The pussification of america

[gar3555]

Sure, but if someone jumps you i'm not save'n you.

 

[datalink7]

Have to chime in on this.

As human beings, the officers failed. As security officers, they should be promoted. I hate what we have become.

Good information, but this is basically what it boiled down to for me and what my posts were directed at. This is why I stated there was more failure in the video than just the three security guards (everyone else there).

And part of the problem is people who are so terrified of living that they won't get involved because they are scared of the consequences. If you're scared to stop a 15 year old girl from stomping on someone on the ground you are a contributer to, not just an observer of, society's ills.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Have to chime in on this.

Background

I worked my first security related job (security escort) when I was 19. While in the military I took occasional security jobs for extra money. After leaving the military I picked up security work once again. The last security related job I held was about 3 years ago doing security for private parties, and also security/safety/self-defense instruction. That amounts to about 10-12 years of work in a 15 year period.

In that time I have worked as a security escort (kind of like a bodyguard, but not so important), commercial security (at retail businesses), industrial security, health care security, residential security, bouncer, fugitive retrieval, empowered patrol (responds to alarms, patrols client property, assists law enforcement with traffic, backup, etc), and trainer.

It is my experience that a) people have no idea what security is, and b) security is a field in need of drastic regulation and change.


What is Security

As it currently is established security is a form of human surveillance equipment combined with receptionist duties. The key term in most security is 'observe and report'. You're not generally considered an employee, you're a 'warm body'. In other words, any chimpanzee could basically do the work most of the time. The pay reflects this.

Security is about a central point of control, a method of deterrence, and a way to observe remotely. Security is NOT the event responder...they are the people that watch for something to happen which requires an event responder, and then they contact those people.

Security is completely untrained, unarmed, unarmored about 80% of the time. They are given no property authority, powers of arrest, or other tools beyond at most a flashlight and a radio or phone.

Most security starts out at exactly minimum wage or a few cents over, and may eventually earn between 50% and 100% over minimum wage. There are usually NO benefits for the first year of full time employment (which itself usually takes some time to reach from part-time or relief work). After proving oneself you can look forward to 1 week of vacation a year for about 5 years, then 2 weeks for 10 years after that, earning a 3rd week after about 15 years. There is no such things as sick time, or comp time, or pto, or personal days. It is only in the last 5 or so years that security ever offered any kind of investment or financial benefits, and even now they're among the lowest you will ever see. Insurance, when offered, is generally terrible, and will cost 1/5 - 1/8 of your gross monthly pay (that's just for you, family coverage is more). On top of all this, you often have to pay your own licensing fees, uniform costs, protective equipment costs, etc.

It's not uncommon to work splits, doubles, switchbacks, etc. You'll often work 2-3 different locations in a day, maybe for only 2-3 hours at a time, spread out over the entire day. The locations are often extremely dangerous, fully exposed, remote, isolated, etc. There are about 25 graveyard shifts for every day shift in security. There are more weekend positions than during the week generally. That means if you enter the field you can look forward living a graveyard life, and having no weekends, so long as you're employed.

In security almost every site you work at will have entirely different, often times opposing rules and regulations. You often have to work in multiple states as well, requiring adherence to different sets of laws. If you are fortunate to work at only one site for your job you will do so under entirely different local, state, and federal rules and laws. For instance, security cannot be a member of a union which has any non-security representation at the work site. That's one reason almost no security is unionized. Security operates under different employment regulations regarding breaks, lunches, shift length, etc. I will never forget working 50 days straight, 16 1/2 hours per day with only 90 minutes of 'break' which I didn't get to actually leave or relax for (had to be worked into my normal duties without interruption).

Security is portrayed as many things, but empowered to be none of them. Businesses want security to protect their assets, but do not give them authority over the property to do so. Employees want security to protect them, but do not want them armed or given any interference powers over 'real employees'. Governments seem to want security to go away completely, but don't provide enough law enforcement or alternatives. Security companies want to be private police forces, but don't train, equip, or pay their employees to be capable of it.


Exceptions

Most of what I said is true most of the time. There are, however, exceptions. The biggest issue is the difference between contract or in-house security.

When a company makes its own security force they tend to pay them better, equip them better, train them better, and treat them better. However they also usually have no experience with security, law enforcement, or other applicable fields and therefore completely screw the rules and regulations, and tend to not operate them efficiently or effectively.

Conversely contract security is usually run by military and law enforcement personnel, very well versed in the field. However, they pay nothing, hire idiots, provide no benefits or proper treatment of their employees, and most often use the officers themselves as a liability shield between themselves and the clients (ie anything that goes wrong is the fault of the officer, not the client and not the company).

