Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Would You Do? - #3

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

  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    Ohhhhh no uniform your going for that spooky Men In Black look, coollllllll. Do black sun glasses come with that too :O)
    It's a hospitality thing. Remeber the old movies with the House Dick sitting in the lobby watching everything while pretending to read a newpaper? Hotels didn't want guests to know who the security was. Since those days we have changed from being reactive to proactive so at least now most of us are identifyable with a badge or name tag, but the hard oolice type uniform still hasn't become standard. ( Hotels that use Contract people tend to have uniformed staff more than us in house people as do hotels with casinos).

    Leave a comment:


  • Marchetti, David, M
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    We don't wear uniforms
    Ohhhhh no uniform your going for that spooky Men In Black look, coollllllll. Do black sun glasses come with that too :O)

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by dmarshall
    Having been a security supervisor at a major hotel in Fla. I was very up on the law at that time. Most hotels will not hire armed security guards because of the insurance costs involved. but if one is armed the only circumstance in which you could use your weapon was to stop a perp. from injuring a guest, or your self. The sop was to call the police to handle the situation unless there was dire need to protect a life, not property.

    Since, a law has been passed that permits the use of deadly force if you feel threatened for your life. Fla. has concealed weapon permits for ordinary citizens. They also can use deadly force if they feel threatened for their life.

    For the most part an armed guard usually will be working for some type of company other than the hospitality industry.
    I'm sorry, can you explain what you mean by "to stop a perp from injuring a guest or yourself," then go on to state that "since," a law has been passed that permits the use of deadly force if you feel threatened for your life?

    See, Florida authorizes deadly force only if you are immediately threatened with death or great bodily harm, and has since the 1990s at least. Most likely longer. The only modification is the removal of the duty.

    As far as "The sop was to call the police to handle the situation unless there was dire need to protect a life, not property," this was your company, not Florida Statutes. Florida Statutes authorizes people to protect others with force from battery as well as reclaim property. There is no duty to report in Florida, except for sexual battery, which means that you could grab a person fighting your front desk staff, throw him out, and not have to call the police.

    i.e. Using force to stop a battery, removing a trespasser using force, and barring the trespasser's reentry onto your property.

    Most companies, of course, advise their guards to stand there, get a good report, and call 911 while the front desk girl has her face caved in by the angry guest.

    Leave a comment:


  • dmarshall
    replied
    hotels in fla.

    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    We don't wear uniforms
    Having been a security supervisor at a major hotel in Fla. I was very up on the law at that time. Most hotels will not hire armed security guards because of the insurance costs involved. but if one is armed the only circumstance in which you could use your weapon was to stop a perp. from injuring a guest, or your self. The sop was to call the police to handle the situation unless there was dire need to protect a life, not property.

    Since, a law has been passed that permits the use of deadly force if you feel threatened for your life. Fla. has concealed weapon permits for ordinary citizens. They also can use deadly force if they feel threatened for their life.

    For the most part an armed guard usually will be working for some type of company other than the hospitality industry.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    He isn't pretty either.
    Hey I think I'm being insulted

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    I agree 110% I'd be FIRED and SUED too if I did not act, Hotel some here are warm bodies in uniforms nothing more. Some are former P.O.'s who feel Security Officers are not Police Officers so they are not allowed to be proactive while on duty i.e. the observe & report mentality. I would expect you to act as the crime victim, as your supervisor, and as the owner of the hotel. Otherwise why bother having security on the property to stand around and look pretty in a uniform?.
    He isn't pretty either.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    I agree 110% I'd be FIRED and SUED too if I did not act, Hotel some here are warm bodies in uniforms nothing more. Some are former P.O.'s who feel Security Officers are not Police Officers so they are not allowed to be proactive while on duty i.e. the observe & report mentality. I would expect you to act as the crime victim, as your supervisor, and as the owner of the hotel. Otherwise why bother having security on the property to stand around and look pretty in a uniform?.
    We don't wear uniforms

    Leave a comment:


  • EMTjon
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    My God. I'm glad I live in Texas.

    My cousin shot a guy who had broken into his truck. As with any shooting, it went to a Grand Jury and was no-billed instantly. He had every right to protect his property at night. My cousin is black (runs in the family ), not a LEO or security, lives in a mostly white neighborhood and shot a white guy. Still no-bill.

    My sister (she's a Deputy Sheriff in California) calls me a "Texasupremicist" lol. She's But I can't help it. The more I hear about how some states do things, the more pride I have in Texas.

    Here Assaulting a security officer is the same offense as assaulting a police officer or fireman. Here we have NO "Duty to retreat" if someone attacks us. I'm still reeling about the fact that some states say you HAVE to run away basically. Leaves this Texas boy goin WTF mate".

    And here we can use force to protect property. And whoa be to the fool who trys to steal from you at night (you can use deadly force to protect property at night).

    What happened to Mr. White is just, just, hell, I don't know what that is......
    And last I head, texas had a working capital punishment system, too!

