Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Security Officers Play A Major Role In Government Emergency Responses?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    First, I ask that you and others keep in mind that my program is not confied solely to post-terrorist attacks. Do not misconstrue this important point because in doing so, you or others erroneously minimize the design, intent and effectiveness of my program.
    My "9/11" reference was strictly chronological and not meant to imply that terrorism was the sole focus of your concept.

    Second, while I mean no disrepsect by this, in lieu of your having "contracts" with the KCMO and Jackson County departments, such appears to place you in a bias position in your stated opposition.
    I'm afraid you misread my post - I said "contacts"...not "contracts". I have no bias whatsoever in that respect regarding your concept.

    Finely, in your prior post you listed several concerns so as to seemingly and summarily defeat my program quickly. Yet, in my reply I pointed out that every concern you listed is properly addressed in my program outline. The same remains true, nevertheless, despite your expressed disbelief in my program.
    I have no interest at all in "defeating" your program, which is why I wished you well in your endeavors. I merely expressed my opinion that your program does not adequately solve the difficulties I raised. Merely asserting that it does solve them does not make it so.

    Yes, there will always be those, such as you, who choose dissent over belief in what can be achieved but nothing ventured is guranteed to be nothing gained
    I did not "choose" to dissent (which implies that I might just as easily have "chosen" not to dissent if I had only wanted to). The program itself raises doubts in my mind, and I expressed them.

    If you had a bit more seniority on the board, you would realize that you are addressing one of the people on this forum who consistently argues for more training and, with that training, concomitant responsibilities for security officers, and also, one who has pointed out (not without being attacked for it) that the security industry protects more lives and property every day, responds to more incidents, and prevents more crime, than the public forces do.

    So, when someone with my stated positions - who might be expected to support your project - expresses doubts about its practicality, it might be more useful to you to dialog about those rather than about me.

    Incidentally, as a member of the American Society of Criminology myself, I looked you up and was surprised not to find your name on the membership roles of the ASC, seeing that you're posted around the internet on various blogs, etc. as "Christopher Cross, Criminologist". An oversight, perhaps? It's rather like finding someone who claims to be a CPA but who is not a member of the American Institute of CPAs. I merely mention it as a matter of curiosity.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-12-2007, 05:09 AM.
    "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


    • #32
      My appologies for misreading your post to the extent that I apparently did.

      Insofar as the "professional associations" out there - I, like others believe these associations and the like are highly over-rated and serve no real genuine purpose other than to offer a preceived status. I was offered a membership with the Association of Trial Lawyers of America - turned that one down as well.

      Merely because one belongs to an association does not make him or her better in what they do. Lord knows there are many members of these associations who need to be kicked out of their professions and for very good reasons, yet, they are not and these associations do not take proactive efforts to ensure those that need to be kicked out of their professions are for the good of the public. Thus, unless a person is going to testify in court as an expert witness in their field, then being a member of these assoication has no real value, in my opinion.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Christopherstjo
        My appologies for misreading your post to the extent that I apparently did.

        Insofar as the "professional associations" out there - I, like others believe these associations and the like are highly over-rated and serve no real genuine purpose other than to offer a preceived status.
        Really? What a quaint idea. Well, as they say, to each his own.
        "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


        • #34
          Originally posted by SecTrainer
          Really? What a quaint idea. Well, as they say, to each his own.
          I have to work the 3 to 11 shift and thus, do not have time to engage in this dialog at this point. I will, however, elaborate what I want say when I get home tonight.

          Comment


          • #35
            SecTrainer

            Ok, now that I am off work and back home, I wanted to respond to a few things you have posted.

            First, you will find that I appreciate [constructive criticism], as such challenges me and therein makes me think and work to address whatever issues and matters are brought forward. I am not afraid of a good healthy debate - in fact, I love them because I am a very analitical person.

            I have spent the past five (5) years researching the practical, legal and effectiveness of my program and thus, it is suffice to say that I have accumulated a great deal of insight based upon [objective] facts from both government and non-government sources, and thus, I do not need to rely upon my own opinion, especially when it is too easy to argue that such is biased given that I am the program founder and developer.

            My contact at the KCPD, who is a senior ranking police officer, is a strong supporter and avocator of security officer involvement in homeland security responses. In fact, because of him, KCMO security officers will likely be embarking upon a pilot program, when the funds are secured, to receive necessary training and be incorporated into specific DHS efforts. The pilot program will be done with three major security compaines here, in Kansas City, Missouri. And if successful it will ultimately proactively seek to incorporate every security officer in Kansas City, rather than just a selected few.

