How much training

[N. A. Corbier]

you know that changed....all our new officers are taking the full 40 hours before they can be put on a site. No more of that 16 hrs before the first 2 year renewal anymore.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if that hit this year or next year. They put that into some bill, I forget which, I think it was the Port Security Act.

[james2go30]

hey

Florida requires a 40 hour course, 24 before you start, 16 before your first 2 year renewal. (That's being changed to 180 days after license application...)

Wisconsin requires... you pay them about 150 bucks. That's it.

you know that changed....all our new officers are taking the full 40 hours before they can be put on a site. No more of that 16 hrs before the first 2 year renewal anymore.

[MartinMc]

Here's my training to date:-

24 hours D license
28 hours G license
1 1/2 hrs weekly of shooting drills on the range

Still more training to come in the coming months though.... at my own expense i'm sure

Slan
Have a great day
Marty

[Chucky]

Maybe you two should get a room or something.

You know Trainer sometimes you do have a good idea. I myself would think something overlooking the High Sierras or even possibly something on the East Coast of Canada. Perhaps overlooking the Bay of Fundy. Although it will be a tad bit cold this time of year. A hot tub in the snow. Yes! Yes! Yes!. Oops sorry got carried away. Let me check with BC and don't be surprised if you get a post card from Canada.

[Black Caesar]

Let's drop it, please. Your (cough!) "analysis" just doesn't rise to the level of a response.

You call it what you want and I'll do the same. 'Kay?

I accept your Unconditional Surrender, and will thus now refer to you as "France"....

[Black Caesar]

I'll stop, but this one you added on edit was too good to ignore.

Your analogy that compares the difference between "security" and "police" to the difference between "bandaging boo-boos" and "paramedics", by the way, is a disgraceful betrayal of how trivially you apparently view what some of our officers do...or else it's a very bad analogy. I hope it's the latter.

Lets see now. 4 hours for Texas level 1 and 2 Security Officer. 560 hours (when i took it, 618 hours now) for the lowest BASIC Peace officer certification....

You need 140 times more training to get the basic most police certification than what you need to be get the basic most security officer certification here In my state.

And you say my analogy isn't apt? ooookkkkk, sure, got ya.

Oh, i'm sure there are many in private security with excellent training that exceeds my own, inculding the good folks who post here. But for the majority, i think my analogy sticks. Hell, in some places (as mentioned by someone else in this very thread), you don't need ANY training to be licensed.

Don't blame me for a shameful industry training standard.

[SecTrainer]

Let's drop it, please. Your (cough!) "analysis" just doesn't rise to the level of a response.

You call it what you want and I'll do the same. I have no vested interest in your opinions or your preferences, and I'm sure you have none in mine. Let's get back to discussing something that will advance our profession, whatever you call it.

'Kay?

[Black Caesar]

Not really, any more than it's a matter of preference to decide to call a door a cabbage. The usage of the term "private police" is too well-established for it to be a mere matter of preference.

So well establish that when I look on places like Dictionary.com I get:

There are no dictionary entries for private police, but private, police are spelled correctly.

Or from Merriam-Webster:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

Or Farlex's Free Dictionary:

Phrase not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia. Please try the words separately:
private.. police

And, on the same sites, when you DO search just for police, none of them even mention private police at all. Enter Security Guard and that's different, but not much. On Farlex's entry fo Security Guard, it offers this Thesaurus entry:

Noun 1. security guard - a guard who keeps watch
watchman, watcher
private security force, security force - a privately employed group hired to protect the security of a business or industry
bank guard - a security guard at a bank
fire watcher - (during World War II in Britain) someone whose duty was to watch for fires caused by bombs dropped from the air
guard - a person who keeps watch over something or someone
lookout, lookout man, picket, scout, sentinel, sentry, spotter, watch - a person employed to watch for something to happen
night watchman - a watchman who works during the night
patroller - someone on patrol duty; an individual or a member of a group that patrols an area
port watcher, portwatcher - a watchman on a wharf

No mention of the word police.

The Common, Modern use of the word police means "people who work for the government and enforce public law". We know that's not accurate, Private police exist.

But WHO we call private police is a matter of preferance because there is no common usage to say otherwise...

My opinon is as stated. Yours is that the entire industry is private police. I disagree.

As for "touching a nerve", don't flatter yourself. You and Chucky can stroke each other until the cows come home if you want; I just wish you'd do it in private.

Noted, but since you're not an admin, i think we'll continue our stroking in public *blows kiss at Chucky....in a manly, non-threatening way*....

