Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Security Question

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

  • #31
    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.
    Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      "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


      • #33
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            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.
            "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


            • #36
              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.
              Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by SecTrainer
                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>"....
                I try to teach that when I have a rookie. some get it, some don't, those that don't won't be there long though because the College Police was just a stepping stone anyway.

                When I was a PSO (Public Service Officer, a non-sworn position) at a hospital, one of the Hospital Police officers asked me why I was acting so "antsy". i said I was bored. He said "you get paid anymore when something is happening than when something isn't?" I answered no, and ever since I've "enjoyed the quiet" .
                Last edited by Black Caesar; 04-15-2007, 06:54 PM.
                ~Black Caesar~
                Corbier's Commandos

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

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mr. Security
                  Most, though, wouldn't need police powers.
                  While many (not sure I agree with the word "most") employers, clients and security officers may not need the presence of police powers attached to the license of a security officer. States, nevertheless, are incorporating such powers into security licenses.

                  In doing so, the State is literally forcing security officers to absorb enormous legal liabilities while being knowingly and willingly deprived proper training. The result is very much like giving a 2 year old a loaded and cocked gun and telling him not to play with the trigger. He has no concept of what you are speaking about but you will hold him no less accountable if he does not do as you say.

                  In this respect, "ignorance of the law" is truly being used against security officers because the "ignorance" is being deliberately and maliciously imposed by those in a positon of authority refusing to mandate or otherwise provide the necessary avenues to be properly trained.
                  Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-15-2007, 06:56 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I'm not sure what days "way back" you're referring to. Historically, it was public LE that grew up behind private security forces (which was all there was, other than the military/militia) and LE expanded into that space, not the other way around.

                    Perhaps we should leave it this way: Authority and governmental mandates usually move in tandem sooner or later. In turn, the expansion of governmental mandates, in particular, sooner or later will require the government to show a compelling public interest. If, when, and where this happens, and to the extent that it happens, the relevant authority will flow appropriately to those charged with executing the mandate. When the authority begins to flow, and to the extent that individuals are charged with exercising that authority, training and all the rest will follow along. Beyond that, I don't really think it's necessary to worry about it, nor to grunt or strain to "make it happen".

                    Even supposing, for the sake of discussion, that security officers in KCMO are authorized with "police powers", why do you characterize the fact that security companies do not seem eager to assert such authority, and hence do not train officers in its exercise, as "malicious". All I see, again assuming such powers really are granted, is companies that are saying "No, thank you. We'd rather not." Are their officers then being obliged by the government to perform law enforcement duties, for which they are ill-trained and ill-equipped?

                    It's a very different thing to authorize an action than to compel its performance, and it's also a very different thing to grant authority than to compel its exercise (I am authorized to carry a concealed weapon, but I am in no way compelled by the government to do so). So, I am curious to know by what means the government of Kansas City has compelled (and the operative word is COMPELLED) security officers in KC to exercise police powers? Specifically - with as much detail as you can supply. We'd like this, if possible, before contacting the City Attorney's office tomorrow for an opinion so that we can reference the case(s) we wish to have analyzed.

                    Also, would you mind if I turn a reporter I know on the Star onto this story about the disaster thing? (LE/EM isn't really his bailiwick, so he won't handle it, but he can hand it off to his editor for assignment to someone who knows his way around the top levels of the PD.) I know they're always looking for Homeland Security stories.
                    Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-15-2007, 08:02 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


                    • #40
                      No doubt I could say fire is hot, and you would find some reason to argue against me. I will also say this, for someone who purports to have read my thesis and, moreover, to understand what is written, why then are you constantly asking me questions that I have already addressed in my thesis; some being addressed numerous times?

                      A thesis in matters of law, is a working therory in existing laws and the legal applicability of such. There will always be those who dispute one thesis or another; it does not, however, automatically invalidate the legal arguments presented. Ultimately, the true test of any thesis, especially those in matters of law, comes by testing the theories in a court of law.

                      Originally posted by SecTrainer
                      When the authority begins to flow, and to the extent that individuals are charged with exercising that authority, training and all the rest will follow along.
                      Right, you go a head and believe that if you want. You conveniently neglect to remember that out of some 30 states enacting laws to expand the duties and funcitons of security personnel into the realms of haivng police powers, only 19 states have enacted laws to ensure security personnel are properly trained and regulated in such powers. Missouri is not among those 19 states that have enacted such additional laws.

