# Confessions of a security guy



## Grey Eyed Bandit

It so happens that for roughly the last eight years, I've been working in the retail security business.That is, I've primarily made my living catching thieves. 

The reactions to my having mentioned this to other people, online and IRL, have been varied, to say the least. Some have said that people like me are failed cops or "mall ninjas", some have said that I lack a conscience, some have said that I'm a bragging wannabe commando a.k.a. Internet Tough Guy, and some have asked me why I've chosen a potentially hazardous profession when it's glaringly obvious that my nerves don't stand up to it.

The possibility that I'm simply venting myself out after more than a few strange and unexpected occurrences, has apparently never been considered. There are no words for that in macho lingo, it seems. Of course, I honestly never expected anyone to label an episode in which I had to witness a Bulgarian refugee take a leak in an empty Coke bottle as "bragging". I honestly don't know if that says more about me or the other guy I relaid the information to.

It's also happened a few times that people with experience of working within either the British or American system of justice have assumed that the legal standards to which they're accustomed apply to my own current condition as well. I can understand perfectly well that when you've spent a considerable amount of time operating within a given framework, you don't always respond well to being presented with scenarios in which what you previously thought to be applicable, no longer is.

The fact of the matter, however, is that I live in a part of the world with a long tradition of people being supportive of the government, and having distrust in market capitalism - whereas I realize that for most of you native speakers of English, the situation is the direct opposite. 

I figured that before I continue, I should round up the a few of the facts you should keep in mind as to where I'm coming from:

- civil law instead of common law applies

- lawyers can't charge percentages, and there's no responding concept of "punitive damages", which is why you can't sue people right and left

- lay judges instead of juries

- if you lose a legal dispute, you pay the lawyer's fees of BOTH parties

- no weapons may be carried by civilians for self-defense with *EXTREMELY* few exceptions, most of which involve women, vengeful husbands and mace

- "stand your ground" only applies to your own area of residence

- police can't carry tazers or side-handle batons

- police very rarely drive squad cars alone

- the density of police personnel is comparatively speaking very low, which means that you may have to wait for hours for them to show up, even if the nearest station is literally next door

- crime provocation is illegal, whereas "evidence provocation" is technically allowed but still something of a gray area

- pretty much the only thing that will keep you in prison for the rest of your life is serial killing and/or murdering a politician's relative, and even that's no sure bet

- prison sentences are EXTREMELY mild compared to the US

- prosecutors will regularly drop minor charges in favor of those leading to harsher sentences

- the age of consent is significantly lower than most other places on this planet

- universities are free

- considerably higher tax rates 

- Christmas presents are handed out on Christmas evening.


I suppose I could just have said that by reading further than this, you'll have to accept that you're not in Kansas anymore. Thing is, I've been accused of being way too unclear about these issues in the past, so I thought I might as well rectify it.

More to follow...


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

I probably started out like many others. Having just finished high school without having any idea as to what I wanted to do in life, other than the fact that I didnt want to continue going to school with the same people Id put up with for the last twelve years, I spoke to a training partner working in the security business. Before you knew it, Id gone through a certification course and been hired by a small company geared towards loss prevention. And while I cant say I regret it looking back, there have been a few times when Ive thought that Id gone crazy. Though to be fair, Ive wondered the same thing about others a lot more.

It is, for all intents and purposes, a dirty business, even though the standards are very high on a global level. Theres a lot of dirty money, shady characters, profit-driven manipulative psychopaths, greed, violence, fear, anger, drugs, loneliness, racism, misogyny, homophobia, prejudice, close-mindedness, red-tapism, big egos, prestige, cynicism and operating in grey areas of the law. And in the middle of it all  myself (no pun intended), whove struggled throughout my life with the problem (if you might call it that) that I tend to absorb the feelings and sentiments of people around me.

More than once, Ive come home angry at the point of tears over the injustices Ive seen being committed against myself as well as others, but Ive also come home with a genuine sense of pride over having stood up to someone who really needed standing up to (on both sides of the law, I might add), having listened to someone who really needed being listened to, or having someone intent on imposing his will on others change his mind, if only for a short while.
And though theyve been considerably fewer - knock on wood  Ive also come home with bruises and/or my adrenaline pumping, like the times when Somali winos take issue with being looked straight in the eye and offer up headbutts as a reward, or when the Denis Leary-looking meth head pulled a syringe on me and my colleague last summer. Or when a group of maybe seven or eight Chechens appeared and took up overwatch positions with nearly military precision as their buddy went to work on the video games lockers with a demagnetizer. (How about  implementing some changes in those open border policies right about now?)

Not to mention all those times when the well-meaning public have failed to realize whats going on due to your plainclothes outfit, and proceeded to either physically intervene or call the police identifying YOU as the aggressor (this can be especially tiresome if the civilian in question happens to be the acting Minister of Justice, who has made a point out of not being soft on crime). Or when store personnel take issue with your urban clothes and dark complexion, and believe YOU to be the criminal  either confronting you at the exact moment the suspect youre tailing is about to fill his bag or disable the alarms, or simply sending their male colleagues ordering you to leave the area. My personal favorite episode has to be the time when I was thoroughly insulted and permanently banned from the premises by a store owner who objected to my calling the police instead of releasing a seven year-old African boy who didnt know his family name. He (the store owner) also took the time out to write down my name  not really sure as to why  but guess what, asshat? I wrote down your name too. And I wont feel the least bit sorry the day either the police or the criminal-minded parents of the kid in question take issue with your methods. Frankly, I think the latter would be a far more entertaining sight to see.

Im giving you all this information as an attempt to paint some kind of a picture of how things work in the broken machine that is the security industry in a country thats only been air-bombed once, and by accident. Because believe it or not, it does contain a fair amount of good people, who sometimes get threatened, yelled at, beaten and spat on by everyone from the police to the general public to representatives of the judiciary system. And even though the certification courses are becoming increasingly geared towards arrests and physical intervention, I refuse to see myself as anything that might be called a police officer. My next post in this thread will serve to differentiate between various types of security personnel. Stay tuned...


----------



## K-man

As a small business owner in a previous life I exercised my option to detain shoplifters reasonably regularly. If they ran, I chased, if they were violent I replied with appropriate force. Potentially I could have been sued by any of them but they probably wouldn't have succeeded in law. One thing we did have was a very effective CCTV security system to back up my actions.  The upshot of it was that word went around and our shoplifting losses fell significantly. The police always came and gave the perpetrators a free trip in a real police car but unfortunately they never ended up in court. Just a warning.

Now, when I am in a shopping centre I see people setting off alarms regularly but there is never any action taken by store staff. The arguement is that the stores hand over security video to the police but once the thieves have gone, that's it. Very little follow up to my knowledge. 

:asian:


----------



## oftheherd1

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> ...
> 
> My next post in this thread will serve to differentiate between various types of security personnel. Stay tuned...