Now, the things I described in the 'what is security' section are mostly about contract security positions, which make up a tremendous percentage of all security jobs. When the job is in-house many of those problems are solved, but new ones emerge.

For instance, hospital security. In-house hospital security pays very well (common to start at $12-15/hr, and reach $20+/hr). They generally offer great benefits packages. They're often treated as nearly equal to other employees. They're generally given state of the art equipment and training. Unfortunately, they're also placed under rules which are inefficient at best, and outright illegal/immoral at worst. For instance, in case of a violent patient I have seen medical clients instruct their security to 'place themselves between the aggressor and staff/visitors, but under no circumstances are they allowed to in any way harm or restrict the attacker'. Not joking. Or to 'carefully restrain the individual, without inflicting any pain or undue emotional stress'. Again, that's not a joke, that was an actual instruction I received.

On the other end, a bouncer. I was paid well, and given near free rein. However, I was also told I was not there to prevent or de-escalate situations. My job was to inflict as much pain and disgrace as possible onto those persons who broke the rules or became surly. Never mind being illegal, that's just outright wrong.


The Need for Change

Security needs help. Security is not law enforcement, but neither is it office work. It is a unique field, with extremely unique requirements. Properly implemented it also brings with it unique rewards for the employees, as well as the clients and society as a whole. But ONLY if properly regulated and implemented.

1. Standardization. While laws will vary from place to place, the way that security interacts with those laws should not. Just as there are basic, clear definitions of the powers and responsibility of law enforcement, so should there be for security. This will aid in licensing standards, quality control, and results. This should include education programs, licensing, and professional organizations/certifications. There's a good base for this all already (ASIS, IAHSS, etc).

2. Observe and report. This is an archaic lunacy that must be retired. Hearkening back to the union wars of the early 20th century, and reinforced by the litigious boom of our own age, this idea is counter-productive to our nation. It hurts the economy, it hurts our morality, it hurts our safety. While security doesn't need total empowerment, they need the ability to actually achieve their mission objectives. If a company doesn't need at LEAST that much power in an individual, then they honestly don't need live security at all - let the janitor and receptionists handle it.

3. Warm bodies. No where else is this attitude allowed in employment. Not even fast food has this low of a bar for hiring, and it sure doesn't have that low of a bar for performance expectations. There's a LOT a properly trained security officer can accomplish for a company if they're qualified for the position. We need to make sure they always are. We need intelligent, educated, trained, EXTREMELY MORAL, dedicated individuals to become the standard by which qualification for entrance into the field is judged.

4. Employee worth & rights. A security officer is not a pariah. They're not less than other employees. Especially if the other changes are implemented they should gain the same rights and protections as all other employees enjoy. They should not continue to operate outside of protection, nor outside of regulation. Personally, I believe this is what unions were intended for, but I have come to see that practically those unions then just become the corrupted power centers they were intended to protect us against. That leaves government regulation as the ultimate protector.

5. Multi-roled. While security is most commonly associated with law enforcement, in reality it shares duties with all emergency services and many business departments. Filing, record keeping, communication, medical response, fire watch/response, safety compliance, community liason, law enforcement, training, facilities, etc. For security to find its way into a respectable field position in the modern world it needs to embrace this concept and offer officers that act as first responder in all of these situations. That doesn't mean they need to be equal to full members in these other fields, but they need enough to assess the situations and keep control until these other professionals arrive to do their specialties.

6. Perception. Societal change requires extensive time, but it also requires force to overcome the social inertia. We need to not only change the way security is provided, we need to change the way security is perceived. If you really break it down, security officers are closer to the image of law enforcement from a hundred years ago. Law enforcement today is just that: LAW enforcement. They exist to enforce laws, NOT to protect and serve. Security, by contrast, actually exists to do EXACTLY that. Protect property, protect people, and to serve clients. We need to set that vision firmly in the minds of the people.


What about the OP?

I realize that all seems totally off topic, or at least useless. However, I thought I should explain the why behind what I am about to say. Very few of the people responding to this thread have been in the field, so very few of them have any idea what they're talking about. Now they're educated enough to hear what I have to say.

As human beings, the officers failed. As security officers, they should be promoted. I hate what we have become.

If their contract is for 'observe and report' security (which it is according to the news piece), then they did the ONLY thing they could. Had they taken ANY action at all they could have been fired, lost their licenses, been prevented from owning or possessing firearms or other weapons, been sued civilly, been injured or killed from lack of training and equipment, inflicted serious injury or death from lack of training and equipment, etc. In addition the company they work for could be destroyed, the client they work for be bankrupted, and numerous other echoing ramifications of their actions.

