Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How many of you know of or have know of guards that have done drugs, or drink on job

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

  • Acer
    replied
    There has been a few times I have had to send someone home for showing up drunk or smelling like beer. But never actually caught anyone drinking or doing drugs. As some have posted, it was hard to get the companies to get rid of them. Recently, a few months ago, we had an officer who showed up drunk and drank on the job. It took a few months to get rid of him because no one could actually catch him doing it. Finally, someone did and unfortually, it was the client.

    This did not happen where I work at now. This was another account.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chucky
    replied
    This is the case law used to link the restaurant arson in Mass as a federal case thus invoking the Federal offence of commerce violation. So if SWI sells Caps,Shirts or the like then a Fed case can be made against this ass clown if he persist to interrupt SWI commerce. BTW no get out of jail free card on a Federal sentence. 5 years means 5 years.

    Under Medeiros , the government need only show, and the jury need only find, a de minimis connection to interstate commerce in order to sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). Medeiros , 897 F.2d at 16-17. Here, the government presented uncontested evidence that the object of the attempted arsons was a "building" that was being "used" as a commercial establishment, the Galleria II restaurant. The jury was presented with evidence that Appellant and his partners rented the building; that the building was supplied with natural gas which traveled in interstate commerce; and that the restaurant received food supplies for its operation which traveled in interstate commerce. Indeed, Appellant conceded at oral argument that the building was used as a commercial establishment which received food supplies and natural gas for its operation that travelled in interstate commerce. The district court correctly instructed the jury that the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Galleria II was property "used in or [sic] affected interstate or foreign commerce." [7] or specifically challenge it on appeal. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, this evidence more than satisfies Medeiros ' de minimis requirement, and we therefore reject Appellant's insufficiency of the evidence argument. [8] See , e.g. , Ryan , 41 F.3d at 364 (the de minimis standard "is easily met, even when the property is temporarily closed or vacant"); U.S. v. Menzer , 29 F.3d 1223, 1229 (7th Cir.) (finding interstate commerce connection where building used partly as commercial business received natural gas and items purchased for resale that moved in interstate commerce), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 515 (1994); Medeiros , 897 F.2d at 16 (holding that rental property is per se property used in an activity affecting interstate commerce).

    Leave a comment:


  • Chucky
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    Realsecurity uses proxies every time he posts, so banning him is a cat and mouse game. We can remove his posts, red card him, etc. The fact that this guy has nothing better to do than play internet tough guy is both frightening and amazing.

    He has a normal account, as well, which he posts from. We tolerate that, since that account hasn't done anything stupid. This is his internet tough guy account, the one he tries to take pot shots at. The only problem is, he is never that good at it.
    We had a similar problem with a guy on our Gaming site that just wouldn't except the fact that he was banned for cheating. After months of whining he decided to get even with proxies. Time after time he would come back under the guise of a new identity. He never was able to figure out how to change his IP location Whois pretty much put him in our sites. After months of frustration, things like starting a thread an letting his cat walk over the key board to fill a page. And numerous other childish things to cause upheaval.

    We contacted a good friend from an ex community that specializes in Internet law and asked him to help us out. This is the same lawyer that gave us the disclaimer for our trading post classified section. He posted up an open letter to this guy and politely explained that his actions were responsible for the disruption of interstate commerce. ( The trading post ) A federal offence and sited the statutes etc.

    He also posted all the location info we had on him and if he doesn't cease and desist he can in the very near future expect a knock on his door at 5 am. Then of course the thank you for your cooperation on this matter etc. Never heard from this Troll again. That was 5 years ago. If anyone doubts that this is not a valid legal tatic and could be fully enforced I will post a similar action where the perps got 5 years Federal time. Moral is don't get caught screwing with the Feds.
    Last edited by Chucky; 12-10-2008, 05:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zm88
    replied
    When I started at the club, the head of security was a biggg time crack/heroin abuser. I actually got stabbed at the door (Galls spike vest saved me!)while he was in the bathroom tying up. After my temporary leave of absence I actually did my own investigation on him(by investigation I mean ask around, talk to some of the patrons and snitches and use my own confidential informants to speak to him) and we actually found out he was letting in some people with weapons/contraband in exchange for drugs. I knew another person who worked armed for about 8 months and he did 8 years in the feds for trafficking fire arms.

    Leave a comment:


  • kjtw
    replied
    Unfortunately, I have caught a few employees drinking on duty. They thought I wouldn't notice the beer cans in the trash or the smell of beer on their breath. What a couple of bone heads! Needless to say, they lost their jobs then and there.

