Should S/O's Have More Training/Authority etc ?

[bigdog]

I say this all the time. You can have as much training as you want, but you have to be willing to go out and get it yourself. Do the training, keep the records, and then make a case to your boss that you're serious about this stuff, and maybe the company will be willing to pay for additional training.


One way to make this so, across the board, is for everyone to start refusing to work for companies that don't provide defensive weapons. There's a million reasons for this. Not the least of which is the fact that a company that is willing to send you out on the street, defenseless, obviously cares nothing about your safety. Why work for a company like that?



You already have the powers of a private citizen, the most powerful authority in the land. Am I right in assuming what you really want is more respect? That which may be derived from more power? That sets off all kinds of alarms in my head.

what scares me is with 8 hrs of training in SC you get the same powers of arrest as a deputy sheriff.

[bigdog]

I disagree. Citizens; in most cases; cannot issue Traffic Infractions, committ misdemeanor arrests, enforce the vehicle code, etc... stuff that Law Enforcement can.

I am an avid supporter of making Security more state regulated ( i.e. more training requirements, etc... ) and thusly increasing enforcement powers to conduct a misdemeanor arrest or enforce the traffic code on your property and adjacent streets, (ie. stopping someone who is whizzing up and down the street outside your property) utilizing law enforcement tactics.

I completely agree IN florida change493.org ahs and great idea its called intermediate officer in essence you are a special leo on your property withpowers to arrest and cite.

[HotelSecurity]

I disagree. Citizens; in most cases; cannot issue Traffic Infractions, committ misdemeanor arrests, enforce the vehicle code, etc... stuff that Law Enforcement can.

In Canada the owner of property & his AGENT (Us!) have a little more power than the average citizen. The average citizen can not arrest for a Summary Conviction offense (Misdemeanor). The owner of property & his agent, can.

In Quebec we can not enforce the highway code. Some cities that set up "para-police" security units to enforce by-laws & act as the eyes & ears of the real police, started stopping cars for breaking the by-law of dangerous driving, not the highway code of speeding etc. The police stopped them. I believe they were threatened with illegal detainment of the motorists & impersonating a peace officer.

[ycaso77]

I would dearly love to see a training process for security officers that was more than 8 hours of watching video tapes. Ideally it would be along the lines of the part-time academies we have here. Say 8 weeks like the state marshals after which you would recieve professional licensure from the state and acknowledgement of the training. It would provide a single standardized training course to ease legislation, insurance and stautory obligations. It would also be a way to weed out unacceptable candidates. Lets face it, until training and hiring standards are raised the general population will still view security with a measure of prejudice.
The only problem will be the very security companies that complain about "quality" personnel. They won't pay the extra cost for training, the extra wages such training will demand, and most importantly don't want to start a spitting war with the law enforcement community over the camels nose peeking under the tent. Yup, a short academy and some type of "peace officer" status would do wonders- but I'm not holding my breath.

[N. A. Corbier]

Keep a few things in mind.

1. Remember that quote that someone said about NAPOSA as a security company? Some folks said Kevin Jordan "got greedy." However, one said that no client would hire a security company that was pro-officer, because the client is the person who should be in charge.

What does this translate to? You give me a person who is reasonably awake in a uniform I don't have to pay for, for 8 bucks an hour (Man-hour, pay the guard 5 or 6, I don't care...), and if I say, "I don't like Guard Johnson, Guard Shakur, and I certainly don't like Guard Williams," you will not go, "Those are all black guards, this sounds like your discriminating," you will remove them from my site immediately.

2. Statute is always better than case law. Statute law can be used to educate public officers and employees. Statute law changes usually require an educational course to public officers and agencies, whereas case law does not. If you suddenly have arrest powers as a security officer, I guarantee you that several million dollars will be spent training the public agencies about those powers. You, of course, have to buy that training yourself, but the state will make damn sure a public agency doesn't violate your authority to arrest under statute.

3. Training is important. I am quietly slaving away on an 80 hour course based off the California and Florida models for Wisconsin. It will be given internally, once things actually start gearing up around here. (Its no longer "I need backers, its I need capital.) Training is part effectiveness, part marketing, and part CYA. The idea of giving 80 hours before someone starts working, then leaving them alone is about as stupid as giving someone 40 hours and then leaving them alone. Florida has no in-service training requirement. It has an annual requalification requirement, but no in-service training requirement. Considering that a company (training provider) can add material to the Florida course, and the Florida course teaches only enough to get you into trouble, I consider it a standard to begin working, not to keep working.