Is that short enough for you?

Geting there lol.

EDIT for your edit, you should have stopped after the 1st take LOL. NOW, it's too long.....

[SecTrainer]

It's a matter of preferance I know.....

Not really, any more than it's a matter of preference whether to call footwear a "shoe" or a "cabbage". The usage of the term "private police" is far too well-established for it to be a mere matter of preference. However, the quibble isn't worth more of my time, except to say that there are important reasons that the term is far more accurate than the term "security". Your analogy that compares the difference between "security" and "police" to the difference between "bandaging boo-boos" and "paramedics", by the way, is a disgraceful betrayal of how trivially you apparently view what some of our officers do...or else it's a very bad analogy. I hope it's the latter.

Anyway, you certainly can use whatever term you want in your posts. I've never taken issue with the terminology you choose to use, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you, thanks.

As for the crack about "touching a nerve", please don't flatter yourself. As they say, I've been insulted by experts, so that shot simply isn't on the board for you. And, you and Chucky can stroke each other all you want; stroke away...or stroke out, for that matter! I just wish you'd do it in private (we do have the PM function) so that I don't have to read down through that kind of nonsense just to get to a post with something interesting or useful to say.

Is that short enough for you?

[Black Caesar]

It's not a term I invented, BC. The term "private police" is the proper term for this whole domain of protective services. For instance, the very first authoritative study on the state of the "security" field (the one that started many initiatives for improvements in our field), produced by the Rand Group in 1971, is entitled "Private Police in the United States: Findings and Recommendations" - here's a link to that report if you would care to read it:

Rand Report

If you Google the phrase "private police" (including the quotes so it searches on the phrase), you'll find many other authoritative references using this terminology as well. These references come not only from academics, but also from within the industry and even from writers on the public police side of the line as well.

I'm aware of all that. Still, "Private Police" IMO is not a good term to use to describe the ENTIRE private industry. We both know what the word "police" really means, but common usage is differnet. in common usage, people think of the word police and imagine people who enforce public law. Most in private security don't.

I reserve the term Private Police to people like :

-Private College and University and Hospital Police

-Contracted Federal Security Police (Knew some guys with Wackenhut who were Security Police at a Nuke facility, people like that, also Officer who work on the U.S. Marshal Service contract, as opposed to the Guards who worked the GSA contract like me)

-Private Company Police like what you find in North Carolina and Washington DC among other places.

It's a matter of preferance I know, But I dont call anyone police till they've been through a Police Academy and are entitled to wear the word "Police" (no matter whether they are public or private, theres a guy who posts here, Talon, he's a private policeman in NC I believe). some guy of the street with the same 4 hours lvl 1 and 2 security training I had when i began is not IMO any kind of "police officer". Just like badaging my daughter's Boo boos and being a trained ECA dosen't make me a Paramedic.......

[Black Caesar]

I think if I see you and BC stroking each other as "the professionals" on this forum much more (and oh, yes - the "humility" of BC as "just one of the foot soldiers"...the practical people in the trenches, as it were, as opposed to those funny theorists in their ivory towers), while at the same time you're belittling (quite UNprofessionally) other people who you know nothing about, but to whom neither of you can compare for sheer years and breadth of experience as well as expertise, I'm positively gonna hurl. Maybe you two should get a room or something; it's becoming downright embarrassing now.

OMG that's the run-on sentence from hell......

Touch a nerve, did ole Chucky lol?

As for the length of your posts, I'm be more than happy to compare the numbers of words in your posts, and the average number in mine. Heck, you have 11 few posts than me, dispite having joined our merry group here 7 months after I did lol.