I await with bated breath.  Sounds like security work where you are isn't too different from other places I know.  The specifics may be different, but there are usually more frustrations than rewards.


----------



## Transk53

oftheherd1 said:


> I await with bated breath.  Sounds like security work where you are isn't too different from other places I know.  The specifics may be different, but there are usually more frustrations than rewards.



Me too. I will be interested to know about the UK as there are only seven types of SIA licence. Unless the list will include private contracting or something?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

A lot of things has happened since I last wrote anything here, to say the least. I've gone through a new four-year certification course, helped send more than just a couple of Georgians back home, had three court hearings cancelled and/or postponed, been slandered and racially profiled by more than a few female blonde 20something store employees, and - as luck would have it - been banned from working in yet another store. Though to be fair, the feeling was mutual when they asked me to go to hell.
With a job that, at least to a certain extent, depends on people not being able to recognize my face, it can be insanely frustrating at times to not be able to inform the media of some of the crazy things we see, do and have to endure. On the other hand, if I were to go public with all of my exploits, I'd have both famous and infamous people coming after me. Hence, I suppose you need an outlet of sorts. This being one of them, for me at least.

(Usually this is where some arrogant Yank comes along and says that I sound like a James Bond movie. Well, remind me not to tell you of how my parents smuggled peanut butter and banned literature into the Soviet Union in the 70's.)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

As I've said before, I live in a part of the world where most people place a good deal of faith in the idea of "The Benevolent State". Giving the state a heapload of our tax money and allowing it to handle things like daycare, health care, infrastructure etc etc has, contrary to the beliefs of neo-liberal ideologies and the like, yielded some pretty good results for us. It's what allowed us to change from being one of the world's poorest countries, into becoming one of the world's most prosperous countries in about a century's time (and also, it means you can watch HBO shows on state-sponsored television). HOWEVER, as you may expect, there IS a price to pay for this - one of them being the fact that they make your drinking habits and public conduct their business. 

There are two basic guard types that people will usually encounter. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to refer to them as Type 1 and Type 2 - guards and peace officers respectively, or PO's for short. There's also a type three, whose authority under certain circumstances takes precedence over that of the police, a type four working at airports, a type five which is what most of you would call Correctional Officers in prisons, and so on. However, that is beyond the scope of this thread and, to be honest, not really my area of expertise. Thus, I'm going to focus on the first two categories. What you should keep in mind, is that people in general are unable to tell them apart. That goes for regular joes to cops, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and politicians. I wish I was making this up. I went so far as to look through the official state court glossary in English - even it doesn't distinguish thoroughly between the two. Generally, the public tends to confuse type 2 with type 1. The police and the criminal justice system, however, usually confuses type 1 with type 2. 

More to follow in a bit...


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> A lot of things has happened since I last wrote anything here, to say the least. I've gone through a new four-year certification course, helped send more than just a couple of Georgians back home, had three court hearings cancelled and/or postponed, been slandered and racially profiled by more than a few female blonde 20something store employees, and - as luck would have it - been banned from working in yet another store. Though to be fair, the feeling was mutual when they asked me to go to hell.
> With a job that, at least to a certain extent, depends on people not being able to recognize my face, it can be insanely frustrating at times to not be able to inform the media of some of the crazy things we see, do and have to endure. On the other hand, if I were to go public with all of my exploits, I'd have both famous and infamous people coming after me. Hence, I suppose you need an outlet of sorts. This being one of them, for me at least.
> 
> (Usually this is where some arrogant Yank comes along and says that I sound like a James Bond movie. Well, remind me not to tell you of how my parents smuggled peanut butter and banned literature into the Soviet Union in the 70's.)
> 
> Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
> 
> As I've said before, I live in a part of the world where most people place a good deal of faith in the idea of "The Benevolent State". Giving the state a heapload of our tax money and allowing it to handle things like daycare, health care, infrastructure etc etc has, contrary to the beliefs of neo-liberal ideologies and the like, yielded some pretty good results for us. It's what allowed us to change from being one of the world's poorest countries, into becoming one of the world's most prosperous countries in about a century's time (and also, it means you can watch HBO shows on state-sponsored television). HOWEVER, as you may expect, there IS a price to pay for this - one of them being the fact that they make your drinking habits and public conduct their business.
> 
> There are two basic guard types that people will usually encounter. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to refer to them as Type 1 and Type 2 - guards and peace officers respectively, or PO's for short. There's also a type three, whose authority under certain circumstances takes precedence over that of the police, a type four working at airports, a type five which is what most of you would call Correctional Officers in prisons, and so on. However, that is beyond the scope of this thread and, to be honest, not really my area of expertise. Thus, I'm going to focus on the first two categories. What you should keep in mind, is that people in general are unable to tell them apart. That goes for regular joes to cops, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and politicians. I wish I was making this up. I went so far as to look through the official state court glossary in English - even it doesn't distinguish thoroughly between the two. Generally, the public tends to confuse type 2 with type 1. The police and the criminal justice system, however, usually confuses type 1 with type 2.
> 
> More to follow in a bit...



I am wondering about Type 3. It is very vague, that I can appreciate. I could be way off here, but the sentiment translates.


----------



## aedrasteia

Are you among the Scandehoovians?   just trying to figure out where you are; if you'd rather not be open about that - its not a problem but can you provide a general suggestion about the region/area?
and thanks for some interesting reading.


----------



## Transk53

aedrasteia said:


> Are you among the Scandehoovians?   just trying to figure out where you are; if you'd rather not be open about that - its not a problem but can you provide a general suggestion about the region/area?
> and thanks for some interesting reading.



What I was thinking regarding Type 3 did not translate. Under criminal law there is no precedence for security to overrule a police officer and that would global, unless say for example a corrupt Middle East country (loose example). Privately yes and on private land with specific local by laws. For example where I work a police officer can demand whatever action (Usually CCTV) if a crime has been reported. If something civil and no crime reported, we are within rights to refuse access, which I have personally done more than once. It does piss some of them off, but if the police do not follow rules then that is a bad situation, hence the likes of Afgan.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Transk53 said:


> What I was thinking regarding Type 3 did not translate. Under criminal law there is no precedence for security to overrule a police officer and that would global, unless say for example a corrupt Middle East country (loose example). Privately yes and on private land with specific local by laws. For example where I work a police officer can demand whatever action (Usually CCTV) if a crime has been reported. If something civil and no crime reported, we are within rights to refuse access, which I have personally done more than once. It does piss some of them off, but if the police do not follow rules then that is a bad situation, hence the likes of Afgan.



The short version of it is, the Protection Act takes precedence over the Police Act. Hence, Special Protection guards (no official translation of the job title exists) have the right to deny people access to the areas they're assigned to protect, should they deem it necessary. And that includes police officers. They also have the right to arrest people on mere suspicion of espionage, sabotage and/or terrorism. Like I said, you're not in Kansas anymore, but I'd like to think that everyone reading this also understands that the aforementioned scenario doesn't occur very often.

