Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question For Armed Officers.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    You just described one of the reasons for in-house Campus Police Departments lol. My College District gets a HUGE discount for having it's security force be trained and certified police officers, just like it helps to have a fully staffed health center and Nurses. If the district's security force were only trained to the level the state requires of security officers, the discounted rates would be "not so great" (this is how the District Legal Counsel explained it to us anyways).

    The district saving money on us (campus police) is great job security .



    Don't the Casinos across the country do that too? Hire ex-Federal Agents and such I mean.
    Black Caesar:
    That is precisely my point. Training in the federal sector and state have greatly improved. Why not take advantage of such experience. Many local law enforcement have also increased their initial qualifications and in-service training.
    The level of training in some federal agencies staggers the imagination. The back channel networks is awesome!
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mr. Security
      How many of you would remain in security if you could work unarmed at a decent wage w/o fear of being harmed? I know this is a hypothetical question, but I want to see how many are in it because they get to carry a firearm. (I'm sensing a fascination with this "gun" thing )
      Mr. Security I have been doing security since 1985 while still in my last year of high school, never been armed and never wanted to carry a firearm. I'v had a carry permit, and have used just about everything including making my own ammo and building my own black powder firearms which is fun. Spent many a days in the woods bird, deer hunting, and target shooting, including fast draw sports. I have never had so much as a fear of being hurt while on the job and I have dealt with some hairy situations over the years. Many years ago while working at a private school in Kent Connecticut the place was leased out to an all girls gymnastic camp for the summer. One evening a young girl of about 8 years old or younger was walking back to the dorms when someone an older man in a beatup old pickup truck from NY state approached her and attempted to grab her and force her into his pickup. I have no doubt to assault her and maybe kill her up in that areas part of the Appalachian Trail, the only law enforcement up that far is a resident state trooper who takes no less then 30 mins to respond, so your pretty much on your own in the boonies. I spooked this dirbag off before he could exit his vehicle to chase her and grab her. The look on this little girls face upon seeing me in uniform, unarmed, was priceless as tears streamed down her face and she hugged me and told me what had happened. I would do this job with no gun, no badge, no backup, no weapon, in the middle of no where if it meant I could protect a little kid like that any day of the week. It was this incident that related to me just what a vital role security can play in society. And to this day I shutter at the thought of what could have been had I not been their unarmed patrolling the grounds in my vehicle.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
        Mr. Security I have been doing security since 1985 while still in my last year of high school, never been armed and never wanted to carry a firearm. I'v had a carry permit, and have used just about everything including making my own ammo and building my own black powder firearms which is fun. Spent many a days in the woods bird, deer hunting, and target shooting, including fast draw sports. I have never had so much as a fear of being hurt while on the job and I have dealt with some hairy situations over the years. Many years ago while working at a private school in Kent Connecticut the place was leased out to an all girls gymnastic camp for the summer. One evening a young girl of about 8 years old or younger was walking back to the dorms when someone an older man in a beatup old pickup truck from NY state approached her and attempted to grab her and force her into his pickup. I have no doubt to assault her and maybe kill her up in that areas part of the Appalachian Trail, the only law enforcement up that far is a resident state trooper who takes no less then 30 mins to respond, so your pretty much on your own in the boonies. I spooked this dirbag off before he could exit his vehicle to chase her and grab her. The look on this little girls face upon seeing me in uniform, unarmed, was priceless as tears streamed down her face and she hugged me and told me what had happened. I would do this job with no gun, no badge, no backup, no weapon, in the middle of no where if it meant I could protect a little kid like that any day of the week. It was this incident that related to me just what a vital role security can play in society. And to this day I shutter at the thought of what could have been had I not been their unarmed patrolling the grounds in my vehicle.
        A good experience with a happy ending. Unarmed is what I prefer. I know that doesn't work in some areas, but the presence of an alert, physically fit, sharply dressed security officer who means business will make most criminals select an easier target, much like a lion targets easy prey to increase success and minimize the possibility of injury.
        Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
          One evening a young girl of about 8 years old or younger..... The look on this little girls face upon seeing me in uniform, unarmed, was priceless as tears streamed down her face and she hugged me and told me what had happened. I would do this job with no gun, no badge, no backup, no weapon, in the middle of no where if it meant I could protect a little kid like that any day of the week. It was this incident that related to me just what a vital role security can play in society. And to this day I shutter at the thought of what could have been had I not been their unarmed patrolling the grounds in my vehicle.
          With all due respect to you sir, I believe that the little girl that you saved could not know or care about whether or not you were armed.
          She had just gone through a traumatic experience.
          You were in uniform, to her you were an authority figure. The fact that you were or were not armed is completely irrelevant.

          she was an 8 year old, her world was all about Barbies and My Little Ponies..not armed or unarmed security guards.