That being said, as human beings and members of our society I believe they had a duty to act which exceeds something as utterly meaningless as 'job description'. I have been in situations vaguely analogous to what they went through, and without fail I have always chosen to act. I have been fired over it as well. I have faced hunger, bankruptcy, homelessness, ostricization, abuse, and God knows what else from standing for what I think is right against the rules of my employment. The country and society has told me that's too bad. That I have to follow rules, even when they're wrong, or accept what I get. Ok then, I do (and I have). However, most people would not.

So while I'm personally sickened by the inaction of those guards, I know first hand what they would face had they chosen to break the rules and do the right thing. That's the condition of our society; the cost of our consumerism, greed, and dedication to being just another mindless worker drone. It sickens me, and I pity them, but I can't fault them for being what the nation, the society, has raised them to be.

I dunno, I think rent a cops should stand up and do the right thing. Dont worry, society will always come to your rescue for doing so.

 

[darkxshade]

I dunno, I think rent a cops should stand up and do the right thing. Dont worry, society will always come to your rescue for doing so.

He's said he's been fired for stepping in and doing the right thing before... where was society then?

 

[JS80]

Did any of you actually listen to the lady and the information she gave? Guards had no real weapons, and they were there to report anything going on, witch they were. Dont blame them, blame management and its infinite well of stupidity.

Which is a result of lawyers and women...

 

[Exterous]

He's said he's been fired for stepping in and doing the right thing before... where was society then?

Yeah - I don't think people realize that you get in big trouble for intervining in situations like this. The company or you can get sued (and most likely will be). You can get fired (and if your company is sued you will be). Society doesn't care. Society doesn't step in and prevent the lawsuit or the firing. Soceity says that if you don't step in your are a coward and worthless but if you do step in they are ok with you getting fired and sued.

Soceity needs to figure out the right fucking thing to do and let people help other people - not punish them when they do

 

[HannibalX]

Have to chime in on this.

Background

I worked my first security related job (security escort) when I was 19. While in the military I took occasional security jobs for extra money. After leaving the military I picked up security work once again. The last security related job I held was about 3 years ago doing security for private parties, and also security/safety/self-defense instruction. That amounts to about 10-12 years of work in a 15 year period.

I also worked my first security position at the age of 19. I was young and invincible, like all 19 year olds, or so I thought. When I think back to some of the situations I was in during that first job I am amazed I’m not dead. My experience working security has been similar to yours from reading your post but differs in some areas.

In that time I have worked as a security escort (kind of like a bodyguard, but not so important), commercial security (at retail businesses), industrial security, health care security, residential security, bouncer, fugitive retrieval, empowered patrol (responds to alarms, patrols client property, assists law enforcement with traffic, backup, etc), and trainer.

All my security work has been for the private sector working inside closed perimeter compounds running typical business hours (7-7 for employees, 8-5 for visitors, contractors, deliver, etc). I have worked as a screener, crowd control, done VIP protection and criminal investigations for crimes which occurred on the property. I have worked with local law enforcement, DHS, OSHA and local fire/EMS personnel.

It is my experience that a) people have no idea what security is, and b) security is a field in need of drastic regulation and change.

Absolutely. People are completely clueless about security personnel and the jobs we do. We are generally hated by people, mocked as being “rent-a-cops” but when people WANT us for something, they expect us to be Superman. They all hate us until they need us.

What is Security

As it currently is established security is a form of human surveillance equipment combined with receptionist duties. The key term in most security is 'observe and report'. You're not generally considered an employee, you're a 'warm body'. In other words, any chimpanzee could basically do the work most of the time. The pay reflects this.

Maybe I have just worked for the right places but I have yet to see a security job paying minimum wage. The base pay most places seems to be $10/hour for someone with zero experience or training. I would agree that a LOT of the time places do employ people who have the mental capacity of a monkey, but I would disagree that they are right for the job even in the most basic roles.

Security is about a central point of control, a method of deterrence, and a way to observe remotely. Security is NOT the event responder...they are the people that watch for something to happen which requires an event responder, and then they contact those people.

Absolutely.

Security is completely untrained, unarmed, unarmored about 80% of the time. They are given no property authority, powers of arrest, or other tools beyond at most a flashlight and a radio or phone.

Again, maybe I just haven’t worked at the right places to experience this. Everyone I have worked with has some level of training and experience. Most of the people I have worked with come from a military or law enforcement background. I understand even the large contractors (like Allied) put their people through some level of training. In the state of Florida you must be licensed to be a Security Officer which means going to a Security Academy, completing a certain number of hours of training and then passing a test with the State showing proficiency in certain areas. In Florida an unarmed Security Officer is licensed as a “Class D” and has certain requirements. Armed Security Officers are licenses as “Class G” and require addition training and annual firearms qualifications and continued education.

