Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

florida licensed security officer bill

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    It may be added by the senate committee. Most likely it will be, so that companies can opt out of the law by failing to have proper patches.
    Good. There are many O&R security companies in FL. If I worked for one, I wouldn't want to try to detain anyone by using force. Sounds like a good way to "get your block knocked off."
    Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by GCMC Security
      Hmm I wonder if this law is going to require that officers have "licensed security officer" on thier uniforms like the battery law that came out. If so another one that TWC officers get screwed out of.
      Aren't you required to have a D license to work as a contract and/or in house SO as it is now? Even the Gummit requires us to have a Florida D & G license to work as GCSO in FLorida.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by GCMC Security
        Hmm I wonder if this law is going to require that officers have "licensed security officer" on thier uniforms like the battery law that came out. If so another one that TWC officers get screwed out of.
        In order to work as a SO you are required to "be" licensed. Why would there be the addition of "licensed security officer" on the uniform.

        Comment


        • #19
          Because the public does not understand that you are licensed, or any different from an unlicensed guard.

          The objective of the law, like other battery enhancers, is so that the public may know beforehand (and therefore establish intent) that they are committing battery on a specified officer.

          If you hit a police officer who does not identify himself, nor is in a uniform that's reasonably identifiable, you haven't committed battery on a law enforcement officer in Florida.

          The police officer arresting for it has to be able to figure out that you're licensed, as well.
          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


          • #20
            Originally posted by mh892
            Aren't you required to have a D license to work as a contract and/or in house SO as it is now? Even the Gummit requires us to have a Florida D & G license to work as GCSO in FLorida.
            If your are armed inhouse you are required to be license. Unless it's changed recently if you are unarmed inhouse you are not required to have a D license.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by GCMC Security
              If your are armed inhouse you are required to be license. Unless it's changed recently if you are unarmed inhouse you are not required to have a D license.
              That's correct, in-house security is not required to have a permit.

              Hey, for you government contractors, does FPS know that when you touch someone except in defense of self or other from physical harm, you're committing a crime?

              If you're not licensed, you aren't.
              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


              • #22
                Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                Please reread that statute, special constables cannot be licensed as security guards. [B]Special Policeman for Armored Car services are licensed as "Special Policemen" by the state, not the mayor.
                Typical - Corbier have you ever tried keeping silent if you don't have a clue as to what your speaking about?, try keeping your mouth closed and you might learn something kid. It's why many of us have stopped posting here as we dislike smarty pants know it all's on here.

                C.G.S. 7-92 added to P.A. 04-192.

                The chief executive officer of any municipality ( Mayor or First Slectman )may appoint such number of special constables as he or she deems necessary to preserve the public peace within such municipality, who may serve for terms of not more than two years or during any public celebration or gathering or any riot or unusual excitement, and such special officers shall have the authority of constables of such town to serve criminal process and make arrests for commission of crime. The chief executive officer may appoint special constables: (1) With limited geographical jurisdiction; or (2) who are appointed at the request of corporations, associations or businesses and are subject to such limitations, restrictions and conditions as the chief executive officer of the municipality deems appropriate, and who shall: (A) Have jurisdiction only on land controlled by such corporation, association or business; (B) be deemed for all purposes to be agents and employees of such corporation, association or business; and (C) be paid for their services by such corporation, association or business.

                And their is NOTHING which would prohibit special constable from being licensed as a Security Officer. Learn before you speak as it makes you look silly and incompetent, thus why it was added to 04-192 i.e. Security Officers may be sworn Peace Officers as defined by law by just being sworn in as I stated. In your attempt to correct me, you are a day late and dollar short buddy. Stick to the security laws of your own state please.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Or they may add that the security officer must advise that he is a licensed security officer and the reason they are detaining the subject like peace officers have to.
                  "Get yourself a shovel cause your in deep Sh*t"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
                    Typical - Corbier have you ever tried keeping silent if you don't have a clue as to what your speaking about?, try keeping your mouth closed and you might learn something kid. It's why many of us have stopped posting here as we dislike smarty pants know it all's on here.