4. Never forget that our primary mission is protection, not enforcement of law. We can have additional powers, but I don't want to have the primary mission shifted to law enforcement. If we are required under statute to enforce law before our primary mission of protecting our charge, then we are no longer offering protection. We are simply police officers working for a different agency.

By this, I mean that I should not have a sworn duty to enforce law which directly conflicts with protecting my client's lives, safety, and property. If I observe a felony against person in progress across the street, and there is a crime against person or property on my client's site - I would by duty bound to leave my property unprotected and enforce the law regarding the felony across the street.

Your client, of course, will terminate the contract, then hire unarmed/warm body security guards without such sworn duties, so that they'll stay on the damn property and just call 911. It'll be a lot cheaper, too.

[N. A. Corbier]

Absolutely true, But.......
If the educated folk move towards the more squared-away companies, then the WBSC's are left with the bottom-feeders. Those WB companies will fold, and the open contracts will go to better companies who in turn hire better security officers. I know we go through this often, but the fantasy will never see the light of day unless we press our peers into taking some action on their.

I'm also very much aware that sometimes beggars can't be choosers. I'll never tell someone working to feed their kids to give the finger to their boss just because that company doesn't issue M-4's and up-armored patrol vehicles with FLEER systems. I am saying, that someone who is badly in need of employment should not jeopardize their own safety in order to make better profits for their can't-be-bothered employers.

I don't think the warm bodies will fold, because the clients demand cheap labor, especially if they can push around the cheap labor into doing other tasks. The name of the game is "How many value added services can I get my contract guards to do, which saves me money. Security? How about housekeeping, as well? Can they deliver newspapers? Can they water plants? Hey, can they make coffee?"

Now, if we're all working for companies that primarly focus on protection of assets and personnel, not making coffee, then there's the ability to have a wide niche in the market focusing on that. People will pay for professional protection officers when their facing a city commission stating "DO SOMETHING, OR WE FIND YOU TO BE A PUBLIC NUSANCE," or they or their invitees are just too afraid to conduct business on their own property because it looks like Bagdad.

[bigdog]

By this, I mean that I should not have a sworn duty to enforce law which directly conflicts with protecting my client's lives, safety, and property. If I observe a felony against person in progress across the street, and there is a crime against person or property on my client's site - I would by duty bound to leave my property unprotected and enforce the law regarding the felony across the street.

thats why what we are looking for in fl for our intermediate officers is arrest powers on property only that would eliminate the situation above.

[jimmyhat]

thats why what we are looking for in fl for our intermediate officers is arrest powers on property only that would eliminate the situation above.

I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but I'll say it again. When you start arresting people, as private security, you are opening up an entire new world of problems. Each and every one of those problems has a cost-factor ($) that most companies simply don't want to pay for. The arrest process is so complicated, so detailed, and must be performed with such professionalism (that which we rarely see on TV) I just don't believe that S/O 's without the existing authority actually understand the toll it takes on the officer, the business, and the continuity of operations once an arrest has been made.

I'm all for proactive security. I write curriculum that gets a lot of rebuttal from the Wb's. I am VERY progressive when it comes to approaching and eliminating threats. I am VERY conservative when it comes to making arrests.

For you guys who don't arrest, but want to, do this little exercise in your head. You witness a crime, you're on your own, you have the cuffs and the authority. Now what? Let's say you get the cuffs on without anyone being injured. Now What? The suspect has weapons and contraband. Now What? You have no transport vehicle. Now what? You are the arresting officer, and the magistrate is expecting you. Now what? I could go on and on.

[talon]

I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but I'll say it again. When you start arresting people, as private security, you are opening up an entire new world of problems. Each and every one of those problems has a cost-factor ($) that most companies simply don't want to pay for. The arrest process is so complicated, so detailed, and must be performed with such professionalism (that which we rarely see on TV) I just don't believe that S/O 's without the existing authority actually understand the toll it takes on the officer, the business, and the continuity of operations once an arrest has been made.

I'm all for proactive security. I write curriculum that gets a lot of rebuttal from the Wb's. I am VERY progressive when it comes to approaching and eliminating threats. I am VERY conservative when it comes to making arrests.

