Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary

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

  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    While it is true that yellow is the only flashing light permitted for security on public property, you can probably use white hide-away strobes in your vehicles parking lights. Numerous utility companies do this and they are bound by the same statute as security. If you have a good relationship with the PD, then I doubt if they will give you flak over it as long as it's not abused. Cops have bigger fish to fry.
    I don't think he has good relations with his police department.

    Mr. Security, do you feel that you have more power than a private citizen? You're in CT, is any of what he's been saying resonating with you?

    Its sad that I can point out flaws in his logic, and all he can do is mount ad hominem attacks against me, and anyone else who dares question that he is not "better" than a private citizen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Security Lights - Conn.

    While it is true that yellow is the only flashing light permitted for security on public property, you can probably use white hide-away strobes in your vehicles parking lights. Numerous utility companies do this and they are bound by the same statute as security. If you have a good relationship with the PD, then I doubt if they will give you flak over it as long as it's not abused. Cops have bigger fish to fry.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawson
    replied
    I wonder how the state representatives who have the same feelings some of these members do are going to feel when they do a little internet research on your topic, come across this board and find you are calling people half-brained and not all that and a bag of chips. I'm sure they will be very supportive of your letter.

    As far as everything goes, I think your heart is in the right place, Lord knows I have begun to put stuff together to try to increase the power/authority vested in certain security officers here, but reading the original article, I do agree with some people, it would have been wise to let some people read and critique it before sending it out.

    I can only wish you the best of luck in your endevaors however.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    Rolls his eyes another intelligent moderator heard from. My problems? another half brained individual heard from, my problem as you put it was not only my problem but a problem for all of my employees being harassed, threatened, stalked, unlawfully stopped, threatened with arrests, and a lot of other nonsense by some locals, I have not even discussed details here, so do everyone a favor if you don't know even what your talking about check your attitude and keep your mouth closed, thank you. And the harassment was not limited to our security agency. What are you folks freaking retards, you desire to be subservient to the police and ignorant to the effect " Police can do no wrong in our society " wake up all ready and smell the damn coffee.

    http://www.policeabuse.org/

    http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14614pub19971201.html

    http://flyservers.registerfly.com/me...ice_abuse.html

    http://www.gainesnet.com/police.htm

    http://www.payles.com/fightbak.html


    A quote from the FBI's site on Police Corruption

    "Police corruption knows no state or regional borders.
    It must be attacked not only by everyone in the law enforcement
    profession but also by elected officials from the governor's
    office to the state legislature to the mayor's office to the
    city council," Freeh said. "Ultimately, it is the
    public that must demand from their elected officials and law
    enforcement executives an absolute commitment to integrity."




    No inhouse is not required to be licensed, however some in the state seem to disagree as then legally speaking unlicensed security people don't mee the definition of being " Security Officers ". Look at P.A. 04-192 definition of what a Security Offficer is under law.
    Actually, I had a brain scan last year and have the pictures that prove I have both halves of my brain. Again you write about what has allegedly been done to you and your employees. I think I hit the nail on the head.

    I've worked both sides - law enforcement (federal-state-local) and I even owned a contract security agency. I made a lot of money on the contract security side - I can't be to much of a "freaking retard."

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    David, you've got to be kidding, I mean you really do. I don't know what it was that caused you to have this mighty "i'm a poor victim/waaaaahhhh the cops don't like me" chip on your shoulder, but the resolution to any problem starts with self-examination.

    If how you wrote you're "commentary" is indicitive of how you conduct affairs, then no wonder you and the people who work for you have problems with police. You can't condem people (like the Police) for a holier than thou/can do no wrong attitude when you display the same attitude when someone challenges your (poorly written, combative, confused, "tackelberryish") commentary.

    In 12 years (and some change) in private security/protection and public saftey, i've had a handful of bad contacts with other policemen. I know thats not the same for everyone, but in my honest opinion, the majority of people I've known on the private side that had problems with police on the level you suggest were people who continually overstep the bounds of their limited authority (and they always think they should be given more authority from the state....).