Anyways...


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

There once was an old man who was standing at a streetcorner, looking very miserable. He retained his balance using a supportive cane, and when people walked by, he held out a ragged baseball cap and looked at them imploringly. As a means to drive the point about his squalid living conditions home even further, he kept one of his pant legs rolled up all the way to the knee, giving passers-by a clear look of a pus-ridden wound on his calf. No one could resist handing him a few coins, and his gratitude was always endless. You couldn't help but give him a few more coins the next time you saw him as well, and he was just as grateful then. But after some time, people stopped giving him money.

It wasn't just the fact that his wound never healed. His gratitude was overwhelming to say the least, even to those who gave him a mere pittance, and soon you couldn't help but feel superfluous. Also, the city soon became infested with violently limping young men with crutches. After a while, there was nary a street where you could avoid being confronted with a severe crutch-bearing spastic, and it became increasingly difficult to distribute one's charity amongst all the needy. The strange thing was that as soon as these young men had collected a certain sum of money, a miracle occurred. A few blocks away, they could be observed carrying their crutches over their shoulders, walking the streets with a youthful splendor of near biblical proportions, before they were picked up by black BMW's with tinted windows. Sitting in one of these cars was the old man, barking orders at the younglings. This seemed to counteract the previously observed miracles, for the following day, the young men showed up walking with the aid of crutches once more, in their ongoing quest for a mere bit of "human decency".

The fact that this was all an elaborate form of street theater should be obvious to anyone. He who chooses to pay does so by his own purposeful choice - or due to his own ignorance. Someone of good intentions might classify this form of organized hustling as a result of societal failures. Personally, I think these phenomena require an analysis far beyond the scope of this thread. However, deliberate exploitation of people's inherent will to help their fellow man can only be described as a form of societal parasiting, and in the end, those who are truly in need are the ones who'll suffer from it. 

There is, however, a deep-seated tendency amongst people nowadays, to simply refuse to believe the simple fact that others may take advantage of their generosity and good faith, either by lying, stealing or other fraudulent behaviour. From a political standpoint, it's a PR suicide to even allude to the fact that these things happen. But the elephant in the room grows larger and larger with each passing day. I'm not sure I want to know what happens the day when it's existence can no longer be denied. For now, however, I suppose I'll have to make do with gathering anecdotal evidence. Perhaps the grandkids will be amused at least.

But I digress.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

aedrasteia said:


> Are you among the Scandehoovians?   just trying to figure out where you are; if you'd rather not be open about that - its not a problem but can you provide a general suggestion about the region/area?
> and thanks for some interesting reading.



I too am curious. I'm thinking with the references to the benevolent state, Chechens & Georgians a former Soviet state in that general area. Not Russia, but one of the others.


----------



## Transk53

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> I too am curious. I'm thinking with the references to the benevolent state, Chechens & Georgians a former Soviet state in that general area. Not Russia, but one of the others.



One of the others being??


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> I too am curious. I'm thinking with the references to the benevolent state, Chechens & Georgians a former Soviet state in that general area. Not Russia, but one of the others.



You ignored the part about Christmas and the lenient criminal justice system. In the former Soviet states, even the rats get tuberculosis in jail.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> It so happens that for roughly the last eight years, I've been working in the retail security business.That is, I've primarily made my living catching thieves.
> 
> The reactions to my having mentioned this to other people, online and IRL, have been varied, to say the least. Some have said that people like me are failed cops or "mall ninjas", some have said that I lack a conscience, some have said that I'm a bragging wannabe commando a.k.a. Internet Tough Guy, and some have asked me why I've chosen a potentially hazardous profession when it's glaringly obvious that my nerves don't stand up to it.
> 
> The possibility that I'm simply venting myself out after more than a few strange and unexpected occurrences, has apparently never been considered. There are no words for that in macho lingo, it seems. Of course, I honestly never expected anyone to label an episode in which I had to witness a Bulgarian refugee take a leak in an empty Coke bottle as "bragging". I honestly don't know if that says more about me or the other guy I relaid the information to.
> 
> It's also happened a few times that people with experience of working within either the British or American system of justice have assumed that the legal standards to which they're accustomed apply to my own current condition as well. I can understand perfectly well that when you've spent a considerable amount of time operating within a given framework, you don't always respond well to being presented with scenarios in which what you previously thought to be applicable, no longer is.
> 
> The fact of the matter, however, is that I live in a part of the world with a long tradition of people being supportive of the government, and having distrust in market capitalism - whereas I realize that for most of you native speakers of English, the situation is the direct opposite.
> 
> Sorry but I'm laughing very hard at the idea that the British people have a tradition of supporting the government. We tolerate governments.
> 
> I figured that before I continue, I should round up the a few of the facts you should keep in mind as to where I'm coming from:
> 
> - civil law instead of common law applies
> 
> - lawyers can't charge percentages, and there's no responding concept of "punitive damages", which is why you can't sue people right and left
> 
> - lay judges instead of juries
> 
> We have magistrates here who are lay people
> 
> - if you lose a legal dispute, you pay the lawyer's fees of BOTH parties
> 
> That happens here too.
> 
> - no weapons may be carried by civilians for self-defense with *EXTREMELY* few exceptions, most of which involve women, vengeful husbands and mace
> 
> We don't or at least aren't supposed to carry weapons either.
> 
> - "stand your ground" only applies to your own area of residence
> 
> we don't have 'stand your ground as such'
> 
> - police can't carry tazers or side-handle batons
> 
> We don't carry side side-handle batons, but extendable ones
> 
> - police very rarely drive squad cars alone
> 
> Ours don't nearly always two.
> 
> - the density of police personnel is comparatively speaking very low, which means that you may have to wait for hours for them to show up, even if the nearest station is literally next door
> 
> - crime provocation is illegal, whereas "evidence provocation" is technically allowed but still something of a gray area
> 
> - pretty much the only thing that will keep you in prison for the rest of your life is serial killing and/or murdering a politician's relative, and even that's no sure bet
> 
> - prison sentences are EXTREMELY mild compared to the US
> 
> - prosecutors will regularly drop minor charges in favor of those leading to harsher sentences
> 
> - the age of consent is significantly lower than most other places on this planet
> 
> - universities are free
> 
> - considerably higher tax rates
> 
> - Christmas presents are handed out on Christmas evening.
> 
> 
> I suppose I could just have said that by reading further than this, you'll have to accept that you're not in Kansas anymore. Thing is, I've been accused of being way too unclear about these issues in the past, so I thought I might as well rectify it.
> 
> More to follow...



People here are very suspicious of beggars and anyone wanting money from them, begging here is illegal anyway.
 Retail security, in fact all security work here is minimum wage and very long hours at least 60 odd hours a week. It is low status and not thought of highly on the whole.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:
			
		

> People here are very suspicious of beggars and anyone wanting money from them, begging here is illegal anyway.
> Retail security, in fact all security work here is minimum wage and very long hours at least 60 odd hours a week. It is low status and not thought of highly on the whole.



