Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gunman Kills Eight, Then Kills Himself, at Omaha Shopping Mall

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

  • Minneapolis Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Firemankoz View Post
    In response to Minneapolis Security comment about the "homeless" looking officer at Westroads you have no clue what you are talking about. You don't know the officer pictured, and I do have the priveledge of knowing him. Obviously you care more about what the responding officer looks like than if they can handle the task at hand. The officer pictured is one of the most squared away cops I know, and like myself I'll bet he wished he could have done something that day that would have changed the outcome.
    In addition, you have to be one of the most inconsiderate people in this country to make that statement. You have no idea what this officer does for the department or Omaha's citizens. Also, do you think the victim's families would have cared what the officer or person looked like had we been able to stop this senseless act. I don't, and if my family were there and an officer such as the one pictured took out the shooter I would be thankful.
    Maybe you should look in the mirror. Oh wait, you are probably just a security guard who wished you could be the officer pictured. Maybe next time you should think before you put your foot in your mouth.

    Anonymous Omaha Police Officer
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Originally posted by Firemankoz View Post
    I am a security Director for Valor at a local mall.
    Let me assure you the cuffs, the pepper spray are very real!
    The officers at valor are held to a higher standard. The training one officer who is "enhanced" (cuffs, pepper spray, defensive tactics) is a great amount.
    You have to remember we live in a post 911 world, we as security officers are being asked to do more then just push carts,( my officers would NEVER do anything like that) we are charged with the protection of multi million dollar malls and the protection of the people who shop with in these walls.

    Valor Security Officers are also trained to use AED machines and now have quite a few saves because of these machines. Yes some companies have the officers mentioned previously on this thread, but at Valor No Sir.
    And Liability is the at the front of our training, however Valor Executives realize we can't be running away or hiding from problems in today?s world.

    We have stepped up to the plate and raised the bar of professionalism for Security Officers around the globe


    You must be very busy with your full time Mall Security gig and working as an "Anonymous Omaha Police Officer".

    Maybe this is why you dregged up this thread after a month of no activity.

    I call them as I see them. He doesn't present a very professional image for a police officer. Thats all I said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Firemankoz
    replied
    If you only knew

    In response to Minneapolis Security comment about the "homeless" looking officer at Westroads you have no clue what you are talking about. You don't know the officer pictured, and I do have the priveledge of knowing him. Obviously you care more about what the responding officer looks like than if they can handle the task at hand. The officer pictured is one of the most squared away cops I know, and like myself I'll bet he wished he could have done something that day that would have changed the outcome.
    In addition, you have to be one of the most inconsiderate people in this country to make that statement. You have no idea what this officer does for the department or Omaha's citizens. Also, do you think the victim's families would have cared what the officer or person looked like had we been able to stop this senseless act. I don't, and if my family were there and an officer such as the one pictured took out the shooter I would be thankful.
    Maybe you should look in the mirror. Oh wait, you are probably just a security guard who wished you could be the officer pictured. Maybe next time you should think before you put your foot in your mouth.

    Anonymous Omaha Police Officer

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    Although I agree with those of you that are calling for armed security officers in malls, I can see valid points in some of the arguments from those who oppose the idea. Don't get me wrong, from a business point of view I would love it if our company was flooded with calls for armed service from every mall, department store, supermarket, etc. I can even see it from the point of view of the individual officer, who knows that if some wingnut decides to go on a rampage in their mall, that they are at least equipped with the proper equipment to take action.

    Unfortunately, it's the average consumer that needs to demand that these malls keep them safe. Currently, the average consumer demands protection, but is not willing to surrender any freedom whatsoever. Can we blame them? As a consumer, I do not want to be forced to go through security screening when I go to the mall to buy a pair of jeans. Although, as a person in the security industry, I have to admit that is almost necessary in this day and age.

    So, how do we keep the public safe from these threats? How do we maintain the ability to freely walk into a mall without being forced through security screening, yet remain safe while we shop? This is by no means an easy task.

    Look at Israel... you cannot walk into almost any building without going through a gauntlet of heavily-armed security and a screening process that rivals JFK international airport. Going into the supermarket in Israel requires the same scrutiny as entering a federal building the day after a judge is murdered. Yes, you will be accosted, poked, probed, and more just to get a pack of gum.