    LEOs are far from perfect, but (like I'd tell any criminal as well), you can spend you're whole life blaming the police for your problems, or you can stop doing the dumb things that attract police attention in the 1st place......

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill Warnock
    To that end, please modify your tone or kindly go elsewhere.
    Bill Warnock
    Amen!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    David, Nathan may be many things but to refer to him as a lackey or toady crosses the line of propriety. Few of us in this forum outwardly try to be offensive, perhaps capriciously. From the use of bold capitalization, shouting, it would appear you have made it your mission to do so. To that end, please modify your tone or kindly go elsewhere.
    Bill Warnock

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    David

    As a fellow CT security officer, I believe that you have the potential to influence legislatures to view contract security in a more favorable light. I understand your frustration with SOME LEO's. I had a few bad experiences myself.

    Still, we can't get prominent people to help us unless we befriend them. Sometimes that means interacting with individuals who may be somewhat hostile towards security. Diplomacy and professionalism are musts if we are to win them over. Since you have your own security company, I urge you to take positive steps towards gaining the trust and respect of the law makers and law enforcement people so that they will give you a favorable hearing regarding the difficulties that you encounter in the security field.

    You can help us, but you need to "attract bees with honey," if you know what I mean.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    Are In-House people governed by the same laws in Conn. We bought a hotel in Hartford about 2 years ago.
    Not exactly. I don't believe that they are required to be licensed as is contract security. Furthermore, the square badge requirement is not applicable. I am unsure about the need for criminal background checks, but that part may very well apply. If not, common sense would dictate that such a check be performed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curtis Baillie
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    When you go asking your senators for things, you need a rock solid base. When someone notes that "David Marchetti" is after this bill, and Google's him... They're going to find rants about how the police are evil and corrupt and anything else that he's posted.

    Corbier I can tell by your statement your a law enforcement lackey, not all police officers are angels by any means, at least I speak the cold hard truth. Come deal with some of the security hating police officers we have had contact with over the years I know not all of them are bad, but many are and that's a fact - suck it up and move along as it's getting old. I judge the cop based individually I know a lot of good cops too, ones I would trust with my life. It's the bad dishonest ones I do not like or support. Have a problem with it, tough as I really don't care. And yes, after 22 years of being in this profession and owning my own agency for 14 yes I would like to see some viable changes in the laws. Go get hit by a tractor trailer durring a burglary, have a former suspect stalk you, and bring a federal lawsuit against a city and police department then talk your nonsense. Sorry some of us are realists in life and in my eyes you don't even come close to my experience in the field, your not all that nor a bag of chips buddy.

    Here in Texas private security is taken seriously (for example, SOs are included in our "Assault of a Public Servant" statutue), if you want that to happen in your state, you HAVE to avoid giving the wrong impression. This "commentary" gives the wrong impression.

    Black Caesar our state statutes governing security have been lacking for a very very long time, just a few years ago we could not even carry a nightstick while on duty without a special permit, no state statute exists that permits us to carry mace, but their is no state statute that prohibits it so it leaves many companies and S/O's in the lurch so to speak. Do I issue my employees mace or don't I?.They have not even addressed Air Tasors being carried by Security Officers but they are addressing it for Police Officers, again we are left out in the lurch so to speak. The only law governing the use of electronic stun gun makes it a Felony to use such a devise with no statutory exemptions for Police or Security. But Police are using them are they technically violating statutory law when they use them?. I think that's a valid question don't you?. Local Police Department regulations are not LAW. No law prohibts a Security Officer from carrying one, but it's a Felony if used?, then why carry it if you can't use it legally?.

