Felon working as Armed Security

[EMTGuard]

He was in uniform, working for a Security company in New Mexico. He was wearing a ballistic vest, a pistol on his hip and had 2 spare magazines. The problem was he was a convicted felon with outstanding warrents. Now He's back in jail and the media are asking questions. Check out the clip at-

http://www.krqe.com/video/expanded.asp?ID=3254

[N. A. Corbier]

He was in uniform, working for a Security company in New Mexico. He was wearing a ballistic vest, a pistol on his hip and had 2 spare magazines. The problem was he was a convicted felon with outstanding warrents. Now He's back in jail and the media are asking questions. Check out the clip at-

http://www.krqe.com/video/expanded.asp?ID=3254

There was a federal law, passed in 2004, that provides that ANY private security contractor company may get a criminal background check on their prospective employees, through the FBI - regardless of state requirements.

When I sit down and write, slowly but surely, the policy manual (ah, putting away start up captial a little at a time sucks ass, folks.) I look at things that I see on here, things I think up, etc...

And one of them is employment screening. We all know, or should, about vicarious liability. I know that right now, with media pressure, the owners of that company are learing ALL about vicarious liability, due diligence, and standards of care. "The state gave him a license," dosen't cut it anymore. Due diligence on the part of the company investigators is essential.

I'd rather put on a uniform MYSELF and work a post because the background on the prospective employee to fill that slot didn't come back yet, than send him out there and find out that he's a convicted serial killer on a temporary gun license and state security license that hasn't been revoked yet.

Then again, I have no problem putting on a uniform and working a post - I've done it for 10+ years, and I believe in leadership by example. Nobody can say, "Do you know how hard it is to keep this uniform clean and all those things on it?" when you show up in a serviceable uniform with proper accessories.

"When's the last time you were out in the field?"
"Yesterday."

[Mr. Security]

There was a federal law, passed in 2004, that provides that ANY private security contractor company may get a criminal background check on their prospective employees, through the FBI - regardless of state requirements.

I believe Ira Lipman @ Guardsmark was one who strongly pushed for that law to pass. I not trying to market for the company, but they do screen their applicants better than many companies.

[davis002]

I believe Ira Lipman @ Guardsmark was one who strongly pushed for that law to pass. I not trying to market for the company, but they do screen their applicants better than many companies.

Actually just about every security company, large and small, pushed for that law to pass.

[N. A. Corbier]

Actually just about every security company, large and small, pushed for that law to pass.

From what industry material I've read, Guardsmark was "instrumental" in passing this legislation. I think you could replace "guardsmark" with "FOP," to equate it in LE terms.

The largest companies are starting to become direct lobbying groups. Some of this is trying to raise the industry, and some of it is simple: We provide services to the standards we're pushing federal law to. Either keep up with us, or your clients will switch to us, and you'll go bankrupt.

[S/O245]

I have not had the chacne to read that link, but if any Security Officer got hired on and was a armed officer and is a convicted felon thats bad. The FED law says that convicted felons cant by law buy firearms or carry or own etc.

Stay Safe All

[N. A. Corbier]

I have not had the chacne to read that link, but if any Security Officer got hired on and was a armed officer and is a convicted felon thats bad. The FED law says that convicted felons cant by law buy firearms or carry or own etc.

Stay Safe All

Gets better, the states usually give the licenses out, then have to track the felon down and revoke it.

[AASC Colorado]

Unfortunately this is all too common of a problem. Many companies (esp fly-by-night outfits) are more concerned with having a body on site than spending the time and money to ensure a proper screening. Several use the hope nothing goes wrong method of liability control, which oddly is opposite the sales pitch they use to get clients.

[N. A. Corbier]

Besides, if they don't have enough people, they'll just ghost the site till they can hire a warm body. Or have a supervisor "mobile patrol" it.

I'm of the opinion that if your going to have a mobile patrol service, HAVE A PATROL DIVISION. Your supervisor(s) have too much to do in one night than try to hit 8-12 posts 3 times per night while trying to cover posts, do inspections, respond to client issues, etc.

[Mr. Security]

Gets better, the states usually give the licenses out, then have to track the felon down and revoke it.

Is there a question on the form asking the applicant if they have ever been convicted of a felony? If so, haven't they committed a crime by signing the application? Seems like the state should be able to 'lock 'em up' in addition to revoking the license/permit.

[N. A. Corbier]

Is there a question on the form asking the applicant if they have ever been convicted of a felony? If so, haven't they committed a crime by signing the application? Seems like the state should be able to 'lock 'em up' in addition to revoking the license/permit.

Most of the time, the state forms are not required to be notarized, and aren't under oath. You can only get them for purjury or false statements when it is notarized "I affirm under penalty of purjury, blah, blah, blah, as witnessed by Bob Dobbs, Pope of the Sub Genius, and Notary Public..."

The only penality you get is that you can't apply for a security license again. You know, except that you couldn't anyway. In alot of states, its a violation of civil rights to discriminate against convicts (felony or misdomeanor.) The state lets them apply, then turns them down due to the needs of the public good outweighing their need for gainful employment free from discrimination.

[Mr. Security]

In alot of states, its a violation of civil rights to discriminate against convicts (felony or misdomeanor.) The state lets them apply, then turns them down due to the needs of the public good outweighing their need for gainful employment free from discrimination.

That makes me feel secure Especially since the state has released prisoners before by mistake due to a paperwork error. I wonder how many applications slip by too?!