Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Response Question

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • Response Question

    There is a post in this forum regarding how you would respond to a call where it appears a security guard is getting into a fight with someone at his job. Some of the responses are that if it is just the security guard, it gets a non-emergency (no lights or siren) response. But, if it were an off-duty police officer working as a security guard, it would get a "balls to the wall" response. What is the justification for the different response simply because in the one scenario the person is an off-duty police officer? Just curious.

  • #2
    No real justification, but you ( as a responding officer) most likely know the officer and you also know that if it was your tail getting beat that they would be on the way asap too. Not real PC, but that is the way it is. I have never had the "adverse" opinion of security guards that some police officers do, so I would expedite the response to their disturbance too. But I have seen security guards watch one of their own getting stomped and they were just watching waiting for the police to show up.
    Ut humiliter opinor

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ddurkof View Post
      No real justification, but you ( as a responding officer) most likely know the officer and you also know that if it was your tail getting beat that they would be on the way asap too. Not real PC, but that is the way it is. I have never had the "adverse" opinion of security guards that some police officers do, so I would expedite the response to their disturbance too. But I have seen security guards watch one of their own getting stomped and they were just watching waiting for the police to show up.
      I appreciate the honest reply. My personal opinion is that response codes should be based on the nature of the call, regardless of who is involved.

      It sucks that someone's co-workers would standby as they are getting beat up, but I'm sure the person being assaulted hopes the police are getting there as fast as possible. Anytime there is a confirmed physical altercation, I think officers are justified in disobeying traffic laws to respond and should do so to the extent that it is safe for them to do so.
      Last edited by Legal; 10-05-2009, 11:49 PM. Reason: Grammatical correction.

      Comment


      • #4
        In our jurisdiction, we have both armed AND unarmed private security guards.

        Depends on their assignment and location.

        If I knew (or there was a possibility) that the guard getting his *** whupped is an armed security officer, I would get there ASAP, because if the BG succeeds in overwhelming the security guy, now there is a high probability that the bad guy now has the security guard's firearm.

        Now that presents a whole different situation.

        I would much rather get there BEFORE that happens. I'd much rather deal with an UNARMED idiot, than one with a gun, perhaps in a building full of people.


        .
        "Yes sir, I know you have rights."
        "In fact, I know your rights better than you do!"

        Comment


        • #5
          Get over it, some calls we decide are worth it to do what you have to do to get there a little quicker. For us, all fight calls are put out priority.

          Comment


          • #6
            Membership has its privileges.......

            If it is dispatched as a security guard, it gets a Priority response

            Comment


            • #7
              Wait a minute....

              Originally posted by Legal View Post
              My personal opinion is..........blah, blah, blah, etc...
              Fortunately I could care less about YOUR personal opinion...

              I would finish my lunch, pay my bill, and respond in a safe and legal manner....



              unless it was an officer-in-trouble...then balls to the wall!!..
              Last edited by grumpyirishman; 10-06-2009, 11:34 AM.
              "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" -George Orwell

              "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing diapers." - Blues Brothers

              Comment


              • #8
                security guards do not have arrest powers nor are they armed....so why would i run balls to the wall when there is an officer in need of aid call where-as i would run code 3 to a fight call?

                1. the person assaulting the officer will probably assault other officers when they arrive...and probably has a lot more to lose then someone who is fighting a security guard so the fight will be harder.....

                2. if the officer is overpowered, now you may possibly have an armed subject whereas before you did not....

                Comment


                • #9
                  What is the justification for the different response simply because in the one scenario the person is an off-duty police officer?
                  We are not allowed to work in the "security" field in our off duty time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The post discussing the difference between armed and non-armed security guards implicitly justifies responding faster for the report of an off-duty police officer acting as a security guard being assaulted: more likely than not, the officer is armed.

                    For the rest of you who responded with "get over it": You have no place being police officers. Membership has its benefits is one thing (e.g. I am fine with officers not writing other officers tickets for minor infractions), but the attitude you are conveying here is completely different. I hope you never decide to delay your response to an assault in progress because it's not a fellow brother-in-blue only to find out it is someone you care about.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Unit453 View Post
                      We are not allowed to work in the "security" field in our off duty time.

                      I think that is a good policy that all police departments should adopt.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by grumpyirishman View Post
                        I would finish my lunch, pay my bill, and respond in a safe and legal manner....
                        ...and hopefully immediately suspended and subsequently fired after an appropriate investigation.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Legal View Post
                          For the rest of you who responded with "get over it": You have no place being police officers.
                          I'm not sure what sort of student you are, but I'm impressed it gives you the knowledge to have an informed opinion on who should or shouldn't be a police officer.

                          I hope you never decide to delay your response to an assault in progress because it's not a fellow brother-in-blue only to find out it is someone you care about.
                          Who said anything about delaying? The consensus was not going balls to the wall to get there. For most assaults a normal response is justified. People should realize that every vehicle rolling code is a risk to the driver as well as other motorists, and we don't use that privilege lightly. If I ran code to every call involving someone throwing a sock at someone else (yes this happens) there's no way I wouldn't have been injured by now. The justification for rolling code to a fight with an officer is legit and already outlined above.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Mr. Legal guy:

                            I would not repsond lights and sirens or disobey any traffic laws to respond to a fight involving a security officer. We have runs we can go lights and sirens to and this is not one of them. An officer in trouble call is a priority 1 run meaning lights and sirens. Thats the way it should be.

                            Your reponse to grumpyirishman shows your ignorance. There is no investigation that would need to take place as there is no crime or violation of conduct.

                            Don't like it? Tough. It is what it is. Fight calls don't get lights and sirens response. Period.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Awwww. Someone told you the world was fair, didn't they?
                              sigpic

                              I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect its straightforwardness in terms of wrongness.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 2925 users online. 156 members and 2769 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X