Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Maryland Guard arrested for impersonation

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

  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    If that works, I'll be pleased. However, based on TSA performance, I won't put a lot of stock into it until I see some significant results.
    Haven't they privatized TSA yet? I know they're trying, really hard, to get TSA to allow private screeners back in. The TSA screeners aren't as reliable as private screeners - they have too much job security and think too highly of themselves and their federal "agent" status. Oh, and the airport cops absolutely hate them. Most cops will tell you, if TSA annoys you, demand to speak to an Airport Police Supervisor (Not a TSA Police Officer) and refuse to cooperate till they put one before you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    ......

    Eventually, the tide will turn, and a tsunami of legal oversight will happen. We'll see what comes out of it, then. It may simply be the federalization of private security, everywhere.
    If that works, I'll be pleased. However, based on TSA performance, I won't put a lot of stock into it until I see some significant results.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by histfan71
    I would hesitate before sending any money to NAPSOA. I used to be their advisor for California, and I was active with them from the beginning.

    The founder of NAPSOA recently resigned because he is in jail awaiting trial for allegedly molesting his grandchildren. He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty but if he is found guilty it will be a big stain on NAPSOA's reputation and credibility.

    Also the new principals of NAPSOA are well-meaning, but they only have a vague goal of "improving the industry" nor do they have ANY plans or strategies on how to achieve their lofty but vague "goal." When I left NAPSOA in January 2006 the only "plan" the principals could come up with was to actively recruit new members who would pay dues so they could increase NAPSOA's treasury. When I asked what they planned to do with the increased funds their answer was, "recruit new members."

    If NAPSOA ever gets itself squared-away, I will consider rejoining and paying dues. In the meantime, I will watch with interest.
    Edit: Saying things like I did might be construed as ... bad.

    Anyway. 48 bucks means that you can be a force from the "inside" to effect change in the operations of the organization. Perhaps they need motivation. Perhaps they need to effect new management. Who knows? They did the 2006 elections, and the new VP seems to be a go getter. We'll see what happens.
    Last edited by N. A. Corbier; 03-14-2006, 09:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charger
    replied
    Originally posted by wvd1979
    You have to wait 15 days to buy a pistol to kill your neighbor but you can walk out with a scoped rifle the same day.
    Yea, and what's worse, is you only have to be 16 (legal driving age) to purchase a TANK... (granted, the ammo might be slightly harder to get, but still).. Go figure, eh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Take a look at NAPSOA. I'm half-tempted to sink some money into them, for benefits, and etc, mainly because they're interesting to me.
    I would hesitate before sending any money to NAPSOA. I used to be their advisor for California, and I was active with them from the beginning.

    The founder of NAPSOA recently resigned because he is in jail awaiting trial for allegedly molesting his grandchildren. He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty but if he is found guilty it will be a big stain on NAPSOA's reputation and credibility.

    Also the new principals of NAPSOA are well-meaning, but they only have a vague goal of "improving the industry" nor do they have ANY plans or strategies on how to achieve their lofty but vague "goal." When I left NAPSOA in January 2006 the only "plan" the principals could come up with was to actively recruit new members who would pay dues so they could increase NAPSOA's treasury. When I asked what they planned to do with the increased funds their answer was, "recruit new members."

    If NAPSOA ever gets itself squared-away, I will consider rejoining and paying dues. In the meantime, I will watch with interest.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Originally posted by Warren
    I have some ideas about security licensing here in Canada, and specifically the province of Saskatchewan.

    Firstly, I think that there should be three levels or classes of guard. First would be the kind that we have the most of...you know the ones that walk around the store, or sit in the entrance gate, these guards have the lease level of risk.

    Second level would be armed with perhaps pepper-spray, baton, etc. These guards would have to pass a mandatory government standardized training course. Along with this training would come other standards, including first aid, or EMT training, etc etc.

    Lastly, would be the fully armed guard, same gear as police, and same type of training as police in the law, use of force, self defence, etc etc etc.

    The Acts that govern our Security guards are lame. You have to take a 40 hour training course, which has to be the government approved course. This course is so basic...getting 100% on the test is not hard. The most important thing in the course is the legal rights of the guard....1 hour of training.

    I also think that guards need to pass a minimum standard IQ test, a full risk assessment questionairre, and background check(s). The checks would wholly depend on where this guard would work.

    I find it funny that a cab driver has to pass a risk assessment for risk to children and vulnerable people, but a security guard working a family fun hotel does not.

    Perhaps we need to organize associations to lobby for change? I know that I am working on a project for a Security Guard/Business accrediation program, similar to the CALEA for law enforcement....I hope we can get some supporters for this kind of thing.

