Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another Unlicensed Security officer arrested for Impersonating a LEO in fl.

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

  • sig229
    replied
    Originally posted by Chucky View Post
    EMT I am a little confused about your concealed carry badge. What is the purpose of a badge like that and where would you wear it? I thought the reason by definition of being concealed is so no one will know your carrying. Anyone that saw someone wearing that badge would have to get pretty close to read it and not think you are some sort of detective. I personally don't know anyone including myself that works security in a suit armed. Most clients are into the visual uniform and gun as a deterrent. If there should arise a question about your gun just simply produce your CCW/LTC.
    I have worked armed security many times in a suit or sportcoat. It is usually plainclothes at the request of the client or sometimes executive protection. On those jobs I also wear my badge on my belt under my coat. This is for any circumstance where the police may have to come storming in. I can at least lift my coat to show my badge and perhaps give them enough cause not to shoot me.

    Leave a comment:


  • talon
    replied
    Originally posted by gixxer32404 View Post
    I heard on the Florida forum that Ansley was acquitted of all charges.

    "I cannot say that what he did was right, however he was recently aquitted of all charges. Which by the way opened up a nice new set of Case Law in orange county. The judge ruled that a civilian irregardless of license status has the right to work for and employer and be armed in the process. Of course DOACS wasnt happy, but thats what the judges are there for. Am I happy with the verdict, no not really. But then again, don't believe everything you read in the paper. "
    I agree! How can you take away the right of self-defense from a citizen just because of the title of their job? These licensing agencies are in it for the money, thats all its about.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    I heard on the Florida forum that Ansley was acquitted of all charges.

    "I cannot say that what he did was right, however he was recently aquitted of all charges. Which by the way opened up a nice new set of Case Law in orange county. The judge ruled that a civilian irregardless of license status has the right to work for and employer and be armed in the process. Of course DOACS wasnt happy, but thats what the judges are there for. Am I happy with the verdict, no not really. But then again, don't believe everything you read in the paper. "

    Leave a comment:


  • Security_Instructor
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post

    It does not matter if you are not working for a guard firm. If you have a GUN, you are FULLY SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 493's security statutes. That means you MUST have a Class D license, a Class G license, and must be in a uniform, can't use force to protect property, etc.

    It is illegal to provide armed security services as an agent of the owner with a Class W license, or armed as an agent of the owner through Chapter 790.
    I concur 110%

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    I think this case is still 'open'.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    current or former...yes.
    I believe it also covers firemen judges, child abuse investigators, and spouses among some other classes of people.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    I don't live in the state of Florida. Your status for 119 has to be a florida law enforcement officer.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    but u are or aren't current or former leo??

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    I marked no, not eligible, then marked "yes," I would like the exemption.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    I'm curious of what your trick was.

    It's not uncommon for a cheap company up here to get a contract with 4 motels in close proximity and hire ONE so to patrol all 4 motels with a street dividing the property. Also so expected to walk all floors hourly, and outside. One motel/hotel was @ least 4 floors. And pay so under $8.00 an hour.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
    I just checked a few people's D and Gs... I think they figured my trick out...
    I'm lost^^^.I'm guessing you'd need to explain your trick through a pm,not openly??Are u still in Fla.?

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    I just checked a few people's D and Gs... I think they figured my trick out...

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    My stuff is blocked under FSS 119...

    BTW, folks.

    It does not matter if you are not working for a guard firm. If you have a GUN, you are FULLY SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 493's security statutes. That means you MUST have a Class D license, a Class G license, and must be in a uniform, can't use force to protect property, etc.

    It is illegal to provide armed security services as an agent of the owner with a Class W license, or armed as an agent of the owner through Chapter 790.

    A gun store clerk can wear a gun because he's not a security guard. The second you call him a guard, he has to be uniformed, Class G'ed, and Class D'ed.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    pi's would have :
    The home address and telephone number for this individual is restricted from
    public record in accordance with Section 493.6122, F.S.


    current former leo have:
    The home address and telephone number for this individual is restricted from
    public record in accordance with the Public Records Act, Section 119.071(4)(d) F.S.


    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/access/help.html
    see bottompage on above link.

    then if u look at both individuals through dol site, they are 119.
    Last edited by gixxer32404; 10-14-2008, 12:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gixxer32404
    replied
    I think I had to provide verification of it on mine. Both of those so's had 119 blocks. I would think saying you are current or former and not being would constitute impersonating.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X