    I may sound as if I am against adding armed security and security screening in malls, but I am absolutely not. I am simply noting that the average person has yet to wake up and see that we have reached the point where we need it.

    The security officers in the Omaha mall knew they had a serious threat, but they had their hands tied and were forced to "observe and report" while 8 people were murdered. Some security "experts" (most of whom have never worked a day in private security), are already making claims that an armed security force may have resulted in more deaths in the Omaha mall shooting. How the hell do they know? Do they have a magical gift to see into the future? If so, why weren't they warning us beforehand? If the Omaha mall had a competent, armed, well-trained, well-equipped security force, they would of been able to intervene long before the police arrived.

    *Rant Complete*

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar View Post
    By the way, Force Science Research Institute is IMO one of the best ever sources for the truth. CLICK HERE.
    I will second that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Nathan

    Mall Security Expert Mode Where did you get this clowns quote from? Security = CSR's???

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    According to the HR person interviewed on ABC, she is the one who operated the CCTV controls to try to get as much info on the shooter as possible.
    She was one cool customer!
    Having written all of that, what was security's function during all of this? The media has been silent on this matter, thus far.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by DeputyJ View Post
    Posted by Dark Metal Wolf, "the average Police Officer empties two mags when two or three rounds would have done the job".

    Where did you get your statistics, or are you just repeating what you heard on TV? My understanding is the average number of shots fired by a police officer is three (at least that's what I was told in the police academy). I would appreciate it if you could share your source of information on the subject.

    Thank you and stay safe.
    I'm betting there is no source..


    By the way, Force Science Research Institute is IMO one of the best ever sources for the truth. CLICK HERE.

    Leave a comment:


  • msofin
    replied
    Would anyone know what company was protecting this shopping mall? I worked with a guard that was also employed by ERMC, one of the shopping mall security companies. Not only did they not carry fire arms, he told me the company banned their guards from wearing bullet resistant vests! IPC is one of the large, shopping mall only security companies. After interviewing with them this past summer I was informed that certain shopping malls they protect they do have armed officers. Based on my personal experience alone the norm for the SO should be going towards well trained, well supervised, ARMED officers.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeputyJ
    replied
    Posted by Dark Metal Wolf, "the average Police Officer empties two mags when two or three rounds would have done the job".

    Where did you get your statistics, or are you just repeating what you heard on TV? My understanding is the average number of shots fired by a police officer is three (at least that's what I was told in the police academy). I would appreciate it if you could share your source of information on the subject.

    Thank you and stay safe.

    Leave a comment:


  • ESI AGENT
    replied
    A few years ago the State was going to change the industry and have two levils of security. The warm bodys that would be possibley called night watchmen or guards and protection officers. This bill from what I understand was shot down by the Chief of Police asso. Theirs lot's of blame. The State doe's not have enough enforcement of licenses and training. The unethical companies that don't care about the industry and will just move into another industry after they got as much as they can from it. The people who work in the industry themselves for not taking advance training and just reading subject matter regarding the job, or doing stupid things like playing cop. The first thing we can change is ourselves and thats a good start.

    Leave a comment:


  • davis002
    replied
    911 tapes released in Omaha mall shooting

    http://kstp.com/article/stories/S278681.shtml?cat=1&v=1

    Leave a comment:


  • Minneapolis Security
    replied
    Originally posted by bigshotceo View Post
    I won't deny that one of the reasons the police have taken actions push regulation of security guards has been to protect their own interests; after all, in some areas paid duties provides a significant amount of an officer's income, and by presenting themselves as far better trained (which in many cases is actually true) it helps maintain their current status/salary levels.

    That being said, however, I really don't think that we can blame much of what's wrong with the security industry with the police. After all, the police didn't start going around 20 years ago and convincing companies to fire their well-paid, well-trained in-house staff and replace them with contract workers. The police don't tell companies that they can only give their guards three days of training, or can only have one guard on site when there really should be three, etc...

    I think that when the police do show concern about the actions of security companies it's often for two reasons:

    1) The police are concerned about the company exploiting the guards and are worried about the guard's safety. Many police know that the guards are facing dangers that they aren't prepared for, and they worry that it's a matter of the company exploiting them (by taking advantage of inexperienced workers, threatening to give them negative police references, etc...).

    2) A person doing things they aren't trained for puts the public at risk. Take in point the recent car chase involving security guards. The police weren't primarily concerned about the fact that the guards pursued, but that they did it at unsafe speeds, ran red lights, etc...