    What is worse, back in the mid 90s, I worked for a company that decided to start an unarmed division. It wasn't doing well so they hired a guy to try and make it better. Well, he started hiring people from the Urban League (which, in itself, isn't bad) and said that no bg checks would be done anymore. Oh boy! There was always talk of a number of these guys selling dimes while on duty, but we never actually caught them. I did, however, find out that one of the guys had an outstanding felony warrant and helped PD scoop him up while he was working. That whole unarmed division really messed up the reputation of the company and the relationship we had with the local PD. It also ended shortly there after.

    Leave a comment:


  • Justice_Hound
    replied
    Originally posted by Realsecurity View Post
    Hey dumbass maybe you should educate yourself before opening your mouth. A security officer must attend a special armed security course before being able to carry a firearm for a security job. DUMBASS lol ROMALOL
    Dude, this guy is making me feel old. I had to crack out the internet dictionary to understand his twelve year old girl terminology.

    And by the way... This forum is called

    SECURITYINFOWATCH- Discussions for the SECURITY PROFESSIONAL.

    Take a hint.

    Leave a comment:


  • psycosteve
    replied
    sorry I went on a rant

    I have had to remove about 4 officers off of one site due to drinking on the job.
    I would have to say it is a problem with oversight, lack of training and the warm body mentality that plagues the majority of security companies. I love getting the question by new guard trainees that ask is there a piss test, or ask me to go blaze with them out back on site. When a company pays the bare minimal to get a guard, what do they expect. A professional should be paid for the quality of the work they do. If I do a good job I expect to be compensated in a way that promotes those actions in others. The constant underbidding of contracts has in effect made the customer the master at the negotiating table instead of it being the other way around. As a security guard I am not REQUIRED to mop floors, carry bags for hotel guest, and sweep up broken glass or to be a gopher for management. What I am required to do is to be a visual deterrent to prevent harm to the staff to the hotel guest and protect the property in that order. The customers know that once the guard gets on site that they will push these obscene orders on who ever is stupid enough to do them. So who is left to work the site as anyone who has an ounce of self respect and options to get better positions leave? Who is left the drunks, drug addicts and the rabid wannabe’s. If I know that I got a job lined up at either another security company or another job lined up, only self discipline will stop me from sleeping, drinking, and or possibly getting high on site .This is a truth of the profession that management forgets about and the client ignores. When you take a person with a thug mentality, give them a uniform and tell them to watch a bar do you not expect problems. Most of the guards I have seen pass through could not pass a federal bonding to be a cashier but were told to buy weapons and cuffs to wear on site. I believe that by tougher standards to become a guard you could increase the quality of the whole industry. Don’t want guards sleeping on post then watch them to make sure that they don’t, pay them enough to survive on a 40 hour a week position and not schedule them to work 24/7. If you don’t want guards getting intoxicated don’t hire drunks and drug addicts. I know people slip thru cracks but for the industry those crack are as wide as the Grand Canyon. The just higher them and fire them mentality is why security is a joke in most people eyes.

    Leave a comment:


  • SoCal Public Safety
    replied
    I've had officers come to work drunk, and had to send them home, but never caught someone drinking or doing drugs at work. One of our properties caught a graveyard officer smoking marijuana on CCTV. Needless to say, he got fired.

    Kind of on the same topic, I came across this video yesterday and it really disturbed me. It's a couple months old, but check it out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkg81Ed68OU

    National Public Safety security officer arrested for hit and run, DUI, and driving on a suspended license.

    This is a company down in the San Diego, CA area that's kinda known for being wannabes. (Sorry if anyone on this forum works for them, I challenge you to prove me wrong) Honestly, some of the things are straight up violations of BSIS regulations and CA laws.

    Here's their website:

    http://www.nationalpublicsafety.com/index.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Depending on state law, a person may not be licensed as a security (whatever) while found guilty of some crimes.

    HOWEVER. Firing someone for specifically being a felon, being on probation, or having a criminal record can land you in a civil and EEOC suit. Several states have protections for those with a criminal record, felony convictions, etc. It is, in short, illegal to discriminate against someone with a felony conviction.

    Without knowing Scottfree's state and licensing requirements, its hard to say, but the kid may of been able to sue Scott personally for discriminating against his criminal record, and the company itself for the supervisor's negligence while acting as an agent of management.

