Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Attention LEOs

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

  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    My friends, the horse is dead, been dead, still we continue to beat it.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    Originally posted by davis002
    I truly wish all of these "police vs security" threads will just end! I, and i'm sure i'm not alone here, am just getting sick and tired of all this animosity. It's sickening that lately the most active threads are the "police vs security" threads. Somebody mentioned in a thread a couple days ago that if a security officer began to post on officer.com, they get belittled and ostracized within a week. Yet, some LEOs feel it's alright to come here and criticize security every chance they get. The purpose of this forum is for private security from all areas of the industry to share information. If you are a LEO and want to share useful information, then by all means... do so. If you're only intention here is to pound your chest and rant on and on about who is better, then find another forum to do so. Sorry to go off on a rant here, but I for one think that enough is enough.
    Discussion of the attitudes between the police and security fields are valid topics for discussion, hopefully oriented to finding ways to improving those attitudes.

    I agree that there shouldn't be attacks on either group by the other. Regardless of which field your in there will always be those cases that can be pointed to that show the worst side of that particular field. After all, both fields involve one thing that will provide fodder for the other - human beings. Imperfection is the mark of our perfection.

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    I truly wish all of these "police vs security" threads will just end! I, and i'm sure i'm not alone here, am just getting sick and tired of all this animosity. It's sickening that lately the most active threads are the "police vs security" threads. Somebody mentioned in a thread a couple days ago that if a security officer began to post on officer.com, they get belittled and ostracized within a week. Yet, some LEOs feel it's alright to come here and criticize security every chance they get. The purpose of this forum is for private security from all areas of the industry to share information. If you are a LEO and want to share useful information, then by all means... do so. If you're only intention here is to pound your chest and rant on and on about who is better, then find another forum to do so. Sorry to go off on a rant here, but I for one think that enough is enough.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by aka Bull
    Excuse me? What does this have to do with money or intelligence? You made a comment about ratios of security to police and all I was trying to do was provide SOME information on those ratios.

    I don't give a hoot if you make $1 a year or $100,000.00 a year - that wasn't the reason for the post. I just copy and pasted a section from BLS.

    The tone of your post is not appreciated sir, nor is your "superior" attitude. You do nothing to aid in the better relationships between security and law enforcement.
    I was a bit perplexed by that one too I have to say.

    I don't think anyone has said making more money makes you better. I'm sure some really ignorant people belive that, but I don't see anyone here saying that.

    If money = Intelligence than most of us are dumber than most folks lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    Laughing, what, you think making more money makes you better or more intelligent - think again. I am a Security Officer who owns the business and I make more then most LEO's in one month then they make in several months. So who's really the intelligent one here. If that mentality of making more money makes you better or smarter, then I am a god compaired to most LEO's.
    Excuse me? What does this have to do with money or intelligence? You made a comment about ratios of security to police and all I was trying to do was provide SOME information on those ratios.

    I don't give a hoot if you make $1 a year or $100,000.00 a year - that wasn't the reason for the post. I just copy and pasted a section from BLS.

    The tone of your post is not appreciated sir, nor is your "superior" attitude. You do nothing to aid in the better relationships between security and law enforcement.

    Leave a comment:


  • T202
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.
    Thanks Doc, I feel better now. Send the bill to ........never mind I'll pay it myself, don't want to stir the pot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by T202
    I'm getting a headache, must be from the swelling.
    Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.

    Leave a comment:


  • T202
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    If I am not mistaking the United States Department of Justice advises that Security out numbers LEOS nation wide by 4 to 1, it might be 3 to 1 I don't honestly recall. What many fail to see is law enforcement is in effect a social experiment as in the United States it’s only been established since the mid 1800’s and in England the early 1800’s. The DOJ as well as the D.O.D. has also stated if it were not for the private sector “ Security “ we would have a huge societal problem as crime would sky rocket and as the military stated “ Our overseas military operations could not happen “. As in my posting under " Cops Who Think We All Wannabe Cops." I pretty much spell it out. What you are seeing in our society is our profession returning to it’s traditional roots and job functions, the elitist position of law enforcement is in effect swollen heads and a very narrow mentality.
    I'm getting a headache, must be from the swelling.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    Dept of Labor and Stats is known to totally misread various occupations, and they are just estimates.

    For instance, it says there are only 5000 Railroad and Transit police. Dallas Area Rapid Transit Police has 500 Officers by itself, and I don't believe for one second DART represents 10% of all Transit and Railroad Cops. The NYPD Transit Bureau has 3000 officers, but they are counted as NYPD, but not as Patrol, so they are basically left hanging as far as BLS is concerned. Then they under report workers who might wear more than one hat (like DFW Airport DPS Officers are Firemen, EMTs and Police rolled into one).

    And It's worse for Security because of the wildy varying job descriptions and requirements for S/Os from State to State. I read an article on one LE site (ZI'll find it later if I can) that said BLS underestimates "Protective Service Wrokers" (LE and Security and Fire) by as much as 1 to 1.5 million workers. So instead of 3 mill total, it would be as much as 4.5 total.
    Unfortunately I doubt we'll ever find really accurate numbers anywhere. In some manner or other the numbers will be skewed, it's just the nature of the beast. When one looks to find data we have to decide what can been seen as reasonable data. It's like using the IFPO numbers of deaths in LE vs Security fields - they apparently (from what has been said) extrapolate their numbers, instead of having accurate hard numbers.