While it is sometimes to make lenghty posts on complicated subjects, it dosen't need to happen every time lol. No big deal though.

~~~~

As for the rest, you continue to totally miss the point. This is not some pissing match. It is a differance of opinion. My opinion remains that your opinions don't seem to be grounded in the present, or in easily observable reality. In otherwords, its mostly (but not all) wishful thinking fueld by (understandable) pride in one's profession and maybe (just maybe) too much "schooling". On the plus side, atleast what you say is coherant, unlike some others.

I too am proud of my profession (PROTECTIVE SERVICES, which includes police, security, corrections, fire and emergency medical as far as I'm concerned). But I'm not letting pride cloud my judgment.

I find it troubling that an obviously educated person seems to want to find division in our mutual profession (and get defensive when soeone calls them on it lol). That the same person is responsible for instructing others who are new and impresionable into our mutual profession is even more troubling.

But oh well, to each his own I always say.

[SecTrainer]

Caesar
When it hits the fan and I'm looking for someone to cover my back then I sure hope that you are the one. You seem to be an in the trenches kind of guy that is in the real world of security. I also worked for one of the worlds leading Tech Schools. In the business portion we had professors that could write about every and any rock in the universe but couldn't tie their own shoes. Then there were the ones that got down and dirty, went on field trips and experienced it first hand.

Well, there are "professors" and there are "professors", Chucky.

As someone who will gladly compare my hours on patrol with yours or Black Caesar's, I can't help but chuckle a bit at the thinly-veiled contempt for "academics" (as opposed to those who are "in the trenches") in your little sidebar conversation with BC...and his references to my "dissertations" (a comment made, incidentally, in a post that is at least as long as any of my own!). To these comments I would only say that none of us (including myself) can hold a candle to the "trench credentials" of any one of my academic professors in the field, and most instructors in college courses on the LE side have also earned their stripes "in the trenches" as well. Yes, they have degrees, as well as CPP, CISSP and other top-notch certifications in addition...but they also have the time behind the wheel, in the field (FBI, Secret Service, military intelligence, etc)...etc., so any suggestion or implication that they're "just academics" or "just professors" who don't know anything about "the trenches" (why heck, they "can't even tie their shoes", right?) is a supremely ignorant suggestion, indeed. It's always the most ignorant people - and the people who are the most sensitive about their own ignorance - who laugh at people who have education, I find. It's a very unattractive personality trait, really.

Let me just rip off for you a bit of the bio of my instructor in the course "Intelligence Applications", for instance. I'll omit his name and location information, as this is a public forum.

"______ is an Intelligence Research Analyst with the United States Border Patrol in ______.....He retired in 1994 from the US Air Force after 24 years of active duty service including intelligence assignments with the _____ Wing in the United Kingdom, the Strategic Air Command in Omaha, Nebraska and Joint Task Force Six (Counterdrugs) in ______. His military intelligence experience includes IMINT (imagery intelligence), ELINT (electronic intelligence) and narcotics intelligence support for law enforcement agencies. He is the recipient of (listing of awards)....a member of (listing of memberships in organizations for which neither you nor I would even qualify)...and "has provided instruction to INS agents at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center...he was elected the Director of Training, Education and Career Development for the International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, and was appointed one of ten Governors for the Society of Certified Criminal Analysts....(it goes on to list his numerous degrees)."

...and I challenge you to read this last one from top to bottom for my instructor in Global Terrorism:

"_____ was educated at the King's School Canterbury (UK), following which he served in the Surrey Police and London Metropolitan Police (New Scotland Yard). It was in London that he first became interested in terrorism, as part of a team securing a high-level terrorist awaiting trial. He was subsequently on duty at the 1980 Iranian Embassy Siege in central London. He later entered the 5th (V) Battalion of the Queen's Regiment (Infantry TAVR), as an Officer Cadet and lectured on the detection of terrorists and anti-handling devices on IEDs (improvised explosive devices).

He later served in a TAVR squadron of the Corps of Royal Military Police (V). In 1983, he was appointed to the United Nations Secretariat and shortly afterwards in the Department of Peace-Keeping Operations, holding field security, political, and logistics positions. He has worked in New York, Geneva, Vienna, Jerusalem, Damascus, Naqoura, Luanda, Rawalpindi and Srinagar.

In Angola, ______ was involved in a firefight with armed elements trying to loot the UN Headquarters, and having defacto command of an Angolan infantry MG (machine gun) team, successfully repelled the attack. Later, following intermittent bombardment upon outbreak of war, he successfully co-negotiated release of himself and a UN agency member, after their building was assaulted and they were seized by a group of irregular armed elements.

