when it's dry?"

    ...etc. Oh, lemme at this cop!

    You'd take it a lot further than this, of course, investigating Officer Jones back to his eye teeth in terms of his behavior long into his past. Bullies don't generally turn into bullies when they become cops (they become cops because they're bullies), and they generally don't limit their bullying to their official duties. There's a good chance you'd find that Officer Jones has some problems along those lines.

    Count on this: A cop knows very well when he's making a "bad faith arrest". He knows when he is bullying people by his "enforcement" of the law, as does the court, and as do the members of a jury. Selective enforcement is a fact of life in our legal system, and is even necessary to a degree. However, there are also forms of selective enforcement that are not tolerated in our society precisely because they do constitute abuse of authority.

    If I had to guess, and especially if this were a class action charging a pattern of harassment, I doubt the city would allow it to come to court. There would be some policy changes offered in return for a settlement, I think I can guarantee, and I'd take that over the mansion any day. Without any question, I favor good relations with LE, and it would be unfortunate if things came to the point of taking legal action...but some people leave you no options and "kow-towing" to a bully is never a strategy for good relations anyway. He'll only be back tomorrow to get the rest of your lunch money.

    Perhaps we've found something for FOPSO to do in Florida if we do, indeed, have this sort of problem on a systematic basis.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-05-2007, 04:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GCMC Security
    replied
    I'm just curious as to what you would sue him for?

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Echos13
    Florida is getting to be a pain concerning security sometimes. I think I understand why N.A. went north.
    "Florida", or some of the cops in Florida? There's a difference. Anyhoo, I've put the "case" to a criminal attorney in Florida. It will be interesting to see what he says.

    If you really look at the letter of the law closely, it's possible to construct some absolutely ridiculous scenarios, especially where security officers are concerned. (For instance, it suddenly starts pouring rain as it is likely to do in Florida, and your raincoat is in your car parked on the street. You have to run to your car, grab your coat and run back onto private property before you can put it on, so as not to "violate" the CCW law. OH, PUHLEEZE.) I'd look straight in that cop's eye and tell him to arrest me. Shortly thereafter, I'd start looking around for the nice home that I'll be buying with the proceeds from my lawsuit, and in fact, if there's a pattern of that sort of police harassment, I might even make it a class action case against the city. Think I'd have any trouble finding a lawyer to take a case like that? I'd have to beat them off with a stick (but not a concealed stick, of course!)...

    Cops do what they do to security officers because too many security officers and/or the companies they work for let them get away with it. Many times, the cop's action amounts to an individual abuse of authority by that officer that would NOT be approved by his department, and that's one thing that none of us should ever tolerate. There are places in this country where the SO is more afraid of the PO than he is of the criminals, and in places like that it's probably time to PUSH BACK.

    Leave a comment:


  • Echos13
    replied
    Florida is getting to be a pain concerning security sometimes. I think I understand why N.A. went north.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    FSS 790 makes it clear what a "concealed weapon" is, including a "billie" or "baton."

    FSS 790.001(3)(a) "Concealed weapon" means any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the weapon from the ordinary sight of another person.

    FSS 790.01(1) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person who carries a concealed weapon or electric weapon or device on or about his or her person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

    FSS 790.01(4) It is not a violation of this section for a person to carry for purposes of lawful self-defense, in a concealed manner:

    (a) A self-defense chemical spray.

    (b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.

    Any sworn officer of the state may arrest on sight any person carrying a concealed weapon.

    A sworn LEO is exempt from all provisions of 790 (Weapons) when in performance of duties.

    790.051 Exemption from licensing requirements; law enforcement officers.--Law enforcement officers are exempt from the licensing and penal provisions of this chapter when acting at any time within the scope or course of their official duties or when acting at any time in the line of or performance of duty.
    Yes, but I still wonder who's right? Had the officer arrested this security officer for wearing a raincoat that covered his ASP, rather than chewing him out, what would the disposition of the case have been? My guess is...thrown straight into the round file by the prosecutor absent some other material fact not in evidence here.

    It's not enough merely to quote the law. Behind the law, and forming a framework that strongly influences its interpretation and enforcement, is the legislative intent and I imagine the officer's interpretation would probably fail right there. To think otherwise (i.e., that the legislature contemplated this sort of result) defies imagination, IMHO. If I'm this cop's sergeant, he and I will be having a leetle discussion about professional judgment. It is never sufficient for police officers to know the "letter of the law"; they must also understand what the law means and intends. I know from bitter experience that when you get a cop on the force who enforces "the letter of the law", you need to lose him, pronto, unless you enjoy defending and losing lawsuits. The letter of the law ain't ALL there is to ANY law.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-05-2007, 12:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by GCMC Security
    So....cover your taser and oc, not your ASP or gun
    Makes perfect sense, doesn't it!