    Leave a comment:


  • TACTICAL 785
    replied
    Originally posted by ScottFree View Post
    It was supposed to be against company policy, and they were supposed to have run a background investigation.

    I feel that you really shouldnt give a security position to someone currently on probation, since that individual has shown poor judgement in the very recent past.

    I would have also felt alot better if he didnt try to hide it from me, and if my company hadnt hid it from me.

    The reason i removed him from the post was that i felt that he wasnt trustworthy. I quit the next day because i felt that the company wasnt trustworthy either.

    I would like to ask others if they would allow an S/O currently on probation at their site?
    I have to Agree with MJ here, how do you know he was on Probations for something like Vandalism?
    i would say there is ground for investagating firther but how do you know he wasn't trying tot urn his life around? we ll make bad choices at some point...

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    "Tim is violating his probation by being employed as a S/O. He tells me he will have to check. "

    don't understand how he's violating his probation by working as an so.
    probation usually states u have to work legally.

    Do u mean company's probation period?

    Leave a comment:


  • mjw064
    replied
    Originally posted by ScottFree View Post
    I would like to ask others if they would allow an S/O currently on probation at their site?

    As a manager/partner in a security company, I would say yes. But it does depend on the circumstances, the facility we are protecting, their level (SO, SPO) and if they told me about it.

    Someone could be placed on probation for a variety of reasons, some of which would not warrant someone's dismissal (especially if the probation happens after they begin employment) and although I can't say that I disagree with your decision to fire this SO, but there are circumstances where I wouldn't see a major problem with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottFree
    replied
    It was supposed to be against company policy, and they were supposed to have run a background investigation.

    I feel that you really shouldnt give a security position to someone currently on probation, since that individual has shown poor judgement in the very recent past.

    I would have also felt alot better if he didnt try to hide it from me, and if my company hadnt hid it from me.

    The reason i removed him from the post was that i felt that he wasnt trustworthy. I quit the next day because i felt that the company wasnt trustworthy either.

    I would like to ask others if they would allow an S/O currently on probation at their site?

    Leave a comment:


  • mjw064
    replied
    Originally posted by ScottFree View Post
    I ask the PO "Didnt you know Tim was a security officer?" the PO says no i didnt. I inform him that i believe Tim is violating his probation by being employed as a S/O. He tells me he will have to check. I tell him dont bother since Tim doesnt have a job with me anymore.

    Needless to say i wasnt doing that job the next day

    Uhmm, maybe you should do a background investigation or at least a background check on new employees? And fire him just for being on probation? That's a little harsh, considering at that point you had no idea what he was even on probation for.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottFree
    replied
    I got a job with a company that had me watch over a strip mall. There were 4 guards there, so it was fairly (so i thought) tame. Within the first week i found the long time officer (had been there for 11 years), was sleeping inn the empty suite we were using as an office.

    He lived 20 miles from the site and on his turnaround nights, it was easier for him to crash there.

    Now i dont believe as his supervisor i have any business telling someone what to do on their off time, but when i found some rolling papers i advised him that he could be subject to a random drug test, and that if i found any evidence of illegal drugs, he was going to be arrested.

    Main office did suspend him for a week to "investigate". During his suspension,
    they send me out a young kid who was very gung ho. Now i understand that starting out you can be eager, so i was trying to give this kid a break, but i kept a close eye on him.

    Good thing i did. Around 10 am on wednesdays, he was leaving the site to go across the street for about 20 mins or so to the dairy queen.

    I dont mind you taking a short break, but there were numerous places on property that could have accomadated him. After the third week of being told this, and then coming to see for myself, i decide to be nosy and follow him.

    I observe him meeting with this guy in a dark Ford. They sit down and talk, and they seem to know each other. I suspect they are making a deal of some kind. I confront the S/O who tells me he doesnt know what i am talking about, and since this is #2 my company sends him in for a test. Its negative.

    Being the curious fellow i am, i follow him again next week and walk into DQ, and plop myself down next to him. His eyes bug out a little, and i say to this person hes meeting "Hi, Im Scott, Im Tims supervisor" Well now i think hes there meeting his dealer or some other nefarious scheme but ......
    HES ACROSS THE STREET MEETING HIS PROBATION OFFICER????

    I ask the PO "Didnt you know Tim was a security officer?" the PO says no i didnt. I inform him that i believe Tim is violating his probation by being employed as a S/O. He tells me he will have to check. I tell him dont bother since Tim doesnt have a job with me anymore.

    Needless to say i wasnt doing that job the next day

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X