Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LE & Private Security

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • LE & Private Security

    As a former LEO now on the private side of the "thin blue line", I am very interested in LE-Security relationships and why they seem to be so pathological in many cases. My early impression is that it's not what many people seem to think (fear of losing LE jobs), but more due to traits or characteristics of the security industry. However, I don't want to color your answers. I would welcome any and all opinions on this question, which I will ask in two ways (you might wish to answer both):

    1. What do you believe the security industry can or should do that would be most beneficial in terms of improving LE-Security relationships?

    OR...

    2. What characteristics, methods, etc. of the security industry do you believe are the most damaging to LE-Security relationships?

    I realize that for some of you the answer to either question might be very long (!!), so you might wish to limit your answer to the top one or two items on your list.

    I'd prefer to limit this to the opinions of sworn officers or recently retired LEO's, please.

    Thanks very much!
    Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-16-2007, 02:11 PM.

  • #2
    PHP Code:
    1. What do you believe the security industry can or should do that would be most beneficial in terms of improving LE-Security relationships
    Well personally I think a more through background and longer training might help.

    OR...

    2. What characteristics, methods, etc. of the security industry do you believe are the most damaging to LE-Security relationships?
    That sometime security guards overstep their bounds. Do more then they are trained to do, or act if they are more then security
    IGNORE LIST - Banastretarlton AKA "banana boy"

    "In the fields of observation chance favors only prepared mind"
    -----Louis Pasteur

    "Sweat in training saves blood on the battlefield."

    -------Col. David "Hack" Hackworth

    On my 7 year old 2nd Grade Class wall

    ------------YOU are RESPONSIBLE for YOUR OWN ACTIONS

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm sure it varies from state to state:

      I was a security officer for a very short stint. From what I experienced with the job, I will tell you the main errors are:

      #1 - More training, more training, more training. I did not receive any type of training when I did the security officer gig at the mall. Not even handcuffing techniques. This was a pretty busy mall when it came to retail theft, juvenile delinquency, and even some sexual-related assaults in the parking lots. We had an off-duty LEO, but it could take several minutes for him to arrive at an incident should we need him. There definitely needed to be more training with regards to laws of arrest and the boundaries of security officers.

      #2 - Which really relates back to #1....the reason for the lack of training, background checks, and good candidates, is the severe lack of money. What type of people can you honestly expect to get for $7 - $8 per hour?? Those that were truly good officers got picked up pretty quick by law enforcement agencies or other companies who could pay more money.

      I had a better experience in loss prevention. I did this for about 3.5 years. There was a little bit better training, but I went to court more often and learned the tricks of the trade.

      At least in my area, due to the lack of training and good personnel, security officers would step over the line which would lead law enforcement to get irritated with their actions, no matter if they were well intended.
      I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

      Comment


      • #4
        LE& Private Security

        The most obvious problem with most private security firms, is the absolute lack of standards and training. Add to that, poor pay(minimum wage) and no benefits. Many, private security firms are staffed with a great number of "wanna be's" who simply couldn't hack the requirements for law enforcement. The other side of the staffing equation seems to be individuals who would be essentially unemployable almost anywhere else. Business and industry who contract with private firms are often interested in no more than a "firewatch" as this can lead to savings on insurance premiums. There are exceptions to this "profile", but they are few and far between. A distinction must be made between the majority of "contract" security firms, and industries that employ an in-house security force. These are often staffed by retired Military and/or Law Enforcement personnel. They are trained and motivated. These conditions are aided by good pay, and attractive benefits. Knowlege also exists of the difference between private security and law enforcement, in terms of arrest powers and related issues. These thoughts merely scratch the surface. There are more considerations.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by PhilipCal View Post
          There are exceptions to this "profile", but they are few and far between. A distinction must be made between the majority of "contract" security firms, and industries that employ an in-house security force. These are often staffed by retired Military and/or Law Enforcement personnel. They are trained and motivated. These conditions are aided by good pay, and attractive benefits. Knowlege also exists of the difference between private security and law enforcement, in terms of arrest powers and related issues. These thoughts merely scratch the surface. There are more considerations.
          You are correct....as there is a HUGE difference btwn the "In-House" and "Contract" Security.

          I have been looking at getting out of FLEO (money and no satisfaction at what I am doing now) and Contract Management is getting to be good money for those that have the skills.....

          Plus, Contract tends to be more chosey due to the higher salaries they offer and can grab folks that are retired/former Military or retired LE looking for money to suppliment their retirement funds......plus a lot offer good benefits (like paid medial/dental for the employee and 401K plans).....

          The "In-house" stuff tends to pay very low and offers nothing at all benefit wise....and as the old saying goes....you get what you pay for......

          Comment


          • #6
            In my opinion when we speak of "security", we are clumping a large group of people together, when in fact there are many many different types of security and levels of service. Keep in mind there are minimally paid "Guard Services, Govermant defense contractors who are trained and paid well, to executive protection providors who run the gambit from low pay to extremes.

            I work at a training company part time and a huge part of our business is working with private security agencies/companies. In our state they require minimal initial training for security personell, additional training for armed individuals and recertifiation training. Working with all the different levels I can give you my 2 cents for making the relationship between LE and Security.

