Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Am I the only one who thinks this is incredibly stupid?

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

  • DMS 525
    replied
    My old alma mater I speak about with such distaste; they disarmed everybody a few years ago, thanks to this one nincompoop who had an accidental discharge in the office, playing with his gun. Didn't surprise me with that company; punish all for the actions of one moron.

    Guess they, like the other places described in here, won't learn unless someone gets killed first.

    I agree; think I'll work without a gun in high risk jobs, the last thing you'll see of me is my back and a stiff middle finger in the air as I am walking out the door!

    They ought to make those who made that decision to work that account themselves first, then decide what is right.

    I know: suits? Working a manned security account?!! You have got to be joking!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • msofin
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    Allied Barton's recruiter in Minneapolis told me that they are completely unarmed, no firearm accounts period. So, its not so hard to believe.
    Certain AlliedBarton districts do have armed sites. I do know the armed site in my district was aquired when the company bought out Professional Security Bureau and decided to keep it due to the high profits it generated. I do know other districts have armed sites, I am unable to say for certain if they were aquired through buy outs or actively contracted.

    I thought of starting my own company one day. If I ever do that I know for certain I will only contract out well educated and armed officers.

    Leave a comment:


  • NRM_Oz
    replied
    I came in to make a large cash deposit for my business once and was waiting at the 3.00pm rush line as businesses came in for change and banking. At the front door was Miss India wearing 3 inch high heel shoes. This S/O was very stunning looking but the 3 inch high heels made me smile. I was in a suit so was carrying (middle of summer is not good in a suit) in a shoulder holster but it amazed me that this was just asking for trouble - contract security firm.

    My first trip to the USA 1988 I had to go to a bank in LA and in Waikiki and found the experience very different as I think it was in Waikiki that there were armed guards walking a gantry above the tellers with 1 carrying a shotgun. Very much different to what you have here with up until the early 90's, some banks had no safety glass shields operating.

    Ironic, some McDonalds have had armed guards on duty in the city but other high risk places are more concerned with their image - not that of their staff. I believe the bank guard's story is Bogus and would love to know HOW the alleged accidental discharge happened and the type of firearm (bloody impossible with revolvers which I had seen it in a safety video but unless it was like a CZ with decocking .........).

    Further to a post - I wonder how many staff and uniform security are delivering cash to a bank on behalf of their employer and wonder about the insurance companies take on this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nauticus
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity View Post
    I haven't seen an armed bank security guard in a Montreal bank for over 5 years. I was told during my police technology days that the police did not like the old semi-retired armed bank guards because after a hold-up the crooks would leave with the money AND a new gun that they took off of the guard
    Thats because security in Canada cannot be armed. Armoured transport guards are actually not classified as security, hence why they carry firearms.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    I haven't seen an armed bank security guard in a Montreal bank for over 5 years. I was told during my police technology days that the police did not like the old semi-retired armed bank guards because after a hold-up the crooks would leave with the money AND a new gun that they took off of the guard

    Leave a comment:


  • tattedupboy
    replied
    Originally posted by publicsafetyred View Post
    I strongly believe in armed security, http://californiasecurity.typepad.co...vs-unarme.html, I also think that wearing a bullet resistant vest is important regardless if you are armed or not. Just because you may not be equipped to stop an adversary doesn't mean you should not take any measures to protect yourself. I believe that bullet resistant vest should be OSHA required for all uniformed security personnel.

    (I also think more security companies should provide armed services.)
    Actually, you make a good point. All I was saying was that in an occupation as dangerous as this, it makes absolutely no sense to be unarmed, whether wearing a bulletproof vest or not; at least an armed guard who doesn't wear a vest has a fighting chance against an armed robber. Those guards who don't wear vests are just SOL if SEHTF (the e means ever).

    Leave a comment:


  • craig333
    replied
    Most of the banks around here have unarmed security. Seems to be a trend.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Allied Barton's recruiter in Minneapolis told me that they are completely unarmed, no firearm accounts period. So, its not so hard to believe.