    Let's just say a lot of gaps are left wide open in state laws. Now they are they really getting some bad advise somewhere or their brains are in park. As for Assault of a Public Servant or Safety Officer they cover PRIVATE employees of hospitals and Ambulance Companies, we should have been included years ago, but we have not to date. It makes no sense you assault a emergency room nurse it's a Felony, you assault the Security Officer that act's to protect her it's a Misdemeanor?. And they want to make it a Felony to hit a kids coach?. Please explain the logic of this to me?. This is what irks the hell out of me it's like they put very little thought into the legislation.
    David - I think I see now where your problems are coming from.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    Are In-House people governed by the same laws in Conn. We bought a hotel in Hartford about 2 years ago.
    Sorta...

    "(ii) employed by a business and is a uniformed employee who performs security work on the premises of the employer's business when such premises are located in an area that is accessible and unrestricted to the public, or has access only by paid admission;"

    So, yes, for them, if they're uniformed. If not, then no.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Are In-House people governed by the same laws in Conn. We bought a hotel in Hartford about 2 years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    I have to agree 100%. Remember Marchetti, no one here intends to bash you for your commentary. Although it could of used a little more thought IMHO. Regardless, it is evident from your views that the police/security relationship in your area is "abrasive". Also, it is clear that what you truly desire is change. From the sounds of it, contract security regulation in your state is perhaps a little behind in the times when compared to other states. If what you truly desire is change, then you need to start a positive dialogue with your state senator or representative. If you plead your case, and they agree with you, it's them who can make the changes. Best of luck!

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    In speaking with David M. Marchetti of the Force-1 Security Agency, Incorporated., a twenty year field veteran of the profession he states, The hours kind of suck, the money is not the best, but to do this type of work you have to have a love of the job. About two months ago I was on routine patrol duty of clients properties when I went behind a building and found a suspicious vehicle, following standard operational procedure I pulled in behind the vehicle, I reported the suspect vehicles license plate, and proceeded to make an approach, when I saw the driver reach behind his back and take something out. I had no doubt the suspect pulled a firearm. Walking towards the vehicle I followed procedure and placed the door jam of the vehicle between myself and the suspect driver so I was not in a clean line of sight. The moment the guy saw my badge he stated " Oh you scared me ". Given the situation and condition it is understandable, but it’s a fatality waiting to happen Marchetti states.
    Mr. Marchetti is doing these approaches in, as he noted, an unmarked Dodge Neon. This is just another vehicle coming up, turning its high beams on, and someone getting out. Ill intent or not, this is not the sign of lawful authority coming up to you. This is a dodge neon.

    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    You have to put yourself in the place of both Security Officer and Driver Marchetti states, first of all the Security Officer is just doing his job investigating why someone is trespassing on private property, how many occupants are involved, is anyone out side of the vehicle, is it a couple having a fight, some people using narcotics, or someone breaking into the building, you just don’t know. Some might say " Call the police " you can’t when you approach over 100+ vehicles a year, slow police response, and the potential of a commission of a crime. The driver has gone out for the night, consumed a few drinks, and looks for an isolated location to make out with his girlfriend. All of a sudden he finds himself blocked in by another vehicle who’s blinding him with his head lights, that would scare anyone within reason. The problem is Marchetti states even if you have decals on your vehicle the driver can not see the sides of your car as your behind him and he’s blinded by your high beams.
    Again, we have a vehicle pulling up and activating its high beams. Where is the spot light? If its on private property, where is the amber light bar with the spot light, something most people realize "is the vehicle of a security guard?"

    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    Marchetti states it’s his understanding that on several occasions legislation has been proposed in Hartford to allow Security Officers the ability to use Purple Lights while on duty, but each time the bill has failed to pass legislative channels. Under current state laws Security can use Yellow flashing lights on vehicles with a permit, then again so can Garbage Trucks, Tow Trucks, News Paper Delivery Vehicles, and Snow Plows. Marchetti states " Is this what they ( Law Makers ) think of us as a profession as we go about protecting other peoples property and lives, their position in all honestly stinks ". I respond to a clients parking lot where some idiot has pulled a box cutter and is trying to slash people with it, I disarm the suspect and arrest him, and I can’t get a flashing light bar on my car that identifies me as being someone acting in an official capacity under state law?. Marchetti states he finds it insulting to say the least.
    But Mr. Marchetti is not, at any time, acting in an official capacity under state law. He is a private citizen in a regulated industry, much like a doctor or a carpenter. His arrest is made under private arrest statutes, his light bar is amber as he is a private industry much like any other, and his response goes beyond observe and report only because his company provides that service.

