Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CIT Guard Shot and Killed in Sydney

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

  • CIT Guard Shot and Killed in Sydney

    http://bit.ly/b5e9M2

    "Police don't believe the robbers escaped with any cash."

    Maybe now they'll include ballistic armour as required equipment for armed guards?

  • #2
    Your country's worker protection laws are a lot stronger than ours, but I think it'll take a lot more than a few people being shot to make it a requirement. Unfortunately, such is the way of most governments.
    Some Kind of Commando Leader

    "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

    Comment


    • #3
      I share Nate's pessimism about requiring vests, if for no other reason than the difficulties that would be involved in formulating a rational regulation, much less the costs of complying with it, maintaining the vests, etc.

      In addition, there could actually be new legal liabilities for security firms arising from such a regulation.

      What I would like to see, though, is a law (or occupational safety regulation) that would prohibit any firm from preventing a security officer from providing such equipment for himself at his own discretion. Here in the US, we have firms that won't even allow officers to wear their own vests (mostly for no other reason than that they don't like the way it "looks"), and IMHO that's a shameful state of affairs.
      "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

      "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

      "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

      "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

      Comment


      • #4
        CIT Guard Shot and Killed in Sydney

        Oh! No
        I t is not fair to do some thing like as they are very unlucky.
        Bodyguard Security Services
        Security Guards Melbourne
        Security Crowd Control

        Comment


        • #5
          I would think that would be an easy law to pass. A vest is safety equipment, just like a seatbelt. Imagine if a security company told it's employee's that they couldn't wear their seatbelts. That would go over well.


          Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
          I share Nate's pessimism about requiring vests, if for no other reason than the difficulties that would be involved in formulating a rational regulation, much less the costs of complying with it, maintaining the vests, etc.

          In addition, there could actually be new legal liabilities for security firms arising from such a regulation.

          What I would like to see, though, is a law (or occupational safety regulation) that would prohibit any firm from preventing a security officer from providing such equipment for himself at his own discretion. Here in the US, we have firms that won't even allow officers to wear their own vests (mostly for no other reason than that they don't like the way it "looks"), and IMHO that's a shameful state of affairs.
          ATTN. SPECOPS AND GECKO45 my secret username is CIDDECEP and I am your S2. My authorization code is Six Wun Quebec Oscar Fife. Your presence here is tactically dangerous and compromises our overall mission parameter. Cease and desist all activity on this board. Our “enemies” are deft at computer hacking and may trace you back to our primary locale. You have forced me to compromise my situation to protect your vulnerable flank. This issue will be addressed later.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
            What I would like to see, though, is a law (or occupational safety regulation) that would prohibit any firm from preventing a security officer from providing such equipment for himself at his own discretion. Here in the US, we have firms that won't even allow officers to wear their own vests (mostly for no other reason than that they don't like the way it "looks"), and IMHO that's a shameful state of affairs.
            I agree. But this is all just wishful thinking. I doubt we will see anything similar in our lifetime.

            If you don't have a white uniform you can easily wear one of the smaller one's under that, I have black so when I do I wear a police surplus one that is white and no one has mistaken it for anything other than a shirt under my uniform. I think it would be great at all posts actually as (here in the US) armor is not legally restricted (yet) and anyone can buy it if they don't have felonies. The only reason I don't (EDIT: on unarmed posts I mean) is ... heat. I already wear a black uniform, then armor in addition to that, and especially if I worked a day shift... stick a fork in me and call it well done.

            Comment


            • #7
              It wasn't the employer who blocked the wearing of body armour it was the SO's union the TWU (Transport Workers Union)

              Chubb Security said it was "strongly in favour" of the vests. But the TWU opposed them for "numerous health and safety reasons". A TWU webpage said guards were concerned that if they wore bullet-proof vests, armed criminals would "aim for the head"

              "Bullet-proof vest would have saved my Gary, says grieving widow" - The Daily Telegraph

              FWIW in the Australian Security Industry we have 2 choices for Unions both umbrella solutions (non specific) the TWU & the LHMU (Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Worker's Union)
              "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give" - Winston Churchill

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Maelstrom View Post
                It wasn't the employer who blocked the wearing of body armour it was the SO's union the TWU (Transport Workers Union)

                Chubb Security said it was "strongly in favour" of the vests. But the TWU opposed them for "numerous health and safety reasons". A TWU webpage said guards were concerned that if they wore bullet-proof vests, armed criminals would "aim for the head"

                "Bullet-proof vest would have saved my Gary, says grieving widow" - The Daily Telegraph