Not quite, but yeah I would agree that the retail boys should get paid more. I am rostered for 42 hours, but regularly exceed that with overtime. Would agree with the low status. That notion was reinforced for me when I started working the doors many moons ago.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Not quite, but yeah I would agree that the retail boys should get paid more. I am rostered for 42 hours, but regularly exceed that with overtime. Would agree with the low status. That notion was reinforced for me when I started working the doors many moons ago.



Up here in the North East 60 hours is the norm. There's little enough work here as it is so they can get away with that and paying minimum wage. You could go down south to earn more but the cost of lodgings and the general higher cost of living negates anything extra you'd earn.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Up here in the North East 60 hours is the norm. There's little enough work here as it is so they can get away with that and paying minimum wage. You could go down south to earn more but the cost of lodgings and the general higher cost of living negates anything extra you'd earn.



Yeah here ya on that one. Any body who came down to the South coast like I did years ago, now pretty much have to pay London prices with non London wages/salaries. If I had a driving licence, I could see myself living in VW van.


----------



## Buka

Here in the U.S there's different levels of security jobs. I've  worked most of them at one time or another and they can all be a pain in  the ***. There's unarmed and armed security, with respective pay  levels. Most of the armed security require a law enforcement background.  Some are boring and some exciting. Personally, I always preferred the  boring. There's also different required training, some in depth and some  a five minute explanation by the guy training you. But that seems to be  changing - probably with liability in mind.

My first gig was in retail security, and looking back, it was a lot of fun. It was in an _Anderson and Little_  clothing store, we made a buck sixty an hour.  A customer used to come  in, a heavy set guy, probably close to three hundred pounds, always  dressed to the nines in a nice suit and tie. He was friendly, had a  twinkle in his eye and always spoke with all who worked there. He used  to come every other month or so and buy socks, ties, maybe a shirt.  Somebody saw him do something that didn't make sense. Come to find out  he was really closer to 180 pounds, had a wire cage attached to his  body, under his lovely suit, with a side opening under his arm. When  they caught him, he had four expensive suits in that wire cage. The cops  were called. I have to hand it to him, he was just as charming, polite and  friendly while caught and taken away as he always was. Didn't seem to  rattle him one little bit. And to this day, some forty years later, I  kind of admire the guy. He was a thief, yes, but he had ingenuity and a  certain amount of class.


----------



## Transk53

Buka said:


> Here in the U.S there's different levels of security jobs. I've  worked most of them at one time or another and they can all be a pain in  the ***. There's unarmed and armed security, with respective pay  levels. Most of the armed security require a law enforcement background.  Some are boring and some exciting. Personally, I always preferred the  boring. There's also different required training, some in depth and some  a five minute explanation by the guy training you. But that seems to be  changing - probably with liability in mind.
> 
> My first gig was in retail security, and looking back, it was a lot of fun. It was in an _Anderson and Little_  clothing store, we made a buck sixty an hour.  A customer used to come  in, a heavy set guy, probably close to three hundred pounds, always  dressed to the nines in a nice suit and tie. He was friendly, had a  twinkle in his eye and always spoke with all who worked there. He used  to come every other month or so and buy socks, ties, maybe a shirt.  Somebody saw him do something that didn't make sense. Come to find out  he was really closer to 180 pounds, had a wire cage attached to his  body, under his lovely suit, with a side opening under his arm. When  they caught him, he had four expensive suits in that wire cage. The cops  were called. I have to hand it to him, he was just as charming, polite and  friendly while caught and taken away as he always was. Didn't seem to  rattle him one little bit. And to this day, some forty years later, I  kind of admire the guy. He was a thief, yes, but he had ingenuity and a  certain amount of class.



I would have to agree with you, a gentleman thief. The thieves that myself and the guys have to deal with, usually want to stick something up something that would be quite painful. Usually I point out that anatomically, it would be impossible to stick that something up that something. Usual response "you taking the piss init". I have to rely on the fact that street talk has deteriorated to the point that you just stand there and think, what a moron with every encounter. Thankfully the majority still suffer the rabbit in the head lights. Absolutely boring, but safer.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Transk53 said:


> One of the others being??



Doesn't matter now, totally wrong!

After re-reading some of it I'll guess the same as Aedrasteia with Scandinavia.

I'd originally discounted it on the gun ownership comments, but the OP actually mentions carrying for self defence and I think everything else fits.

May well be wrong again though!


----------



## Transk53

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Doesn't matter now, totally wrong!
> 
> After re-reading some of it I'll guess the same as Aedrasteia with Scandinavia.
> 
> I'd originally discounted it on the gun ownership comments, but the OP actually mentions carrying for self defence and I think everything else fits.
> 
> May well be wrong again though!



Yeah man, you have done way better than me. I kept getting more confused the further I read. Anyway, I'll agree with you, reckon that fits!


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> People here are very suspicious of beggars and anyone wanting money from them, begging here is illegal anyway.
> Retail security, in fact all security work here is minimum wage and very long hours at least 60 odd hours a week. It is low status and not thought of highly on the whole.



And here I thought my first post in this thread made it clear that I had not intended to discuss security work within Britain or the US, primarily because of my lack of experience working there. Oh well.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

All right. Here's what I'm guessing you've been waiting to read about.

Type 1/regular guards, the type of which I belong to, always work for a security company approved by the County Administrative Board (I'm going to be referring to it as CAB from now on). Hence, we cannot freelance. The absolute majority of type 1's work either as stationary guards at hotel receptions and the like, or in the traditional role of nighttime patrolling. The latter more or less means driving from place to place in the middle of the night making sure lights and coffee makers are switched off, and the most exciting thing you're likely to ever encounter is having a burglary alarm go off - which, nine times out of ten, is false. And out of all the times when it isn't, nine times out of ten the thieves will have already left the scene.

There are two instances in which type 1's are allowed to operate without uniforms; one is what you would call loss prevention in English, and one is for bodyguard duty - the latter of which is by far the most common situation in which you'll find a type 1 guard carrying a firearm.
Also, there are only two things which separates a type 1 from a civilian, namely our right to carry and use batons (to defend ourselves as well as to assist in making arrests, I'll get to that later), as well as what you might call reinforced legal protection. Basically, that means that physically attacking or threatening us doubles the possible time one potentially has to serve, if one were to go to prison for it (which is far, far from likely these days). Nowadays, all guards who are likely to be making arrests in the line of duty are also required to carry handcuffs.