    Also, if a person is not properly trained with a weapon (and trained in other important stuff, like verbal communication, too) they pose a risk. That doesn't mean that they're bat**** crazy and are going to randomly shooting/clubbing people, but there's still the possibility that they will not be able to recognize if the situation they're in warrants its use. As well, they are likely concerned that the item could be used against the guard or others (remember, the police are probably more concerned about the guard's safety).

    I'm all for requiring higher standards for security officers, I would like to see a two tier system. Licensed and unlicensed security officers.

    Licensed officers would be armed and go through extensive training and background checks (not just a fingerprint/name search).

    Unlicensed would be of the observe and report type.

    I think this would be a real help to the industry as well, more credibility and better bill rates at least for licensed officers.

    Leave a comment:


  • bigshotceo
    replied
    I won't deny that one of the reasons the police have taken actions push regulation of security guards has been to protect their own interests; after all, in some areas paid duties provides a significant amount of an officer's income, and by presenting themselves as far better trained (which in many cases is actually true) it helps maintain their current status/salary levels.

    That being said, however, I really don't think that we can blame much of what's wrong with the security industry with the police. After all, the police didn't start going around 20 years ago and convincing companies to fire their well-paid, well-trained in-house staff and replace them with contract workers. The police don't tell companies that they can only give their guards three days of training, or can only have one guard on site when there really should be three, etc...

    I think that when the police do show concern about the actions of security companies it's often for two reasons:

    1) The police are concerned about the company exploiting the guards and are worried about the guard's safety. Many police know that the guards are facing dangers that they aren't prepared for, and they worry that it's a matter of the company exploiting them (by taking advantage of inexperienced workers, threatening to give them negative police references, etc...).

    2) A person doing things they aren't trained for puts the public at risk. Take in point the recent car chase involving security guards. The police weren't primarily concerned about the fact that the guards pursued, but that they did it at unsafe speeds, ran red lights, etc...

    Also, if a person is not properly trained with a weapon (and trained in other important stuff, like verbal communication, too) they pose a risk. That doesn't mean that they're bat**** crazy and are going to randomly shooting/clubbing people, but there's still the possibility that they will not be able to recognize if the situation they're in warrants its use. As well, they are likely concerned that the item could be used against the guard or others (remember, the police are probably more concerned about the guard's safety).

    Leave a comment:


  • ESI AGENT
    replied
    Like I said before it's all about perception. People make rules to benifit their own group. In social psychology it's called "Social cateorization" The us-versus-them. Heres a simple way of understanding human behavior: Everything we do we do to either gain plaeasure or avoid pain. That said their is always a payoff to human behavior. When one groups gets to make up the rules it's to benifit them usually under the tital of the protection of society because those people are not capable of doing what we do theirfore they would cause more problems then benifits. In L.A. the real reason we don't get CCW's is because it create compatition for certain groups off duty income. This being said this group is more interested in serving themselves then the safety of the public. I often here public service persons saying "Oh their just private persons" This was said at a course I took a few years ago.My response was this: The highest paid positions in the world are those held by private persons! The best univerities in the country are private sector. AT one of the shooting schools I attend certain people wanted the school to be POST certified the owners response was: Negative, IM not droping my standards to meet post. Now I have lot's of friends who are in law enforcement and are good shooters but these are the guys who love what they do and are hard chargin individuals and one most be objective and find out who your dealing with and not just apply self serving titles. BE SAFE

    Leave a comment:


  • DarkMetalWolf
    replied
    The one thing I have found interesting, is there have been several shootings this year by nineteen year-olds. How odd, was there something in the water in 87 and 88? Besides long, big and mullet hair styles?

    I also find it interesting how society see things. It does not matter if you were the best marksman in the world, if you are a security officer you are an untrained baboon. However, if you are the worst shot in the world, and because I requal with several peace officers here in Ca., I know just how bad of a shot most of them are, keeping in mind the average Police Officer empties two mags when two or three rounds would have done the job......opps getting off my point sorry. You can be the worst shot in the world and be a Police Officer and you are the TRAINED professional. This is just an assnine way of thinking. While in the core at Guard school at MCB QUANTICO VA, I out shot 90% of the FBI people. So the whole Don Greene thing.....yep what a crock!

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X