    A private citizen helping other private citizens without "official authority." If the state wanted to give Mr. Marchetti special authority, they would of made him a special policeman, or the municipalities he works in would of made him a special constable.

    PA 04-194 specifically prohibits those with police powers from performing security duties, which further illustrates this point.

    Under state laws we may carry a handgun legally with a blue card, we may keep a long barreled weapon loaded in our vehicles ( shotguns ), we can carry a nightstick, we may wear a badge, make lawful arrests under the common laws of the state, use reasonable physical force to make such arrests,
    There is no mandate in PA 04-192 that security company licensees are require to protect people and property. The act is only a registration act, it creates no legal duty. Any legal duty created is contractual in nature, and dependent on the state's case law.

    ...we are mandated by law to protect people and property, but we can not get a light bar on a patrol car so we can be identified and not get shot accidentally while on duty, or use the light bar so responding police called for back assistance can find us faster.
    An amber light bar is allowed with permit, on public and private property...

    Marchetti states " I know Police Officers who would not do our jobs, and I’d love to see some legislators and other elected officials come out into the field and try our job on for size, and I don’t mean sitting at a desk checking identification badges of employees ".
    This IS part of the job of security. What Marchetti is talking about is something different, something that the police already do: The enforcement of laws (Why else are you arresting people), and the protection of persons and property.

    The State of Connecticut needs to pass serious legislation governing security as many of it’s laws are half baked tending to lead any professional to wonder if state legislators are getting really bad advise or just have a lack of knowledge of our profession.
    I actually agree with this. But not from the, "Give us police powers, we already are sworn by the state to do this and that, etc..." Marchetti is a private citizen, just like me, just like the rest of us.

    Marchetti states let us use Purple Flashing Lights, Purple and White, Blue and Purple, Blue, Purple, and White, something that identifies us clearly to the trespassing public.
    In other words, give us police car lights. Blue and Purple? Blue?

    Marchetti states as an example of how bad the laws are look at the state statute that makes it a Felony to assault a Police Officer, Fireman, Emergency Room Nurse, Paramedic or Doctor, they have even considered it making it a Felony to assault a kids coach, but it’s only a Misdemeanor if you assault a identifiable Security Officer in Connecticut, well Marchetti states who do you think is protecting the emergency room doctors and nurses - Security. Who do they call when a problem arises, Security, so why is it State Licensed Security Officers are not included in C.G.S. Sec. 53a-167c. Assault of public safety or emergency medical personnel.
    Bitching about not having police car lights and claiming to have official authority is not the way to bring changes like these about. Florida has Battery on a Security Officer, who is a private citizen without police powers.

    The fact that you make arrests is based on what your company wants you to do, any citizen including the soccer mom can make arrests.

    The fact that the state mandates contract private security and only contract wear square badges of a very specific design may show what's going on here.

    One of the reasons that bills never pass is because people get on their high horse about how "private security has official authority" or "we are like the police."

    I've watched multiple bills become law in Florida. And none of these bills stated that security officers were anything more than private citizens. What they did state was that private security officers are important to homeland security, even as "just" private citizens.

    Many states give citizens broad powers much like the police. There is no need for "police" powers in states where private arrest is permissible. After all, you can already make arrests "as a police officer may" in most codified states.

    Hell, in Tennessee, you don't even have to call the police, just take your prisoner to a magistrate.

    Connecticut already has a broad infrastructure of special police, Constables and "Special Policeman." Why would the state create more? What they can create, though, is a strengthened private security force of citizens.

