Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mall Security Robbed for Vehicle, ATM Stolen

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

  • Mall Director
    replied
    Originally posted by TheShortWesker
    I am an Officer with the Annapolis Mall Security.

    First: No one bothered to get the truth out about the incident, which happened back in February. In actuality, the security officer was working with the robbers. None of us want to admit that one of our own would be willing or able to do something so heinous, but they do. So many of our fellow security professionals abuse their jobs, and neglect their posts.

    Second: They have 2 officers at night, of course neither of which sees each other except when the lots are being roped off. We should at least be given pepper spray.
    The only thing we have to defend ourselves with are those rediculous tourtrax wands. You can throw it at someones head, or you can use it like a blackjack, but that's about it. Someone needs to enact some sort of legislation requiring us to be certified to carry something to protect ourselves. Of course the companies we work for would much rather not have us certified to carry anything to defend ourselves, because that means they would have to pay us more. We should at least be able to carry OC Spray and an ASP.
    I feel for your dilema. When I first took over the current department I am at, there was no defensive measures for the officers. Our corporate wasnt to enclined to be assistful. Once we provided the reports showing the violence we encountered daily, it changed their minds. I would fight for it hard in your case. It never hurts to have additional tools to help fix the problems!

    Leave a comment:


  • SD Security
    replied
    I never heard about this incident which is really weird. TheShortWesker you have TourTrax and CASE Global, isn't that all you need? lol

    Leave a comment:


  • TheShortWesker
    replied
    Annapolis Mall

    I am an Officer with the Annapolis Mall Security.

    First: No one bothered to get the truth out about the incident, which happened back in February. In actuality, the security officer was working with the robbers. None of us want to admit that one of our own would be willing or able to do something so heinous, but they do. So many of our fellow security professionals abuse their jobs, and neglect their posts.

    Second: They have 2 officers at night, of course neither of which sees each other except when the lots are being roped off. We should at least be given pepper spray.
    The only thing we have to defend ourselves with are those rediculous tourtrax wands. You can throw it at someones head, or you can use it like a blackjack, but that's about it. Someone needs to enact some sort of legislation requiring us to be certified to carry something to protect ourselves. Of course the companies we work for would much rather not have us certified to carry anything to defend ourselves, because that means they would have to pay us more. We should at least be able to carry OC Spray and an ASP.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Agreed. A patrol car is asking for trouble if you work unarmed. I feel comfortable in my position because I have lots of barriers between me and the bad guy. Excellent perimeter fencing, multiple locked doors, and state of the art CCTV. If an intruder gets to me, it will be my own fault because either I let him in or "I fell asleep at the switch." If I have to confront a trespasser, I can safely do it from a distance with a bull-horn that I purchased with my own money. Dealing with fires is possible for me because I have taught fire prevention and response procedures, discharged numerous fire extinguishers, used fire hoses to put out practice fires, and served on a factory fire brigade.

    Some other s/o's where I work are former marines, reserve police officers, or currently serving as EMT's. Other sites are staffed with Barney Fifes. It just depends on who they hire. Fortunately, my post is staffed with the good ones (although there have been exceptions).
    Last edited by Mr. Security; 02-17-2006, 02:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Keep in mind, I used to work unarmed. I don't believe that putting a gun on someone will cure everyone of their wills.

    My expectation is to hire people that actually care about what they're doing. They're either experienced professionals (up front expensive), or willing to learn how to be experienced professionals (training investment expensive).

    Sure, we'll get the group of wackaloos who couldn't cut it at the local PD (They don't even require college for 5 years, just an application). And then we'll determine why they couldn't cut it, and if required, ensure we don't have to "cut them."

    One of the major things about all the security companies (3) in my area are they are unarmed and eschew all forms of weapons. They advertise - specifically, they are observe and report without interference. Even the one that calls themselves "private police."

    People can't really hire armed security in this area without going to Madison or Milwaukee. That includes the city and county.

    Am I saying we'll have nothing but armed security? I don't believe it'll be completely armed, but the initial contracts I wish to pursue to "get on the map" are places that I would not put an unarmed man or woman, no matter how badass their ninja skillz.