          As for the current topic, Yeah, I would hang up the holster if the money was the same and I didn't have my own company....
          Last edited by gonzo1510; 02-03-2007, 02:27 AM. Reason: forgot to answer the question at hand....sorry
          The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke.

          Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?

          www.patrol4u.com


          sigpic

          Comment


          • #35
            To an 8 year old, after you just saved her life, you are the police. Cause that's what policemans do.
            Some Kind of Commando Leader

            "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Mr. Security
              A good experience with a happy ending. Unarmed is what I prefer. I know that doesn't work in some areas, but the presence of an alert, physically fit, sharply dressed security officer who means business will make most criminals select an easier target, much like a lion targets easy prey to increase success and minimize the possibility of injury.
              Respectfully, there's no proper basis for "preferring" one or the other. The only question is whether the equipment (of any kind, not just weapons) and the training fit the requirements for the officer's specific job.

              That the security officer be properly equipped and properly trained for whatever the venue requires - whether armed or unarmed, whether equipped or not with OCP, Taser, baton, flashlight, ballpoint pen, latex gloves, a radio, a fire extinguisher, a metal detector, an RFID wand or a CPR respirator - having and knowing how to use the tools he needs for his specific job in the venue where he works is the only "preference" that is appropriate. A weapon is nothing more than another tool, no matter how some might wish to imbue it with a lot of emotional overlay.

              One thing is dead certain, however, from any study you care to make about attacks on security officers: There are far more officers who are not armed but should be, than there are officers who are armed but who should not be.
              "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

              "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

              "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

              "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

              Comment


              • #37
                The company that I work for offers a variety of services. The main ones are unarmed loss prevention and armed protection or different venues. Loss prevention is mostly shop lifting sort of thing and generally in the more peaceful areas. Our loss prevention works mostly as an unarmed uniformed person. A scare crow if you will. In some of the more active locations they will put in a uniform at the front and a undercover roaming the store. If he spots a lifter he informs the front guy whom will basically covers the front exit. Then they both will do their thing and take the perp down.

                This is very effective and cost only slightly more for the 2 unarmed guys as it would for 1 armed. In the store business the word shrinkage is basically based on computer generated weekly comparison of sales slips of certain items and beginning counts of these same items of the same week.

                Now to the point this company has several stores in what the city cops call hell. For lack of a better word this is a very dangerous crime ridden ghetto. The main public transportion point is in the middle of this hole. It is so easy and inviting for bad folks to get off a bus and do somethlng bad then jump on another bus and be gone. Here is where my group come in. We go in armed and take back the store with a high presents. It is extremely efective. Once we regain control of the store and the shrinkage rate goes down we will keep that store as an armed post with an attitude.

                On the down side we don't have a bunch of armed folks sitting around waiting for a call so we have to use the regulars to accomplish our goals. This means as I did yesterday 16 hrs sore feet and all. On monday I will do another 16. So there is a good incentive for us to get the job done so we can get back to our regular hours. So you can see that this is an area that unarmed could not be able to perform effectively. Oh yea after the store has turned we have to hire approx 4 more armed guards so certainly a good thing for us. The danger will still be there for the guys that fill the positions but that's what they get paid for.
                THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A 911 CALL IS FOUR MINUTES
                THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A .357 MAGNUM ROUND IS 1400 FEET PER SECOND?
                http://www.boondocksaints.com/

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by SecTrainer
                  Respectfully, there's no proper basis for "preferring" one or the other. The only question is whether the equipment (of any kind, not just weapons) and the training fit the requirements for the officer's specific job.

                  That the security officer be properly equipped and properly trained for whatever the venue requires - whether armed or unarmed, whether equipped or not with OCP, Taser, baton, flashlight, ballpoint pen, latex gloves, a radio, a fire extinguisher, a metal detector, an RFID wand or a CPR respirator - having and knowing how to use the tools he needs for his specific job in the venue where he works is the only "preference" that is appropriate. A weapon is nothing more than another tool, no matter how some might wish to imbue it with a lot of emotional overlay.

