Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rapist Poses as Security

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

  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Better bring it with you. Don't want to get caught with your pants down!
    If I go in, I usually lock the weapon in the trunk. It is a third degree felony violation for me to carry the weapon in and the enforcement of that does not stop with the local law enforcement.

    This issue has been one of debate in Texas. House bills have been presented in the last two legislatures to try to amend the law, but they were struck down after very prolific political groups, such as the Combined Law Enforcement Agencies of Texas (CLEAT) and the Texas Retailers Associations, opposed the amendments. I guess these people reason that people who do our job should be subject to arrest upon discretion for a grey area of a poorly written law.

    I see even someone like you who only works unarmed agrees with my point of view, that "disarming" is a terrible idea. What responsible gun owner would leave the weapon in an obvious location (the vehicle) and walk in with an empty holster? With other armed citizens and unlawfully armed gang members to boot? Yet, this is exactly what the state wants us to do. To me, this is them saying "we regulate you, but we're ashamed of you".

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by 1stWatch
    ....some officers will ask why we don't have the weapon on and then tell us to put it on since it is indeed more secure in the holster rather than left in a vehicle where some little gang-bangers can steal it. This conflict is why I avoid going into places like that at all. If I have to crap bad enough though...
    Better bring it with you. Don't want to get caught with your pants down!

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    I think the DPS audits those records at each security company branch. Copies of the "Guard Cards" are kept at the branches as required by law. As far as actually checking with an on-duty s/o to see if they are carrying their license, not likely. Maybe if they respond to an incident. Could local LE check? Yes they can, but they won't. VERY low priority, as one would expect.
    DPS does indeed check individual security guards in this state for their pocket cards, but the challenge there is knowing where each person is on post or seeing where a private patrol vehicle is. My squad car could be anywhere in the city or any surrounding suburb to the north throughout the night. Such checks are really random.

    Local LE will check on us only if we walk into a gas station or restaurant and then only if we're armed. They get a felony arrest if we carry the weapon in and we don't have a contract there. This is not consistent, however, since some officers will ask why we don't have the weapon on and then tell us to put it on since it is indeed more secure in the holster rather than left in a vehicle where some little gang-bangers can steal it. This conflict is why I avoid going into places like that at all. If I have to crap bad enough though...

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by 1stWatch
    The security companies inspecting their own people is certainly lacking, but given that they know who their own people are. Law enforcement checking on pocket card licenses verifies this person is an actual security officer and is working for who they say they are.
    I think the DPS audits those records at each security company branch. Copies of the "Guard Cards" are kept at the branches as required by law. As far as actually checking with an on-duty s/o to see if they are carrying their license, not likely. Maybe if they respond to an incident. Could local LE check? Yes they can, but they won't. VERY low priority, as one would expect.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Even the security companies fail to inspect. Guardsmark is the only security company that I have worked for that conducts weekly inspections of their officers' uniforms. Even then, you usually know what day of the week they are coming, so it's not a surprise inspection.
    The security companies inspecting their own people is certainly lacking, but given that they know who their own people are. Law enforcement checking on pocket card licenses verifies this person is an actual security officer and is working for who they say they are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by 1stWatch
    ..... The state DPS has detectives who go around checking on our pocket cards and uniforms, but there are only so many of those. The local law enforcement may also do these investigations. However, I have yet to see them do it even once, unless the security is a suspect for a criminal violation.
    Even the security companies fail to inspect. Guardsmark is the only security company that I have worked for that conducts weekly inspections of their officers' uniforms. Even then, you usually know what day of the week they are coming, so it's not a surprise inspection.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    The impetus is on the citizen to verify that the idiot in the "SECURITY" shirt is a real security officer.
    The biggest impetus here is to validify, strengthen, and verify regulation.
    We still have a lot of morons who will put on a generic "security" t-shirt and walk around places they were hired like low-income apartment complexes and bars who go around assaulting people and treating them like garbage. These people are not real security officers. All real security officers in this state, whether armed or not, must carry a valid pocket card that shows this person was registered with the state and with the individual company he works for and has been fingerprinted and had a background check done on him. A person who is not in compliance with these things and is conducting security duties is impersonating a security officer.

    The minimum requirement for a uniform is to have a company shoulder patch on the left sleeve and to have a name tag with the officer's last name on it. The complete uniform worn must comply with the security company's profile registered with DPS. A plain t-shirt that says "security" on it is not a uniform shirt.