    Leave a comment:


  • msofin
    replied
    Originally posted by tattedupboy View Post
    The Fifth Third Banks where I live all have UNARMED guards from Allied Barton. The first time I saw one of the unarmed guards at the one across the street from where I work (armed, of course, at a check cashing store) I asked him why he was unarmed. He explained to me that another guard from his company had an unintentional discharge from his weapon (he didn't tell me when or where), and as a result, in an attempt to reduce liability, the Allied Barton regional manager decided to disarm all the guards.

    Am I the only one who thinks that it is incredibly stupid not only for the company do disarm all the guards because of the actions of one who is utterly incompetent, but also for the bank to continue to employ them? Honestly, what good is an unarmed guard in a bank? If I were the bank manager, I would promptly hire another company if the one presently working at my bank refused to allow its guards to be armed.

    As a side note, one of the guards at the bank across the street from where I work does wear a bulletproof vest. However, what good is it to wear a vest to stop bullets if you can't shoot back at the person shooting at you?
    Very interesting, I know Allied has a few banks in my area that are all unarmed from the start. I worked one of those sites for them before. This past summer I worked for a different firm at a McDonald's. One thing I do like about this paticular firm is that the contract did require armed (Act 235) officers BUT officers who were certified were permitted and insured to carry while working there. Back to my point, the Bank I worked at unarmed for Allied was less about 100 meters away from the McDonalds I was at this summer. A customer was robbed at the ATM at gun point in the middle of the day! I'm just glad I wasn't there for that!

    Just to add to the discussion:

    Is unarmed money escort, such as accompying a mall tenant to the night drop box just as ridiculous?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by tattedupboy View Post
    ..... He explained to me that another guard from his company had an unintentional discharge from his weapon (he didn't tell me when or where), and as a result, in an attempt to reduce liability, the Allied Barton regional manager decided to disarm all the guards.
    That used to happen to me. Now I just keep my bullet in my shirt pocket.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
    Certainly, one venue where "unarmed security" is an oxymoron. The only thing this bank would see after disarming me would be the smoke from my tires as I went off in search of another job.
    Chicken.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    Certainly, one venue where "unarmed security" is an oxymoron. The only thing this bank would see after disarming me would be the smoke from my tires as I went off in search of another job.

    Leave a comment:


  • mjw064
    replied
    Originally posted by tattedupboy View Post
    The Fifth Third Banks where I live all have UNARMED guards from Allied Barton. The first time I saw one of the unarmed guards at the one across the street from where I work (armed, of course, at a check cashing store) I asked him why he was unarmed. He explained to me that another guard from his company had an unintentional discharge from his weapon (he didn't tell me when or where), and as a result, in an attempt to reduce liability, the Allied Barton regional manager decided to disarm all the guards.

    Am I the only one who thinks that it is incredibly stupid not only for the company do disarm all the guards because of the actions of one who is utterly incompetent, but also for the bank to continue to employ them? Honestly, what good is an unarmed guard in a bank? If I were the bank manager, I would promptly hire another company if the one presently working at my bank refused to allow its guards to be armed.

    As a side note, one of the guards at the bank across the street from where I work does wear a bulletproof vest. However, what good is it to wear a vest to stop bullets if you can't shoot back at the person shooting at you?
    sounds like the guard's story is not thr truth. either it's misinformation he believes or he made up the story because he thinks it sounds good as justification for his unarmed status. if the bank was paying for armed security it would be in their contract with Allied Barton and they would be getting armed security or Allied Barton would be in violation of their contract.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nauticus
    replied
    I understand, and agree.

    But if one employee had an incident like that, maybe the BANK wanted the security disarmed to prevent any further occurances like that?

    Although in essence, I do agree with you, we can't take it at face value.

    Leave a comment:


  • publicsafetyred
    replied
    Originally posted by tattedupboy View Post
    As a side note, one of the guards at the bank across the street from where I work does wear a bulletproof vest. However, what good is it to wear a vest to stop bullets if you can't shoot back at the person shooting at you?
    I strongly believe in armed security, http://californiasecurity.typepad.co...vs-unarme.html, I also think that wearing a bullet resistant vest is important regardless if you are armed or not. Just because you may not be equipped to stop an adversary doesn't mean you should not take any measures to protect yourself. I believe that bullet resistant vest should be OSHA required for all uniformed security personnel.

    (I also think more security companies should provide armed services.)

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X