Training to become a type 1 can be done in two ways - one is by getting hired by one of the larger companies and having them pay the certification course for you, and the other is by paying for it yourself, which nowadays is by far the most common method. There are currently only two academies that are allowed to train guards - one is owned by the larger companies cooperatively, and the other is private. There used to be a third, which is the one I went to and which was also privately owned, but they've closed down since. Actually, you could say that there is a third way - the corporate-owned academy also runs a high school in which all students are certified during the course of education.
The courses are divided into two sections - step one and step two. Back when I went through them, it was possible to attend the second course directly after the first (also, back then, handcuffs and expandable batons hadn't been cleared for use just yet). Nowadays, however, you need to log 165 hours of actual work before you're allowed to proceed to step two. The privately own academy has dealt with this fact by creating their own security company, in which students simply get to work as a means to get cleared for step two. And in case you missed is - yes, you might say that students are paying for an opportunity to work, but in the end it's a matter of pro forma brought on by the recent years's tendency to make drastic changes to various regulations concerning all types of guards (more on the antics of the police later).

The manner in which guards and security companies operate, as well as how training and certification is carried out, is regulated by police guidelines which I'm going to be referring to here as RGPA (Regulations and Guidelines for the Police Authority), put together by the national police board. One of my former bosses has referred to these guidelines as "a huge sloppy mess created by armchair cops who have no idea as to how guards actually work". Personally I probably wouldn't go that far, at least not publically, but what I can say is that between 1992 and 2006, the RGPA concerning type 1 guards remained exactly the same. In just over half that time period since 2006, it's been changed and modified at least six or seven times - and from what I can tell, it was mostly because they discovered as they went on that a lot of the intended changes would be impossible to put into practice.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

I cannot, however, accurately describe the working conditions of type 1 without also touching on type 2.

Type 2 guards, which I will henceforth be referring to as peace officers or PO's for short, are answerable not to the CAB, but to the police. That is, they're selected by, trained by, and answerable to the police, and as a result, have a different set of rights and obligations compared to type 1.
You'll see PO's as bouncers in nightclubs, patrolling the subway, as well as other public areas such as shopping malls and courthouses.
As a PO, you are essentially the extended arm of the police, and your primary purpose is maintaining public order. In order to do so, they have the right to utilize certain parts of the Police Act. For instance, if a person disturbs public order by being too inebriated in the subway or at a bar, the PO has the right to order that person to leave the premises. Should that prove to be insufficient, the PO has the right to remove the person forcibly from the area. If that too were to prove inadequate, the PO has the right to detain said person, at which point he/she is to be handed over to the police.

A lot of times when discussing arrests when people with experience working within, for instance, the British and American legal system, it's been suggested to me that what I do is not arresting people per se, but rather a form of detainment whilst waiting for the police to arrive. Thing is, there is a clear difference between arresting people (which is what I do regularly, or as some might say, apprehending) and detaining them, which is what PO's often start out doing. You see, disturbing public order is not a crime per se, as opposed to, say, stealing or destroying private property. Therefore, a PO finds him/herself being in the unique position of having the legal right to physically restrain a person *WITHOUT* that person ever having committed an actual crime or even being suspected of having doing so. I do not know of anywhere else on Earth where it is legal for non-police officers to do this, and as you can imagine, this has been discussed by representatives of various human rights committees over the years.

In practice however, this is not too much of a problem. Even though guards and PO's have arguably the clearest and most thoroughly defined sets of rights and obligations imaginable, the general public typically hasn't got a clue as to how to distinguish between the two. The primary reason for this is probably the fact that up to around 2007, you were allowed to work as a PO AND as a type 1 guard at the same time. This meant that the "guard" sign would be located on the right side of your torso when in uniform, and the PO sign (which up to recently was a badge with the police emblem, rather than regular letters) to the left. Therefore, what started out as just detainment, often ends up being violent resistance - which *IS* a crime, one that you can arrest people for - all because of the perpetrator's ignorance of the laws and regulations concerning PO's, often confounded by the tendency of the media to spout the claim that "guards have no rights setting them apart from the ordinary citizen".


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

What further serves to complicate the issue is, as I've said before, that the police as well as attourneys generally tend to mistake type 1 guards for PO's. Not all that surprising really, since a PO is obligated by law to follow any police officer's orders, whereas regular guards are technically not. Typically, there are five instances in which conflicts are most likely to arise between guards and the police (and trust me, I have plenty of experience with all of them):

- the right to search people for weapons
- use and carry of handcuffs
- use and carry of batons
- our legal protection
- whether or not people under arrest *HAVE TO* be handed over to police or not.

As for the first - the right to search detained and/or arrested people is regulated in the Police Act. Many police officers don't care to distinguish between guards and PO's beyond the fact that the latter have the right to use certain parts of said legislations, and the former do not. However, upon thorough reading of the last paragraph, you'll find that the right to use force when carrying out apprehensions (I'm going to use that term from now on since the terms detention and arrest both have multiple uses, I'll get to that later), as well as the right to frisk people in search of weapons, applies to not just police officers or type 2's, but everyone else as well. Granted, only police officers and Special Protection guards may carry out body searches in order to locate stolen property or to verify a person's identity, but the right to carry out searches with the purpose of finding weapons applies to everyone.
But you shouldn't be at all surprised if a police officer shows up actually being angry at you for having searched someone, particularly if his/her ID is lying at a nearby table. Regardless of whether or not it was produced voluntarily (which is usually the case).

The second and third, well, for some reason, it's becoming less and less of a problem compared to the others, which is kind of strange because their use is still not nearly as common as the other three instances. However, you may still, as a type 1, encounter police officers demanding to see your "appointment", as it's known. I should probably clarify that - type 1 guards generally only carry with them their personal ID card identifying them as guards working for a specific company. PO's, however, also have appointment cards, on which one can see which set of equipment they're allowed to carry with them (which is usually just a baton and handcuffs, though there are those who carry handguns), as well as in which areas they're allowed to operate (working at a bar or nightclub, for instance, requires a different kind of appointment than that needed to work in a courthouse, which is also different from that required in a shopping mall).
PO's, as one might imagine, are required to show these appointment cards to any police officer requesting it, because like I've said, they're trained by and answerable to the police. Type 1 guard, however, are not answerable to the police as such, but to the County Administrative Board. As a type 1, I'm therefore not legally obligated to prove to any policeman that I'm certified in the use and carry of a baton and handcuffs (furthermore, the Work Environment Authority requires that all plainclothes guards be equipped with batons and handcuffs while on duty, on pain of severe penalty fees to his/her employer otherwise). But you will still encounter police officers who refuse to accept this fact. A senior officer of 25+ years that I talked to about this, went so far as to dial up a member of the National Police Board (who happened to be on vacation at the time) to verify whether or not this was true. In the end, he was so upset about it that he promised me to suggest to the NPB that type 1 guards were to have said qualifications printed on their ID card. That was three years ago, however, and nothing's come of it since. Probably because someone realized that the ID card is valid for three years, whereas the baton certification is valid for four years. Strangely, the handcuffing course doesn't need to be repeated, as least not as of writing this.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> And here I thought my first post in this thread made it clear that I had not intended to discuss security work within Britain or the US, primarily because of my lack of experience working there. Oh well.