                      You also conveniently neglect to remember the various links I have provided from newspaper agencies and others showing that despite governments throughout the U.S. giving security officers police powers, they are not being properly trained and regulated and are engaging in gross abuses of power, as a result.

                      Title 17 was amended some eight years ago and yet, still to this day we have no laws enacted to mandate security officers receive the proper training to exercize police powers. In fact, in 2002, Sentator Coleman filed a Bill [S.B. 48] to try and mandate security officers receive 20 hours of firearm training in order to be authorized to carry such and 30 hours of classroom time training. The Bill was defeated in committee.

                      Originally posted by SecTrainer
                      Even supposing, for the sake of discussion, that security officers in KCMO are authorized with "police powers"
                      I have provided more than ample information supporting such, including the link to Title 17 Section 10-2 itself, to prove the validity of my statements. Merely because you chose to ignore the facts does not mean the facts simply disappear and nothing you have to offer is going to deter from the fact that the law is abundantly clear. So, try as you do; have done, and no doubt will continue to do for all eternity to come, to discredit me on this point - you cannot and never will do so based on factual information.

                      Originally posted by SecTrainer
                      why do you characterize the fact that security companies do not seem eager to assert such authority, and hence do not train officers in its exercise, as "malicious"
                      No, what I have said is that security officers are permitted to use such police powers in the presence of being deprived proper training. In so doing, we knowingly, willingly and intentionally create a sitution where security officers become easy prey and are used to take the fall for others and that is always malicious conduct to engage in. This sort of conduct would fall under the Doctrine of Willful Blindness, which is used in both criminal and civil prosecutions against those who know there is a problem, knew they should have taken some kind of action to prevent the harm being inflicted, yet, knowingly chose to ignore such. It's very much like being an accessory to a crime committed - you knew the crime was being committed, you knew you should have taken some action to prevent the crime but chose to do nothing instead.

                      As I discuss and point out in my thesis: "the Model Penal Code, which was adopted by the American Law Institute, in 1962, and revised in 1985, distinguishes between four levels of criminally culpable means rea: purposeful; knowing; reckless; and negligent." See Yale Law Journal, Vol. 102, No. 8, Symposium: Economic Competitiveness and the Law (Jun., 1993), pp. 2231-2257 doi:10.2307/796865.


                      See for example In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003),see also United States v. Hiland, 909 F.2d 1114, 1130 (8th Cir. 1990). In Hiland, the Eighth Circuit Court rejected the requirement that the willful blindness instruction to the jury must specifically state that "a defendant has knowledge of a certain fact only if he is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist."

                      Originally posted by SecTrainer
                      Are their officers then being obliged by the government to perform law enforcement duties, for which they are ill-trained and ill-equipped?
                      Hmmm...... yep! I have only said this numerous of times and provided various links from independant sources that are saying the same things and I have provided several case laws, in my thesis that also show the validity of this argument. See for example, Larkin v. St. Louis Housing Authority, et al. This case is exceptionally important because it provides insight into the vast and gross substandards existing here, in KCMO, from that of what exists in St. Louis which requires security officers to underego a three day training class before being permitted to obtain an armed private security license, which is at least something. Here, in KCMO, there are no such training opportunities beyond that of having to qualify at the shooting range which takes about an hour or two depending on where you go.

                      Originally posted by SecTrainer
                      It's a very different thing to authorize an action than to compel its performance, and it's also a very different thing to grant authority than to compel its exercise
                      Your statement truly reflects just how little about law you understand and the complexities of such. Try reading "The Duty to Act: Tort Law, Power, and Public Policy" by Marshall S. Shapo (Austin: University of Texas Press).

                      I also remind you that by the City of Kansas City arguing, in trial, that private security licenses were vested with police powers to supplement the overall efforts of the KCPD, in fighting crime. Not only has the city authorized specific actions to be taken, but it has also imposed a mandate a/k/a a duty to act, in a light most favorable to the government when performing ones duties and funcitons under their security officer license and exericing their police powers.

                      And as I have previously cited elsewhere in my posts and in my thesis: See 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). See also 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”).