    Leave a comment:


  • GCMC Security
    replied
    So....cover your taser and oc, not your ASP or gun

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    FSS 790 makes it clear what a "concealed weapon" is, including a "billie" or "baton."

    FSS 790.001(3)(a) "Concealed weapon" means any dirk, metallic knuckles, slungshot, billie, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal the weapon from the ordinary sight of another person.

    FSS 790.01(1) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person who carries a concealed weapon or electric weapon or device on or about his or her person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

    FSS 790.01(4) It is not a violation of this section for a person to carry for purposes of lawful self-defense, in a concealed manner:

    (a) A self-defense chemical spray.

    (b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.

    Any sworn officer of the state may arrest on sight any person carrying a concealed weapon.

    A sworn LEO is exempt from all provisions of 790 (Weapons) when in performance of duties.

    790.051 Exemption from licensing requirements; law enforcement officers.--Law enforcement officers are exempt from the licensing and penal provisions of this chapter when acting at any time within the scope or course of their official duties or when acting at any time in the line of or performance of duty.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Electric weapons are covered under 790. Its legal to wear, a felony to conceal (that means putting a raincoat over it, just like your ASP), and 493 does not cover it. The D license is ONLY for providing security services, and the G license is ONLY for carrying a firearm exposed or concealed while providing security services.

    Anything else you carry is as a citizen, there are no laws against carrying the other equipment. Concealing a weapon except a firearm is illegal, however, because the G only authorizes a firearm, and the CCW specifically does not work on PI or security personnel. So, a concealed ASP is a crime.

    I watched a guy get a ration of hell for putting his rain coat over his ASP from a Tampa Police Officer. Police can conceal their weapons, security can't unless its a firearm, but only under specific temporary circumstances.

    DOACS has noted that if you are not trained with a weapon, and misuse it, you and your company are going to part with a lot of money.

    This is the same way that security companies may carry Tasers in Florida. Its not illegal to openly wear one, and DOACS has made no Admin rule or 493 statute against it. (Well, the legislature hasn't made a 493 statute against it.)

    HOWEVER, if you order an employee not to carry it, and they persist, they may be terminated for disobeying a direct order. 493 has a provision that says if you are not required by the site needs to carry a weapon, you may not. This language may specifically state firearm, however, I don't have 493 in front of me nor do I really want to go look it up.

    This is the "no armed guards on unarmed sites" rule.
    Interesting. I just talked with a contact on the Gainesville PD who said the Tampa PD officer was incorrect regarding the raincoat and the ASP. Wonder who's right?

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Bet you won't learn THAT in a D class. (Yet...)

    Leave a comment:


  • bigdog
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    I worked in Florida for 10+ years without ever knowing that if you touch someone unless in defense from physical harm, you are committing a crime (Misdemeanor.)

    I've also found out, amusingly, that there are a lot of places we have statutory detention authority. From members of this forum, in fact. Such as apartment complexes (licensed establishment, Griff will be along with the statute number supporting this), hotels, motels, anywhere that has an specific license... Common law arrest authority for breaches of the peace... Quite a few places in statute.

    Also, if you have a logo or patch on your uniform that says your company name and the words "Licensed Security Officer," you are covered under the "battery on a security officer" statute, making it an arrestable (detainable?) felony of the third or second degree to commit battery on you. I swear, I'm gonna start selling those things once I get the die fee, a nice version from Symbolarts or something that isn't so huge. It isn't the cost per item that's the problem, its the 150-300 dollar die fee.
    heres the staute that nathan is reffering to

    Note: the establishment MUST be licensed as a public lodging establishment or food service establishment under chapter 509.

    509.143 Disorderly conduct on the premises of an establishment; detention; arrest; immunity from liability.
    --


    (1) An operator may take a person into custody and detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time if the operator has probable cause to believe that the person was engaging in disorderly conduct in violation of s. 877.03 on the premises of the licensed establishment and that such conduct was creating a threat to the life or safety of the person or others. The operator shall call a law enforcement officer to the scene immediately after detaining a person under this subsection.

    (2) A law enforcement officer may arrest, either on or off the premises of the licensed establishment and without a warrant, any person the officer has probable cause to believe violated s. 877.03 on the premises of a licensed establishment and, in the course of such violation, created a threat to the life or safety of the person or others.

    (3) An operator or a law enforcement officer who detains a person under subsection (1) or makes an arrest under subsection (2) is not civilly or criminally liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention on the basis of any action taken in compliance with subsection (1) or subsection (2).

    (4) A person who resists the reasonable efforts of an operator or a law enforcement officer to detain or arrest that person in accordance with this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the person did not know or did not have reason to know that the person seeking to make such detention or arrest was the operator of the establishment or a law enforcement officer.
    Last edited by bigdog; 04-28-2007, 08:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X