Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Security Question

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

  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    I'm sorry, but since when is an s/o a "wannabe cop" to want access to tools that may aid in protecting his or her life and safety?

    Enforcement of laws is an entirely different subject from that of having impact and / or chemical weapons. I have yet, to discover a private security company here, in Missouri, that actuall trains their security officer's in matters of law and the enforcement thereof even though they know full well that Title 17 authorizes such police powers. Hell, you're lucky if a priave security company gives any training in the ADA and Fair Housing Act, let alone laws pertaining to tenant evictions such as it being illegal to lock a tenant out, turn off his / her power and water and so forth, to try and force them to leave absent a court order.
    What I meant is that my security function doesn't require any additional authority other than what I already have. I understand that other security providers may have different needs. Most, though, wouldn't need police powers.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    I have yet, to discover a private security company here, in Missouri, that actuall trains their security officer's in matters of law and the enforcement thereof even though they know full well that Title 17 authorizes such police powers.
    Smart companies, IMHO, if the management of such companies are saying "Regardless of whatever Missouri laws are dumb enough to authorize (or what wild interpretation might be placed on such authorization), WE DON'T authorize it." And, given that Missouri is not bereft of the services of the "big boys", such as Securitas, it's pretty safe to assume that such "authorization" has been rejected by some very capable corporate counsel, for very good and obvious reasons. Whether your interpretation of Section 17 is correct is highly questionable, but you already know that many of us think it is not so I won't go into that. I think it's time to see if I can get an opinion from the City Attorney's office in KC, and I'll start that ball rolling through a PD contact tomorrow. As of this moment, however, my contact doesn't have a clue as to what you're talking about, so it's safe to say that curiosity has been aroused.

    Get this through your head: Regardless of what you believe Missouri law (or the specific KCMO statutes and/or regulations) might AUTHORIZE, it is simply inconceivable that any governmental body will ever be permitted to OBLIGE or COMMAND private security officers to act as governmental agents and it doesn't take one ounce of brains to imagine the outcome of such a case coming before the Supreme Court if a local government ever tried to do so. Indeed, it's hard to imagine on what theory such a case would even make it out of the Appellate level to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

    With respect to the idea that security officers should be trained in the laws pertaining to evictions, I wasn't aware that anyone other than the sheriff was authorized to enforce eviction orders. However, I worked both sides of the state line so I might be thinking about Kansas.
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-15-2007, 06:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer
    Maybe if more of us understood the true service and preventive roles of security. . .
    LIke it or not, the field of security is progressing forward one step at a time into broader realms than "traditionally" believed would ever exist. No doubt there was a time, way back in the day, when a guard believed and argued that patrolling malls, transit systems and critical infrastructure facilites was more advancement in the field than was right for security officers to have. And yet, now days, it is commonplace practice. Thus, as long as security officers have no voice then employers and government officials will lead the way and security officers will be dragged along; screaming and kicking all the way no doubt, or, in the alternative, be forced to leave the industry because they cannot or will not adapt to the industry progresss being acheived.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    I'd be content with a "B" license. I'm not interested in enforcement if it means using impact and/or chemical weapons, making arrests and so forth. As I've stated before, not all s/o's wannabe cops.
    I'm sorry, but since when is an s/o a "wannabe cop" to want access to tools that may aid in protecting his or her life and safety?

    Enforcement of laws is an entirely different subject from that of having impact and / or chemical weapons. I have yet, to discover a private security company here, in Missouri, that actuall trains their security officer's in matters of law and the enforcement thereof even though they know full well that Title 17 authorizes such police powers. Hell, you're lucky if a priave security company gives any training in the ADA and Fair Housing Act, let alone laws pertaining to tenant evictions such as it being illegal to lock a tenant out, turn off his / her power and water and so forth, to try and force them to leave absent a court order.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    I'd be content with a "B" license. I'm not interested in enforcement if it means using impact and/or chemical weapons, making arrests and so forth. As I've stated before, not all s/o's wannabe cops.
    This is good, because s/o's aren't cops! Maybe if more of us understood the true service and preventive roles of security (in other words, if we understood that by the time we have to smack people with clubs, shoot chemicals at them and "make arrests", we have FAILED SOMEWHERE), there'd be a lot less discussion about "police powers" and a lot more discussion about how we can effectively use the tools, methods and authority that are appropriate to our mission.