                      Originally posted by SecTrainer
                      So, I am curious to know by what means the government of Kansas City has compelled (and the operative word is COMPELLED) security officers in KC to exercise police powers?
                      How many times do I have to answer the same question over and over and over again? As I have repreatedly stated: In 1999 and again in 2000, the City of Kansas City legal dept for the KCPD argued that security officers with a Class A license are essentially police officers and that private security licenses were vested with police powers to supplement the overall efforts of the KCPD in fighting crime. Hence imposing a duty to act becuase by the aforesaid underlined claim, the city government has knowingly, willingly and intentionally sought to compel, direct, counsel or encourage the conduct of security officers, in a specific direction and with a particular outcome to be achieived that serves a light most favorable to the government and furthers the ends of government in fighting crime, under color of law.

                      Read my thesis. I explain such in detail and provide case laws on this subject including the case laws involving the arguments by the city.

                      Originally posted by SecTrainer
                      Specifically - with as much detail as you can supply. We'd like this, if possible, before contacting the City Attorney's office tomorrow for an opinion so that we can reference the case(s) we wish to have analyzed.
                      Who is the "we" you reference?

                      Read my thesis, the information you request is plainly listed multiple of times and I believe I provided the City Attorney office a copy of my thesis, just as I provided the Chief of Police, who sits on the Board of Police Commissioners. And as I have stated before, given that I am currently litigating a case in the federal court that deals, in part, with Title 17, my beliefs in what the law is as it relates to Title 17 are currently being put to the test in a court of law. And before you ask - no, I do not want or require your assistance in litigating this case nor will I provide you any inside information about this case.

                      Originally posted by SecTrainer
                      Also, would you mind if I turn a reporter I know on the Star onto this story about the disaster thing?
                      I question everything you do and your motives for doing such. Your posts have not exactly given me reasonable cause to trust your motives for getting actively involved on any level, and to take you into my confidence, sharing inside information with you.
                      Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-16-2007, 04:46 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        By the way SecTrainer = so as not to confuse the subjects on different threads posted by others, your post above might be more appropriate in my thread titled "Privatizing Police Powers" or in the alternative my thread on security officers playing a role in government resonses, rather than in this thread.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I have a strange feeling these points will be moot. The federal government and to some extent, state government, will assign tasks to private security without clear authority much the way it was between OSS and FBI during WWII. It may stay murky for some while while things are being sorted out. In my judgment, assignments will be handed out with the command "do it."
                          Enjoy the day,
                          Bill

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Bill Warnock
                            In my judgment, assignments will be handed out with the command "do it."
                            Amen to that Bill. Something that government officials are the leading experts in doing and doing so in the private security industry is no exception.
                            Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-21-2007, 12:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Christopherstjo
                              And as I have stated before, given that I am currently litigating a case in the federal court that deals, in part, with Title 17, my beliefs in what the law is as it relates to Title 17 are currently being put to the test in a court of law. And before you ask - no, I do not want or require your assistance in litigating this case nor will I provide you any inside information about this case.
                              Mr. Cross, if you are "litigating a case" in the federal courts, I would think you would know that the information will be available whether you wish to provide it or not, absent court seal (which is extremely rare). Obtaining court records, including the pleadings, filings, etc. is a slam-dunk cinch and something many of us are required to do frequently in our work.

                              I question everything you do and your motives for doing such. Your posts have not exactly given me reasonable cause to trust your motives for getting actively involved on any level, and to take you into my confidence, sharing inside information with you.
                              Then let me make my motives perfectly clear as there's nothing sinister about them. You have put forth an idea for disaster/emergency response and claim that it has the support of the KCMO police department. If true, this would be of interest not only to the local community at large, but also to the larger EM community, the security community, the police community and others, no? I'm a little surprised, as I would think you would welcome the publicity.
                              "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 SecTrainer
                                Mr. Cross, if you are "litigating a case" in the federal courts, I would think you would know that the information will be available
                                Yep sure do.

                                Originally posted by SecTrainer
                                Obtaining court records, including the pleadings, filings, etc. is a slam-dunk cinch
                                Yep sure is.

                                Originally posted by SecTrainer
                                Then let me make my motives perfectly clear as there's nothing sinister about them. You have put forth an idea for disaster/emergency response and claim that it has the support of the KCMO police department. If true, this would be of interest not only to the local community at large, but also to the larger EM community, the security community, the police community and others, no? I'm a little surprised, as I would think you would welcome the publicity.
                                There is a proper time and place for everything... you clearly intend to ignore this at any costs and risks imposed upon my program because of your conduct. In any event, you know exactly where I stand with you on this subject... If you have any confusion, re-read my private message to you.

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X