Wackenhut

[medic15al]

I found out today I have passed the CPO program and background checks so I pick up the revolver and qualify tomorrow and get working!

[Guest]

Congratulations Medic. Thats something to be proud of.

[1stWatch]

Make sure their revolver is clean and operable. The ones I saw in the Dallas office of that company weren't during the very short time I was there.

[DMS 525]

My best advice to armed security is to carry your own weapon if you are allowed to do so. In my case, it is never neglected, never abused, and sighted to my shooting style.

[N. A. Corbier]

My best advice to armed security is to carry your own weapon if you are allowed to do so. In my case, it is never neglected, never abused, and sighted to my shooting style.

Indeed. I'm going to stick you with the gun I think you should carry. Not what you think.

[Lawson]

Good work! I too took the CPO tests, got a 98 on it. However; I lack all that cool military/police/degree background stuff you need. So Im stuck at USO

CPO uniforms are pretty sweet in my opinion. I hope you like your position with Wackenhut and they treat you as good as they do me!

[medic15al]

I think I will be at a AMSOUTH main bldng in downtown Birmingham. They called and want me to fill in a post someone called off for tomorrow. I told the Capt I will not work unarmed and will not work this post after tomorrow, only 1 day as she was a bit pushy. I also told her I will not put up with any bull**** like last minute call-ins. I really didn't want to do this unarmed gig but like I said she was puhing it a bit. Too much for my taste so we will have a heart-to-heart talk in the A.M.

[mdb]

Wow...are they going to give you bullets too? I wouldn't have an armed guard in my bank...period! The last thing I want is a shoot out in the bank lobby between a trigger happy guard (or cop) and a bank robber who would have taken the money and peacefully left the premises. Most bank robberies end without incident...they can have the money the teller has in his/her drawer. But you would have hell to pay explaining why a customer or employee was accidently shot in a cross fire; and medic15al; can the attitude. If you showed up at my job site with the attitude you have displayed in your post, I would kindly show you the door. Good luck in B'Ham.

[1stWatch]

Wow...are they going to give you bullets too? I wouldn't have an armed guard in my bank...period! The last thing I want is a shoot out in the bank lobby between a trigger happy guard (or cop) and a bank robber who would have taken the money and peacefully left the premises. Most bank robberies end without incident...they can have the money the teller has in his/her drawer. But you would have hell to pay explaining why a customer or employee was accidently shot in a cross fire; and medic15al; can the attitude. If you showed up at my job site with the attitude you have displayed in your post, I would kindly show you the door. Good luck in B'Ham.

Oh-kay, where to start? Let's look at the very closing statement made here, "good luck from B'Ham." I assume you mean Birmingham, in the UK, where guns are illegal to carry for citizens and, hell, even most police too. Take a look at some of my postings. Violent crime is on the rise there. Criminals have access to offensive weapons and don't seem to have a problem taking out security guards first and then fleeing or fighting with constables because they are under the popular belief they will not have deadly force used on them. I read more and more each month about an unarmed English constable getting killed because he or she had to show up at a scene where, unknowingly, an armed suspect was. Take out the most threatening target first. Someday, I think it will be after a lot of trial and error, death and grief, the Parliament there will get a clue, drop the ideology, and arm those people in law enforcement. That country has the most backward system of doing that job I have ever seen.

Point two, about not having an armed guard in your bank period. The idea you would only employ one guard displays an aptitude to poor planning in and of itself. Granted, this is normal at a lot of places, expecting one person to secure billions in currency and the lives of any person at the facililty for a mere pay cheque that is roughly half the average wage of a professional position with only a radio or cell phone to call the "real authority" if the need would arise, as if that person would have time to do that during a real altercation. But the idea of having one unarmed shows you would prefer the security not actually "guard" anything, but just be there to grin at people, hold the door, and if someone of public importance comes by, you can point out "look, there's a person in a uniform. We're 'safe'."

This is the warm bodies philosophy, the one that says we want to make some sort of investment in an image of protection, but really nothing will happen to us, we don't actually need real security anyway so we'll do things the cheapest way possible. Oh, and btw that guard had better have the proper subservient attitude and not try to think for himself or he'll be out of a job right away. We don't want soldiers or college graduates or current or former law enforcement because we're afraid they'll "cross the line" and make some sort of difference that will either result in some protection being done or (oh no) maybe they'll get noticed by the media. We sure as hell don't want that. Perhaps the media will start interviewing the security guards and get an earful about their working conditions or how "heroic" they are for being placed in such a potentially dangerous position alone - no backup, no support from the employer, and scorn from the general public and the law enforcement officers alike.