            Now, you have offered multiple criticisms about my program - every one of them I have demonstrated not to be a realistic concern to defeat the practical, legal and effectiveness of my program. Saying this is not an attack against you, but rather, it is a fair rebuttal to what you have said to seemingly support your disbelief of the practicality of my program. If you get to criticize then I get to defend - its' a two way street.

            I have not, however, made or even attempted to make any personal attacks against you or any snide remarks about you. My error, at 3 in the morning, was misreading the word "contact" to be that of "contract" because I was tired, and questioning such because it appeared to present a bias position on your part. So excuse the heck out of me for making a simple and reasonable mistake at 3 o'clock in the morning.

            You also wrote in your last post that:

            Originally posted by SecTrainer
            So, when someone with my stated positions - who might be expected to support your project - expresses doubts about its practicality, it might be more useful to you to dialog about those rather than about me
            This is exactly what I have done. Moreover, I have requested that you provide me objective facts to support and prove your stated personal beliefs and criticisms, yet, you still have not done so. Hence, any rebuttal I have offered that may appear to be criticism against you is because all too often I have been and am faced with those who freely express their dissent, disbelief and criticisms based solely upon persoanl opinions, conjectures and conclusions, yet, not upon objective facts to support what they are saying.

            I do not profess that my program is the cure all - be all. Yet, considering the mountains we have to move for security officers to be seen as a credible profession and as professionals. And considering the enormous barriers we face daily in being included into training opportunities and so forth, that will serve well in helping us do our jobs better. A program such as mine is at least a step forward in the right direction that if nothing else, warrants comming to the table and hashing out everything involved.

            Insofar as my own credibility - do you really think I would step into the lions den (police and DHS affairs) if my credibilty did not stand on its' own merit? Give me a break.
            Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-13-2007, 04:36 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              I'm sorry, Mr. Cross, but as an "analitical" (sic) person, you yourself should be able to recognize that you've provided assertions, not facts, and certainly nothing that even begins to constitute "proof" of the merits of your program. As someone with an "MA" degree, you must acknowledge that this wouldn't pass muster if you tried that with one of your research papers.

              You also keep making an implied appeal to authority by allusions to your "high-ranking KCPD contact", who isn't here to support or refute anything you say. There are going to be three major security firms involved, but we also have not heard anything from them. If any of them, and particularly your police contact, have been publishing statements or analyses about your experiment that would be available to us on the Web somewhere, as you have been doing, I would be very interested to read them. Better still, perhaps your KCPD contact would accept an open invitation to join the discussion here.

              At this point, what this whole thing amounts to, at least until this experiment of yours is conducted, concluded and the results analyzed, is nothing more than two opposing viewpoints, and while I expressed my reservations in precisely those terms, as my opinion, you continue to make assertions before you have the proof that can only come from conducting and analyzing your experiment. FWIW, my opinion is based on a considerable base of education, training, responsibility, and experience in the area of emergency management and, coincidentally, in another subject area that happens to be relevant to this discussion - i.e., the privatization of police functions - but that does not alter the fact that it is merely an opinion. (Until I have time to Shepardize the cases you offer in support of the "legal" analysis you've posted here and around the Web, I won't comment on that.)

              I assume that the results of your experiment will be published in the formal police and/or EM literature. DHS is very good about publishing "best practices" when it sees proof of them. Until then, let's just leave it where it is now - as two differing opinions - because frankly that is all either of us has to offer the members of this forum at this point in time.

              Let's shift the conversation away from expressions of opinion, shall we? I'd be very interested in more detail about the experiment as to the specific research methods that will be employed - i.e., how the experiment will be implemented, conducted, tested, etc., and particularly the time frame for concluding the experiment, what evaluation processes will be employed to determine its merits or lack of them, and where we might expect to see the published results.

              Since most genuine experiments of this nature are conducted under grant funding, such as from DHS, the DOJ, or a state homeland security grant agency, perhaps there is a grant proposal we can read? If so, it would naturally contain the information I've mentioned above. On the other hand, if this experiment is not grant-funded, I would have to ask why not, as well as who is funding it and what confidence we can have that the experiment will be conducted according to established protocols for such things. Under a grant, you would have had to set forth a well-reasoned experimental plan, and would then have to follow very rigid evaluation and reporting protocols, of course. On the other hand, if not grant-funded, the absence of a grant agency looking over your shoulder would be a cautionary flag to me personally. Again - just my opinion!
              Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-13-2007, 09:26 AM.
              "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
                There's a huge, huge, "discussion" on this topic over at Officer.com... I threw my three cents in, cause any time I type that much on O.com its more than two.

                http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64561
                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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                  There's a huge, huge, "discussion" on this topic over at Officer.com... I threw my three cents in, cause any time I type that much on O.com its more than two.

                  http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64561
                  Yes, I've seen that thread, but there's nothing in that discussion like what I'm asking for above in terms of either details about Mr. Cross's experiment or statements from his KCPD contact about it. It's just a food fight between Mr. Cross and a number of police officers about privatizing police powers, which is a different topic.

