Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Uniforms

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

  • #16
    Its just like a woman's shirt, the velcro lasts and lasts if you get the right kind.
    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


    • #17
      Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
      Its just like a woman's shirt, the velcro lasts and lasts if you get the right kind.
      Originally posted by Mall Director
      I am wondering how the patch would look after you velcro it on though? Does it stay flush mount with the shirt, and after washes and washes, will it remain sticky?
      Getting the right kind of velcro is important. To make sure it stays, I also stitch it to both the patch and shirt sleeve, just to make sure it stays. If done properly, it stays almost as flush with the shirt as it would normally.

      Fortunately, I am fairly handy with the needle... I didn't want to spend $75+ for a new vest carrier, so I made my own for about $35... Looks just as good, and is more comfortable than the ones the manufacturer makes. (Since I was able to directly tailor it to myself.. Another advantage.. lol)
      Corbier's Commandos - "Stickin it to the ninjas!"
      Originally posted by ValleyOne
      BANG, next thing you know Bob's your Uncle and this Sgt is seemingly out on his a$$.
      Shoulda called in sick.
      Be safe!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by davis002 View Post

        As far as what our company issues... Navy BDU Cargo Pants and Gray Duty Shirts. I'll attach a pic to give you an idea.
        I don't mean to pick on you Davis, but navy blue is illeagal for private security to wear in MN. I know that Wackenhut wears navy blue pants as well, they have a black stripe down the legs. The statute, and I can't think of the # off hand but I'll look for it, states something to the affect, "private security can not wear any color common to law enforcement, ie; blues, browns, tans, greens (parks), or maroons (state). However, black, gray, and white is permissable. The same actually goes for private security vehicles colors too.

        Actually, now I have to edit this post because I remember having a similar conversation about this on another thread and I forgot to find the statute, so I'll start looking for it.
        Last edited by sgtnewby; 06-03-2007, 12:13 AM.
        Apparently a HUGE cop wannabe...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by sgtnewby View Post
          I don't mean to pick on you Davis, but navy blue is illeagal for private security to wear in MN. I know that Wackenhut wears navy blue pants as well, they have a black stripe down the legs. The statute, and I can't think of the # off hand but I'll look for it, states something to the affect, "private security can not wear any color common to law enforcement, ie; blues, browns, tans, greens (parks), or maroons (state). However, black, gray, and white is permissable. The same actually goes for private security vehicles colors too.

          Actually, now I have to edit this post because I remember having a similar conversation about this on another thread and I forgot to find the statute, so I'll start looking for it.
          I think it is 626.88. I'll look it up.

          Comment


          • #20
            Here it is:

            626.88 UNIFORMS; PEACE OFFICERS, SECURITY GUARDS; COLOR.
            Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have
            the meanings given them.
            (b) "Peace officer" means an employee of a political subdivision or state law enforcement
            agency who is licensed pursuant to sections 626.84 to 626.863 charged with the prevention and
            detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of the state and who has full
            power of arrest, and shall also include Minnesota state troopers, state conservation officers, park
            police, and University of Minnesota police officers.
            (c) "Security guard" means any person who is paid a fee, wage, or salary to perform one
            or more of the following functions:
            (1) prevention or detection of intrusion, unauthorized entry or activity, vandalism, or trespass
            on private property;
            (2) prevention or detection of theft, loss, embezzlement, misappropriation, or concealment of
            merchandise, money, bonds, stocks, notes, or other valuable documents or papers;
            (3) control, regulation, or direction of the flow or movements of the public, whether by
            vehicle or otherwise, to assure protection of private property;
            (4) protection of individuals from bodily harm;
            (5) prevention or detection of intrusion, unauthorized entry or activity, vandalism, or trespass
            on Minnesota National Guard facilities, including, but not limited to, Camp Ripley and Air
            National Guard air bases; or
            (6) enforcement of policies and rules of the security guard's employer related to crime
            reduction insofar as such enforcement falls within the scope of security guard's duties.
            The term "security guard" does not include: (i) auditors, accountants, and accounting
            personnel performing audits or accounting functions; (ii) employees of a firm licensed pursuant to
            section 326.3381 whose duties are primarily administrative or clerical in nature; (iii) unarmed
            security personnel; (iv) personnel temporarily employed pursuant to statute or ordinance by
            political subdivisions to provide protective services at social functions; (v) employees of air
            or rail carriers.
            Subd. 2. Uniforms. Uniforms for peace officers shall be of uniform colors throughout the
            state as provided herein. Uniforms for:
            (a) municipal peace officers, including University of Minnesota peace officers and peace
            officers assigned to patrol duties in parks, shall be blue, brown, or green;
            (b) peace officers who are members of the county sheriffs' office shall be blue, brown,
            or green;
            (c) state troopers shall be maroon;
            (d) conservation officers shall be green.
            The uniforms of security guards may be any color other than those specified for peace
            officers.
            This subdivision shall apply to uniforms purchased subsequent to January 1, 1981.
            Subd. 3. Exception. Security guards employed by the Capitol Complex Security Division of
            the Department of Public Safety are not required to comply with subdivision 2.
            History: 1980 c 578 s 9; 1981 c 37 s 2; 1981 c 310 s 16; 1983 c 293 s 109; 1Sp1985 c 10 s
            118; 1986 c 444; 1989 c 209 art 2 s 1; 1997 c 7 art 1 s 169; 2005 c 10 art 2 s 4; 2006 c 273 s 13