However you made points about the UK that weren't true and used them as a comparison to where you are so I pointed them out. If you don't know, don't start a sentence with 'unlike the UK and USA' because a few of your assumptions were wrong. Just saying.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> However you made points about the UK that weren't true



No I didn't. You misread it.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> The fact of the matter, however, is that I live in a part of the world with a long tradition of people being supportive of the government, and having distrust in market capitalism - whereas I realize that *for most of you native speakers of English, the situation is the direct opposite*.



There. Now, moving on in a while...


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> No I didn't. You misread it.




Gosh, now why didn't I think of that. Why the secrecy, why not just say 'I live in...' ?


----------



## Transk53

I am jumping on this one, cos quite frankly brain hurts and I am bleeding out of ears, etc..



			
				Grey Eyed Bandit said:
			
		

> working at a bar or nightclub, for instance, requires a different kind of appointment than that needed to work in a courthouse, which is also different from that required in a shopping mall).



Pretty certain that you stated a lack of experiance in the UK at least. This is quite the assertion. We have the SIA framework. The Doormans will cover all three of those particular jobs. There will court specialist training and no doubt, a professional certification.

*Clicky*


----------



## drop bear

Transk53 said:


> I am jumping on this one, cos quite frankly brain hurts and I am bleeding out of ears, etc..
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty certain that you stated a lack of experiance in the UK at least. This is quite the assertion. We have the SIA framework. The Doormans will cover all three of those particular jobs. There will court specialist training and no doubt, a professional certification.
> 
> *Clicky*



As a side note ours do some silly distinctions on our licence like control room and body guard. Personally I think it is a money grab.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> As a side note ours do some silly distinctions on our licence like control room and body guard. Personally I think it is a money grab.



Same over here. We have to basically buy a new licence every three years. They call it renewal.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> Why the secrecy, why not just say 'I live in...' ?



Because the attempts to fill in the blanks fascinate me. As does the underlying assumption that the differences aren't as important as the similarities.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Moving on...

Last year, I apprehended this Moroccan dude with the aid of two uniformed colleagues - both of whom were working as type 1 guards at the time.
Not only did said gentleman find it a good idea to try to steal stuff using a specially prepared bag clad with aluminum foil, but as it turns out, he was also wanted for pickpocketing and had previously been convicted of rape, the sentence for which he was on the run from at the time. On top of all this, he was also supposed to be extradited to his homeland. No big surprise then, that he didn't take kindly to being caught, but instead proceeded to threaten to come back and cut the throats of all three of us. As you might expect, he was charged with theft, gross theft (pickpocketing always counts as gross theft) and three counts of threatening public servants. Keep that number in mind.

The first trial that we were called to attend had to be cancelled mid-session, for the simple reason that someone had failed to discover that the defendant had been using a false name. This also meant that a different prosecutor would be handling the case fortwith. As I showed up to the second hearing, I discovered a very strange occurrence - apparently, the indictment had been changed, and the guy was charged with two accounts on threatening a public servant, and one account of a run-of-the-mill unlawful threat. I pointed this out to the new prosecutor, an obviously bright and pleasant young woman, whom immediately made changes to the charges brought, whilst at the same time pointing out to me that she hadn't been the one to have made any changes to the indictment. As the changes were brought up in court, the presiding judge asked something along the lines of "strange, because from what I'd been told the incident involed two peace officers and a 'store controller'?" To which I replied "no, there were three guards, two in uniform and one in plain clothes, which happened to be myself". Turns out, neither he nor the prosecutor who changed the indictment (whom I dialed up afterwards) were aware that people in loss prevention are technically guards. And mind you, that same prosecutor was the one assigned to handle the highly publicized Neo-Nazi riot case that took place a few months later. I couldn't help but wonder - if she'd managed to neglect something as simple as that, what else could she have been missing which might have helped to send those Nazis to prison even longer?
However, the man was convicted and all three of us were granted a sum corresponding roughly to 300 GBP by the Crime Victim Support and Compensation Authority, so I suppose all's well that ends well.

In theory, I can understand why the older members of the police force and the legal system believe that guards in plain clothes lack legal protection, because that was the way it was right up until some time in the mid-80's when you had what were then known as "store detectives" instead (mostly, these were recruited among elderly gossipy women whom no one would ever dream of smacking in the face, much less shower with tear gas). But that still doesn't explain why you can still encounter cops with less than ten years experience in the field spouting the same BS, or why a senior prosecutor may still ask if I walked up to the defendant and identified myself as a PO with my ID - despite the fact that PO's are not, have never been and most likely never will be allowed to operate without uniforms.

Another thing that continues to puzzles me is that whenever a civilian decides to help PO's out - usually whilst they're restraining someone - someone always starts screaming that it is illegal for him to do so, due to his not being a PO himself. The fact of the matter is that not only is it perfectly legal as well as welcomed if done correctly, but doing so also temporarily grants you the same set of legal protection. In short - assisting a person with the legal status of a public servant, such as a policeman or PO, grants you the same legal protection for the duration of the task.
For guards, PO's and police officers, this legal protection also applies if someone were to try and get back at you for things you've done in course of duty.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Now, as to what to do with people that you've apprehended, and similar matters.

A while back, I posted a video elsewhere depicting a fight between a PO, two civilians assisting him, and three very inebriated gentlemen trying to gain access to a bar. Someone with experience of working doors in Britain suggested that the best thing to do would be to shove them away, get inside the establishment, lock the door, and let the three drunkards become someone else's problems.
Thing is, it is not legal for a PO to do so. Remember what I said about the state making it their business as to how and when you decide to get sloshed? Here's how it works:

Policemen, as well as PO's, have the right - and usually, the legal obligation - to utilize what's known as the Preventive Detention of Inebriated (I'm going to be using PDI for short) Act. Basically, this means that a person who is drunk or intoxicated to the point of posing a danger to himself or others, may be taken into temporary custody. If done by PO's, this means that he is to be handed over to the police as soon as possible. As is the case with disrupting public order, public drunkenness is not a crime per se. The law is intended to be a nurturing one, and probably owes some of it's existence to the days when workers received half or more of their payment in alcohol. As with regular detainment, this can also quite easily turn into an apprehension, should the person being intervened against offer up violent resistance or carry drugs and/or weapons on his person.

Under local law, it is not legal for a person to be "noticeably drunk" in an establishment or in the subway system - however, "noticeably drunk" is not synonymous with "posing a danger to him/herself or others". Since using alcohol testers is illegal for PO's (it actually counts as the legal equivalent of a body cavity search), pretty much all they have to rely on is their judgement. As such, being turned away from an establishment for being too drunk is highly possible even if you haven't had anything to drink (which admittedly is also possible pretty much everywhere else in the world). 
However, ordering a person to leave an area is, for a PO, technically part of your professional conduct. As is detaining people, as well as your duty to report every crime you become aware of while on duty to the police. The reinforced legal protection of type 1 guards is technically what might be called an amendment - we have the legal status of public servants, but we are not public servants in the strict sense of the word. PO's, however, technically represent the state - whilst at the same time usually being paid by private interests. As you might understand, this is grounds for a conflict of interest. 

