Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Security in deep doggie doo!

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

  • Security in deep doggie doo!

    This past Monday the Montreal Police Department set up a squad to patrol our métro system. For the past 40 years the system has had it's own force of Security/By-law Enforcement officers known as Surveuillance Agents. They were not Peace Officers. They were armed with mini PR-24s, wore stab resistant vests & carried handcuffs. They acted as first responders & controlled the situatuions until the police, fire or ambulance arrived. They also enforced a city by-law which set rules for conduct in the system.

    When the new police squad was being set up the 165 Surveillance Agents were invited to apply to become police officers. However they were required to pass ALL the requirements of rookie cops. A 45 year old was expected to be able to pass the same physical tests as a 20 year old. Only about 65 were accepted. Out of the 65 3 (one who used to work for me ) had most of the things needed to become a "real" cop. All they were missing were their firearms training. (The Surveillance Agents were trained in operating emergency vehicles, arrest etc). The other 60 are still in Police Technology at college. The rest of the 165 either have taken early retirement or have become "Transit Inspectors". The job description of the new Inspectors was to do Industrial Security (they patrol the system between 01h00 & 06h30 while the system is closed & protect the buildings. They will also be spending a lot of their time working in the métro stations to make sure people pay their fares & don't litter.

    The poo hit the fan in the media today when it was reported that on the Monday a woman was being attached in a métro station within site of a few of the Inspectors. Following their new "observe & report" orders they called their dispatcher to report a crime taking place. The "real" police took between 7 & 17 minutes to arrive. The suspect & victim were gone.

    The media is jumping all over these Inspectors. I've called a few talk shows & sent e-mails to newspapers explaining the observe & report method of security. Another caller on one of the shows also explaiined that if they were spacifically told not to get involved in these situations but they did & got hurt, or hurt the suspect, they would not be covered as it was not part of their job.

    The media is calling for them to be fired. The media says they were working to rule as a pressure tactic to protest the loss of their jobs.The transit commission is city run. The politicians are begining to say the Inspectors misunderstood their new roles.

    BTW I was for giving the Surveillance Agents Police powers (that they once had under the Railway Act but was taken away from them). In my opinion we need crime prevention in the métro, not necessarily by arrests. The Surveillance Agents were doing a good job.

    I'm almost tempted to help them in their protests by calling the police for EVERY noise complaint I get in my hotel. (Sometimes 10 or more a night). People seem to think only sworn Law Enforcement can deal with crime.

    Sorry for the long post but I'm pumped!
    I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
    Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

  • #2
    You...are..so...fackin...right...
    Ain't war hell?

    Comment


    • #3
      The same thing worries me. Would my company back me up that situation (I have similar orders)? I really doubt it if the media got involved. I feel for those guys.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by craig333 View Post
        The same thing worries me. Would my company back me up that situation (I have similar orders)? I really doubt it if the media got involved. I feel for those guys.
        Craig, are these orders in writing or verbal? If written are they clearly written and easy to comprehend? Were these orders written by competent authority?
        If these orders are verbal and all, I mean all of the security officers have the same understanding the ground is still shaky. If the orders are weasel worded, your ground is still shaky.
        Enjoy the day,
        Bill

        Comment


        • #5
          This reminds me of a court case I heard about in a class I took years ago. Security was O&R only. He observed a man being beaten with a baseball bat. The guard followed orders and went to the payphone (Pre cellphone days) and called the police. By the time the police arrived the guy was dead, and the suspect was long gone. The guard and the company he worked for were sued and found negligent. The judge ruled that nothing precluded the unarmed guard from yelling at the subject, from a safe distance, to stop. Now, as I said, this was a verbal account by a teacher in a powers of arrest class, so I don't have any specifics on the case so take it for what it is worth.
          "Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists. " Author Unknown

          Comment


          • #6
            THats bull****..They ask us NEVER to act because its too dangerous and ****.I can't even wear my darn handcuffs.But when they have a chance to tell us we should have prevented this or that (risking our own safety)they sure are on our back.

            We are there for insurance.When they will make sure the agents are safe then maybe I can think about other people safety.
            Ain't war hell?

            Comment


            • #7
              Its simple. If you act, you put the company at risk.

              1. They have to train you, or you can sue them (or your next of kin) for failure to train when you tell someone to stop attacking a man and you yourself are attacked. It does not matter if you are a t'hlang 'wo trained combat engineer before you became a security guard, you were not given the proper training by the guard company.

              2. You're going to cost them worker's comp if you get hurt. If they say, "He wasn't supposed to do anything but run," then they can deny the claim for disobeying orders.

              The media and the public think that security is there to protect them. It is not. Security is there to lessen the losses that the client incurs.

              If the client wants someone to protect their patrons, then they should hire a company that specializes in protection, not security.
              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


              • #8
                may job is to protect state employees, shot to kill o.O wonder if the STATE would back me or not since im a contractor, and in doing my duties i am supposed to SHOT to KILL, an some walking in pumping or cocking a gun. but legally by state law....... thats another story. i am to protect life, proterty, life being human or animal.


                58-63-102. Definitions.

                In addition to the definitions in Section 58-1-102, as used in this chapter:

                (2) "Armed private security officer" means an individual:
                (a) employed by a contract security company;
                (b) whose primary duty is that of guarding personal or real property, or providing protection or security to the life and well being of humans or animals; and
                (c) who wears, carries, possesses, or has immediate access to a firearm at any time in the performance of the individual's duties.