    Still, it is very easy to impersonate a security officer. The burden of verification is on law enforcement. The state DPS has detectives who go around checking on our pocket cards and uniforms, but there are only so many of those. The local law enforcement may also do these investigations. However, I have yet to see them do it even once, unless the security is a suspect for a criminal violation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    The impetus is on the citizen to verify that the idiot in the "SECURITY" shirt is a real security officer.
    Yeah, they need to distinguish the real security idiots from the fake security idiots.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    That means that unsavory individuals can still easily impersonate security. I doubt if the general public knows the difference between officially sanctioned uniforms and security clothing that a bad guy could use to gain access to woman's home. Other than a stiffer sentence if caught, I don't see the deterrent factor in this law.
    The impetus is on the citizen to verify that the idiot in the "SECURITY" shirt is a real security officer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by 1stWatch
    (Refers to above post) No they are not. It has to be an officially sanctioned unifom.
    That means that unsavory individuals can still easily impersonate security. I doubt if the general public knows the difference between officially sanctioned uniforms and security clothing that a bad guy could use to gain access to woman's home. Other than a stiffer sentence if caught, I don't see the deterrent factor in this law.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    What if they (general public) where a hat, shirt, or jacket that says SECURITY? Are you saying that they are subject to arrest? If so, how many have actually been prosecuted?
    (Refers to above post) No they are not. It has to be an officially sanctioned unifom.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    In Texas, yes, they are. A Texas Commissioned Security Officer must wear a uniform identifying their company, and it must say the words SECURITY on the uniform in easily readable print. Once you do this, you are afforded several protections, including battery redef (Hitting a guard is a felony), impersonating a commissioned security officer (felony), etc.

    Most states that don't have this argue that since a security person is not a sworn officer or agent of the state, you can't "impersonate" one. They are also quickly finding out that you can, indeed, impersonate one.

    This is a reason I like Fargo/MagiCard Company ID cards - which you must have on your person at all times when attempting to be an "employee," especially when you show up on a post to "see what its like."
    What if they (general public) where a hat, shirt, or jacket that says SECURITY? Are you saying that they are subject to arrest? If so, how many have actually been prosecuted?

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Enforcing the law would mean proving intent. There are people that walk around with clothing that says SECURITY just because they think it's cool. Would they be subject to such a law? If not, how do you tell the "good guys from the bad guys?" If the law did apply to such individuals, the courts would be clogged with cases because by and large, people would be ignorant of the law. To prove intent is a challenge. You almost have to catch them in an illegal act, which means we're right back where we were before the law.
    This goes down to how the law is defined in the code. The act of impersonation is done not by wearing a shirt or something that says "police" or "security" on it, but by impersonating a security officer of an individual company, including the individual company's registered shoulder patch. In the case of impersonation of police, the act would be done by displaying an official badge, seal, or insignia of a specific department or by stating you are police when you are not, not by simply effecting duties that resemble those of police such as placing handcuffs on suspects or using flashing lights.

    Say, for example, I find an old smurf blue Smith security t-shirt, strap on a duty belt with a pistol, and decide to go work for a friend guarding a party he has. I do not work for Smith. I am, however, a licensed commissioned security officer that does work in an official capacity for another company.
    DPS drives by, sees me in the uniform, and decides to check my pocket card. They run my information through their little computer and see I work for somebody else. A call gets made to Smith to see if I work for them or not. They say no, so I get arrested for impersonation of a security officer.

    Another example, suppose somebody wants to walk around a mall after hours. He puts on a uniform shirt of a security company, including the shoulder patch. He walks around after hours and tells the mall security he is looking for such-and-such store he has a job guarding after hours for the night. He spends his time there looking here and there, maybe to see what is vulnerable to burglaries or, heck, maybe just to look at the pretty stores when people have cleared out. This person is not registered as a security officer and does not work for that company. The same offense applies here. He can be arrested for impersonation of a security officer.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Enforcing the law would mean proving intent. There are people that walk around with clothing that says SECURITY just because they think it's cool. Would they be subject to such a law? If not, how do you tell the "good guys from the bad guys?" If the law did apply to such individuals, the courts would be clogged with cases because by and large, people would be ignorant of the law. To prove intent is a challenge. You almost have to catch them in an illegal act, which means we're right back where we were before the law.
    In Texas, yes, they are. A Texas Commissioned Security Officer must wear a uniform identifying their company, and it must say the words SECURITY on the uniform in easily readable print. Once you do this, you are afforded several protections, including battery redef (Hitting a guard is a felony), impersonating a commissioned security officer (felony), etc.

    Most states that don't have this argue that since a security person is not a sworn officer or agent of the state, you can't "impersonate" one. They are also quickly finding out that you can, indeed, impersonate one.

    This is a reason I like Fargo/MagiCard Company ID cards - which you must have on your person at all times when attempting to be an "employee," especially when you show up on a post to "see what its like."

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by 1stWatch
    This is the reason why it should be a specifically described felony in each state to impersonate a security officer. There is such an offense in Texas, but it is hardly known.
    Enforcing the law would mean proving intent. There are people that walk around with clothing that says SECURITY just because they think it's cool. Would they be subject to such a law? If not, how do you tell the "good guys from the bad guys?" If the law did apply to such individuals, the courts would be clogged with cases because by and large, people would be ignorant of the law. To prove intent is a challenge. You almost have to catch them in an illegal act, which means we're right back where we were before the law.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X