    You guys have it nice... I'm stuck in Pensyl-tucky.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    My God. I'm glad I live in Texas.

    My cousin shot a guy who had broken into his truck. As with any shooting, it went to a Grand Jury and was no-billed instantly. He had every right to protect his property at night. My cousin is black (runs in the family ), not a LEO or security, lives in a mostly white neighborhood and shot a white guy. Still no-bill.

    My sister (she's a Deputy Sheriff in California) calls me a "Texasupremicist" lol. She's But I can't help it. The more I hear about how some states do things, the more pride I have in Texas.

    Here Assaulting a security officer is the same offense as assaulting a police officer or fireman. Here we have NO "Duty to retreat" if someone attacks us. I'm still reeling about the fact that some states say you HAVE to run away basically. Leaves this Texas boy goin WTF mate".

    And here we can use force to protect property. And whoa be to the fool who trys to steal from you at night (you can use deadly force to protect property at night).

    What happened to Mr. White is just, just, hell, I don't know what that is......

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    A civilian that shoots someone in the back is going to jail. Police have the ability to bring Force Science Institute into play, get expert witnesses, etc. However, the rest of us aren't that lucky.

    Maybe in a few years when juries are used to hearing FSI testamony about how someone can turn around and shoot you in less time than most recording cameras can measure... maybe. But, as I've said on a few cop forums... Unless you're a sworn LEO, that defense won't fly far. It may fly in some jurisdictions.

    Leave a comment:


  • T202
    replied
    A couple of things that didn't help his case for self-defense.
    The supect that died was shot at close range in the back.
    One of the officers at the scene testified that White was at the scene and initially declined to identify himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    The issue stems from, "is this person empowered by statute or custom to actively engage violators," or are they supposed to "call 911 and leave policing to the real police."

    If it is the latter, then by all rights the security person is not the "aggressor," as they are using lawful force to effect an arrest/stop a criminal occurance and then defended themselves from deadly resistance. If it is the former, then the armed security person "was the aggressor, bringing a gun into the situation and attempting to play cop instead of callin 911 from a distance. The guard should of never been placed in a position to shoot, and only did so because he was a wannabe cop."

    Leave a comment:


  • WISecurityGuy
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Sounds typical. Mr. White in this instance was the aggressor. Instead of calling 911 and remaining in his home, he went outside (with a gun) and confronted three juveniles commiting "a property crime."

    That the person with a tire iron raised it and offered deadly force is immaterial, as Mr. White was the aggressor. Instead of calling 911 like a "good citizen," he dared confront them.

    I sincerely doubt a security "person" would of fared any better, as they are not a law enforcement officer empowered with the authority to confront criminal offenses, since they are merely a private citizen.

    Racine is a screwed up place, and this trial proves that the armed citizen is a very dangerous thing indeed according to our local and state government.
    I agree with you that he definately shouldnt have gone out there with a gun, however I do tend to disagree with you that a security officer/guard/person, would not have fared any better. Obviously the circumstances have to change a little, but if a armed SO was patrolling a parking lot and happens to stumble on a couple of guys breaking into a car and calls his/her commands out for that person to stop, and that person uses tire iron as a deadly weapon, in my view that officer has every reason to defend himself. As taught in almost any firearms / daat course, the officer must use as much force to stop the threat.
    Last edited by WISecurityGuy; 11-29-2006, 05:20 PM. Reason: Wrong wording

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Sounds typical. Mr. White in this instance was the aggressor. Instead of calling 911 and remaining in his home, he went outside (with a gun) and confronted three juveniles commiting "a property crime."

    That the person with a tire iron raised it and offered deadly force is immaterial, as Mr. White was the aggressor. Instead of calling 911 like a "good citizen," he dared confront them.

    I sincerely doubt a security "person" would of fared any better, as they are not a law enforcement officer empowered with the authority to confront criminal offenses, since they are merely a private citizen.

    Racine is a screwed up place, and this trial proves that the armed citizen is a very dangerous thing indeed according to our local and state government.

    Leave a comment:


  • WISecurityGuy
    replied
    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=530397

    This is an interesting case right in your neck of the woods Corbier. This man, although not a security guard, used deadly force trying to protect his property, although his defense was that he was protecting his life and that he felt threatened when the man raised a tire iron over his head in an attempt to hit him.

    Now, correct me if I am wrong, but a tire iron could be considered a deadly weapon if close enough to make contact. If this same incident was with a security guard, I believe the guard would never have been found guilty if they could prove that the man could have hit him with the tire iron. However, this guy had no reason have a gun in the first place. He was, from what they found, protecting his property and not his life. Now he faces life in prison!

    This is the kind of thing that really should change in our society. I do not know about Mr. Whites prior record or what kind of person he is, however, I do know that he was at home with his family that night. Not causing harm or a problem to anyone, minding his own business. Its a shame that his life is as over as the guy he killed that night.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X