Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Title: Security Guard or Security Officer

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

  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    This is why warm body companies embrace the word security and others do not. This is why the regulator assocation wants to ensure that every state is required to use the word "security" in their title and their company name.

    Its a perception game. When we switched from "Leatherneck Security" to "Excelsior Defense," people started reacting to us differently. They didn't know what we were (maybe he's a security guard, but it doesn't say security!) and they weren't sure what we were capable. They were sure that because the patch said "security" we couldn't do anything.

    When something WAS done, it was always, "Man, when the real cops show up, you're going to jail!" Or, "I'll go get my gun out of my car and kill you! You ain't got no gun, you a security guard."

    In the second instance... THere were seven of us, and five out of seven had huge .357 magnums on. They assumed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Indeed. I don't care if you call me whitey, honkey, top flight, 2.5, po-po, imitation bacon, but when it time to go, or to stop doing something, its time to obey.

    Officer really improves the general public's perception.
    I was talking about this with a long time CJ instructor on my campus last week actually. This is the reason Campus Police exist. Public perception.

    In the past, when my department was called "Safety and Security" (despite the fact that it was in fact a Campus Police Department and the officers were Sworn LEOs), Instructors would tell unruly students "Security is coming" and the student would say "And?".

    When the name changed from Security to Police back in 89, all that changed. My Instructor buddy (who has been teacing for 30 years now) said (paraphrasing) "We started saying that the "Police" we coming, and either the unruly student would stop what they were doing, or leave, much different outcome".

    The Officer's authority didn't change one bit. And even if they (the officers who worked for the department back then) had been non-LEO, non-Government Security Officers, there were things that they could have done legally with someone who was disrupting a class (which is a violation of the Education Code, and an obvious Breach of the Peace).

    But, people believe that "Security" can't do anything, so they ignore people with the title "Security". They're wrong of course, but that's how it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Because I am hard you will not like me. But the more you hate me the more you will learn. I am hard but I am fair.
    - Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, USMC
    as played by R. Lee Ermey
    Full Metal Jacket

    Before today, I have never had the opportunity to quote that. I thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marchetti, David, M
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Actually, in the specific instance he gave, the police officer was not authorized to remove persons from private property. We used to have problems with this in Tampa, with TPD telling people to "get off my parking lot" or "go in your house." Unless the police officer is an agent of the owner, they cannot issue trespass warnings, they needed the owner or his agent to advise the person to leave.

    Now, is this a blanket, "I don't have to listen to you?" No, of course not. But there are times when police overstep their authority in regards to civil or property rights, as there are times when security oversteps its rights in regards to civil or property rights.
    Damn it Corbier you just ruined my whole day here, you typed something I agree with here, only here if the property is posted they are automatically committing an offense under law and could be ordered off the property or arrested. This property was not posted so the cop was out of line.

    Leave a comment:


  • james2go30
    replied
    Lol

    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Yeah, I complained to Andy about him. Andy suggested that I switch revolvers with him so that I didn't have to keep my bullet in my shirt pocket.
    LOL. Thats funny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marchetti, David, M
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    I've read it. I don't need to live in your state to get access to your statute book or read it. You, yourself, need to read it. In-house personnel who work for a company on an employee-employer relationship and are exposed to the public are required to be licensed.

    I'd quote statute like I normally do, but I don't think you actually read the law and are too hung up on "I live here, I am right."
    Buddy see you have no clue, the state is currently arguing that in house must be licensed but many private employers are ignoring it saying they are private and they don't have to follow the act. I'll be honest with you the act has created a firestorm and it's really not enforceable just to get the security companies to comply they have to transfer detectives to assist the department. Many in-house providers are not even aware of the act laughing. And the training standard is not being followed, one night I was talking to another fellow and this act came up and I mentioned Mally v. Lane and he told me " I have no clue what your even talking about. The guy got no training but was certified laughing, in reality what they should have done was grandfather in anyone with more than 10 years of experience in, or grandfathered everyone in and started this fresh they did this in mid stream. The instructor a Police Officer that certified me laughed at the situation as I have more experience then him on the job or at least equal too. Some licensed security companies are not issuing badges or even identification cards to employees as mandated by law.

    I applied to be a criminal justice instructor but was denied after pissing off one of the troopers by telling him we have a no touch policy when it comes to first aid and c.p.r. " You mean if I needed emergency treatment you would not give it " and I stated no citing:

    ( a ) Lack of insurance coverage for medical assistance, ( b ) Security Officers are not covered under the state's good Samaritan Act and the only thing legal in our favor is common law rulings, but they are telling people they are when we are not but should be ( c ) Concerns of A.I.D.S. Hepatitis C, and other communicable diseases/ cross contamination issues. ( d ) and the fact we don't carry any medical equipment while on duty except a first aid kit for our own use, we are not EMT's or Paramedics nor do we want to be.
    ( e ) As the owner of the business if I have you certified, give you equipment,
    and tell you it's your duty to provide this service am I liable if you get infected with AIDS?, or is it covered under worker comp, or can your estate sue me after you die???? Questions to be anwser at a later time when this happens and works it's way through the state courts.