For you guys who don't arrest, but want to, do this little exercise in your head. You witness a crime, you're on your own, you have the cuffs and the authority. Now what? Let's say you get the cuffs on without anyone being injured. Now What? The suspect has weapons and contraband. Now What? You have no transport vehicle. Now what? You are the arresting officer, and the magistrate is expecting you. Now what? I could go on and on.

Alot of S/O's have over glamourized the arrest process in their mind. I have ran into so many S/O's who think that "arrest" is what its all about when usually an arrest is a last resort.

When I was arresting on a regular basis it meant that while I was processing the suspects my sites were either uncovered or undercoverd at the least, the "booking" process could take 20 minutes or 3 hours.

Many times I had to explain to the magistrates who I was and where my authority came from.

I had to finger print the felons and some misdomeaners, package the evidence and send it to the State.

Arrest is a royal pain that should be experienced by every S/O at least once.

[jimmyhat]

Alot of S/O's have over glamourized the arrest process in their mind. I have ran into so many S/O's who think that "arrest" is what its all about when usually an arrest is a last resort.

When I was arresting on a regular basis it meant that while I was processing the suspects my sites were either uncovered or undercoverd at the least, the "booking" process could take 20 minutes or 3 hours.

Many times I had to explain to the magistrates who I was and where my authority came from.

I had to finger print the felons and some misdomeaners, package the evidence and send it to the State.

Arrest is a royal pain that should be experienced by every S/O at least once.

Those were some good points, Talon, that I forgot to mention myself.

My Troops are expected to be gone for at LEAST three hours. It took several months before we became familiar enough with all the magistrates for them not to give us the fish-eye every time we came through the sally-port. Things are more streamlined for us now, but it was a slow and painful process.

Fortunately, these little angles called "booking tech's." in the county we work make things quite a bit easier.

[N. A. Corbier]

Those were some good points, Talon, that I forgot to mention myself.

My Troops are expected to be gone for at LEAST three hours. It took several months before we became familiar enough with all the magistrates for them not to give us the fish-eye every time we came through the sally-port. Things are more streamlined for us now, but it was a slow and painful process.

Fortunately, these little angles called "booking tech's." in the county we work make things quite a bit easier.

That's the thing most people do not realize. When I think about a "citizen's arrest," I factor in that the police officer will NOT transport, or that the police officer will transport, but will require you to accompany the arrested person, swear out a warantless arrest affidavit yourself, book the prisoner into the county jail yourself, and make the first bond appearance (booking magistrate) yourself.

Most people think that when you have "limited arrest powers," you just turn the offender over to the police. That is pointless, to me, because it wastes everyone's time. You arrest him, you book him. If someone arrests, your company should have the ability to either transport the prisoner for the arresting officer and electronically swear out the warrantless arrest affidavit, or the company should have the ability to cover the post while the arresting officer transports and books the prisoner in - all the way to the booking magistrate if need be. (I know some cities have a magistrate in the jail, while others have the warrantless arrest hearing the next morning)

If your just going to turn the guy over to the city cops, then why do you have arrest authority?

[knotquiteawake]

see, its totally not like that in California. Its really easy for citizens to do the arrest. You arrest as a private citizen, call police out, police have a form you sign, and police haul him away. You may be called upon for the trial, but the officer does the booking.
I found this quote from the California Guard Card Workbook

[N. A. Corbier]

see, its totally not like that in California. Its really easy for citizens to do the arrest. You arrest as a private citizen, call police out, police have a form you sign, and police haul him away. You may be called upon for the trial, but the officer does the booking.
I found this quote from the California Guard Card Workbook

Right. CA has broad arrest powers for California citizens. Now, if you were given additional arrest authority, would you still think that you should be able to turn your prisoner over to the police? Say, for arrests under CVC instead of CPC.

[Tennsix]

Training*Responsibility*Professionalism

Right. CA has broad arrest powers for California citizens. Now, if you were given additional arrest authority, would you still think that you should be able to turn your prisoner over to the police? Say, for arrests under CVC instead of CPC.

With added authority comes added responsibility. In my opinion, you catch it you clean it.

[N. A. Corbier]

With added authority comes added responsibility. In my opinion, you catch it you clean it.

I'm of that opinion, too. Your the person who arrested the offender, why should someone else write the arrest affidavit? What if that person does a sucky job of it, and the offender is released?