                    C.G.S. 7-92 added to P.A. 04-192.

                    The chief executive officer of any municipality ( Mayor or First Slectman )may appoint such number of special constables as he or she deems necessary to preserve the public peace within such municipality, who may serve for terms of not more than two years or during any public celebration or gathering or any riot or unusual excitement, and such special officers shall have the authority of constables of such town to serve criminal process and make arrests for commission of crime. The chief executive officer may appoint special constables: (1) With limited geographical jurisdiction; or (2) who are appointed at the request of corporations, associations or businesses and are subject to such limitations, restrictions and conditions as the chief executive officer of the municipality deems appropriate, and who shall: (A) Have jurisdiction only on land controlled by such corporation, association or business; (B) be deemed for all purposes to be agents and employees of such corporation, association or business; and (C) be paid for their services by such corporation, association or business.

                    And their is NOTHING which would prohibit special constable from being licensed as a Security Officer. Learn before you speak as it makes you look silly and incompetent, thus why it was added to 04-192 i.e. Security Officers may be sworn Peace Officers as defined by law by just being sworn in as I stated. In your attempt to correct me, you are a day late and dollar short buddy. Stick to the security laws of your own state please.
                    You don't read much, do you? Instead of actually looking at the section above the one you posted, you decided to only see what you wanted to...

                    Sec. 29-154c. Persons vested with police powers ineligible for licensure. No member of the state, or any town, city or borough, police force or any other person vested with police powers shall be eligible for a license under the provisions of sections 29-153 to 29-161, inclusive. If the applicant is a corporation, association or partnership, no person comprising the corporation, association or partnership may be such a member or person.

                    (1969, P.A. 756, S. 6; P.A. 04-192, S. 4.)

                    History: P.A. 04-192 substituted reference to Secs. 29-153 to 29-161, inclusive, for "this chapter".
                    Sec. 7-87. Ineligibility for office. No judge, except a judge of probate, shall hold the office of constable.

                    (1949 Rev., S. 605; 1953, S. 243d; P.A. 82-11, S. 10, 12.)

                    History: P.A. 82-11 deleted the prohibition against a justice of the peace being a constable.

                    See Sec. 29-154c re prohibition against licensure of constable as private detective, watchman, security guard, etc.
                    Again, ad hominem attacks are the sign of someone who has no basis in fact for their position. You have consistently attacked other members, attacked law enforcement in general, spouted insane theories that have no basis in law... and have been reported to the administration on several times for harassing and abusing other members.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mr. Security
                      Good. There are many O&R security companies in FL. If I worked for one, I wouldn't want to try to detain anyone by using force. Sounds like a good way to "get your block knocked off."
                      Just because the law allows for it, doesn't mean that companies have to.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                        That's correct, in-house security is not required to have a permit.

                        Hey, for you government contractors, does FPS know that when you touch someone except in defense of self or other from physical harm, you're committing a crime?

                        If you're not licensed, you aren't.
                        I'm not about to go quoting US Code, Regs. etc. But, in short I think you may be baiting with this one Nathan. Basicly, fact is a GSA, FPS, GCSO whatever position/title we choose to use, is sworn/assigned to protect Federal Personnel and Property. When you enter upon Federal Property, Federal Law/Code is paramount. Example; You enter a Federal Court House and attempt to bypass security/ignore the guards order to stop while you attempt entry to a court room or office, I am requied, may, can and will physicaly detain you for questioning while a determination is made as to why you are here and your intents. I have committed no crime. Thats my job and I have the backing of the U.S. Courts. Remember a certain Representitive who cried asault not long ago? Remember how far "she" got?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mh892
                          I'm not about to go quoting US Code, Regs. etc. But, in short I think you may be baiting with this one Nathan. Basicly, fact is a GSA, FPS, GCSO whatever position/title we choose to use, is sworn/assigned to protect Federal Personnel and Property. When you enter upon Federal Property, Federal Law/Code is paramount. Example; You enter a Federal Court House and attempt to bypass security/ignore the guards order to stop while you attempt entry to a court room or office, I am requied, may, can and will physicaly detain you for questioning while a determination is made as to why you are here and your intents. I have committed no crime. Thats my job and I have the backing of the U.S. Courts. Remember a certain Representitive who cried asault not long ago? Remember how far "she" got?
                          Not really baiting, but illustrating the ludicrously of the state law. If you are a FPS Sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officer, then state law no longer applies to you as you are a law enforcement officer for the purposes of Florida Law.