                  As I think on it, however, the posts by Mr. Cross in that thread are not by any means the expression of a professional in our own industry, and certainly not those of someone who professes an interest in working closely with the police, as his "experiment" presumably would require. As I read the thread, even though it is not "about" the experiment, it strikes me that Mr. Cross is doing everything in his power to destroy, rather than to establish, any credibility he would need to have with the police officers who would be working with or encountering the security forces engaged in his "experiment".

                  As the thread progresses, the names of loved ones now parted from us, such as as "Marchetti", inevitably spring to mind...mayhap we have discovered where he went. My mind refuses to accept the notion that there could possibly be two like him on Planet Earth.
                  Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-13-2007, 10:28 AM.
                  "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


                  • #39
                    SecTrainer

                    In regard to the anticipated pilot project. This is separte from my proposed program. Whatever data is generated and publised will be done by the KCPD at its' will. It is my understanding that grants are the desired way to obtain the funding - from what source, I do not know because I am not involved in this. My mentioning of this anticipated pilot program was to demonstrate that efforts are being made to open doors of positive training opportunities for security officers - training that will go a long way in helping security officers do better jobs and be seen more as a credible profession.

                    Insofar as disclosing who my contact is - you assume I have an obligation to do so - guess again. Secondly, given your efforts to repreatedly resort to personal attacks and insults - why in the world would you believe I would extend you such trust, as to give you the name of my contact? Get real.

                    You purport that I have not provided you any objective data to support my position in terms of the practicality of my program. I have provided various links that discuss the roles, duties and functions of security officers in terms of government operations. I have offered a comprehensive thesis that discusses the legal aspects involving security officers, here in KCMO, and their duties and funcitons so as to demonstrate the legal foundation already exisiting. I have also informed you that the basic concepts of my program have already been tried, tested and proved to be a success in a major metropolitan city for a year and I have given an outline of the key components that my program presents, if implmented. You on the other hand have yet to offer anything objective, to support your personal criticisms of my program.

                    Finely, you speak of how I am required to dialog with you and people like you, yet, you freely take liberties in your speech to tender personal insults and attacks. Perhaps you should practice what you preach. When you are done with your efforts to personally attack and insult me we can talk more about the subject matter - if all you want is to engage in such offensive conduct then I have no interest.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Nevermind, Mr. Cross. I took you seriously at first, but I've now recognized you for what you are. I doubt personally that you are anything you claim to be, whether an "MA" (at least, in any relevant field from any accredited university), a "criminologist", OR a security professional. You do not write or think like an educated man, as you cannot even follow the very simple lines of reasoning I have presented - believing, for instance, that I said you had an "obligation" to ask your KCPD contact to post here, when of course I said no such thing, merely extending the invitation. If you cannot keep such simple facts straight, it is impossible for me to see how you could have completed any kind of meaningful education, let alone postgraduate education.

                      You could possibly be a security guard, I suppose, but not one who reflects credit on the many fine officers on this forum, nor one with whom I would care to associate...even in this limited way.

                      I am familiar, by the way, with the form and substance of a "thesis", and what you have published all over the Web as a "thesis" does not meet any standard for such that I have ever seen. It's little more than a half-baked collection of selectively chosen, improperly analyzed references all jumbled together and comprising nothing more than a pseudointellectual rant. It is NOT a "thesis" in any proper sense of the word.

                      My apologies to the members. It was my bad that I engaged Mr. Cross in serious conversation and thereby encouraged his continued presence on the forum. With any luck, he will stumble across Mr. Marchetti while he's zooming around the dark side of the moon, and perhaps they will settle down as kindred spirits and have children together. Wait! What am I saying?
                      Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-13-2007, 02:55 PM.
                      "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


                      • #41
                        SecTrainer

                        YOU ROUTINELY refuse to provide me any objective data to support your citicisms, despite my repeated requests for you to do so.

                        YOU ROUTINELY refuse to stick to the subject matter and instead want throw about your personal attacks and insults, as if that is going to somehow inspire me to "dialog" with you. Nevermind the fact that you refuse to practice what you preach.