    The most successful day you have is one when nothing happens and the property you protect is enjoyed and used to its fullest by the people who consequently never even notice you are there, or who at most remember you as "that officer who helped me <whatever>"....
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-15-2007, 06:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    I'd be content with a "B" license. I'm not interested in enforcement if it means using impact and/or chemical weapons, making arrests and so forth. As I've stated before, not all s/o's wannabe cops.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    As I have written both in my aforesaid post and in my thesis - in both 1999 and again in 2000, the City of Kansas City argued in trial, before the State Board of Mediation that private security officer licenses are vested with police powers to supplement the overall efforts of the police dept in fighting crime. Hence, the existence of a duty to act. The fact that you either do not understand this or refuse to accept this does not take away from the fact that the duty to act exists under the expressed reason that Title 17 was amended in 1999, to expand the legal framework and legal authority given to security officers.
    So your saying it's not black letter law, but that you prefer to interpret KC's Argument in such a way.


    Talk about a set up question. It is immaterial whether or not zero or one million security officers have been charged. The law exists and that is all that really matters.
    And this law says, specifically, that is your are a class A security officer and you don't enforce the law in a specific situation, you'll be charged? You know it doesn't, and can't point to a single instance where that has happened.

    Your entire argument/thesis/whatever is boot-strapping to the highest degree I've ever seen. You're reading into these laws that which you want to see.


    Why would a former police officer become a security officer?
    Why would a private employer employ security officers rather than off duty police officers? Why do others in the security officer field become employed as such?
    You realize you didn't answer the question at all. I asked why you "choose" (if thats the right word) to be a S/O rather than a cop. everyone has different motivations, but I question the motivations of someone who claims your qualifications, yet is still a rank-in-file workaday private security officer.

    You just remind me (attitude wise) of some of the people I've worked with before, people who would rather change and view the world in ways that fit them, rather than adapting to how it is.


    I defy you to show me one post I have made that I have stated "police powers" "are important to me." At best, all I have said is that giving police powers to security officers serves a public interest and hopefully helps to deter crimes being committed against security officers.

    Don't put words in my post that I have not written and stop with the boring efforts to try and personally insult and attack me.
    So you didn't originally start these "discussions" at Officer.com, a police website, before I directed you here?

    And don't you have a lawsuit going against a former employer because they retaliated against you for exercising "police powers" lol.,


    ~~~~~~~~
    Sounding more and more like a job for Corbier's Commandos.........
    Last edited by Black Caesar; 04-15-2007, 11:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    Where do they say, specifically that Class A Security officers have a Duty to act?

    You are trying to put lots of square pegs into some mighty round holes. If they don't say it directly, in writing, it doesn't exist.
    As I have written both in my aforesaid post and in my thesis - in both 1999 and again in 2000, the City of Kansas City argued in trial, before the State Board of Mediation that private security officer licenses are vested with police powers to supplement the overall efforts of the police dept in fighting crime. Hence, the existence of a duty to act. The fact that you either do not understand this or refuse to accept this does not take away from the fact that the duty to act exists under the expressed reason that Title 17 was amended in 1999, to expand the legal framework and legal authority given to security officers specifically to further the ends of government [City of Kansas City and the KCPD] in fighting crime.