Most security starts out at exactly minimum wage or a few cents over, and may eventually earn between 50% and 100% over minimum wage. There are usually NO benefits for the first year of full time employment (which itself usually takes some time to reach from part-time or relief work). After proving oneself you can look forward to 1 week of vacation a year for about 5 years, then 2 weeks for 10 years after that, earning a 3rd week after about 15 years. There is no such things as sick time, or comp time, or pto, or personal days. It is only in the last 5 or so years that security ever offered any kind of investment or financial benefits, and even now they're among the lowest you will ever see. Insurance, when offered, is generally terrible, and will cost 1/5 - 1/8 of your gross monthly pay (that's just for you, family coverage is more). On top of all this, you often have to pay your own licensing fees, uniform costs, protective equipment costs, etc.

Again, this is just where our experiences differ. I have never worked for minimum wage and don’t know anyone who has, not saying it doesn’t happen I just haven’t experienced it. I have never paid for my base uniform, but extras did cost. I was always issued two and bought three additional wherever I was so I had a fresh uni five days a week. I have always been offered full benefits, sick time, paid vacation, 401k, etc when working full time.

I have always paid for: firearms, liability insurance (if I have to put my hands on someone and they sue me, insurance covers it if I lose the trial), and most additional equipment outside of the uniform. I have been lucky that my employer has always paid for my annual State required training and firearms qualifications.

It's not uncommon to work splits, doubles, switchbacks, etc. You'll often work 2-3 different locations in a day, maybe for only 2-3 hours at a time, spread out over the entire day. The locations are often extremely dangerous, fully exposed, remote, isolated, etc. There are about 25 graveyard shifts for every day shift in security. There are more weekend positions than during the week generally. That means if you enter the field you can look forward living a graveyard life, and having no weekends, so long as you're employed.

Ain’t that the truth? I worked for two years at night, 2100-0600 M-F. The reason I switched to nights was so I could have a solid schedule and actually have a weekend. Before that I was working every Saturday each month and every other Sunday each month.

In security almost every site you work at will have entirely different, often times opposing rules and regulations. You often have to work in multiple states as well, requiring adherence to different sets of laws. If you are fortunate to work at only one site for your job you will do so under entirely different local, state, and federal rules and laws. For instance, security cannot be a member of a union which has any non-security representation at the work site. That's one reason almost no security is unionized. Security operates under different employment regulations regarding breaks, lunches, shift length, etc. I will never forget working 50 days straight, 16 1/2 hours per day with only 90 minutes of 'break' which I didn't get to actually leave or relax for (had to be worked into my normal duties without interruption).

I did 30 days straight of 14 hour days for a time. Near the end of the run, I was so beaten down that it took several weeks to get my “step” back. It sucked. Pay was awesome though, in that 30 days I earned probably 25% of my take-home for the year. I can remember going entire shifts without having an actual break and just eating whatever I could while moving from post to post. Fortunately some posts do have a fair amount of down time, which is good for catching your breath.

Security is portrayed as many things, but empowered to be none of them. Businesses want security to protect their assets, but do not give them authority over the property to do so. Employees want security to protect them, but do not want them armed or given any interference powers over 'real employees'. Governments seem to want security to go away completely, but don't provide enough law enforcement or alternatives. Security companies want to be private police forces, but don't train, equip, or pay their employees to be capable of it.

Exactly. Many times companies have onsite security simply to satisfy their insurance contracts which require them. My experience with law enforcement has been mostly positive. The last numbers I saw around 2005 stated private Security Officers outnumbered sworn Police Officers 4 to 1 in the United States. I’m sure that number has grown since then. Most LEOs I have dealt with have been very thankful wherever they were sent that had security personnel onsite, especially for hostile situations where the officer doesn’t know the property and had no idea what he was walking into. Having that security person there as a guide is invaluable. Many private security departments operate as private police forces but as you said, have a hard time or are not willing to equip their people properly – this is mostly due to money. Security is an expense, doesn’t generate income and is viewed by the company as a money pit.

Exceptions

Most of what I said is true most of the time. There are, however, exceptions. The biggest issue is the difference between contract or in-house security.

When a company makes its own security force they tend to pay them better, equip them better, train them better, and treat them better. However they also usually have no experience with security, law enforcement, or other applicable fields and therefore completely screw the rules and regulations, and tend to not operate them efficiently or effectively.

I’ve seen both sides of this. The last private department I worked for was run by a former Atlanta Police Captain with 27 years in law enforcement. The #2 guy in the department was a Staff Sergeant in the US Army with 20 years in. This department paid well, was very organized, efficient and probably the best place I worked.