                        In my opinion, those who engage in such conduct as you have routinely done lack any crediblity - as your conduct is very much like a disgruntled politician who resorts to childish tantrums and mudslinging efforts to try and win an election.

                        It is immaterial what you want to think or believe - because ultimately, in the totality of what is taking place, here in KCMO, you are not the government official making the decisions - now are you.

                        I'm off to work, I hope everyone has a great night

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Mr. Cross, at the outset of this and during the conversation, I stated clearly several reasons for my skepticism about your idea. By way of reply, you did nothing more than simply assert that you "had addressed all of them", without actually doing so, and that is where the discussion, if there ever was one, ended.

                          Nor could there ever be any further dialog between you and me unless and until you repair the enormous damage you have done to our profession on the Officer.Com forum. Your behavior there has been nothing short of despicable and is personally disgusting to me, as it should be to every security professional.

                          Sir, you are utterly bogus. And, if the opinion of members of this board do not matter (a typical childish reaction that I note also figures prominently in your responses to criticism on Officer.Com as well), one must wonder why you bothered to come here and post your phony "thesis" in the first place. I notice that the opinions of those who agree with you do seem to matter, though, so you're very selective about that issue, just as you were in selecting only references that in your shallow analysis support your "thesis".

                          Please do NOT bother to reply to this post as by that time you will be on my "ignore" list (an honor you share with Mr. Marchetti alone), and you will only be a little buzz in the air, like a mosquito or some other variety of insect (with apologies to all insects everywhere, living or dead).
                          Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-13-2007, 04:18 PM.
                          "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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by SecTrainer
                            As the thread progresses, the names of loved ones now parted from us, such as as "Marchetti", inevitably spring to mind...mayhap we have discovered where he went. My mind refuses to accept the notion that there could possibly be two like him on Planet Earth.
                            Honestly, I had the same thought when I posted in that O.com thread lol. Well , just a little, I don't think Chris is anti-public police like Marchetti was, but I do question the wisdom of devoting a large section of his position paper/plan to the idea that KC Class A security officers are already law enforcement officers because they can purse suspect into the street. I've always said before, "know your audience" and I can see his writing style turning off a police executive with that kind of thing.

                            What some of the posters were saying about Chris' use of unneeded "25 cent words" is also correct (the glaring typos in the piece don't help either). If you boil it all down, Chris is asking for the creation of a "Posse" for emergencies consisting of already trained Class A Security Officers.

                            I think this is incredibly sensible, BUT, After reading he original DIVE team plan the 1st time I was left with the feeling of "couldn't he have just said that in plain language from the start?".

                            When you use "formalspeak" when it's not needed, it makes you look like a puffed up egotist. I've seen many a cop and S/O do this, and it's worse when Security does it, because people already wrongly think S/Os are big ole wannabes. Plain common English goes a long way to putting people at ease so they can accept you.
                            Last edited by Black Caesar; 04-13-2007, 05:00 PM.
                            ~Black Caesar~
                            Corbier's Commandos

                            " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I'm ROTFL, so excuse any typos. What is the Drunken Epileptic Ninja Claw Technique? And where can I learn how to apply it? I wanna try it on my wife the next time I want to go golfing.
                              "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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Black Caesar
                                Honestly, I had the same thought when I posted in that O.com thread lol. Well , just a little, I don't think Chris is anti-public police like Marchetti was, but I do question the wisdom of devoting a large section of his position paper/plan to the idea that KC Class A security officers are already law enforcement officers because they can purse suspect into the street. I've always said before, "know your audience" and I can see his writing style turning off a police executive with that kind of thing.

                                What some of the posters were saying about Chris' use of unneeded "25 cent words" is also correct (the glaring typos in the piece don't help either). If you boil it all down, Chris is asking for the creation of a "Posse" for emergencies consisting of already trained Class A Security Officers.

                                I think this is incredibly sensible, BUT, After reading he original DIVE team plan the 1st time I was left with the feeling of "couldn't he have just said that in plain language from the start?".

                                When you use "formalspeak" when it's not needed, it makes you look like a puffed up egotist. I've seen many a cop and S/O do this, and it's worse when Security does it, because people already wrongly think S/Os are big ole wannabes. Plain common English goes a long way to putting people at ease so they can accept you.
                                I stopped using 25 cent words two years ago on forums. I save them for proposals, things that will generate money for my company. That's about all I have to say about words.

                                Also, someone suggested that the DIVE team is a reimagining of a Reserve or Axillary unit. Thoughts? Anyone?
                                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

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X