Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question For Armed Officers.

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

  • #46
    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, no matter how much it pays.

    You can be a trained security officer and not be armed, you just aren't going to be any good in violent encounters where use of force options are needed.

    How many security officers had to deploy their guns last year to save a life? The total would be shockingly low.

    Davis said it right when he said that not all security is concerned with protecting others. There are a lot of other issues that come into play.

    Do you think a reasonable person expects the retired guy in the contract polyester uniform to actually protect them from physical violence? Or do you think that they just figure that the guy is there to handle guests and check for ID's.

    I respect that your idea of good security might be a force that is drilled to Marine like precision in firearms and defensive tactics. But, outside of a few agencies here and there, that just isn't what is out there.
    Last edited by CorpSec; 02-05-2007, 03:50 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by FDG06
      ...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
      Some states do not license private security to carry firearms as security personnel, they simply issue a CCW to everyone, and the private security person carries openly on the CCW "for security guard purposes."
      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


      • #48
        People simply do not believe you are there to protect them. Traditionally, security guards do three things:

        1) Attempt to control access. (They cannot because we all know a security guard cannot tell anyone what to do, nor touch anyone.)
        2) Attempt to arrest people. (They cannot because... you get the point...)
        3) Sleep.

        This is the age old media representation.

        Time and time again, I have watched people say things like, "Oh, the security guard isn't concerned with a man coming in and killing us, his job is to protect the building." You can replace building with "the parking lot," or "the fence," or "the plant."

        In many cases, you are specifically not there to protect anything but specified real estate and assets. The employees are made aware that the security guard is not there to protect them in any way, and they should call 911 if a threat to them occurs.

        In many areas, security is less about protection, and more about documenting problems for others to fix.
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by CorpSec
          You can be a trained security officer and not be armed, you just aren't going to be any good in violent encounters where use of force options are needed.

          How many security officers had to deploy their guns last year to save a life? The total would be shockingly low.

          Davis said it right when he said that not all security is concerned with protecting others. There are a lot of other issues that come into play.

          Do you think a reasonable person expects the retired guy in the contract polyester uniform to actually protect them from physical violence? Or do you think that they just figure that the guy is there to handle guests and check for ID's.

          I respect that your idea of good security might be a force that is drilled to Marine like precision in firearms and defensive tactics. But, outside of a few agencies here and there, that just isn't what is out there.
          I certainly can't argue against that.
          "Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier." C.P.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by davis002
            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.
            I see your point, Davis. I understand the "levels of responce/protection" differ as it relates to the current environment, whatever that may be.

            Color me a revolutionary. And this will always be the tone of my posts: "Walk like a protector, dress like a protector, be a protector". I'm always offended when someone seeks this line of work because it's perceived as "easy." The only easy day was.....................
            "Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier." C.P.

            Comment


            • #51
              For me, this question is simple:

              If I am working in a job that requires me to place myself in harm's way, I should be able to defend myself. Dressing a person up in a police uniform, with police toys (except a gun), places you in a distinct disadvantage.

              What to do...hmmm...I guess I could carry a concealed handgun...and suffer major consequences. Or I could find a different job. Doing a job which requires police-type skills also requires police tools (ie adequate back-up, weapons, training, communication...and yes, firearms).

              I'm sure there are people out there that can play off handguns as if they aren't important. And truly, they aren't. It's the job that places people in bad situations. If a job places you in harm's way, and you don't have additional manpower or "tools," find another job. No lousy job or pay can bring you back from the dead.
              If you don't like how I do my job...get the hell outa the Food Court!

              Comment


              • #52
                Ninja Got to tell you as an armed guard I like the way you think. And to the disdain of some that feel armed folks should wear a book of rules over our vital organs I will leave you with this.

                A fine is a lot cheaper than a funeral. There are a million jobs out there but you only have one life. You make the call.
                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

                Leaderboard

                Collapse
                Working...
                X