Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Orlando security guard shot

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

  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Well they're pretty well aware the state issues security gun licenses. In fact some of them take time out just to check on our pocket cards and run the serial number of the gun to make sure it isn't stolen and all that junk. What most are unaware of is the actual existence of the Private Security Act and its actual wording in regard to what our job is, what duties we are required to perform, and what duties we are not required to perform. As a matter of fact, I should say 90% of the security company managers are also unaware of what this says. That is pretty alarming to me, considering it regulates our entire position. Ignorance may be blissful, but it sure can get you in trouble.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Quote from a deputy sheriff:

    "The state gives you a gun license? I thought being a security guard was like working at K-Mart. You just applied and they gave you a gun."

    No concept of Chapter 493. Didn't question that I could carry a gun, just that the state bothered licensing a "security guard" to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    Heh. Florida law doesn't define the duty, only notes what security is. Granted, also, Texas considers security officers to be public servants.
    They also consider utility workers, teachers, preachers, and just about anybody who works in a civilian fashion for the court to be public servants, but we are also just private citizens. Some of those in the security business with the "swelled head" syndrome have that condition aggravated by the term "public servant", if you get my meaning. What is significant to me is the statutory definition of duties. I wish everybody concerned, including the l.e. personnel here, would know about it. It becomes pretty apparent after dealing with 95% of them for 10 minutes they don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by GCMC Security
    I can tell you right now what Wackenhut's plan is at Bank of America: Non Interference, you attempt to stop the robbery and fail good bye, if your successful it will be Thank you and Good bye. Wackenhut Bank Officers are instructed to observe and report and nothing else.
    Yes, but they have a good deployment plan at at least two of the banks here I can think of and a good emergency response plan that includes cell phone notification.

    Leave a comment:


  • IB107
    replied
    in utah we too have "coded" law stating we are to protect life and property :P

    Leave a comment:


  • GCMC Security
    replied
    Originally posted by 1stWatch
    . A good plan I can think of is the one Wackenhut has at the Bank of Americas.
    I can tell you right now what Wackenhut's plan is at Bank of America: Non Interference, you attempt to stop the robbery and fail good bye, if your successful it will be Thank you and Good bye. Wackenhut Bank Officers are instructed to observe and report and nothing else.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    Your bank would go bankrupt! Guards are $12.50/hour in Montreal.

    A good system I saw at a credit union had the unarmed security guard inside a bullet resistant booth. There was a bullet resistant porch at the entrance. The security guard had to buzz you in AND out. The only problem with this setup was if the crook took hostages.
    That is around what they get paid here as well. The hourly wage would not kill the bank's budget, believe me. The camera/alarm system I described would be quite a bit more expensive, however. I have seen a system similar to what you mentioned with access controlled doors and a series of man traps at a high security bank. The security there was not armed, but there was not an easy way to get a gun into the bank and absolutely no way I could perceive of sneaking into the bank. There were also five guards on duty at all times. There are different types of facilities, however, and an effective crime prevention system would be a bit different at each one. The problem is most of these places do not plan, hire, or equip sufficiently. "Security always costs too much until it is not enough."

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    Heh. Florida law doesn't define the duty, only notes what security is. Granted, also, Texas considers security officers to be public servants.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    But that would be a response plan, all they want is liability protection!

    I remember the Wackenhut guys posted at SunTrust. They were usually in the parking lot. They carried one pair of cuffs, a .38 revolver, and no ammunition. They were definately visual intimidation only.
    It seems my state is a bit different. While the business community perceives security's value as a visual deterrant only, statutory law here defines security's duty as protecting life as well as property. I believe it is also an administrative violation to have an unloaded weapon. Bottom line, there is no real liability protection for a visual presence only. There is liability if the security officer does nothing in the face of an incident when some action is possible, even if that action is only to call 911. A good plan I can think of is the one Wackenhut has at the Bank of Americas.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    One of the best setups for banks is the Man Trap. Allow the person to rob the bank. Allow them to leave. Activate the Man Trap once he's in it. Do NOT open it, for any reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Your bank would go bankrupt! Guards are $12.50/hour in Montreal.

    A good system I saw at a credit union had the unarmed security guard inside a bullet resistant booth. There was a bullet resistant porch at the entrance. The security guard had to buzz you in AND out. The only problem with this setup was if the crook took hostages.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    But that would be a response plan, all they want is liability protection!

    I remember the Wackenhut guys posted at SunTrust. They were usually in the parking lot. They carried one pair of cuffs, a .38 revolver, and no ammunition. They were definately visual intimidation only.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1stWatch
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    Bank guards in Montreal used to be armed. They're not anymore. I'm told that one of the reasons was because when banks were held up the criminals would get away with money. If there was an armed guard they would usually get away with money AND the guard's gun!
    Problems I see with bank security are normally with the amount of deployment, not with whether or not the lobby guard is armed. An arrangement that makes sense to me is to have a non-uniformed officer in the lobby itself, a camera system that is controlled from another room, and multiple armed officers in the parking lot. This would set up an effective response team during the case of an incident. If the b.g. can be apprehended, the armed guys can do it in the parking lot. If the situation can't be managed by the guards' response alone, such as that of a hostage situation, the camera operator should have a line open to 911 to advise about what is going on. Unfortunately, most banks I have seen don't pay enough attention to planning like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • HotelSecurity
    replied
    Bank guards in Montreal used to be armed. They're not anymore. I'm told that one of the reasons was because when banks were held up the criminals would get away with money. If there was an armed guard they would usually get away with money AND the guard's gun!

    Leave a comment:


  • Tennsix
    replied

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X