Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justified response level

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

  • james2go30
    replied
    In this guys in security?

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    He's serious. He's "sticking it to the man."
    Wonder if he works in a mall. That would not be a very good place for him.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    He's serious. He's "sticking it to the man."

    Leave a comment:


  • james2go30
    replied
    Your not serious are you?

    Originally posted by arbguy
    wow, im all for shoplifting and stuff. only, if you rob from individual people, that sucks. i applaud those who steal from loblaws, canadian tire, wal mart or banks. those institutions are making way too much money anyways. but breaking and entering peoples' homes, now that is just despicable, especially if violence was used.
    shoplifting along with any type of theft is wrong. No matter who you are stealing from or for whatever deranged reason you may have. Yes, these big companies like wal-mart etc. etc. may be viewed as a target because of their polices, work habits or maybe labor issues, but that is not for us to decide..if you work for them and cut you short on your check, espeacially if they have a bad habit of cutting your check short...not paying for you hours worked etc. First check and see if didn't make a mistake clocking in and have proof of that, then get a lawyer if there is no other LEGAL way to solve it. Stealing from any of these companies is not a wise one...not considering possble and dismal outcome if caught. I was always taught..if I can't buy it myself with my own hard earned money then I don't need it that bad...then when I got the cash I will go and purchase whatever it is I needed or wanted. But just because you may view corporate america as a bunch of little hitlers running around in three piece suits is no reason to commit theft.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by arbguy
    wow, im all for shoplifting and stuff. only, if you rob from individual people, that sucks. i applaud those who steal from loblaws, canadian tire, wal mart or banks. those institutions are making way too much money anyways. but breaking and entering peoples' homes, now that is just despicable, especially if violence was used.
    (User was reported for this post)

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    1st Watch is correct. State Law protecting a licensed individual to carry a firearm at times when they are authorized to do so trumps any other consideration. A Contract here CANNOT legally deny someone a legal right or privilage.

    Rental Property "belongs" to the renter as long as the rental agreement is in force. Any property owner/renter can carry firearms in property under his control. So any contract saying you can't have firearms on rental property have no legal force.

    Example: My College. It's a school, governed by the education code, and a gun free zone. BUT we have ATMs belonging to a private company on campus. every few days an armored truck pulls up, and an armed guard gets out to refill the ATMs inside the campus buildings. They are armed. There is nothing anyone, inculding Campus Police, can do about it, except get rid of the ATMs altogether. The ATMs are their property, period.

    As Peace Officers, We can ask the Truck Officers for their Commision Cards at any time if we wanted (which we don't), but that's about it.
    That's interesting. I have to ask: If a landlord can enforce a no smoking policy, no pets, etc., why can't they bar firearms from the premise in the lease agreement?

    Leave a comment:


  • ACP01
    replied
    Most of the guard shacks at the mines here are as discribed.
    Several guards have been attacked over the years. Some due to their own stupidity..ie letting an unknown person into the shack to use the phone then turning their backs to the caller.

    In the case in the original post the attackers may have heard the guard calling for back up and took off. I doubt seriously it was a prank.

    My call is if you were keeping the door shut with your foot it is a no-shoot..however if you felt the control of the door going against you then it is becomes a shooting matter as these folks already proved themselves capable of violence by attacking the door.

    Leave a comment:


  • Defensive tactics
    replied
    yes your smart, lets encourage shoplifting on A SECURITY FORUM

    *sigh*

    Leave a comment:


  • arbguy
    replied
    theft

    wow, im all for shoplifting and stuff. only, if you rob from individual people, that sucks. i applaud those who steal from loblaws, canadian tire, wal mart or banks. those institutions are making way too much money anyways. but breaking and entering peoples' homes, now that is just despicable, especially if violence was used.

    Leave a comment:


  • Defensive tactics
    replied
    David
    irregardless of whether they were "screwing" with him or not: the suspects showed deadly force intent and that can not be tolerated.

    ben

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Mall Director:
    You took time to establish professional rapport with the other company. You went the extra mile so that was one less thing they had to worry about. You implemented THOR - Target Hardening Opportunity Reduction which should be the hallmark of all good physical security.
    Hopefully the leadership of the other company notified your leadership and thanked them for the cooperation received. That rapport, as the Chinese call gung-ho, should be encouraged by other mall security operators. The next meeting of the regional mall security consortium, you might invite a ranking member of the that armed escort service to you meeting with the purpose of establishing procedures elsewhere.
    Kudos to your proactive security approach.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Director
    replied
    Originally posted by security steve
    There is no such thing as "partial" trespass - at least not in VA. You cannot ban someone from an establishment and then put restrictions on it (IE you can use the restrooms in the mall, but not shop in any stores). No judge in the world will enforce that and the police will laugh at you. You either ban someone or you don't.

    I worked mall security when I was 18 and through college. We had armed guards in all our jewelry stores and two police officers on every shift. There was even a store in the mall (sporting goods) which sold guns. While we had a no gun policy, we used our head. If someone (an armed guard) was walking through the mall, we would approach and ask their destination (it was usually the jewelry store) etc.