Conversely contract security is usually run by military and law enforcement personnel, very well versed in the field. However, they pay nothing, hire idiots, provide no benefits or proper treatment of their employees, and most often use the officers themselves as a liability shield between themselves and the clients (ie anything that goes wrong is the fault of the officer, not the client and not the company).

My experience has been almost the opposite when dealing with large security firms. It seems to me they hire almost anyone including felons! I have seen some real screwballs. The blame is always placed on the Security Officer though and if something goes wrong the firm just dumps you. There is no loyalty on either side and the turnover is very high. People employed by the large firms often look much more “official” and wear uniforms that look similar to what a law enforcement officer is issued, carry lots of equipment, get issued their duty weapons but so many of them are complete screwballs. When people think of the stereotypical “mall cop” they are thinking of one of these people, IMO. I don’t throw large combat oriented security firms in with this group though, they are something else.

Now, the things I described in the 'what is security' section are mostly about contract security positions, which make up a tremendous percentage of all security jobs. When the job is in-house many of those problems are solved, but new ones emerge.

For instance, hospital security. In-house hospital security pays very well (common to start at $12-15/hr, and reach $20+/hr). They generally offer great benefits packages. They're often treated as nearly equal to other employees. They're generally given state of the art equipment and training. Unfortunately, they're also placed under rules which are inefficient at best, and outright illegal/immoral at worst. For instance, in case of a violent patient I have seen medical clients instruct their security to 'place themselves between the aggressor and staff/visitors, but under no circumstances are they allowed to in any way harm or restrict the attacker'. Not joking. Or to 'carefully restrain the individual, without inflicting any pain or undue emotional stress'. Again, that's not a joke, that was an actual instruction I received.

I’ve seen this as well. Many times Officers are so limited by their employers in what they can actually do, they almost aren’t worth having. These places seem to have onsite security only to fulfill the requirement of the insurance companies and absolutely nothing is expected of them. Should a situation occur which requires physical intervention by the Officer it is always, always going to end with the Officer being terminated, even when he is in the right! This way if someone sues, which happens a lot, the company can say it canned the Officer.

On the other end, a bouncer. I was paid well, and given near free rein. However, I was also told I was not there to prevent or de-escalate situations. My job was to inflict as much pain and disgrace as possible onto those persons who broke the rules or became surly. Never mind being illegal, that's just outright wrong.

I’ve never specifically worked as a bouncer however I have worked where I was expected to and have had to eject persons from the property. It’s not pretty and unfortunately often ends badly for the Officer even though the employer wants it done. I have worked with guys who were specifically employed as bouncers and their experiences are similar to yours. Their job is to make such a show of the ejection that no one else in the establishment will step out of line and word will get around that XYZ place has hard security so don’t try anything unless you want some broken ribs or teethe.

The Need for Change

Security needs help. Security is not law enforcement, but neither is it office work. It is a unique field, with extremely unique requirements. Properly implemented it also brings with it unique rewards for the employees, as well as the clients and society as a whole. But ONLY if properly regulated and implemented.

1. Standardization. While laws will vary from place to place, the way that security interacts with those laws should not. Just as there are basic, clear definitions of the powers and responsibility of law enforcement, so should there be for security. This will aid in licensing standards, quality control, and results. This should include education programs, licensing, and professional organizations/certifications. There's a good base for this all already (ASIS, IAHSS, etc).

I agree and Florida has done some of this, like licensing, required training, periodic firearms qualification, separate licensing and training for different types of firearms, etc. Security is such a broad field it’s hard to encompass all of it under one roof. It can vary from the Walmart parking lot drones to people protecting nuclear power stations or running VIP protection in warzones. In some cases law enforcement for entire towns has been farmed out to private security firms. It’s just a huge range of skills, objectives, and environments. I don’t think it will ever be regulated to the degree law enforcement is.

2. Observe and report. This is an archaic lunacy that must be retired. Hearkening back to the union wars of the early 20th century, and reinforced by the litigious boom of our own age, this idea is counter-productive to our nation. It hurts the economy, it hurts our morality, it hurts our safety. While security doesn't need total empowerment, they need the ability to actually achieve their mission objectives. If a company doesn't need at LEAST that much power in an individual, then they honestly don't need live security at all - let the janitor and receptionists handle it.

I agree. While in many places all the employer is asking of the Officer is to observe and report there should be protections for that individual so that should the need arise they can respond to events without worrying about their jobs or being sued, especially when lives or huge amounts of property are at risk. The video in the OP is a perfect example. In many cases Security Officers have been prosecuted for physically intervening or even protecting themselves when no other options were viable.

