Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question For Armed Officers.

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

  • Chucky
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mall Ninja!
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 11B/PMC
    replied
    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.....................

    Leave a comment:


  • 11B/PMC
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • CorpSec
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 11B/PMC
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • CorpSec
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 11B/PMC
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chucky
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • FDG06
    replied
    ...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

    Leave a comment:


  • Chucky
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X