Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary

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

  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    Sorry to say it, but I have to agree with grussem.

    It's confusing for one thing. it says "By David M. Marchetti" then says "n speaking with David M. Marchetti of the Force-1 Security Agency, Incorporated".... WTF, did you write it David, or were you interviewed for it?

    It's full of run-on sentences for one thing. It's rambling and unfocused for another. And the tone is "confrontational", which is no way about going to get people in authority to listen to you.

    When I read it I thought "man, someone in the Connecticut Legislature is having a good laugh right now". This is not good for furthering the cause.

    Here in Texas private security is taken seriously (for example, SOs are incldued 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.
    This is what I was referring to. Impression is everything. You're asking a senator to possibly risk his career to sponsor this bill. How would he "risk his career?" Media gets wind of what he's sponsoring, makes a case out of it.

    Private police/security is big in the news now. People associate authority with Bush, and believe its some kind of neo-con plot. Take into consideration how people treat campus police, specials, etc. People flip when you ask to create MORE types of folks who can control them.

    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.

    That's fuel for opponents to use against the bill, against the senator, and against Marchetti himself.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Sorry to say it, but I have to agree with grussem.

    It's confusing for one thing. it says "By David M. Marchetti" then says "n speaking with David M. Marchetti of the Force-1 Security Agency, Incorporated".... WTF, did you write it David, or were you interviewed for it?

    It's full of run-on sentences for one thing. It's rambling and unfocused for another. And the tone is "confrontational", which is no way about going to get people in authority to listen to you.

    When I read it I thought "man, someone in the Connecticut Legislature is having a good laugh right now". This is not good for furthering the cause.

    Here in Texas private security is taken seriously (for example, SOs are incldued 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by grussem
    So...did you interview yourself for this article? It is very poorly written.
    It also demonstrates that in Connecticut, private security is "observe," "detect," or "prevent," not apprehend or enforce. So, why would someone need any color of light bar other than amber, or police authority?

    Leave a comment:


  • grussem
    replied
    So...did you interview yourself for this article? It is very poorly written.

    Leave a comment:


  • Security Vet
    replied
    David... i respect your opinion. being in the Contract field for over 25 years i can appreciate alot of what you have said... But you seem to be very bitter towards LEO"S As in any line of work there are good and bad. Also as far as arresting powers.. I work corporate security so our role is to Observe and report. it is what it is... I happen to respect most LEO"S yes there are some jackass cops... But my dealings with police have for the most part been problem free.

    Leave a comment:


  • talon
    replied
    Oh yeah...I too have had a County Deputy pull a gun on me...while I was in full uniform and with the blue lights of my patrol car on.

    Leave a comment:


  • talon
    replied
    I think you are right on point David.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Actually, you posted this on a public forum. Which puts every reader in a position to read, digest, and judge the article written. The questions about "filing lawsuits" and the rest have no bearing on the merits of your article.

    Please show us where, in statute, it states you are to apprehend law violators. I see only "observe" and "prevent" violations of law codified in statute.

    Further, where in statute does it grant licensees state authority, as you stated it does? Security personnel may apprehend or arrest as private citizens, but this is not state authority.

    Some states, like Tennessee actually codify one of the duties of a "protective services licensee" to include enforcement of local, county, and state law. Even then, they are not acting under state authority, merely in the interest of the state, still as private citizens.

    When security personnel are acting under specific state authority, they becomre more than private citizens, they become a form of law or rule enforcement. We generally call them peace officers.

    FASCO of Florida is currently petitioning for Green and Amber lights for licensed security personnel. Not because they hold some "state authority," but because it will allow EMS and LE to quickly locate security vehicles during the next hurricane season amid the wash of amber lights.

    There are very specific rules on what colors security may use in Florida (Amber only), and when they may run them (private property, public streets or throughways running through private property.)

    Also... You're operating your light bars on private property. Is there a specificl law that prevents the mere posession of an amber light bar? You're on private property, in most states, the motor vehicle code does not apply.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Two points:

    1. "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"

    Please provide source for this. If you're quoting the IFPO document on "Security Agents have higher on-duty homicides than Police Officers," please be advised that several organizations have tried to reproduce those results, and have failed. I myself tried to figure it out, and in 2004, LEOs had a higher on duty homicide rate than private security & gaming agents.

    2. Did you send this article as posted to this forum? Before sending anything to the media, the legislature, or anything that may gain public exposure, it is always a good idea to have a professional copywriter look over it, make adjustments and edits, then read it again. I'm not as careful with my forum posts in spelling and grammar as I should be (I consider this informal), but when sending something to a legislator or media outlet, I have it proofed by no less than four people prior to sending.

    Other than that, I'm afraid I can poke holes in this commentary all day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marchetti, David, M
    started a topic Commentary

    Commentary

    Does The State of Connecticut Endanger The Lives of State Licensed Security Officers Through Poor Legislation And Lack Of Job Knowledge, Maybe.......
    Last edited by Marchetti, David, M; 01-22-2007, 04:15 AM.

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X