Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My first confrontation

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    He probably knew about the warrant and didn't want to hang around for the police. Since you were the object between him and his freedom, he got aggressive. Too bad you couldn't have locked the dumpster lid while he was still in there.
    A good amount of an hostile encounters are because he/she has warrants. One guy stole a few hundred in dvds, when I made contact he took off. He barricaded himself in a restaurant bathroom. Finally gave up and the PD ran him. He had a manslaughter warrant from out of state.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Serpico
      A good amount of an hostile encounters are because he/she has warrants. One guy stole a few hundred in dvds, when I made contact he took off. He barricaded himself in a restaurant bathroom. Finally gave up and the PD ran him. He had a manslaughter warrant from out of state.
      Exactly. That's why people run from the police when they attempt to stop them for a minor traffic/equipment violation. People say: "Why do you (police) chase them just because they failed to yield on a traffic stop?" It's not always that simple. Their running for a reason and it's NOT because they forgot to signal.
      Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by EMTGuard
        click-> http://www.amcitguard.com/ <- to see what our hard uniforms look like. Blue shirt over navy slacks. This week I just got issued new shirts and slacks. We are switching to all black. Personally I like the blue shirts. The black makes my dandruff show up too easily.
        Ok, that and the fact that I wore black all those years as a Corrections Officer and I'd rather not wear anything that reminds me of those uniforms.
        Now that's the way a s/o should look. None of this "soft" doorman uniform look.
        Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mr. Security
          Now that's the way a s/o should look. None of this "soft" doorman uniform look.
          Our night patrol just recently switched to a more tactical look. We're wearing the 5.11 "TDUs" in dark navy. They're working out great so far. We also switched to a more subdued patch on the shoulders and we now have an embroidered badge on our shirts rather than a shiney metal one. It's much more comfortable and much more practical, especially for night patrol.

          We used to be wearing dark navy Class A polyester unforms with basketweave leather duty gear. Most of us on nights had switched to nylon duty gear (I, in fact, NEVER ONCE wore the leather ) much to the chagrin of our boss. Now we're all wearing nylon and I managed to talk a couple other guys into buying some tactical suspenders.

          The only way to describe our new uniforms: bad ass.

          They really are much more practical and appropriate for night work. Our boss kind of gave in after lots of lobbying from the night crew. He is an old school ex-cop and is really into the professional Class A look. We convinced him that because we don't see as many people at night any people who would be put off by our tactical uniforms won't be out and about (as if anyone would care) and that it will give us a more intimidating edge over all of the unsavory characters we contact at night.

          Day shift is still wearing dark navy Class A polyester uniforms with basketweave leather duty gear. Hahahaha!
          Last edited by Taser; 01-15-2006, 11:41 PM.
          10-8

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mr. Security
            Exactly. That's why people run from the police when they attempt to stop them for a minor traffic/equipment violation. People say: "Why do you (police) chase them just because they failed to yield on a traffic stop?" It's not always that simple. Their running for a reason and it's NOT because they forgot to signal.

            Couldn't agree more. The only time I can think of that might be an exception to the rule would be when you're dealing with a fleeing preteen or early teen. They just dont wanna get their ass busted up by their parents

            Comment


            • #21
              An old supervisor had a strange story. Homeless man comes up to him, in an industrial park in South Saint Petersburg, and says, "I'm tired of running anymore." The supervisor is now wondering wtf, and asks the man what's going on. The supervisor is then informed that the homeless man is wanted in another state for murder. After handcuffing the man at gunpoint, the supervisor calls the police and he's indeed arrested on a murder warrant by SPPD.The initial reason for contact was that the man was dumpster diving. He saw a uniform, was tired of the constant running, and surrendered himself to the first uniform he saw.
              Some Kind of Commando Leader

              "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Serpico
                Couldn't agree more. The only time I can think of that might be an exception to the rule would be when you're dealing with a fleeing preteen or early teen. They just dont wanna get their ass busted up by their parents
                Good point.
                Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by jimmyhat
                  ......
                  And why not take a minute to salute one of our colleagues.

                  "The bomb was hidden in a knapsack, which was found by security guard Richard Jewell before it detonated. The device went off while security teams were trying to evacuate the area, killing one woman and injuring more than 100. Presumably, the Olympics were targeted for a combination of multiracial and "New World Order" overtones."

                  Poor guy got shafted on that one! Security gets no respect.
                  And how! Sometimes LE is so sure that they have their man that they focus the bulk of their resources trying to make a "square peg fit into a round hole." We know that innocent people are in prison because several others have been released after DNA evidence cleared them. When being questioned by LE, it is wise to exercise your right to remain silent until you have an attorney present.

                  This has nothing to do with how you feel about LE. It's simply being cognizant that police are human and can make mistakes or be pressured to make an arrest because of a crime's notoriety and/or gravity.