                FWIW in the Australian Security Industry we have 2 choices for Unions both umbrella solutions (non specific) the TWU & the LHMU (Liquor, Hospitality & Miscellaneous Worker's Union)
                You... have to be kidding me. I can see that flying with an observe and report guard union, "Stop making us bigger targets, our job is to flee the scene when something bad happens!" but not an industry where the bad guy is targeting YOU to get to the money.
                Some Kind of Commando Leader

                "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                Comment


                • #9
                  Chubb Security said it was "strongly in favour" of the vests. But the TWU opposed them for "numerous health and safety reasons". A TWU webpage said guards were concerned that if they wore bullet-proof vests, armed criminals would "aim for the head"

                  I just can't understand why or how any security officer would come to that conclusion.
                  Last edited by FederalSecurity; 08-18-2010, 03:37 PM. Reason: Bold emphasis.
                  "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
                  - Thomas Jefferson

                  “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence.”
                  — Vince Lombardi

                  "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

                  IX. Strive to attain professional competence.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Maelstrom View Post
                    It wasn't the employer who blocked the wearing of body armour it was the SO's union the TWU (Transport Workers Union)

                    Chubb Security said it was "strongly in favour" of the vests. But the TWU opposed them for "numerous health and safety reasons". A TWU webpage said guards were concerned that if they wore bullet-proof vests, armed criminals would "aim for the head"
                    Tell me another one, TWU. Guess a zillion cops around the world must be wrong.
                    "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                    "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                    "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                    "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
                      Tell me another one, TWU. Guess a zillion cops around the world must be wrong.
                      If the union's position is that the guard should run away, then its perfectly acceptable to suggest they shouldn't wear armor. From the union's standpoint of: Do not make them a target, their job is to hand over the money and flee the scene.
                      Some Kind of Commando Leader

                      "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Chubb Security said it was "strongly in favour" of the vests. But the TWU opposed them for "numerous health and safety reasons". A TWU webpage said guards were concerned that if they wore bullet-proof vests, armed criminals would "aim for the head"

                        It may just be my youthful ignorance, but doesn't getting dead constitute a "health and safety" concern?
                        A wise son hears his father's instruction,but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke. Proverbs 13:1

                        "My “Black-Ops” history ensures that you will never know about the missions I accepted in my younger days, and Vietnam still shudders when it hears the name of a an assasin so skillful and deadly, he is remembered decades later. " G-45

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CTEXSEC1 View Post
                          Chubb Security said it was "strongly in favour" of the vests. But the TWU opposed them for "numerous health and safety reasons". A TWU webpage said guards were concerned that if they wore bullet-proof vests, armed criminals would "aim for the head"

                          It may just be my youthful ignorance, but doesn't getting dead constitute a "health and safety" concern?
                          Yes, their argument is most likely that you may survive a gunshot wound to the chest. But one to the head is more lethal. If cirminals know that the guards wear vests, then they will most likely be shot dead execution style, or simply sniped in the head. They have a "higher chance of surviving a chest wound."

                          Which is complete BS. Like I said, the Union sounds like they oppose anything that would prevent the guard from handing over the money and running. Being able to adequately keep in the fight would hinder this.
                          Some Kind of Commando Leader

                          "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by N. A. Corbier View Post
                            Yes, their argument is most likely that you may survive a gunshot wound to the chest. But one to the head is more lethal. If cirminals know that the guards wear vests, then they will most likely be shot dead execution style, or simply sniped in the head. They have a "higher chance of surviving a chest wound."

                            Which is complete BS. Like I said, the Union sounds like they oppose anything that would prevent the guard from handing over the money and running. Being able to adequately keep in the fight would hinder this.
                            I suggest that they spend more time looking at facts and less watching movies. Headshots aren't that common because they aren't that easy. Yea...you can do it with training, but how many run-of-the-mill crooks have that?
                            A wise son hears his father's instruction,but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke. Proverbs 13:1

                            "My “Black-Ops” history ensures that you will never know about the missions I accepted in my younger days, and Vietnam still shudders when it hears the name of a an assasin so skillful and deadly, he is remembered decades later. " G-45

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CTEXSEC1 View Post
                              I suggest that they spend more time looking at facts and less watching movies. Headshots aren't that common because they aren't that easy. Yea...you can do it with training, but how many run-of-the-mill crooks have that?
                              There is one situation where a headshot is easy. Execution style. However, I would expect the guard to have an empty gun with depleted magazines before they allow someone to walk up and shoot them in the head in a prone position.
                              Some Kind of Commando Leader

                              "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                              Comment

                              Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X