Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Waiting for backup?

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

  • UCRSO
    replied
    Bravo!!! You did a great job and I am a true fan of following the chain of command. Keep up the good work.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    I would say you handled things well. It's particularly difficult to have to deal with a situation AND worry about your partner losing his head. For someone who supposedly worked in security for 13 years and had some of the experiences you passed along one would think (or hope) he was capable of handling the incident just as professionally.

    It makes one wonder how many of those other situations he speaks about he a) merely heard about from someone else, b) was really there and was in an assisting role versus leading the handling of the siutation, or c) an outright lying braggart? Two of the three could easily cause his partners to get hurt.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by kingsman
    His reaction was very confusing, because he had no problem getting in a rumble with the guy the previous night, and he has worked security for 13 years, as a bouncer in a bar and as a private guard for strippers. (at least thats what he said.)
    Lots of newbies I worked with speak about experience they either didn't really have or did have only in a limited environment where their partners defended them at every turn and bailed them out when they got into trouble. Some people end up doing the job for a long time, but that doesn't mean they're very good at it.

    Leave a comment:


  • dla4122
    replied
    sounds to me like you did an excellent job, took a potential volitile situation and de-escalated it, didn't waiver from orders issued by your Supervisor and kept your partner from wetting on himself, and got the individual to park where he was informed to. Good job.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    What was your plan if things went south?
    Ok. Looks like I'm not going to get an answer on this one. But I can tell you that if you didn't have a secure place to retreat to, then I'd be concerned like your coworker was.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Histfan71 is correct. He doesn't "have" to let you search. But you don't "have" to let him in. His choice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by kingsman
    Yes, he was hiding in the van.
    If the guy was hiding in the van, then it was OK for you to not let the van in.

    Originally posted by kingsman
    What right would I have to search the van? I am a security officer, not the police. I have no right to search private property.
    Depending upon what type of van it was, you could simply look in through the windows. No search involved. There are only a few places a fully-grown human being can hide in a vehicle. If it was a panel, cargo-type van, simply ask the driver for permission to check the van. If the driver refuses, tell him that you cannot let him through until you are satisfied that the banned individual is not hiding inside. The driver then has a choice; either allow you to check the van or turn around and drive away. Problem solved whichever choice he picks. You cannot force the driver to submit to a search, but you can tell him you do not have to let him in unless you check the van.

    Leave a comment:


  • kingsman
    replied
    Yes, he was hiding in the van. The driver was the nephew of the owner of the van, and the owner of the van is a resident. But I was instructed NOT to let the van in. As the van is not registered on the property, I do not need to let it in for any reason. they have been trying to sneak him in various ways ever since he was evicted last month. his homeboys still reside on the property.

    What right would I have to search the van? I am a security officer, not the police. I have no right to search private property.

    My understanding is that my ex-partner no longer works for the company. His reaction was very confusing, because he had no problem getting in a rumble with the guy the previous night, and he has worked security for 13 years, as a bouncer in a bar and as a private guard for strippers. (at least thats what he said.)

    I had only worked with him for a week as he was replacing a guard who was transfered.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    3 hour wait for police backup is "normal"? Maybe in the woods, but not in a major city. Do you pay taxes? I'd be at the next city council meeting screaming!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    It sounds like the supervisor did not want the van on site either. You would be giving the owner good reason to come on site to collect his property. Although, if people began to pelt rocks at me, I might just let it go.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    If you're worried the banned person may have been hidden inside the van there are two things to do:

    1. Ask the driver if the banned person is inside the van.
    2. If you think the driver was untruthful, then search the van before you allow it to enter.

    There is some missing information to this story. Kingman says the driver is a known associate of the banned person, but is the driver a resident of the complex? Kingman says he spoke with the van's owner, who is a resident, it appears. Did the van's owner say the driver was the owner's guest?

    Either way it was not appropriate for Kingman to deny the van entry if the banned person was not inside the van. I think he handled the situation poorly and unnecessarily put himself and his partner in a bad situation. Kingman's supervisor is also partly to blame for giving such a bad order in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    Originally posted by kingsman
    We had been informed by the shift supervisor not to let a specific van onto the property
    Sounds pretty specific to me. I would be weary that the person may not be driving, but may still be hidden in the van.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by kingsman
    Stopping the van, I refused to let it on to the property. The driver was a known associate of the banned person, not the owner of the van. The owner showed up and I still refused to allow the van onto the property.
    From this quote I gather that the banned person was neither the driver of the van nor the van's owner.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by histfan71
    Kingsman,

    Was the banned person inside the van? If not, why did you not allow the van and driver (who was not the banned person) inside?
    Good point, however, there may be a rule stating that the property of the banned person is not authorized on the property.

    Keep in mind that if you allow the van on, then they have a legal reason to enter the property to recover their property.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Kingsman,

    Was the banned person inside the van? If not, why did you not allow the van and driver (who was not the banned person) inside?

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X