                  I believe Richard won a lawsuit and was eventually hired as a sheriff's deputy.
                  Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    An unusual confrontation of a different matter

                    This is a case of a rather unusual ?confrontation? for me that happened about two months ago. In Florida they have changed the way one can use deadly force when being confronted by a criminal. Weather in or near your home or vehicle. It use to be one was required to make any and all means to retreat from the threat. Run into your house, get to your car and drive off or hide (how?). Etc., Etc. Now one can take immediate action upon such things with out even so much as a warning to the would be attacker. It has caused a few headaches for some of us Private Protection Officers and Security people of other duties. I have had at least two cases of people thinking they were intervening in a possible ATM brake in or scam. They come up demanding to know whats going on. Both cases I knew they were ether in hand or close to a weapon they had with them in their car or on their person. I had to draw down on one guy who almost ran over me and was ready to take matters into his own hands. He fled when he realized he was in a bad tactical position. That or he realized he jumped the gun and was about to become a statistic himself because of his stupidity. Since he never produced a weapon (though I could see him reaching around his lap area) and I had taken up a position that his vehicle could not go any further it turned out well. We do not wear the traditional uniform and our vehicles are not marked nor are the ATM techs. But there are times the tech?s use hazards lights and I use my corner strobes for some details. Anyone with common sense can see my badge and ID hanging around my neck, and see tech equipment lying all over the place. Others see what they want to see I guess. I am all for taking out the bad guy if you?re in the right. But it seems that maybe this law has opened a can of worms here. I have been hearing of similar instances of such events that so far no one has been hurt or killed thank God. My point is this. Though other states have this law has it created a monster? These gun toting John Wayne types now have something to use and go out looking for trouble. Those of us in security including our bothers and sisters in LE that work low profile duties tend to be target for people with cowboy tunnel vision. Has anyone here experienced this problem? Again, I think it?s a good idea. But it seems to have brought out the green eye monster in some people.
                    My views, opinions and statements are my own. They are not of my company, affiliates or coworkers.

                    -Being bagger at Publix has more respect these days

                    -It's just a job kid deal with it

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

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Echos13
                      ...... In Florida they have changed the way one can use deadly force when being confronted by a criminal. Weather in or near your home or vehicle. It use to be one was required to make any and all means to retreat from the threat. Run into your house, get to your car and drive off or hide (how?). Etc., Etc. Now one can take immediate action upon such things with out even so much as a warning to the would be attacker.
                      I'm not surprised that this law has the potential for problems. When it comes to laws regarding the use of deadly force by civilians, I prefer the way it is here and many other places. There has to be an imminent threat to ones life and escape is not possible. The exception is a threat to your life by an intruder inside your home. In that case, escape/retreat is not required.
                      Last edited by Mr. Security; 01-17-2006, 09:58 AM. Reason: Clarification
                      Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Also, don't forget, you can't threaten to use force unless you, or the client's tech, is being threatened with bodily harm or death. FSS 493 prohibits security officers from using force or the threat of force to protect property.

                        However, the law also states that you have no duty to retreat if you have a lawful purpose for being there. You have a lawful purpose for being there. If someone threatens you over being over an open ATM - they have no law enforcement authority and are in fact an aggressor. You have lawful authority to ask them to leave (You cannot legally remove them by threat of force under 493, the tech can, though), and defend yourself against their criminal activity (trespass after warning, aggrivated assault, etc) once they refuse to leave.
                        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


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
                          Also, don't forget, you can't threaten to use force unless you, or the client's tech, is being threatened with bodily harm or death. FSS 493 prohibits security officers from using force or the threat of force to protect property.

                          However, the law also states that you have no duty to retreat if you have a lawful purpose for being there. You have a lawful purpose for being there. If someone threatens you over being over an open ATM - they have no law enforcement authority and are in fact an aggressor. You have lawful authority to ask them to leave (You cannot legally remove them by threat of force under 493, the tech can, though), and defend yourself against their criminal activity (trespass after warning, aggrivated assault, etc) once they refuse to leave.
                          Indeed, all of this was going threw my mind during the whole time. How ever, when he used his truck like some kind of intimidation tool I figured he had done shown his intentions to the point I felt I was in danger. The look on this guys face was more like the joker than the Batman. But I kept my cool, instructed the tech to get into his van. I had the police on 911 speed dail and auto GPS. I had asked him to leave several times and he just "backed off" about two car lengths while I stood next to the tech's van and used it as protection from ether possible firearm or even "car" attack. Then he left as quicly as he came. The police where about a minute behind him. They never found the guy dispite an excellent discription of the driver, truck and a partial tag. As for the tech telling this guy to leave, yea right. He was too busy hiding behind the steering wheel. Our policy is that when such situations develop it becomes a security matter. The tech advised us to tell the person(s) under his right to be there to leave. As for the florida statues and laws, I figured him being the main player with rights to be there the tech advising us to act on his behalf gives us the authority to act on problems that go -beyound- his control. If securtiy feels it's not a safety issue the techs can ask people to leave first, yes. But after they decide to get unruley or hostile it's all by the numbers. Ask to leave by verbal means (if they decide to get nasty) = protect the tech -and myself- (depending on the subjects actions), police, take up position to protect (also, depends on subjects actions) or leave if possible.
                          My views, opinions and statements are my own. They are not of my company, affiliates or coworkers.

                          -Being bagger at Publix has more respect these days

                          -It's just a job kid deal with it

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

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The reason I noted the tech can, is because the tech is not governed under FSS 493. They can use force to protect property, whereas a contract security officer cannot.
                            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