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by sgtnewby View Post
              I don't mean to pick on you Davis, but navy blue is illeagal for private security to wear in MN. I know that Wackenhut wears navy blue pants as well, they have a black stripe down the legs. The statute, and I can't think of the # off hand but I'll look for it, states something to the affect, "private security can not wear any color common to law enforcement, ie; blues, browns, tans, greens (parks), or maroons (state). However, black, gray, and white is permissable. The same actually goes for private security vehicles colors too.

              Actually, now I have to edit this post because I remember having a similar conversation about this on another thread and I forgot to find the statute, so I'll start looking for it.
              We have the same statute in my home state the problem is that just about the only colors that Leo's don't wear are pink and purple so the statute is out dated like the rest of our security laws.

              Comment


              • #22
                I wore a light blue over dark blue hard uniform for years in Minneapolis. The cops wore the same thing and would complain that we were breaking the law. I would always tell them that A. I was just a line officer and wore what the department provided and B. Told them that technically we were not in violation of the law since we were unarmed and for the purposes of the uniform color law, only armed was covered.

                When I think of uniform colors, I think of the shirt, not that pants. But, i suppose that the pants are part of the uniform as well. Although, I have always thought that the all black hard uniform looked more police like since the majority of the PD's around here wear dark navy blue that is almost black in most light.
                Last edited by CorpSec; 06-03-2007, 01:27 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by sgtnewby View Post
                  I don't mean to pick on you Davis, but navy blue is illeagal for private security to wear in MN. I know that Wackenhut wears navy blue pants as well, they have a black stripe down the legs. The statute, and I can't think of the # off hand but I'll look for it, states something to the affect, "private security can not wear any color common to law enforcement, ie; blues, browns, tans, greens (parks), or maroons (state). However, black, gray, and white is permissable. The same actually goes for private security vehicles colors too.

                  Actually, now I have to edit this post because I remember having a similar conversation about this on another thread and I forgot to find the statute, so I'll start looking for it.
                  We actually got in touch with the state on this... You can't wear a uniform that is "dominently" blue, brown, blah blah blah. Since it's only our pants that are blue, they said that is not a problem. Our vehicles are grey and blue, but the car is dominently grey, so we are ok.
                  "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun-Tzu

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by talon View Post
                    We have the same statute in my home state the problem is that just about the only colors that Leo's don't wear are pink and purple so the statute is out dated like the rest of our security laws.
                    Around here, by far the most common color combo for security is white over black. Some companies use gray over black and a few do all black. The suburban PD's wear dark blue shirts and pants, Minneapolis wear light blue over dark blue, St. Paul wears a lighter medium blue shirt with dark blue pockets and epalets over postman pants. The sheriff's offices wear tan/brown, the state wears tan/maroon. Conservation officers wear tan/green.

                    That actually leaves quite a few color combinations available for armed security. Since I would say 95% or more of security here is unarmed, they can dress in any color they wish.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by CorpSec View Post
                      That actually leaves quite a few color combinations available for armed security. Since I would say 95% or more of security here is unarmed, they can dress in any color they wish.
                      The law doesn't say that unarmed can wear any color they wish... who told you this?
                      "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun-Tzu

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by davis002 View Post
                        We actually got in touch with the state on this... You can't wear a uniform that is "dominently" blue, brown, blah blah blah. Since it's only our pants that are blue, they said that is not a problem. Our vehicles are grey and blue, but the car is dominently grey, so we are ok.
                        I can say that the uniform that Davis wears looks nothing like what the cops wear around here.