    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    Very simple question here. Do you know of any security officers who have been thus charged?
    Talk about a set up question. It is immaterial whether or not zero or one million security officers have been charged. The law exists and that is all that really matters. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Grand Nat. Bank of St. Louis, 69 F.2d 177, 180 (8th Cir. 1934) (holding that “An agreement to stifle a prosecution, suppress evidence, compound an offense or conceal a crime which has been committed is . . . contrary to public policy”). See also State of Missouri v. John Hamby, ED75728 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000)(prosecution concedes and we agree that under the plain and express language of the statute, a person commits the act of hindering prosecution only when that person prevents the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of a person other than himself).

    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    Another question that I don't think anyone else here has asked, but begs the asking anyway:

    If "police powers" are so important to you, and you have the qualifications you say you do, why on earth would you not be a police officer? I'd really like to know.
    Why would a former police officer become a security officer? Why would a private employer employ security officers rather than off duty police officers? Why do others in the security officer field become employed as such?

    I defy you to show me one post I have made that I have stated "police powers" "are important to me." At best, all I have said is that giving police powers to security officers serves a public interest and hopefully helps to deter crimes being committed against security officers.

    Don't put words in my post that I have not written and stop with the boring efforts to try and personally insult and attack me.
    Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-15-2007, 05:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    The short answer is because it is human nature to want power, especially if you are the perceived weaker class.

    However, I believe people, in general, should remember that since security officers lack the authority to enact laws to give themselves police powers. Perhaps it would be better to direct ones dissent, anger or whatever that a person may have, towards the powers that be who are enacting such laws rather than attacking security officers on the premise that they are somehow at fault for the laws being enacted or for wanting to exercise the authority that is given them by existing law.

    Giving security officers police powers was not done by mistake. Those enacting such laws have done so in a calculated manner and with a specific agenda in mind. It may be to cater to the wants, needs or demands of employers such as Blackhawk U.S.A. or other private companies being contracted by the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security to operate in more advanced capacities than typical security services. Or it may be a perceived economincal gain for the state / city to have security officers exercising such powers in the absence of having to pay for their services, training and so forth while also avoiding the liability pitfalls of a security officers actions or inactions. Sort of like having your cake and eating it too.

    In wake of crime rates, having police powers, even if only confined to private property, does serve a public interest because crime on private property is no less devastating on an entire community and individual person than crime committed in city streets. And it also serves a purpose in, at least hopefully, deterring criminal acts against a security officer such as assult. But as I have said time and again, giving such authority should never be done unless the security officer is properly trained and qualified.
    All of that I understand, but none of that was my question.

    I'm asking (from the point of view of the individual) simply this: If you want police powers, why play around on the fringes? Why not go all the way?

    While I appreciate the volunteer spirit, I can't really understand why someone would want "police powers" and accept a job where they had a "duty to act" when they are not routinely getting paid to do it, and have not even been asked to do it. Why would anyone want police powers if there is even a chance that your actions won't be covered by Qualified Immunity?

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    if someone is so gung ho to have police power, why in hell not be a street cop? Why do people hunger so badly to "shoe-horn" one thing (police powers) into something that doesn't need so much of it?
    The short answer is because it is human nature to want power, especially if you are the perceived weaker class.

    However, I believe people, in general, should remember that since security officers lack the authority to enact laws to give themselves police powers. Perhaps it would be better to direct ones dissent, anger or whatever that a person may have, towards the powers that be who are enacting such laws rather than attacking security officers on the premise that they are somehow at fault for the laws being enacted or for wanting to exercise the authority that is given them by existing law.

    Giving security officers police powers was not done by mistake. Those enacting such laws have done so in a calculated manner and with a specific agenda in mind. It may be to cater to the wants, needs or demands of employers such as Blackhawk U.S.A. or other private companies being contracted by the U.S. Dept of Homeland Security to operate in more advanced capacities than typical security services. Or it may be a perceived economincal gain for the state / city to have security officers exercising such powers in the absence of having to pay for their services, training and so forth while also avoiding the liability pitfalls of a security officers actions or inactions. Sort of like having your cake and eating it too.