PO's are required by law to report everything the see or hear about to the police, but doing so, I'm sad to say, may quite possibly cause more problems than it solves. If the Licensing Authority were to continuously receive reports of every threat, every person removed, every barroom scuffle, every drug use and every stolen object at an establishment, it's quite possible that they deem the place to rowdy and decide to withdraw it's permission to serve alcohol, forcing the place to close down and leaving the PO's as well as a whole lot of other people without a job.

Adding to this is the fact that becoming a PO requires a virtually clean criminal slate (there are exceptions, and I'll get to them later). Not only do you need a thorough lack of convictions, but you also need to be considered a relatively upstanding citizen. Having known contacts with organized crime figures or outlaw biker gangs, for instance, is usually grounds for an application being denied, as is having been detained under the PDI act a large number of times. The problem with this is, again, that it may create more problems than it solves.
A newly appointed PO in his early 20's with a clean middle-class background, quite frankly hasn't usually got a clue as to which people's bark are worse than their bite, and which ones are liable to start conflicts that continue long after the shift is over. In order to solve this, bars and clubs have a tradition of hiring "hosts" who, while not always hardcore criminals themselves, have pretty good glimpses into the criminal underworld. Basically, they're there because they know which people they can turn down without consequences, and which ones they can't. I've personally seen these guys hold back PO's preventing them from entering into fights with unsavory characters. Granted, this problem is decreasing in scope, chiefly due to the fact that more and more guards and PO's are being recruited from the same neighborhoods as the gangsters and know how to talk their talk, but the fact remains that you've got what is technically government representatives working side by side with thugs. The problem is still on a small enough scale that you can head into a bar or restaurant just thinking that their food and drinks taste nice, without knowing anything about Hells Angels, Bandidos, Satudarah, The Brotherhood, Chosen Ones or anything similar.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Oops, I just realized I kind of sidetracked myself there.

In any case, what it boils down to is this - PO's are public servants, albeit usually being paid by security companies or restaurants, and not by the state (the courthouse and parliament-employed ones being a notable exception, and as you might have discerned from my previous post, the major security companies don't accept doorwork and generally look disparagingly on their employees doing it on the side). Guards, however, aren't bound by the same obligations. The revised RGPA theoretically now requires that we report any and all crimes being committed towards the client/customer to the police, but in practice, this is usually only done when there's an identifiable culprit, i.e. after having made an apprehension. 

The Code of Judicial Procedure states that if a person is caught red-handed committing a crime that bears the possible penalty of at least six months in prison, he may be apprehended by anyone. The crimes that bear the penalty of prison far outnumber those that don't, so one is usually taught to remember the ones that don't, which include 

- unlawful entry
- taking an unlawful path
- trespass (no, not the same thing)
- defamation
- insulting behaviour (again, not the same thing)
- disorderly conduct.

It should be noted that some of these crimes actually do bear the penalty of prison, should they be considered to be gross. It is however generally inadviseable to deem such a crime to be gross without first contacting the police.
Any person who is wanted by the police may also be apprehended by anyone.

Now, the Code of Judicial Procedure, or CJP for short, also states that when a person is apprehended, he is to be hastily handed over to a policeman. See, this is where it gets a bit complicated.
The Judicial Preview put together a referral just under ten years ago, in which it is stated that the purpose of having the police arriving to the scene after having made an apprehension, is not primarily done in order to determine whether or not the apprehension was lawfully done, nor is it to immediately question the suspect. Rather, the purpose is to make sure that a _continued _infringement on the suspect's freedom is not taking place without the proper authorities being notified. 
Granted, it's been a while since I was last in the US, but one thing I do remember it that police officers were a fairly common sight on the streets. Here, however, unless there is an immediate emergency, it is not only common,but quite frankly to be expected, to have to wait for an hour or more for the police to show up - even if the nearest police station is literally located a block away. My own personal record clocks in at four hours and thirty-five minutes. The idea then, is that for a common crime such as a petty theft, it is not reasonable to infringe on someone's personal liberty for too long, and the most correct thing to do whilst adhering to the rule of law, is to let said person go if there is nothing preventing it. 

The RGPA currently states that when a guard has made an apprehension, he is to provide the police with a written report stating

- the crime that has been committed by the suspect 
- whom he was apprehended by and whom else was present at the time
- the name, personal ID number and address of the suspect, if known
- whichever considerations had been made before the apprehension
- if property has been seized
- if property has been returned 
- if a body search has been conducted
- if handcuffing or other types of force have been used, and if so, the reason for this.

(The funny thing about this is that technically, this was originally supposed to be a separate report from that which has traditionally been given to the police after having apprehended someone. I.e. guards were actually supposed to write two separate reports containing essentially the same information. In practice though, no one has a clue about this, and nobody cares. For the last eight years, the police have been perfectly happy with receiving just one piece of paper. This is one out of many confusing things that tend to happen when you change a set of regulations many times in a row in a short period of time.)

You will, however, still encounter police officers, as well as civilian dispatch operators, who are completely unaware of the fact that it is perfectly legal to release apprehended persons without having called the police to the scene. Some police officers even go so far as to state that doing so would be grounds for an unlawful detainment. However, that doesn't quite explain why the RGPA goes on to state that "if a guard has apprehended someone and has then proceeded to release him/her without contacting the police, the guard shall, in addition to what is stated in 2 §, also provide information regarding the considerations that were made prior to the release and as to why the police was not contacted."

Note that I am referring to type 1 guards and civilians here, not PO's. Like police, PO's are capable of committing the crime of professional misconduct, whereas type 1 guards, who are technically not public servants, cannot.


----------



## Tgace

Your use of "PO" makes your writing difficult for me....here "PO" typically means *P*olice *O*fficer.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tgace said:


> Your use of "PO" makes your writing difficult for me....here "PO" typically means *P*olice *O*fficer.



Yeah, I figured. Regular cops around here are usually referred to as Police Assistants.


----------



## K-man

Tez3 said:


> Gosh, now why didn't I think of that. Why the secrecy, why not just say 'I live in...' ?


... Sweden!


----------



## Transk53

I would pretty much say that I don't care what GED says. I have yet to see any inkling of a pro, vs someone in the industry. Make the point? Try to at least validate the point. Hey I am just an ex doorman with 12 years behind me and a Senior with my current job, I just fail to see your point ().


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Transk53 said:


> I would pretty much say that I don't care what GED says. I have yet to see any inkling of a pro, vs someone in the industry. Make the point? Try to at least validate the point. Hey I am just an ex doorman with 12 years behind me and a Senior with my current job, I just fail to see your point ().



