WI S/O Shot on duty, saved by Armor

[Chadly]

From JS Online
THURSDAY, June 28, 2007, 7:19 p.m.
By Amy Guckeen

Glendale Police are investigating the shooting of a
23-year-old male security guard outside of an American
Transmission Corp. electrical substation at 2741 W.
Mill Rd. Wednesday night.

The victim was shot twice in the chest around 10:30
p.m. but was wearing a protective vest which stopped
the rounds, according to Glendale police.

The victim was transported to Froedtert Hospital where
he was found to have chest contusions. The assailant
is unknown at this time.

[N. A. Corbier]

Considering that most security guards in Wisconsin do not wear armor, and their companies barely provide them with uniforms... I'd say that man is lucky indeed. First to have armor, second to be wearing it when he was shot.

[davis002]

Security Guard Says He Faked His Own Shooting

A security guard who had said he was shot but saved by his body armor faked the shooting, police said.

Glendale police said they were told by a security guard at an American Transmission Co. electrical substation that he was shot twice in the chest by a prowler while on his rounds June 27.

But he has since admitted he made up the whole thing, police said Wednesday. The security guard fired a handgun into his bullet resistant body armor the day before the alleged shooting. He said he then shot himself twice in the chest with a paintball gun the day of the incident to mimic bruising and show the body armor's impact, Glendale Police spokesman Joel Dhein said.

The security guard told police he was acting when he called for help and appeared to be in pain at the scene.

The man was transported to the Milwaukee County Mental Health Division, police said.

His name has not yet been released.

It was still unclear why the man staged the incident, Dhein said. The Milwaukee County District Attorney's office has been asked to look into charges.

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_185201856.html

[N. A. Corbier]

Brilliant.

[Minneapolis Security]

Sounds like the type of guy who "finds" fires in bathrooms.

[Andy Taylor]

The man was transported to the Milwaukee County Mental Health Division, police said.

http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_185201856.html

Sounds like they sent him to the right place.

[sgtnewby]

I posted this coment on another thread about this before I knew it was being discussed here. I said that they must be like Minnesota and not require psych evals for handgun carry permits. Now, I noticed that it was in WI. Nate would know this better then me, but from what I understand, other than armored car personell, security can not carry guns in WI. Is that true? I was told a few years ago when I worked security in Somerset for "93 X-Fest" that OC, batons, firearms, and Tasers were illegal for private security to carry other than armored car folks.

[N. A. Corbier]

Complete BS.

All contract security personnel must have a security license. On top of that, 16 bucks and a course on firearms later, you are authorized to carry a firearm.

The only rules for less-lethals are that you must be "certified" in them. I know a lot of security personnel who do not know what "certified" means, and just carry them anyway.

You can qualify with just about anything up here, so long as the contract demonstrates a need for it (in writing, as part of the contract,) and I've seen licensees qualified with M4 rifles.

The thing is, if you're company is not armed, then all you need is a 100k bond to run your company. Security firms are actually PI firms, and simply need a licensed officer to manage the guard business side of the PI firm. The law was designed so that a PI firm could get some PIs, get a 2k bond on each, the 100k bond on the firm, and be ready to be in business.

PIs cannot carry guns (Except openly as security personnel, requiring the security licenses), so there's no need for the huge 300k General Liability insurance. That's only for security companies who are armed.

[junkyarddog]

The job description is exactly what I do....shame the only time I hear of other security doing the same job, it is in a situation like this.

[sgtnewby]

All contract security personnel must have a security license. On top of that, 16 bucks and a course on firearms later, you are authorized to carry a firearm.

You can qualify with just about anything up here, so long as the contract demonstrates a need for it (in writing, as part of the contract,) and I've seen licensees qualified with M4 rifles.

PIs cannot carry guns (Except openly as security personnel, requiring the security licenses), so there's no need for the huge 300k General Liability insurance. That's only for security companies who are armed.

I just spoke with a gentleman I know. He was a Menomonie cop for about 15 years and said that the armored car personell were in fact the only security allowed to be armed. Now, he didn't know the statute off hand, so I'm not sure at this point who's correct. I'll see if I can find it.

[N. A. Corbier]

I just spoke with a gentleman I know. He was a Menomonie cop for about 15 years and said that the armored car personell were in fact the only security allowed to be armed. Now, he didn't know the statute off hand, so I'm not sure at this point who's correct. I'll see if I can find it.

It may be were, but since 1997, security personnel are allowed to be armed. Prior to that, licenses were granted by the local police chiefs, so I have no idea.

Considering that any citizen may freely go armed in this state, and only "armed private police, watchmen, and militias" are regulated, I'm thinking he's getting info from the 1970s or something. Maybe even the 50s.

[ff000525]

I just spoke with a gentleman I know. He was a Menomonie cop for about 15 years and said that the armored car personell were in fact the only security allowed to be armed. Now, he didn't know the statute off hand, so I'm not sure at this point who's correct. I'll see if I can find it.

Yes we can be armed, considering there are quite a few armed security companies in the Western part of our state, I'm suprised the LEO didn't know that. But I still run into it down here, one time a K-town cop approached one of our guys and said, "you're lucky, if I would've seen a gun on your belt, I would've arrested you" (the employee was not armed at the time). The employee, who had been working for the company for a few years, immediatley had the officer call his supervisor and the LEO's supervisor explained to the cop that yes, in fact we can be armed. Our former owner also held a class for Racine County deputies on what a security officer needs and the requirements for that officer to be armed. In response to NA's earlier post; officers do not need to be certified, just trained (which is very rare anyway). RL 34.07.

RL 34.07 Other dangerous weapons. An owner or
employee of an agency may only be armed with a dangerous weapon other than a firearm, which he or she, based on training, is proficient in handling. The person shall understand the legal limits of force with the weapon, the dangers and misuse of the weapon and the safety rules relating to the weapon. The agency shall, upon request of the department, provide documentation of the training or experience which prepared the person to be proficient
in the use of the weapon.

Our company polices spell out the legalities, dangers, and misuse part. We also have a trainer provides a Defensive Training Class, which baton and OC are part of. We've also started spraying our employees this year, which was never part of the class before, but after I brought my video in from my Academy class, the boss was like "hmm, that's cool, let's start doing that here".

Tasers are still a no-no here, because it is illegal for a private citizen to be in possession or own an electronic weapon. I've been working on a letter to my local reps. that suggests that companies may own the Tasers and they must be issued to the officers for use during duty hours, but in this state, that letter will probably make it as far as the circular file.