    In wake of crime rates, having police powers, even if only confined to private property, does serve a public interest because crime on private property is no less devastating on an entire community and individual person than crime committed in city streets. And it also serves a purpose in, at least hopefully, deterring criminal acts against a security officer such as assult. But as I have said time and again, giving such authority should never be done unless the security officer is properly trained and qualified.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    .... The stupid and false belief that a badge and a gun and the word "police" makes a man. It doesn't.
    I've known security officers who commanded plenty of respect, and police officers who commanded none. Obviously, the "respect" did not flow from the uniform or the badge in either case, but from who was wearing them - meaning, their conduct, demeanor, "command presence" (something that, like p0rnography, is difficult to define but easily recognized), their communication skills, etc..

    It makes sense in certain venues (and certainly, campuses are among them) to certify at least some of the security force as peace officers. The two main features of such venues is that they are much more "public" spaces than they are "private" in terms of their usage, traffic and physical characteristics, and they are (usually) not privately owned, so that there is a legitimate PUBLIC/GOVERNMENTAL OBLIGATION to provide LAW ENFORCEMENT in those spaces (as well as to provide for the security of the property).
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-15-2007, 02:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer
    I have never understood the apparent obsession of some in the private domain with "police authority" or "arrest powers" - always with the idea that private forces don't have "enough" authority/power. This is sheer nonsense, and betrays a serious lack of understanding, not only of the security mission itself, but also a serious misunderstanding of the nature, source and reason for police powers, the proper exercise of such authority, and, especially, its very limited role in carrying out the security mission.

    Many people in security who are obsessed with "police power" really have a very different agenda than a legitimate, proven need for authority that they do not have. In my experience, most of them are actually suffering from an inferiority complex. They feel that they are "disrespected" as security officers, and they believe that if they only had "police powers" people would treat them better, call them "sir", jump to obey their commands, and might even fear them more. They believe that if they only had such "powers", the police would treat them as "equals" and "comrades". Bad guys, if they were stupid enough to come within the purview of such super-heroes, would simply curl up and sheepishly hold out their hands for the cuffs to be slapped on. "BOOK 'EM, DANNO!". Some, because of a limited understanding of the forces of micro- and macroeconomics, point to differences in pay between certain "special officers" and other security officers, and believe that if all security officers had "police powers" they would naturally be paid more.

    A few of these sadsacks, who vaguely understand that there is a linkage between an individual's mission and the authority that implies, are seeking to "expand" the security mission into the public domain in various ways, claiming that the police and other public safety people "need our help" to accomplish their own mission...but it's pretty transparent that their agenda is not truly "public safety" (and why are private forces responsible for that?), but a thinly veiled quest to obtain "police powers" by such mission expansion.

    Having made those fairly obvious observations, it still must be said that there are also others who DO have legitimate questions about this issue. We can have a very serious discussion about it if you wish, but I predict that by the time we're finished thinking things over very carefully, you will prefer NOT to have "police powers", and you will see much less need for them.

    However, I won't start that discussion as it will involve lengthy posts (there are some things you can't discuss in "sound bites"), and I have not found that such posts are generally well received here....so if it begins, I don't want to hear any of that sort of guff from anyone.
    I think that this is not true for some people, as they are actually interested in doing the best job they can and feel that if they had police powers they could do better in their specific case.

    But I've met PLENTY of people who are as you describe.

    As you know, I'm a Campus Police Officer and I'm the FTO for my shift. Many many times I've had trainees (who, like me are fully certified Peace Officers who work for a Political Subdivision of the State of Texas) comment over and over again about how the College District "doesn't let us be police" or about how boring the job is ect ect.

    Needless to say, this generates a somewhat negative response from me. Why, if you are a certified and commissioned Peace officer like these trainees are and if you want to do "police work" and gain "glory" for yourself would you not just try to get on with the Dallas PD or anther such agency?