    Mall security needs to use their head. The reason most mall security gets a bad rap is because they don't use their heads. They do stuff without thinking like tell armed security to remove their weapons. Say that guard put his gun in his car and then it was stolen? Technically they should have followed through and made sure the gun wasn't even on the parking lot. I personally think a gun is better off attended than unattended in a mall parking lot.

    Also, the Dillards in our mall used off duty police - but maybe since we were in such a rough area we needed the police presence. I just remember on weekends, the mall would have more armed security and police than Fort Knox
    And I will second you on this. Even a couple of my regional sister malls need improvement on their staff, for using reasonable common sense to these situations. I wish i could control them as well, but I can not. More to my point was using common sense and communication. A long long long time ago, when I first entered mall security, the "no weapons" policy was enforced heavily, to include other security agencies. There was an occassion when some of the other officers persued actions against ATM trans officers. Having a reasonable head on my shoulders I did not approach that issue until it was fully clarified with me on who, and when. After speaking to corporate attornies, the reason given behind the outside sourcing of security reps or visitors that are armed, leagally in the state, was that even a trusted and armed officer, unless LEO, is a weapon themselves by entering, and safety to the public is jeapordized. Insurance would not cover an incident of an armed security officer getting overtaken and then the weapon being used in the comission of a crime on property.

    So, having my own department, and running things a little more on my eye level, ATM, Armored car Officers are more than authorized to enter with a weapon.. I think it would be a bit rediculious to expect a single human to walk around with that kind of money exposed and expect them to do so unarmed. But on the other hand, another Security represenative, walking through, doing their shopping while armed, seems a bit out of sorts. I dont shop in my personal time with a weapon. Is there really a need to do so, and while in uniform? Does that not portray the wrong image? But thats another story. All of my officers know much better than to wear their uniforms outside of work. They change when they come on site, and change out when leaving, for many safety reasons. Their equipment is stowed, either on site of in their vehicle. Most prefer on site, as they have lockers that they can lock and gear and weapons are not stolen. I would not want to walk around off site loaded, as I know my capabilities, and I can honestly say, that if engaged by more than one subject, the chances of my tools falling into the hands of another is very likely. By doing so, I have enable another who should not have such items, to have them, simply because I wouldnt put my stuff away before leaving my area of operation. I would have to take the hit on it.

    And as said before, a simple call into a Security Office of a Mall prior to entering with a weapon should clear up anything that may be an issue. We had a jewelry store move out once, and the word got to the Armed Security Agency that they should call ahead to see if it was OK to enter with weapons. Of course I took the call. Got time lines of when and where they wished to conduct their business routes. Now, knowing that a very high yeild of expensive merchandise would be going out the door, and sinec the company gave me the courtesy of calling ahead, not only did I gran them access with weapons, but established a plan of control. My staff cleared the area of the store prior to the othr agency arriving. We ensured all questionable subjects left property. We locked down certain areas to stop access. Placed heavier patrols surrounding the area, and staffed accordingly. What did this do?
    - The other agency was pleased as they had less to worry about in people walking by,
    - Merchandise was safer than just an armed aspect, but total area control,
    - Their operation went alot smoother and faster, which limitted armed individuals inside our facility for long durations,
    - Insurance was satisified, even though it was a violation on my part.

    Now, does this mean that nothing could happen.. Of course not. Nothing we do is 100% guaranteed, but it sure did bring the chances of such incidents occuring. And, to top it off, no one got their feelings hurt over the matter, which is why I say communication is important. Istead of looking at another agency as the enemy, maybe working together is a better plan!

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Dillards is famous for using off-duty police. To the tune of, in Florida, you didn't join the Highway Patrol to be a trooper, you joined it to work the Dillards short calls at 3 times what you made as a trooper.

    Its also famous for allegations of racial profiling, lawsuits, criminal complaints, etc... Bad mojo.

    Anyway... ranting right along...

    I have never liked the whole, "I don't have time for coming out here to deal with your misdemanor trespass that won't result in an arrest for me." Nothing in Florida Statute says I need a LEO present to trespass someone, and some LEOs will take a person's word that the party was warned. I saw this first hand when a manager said, "I told him to leave," and a police officer arrested a person for trespass after warning. I asked, "Where's the trespass warning form?" The manager said, "Oh, I didn't call the police, I just told him to leave."

    However, uniformed security guards, on the other hand, lack this abillity to "tell people to leave," a police officer has to do so so he may write up a form that says, "I told this person to leave, if you find him here again, arrest him."

    There are other methods avaliable for a law enforcement officer to establish probable cause to arrest for trespass after warning, but for whatever reasons, many agencies will only accept their warning form as issued by an officer.