    However, I do not believe in sticking unarmed folks in a marked patrol car. They're now a bad guy magnet. Every armed officer who has opposed that bad guy, every idiot who can't tell the difference between them and "the police," and every DUI on the road may want to have a "talk" with the driver of that truck/car about how they hate cops or hate my employees. They may let S&W do the talking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by 1stWatch
    ....Looking at this area of discussion, I see valid points made by both sides of it.

    The point Mr. Security makes is true, unarmed security does make up the bulk of the business of security. I do agree with the viewpoint that unarmed security can be used in a very effective manner and many situations involving security are not relevant to sidearms.

    In short, though, my take on the difference between WBS security and professional security is not just one of being equipped, but of being prepared and having a sense of professional and personal pride and purpose about what you do. One image or another is normally the take on an entire company as well....
    1stWatch: I think you have just identified the key to a good security officer. It's not just based on whether he/she is armed or unarmed. Rather, it based on what I highlighted in your comment. NA is a professional and so am I. Instead of butting heads, we need to recognize that top-notch s/o's can be found in both types of security. They are just not as common in the companies I have worked for.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    If you read NA's post, he uses the example of a warehouse, not a mall. I have stated on numerous occasions that malls are NOT the place for s/o's who simply observe and report. They DO work well at a warehouse because it has a perimeter and walls to prevent a security breach, and LE can quickly be summoned if a break-in is detected.

    NA seems to market armed security as the preferred way to go in all situations. He has indicated that part of his marketing strategy is to emphasize that WBS (i.e., unarmed) has failed and his company is the solution. That may be true in certain settings, mall, etc. Nevertheless, the bulk of security is and will continue to be handled by unarmed officers.
    Looking at this area of discussion, I see valid points made by both sides of it.

    The point Mr. Security makes is true, unarmed security does make up the bulk of the business of security. I do agree with the viewpoint that unarmed security can be used in a very effective manner and many situations involving security are not relevant to sidearms. Many of the assignments I worked that were unarmed yet were not warm body positions emphasized public interpersonal contact, tact, and preparedness. Training such as first aid and fire prevention took precedence over defensive tactics.

    I remember the security dept at the mall where I worked did quite a few wonderful things that did not relate to weapons. There were incidents where we were the first responders to disasterous medical incidents and applied first aid. One incident I remember involved us stabilizing a person with a compound fracture and applying bandages to serious bleeding until EMS arrived and took over. Another time we pulled a suicidal suspect out of a car she had set on fire. We also worked vehicle accidents on the property.

    Out of the things I remember happening, though, I believe the type of thing I was most proud of was being able to go to the scene of some disturbance in a store there and be able to successfully mediate a situation between a store clerk and an upset shopper who had knocked all the display items off the counter and by the time we were finished talking, both parties came to a mutual agreement over whatever the dispute was or in some cases one party would volunteer to leave in a calm fashion. This was an example of professional unarmed security. These scenarios were worked with reason and respect, not with intimidation and threats of force.

    On the other hand, the points N.A. Corbier makes about the armed security officer being the one who is more prepared I also agree with. Many of us who worked for armed security companies choose to work only armed because of things we have seen happen on the field or because it just feels more preferable since we have encountered forceful situations in life. When relating a viewpoint or situation in a forum like this, it is common to describe the type of environment, company, and incidents we have personally seen.

    In every case I have seen, state governments mandate more training for armed security than for unarmed. This usually places the armed guard in a more prepared mindset to deal with many situations that arise, especially in a public access or outdoor environment. On the other hand, this should not be indicative of each individual who does each type of security work. Just because a state government does not fashion or encourage a certain type of training does not mean it doesn't exist or people don't seek out such education. I can think of several security officers I have worked with who were law enforcement certified and one who has a degree in criminal justice, but they all have the same job recognized by Texas: security guard. No credit or credentials recognized for their personal efforts, only 30 hours of certified training.