    It's irritating to me whether the person saying it was a Campus Cop or (in the past) a S/O I worked with at some account or another. 17,780 Law Enforcement Agencies in the United States (most of them city PDs or county Sheriffs Offices), if someone is so gung ho to have police power, why in hell not be a street cop? Why do people hunger so badly to "shoe-horn" one thing (police powers) into something that doesn't need so much of it?

    Well, we know why, don't we? The same reason why so many threads on this private industry forum focus on public police, but so few on police websites say anything about the much larger private industry. The inferiority complex you mention, the "little brother/Napoleon Complex" syndrome that plagued every single day of my personal experience in the private security field (and many of my days as a camps cop).....


    .... The stupid and false belief that a badge and a gun and the word "police" makes a man.

    It doesn't.
    Last edited by Black Caesar; 04-15-2007, 02:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    Another question that I don't think anyone else here has asked, but begs the asking anyway:

    If "police powers" are so important to you, and you have the qualifications you say you do, why on earth would you not be a police officer? I'd really like to know.
    Bingo. One kewpie doll and/or cigar for BC, his choice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo



    The City of Kansas City imposed a clear and decisive mandate upon Class A security officers in both 1999 and again in 2000, when the City argued that private security licenses were vested with police powers to supplement the overall efforts of the Kansas City Police Dept in fighting crime.

    This appears to be a point that you are either not understanding Nathan, or you are consistently ignoring - This is not my mere opinion but rather comes directly from the arguments of the Legal Dept of the City of Kansas City.

    As a result of this mandate, the City of Kansas City imposed a DUTY TO ACT upon Class A security officer's. This duty is not present with Class B licenses because Class B licenses do not have the same full authority as a Class A license and because the arguments of the City of Kansas City were confined solely to Class A licenses in purusit of prohibiting Class A licensed security officers the right to collective bargaining in their employment because as the City of Kansas City, Legal Dept for the Kansas City Police Dept has consistently argued, Class A licensed security officers are police officers by virtue of their duties and fuctions being substantially comparable to what police and deputy sheriffs do.
    Where do they say, specifically that Class A Security officers have a Duty to act?

    You are trying to put lots of square pegs into some mighty round holes. If they don't say it directly, in writing, it doesn't exist.

    As I discuss in my thesis if I elect not to abide by my duty to act I can be charged criminally pursuant to 575.020 of the Missouri Revised Statutes.
    Very simple question here. Do you know of any security officers who have been thus charged?

    ---
    Another question that I don't think anyone else here has asked, but begs the asking anyway:

    If "police powers" are so important to you, and you have the qualifications you say you do, why on earth would you not be a police officer? I'd really like to know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    First, since I live in KCMo and operate under Title 17 which regulates my licensure to practice as a security officer. I think I am in a far far better position than you to know what is and is not permitted under law here in Kansas City, Missouri. Having said this, I respond to your posts accordingly.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Something that has irked me is that people with special police powers seemingly forget that the mission of a security officer is primarily the protection of property of the property which they are assigned to protect, and the client/employees/visitors who frequent this property.
    The City of Kansas City imposed a clear and decisive mandate upon Class A security officers in both 1999 and again in 2000, when the City argued that private security licenses were vested with police powers to supplement the overall efforts of the Kansas City Police Dept in fighting crime.

    This appears to be a point that you are either not understanding Nathan, or you are consistently ignoring - This is not my mere opinion but rather comes directly from the arguments of the Legal Dept of the City of Kansas City.

    As a result of this mandate, the City of Kansas City imposed a DUTY TO ACT upon Class A security officer's. This duty is not present with Class B licenses because Class B licenses do not have the same full authority as a Class A license and because the arguments of the City of Kansas City were confined solely to Class A licenses in purusit of prohibiting Class A licensed security officers the right to collective bargaining in their employment because as the City of Kansas City, Legal Dept for the Kansas City Police Dept has consistently argued, Class A licensed security officers are police officers by virtue of their duties and fuctions being substantially comparable to what police and deputy sheriffs do.