If you want an idea why some of us have such a disdainful attitude toward certain supervisors or client managers, look at some of these things and get a clue. Oh, and in the real world, I am here to protect you and serve you. You will get every courtesy from me. If an incident arises where my real services are required, however, I will perform what is necessary to make sure everyone goes home at the end of the shift. I hope to God this never happens, but that may include placing a bullet into the skull of a suspect to keep him from doing the same to you. In the real world, bad guys carry guns and they don't hesitate to use them even after the good guys surrender and cooperate. Do some homework on how real robberies happen.

Oh, and don't even think about stepping in the way while I am performing duties and trying to take over yourself, putting your palm in my face, pushing me away, or telling me to "wait over there" while you do something foolish while a physical disturbance is happening. Doing so will result in you being placed in handcuffs as well, even if it does mean the end of my "job". Unless you are a police officer you have no business pulling me away from that or getting involved at all. Make your judgement later, but you are not going to get me or yourself killed.

This is why I and many others will not work unarmed at risky sites. This especially includes banks, but also includes gas stations, industrial sites, apartment or condominium complexes, government housing, and (yes I said it) hospitals and most locations outdoors. The danger is real. People don't take security seriously enough and it shows.

[Lawson]

1stWatch, if Securityinfowatch had a reputation system, you would be receiving as many clicks from me as possible.

Good rant!

Same goes for you jimmyhat.

[N. A. Corbier]

1stWatch, if Securityinfowatch had a reputation system, you would be receiving as many clicks from me as possible.

Good rant!

Same goes for you jimmyhat.

+1

BTW, I once got our contract for protecting people revoked... Hotel GM did that palm in the face thing. Front desk person and the "security" bellman called my supervisor immediately, going, "Quick, get out here, we think Nathan's about to arrest the GM." They were right. He interfered with my lawful police-ordered detainment of a battery suspect. Police, who the GM was feeding every night (then secretly billing the City of Tampa for), were like, "We're not taking anybody to jail. Just get that man an ambulance."

This was the man and his brother, brother was stabbed, and the GM refused them service - or the ability to call 911, and ordered me to remove them. I asked them to step outside with me, and then tried to get the front desk to call 911. Unfortunately, the GM ordered them not to.

After another random parking lot patrol, the bellman requested my presence with all due haste, as the brother popped the GM in the jaw.

[1stWatch]

+1

BTW, I once got our contract for protecting people revoked... Hotel GM did that palm in the face thing. Front desk person and the "security" bellman called my supervisor immediately, going, "Quick, get out here, we think Nathan's about to arrest the GM." They were right. He interfered with my lawful police-ordered detainment of a battery suspect. Police, who the GM was feeding every night (then secretly billing the City of Tampa for), were like, "We're not taking anybody to jail. Just get that man an ambulance."

This was the man and his brother, brother was stabbed, and the GM refused them service - or the ability to call 911, and ordered me to remove them. I asked them to step outside with me, and then tried to get the front desk to call 911. Unfortunately, the GM ordered them not to.

After another random parking lot patrol, the bellman requested my presence with all due haste, as the brother popped the GM in the jaw.

You would know a lot better than I do what the Florida statutes are, but in Texas they recently passed a law that makes it a crime to interfere with an emergency phone call. The police do not have to witness the interference to arrest for that. This is exactly the kind of scenario that explains why.

[N. A. Corbier]

You would know a lot better than I do what the Florida statutes are, but in Texas they recently passed a law that makes it a crime to interfere with an emergency phone call. The police do not have to witness the interference to arrest for that. This is exactly the kind of scenario that explains why.

We had no such statute. There was 'interference with an officer," but the officer definition is ambigious, as its "any person with a legal duty." I've heard it applied to utility workers, and St. Petersburg Police arrested a man for it, but it was a felony modifier on a battery charge.

The police definately did NOT want to arrest anyone that night.

[Bill Warnock]

Third time is the charm!
mdb's remarks demonstrate a naivet

[Mr. Security]

Are you prepared to back that up with NCI facts, or are you just throwing that out there with no real knowledge of criminal statistics? I suspect the latter.

Actually, having worked at 3 different banks for a number of years in the accounting department, I can back mdb on a couple points. First, most banks prefer unarmed security because the last thing they want is a firefight between security and the bad guys, with customers caught in the middle.

Second: Banks instruct their employees to cooperate fully with bank robbers because they know that in most cases, the robbery will end w/o loss of life if they do. In fact, you WILL be fired if you do not comply, due to the potential harm that you have exposed yourself and your coworkers to. That is the policy even if you successfully foil the robbery.

Finally, I'll ask you the same question that I asked another member on this forum. If you had been working armed security at the infamous bank robbery in North Hollywood, California, where robbers had body armor and automatic weapons, how would you have fared?