3. Warm bodies. No where else is this attitude allowed in employment. Not even fast food has this low of a bar for hiring, and it sure doesn't have that low of a bar for performance expectations. There's a LOT a properly trained security officer can accomplish for a company if they're qualified for the position. We need to make sure they always are. We need intelligent, educated, trained, EXTREMELY MORAL, dedicated individuals to become the standard by which qualification for entrance into the field is judged.

I think State licensing does a good job of preventing the “warm body” problem. Even if an employer hires someone simply as a warm body as least they have been trained to a standard set by the State and are required to have a level of competency. I think it is EXTREMELY dangerous for employers to put untrained people in Officer jobs, they can be a liability to #1 themselves, they could be injured or killed and also to the people they are supposed to be protecting, and the property they are supposed to be protecting.

4. Employee worth & rights. A security officer is not a pariah. They're not less than other employees. Especially if the other changes are implemented they should gain the same rights and protections as all other employees enjoy. They should not continue to operate outside of protection, nor outside of regulation. Personally, I believe this is what unions were intended for, but I have come to see that practically those unions then just become the corrupted power centers they were intended to protect us against. That leaves government regulation as the ultimate protector.

I see where you’re going with this and I’m not sure how I feel about it. Ultimately I think an employee is worth what he can sell himself for. For some people that might be the bare minimum of what the labor laws allow. With experience and training a person can demand more. At no time should a person be asked to operate below the minimum labor laws though, and if their job is threatened they should speak with the Attorney General of their state.

5. Multi-roled. While security is most commonly associated with law enforcement, in reality it shares duties with all emergency services and many business departments. Filing, record keeping, communication, medical response, fire watch/response, safety compliance, community liason, law enforcement, training, facilities, etc. For security to find its way into a respectable field position in the modern world it needs to embrace this concept and offer officers that act as first responder in all of these situations. That doesn't mean they need to be equal to full members in these other fields, but they need enough to assess the situations and keep control until these other professionals arrive to do their specialties.

I think private security to many people, including some people in law enforcement, is a running joke because often times the individuals working the jobs are of a very low caliber, including felons as I mentioned previously. I personally have never felt that I was being treated as anything less than a complete professional with the law enforcement personnel I have encountered and worked with while on the job. This certainly isn’t the case for all security personnel though. I think law enforcement generally views security as a good thing and an aid for them. The idea that all security personnel should receive multirole training in a variety of subjects is a good idea IMO and I wouldn’t mind the State setting physical requirements as well.

6. Perception. Societal change requires extensive time, but it also requires force to overcome the social inertia. We need to not only change the way security is provided, we need to change the way security is perceived. If you really break it down, security officers are closer to the image of law enforcement from a hundred years ago. Law enforcement today is just that: LAW enforcement. They exist to enforce laws, NOT to protect and serve. Security, by contrast, actually exists to do EXACTLY that. Protect property, protect people, and to serve clients. We need to set that vision firmly in the minds of the people.

I agree. Security Officers are the “beat cops” of 75-100 years ago. With many modern Police Departments completely doing away with their uniformed street patrol private security has filled in the gaps, which is why there are so many private Security Officers in the US. Now days, Police do two things: investigate crimes and apprehend criminals. They do almost no crime prevention, they do almost no monitoring of the public at large and they can’t! There are just too many people, too few Police Officers, too large of service areas and too much crime for Police to do anything else. I’ve worked with a bunch of LEOs during my time in security and the reoccurring theme with all of them was they drive to crime scenes and take reports, sometimes make arrests, usually not, and drive to the next crime scene. They almost never engage in preventative measures because the resources don’t exist for them to do so.

What about the OP?

I realize that all seems totally off topic, or at least useless. However, I thought I should explain the why behind what I am about to say. Very few of the people responding to this thread have been in the field, so very few of them have any idea what they're talking about. Now they're educated enough to hear what I have to say.

Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself and share your experience. As many Police experience, security personnel are often the subject of Monday morning quarterbacking by stupid, uninformed people who weren’t there. They judge and assess things they know absolutely nothing about.

As human beings, the officers failed. As security officers, they should be promoted. I hate what we have become.

If their contract is for 'observe and report' security (which it is according to the news piece), then they did the ONLY thing they could. Had they taken ANY action at all they could have been fired, lost their licenses, been prevented from owning or possessing firearms or other weapons, been sued civilly, been injured or killed from lack of training and equipment, inflicted serious injury or death from lack of training and equipment, etc. In addition the company they work for could be destroyed, the client they work for be bankrupted, and numerous other echoing ramifications of their actions.