                (11) (a) "Security officer" means an individual who:
                (i) is employed by a contract security company securing, guarding, or otherwise protecting tangible personal property, real property, or the life and well being of human or animal life against:
                (A) trespass or other unlawful intrusion or entry;
                (B) larceny;
                (C) vandalism or other abuse;
                (D) arson or any other criminal activity; or
                (E) personal injury caused by another person or as a result of acts or omissions by another person;
                (ii) is controlling, regulating, or directing the flow of movements of individuals or
                vehicles; or
                (iii) providing street patrol service.
                Last edited by UtahProtectionForce; 06-21-2007, 04:15 PM.
                Its not how we die that counts.....
                Its not how we lived that counts....
                all that matters is how we saved that one life that one time by being in the right place at the right time....

                Comment


                • #9
                  It's getting hotter for the transit employees in Montreal. The Quebec Justice Minister is now demanding an explanation from the Transt Corp. Of course the politician are all now saying that the "Inspectors" were not told they were to O&R only. The union says they were. The media is still demanding that they be fired.
                  I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                  Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    :shakes head:

                    You guys are unbelievable.

                    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
                    The media and the public think that security is there to protect them. It is not. Security is there to lessen the losses that the client incurs.

                    If the client wants someone to protect their patrons, then they should hire a company that specializes in protection, not security.
                    Maybe I've just worked some outstanding sites in my time. Or maybe I'm just nuts.

                    Security is the protection of people and property. We did everything possible to ensure that everyone is safe and secure at all times.

                    Originally posted by War113 View Post
                    THats bull****..They ask us NEVER to act because its too dangerous and ****.I can't even wear my darn handcuffs.But when they have a chance to tell us we should have prevented this or that (risking our own safety)they sure are on our back. We are there for insurance.When they will make sure the agents are safe then maybe I can think about other people safety.
                    If you don't like the way things are, you a few choices:
                    1. Put together a proposal on why you should be allowed to get involved or wear handcuffs.
                    2. Stop your whining and live with it.
                    3. Quit.


                    To me that sounds like a few logical suggestions.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chimpie View Post
                      You guys are unbelievable.
                      Maybe I've just worked some outstanding sites in my time. Or maybe I'm just nuts.

                      Security is the protection of people and property. We did everything possible to ensure that everyone is safe and secure at all times.
                      This entirely depends on the contractual scope of the agreement between the security guard firm and the client. There's a huge body of case law in several states where companies have gotten off the hook for providing observation of criminal activity, reporting of criminal activity through a log entry, and no other action.

                      Edit: One of these cases was in South Florida, where the Florida District Court found that while calling their services 'security' was laughable, it was exactly what the contract specified, and Chapter 493 does NOT require a security guard to protect. In fact, it only requires a security guard or security company to provide the services outlined in the contract. And if those are "Observe, Flee, Report," then there's not a problem unless there's a public expectation of protection.

                      Their post orders were brought into court, where the orders said that the guard was to: Observe, report through the log, do not intervene under any circumstances.

                      Many contracts specifically relieve the company from the protection of persons. The general line is that law enforcement protects people, security protects property.

                      An excellent example is Securitas, who's post orders specifically state, "If your visual deterrence to crime has failed, leave the area immediately and call your supervisor for instructions." That's all security is for most companies, a visual deterrence. Once that has failed, the guard is to leave the area and call his supervisor for instructions, or turn the violation over to the police for enforcement action.

                      Protection is something many guard companies have stopped selling. It costs too much money to train the guards in how to protect people, give them equipment to do so, have their insurance riders against intentional infliction of harm and weapons...
                      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


                      • #12
                        Thats great to have iron clad post orders. And even better if you have a company willing to go to bat for you in court and the media. But seriously, most of these security firms are pretty small, don't want to spend the money on lawyers to prove they're right and figure its also better for their reputation to just get rid of the guard once the media starts in. Guards are easy to replace. Besides, we don't make enough to sue for wrongful discharge.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          [QUOTE=Chimpie;32784]
                          1. Put together a proposal on why you should be allowed to get involved or wear handcuffs.
                          2. Stop your whining and live with it.
                          3. Quit.


                          QUOTE]

                          I don;t agree with choice # 2. I believe that this forum is so we can discuss our problems & concerns with people working in the same profession. I don't think anyone was whining, they were simply stating their situation in the hope that suggestions would be made. Your statement worries me because I'm afraid it would make some people who have real concerns, not post.
                          I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                          Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
                            Originally posted by Chimpie View Post
                            1. Put together a proposal on why you should be allowed to get involved or wear handcuffs.
                            2. Stop your whining and live with it.
                            3. Quit.

                            I don;t agree with choice # 2. I believe that this forum is so we can discuss our problems & concerns with people working in the same profession. I don't think anyone was whining, they were simply stating their situation in the hope that suggestions would be made. Your statement worries me because I'm afraid it would make some people who have real concerns, not post.
                            #2 was said with sarcasm, as I hope no one just lives with problems. I would hope they would not do #3 except as a last resort.

                            I would hope that people would see my post as motivation to not just air their thoughts and let others agree/disagree. I would hope that people would offer suggestions (such as my suggestion of having maintenance fix the fountain switch instead of just complaining about it) and run with them.

                            More later. It's time do pick up some chinese.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I guess I couldn't work only to observe and report. If I saw someone being assaulted, I would do something to stop the attack. I mean, how can you sit
                              and watch another human being getting killed?

                              Comment

                              Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X