Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should there be more armed Security Officers?

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

  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer
    First, I've never quite bought into the insurance companies' position because I've never seen any real loss numbers. If we have, say, 1.5 million security officers in the US and if 5% are armed (I've seen figures ranging from 3 to 5%, so let's use the top estimate), that's around 62,500 armed officers. How many incidents are there in a year in which an officer is involved in a "liability shooting" - i.e., a "bad" shooting that invokes liability? More to the point, what, really, are the total losses to insurance companies from such liability?
    As daring of a thought as this may be. I believe the hype of insurance liaiblity claims is not based upon actual monetary losses of substantial amounts suffered by insurance companies or even that of a high rate of actual liable shootings. Rather, I believe it is based primarily upon the poor image and lack of credibility that security officers have because of the lack of a standards of practice and because of such, we are labled as "high risk"

    Leave a comment:


  • gonzo1510
    replied
    Originally posted by power102
    I think Gonzo is talking about, if the situation should ever arise...having a locked cabinet of firearms, ready to be quickly accessed.
    That's what I was trying to get across... thanks Power102.

    If you stop and look at us we are basically UPS with a gun.
    LOL! Nice way to put it.
    Well, it's funny but true .....

    Leave a comment:


  • power102
    replied
    I think Gonzo is talking about, if the situation should ever arise...having a locked cabinet of firearms, ready to be quickly accessed. I would still rather already be armed in the first place though.
    Personally, I think both armed & unarmed officers are needed, depending on where he/she is located and whether the paying account gives permission to require their guards to be armed.
    IMO...Most paying accounts that have a "no gun" policy for their guards are due to the comfort level for the employees/residents of that location, all I'm saying is...maybe "unarmed" security officers (who want something better than pepper spray) should atleast carry (or be allowed to carry) a concealed firearm on the job - to maintain the comfort level and "appearence" of being unarmed. After all....a class-A shirt ordered from Galls and a radio doesn't do a thing when it comes to the safety of yourself when your the one who's being payed (or under-payed) to be a "first responder" (as the DIVE team commander would put it ).
    I've seen unarmed security officers in banks...it doesn't make sense, especially knowing that the guard himself would be the first one (besides the teller with the safe combo) to get a gun pointed at him.

    I'm not "putting down" unarmed guards (I'm aware that some guards would rather stay unarmed for their own comfort level, or whatever their reason may be), I'm just saying that If I were a criminal, I would much rather make an attempt to rob/shoplift/ect. from a place without worrying about an officer drawing down on me while I was trying to escape...or if I planned on shooting him/her..I wouldn't have to worry about that officer returning fire.
    as far as hotel security (or something along the lines of that)...hell, a wacko on a shooting rampage could unload on crowds at a Hyatt just as easy as a mall or campus.
    Last edited by power102; 04-20-2007, 09:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BadBoynMD
    replied
    Originally posted by Chucky
    I need some clarification on this Hopefully. If the Federal government (FBI) is a big part of the process of me getting a LTC/CCW then why is it illegal for me to carry in a Federal facility while I am performing business there? IE Post office
    VA etc.

    Of all the shootings at a post office I can't remember a time when the perp had the weapons at work with him. He always came to the PO armed to the hilt form the outside for the sole purpose of killing. Do they not trust their own background checkers? It's kind of like the DMV issuing a drivers licence then telling you not to drive on state roads.
    The FBI has a small part in a CCW permit issuance. All you're doing is a FBI fingerprint card, which is mailed to the NCIC HQ in West Virginia. All the FBI will tell the jurisdiction of your application is if, there any criminal findings on this you. Each state is different when it comes to where you can and cannot carry. For instance in Maryland the only place you can't carry is any public (I think even private) schools. You use to be able to carry inside a courthouse IF you were on duty. I think that rule has changed. I haven't been in court in a long time (thank God, I hate testifying lol).

    As for Federal buildings.. don't feel bad, alot of police officers can't even carry in most federal buildings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rooney
    replied
    I agree with alot of the points on this thread. My opinion on armed personnel on campus is thus:

    1. Security officers: With extensive training on small campuses that do not have their own armed police force or municipal LE on site, yes.

    2. Most larger campuses like the ones here in Arizona have their own state registered LE that are armed.

    3. If a campus is using contracted security I believe it depends on the company size and background. i.e. Joe Blows security versus Blackwater, Wackenhut, etc.

    With all of the gun debate I have heard on the "media" lately since this horrific event, a few things stand out that I would like some of your opinions. I will post a thread on this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chucky
    replied
    I need some clarification on this Hopefully. If the Federal government (FBI) is a big part of the process of me getting a LTC/CCW then why is it illegal for me to carry in a Federal facility while I am performing business there? IE Post office
    VA etc.