Absolutely. Heaven forbid they are prosecuted in some way which would remove their ability to carry a firearm. If private security is your livelihood, as it is for many, many Americans that’s a death blow. If you can’t carry a firearm you can’t work, if you lose your license, well, you’re pretty much done. Also, they could be personally sued and if they don’t have insurance, or the employer does not, it could ruin them financially. [/quote]

That being said, as human beings and members of our society I believe they had a duty to act which exceeds something as utterly meaningless as 'job description'. I have been in situations vaguely analogous to what they went through, and without fail I have always chosen to act. I have been fired over it as well. I have faced hunger, bankruptcy, homelessness, ostricization, abuse, and God knows what else from standing for what I think is right against the rules of my employment. The country and society has told me that's too bad. That I have to follow rules, even when they're wrong, or accept what I get. Ok then, I do (and I have). However, most people would not.

As humanitarians they completely failed. Any decent person who was unrestricted by laws or regulations would have helped that girl. Anyone who wouldn’t have is a real scum bag. Unfortunately you’re correct that our society has conditioned us to not react, especially for some security personnel who should they react could face some terrible personal consequences.

So while I'm personally sickened by the inaction of those guards, I know first hand what they would face had they chosen to break the rules and do the right thing. That's the condition of our society; the cost of our consumerism, greed, and dedication to being just another mindless worker drone. It sickens me, and I pity them, but I can't fault them for being what the nation, the society, has raised them to be.

Indeed. No one here that hasn’t worked in security can say what they would have done, because they just don’t know the job or the problems which come with it. Even as a veteran Security Officer (been out of the business years now) and having all the knowledge I do about the industry and its challenges I can’t say for sure what I would have done in that situation, so for people with no understanding of it to come in and pass judgment shows their complete arrogance and ignorance.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Again, maybe I just haven’t worked at the right places to experience this. Everyone I have worked with has some level of training and experience. Most of the people I have worked with come from a military or law enforcement background. I understand even the large contractors (like Allied) put their people through some level of training. In the state of Florida you must be licensed to be a Security Officer which means going to a Security Academy, completing a certain number of hours of training and then passing a test with the State showing proficiency in certain areas. In Florida an unarmed Security Officer is licensed as a “Class D” and has certain requirements. Armed Security Officers are licenses as “Class G” and require addition training and annual firearms qualifications and continued education.

While I'd say it's common to see someone from military or law enforcement backgrounds working security, at larger contract companies they seldom receive anything they didn't already have. Or if they do get any training it amounts to watching a 30 minute video about staying alert and watching for smoke. I've worked for 3 of the top 10 contract companies and found this to be equally true at each of them. Then again, that's only 3 out of 10, so there's room for hope outside my experiences.

I've never worked in or with a state that didn't license their officers, but it's usually way harder to get a food handlers card or drivers license. Especially for unarmed licenses. Armed cards, well at least you usually have to pass a basic proficiency test and be able to hit the target some of the time. But that's about it. This was true for California, Virginia, Oregon, and Washington during the times I was employed there. Not sure how much things have changed in Virginia or California in the last 10 years. No academy, no set training requirements really, and no instruction beyond basic firearm safety if you were going for armed.

If I'd worked somewhere that was like you describe, I might have stuck with it. Once I cracked into management and training I started trying to get statewide reforms, but quickly gave up as I saw how corrupted and broken the industry was.

Again, this is just where our experiences differ. I have never worked for minimum wage and don’t know anyone who has, not saying it doesn’t happen I just haven’t experienced it. I have never paid for my base uniform, but extras did cost. I was always issued two and bought three additional wherever I was so I had a fresh uni five days a week. I have always been offered full benefits, sick time, paid vacation, 401k, etc when working full time. I have always paid for: firearms, liability insurance (if I have to put my hands on someone and they sue me, insurance covers it if I lose the trial), and most additional equipment outside of the uniform. I have been lucky that my employer has always paid for my annual State required training and firearms qualifications.

Again, if I'd found much of this my life course might have been much different. I've had exactly 3 jobs in security that paid more than minimum wage or just over, and 2 of those were management or equivalent. That's with both military experience and a college degree mind you. I've seen companies that are like you describe, but they usually are niche employers handling only government jobs, strike breaking, or the choicest contracts. Obviously people make more someplace like LA than we do around me (backwater Washington), but the equivalence is the same.

I agree and Florida has done some of this, like licensing, required training, periodic firearms qualification, separate licensing and training for different types of firearms, etc. Security is such a broad field it’s hard to encompass all of it under one roof. It can vary from the Walmart parking lot drones to people protecting nuclear power stations or running VIP protection in warzones. In some cases law enforcement for entire towns has been farmed out to private security firms. It’s just a huge range of skills, objectives, and environments. I don’t think it will ever be regulated to the degree law enforcement is.