    I think any one of us who has worked in a supervisory fashion has seen the results of sloppy workmanship and inadequate training. The activity report portrayed in N.A. Corbier's previous post was a classic example of what many people who "sit post" write. The reality of a "warm body" company is alive, well, and thriving, unfortunately. I can remember having to respond to guard incidents such as one where a guard watched a car burn down in the parking lot and he called no one. He said it wasn't in his post orders. The only training he had gotten was 20 minutes of "OJT" and the company expected him to learn the rest by osmosis if at all. Suffice it to say we lost the contract with the business the very next day. The only thing written on his report was this:
    1800 S/O (Joeschmoe) on duty.
    1800-0600 Monitor parking lot.
    0600 S/O (Joeschmoe) off duty.

    Of course, this individual and others like him were all unarmed. This type of person was unkindly referred to by all who worked in the armed and patrol areas of the company as a "goober guard". They would be making disrespectful jokes behind the backs of new hires who came in with no experience, calling them the same type of names. They were equally deficient, though, because they failed to help their fellow officers who went to work there. This contributed to the negative environment and high turnover rate.

    Many armed security guards fall into a mindset of their unarmed counterparts as being less trained or educated in many areas. I believe this is a stereotype that is easy to fall into believing, even inadvertently. Each individual has his/her own experience and a viewpoint that is shaped from that experience.

    It is important to remember to look at the big picture of things and remember that we are all fellows in the same type of work. Look at another security officer and remember he is your brother, whether in arms or not. Who is out there handling business at his place of work? He is.
    If I look at someone in a security uniform and think "if this person died today or tomorrow, would I go to his funeral?" I think the answer would be yes, if I would be capable of doing so.
    If no, why wouldn't it be? Do I hate him so much? Would the answer be no because he doesn't wear a gun? Or maybe for something more subtle that annoys the crap out of me like he doesn't bathe enough or he picks his nose? Or maybe I just don't care about it anymore, if I ever did. If I don't care about that, I'm probably just in this job for a mere pay cheque.

    In short, though, my take on the difference between WBS security and professional security is not just one of being equipped, but of being prepared and having a sense of professional and personal pride and purpose about what you do. One image or another is normally the take on an entire company as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    I emphasize with you. I couldn't just stand by and watch someone get beat up either. The mall management is not being fair to the public. They (the public) see a security officer and they assume that you will come to their aid when in distress. It's a false sense of security.
    This is why I do not work for mall security anymore. I was fired from one mall after taking such action, yet others who did similar things on a regular basis remained employed. Cronyism reared its ugly head in a blatant fashion. Of course, now I do not worry about such things since it is within my job description to intervene in such situations.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by mallpopo
    That wouldn't happen to my vehicle.. I would pepper spray the heck out of those guys... And then I would detain them cause the cops in my town are lazy...
    Good luck.



    (Once upon a time there was a troll named Iggy. He lived under a bridge.)

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by jimmyhat
    I have family that lives literally around the corner from the mall where this incident occurred. I took a trip to see what was up, and I found the same Security laps that one would expect at just about every mall. #1 Unarmed Security. Nothing more needs to be said about that. #2 Patrol Vehicles with pretty amber lights, constantly activated. You show me mobile ambers, and I'll show you the location of at least five bad guys, directly on the other side of the lot with one lookout watching the roving flashlight. #3 Signage pointing out that "No Firearms Allowed Herein." Translation: Law Abiding citizens must disarm themselves before entering, and criminals may go about their usual non-compliance with the rules and carry firearms without fear of returned fire.

    Interestingly enough, a Bank located on this mall property, not connected to the main building, is manned by two, TWO, armed S/O's. Albeit they were carrying .38's, but it's still a good start.


    I'm privy to an excercise that recently took place in my area (and the mall ownership/management co. would surprise you) where mall security played a significant role in the evacuation, and security of patrons at rally-points (assembly areas for you Navy Vets.) Not surprising, these S/O's were impeccable in their professionalism, and conduct. Up to and including radio procedures that matched exactly with County P. D., and a rank structure that mimics a military unit. A PD/Security liaison, and Sec. Supervisors with direct comm.s to PD Dispatch. It's good to see a professional security operation in progress.