    Of all the shootings at a post office I can't remember a time when the perp had the weapons at work with him. He always came to the PO armed to the hilt form the outside for the sole purpose of killing. Do they not trust their own background checkers? It's kind of like the DMV issuing a drivers licence then telling you not to drive on state roads.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • bigshotceo
    replied
    Originally posted by gonzo1510
    But why not suggest that the security office itself have weapons available should the need arise? I agree with power 102 in that officers/guards although unarmed should have firearms training and permits.
    Well, there are two problems there.

    1) When you need a firearm, most of the time you need it RIGHT AWAY, not as soon as you can get back to the office and remove it from a locking mechanism.

    2) Most companies/law enforcement agencies argue that any situation that would require you to respond by bringing a firearm is better left to the police; the reason that guards are armed is in case someone uses/threatens deadly force against the guard in the course of their regular duties.

    Leave a comment:


  • FederalSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by wilrobnson
    Where do we find those???
    I am lucky enough to work for a worthy private company on my time off

    of the Federal gig. Hands down, it is the best leadership I've ever had in

    any Security company, including the Feds.



    If worthy leadership is ever more widespread than just my private part-

    time position, I'll let you know, Will. Cause I'm still looking for it myself!!!
    Last edited by FederalSecurity; 04-20-2007, 11:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • OccamsRazor
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by FederalSecurity
    I think the only ones
    who have the power to eradicate this are company owners and officials who
    believe in what they are working for as opposed to what kinds of paychecks
    they are recieving... the ones who actually give a damn...
    Where do we find those???

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by gonzo1510
    Now I understand that most companies do not want an armed officer/guard on the property for whatever reason (insurance,appearance...) But why not suggest that the security office itself have weapons available should the need arise? I agree with power 102 in that officers/guards although unarmed should have firearms training and permits.
    Because of two things.

    1. A weapon locked in the guard shack is useless when something happens that requires immediate response. The guard will simply be shot in the back trying to get to it.

    2. The insurance company (both client and contractor) still sees it as an armed site, after all, the guard has access to a weapon during his shift.

    Florida puts it best: An unarmed officer may not be posted to a gate shack which has shotguns locked inside if the officer has the ability to open the lock. If he has the possibility to touch a gun, he's armed.

    Leave a comment:


  • FederalSecurity
    replied
    A thought comes to mind, and it's this... every issue and problem springs from

    the fact that unlike the Police (in the eyes of society), who are the

    representatives of government and the defenders of society, the Private

    Security sector is, for the most part, a capital venture. I think the only ones

    who have the power to eradicate this are company owners and officials who

    believe in what they are working for as opposed to what kinds of paychecks

    they are recieving... the ones who actually give a damn...

    Leave a comment:


  • power102
    replied
    If you stop and look at us we are basically UPS with a gun.
    LOL! Nice way to put it.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Originally posted by mwprotection
    A quick search revealed this:
    Gatineau security guard dies after altercation with teens

    A firearm also helps even the score when faced with multiple assaliants. Maybe they wouldn't have risked their lives attacking him if he would have been armed???
    Gatineau/Hull is across the river from Ottawa. That's over an hour drive from Montreal. I still stick to my satement: In 30+ years I can't remember hearing of an unarmed Security Guard being killed in Montreal but I have heard of armed ones being killed.

    Leave a comment:


  • gonzo1510
    replied
    Originally posted by power102
    I also used to work as an un-armed security guard - Mostly PR work (behind the desk & opening the door for people). I did the tie & blazer gig for about 2 years (felt more like secretarial work).
    I agree that there is a place for both but I'm a little reluctant on labeling "security officer" and "security guard" as two of the same.
    IMO...A security guard is what I mentioned above. (PR) - Not speaking bad about it (cuz it is needed)
    The security officer (a dying breed ) fits more along the lines of the people who are assigned to respond to potentially dangerous alarms, a domestic dispute ect. ect.
    Then you've got airport, armored truck, nightclub bouncers and bank security...which is a mixture of both.
    <<<<Not saying that unarmed guards are not benificial to have...but I think they should have the option to be trained & commissioned to carry firearms. Hell, I think meter maids should carry too.

    Just though I'd clear that up.
    Speaking strictly from what I have seen, bank security with rare exceptions are unarmed do the PR type work that was metioned earlier.

    Armored car guards do not however perform ANY kind of security work. If you stop and look at us we are basically UPS with a gun. All we do is pick up and deliver.

    Now I understand that most companies do not want an armed officer/guard on the property for whatever reason (insurance,appearance...) But why not suggest that the security office itself have weapons available should the need arise? I agree with power 102 in that officers/guards although unarmed should have firearms training and permits.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    I definitely agree with you about the elephant problem. When I wrote an application for insurance, put down that it would be an armed company operating in SE Wisconsin, and submitted training and documentation.

    It was denied, simply because the pool said, "We don't do security guards with guns."

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X