    He got totally pissed that the best I would do is dial 911 and treat for shock. I told him we even have a police department here that has the same policy, the town does not want police officers providing medical services of any kind just out of liability issues and costs. APPLICATION DENIED, shrugs it's being turned over to one of our attorneys to be addressed.

    Connecticut is a screw up place for security and the laws that govern us and I will not even get into professional trends.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by wilrobnson
    I may be posting blind here, as I didn't read the original post, but just commenting to say that I see very few places around here that do not have a sign, big or small, obvious or not, that states that the "Xxxxxxxx Police Department has been made an agent of the owner of this property to enforce trespassing and loitering laws perusant to RCW/WAC...", or words to that effect.

    I know, I'm a lackey for capitalizing "Police".
    We tried to get that authority for the police, but the client refused because the police would basically make the resident's lives living hell due to the crack house next door, and the fact the police would jump on EVERYONE outside.

    You have patrol officers who didn't know the area trying to score drug arrests by rousting people sitting in front of their apartments at 6 PM.

    Thankfully, we were there on 12 hour shifts and knew everybody. And I mean everybody. We stopped after we realized we really didn't need the police to come in the area unless we called them, and the drug unit worked the other side of the street, where the dealers were.

    By evicting or feeding intelligence to police, or coming up with drug arrests based on investigative detention on unknown persons on our property at strange hours, we worked our side of the street quite well.

    Leave a comment:


  • outofplacevikingfan
    replied
    yep, some cops get out of place and some one has to do something about it because it disgraces us all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marchetti, David, M
    replied
    Originally posted by outofplacevikingfan
    The ACLU also wants to take christmas of all school calendars, no public display of christmas on streets in towns across america. Do you agree with that? The ACLU isn't always the best example to give because they have gone way crazy over the years.
    Ya they do get a little crazy at times laughing, some of the stuff they actually take on has been kinda funny. But, none the less ya get my point of the civil rights issues...

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Apropos of nothing...Again

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Actually, in the specific instance he gave, the police officer was not authorized to remove persons from private property. We used to have problems with this in Tampa, with TPD telling people to "get off my parking lot" or "go in your house." Unless the police officer is an agent of the owner, they cannot issue trespass warnings, they needed the owner or his agent to advise the person to leave.
    I may be posting blind here, as I didn't read the original post, but just commenting to say that I see very few places around here that do not have a sign, big or small, obvious or not, that states that the "Xxxxxxxx Police Department has been made an agent of the owner of this property to enforce trespassing and loitering laws perusant to RCW/WAC...", or words to that effect.

    I know, I'm a lackey for capitalizing "Police".

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by outofplacevikingfan
    Of course, I thought he was talking about the person doesn't have to get out of the car just because I smell pot.
    If Flordia gets his way, the kid in the car has to get out when the licensed security officer smells pot, too. They're going for stop and frisk for security officers, with a detention authority to hold for police. Police then pick up the investigative detention as it was theirs, and take over the arrest.

    I'm not quite sure, but I believe in Tennessee, the kid in the car has to get out when a private citizen says "get out, you're under arrest," too. They have codified private arrest (same powers as a LEO) for all offenses commited in presence, including misdemeanors.

    People, I swear, do not understand the powers that Terry vs. Ohio give law enforcement officers and private citizens who are accorded private arrest acting "in the interests of the state."

    Leave a comment:


  • outofplacevikingfan
    replied
    Of course, I thought he was talking about the person doesn't have to get out of the car just because I smell pot.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by outofplacevikingfan
    And yes when a police officer gives a lawful order you do have to what they tell you. Otherwise people could do whatever they wanted and that doesn't happen. Your logic says police have no authority to tell someone to do something and that makes no sense.
    Actually, in the specific instance he gave, the police officer was not authorized to remove persons from private property. We used to have problems with this in Tampa, with TPD telling people to "get off my parking lot" or "go in your house." Unless the police officer is an agent of the owner, they cannot issue trespass warnings, they needed the owner or his agent to advise the person to leave.

    Now, is this a blanket, "I don't have to listen to you?" No, of course not. But there are times when police overstep their authority in regards to civil or property rights, as there are times when security oversteps its rights in regards to civil or property rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • outofplacevikingfan
    replied
    And yes when a police officer gives a lawful order you do have to what they tell you. Otherwise people could do whatever they wanted and that doesn't happen. Your logic says police have no authority to tell someone to do something and that makes no sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • outofplacevikingfan
    replied
    The ACLU also wants to take christmas of all school calendars, no public display of christmas on streets in towns across america. Do you agree with that? The ACLU isn't always the best example to give because they have gone way crazy over the years.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X