    As I discuss in my thesis if I elect not to abide by my duty to act I can be charged criminally pursuant to 575.020 of the Missouri Revised Statutes.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Law Enforcement authority is granted in some states to private citizens to help keep the peace and protect themselves and others. It is granted to security personnel who act as agents of the owner to protect society through the protection of specific interests (What you are guarding.)
    I have never stated otherwise and I defy you to prove that I have. Yet, as I have pointed out time and again, it is immaterial whether or not the right to exercise police powers is confined to private property or extends into the city streets, when one has the legal authority to infringe upon the constitutional rights of the people nonetheless, there is a huge risks that constitutional laws and rights will be violated by those exercising such powers who are not properly trained and qualified.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    People who go, "A security guard/officer can't intervene because they're not a cop, and I'm a special cop so I can," make me wonder if they know what they're job is.
    Whether or not you agree with the law is, ultimately, immaterial. The law is the law as it currently stands here in Missouri. Thus, you can argue with me until you are blue in the face but it will do nothing to change the law or inerpret it differently than what actually exists.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    A very good example of this is Florida, where security officers are NOT law enforcement officers, and yet they can still make detentions and use force to protect themselves and others because state law says all citizens may.
    And yet, here in Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court, the City of Kansas City legal dept and the City of Kansas City Municiple Court does not support your arguements. And those who phsycially assault security officers with a Class A licnese are charged under 565.081, 565.082 or 565.083 of the Missouri Revised Statute (assult of a law enforcement officer).

    Do not misconstrue a "common law ordinary citizen arrest" with that of an arrest exercised under color of law or as a state actor. The two are distinctly different and is determined by whether or not the state has become involved, such as by any statute, rule, regulation or order that has the intent or effect to control, direct, counsel or encourage the actions of a citizen to further the ends of government in fighting crime.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Companies that scare their guard force with, "You're not the police, you can't touch anyone or confront anyone," make me wonder what kind of business they're in.
    Not too long ago, my employer and I had this very discussion. His belief is that despite our having an armed Class A license, we are required to be nothing more than a Class B guard who observes and reports only.

    In my thesis I discuss the manner employers can be criminally charged for hindering prosecution by attempting to or actually forcing their security officers to conceal an offense.

    I provided my employer a copy of my thesis, just as I also provided a copy to the Kansas City Police Dept, City of Kansas City legal dept and to the Chief of Police who sits on the Board of Police Commissioners and has the statutory duty to revoke or suspend a security officer and security company license for violating the law. My employer has never said another word to me about the subject and nobody within the City government has offer so much as one dispute to my thesis, in whole or in part.

    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Unless you can produce a city ordinance (because the State of Missouri does not license "Class A" or "Class B" anything related to security personnel), then you are basically saying that a property owner may not confront a "suspect" or take any action than calling 911. Tread lightly, your statements show you fail to realize that the building blocks of police authority rest with the power of the citizen, to which the state adds additional powers in its name.
    No, that is not what I am saying at all and I fail to understand how you have interpreted such when there is no post I have made to even suggest such a thing. If you believe otherwise, then provide me the thread title and post number for reading.

    I, as a security officer, have abolutely no authority to set law or department policy of the Board of Police Commissioners. I am bound by what laws and policies do exist and I can be charged criminally if I violate such; have my license revoked or suspened and / or be sue civilally by my employer, the client and any civilian involved that sustains damages as a direct or proximate result of my actions or inactions, including that of malpractice on my part as a licensed professional in my field.

    Hence, it is clear Nathan that what you are not understanding or accepting is that the law is set in place - it is not me or any security officer here in Missouri who are dictating law, department policy, or the building blocks of security - it is rather those in government who are doing so - a concept that others consistently fail or refuse to accept or understand.
    Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-15-2007, 01:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X