    Anyway, that was off topic, but if anyone has any ideas, start a thread. Any Canadian members with good ideas for reform, feel free to email me at [email protected]
    Take a look at NAPSOA. I'm half-tempted to sink some money into them, for benefits, and etc, mainly because they're interesting to me.

    There is also IFPO, another industry organization with ties to ASIS.

    The organizations exist, they just don't have good media kit and press coverage. Which is sad, because the average person dosen't know about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    If you think that article is interesting, then get a load of what I just read:

    Aztec Indians in Central America used animal blood mixed with cement as a mortar for their buildings, many of which still remain today.

    Pretty impressive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Warren
    replied
    I have some ideas about security licensing here in Canada, and specifically the province of Saskatchewan.

    Firstly, I think that there should be three levels or classes of guard. First would be the kind that we have the most of...you know the ones that walk around the store, or sit in the entrance gate, these guards have the lease level of risk.

    Second level would be armed with perhaps pepper-spray, baton, etc. These guards would have to pass a mandatory government standardized training course. Along with this training would come other standards, including first aid, or EMT training, etc etc.

    Lastly, would be the fully armed guard, same gear as police, and same type of training as police in the law, use of force, self defence, etc etc etc.

    The Acts that govern our Security guards are lame. You have to take a 40 hour training course, which has to be the government approved course. This course is so basic...getting 100% on the test is not hard. The most important thing in the course is the legal rights of the guard....1 hour of training.

    I also think that guards need to pass a minimum standard IQ test, a full risk assessment questionairre, and background check(s). The checks would wholly depend on where this guard would work.

    I find it funny that a cab driver has to pass a risk assessment for risk to children and vulnerable people, but a security guard working a family fun hotel does not.

    Perhaps we need to organize associations to lobby for change? I know that I am working on a project for a Security Guard/Business accrediation program, similar to the CALEA for law enforcement....I hope we can get some supporters for this kind of thing.

    Anyway, that was off topic, but if anyone has any ideas, start a thread. Any Canadian members with good ideas for reform, feel free to email me at [email protected]

    Leave a comment:


  • wvd1979
    replied
    Originally posted by jimmyhat
    I only occasionally have to deal with MD (MSP) and DC (MPD) security licensing authorities, and they are by far the most unorganized and unprofessional security entities I've ever seen. Maryland has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and everyone knows about DC's gun-ban, but armed yahoos run rampant within both jurisdictions, with badges and without. They both need serious overhauls to their licensing programs.
    That's a good point. I work in MD and every security job I've seen or worked in did not require a license. Maryland and DC are classic examples of how gun laws do not reduce gun violence. I can't buy a handgun at age 18 but I can walk into Wal Mart and buy a shotgun that's just as deadly. You can't buy a .22 revolver but a .22 rifle is OK. Semi-automatic AR-15 rifles are called dangerous assault weapons but bolt-action rifles that use the same ammunition are OK. You have to wait 15 days to buy a pistol to kill your neighbor but you can walk out with a scoped rifle the same day.

    For the most part gun control is a joke. Sorry if I got carried away!
    Last edited by wvd1979; 03-14-2006, 07:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Professional lobbyists from multiple fronts ensure that security companies are able to run lowest profit, lowest denominator type operations. Its good for the clients (low cost of security), good for the insurance companies (the likelyhood of payoff is lowered), good for the companies (they don't have to train or pay well), and good for public law enforcement (the industry is steadily encroaching on overtime, ancillary, and support functions.)

    Eventually, the tide will turn, and a tsunami of legal oversight will happen. We'll see what comes out of it, then. It may simply be the federalization of private security, everywhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Warren
    You would think cases like this would actually put pressure on the companies to do a better investigation on applicants.

    But we all know that this doesn't happen....at the end of the day, it is all about the dollar, and NOT the quality....right folks?
    Exactly. Roads can be made safer, airplanes more crash-worthy, etc., but it cost more money and that's not acceptable until blood is spilled. How many times have people lobbied for a traffic light at a dangerous intersection to no avail. One day someone gets killed and what do you know! There's a traffic light installed afterwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Warren
    replied
    You would think cases like this would actually put pressure on the companies to do a better investigation on applicants.

    But we all know that this doesn't happen....at the end of the day, it is all about the dollar, and NOT the quality....right folks?

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Baltimore, MD:
    News media criticism of the regulation of the business. Well earned criticism.

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...tory?track=rss

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    Now he can pretend to be a correction's officer!
    or a gimp man..

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Now he can pretend to be a correction's officer!

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X