    I've found that this does take the right of the property owner to decide who can be removed and barred from their property away. "Oh, I'm not writing him a form, he's free to return" has been heard before. The counter, "You understand that I say he's not, and the property manager says he's not, so we're just going to physically throw him off the property if he does, right?" underscores the problem: It becomes advisarial between the security officer and the police officer, as the security officer's job is to remove this person.

    For those companies that do not allow intervention, how does one maintain access control (a vital part of even observe and report security) when one simply can't have someone removed and told to stay off?

    When owner's rights become a "tool reserved for law enforcement, and subject to their whim," it takes something away from the owner's ability to control their property. It means that they have to do it themselves, through direct intervention.
    This pretty much accurately summarizes a problem we have. An example of this is one new client we have, a motel. The owner wants us to make any "non-customers" aka dopers, hookers, Johns, etc not only to leave the property, but to have the DPD come out and have one of those little yellow forms issued. He believed the story the community policing officer told him, that they will only take 5 to 10 minutes to come out for that. I tried convincing him that may be true, if they have someone readily available to respond, but expect to wait a lot longer if they don't and they are not likely to. We can physically throw someone off the property if it's possible, but they are likely to return. If only there was a way legally recognizeable and enforceable by the local courts to just take photographs and issue warnings without the p.d. being present...

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Dillards is famous for using off-duty police. To the tune of, in Florida, you didn't join the Highway Patrol to be a trooper, you joined it to work the Dillards short calls at 3 times what you made as a trooper.

    Its also famous for allegations of racial profiling, lawsuits, criminal complaints, etc... Bad mojo.

    Anyway... ranting right along...

    I have never liked the whole, "I don't have time for coming out here to deal with your misdemanor trespass that won't result in an arrest for me." Nothing in Florida Statute says I need a LEO present to trespass someone, and some LEOs will take a person's word that the party was warned. I saw this first hand when a manager said, "I told him to leave," and a police officer arrested a person for trespass after warning. I asked, "Where's the trespass warning form?" The manager said, "Oh, I didn't call the police, I just told him to leave."

    However, uniformed security guards, on the other hand, lack this abillity to "tell people to leave," a police officer has to do so so he may write up a form that says, "I told this person to leave, if you find him here again, arrest him."

    There are other methods avaliable for a law enforcement officer to establish probable cause to arrest for trespass after warning, but for whatever reasons, many agencies will only accept their warning form as issued by an officer.

    I've found that this does take the right of the property owner to decide who can be removed and barred from their property away. "Oh, I'm not writing him a form, he's free to return" has been heard before. The counter, "You understand that I say he's not, and the property manager says he's not, so we're just going to physically throw him off the property if he does, right?" underscores the problem: It becomes advisarial between the security officer and the police officer, as the security officer's job is to remove this person.

    For those companies that do not allow intervention, how does one maintain access control (a vital part of even observe and report security) when one simply can't have someone removed and told to stay off?

    When owner's rights become a "tool reserved for law enforcement, and subject to their whim," it takes something away from the owner's ability to control their property. It means that they have to do it themselves, through direct intervention.

    Leave a comment:


  • security steve
    replied
    There is no such thing as "partial" trespass - at least not in VA. You cannot ban someone from an establishment and then put restrictions on it (IE you can use the restrooms in the mall, but not shop in any stores). No judge in the world will enforce that and the police will laugh at you. You either ban someone or you don't.

    I worked mall security when I was 18 and through college. We had armed guards in all our jewelry stores and two police officers on every shift. There was even a store in the mall (sporting goods) which sold guns. While we had a no gun policy, we used our head. If someone (an armed guard) was walking through the mall, we would approach and ask their destination (it was usually the jewelry store) etc.

    Mall security needs to use their head. The reason most mall security gets a bad rap is because they don't use their heads. They do stuff without thinking like tell armed security to remove their weapons. Say that guard put his gun in his car and then it was stolen? Technically they should have followed through and made sure the gun wasn't even on the parking lot. I personally think a gun is better off attended than unattended in a mall parking lot.

    Also, the Dillards in our mall used off duty police - but maybe since we were in such a rough area we needed the police presence. I just remember on weekends, the mall would have more armed security and police than Fort Knox

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    1st Watch is correct. State Law protecting a licensed individual to carry a firearm at times when they are authorized to do so trumps any other consideration. A Contract here CANNOT legally deny someone a legal right or privilage.

    Rental Property "belongs" to the renter as long as the rental agreement is in force. Any property owner/renter can carry firearms in property under his control. So any contract saying you can't have firearms on rental property have no legal force.

    Example: My College. It's a school, governed by the education code, and a gun free zone. BUT we have ATMs belonging to a private company on campus. every few days an armored truck pulls up, and an armed guard gets out to refill the ATMs inside the campus buildings. They are armed. There is nothing anyone, inculding Campus Police, can do about it, except get rid of the ATMs altogether. The ATMs are their property, period.

    As Peace Officers, We can ask the Truck Officers for their Commision Cards at any time if we wanted (which we don't), but that's about it.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X