                        That being said, if I owned an armed company here, I would follow the statute to the letter to reduce any liability. We all know that lawyers can be snakes that will prey on any weakness in a wrongful death or personal injury case.

                        I can see the conversation in the courtroom going like this:

                        Lawyer: "Per state statute, your officer was breaking the law on the night in question by wearing a forbidden uniform color"
                        Armed Company owner: "I checked with the state and they said it was ok"
                        Lawyer: "You did you talk to specifically?"
                        Armed Company owner: "John Doe"
                        Lawyer: "Do you have this in writing from John Doe?"
                        Armed Company owner" "Well, no I don"t"
                        Lawyer: "Is John Doe an elected official"
                        Armed Company owner "I don't know, I think he just is a state worker"
                        Lawyer: "Do you suppose John Doe has the authority to override and interpret state statute"
                        Armed Company owner: "I guess am not sure, I was just going on what he said"

                        Just playing a little devil's advocate since I would hate to see anyone get jammed up and I have seen lawyers in action around here. But, as employees of companies, we can only wear what our company provides us.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by davis002 View Post
                          The law doesn't say that unarmed can wear any color they wish... who told you this?
                          (6) enforcement of policies and rules of the security guard's employer related to crime
                          reduction insofar as such enforcement falls within the scope of security guard's duties.
                          The term "security guard" does not include: (i) auditors, accountants, and accounting
                          personnel performing audits or accounting functions; (ii) employees of a firm licensed pursuant to
                          section 326.3381 whose duties are primarily administrative or clerical in nature; (iii) unarmed
                          security personnel
                          ; (iv) personnel temporarily employed pursuant to statute or ordinance by
                          political subdivisions to provide protective services at social functions; (v) employees of air
                          or rail carriers.

                          The statute does not specifically state that unarmed can wear anything they wish, but it covers the colors that a security guard may wear. In saying that the term "security guard" does not include unarmed security personnel, it is essentially saying that unarmed security personnel are not held to the statute.
                          Last edited by CorpSec; 06-03-2007, 01:11 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by CorpSec View Post
                            I can say that the uniform that Davis wears looks nothing like what the cops wear around here.

                            That being said, if I owned an armed company here, I would follow the statute to the letter to reduce any liability. We all know that lawyers can be snakes that will prey on any weakness in a wrongful death or personal injury case.

                            I can see the conversation in the courtroom going like this:

                            Lawyer: "Per state statute, your officer was breaking the law on the night in question by wearing a forbidden uniform color"
                            Armed Company owner: "I checked with the state and they said it was ok"
                            Lawyer: "You did you talk to specifically?"
                            Armed Company owner: "John Doe"
                            Lawyer: "Do you have this in writing from John Doe?"
                            Armed Company owner" "Well, no I don"t"
                            Lawyer: "Is John Doe an elected official"
                            Armed Company owner "I don't know, I think he just is a state worker"
                            Lawyer: "Do you suppose John Doe has the authority to override and interpret state statute"
                            Armed Company owner: "I guess am not sure, I was just going on what he said"

                            Just playing a little devil's advocate since I would hate to see anyone get jammed up and I have seen lawyers in action around here. But, as employees of companies, we can only wear what our company provides us.
                            Trust me... we know who we spoke with, and they were the one who can say what goes and what doesn't. So, our bases are covered.
                            Last edited by davis002; 06-03-2007, 01:23 AM.
                            "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun-Tzu

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by CorpSec View Post
                              (6) enforcement of policies and rules of the security guard's employer related to crime
                              reduction insofar as such enforcement falls within the scope of security guard's duties.
                              The term "security guard" does not include: (i) auditors, accountants, and accounting
                              personnel performing audits or accounting functions; (ii) employees of a firm licensed pursuant to
                              section 326.3381 whose duties are primarily administrative or clerical in nature; (iii) unarmed
                              security personnel
                              ; (iv) personnel temporarily employed pursuant to statute or ordinance by
                              political subdivisions to provide protective services at social functions; (v) employees of air
                              or rail carriers.

                              The statute does not specifically state that unarmed can wear anything they wish, but it covers the colors that a security guard may wear. In saying that the term "security guard" does not include unarmed security personnel, it is essentially saying that unarmed security personnel are not held to the statute.
                              Statute number?
                              "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun-Tzu

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by davis002 View Post
                                Trust me... we know who we spoke with, and this is the one who can say what goes and what doesn't. So, our bases are covered.

                                That is good. Like I said, just don't want to see anyone get jammed up by some scummy attorney. I hope you got it in writing since we all know how fuzzy people's memory's can get on the stand.

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X