I totally agree, it's a very broad field. I wasn't trying to address the specialty markets (strike breakers, NRC, warzones, etc). I am focused almost entirely on basic contract security. The guys that respond to alarm calls for houses, check on the 7/11s, patrol the malls, etc. They represent the bulk of security positions in the US. Even in-house positions could often benefit from state or national regulation. In health care IAHSS has at least tried to provide some options and oversight, but since very few places take part in it (or are even aware of it) the standards go largely unused.

 

[Josh]

Imagine if that bus terminal hired Blackwater as their security force.

 

[lxskllr]

Imagine if that bus terminal hired Blackwater as their security force.

I bet crime would go down 100% :^D

 

[Nitemare]

http://moreno91.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/security-booth-2.jpg

Dayum, they got knocked the F out...

 

[zinfamous]

This is what you get when you let women and lawyers run the world, THREE fucking security guards standing within 5 feet of a kid getting the shit kicked out of her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHZZdV3woM0

wtf does this have to do with letting women run things?

does the shit pile this high in your brain every day, or just today?

 

[zinfamous]

I wonder if that girl that got beat was White, if the guards would have helped then.

don't worry, they would have helped you too....b/c you're not black.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Did any of you actually listen to the lady and the information she gave? Guards had no real weapons, and they were there to report anything going on, witch they were. Dont blame them, blame management and its infinite well of stupidity.

The OP is pointing out the fact that AMerica has been Pussified to the point that even the most obvious "right thing to do" has been skimped over.

I don't care if I was not allowed to intervene, If I see something like that, you bet I'd at least drag the little girl away.

 

[shortylickens]

Also, we need to call this the Cuntification of America.

And then we need a nastier word than wise and beautiful woman.
Maybe mecrawb.

 

[Brainonska511]

The OP is pointing out the fact that AMerica has been Pussified to the point that even the most obvious "right thing to do" has been skimped over.

I don't care if I was not allowed to intervene, If I see something like that, you bet I'd at least drag the little girl away.

I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is.

All this bullshit about "Pussification of America". Pull your head out of your ass and stop romanticizing the past.

 

[borisvodofsky]

I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is.

All this bullshit about "Pussification of America". Pull your head out of your ass and stop romanticizing the past.

Doing the right thing is romanticizing now? I admit I've had sheltered living my whole life. But I did stepped into a frat fight once and got stabbed. They were beating up on a smaller freshmen.

 

[Brainonska511]

Doing the right thing is romanticizing now? I admit I've had sheltered living my whole life. But I did stepped into a frat fight once and got stabbed. They were beating up on a smaller freshmen.

Doing the right thing is not romanticizing, but complaining about the "pussification of America" is.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Doing the right thing is not romanticizing, but complaining about the "pussification of America" is.

mmm.. was it complaining or statment of fact...

 

[RESmonkey]

wtf does this have to do with letting women run things?

does the shit pile this high in your brain every day, or just today?

I want to guess the fact that use of force against women in the eyes of the law gets looked down upon. My friend's dad is a lawyer, and he says that women have an incredible advantage in court. If those guards get in trouble for even touching her, there is a good chance they could not only lose their jobs, but end up in getting screwed.

 

[Sea Moose]

The pussification trend is not only in america. Its in all western countries.

A girl i know was not let into a pub on Australia day cause her shirt had an Aussie flag on it and the slogan said : This is our day!

Fucking leb bouncer said it was offensive!!!!!!

 

[iGas]

OMG!

How can people stand around watching such violent with out step in to help the victim, or stop the fight.

It should be a crime for people that watch the incident.

 

[TruePaige]

Hmm..looked kind of ghetto.

If it was a nice area I'd expect them to help. In the ghetto I wouldn't.

It's the rule. You are exponentially more likely to die in an area with high social services and low income than an area with high incomes.

I'm willing to bet a few of you who said you would help actually would, but not sure if you would if you were in the ghetto and knew it was REALLY ghetto.

 

[neegotiator]

Hmm..looked kind of ghetto.

If it was a nice area I'd expect them to help. In the ghetto I wouldn't.

It's the rule. You are exponentially more likely to die in an area with high social services and low income than an area with high incomes.

I'm willing to bet a few of you who said you would help actually would, but not sure if you would if you were in the ghetto and knew it was REALLY ghetto.

not really, that's the westlake station near alot of shopping, restaurants and such. there's obviously some sketchy or homeless people hanging around like any downtown, but nothing excessive.

 

[TruePaige]

not really, that's the westlake station near alot of shopping, restaurants and such. there's obviously some sketchy or homeless people hanging around like any downtown, but nothing excessive.

Ah, I'm not familiar. The people were just wearing trashy clothing styles, fights were breaking out, and the guards had a swager similar to that of security guards I've seen working hotels in the worst towns I've been through for starters.