                  One thing is dead certain, however, from any study you care to make about attacks on security officers: There are far more officers who are not armed but should be, than there are officers who are armed but who should not be.
                  I meant preferred in the sense that I prefer to work unarmed, not that unarmed is the preferred choice at all sites. Sorry for any confusion.
                  Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Nah it was not you I had in mind, but now that I think of it he more than likely will not understand that you never should bring bravado to a gun fight. The odds will not be in his favor. All security is dangerous in different ways. When I was unarmed I encountered some nasty looking Coyotes that had some pups under an outside storage shed where one of my contacts was located. For the longest time I carried rocks with me although they didn't seem to faze them.
                    THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A 911 CALL IS FOUR MINUTES
                    THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A .357 MAGNUM ROUND IS 1400 FEET PER SECOND?
                    http://www.boondocksaints.com/

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      ...is it just me, or do alot of guys here that have only work unarmed confuse "having my carry permit" for private concealed carry, being equal to/ or similar as working 'armed' ??
                      The two are NOT the same, no way are they even close. The only similarity they share is the presence of a firearm, otherwise, they are as far apart as you might actually get. I'm certainly not trying to start a flame war, but if you have not carried on the job, then you cant possibly understand working armed, especially in certain jobs some of us do, (myself included)..when one is heavily armed.
                      Yoda
                      Sometimes there is "Justice", sometimes there is "Just Us"

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        In my state the LTC /CCW is issued under the aspersis of ALL LAWFULL PURPOSES.
                        It depends on the local LF Chief. If his name is Richard Cranium then all bets are off. He can limit your class or totally refuse you a license. The process generally takes 8 weeks. It starts with the chief and goes to the Staties then to the FBI.

                        Not many if any armed companies will hire you without a permit in your hand. As you may understand it cost a lot to train and uniform you only to have you turned down for a license.

                        Under a CCW you can carry to and from your post in your holster if uniformed. If you need to stop for donuts or smokes then it is wise to wear a jacket over your side arm. I carry one in my truck that has no patches on it and is long enough to cover all.
                        THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A 911 CALL IS FOUR MINUTES
                        THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A .357 MAGNUM ROUND IS 1400 FEET PER SECOND?
                        http://www.boondocksaints.com/

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mr. Security
                          How many of you would remain in security if you could work unarmed at a decent wage w/o fear of being harmed? I know this is a hypothetical question, but I want to see how many are in it because they get to carry a firearm. (I'm sensing a fascination with this "gun" thing )
                          Why would there be a need for security, in this hypothetical environment, if there is no chance of anyone being harmed?

                          I'll re-task-organize your question, Mr. Security, if I may: How many of you would remain in security if you could make a decent living, working in a community that has absolutely no need for your services?

                          If it walks like security, talks like security and acts like security, then it darn well better be security. I don't need a janitor/secretary with a badge. I want protection for me and my family. That's what the uniform implies, that's what I'm paying for.

                          Integrity is not a handicap, Mr. Security, not even for the unarmed.
                          "Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier." C.P.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 11B/PMC
                            Why would there be a need for security, in this hypothetical environment, if there is no chance of anyone being harmed?

                            I'll re-task-organize your question, Mr. Security, if I may: How many of you would remain in security if you could make a decent living, working in a community that has absolutely no need for your services?

                            If it walks like security, talks like security and acts like security, then it darn well better be security. I don't need a janitor/secretary with a badge. I want protection for me and my family. That's what the uniform implies, that's what I'm paying for.

                            Integrity is not a handicap, Mr. Security, not even for the unarmed.

                            I see your points. I don't think Mr. Security is implying that anyone is ever 100% immune from getting harmed. But, there is a huge difference in the danger level you face based on the type of security work you do. Gaming surveillance officers that merely sit upstairs and watch for cheats get paid well and that is a form of security work that there is very little chance for injury.

                            People in security know the difference between a high risk location or not. An urban county hospital or a low income public housing complex = high risk. A suburban office building for a company that sells printing supplies=low risk.

                            I tend to agree that most people that have the name security in their title are vary seldom able to provide much "real" security when the chips are down. As far as enforcing company rules and being on the lookout for safety and regulatory concerns, most security people are fine. But, if you expect to be protected in an armed workplace violence scenario by over 90 percent of security officers (in these parts) you have another thing coming.

                            Most security companies want their officers to literally or figuratively run away from any real issues.

                            Mr. Security's question was, and remains, valid.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by CorpSec
                              Mr. Security's question was, and remains, valid.
                              Then I'll respond with a valid answer. No, I would not pretend to be responsible for the protection of others, by wearing a uniform that a reasonable person would believe to be that of a trained security officer, if I never intended to actually protect those who expect me to do so, no matter how much it pays.
                              Last edited by 11B/PMC; 02-05-2007, 02:08 AM.
                              "Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier." C.P.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 11B/PMC
                                Then I'll respond with a valid answer. No, I would not pretend to be responsible for the protection of others, by wearing a uniform that a reasonable person would believe to be that of a trained security officer, if I never intended to actually protect those who expect me to do so.
                                You need to remember that not all security involves the protection of others. The gaming security that Corpsec mentioned is focused on the protection of assets. In some corporate environments, security is more focused on protection of information and access control. The private security industry is extremely diverse and complex when it comes to responsibilities. I absolutely understand where you are coming from, but you have to remember that not all security is the same.
                                "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun-Tzu

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X