                          GCSO is a marketing designation by G4Wackenhut for a type of security person. The GSA term is Security Guard II, as GSA is just who signs the checks for agencies.

                          Now, for a civilian Security Guard I or II (the GSA designation allows for sworn and non-sworn GSA Security Guard IIs, but never sworn GSA Security Guard Is since they're unarmed), federal law applies for their actions on federal lands...

                          But that stupid law doesn't make any determination as to if its legal or not federally, its illegal under state law. If someone was evil enough, they could report you for using force offensively or to protect property to DOACS, and DOACS would investigate and have a hearing under that state statute.

                          Now you see why I think the law is silly?
                          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


                          • #28
                            My thoughts here are that even if your not supposed to (not allowed, etc.) to detain anyone there is always the issue of hostile confrontation of a patron with an attitude or issue. Who may end up in your face more and more. You retreat and they keep coming. You may find yourself in a corner with no place to go in some cases. If they end up striking you weather a shove or push to an actual strike it’s a new ball game. You have to defend yourself obviously to keep from getting hurt. So weather you defend yourself or not they psychically attacked you. I wonder if you verbally advise them that you are a licensed security officer would make a difference. I doubt it since verbal anything in Florida is pretty much “hear say” and the law does seems to make that fairly clear. To bad they make a law that only allows companies to adhere to it if they want to with something as simple as what your insignia or patch says.
                            My views, opinions and statements are my own. They are not of my company, affiliates or coworkers.

                            -Being bagger at Publix has more respect these days

                            -It's just a job kid deal with it

                            -The industry needs to do one of two things; stop fiddling with the thin line and go forward or go back to that way it was. A flashlight in one hand and your set of keys in the other

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Echos13
                              My thoughts here are that even if your not supposed to (not allowed, etc.) to detain anyone there is always the issue of hostile confrontation of a patron with an attitude or issue. Who may end up in your face more and more. You retreat and they keep coming. You may find yourself in a corner with no place to go in some cases. If they end up striking you weather a shove or push to an actual strike it’s a new ball game. You have to defend yourself obviously to keep from getting hurt. So weather you defend yourself or not they psychically attacked you. I wonder if you verbally advise them that you are a licensed security officer would make a difference. I doubt it since verbal anything in Florida is pretty much “hear say” and the law does seems to make that fairly clear. To bad they make a law that only allows companies to adhere to it if they want to with something as simple as what your insignia or patch says.
                              493 authorizes you to use force to defend yourself or another against physical attack. Battery in Florida is intentional unwanted touching. If someone so much as puts a finger on you, you are authorized to use reasonable force to terminate their criminal battery on you.

                              As far as the statutory upgrade for battery on a security officer, the legislature's intent has always been "Licensed Security must be identifiable to the public." Look at it this way: What's the difference, to the public, between a contract officer and the guy at Target who's in-house?

                              How will the public and law enforcement know which is licensed (and therefore hitting one is a felony), and which one isn't (which is just simple battery, like any other citizen)?

                              We're close to the issue, we know that Wackenhut means security, but to one deputy, he thought a woman who was battered was a receptionist, not a security guard. She was wearing the casual polo uniform.

                              He thought that her supervisors, who were armed and in hard uniforms with Wackenhut patches were security. So, he declined to file an upgraded charge, nor arrest the violator.
                              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


                              • #30
                                what i was referring to regarding verbal Identtification was the detention bill.
                                "Get yourself a shovel cause your in deep Sh*t"

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X