    If we say this data is not accurate enough then we must locate better data and determine its accuracy. I'd be interested to know how this underestimation number was arrived at too. If that estimation can be backed by sound data then it should be reconciled with the BLS information.

    How many here trust the numbers as accurate that come from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting? I used to compile that information for a department I worked for and I can say that it is skewed too.

    We just have to present what we have and work from that point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by aka Bull
    According to the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2005 (under Protective Service Occupations):

    Occupation Code/Occupation Title/Employment/Median Hourly/Mean Hourly/Mean Annual

    33-3051/Police and Sheriff's Patrol Officers/624,130/$22.25/$22.73/$47,270
    33-9032/Security Guards/994,220/$9.98/$10.91/$22,690

    Link

    Dept of Labor and Stats is known to totally misread various occupations, and they are just estimates.

    For instance, it says there are only 5000 Railroad and Transit police. Dallas Area Rapid Transit Police has 500 Officers by itself, and I don't believe for one second DART represents 10% of all Transit and Railroad Cops. The NYPD Transit Bureau has 3000 officers, but they are counted as NYPD, but not as Patrol, so they are basically left hanging as far as BLS is concerned. Then they under report workers who might wear more than one hat (like DFW Airport DPS Officers are Firemen, EMTs and Police rolled into one).

    And It's worse for Security because of the wildy varying job descriptions and requirements for S/Os from State to State. I read an article on one LE site (ZI'll find it later if I can) that said BLS underestimates "Protective Service Wrokers" (LE and Security and Fire) by as much as 1 to 1.5 million workers. So instead of 3 mill total, it would be as much as 4.5 total.

    Leave a comment:


  • aka Bull
    replied
    According to the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2005 (under Protective Service Occupations):

    Occupation Code/Occupation Title/Employment/Median Hourly/Mean Hourly/Mean Annual

    33-3051/Police and Sheriff's Patrol Officers/624,130/$22.25/$22.73/$47,270
    33-9032/Security Guards/994,220/$9.98/$10.91/$22,690

    Link
    Last edited by aka Bull; 08-03-2006, 04:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Lord of the Keys
    replied
    I'd just like to add my thoughts on this topic. At least where I work the difference seems to be that LEO's enforce laws while my job is to enforce company rules. Inside our perimeter if someone runs a stop sign or is speeding that not breaking a city traffic law but a company rule and I can issue a company violation ticket. If there is a theft on our property the police may be called in but we will also take a report for our client.
    I also don't like the idea that we just observe and report. We are very active with what we do but there are times when observing and reporting is all that we should be doing.
    I'd also like to say that very few of my co-workers act like they are police in fact it is hard to get some of them to act like security. They just want to get through the shift with as little effort as possible and have a little extra money to supplement their retirement pay.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by ycaso77
    They do seem to be a tad on the "agressive" side. I noted with interest all employees are ex-military, a terriffic idea for critical infrastructure security and other such missions. But dealing with the general public while having some fuzzy quasi-authority? I'll bet the local trial lawyers are a fan.
    They're not all ex-military. I know that for a fact, I used to FTO people who left CIS for EDI. Their ATO units are not exposed to the general public (the grey shirts with the ATO armbands), but the black body armor units are.

    Strangely, I have not heard of a single suit against CIS in 10 years. If they happen, they're very quiet and not newsworthy.

    Leave a comment:


  • ycaso77
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Take a look at CIS's website. Take a look at EDI's website (www.excelsiordefense.com). EDI goes more after government contracting, and CIS goes after... I'm not really sure what they go after. People come to them these days. "Please save our crack-addled property." "KNEEL BEFORE US." "k." "We will save your property."
    They do seem to be a tad on the "agressive" side. I noted with interest all employees are ex-military, a terriffic idea for critical infrastructure security and other such missions. But dealing with the general public while having some fuzzy quasi-authority? I'll bet the local trial lawyers are a fan.

    Leave a comment:


  • ycaso77
    replied
    Originally posted by Jackhole
    I think you hit the nail right on the head with this post. I've worked both contract and in-house security and am currently in-house at a college. The contract gigs were just that, observe and report. I didn't fit in there and had problems with management because frankly, I'm too intelligent for a job like that. They don't want thinkers, they want someone who blindly accepts orders and carries them out. "Jasper, go sit in that guard shack until you're relieved." "Yessir!"

    >>> Intelligence has little to do with being tasked to observe and report, whether as a contracted officer or an in house/proprietary officer. I'm sure Jasper has some post policies and duties thats hes required to perform. If your job is to check ID's at an entry point and nothing more-thats at the discretion of site management or your department.

    In-house, in my case, is completely different. We observe and report, but there's a little item in between those items called CORRECT. It may be as simple as notifying maintenance about a door that won't lock properly or it might be on the other end of the spectrum by effecting an arrest on an offender. If the law allows us to do it, we do - something contract security managers would cringe at.

    >>>> Most officers are expected to report service/safety or maintenance issues they observe during thier shift/tour. Contract managers are usually operating under legal restrictions from both the state and the company they're providing services too. Doing something just because "the law" allows it doesn't make it the proper or just response. Even then you're under the restrictions that cover your limited authority as a campus officer, and the restrictions placed upon you by your command chain.

    Don't get me wrong, though. Both services have their place. It just gets messy when contract officers believe they have more power than they do or when a client opts for contract security when they really need an in-house force.
    >>>> It gets messy when ANY type of non-sworn officer believes they have more power than they in fact have. Contract or in house make no difference in the quality of the officer. Pay, benefits, work conditions and training effect the quality of your force far more than who signs the check.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X