    Realize why they made it so you can only have a square badge before asking for such things as blue lights.

    ... And if you think I tore this apart, wait till someone with an axe to grind with private security and the "increase of threats to our liberty from these private rent-a-cops" who happens to be a journalist or "blogger" gets a hold of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    Does The State of Connecticut Endanger The Lives of State Licensed Security Officers Through Poor Legislation And Lack Of Job Knowledge, Maybe....... By David M. Marchetti

    The State of Connecticut defines a Security Officer as the Licensed and Registered person hired to safeguard and protect persons and property, by (A) the detection or prevention of any unlawful intrusion or entry, larceny, vandalism, abuse, arson or trespass on property such security officer is hired to protect, or (B) the prevention, observation, or detection of any unauthorized activity on property the security officer was hired to protect.
    [url=http://www.ct.gov/dps/lib/dps/special_licensing_and_firearms/public_act%2004-192.pdf]Public Act 04-192, Conn. General Statutes

    Code:
    (6) "Security officer" means the licensed and registered person hired to safeguard and protect persons and property, by (A) the detection or prevention of any unlawful intrusion or entry, larceny, vandalism, abuse, arson or trespass on property such security officer is hired to protect, or (B) the prevention, observation, or detection of any unauthorized activity on property the security officer was hired to protect. Such security officer may be (i) employed by a security service, or (ii) employed by a business and is a uniformed employee who performs security work on the premises of the employer's business when such premises are located in an area that is accessible and unrestricted to the public, or has access only by paid admission;
    As noted above, the security officer has been hired to safeguard and protect persons and property by "detection or prevention" or the "prevention, observation, or detection" of statute or rule. Nowhere in this definition does it mention arresting, enforcing, or otherwise confronting anyone. Keep this in mind later on.

    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    Such security officer may be (i) employed by a security service, or (ii) employed by a business and is a uniformed employee who performs security work on the premises of the employer’s business when such premises are located in an area that is accessible and unrestricted to the public, or has access only by paid admission;
    Now we come to an interesting point...

    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    ...in reality it translates to apprehending people committing Larceny, Criminal Trespass, Unlawful Dumping, Assault, and other more serious criminal offenses. At times we may deal with armed suspects, step in between a couple fighting to a point it becomes assault in order to protect a third party, our job can be inherently dangerous, but more so if your doing retail loss prevention or motorized patrol work.
    According to the state statute above, none of this above is required by the state. This is something that the company takes upon itself to do. This "apprehending people," stepping in between fighting parties, etc... It is something the individual licensed companies decide to do. The state's opinion as promulgated in Public Act 04-192 is that security officers are to detect and observe.

    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    At times it can get crazy and almost insane behind the badge of security, T.J. Maxx a store detective moves in to apprehend a female larceny suspect when he’s greeted with a razor blade slid across his face, at Home Depot loss prevention people attempt to move in on a larceny suspect and are stopped dead in their tracks when a suspect pulls hand handgun and they are looking down the business end of a barrel, a Security Officer on routine patrol approaches a suspicious vehicle behind a building and is faced with the operator pulling a firearm. At the Danbury Fair Mall a Security Officer is intentionally struck and injured when he’s hit by the motor vehicle of a larceny suspect.
    This is the job everywhere, and few states have authorized contract security personnel additional powers beyond merchant's privilege. Merchant's privilege allows these "larceny suspects" to be arrested in most states by any agent of the store. That the agent happens to be a contracted security officer is irrelevant.

    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    It’s a dangerous job, done by unarmed officers, and often with no back up assistance, and often in desolated locations. It’s not a profession for the weak of heart nor cowardly, perhaps that explains why according to O.S.H.A. line of duty deaths for Security Officers exceed line of duty deaths for Police Officers, our industries baby brother nation wide.
    I want a citation for this. I have heard this bandied about by IFPO, yet the results have been disproved time and time again.

    (Continued)

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X