    With that, Anti-Terror training and Security Rifle employment are becoming an increasingly common factor in these parts. I'll bet private sector and local government cooperation/deployment becomes the standard during disaster response in the near future.


    What's unnecessary about it? An Armed S/O can deter so much criminal activity with just presence alone. And what's unnecessary about enabling a defense system that matches the aggresive tactics of criminal predators who out-gun and overcome decent citizens everyday in this country. That includes people who go to the mall!!!
    Jimmyhat, I love the way you think. Your idea of preparedness and professionalism are congruous with mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by Tennsix
    You know, I teach my recruits and probationary officers to keep the police car doors locked while driving. Most scoff when I suggest it is an officer safety issue. This thread is an example of how an officer can be victimized when (s)he becomes complacent. This incident is more about taking proactive measures to circumvent felonious assaults and property crimes more than should mall security officers carry sidearms.
    Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to point out. A natural period of complacency is the most dangerous time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    That's part of the problem. Your scenario is fiction; not realistic. Even if you found an actual case that mirrored your scenario, it would not be a common one. I acknowledge that WBS has plenty of problems but let's skip the dramatics, please.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    If you read NA's post, he uses the example of a warehouse, not a mall. I have stated on numerous occasions that malls are NOT the place for s/o's who simply observe and report. They DO work well at a warehouse because it has a perimeter and walls to prevent a security breach, and LE can quickly be summoned if a break-in is detected.

    NA seems to market armed security as the preferred way to go in all situations. He has indicated that part of his marketing strategy is to emphasize that WBS (i.e., unarmed) has failed and his company is the solution. That may be true in certain settings, mall, etc. Nevertheless, the bulk of security is and will continue to be handled by unarmed officers.
    The initial marketing strategy is to identify clients who have been failed by the warm body companies in the area - who plainly state: We don't have guns or weapons, only the police have those, its too "dangerous" to give a guard a can of mace.

    I gave a scenerio where "non-functional guards" would operate, and even in that case, the client may of expected the guard to do more than just watch the place burn. Of course, the client's point of contact, in that fictional scenerio, was negligent by telling a guard to place RAGS on gasoline, and let it wait till the morning. An armed officer would not be the solution in that case, but an officer who was trained in fire prevention would of been. Also note that the guard went off duty in the log book after the FD told them to leave. No call to supervisor, no report, just "off duty." These are the types of folks you can get with a company that does NOTHING but provide "non-functional guards."

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    If you read NA's post, he uses the example of a warehouse, not a mall. I have stated on numerous occasions that malls are NOT the place for s/o's who simply observe and report. They DO work well at a warehouse because it has a perimeter and walls to prevent a security breach, and LE can quickly be summoned if a break-in is detected.

    NA seems to market armed security as the preferred way to go in all situations. He has indicated that part of his marketing strategy is to emphasize that WBS (i.e., unarmed) has failed and his company is the solution. That may be true in certain settings, mall, etc. Nevertheless, the bulk of security is and will continue to be handled by unarmed officers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Warnock
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    I guess we differ somewhat because I recognize that unarmed security has its place and so does armed security. Based on your post, unarmed security is of little or no value and I cannot agree with that. In a corporate setting, unarmed security is VERY effective in serving as a deterrent to would-be criminals. The mere presence of a security officer has been proven time and time again to deter criminal activity. In addition, it provides a great opportunity to observe and report terrorist who are in the process of planning their attack. I see the value of armed security at malls, etc., why don't you admit that unarmed security is of benefit to, in the right setting?
    Unarmed security guards do have their place in this business; however, when the unarmed are not allowed to do anything but stand there and in the incident related in Corbier's post do dumb things, it is an absolute horror.
    I know of a shopping mall where they employ armed guards. The post orders state in no uncertain terms, "Firearms will not be displayed or discharged within the confines of the mall and its parking areas." Mr. Security, in this instance they are window dressing and window dressing only.
    Unarmed security has and will continue to have its place in crime prevention and keeping the property free of undesirable people.
    Enjoy the day,
    Bill

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X