            1. Maintain High standards for hiring, training, apperance, PAY and operations.

            2. Security comapnies make big money, invest some of it into local LE resources.

            3. Encourage cooperative training between security officers and LEO's.

            The problem is, in order for you do that, you need to charge high fees, or have high operating cost, and there are always other companies low bidding you. You know it by now, Walmart Syndrome.

            I could go on all day, but I wont. PM me if you would like to discuss more
            FAILING TO TRAIN = TRAINING TO FAIL

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
              As a former LEO now on the private side of the "thin blue line", I am very interested in LE-Security relationships and why they seem to be so pathological in many cases.
              Former LEO?

              You should be able to answer your own questions. Search the site there are several threads concerning this issue.
              "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

              Thomas Jefferson

              Comment


              • #8
                Probably because a lot of security people are untrained, uneducated, minimum wage goof-balls. Generally speaking, security companies need lots of people to fill contract hours and they are not too particular about who they hire. The in-house security for large corporations, hospitals, etc. may have better paid and trained personnel, but that is not always a given. Security people who know they are not the police, higher pay, training and standards would all go a long way to make security a more professional operation, but that won't happen unless it is mandated by the state.

                Comment


                • #9
                  +1 for lack of training.

                  My first security job, I strapped on my gun and started the shift. The training consisted of "You are here to provide a visual deterrance...see ya later"

                  I hated that job. I got into security because I thought it was closer to LE than selling auto parts. I'm back to selling auto parts until I finish college unless I can get into the security department of a hospital before I finish. It seems most hospitals have their security staff trained and looked after.
                  A true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.

                  -GK Chesterton

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    as someone currently working in the security field, I totally agree that more/better training equals better security officers and therefor, better security-LE relations. I feel lucky about the fact that the company I work for pays me a decent wage (much more than minimum) and gave me a good amount of training. There could have been more, but we are also mandated to attend continual training throughout the year. This is a sharp contrast to the first company I worked for, where my pay was only a little more than at the coffee shop, was all on-the-job training (which thankfully was by a veteran employee and part-time LEO). If I hadn't been trained by a person who knew what to do through experience and because of his LE experience, I would have been totally lost. so, it really does come down to good training, good pay to attract good people, and MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE YOU HIRE AREN'T DUDS!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I used to work for a company that mainly provided guards for hospitals/ healthcare. Sometimes I wondered if the recruiter used to go to the airport and wait for planes coming from foreign countries to land and just hand out applications to everyone that got off.

                      Recruiter: Welcome to America, do you need a job?
                      Foreigner: No English.
                      Recruiter: Doesn’t matter… come with me.
                      "There are two sides to every story.... mine and wrong." ~Stephen Colbert

                      "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." ~ Mel Brooks

                      "Hope for the Best. Expect the worst. Life is a play. We're unrehearsed."~ Mel Brooks

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The first security job that I had was at a place that offered decent training, but everyone thought that they were supercop. They had a badge and cuffs and supervisors carried. After six months they all had war stories that would put Green Berets to shame. This was at a theme park, btw. Most of them thought that they were hardcore cops in training and it kind of made me appreciate the process that departments go through to weed out some of those people.

                        BB

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'll do one better and answer both.

                          1. What do you believe the security industry can or should do that would be most beneficial in terms of improving LE-Security relationships?
                          - Definitive jurisdiction. The most common problem I see is that security guards tend to overstep their boundaries or fall short of what they can do. The current legislation provides far too much "gray area" when it comes to their enforcement. One way I can think of improving the relationship is getting everyone on the same page. Right down to what they can do on their own vs when they need us. Typically in areas like shopping malls that should be done anyways considering the traffic that go through those areas.

                          2. What characteristics, methods, etc. of the security industry do you believe are the most damaging to LE-Security relationships?

                          - Selection process. Many companies are hiring people with no experience, minimal training and expecting them to know what to do when they are dealing with situations. I do think there are a handful of people who have the mentality they are on the swat team but the employers should be screening people better. One of the things I don't like about the industry is the coincidence that many companies wear an almost identicle uniform to the police for that jurisdiction. IMHO, they should be wearing the exact opposite so there is no confusion.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Blueribbon View Post
                            Former LEO?

                            You should be able to answer your own questions. Search the site there are several threads concerning this issue.
                            I could certainly answer - in terms of my own opinions. And I did gather other information from the site. My point was to ask these specific questions in a structured way to get the opinions of others.

                            Thanks for your response, but I'm sorry you chose to respond this way instead of answering the questions. I would have welcomed your perspective.
                            Last edited by SecTrainer; 05-18-2007, 12:53 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SecTrainer View Post
                              I could certainly answer - in terms of my own opinions. And I did gather other information from the site. My point was to ask these specific questions in a structured way to get the opinions of others.

                              Thanks for your response, but I'm sorry you chose to respond this way instead of answering the questions. I would have welcomed your perspective.
                              In reading the posts, I feel that your original question has been answered. Perhaps not the answers you wanted to hear, but true answers none the less. In general, and to recieve even a modicum of respect, private contract security firms are going to have to raise standards, pay/benefits/ properly instruct and monitor employees. States and localities should more stringently regulate security agencies, and the type of personnel they employ.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 6348 users online. 344 members and 6004 guests.

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

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X