While attached to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), he was appointed as the Political Assistant by the General Officer Commanding (Chief Military Observer). He subsequently authored a 570-page guide with campaign maps, on the dispute in the former Princely State of Jammu Kashmir, plotting (and very occasionally reconnoitering and photographing) more than one hundred guerrilla-terrorist training camps, infiltration extraction routes and assembly areas in the Kashmir environs. In monitoring military ceasefire, guerrilla and terrorist activities in Kashmir and its environs, he gathered intelligence in the field from military, civilian, public, media and armed element sources, and first reported a token Muslim Brotherhood (Alqa’ida) and Taliban presence in the Kashmir Valley during the mid-1990s. He attended the scene of the 1995 Egyptian Embassy bombing in Islamabad, minutes after his son was lightly injured by flying glass at the adjacent British school, where all the windows were blown out.

_____ holds a B.Sc. in Political Science (National Security), an M.Sc. in Criminal Justice (Terrorism) and a Ph.D. in Political Science (Kashmir conflict) from the Pacific Western University, USA. He holds a further Ph.D. from Middlesex University, London UK, in Political Science (Terrorism Research).

He is a UNITAR Special Fellow of the Institute (UN Institute for Training Research, Geneva), a terrorism, security and Kashmir expert, and course author with UNITAR-POCI (New York) and an consultant expert with the UN IAEA’s Office of Nuclear Security. _____ teaches as an Adjunct Professor with the American Military University (Departments of Unconventional Warfare, Intelligence Studies and Criminal Justice). In a 2001 American Counsel of Education (ACE) evaluation-review of over 40 courses by three well known subject matter experts (external Professors), _____ course received the highest marks within the Criminal Justice Department."



Trenches, eh? I can give you two dozen more similar bios with similar or more "trench credentials" for literally all of the so-called "academics" who instructed the courses I took. So, stifle the snickers. Neither you, Black Caesar nor I would care to match the "trenches" we've seen with these "professors" - I dare say they all know how to tie their shoes, as you put it. The question really is...Do you? I think if I see you and BC stroking each other as "the professionals" on this forum much more (and oh, yes - the "humility" of BC as "just one of the foot soldiers"...the practical people in the trenches, as it were, as opposed to those funny theorists in their ivory towers), while at the same time you're belittling (quite UNprofessionally) other people who you know nothing about, but to whom neither of you can compare for sheer years and breadth of experience as well as expertise, I'm positively gonna hurl. Maybe you two should get a room or something; it's becoming downright embarrassing now.

[SecTrainer]

Everytime I read one of your "private police (don't like the word security?) Dissertations" I can't help but think to myself "WOW this is the most optimistic person ever".

It's not a term I invented, BC. The term "private police" is the proper term for this whole domain of protective services. For instance, the very first authoritative study on the state of the "security" field (the one that started many initiatives for improvements in our field), produced by the Rand Group in 1971, is entitled "Private Police in the United States: Findings and Recommendations" - here's a link to that report if you would care to read it:

Rand Report

If you Google the phrase "private police" (including the quotes so it searches on the phrase), you'll find many other authoritative references using this terminology as well. These references come not only from academics, but also from within the industry and even from writers on the public police side of the line as well.

[N. A. Corbier]

My wish is the the insurance industry would get more involved in establishing standards for private security. A company that hired watchmen type security would pay a higher premium than a company that hires highly trained securtiy officers. In business, money talks. If having better trained people would lower the insurance rates, then we would see a difference.

No, you do not. Insurance companies do not like human security, they don't like armed security, they don't like security to be first responders to anything. The more that you do, the higher risk you are to the insurer. The company that hires the watchman gets an insurance discount for having security.

The provider that so much as looks at someone who's fallen ill, wants to have their employees use fire extinguishers, touch suspects, make arrests, or anything except "observe, report, flee" gets hit with huge premiums for the risks they expose the insurer to.

Take a look at a security guard insurance application sometime. Brownyard group, I believe, has theirs online.

1. Do your guards carry weapons?
2. Do your guards make arrests (or detentions)?
3. Do your guards confront anyone?
4. Do your guards enforce client policies?
5. Do your guards carry firearms?
6. Are your guards responsible for:
6a. First Aid
6b. Fire Suppression
6c. Loss Prevention
6d. Transporting Prisoners

It just goes on and on. If you answer wrong... You're not getting insured, you're too high a risk.

[Black Caesar]

Caesar
When it hits the fan and I'm looking for someone to cover my back then I sure hope that you are the one. You seem to be an in the trenches kind of guy that is in the real world of security. I also worked for one of the worlds leading Tech Schools. In the business portion we had professors that could write about every and any rock in the universe but couldn't tie their own shoes. Then there were the ones that got down and dirty, went on field trips and experienced it first hand.

I sure appreciate that Chucky. I try to "keep it real" and not get to big headed. I like it "in the trenches", I tell everyone "I'm just a foot shoulder, go talk to the General over therre" then point to my buddy, who is also my Lt. It's so fun to kick things upstairs, ain't it .

Working at a College I know the type of "hyper-academic" you're talking about. Some of our discussions on campus are....interesting....to say the least.

Cheers to ya Chucky....