You've already kind of made my point. 



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> I can understand perfectly well that when you've spent a considerable amount of time operating within a given framework, you don't always respond well to being presented with scenarios in which what you previously thought to be applicable, no longer is.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Roughly three years ago, I was working in this hardware/electronics store when I noticed a woman standing outside talking on the phone, while her maybe five or six year old son ran around screaming. All of a sudden, he decided to run inside the store. The entrance was outfitted with two sets of barrier gates, both of which swung in towards the interior of the store. After having made a wild dash inside the store, the kid attempted to run back the same way he came in. The boy managed to clear the first set of gates, but as he naturally was unfamiliar with their movement pattern, he ran head first straight into the rounded point of one of the second gates, which knocked him backwards and made him sit there crying right in the middle of the gated entry.
It took far longer than I'd expected for the mother to notice the predicament her son had been placed in, and as it was, she was unable to get to him right away, since approaching the gates would cause them to swing out and hit the kid in the face once more. Meanwhile, the queue outside the store started to build up.

I keep thinking about the incident to this day. One couldn't possibly have asked for a more perfect illustration of everything that's wrong with society nowadays.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Because the attempts to fill in the blanks fascinate me. As does the underlying assumption that the differences aren't as important as the similarities.




Sweden for sure.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Roughly three years ago, I was working in this hardware/electronics store when I noticed a woman standing outside talking on the phone, while her maybe five or six year old son ran around screaming. All of a sudden, he decided to run inside the store. The entrance was outfitted with two sets of barrier gates, both of which swung in towards the interior of the store. After having made a wild dash inside the store, the kid attempted to run back the same way he came in. The boy managed to clear the first set of gates, but as he naturally was unfamiliar with their movement pattern, he ran head first straight into the rounded point of one of the second gates, which knocked him backwards and made him sit there crying right in the middle of the gated entry.
> It took far longer than I'd expected for the mother to notice the predicament her son had been placed in, and as it was, she was unable to get to him right away, since approaching the gates would cause them to swing out and hit the kid in the face once more. Meanwhile, the queue outside the store started to build up.
> 
> I keep thinking about the incident to this day. One couldn't possibly have asked for a more perfect illustration of everything that's wrong with society nowadays.



so, one not very bright woman means society is going down the drain? I doubt it. :lfao: I think more indicative of society going down the drain is people who blog their lives believing they are doing society a favour.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> so, one not very bright woman means society is going down the drain? I doubt it. :lfao:



One thing my mom did right was to have me learn about the concept of metaphors. Did yours?

A lot of people who join the police force claim to be doing so in order to do society a favor. I'd say that quite often, it's more a kind of an outlet. As is this thread, and at least I'm open about it.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Perhaps I should also add that I intentionally didn't bring the woman and child's ethnicity into it. Given some people's attitudes I'm wondering if it might have served to bring the point across further, but, well, that's not really my style.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> One thing my mom did right was to have me learn about the concept of metaphors. Did yours?
> 
> A lot of people who join the police force claim to be doing so in order to do society a favor. I'd say that quite often, it's more a kind of an outlet. As is this thread, and at least I'm open about it.



Ah the concept of metaphors, is that like the concept of being patronising? :boing2:

I don't know anyone who has joined a police force saying they are doing society a favour, perhaps they regard it as a good career, a chance to make a difference or perhaps because the pay is good but no one joins to do society a favour lol.


----------



## Balrog

I'm finding this thread quite interesting.  Many moons ago, I worked in private security.  I had a variety of positions with companies that would start up and then fold after about six months (and getting that last paycheck was always fun, let me tell you), but I eventually wound up as a branch manager (central Texas) for a major firm.  We had a blast.  One of our major clients was a construction company in Austin that was building a large number of subdivisions around the city and we were patrolling the divisions.  We busted at least two or three people a week stealing stuff from the sites.  The cops loved us because the responding officer would get a nice felony arrest out of it, which made their personal stats look good and the department looked good overall.  

We also set up some interesting stings.  We stillwatched a carpet warehouse that had been burglarized repeatedly and finally caught the guys doing it - employees.  We also did some shoplifting prevention, and that was a hoot.  We busted a guy trying to shoplift a canoe, of all things.  The ones that astounded me were the ones that worked up all these elaborate schemes for stealing, like the "fat" guy described earlier.  If they had put half that much effort into a job, they'd have been a lot better off.

Good times, good times.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Balrog said:


> We also set up some interesting stings.  We stillwatched a carpet warehouse that had been burglarized repeatedly and finally caught the guys doing it - employees.



That is, for all intents and purposes, a touchy subject.

Many security companies also offer investigation services, the one I work for being no exception. While there are locally no laws whatsoever governing private detectives, there are two caveats to be found in the aforementioned RGPA.
Both the police and the (serious) security companies agree on one thing, and that is that there has to be a clear distinction between the two. As such, it is illegal for companies to gather evidence against a specific person if said person is already under suspicion of a crime by the police. Also, they may not keep records of people containing names, addresses and pictures in order to keep track of their activities. However, it IS legal for security companies (and, I'm assuming, everyone else) to conduct investigations in order to determine whether or not there actually are crimes being committed against the customer or client.
While working at my former company, a young woman was caught attempting to walk home from her job in an exclusive clothing store, while carrying a bag full of clothes worth roughly 3700 USD. And that was just what she'd tried to steal on that specific day - her home closet would have made Beyoncé envious. Not to mention all the stuff she'd managed to fence already. But the best part? She'd just been hired by a bank in London.

One should not forget, however, that this kind of work is also the type that regularly destroys people's lives. My boss once busted a woman for embezzlement, and as he was away working in a completely different city, the police calls him up and asks him if a knows a woman named so-and-so. To which he naturally responds "yes, she was the woman who embezzled roughly 700K from that store a while back". The policeman goes on to say "see, we've just broken down her apartment door, and right next to her dead body, we found a note stating that you are solely responsible for her now having taken her life"...


----------



## K-man

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> That is, for all intents and purposes, a touchy subject.
> 
> Many security companies also offer investigation services, the one I work for being no exception. While there are locally no laws whatsoever governing private detectives, there are two caveats to be found in the aforementioned RGPA.
> Both the police and the (serious) security companies agree on one thing, and that is that there has to be a clear distinction between the two.* As such, it is illegal for companies to gather evidence against a specific person if said person is already under suspicion of a crime by the police. *Also, they may not keep records of people containing names, addresses and pictures in order to keep track of their activities. However, it IS legal for security companies (and, I'm assuming, everyone else) to conduct investigations in order to determine whether or not there actually are crimes being committed against the customer or client.
> While working at my former company, a young woman was caught attempting to walk home from her job in an exclusive clothing store, while carrying a bag full of clothes worth roughly 3700 USD. And that was just what she'd tried to steal on that specific day - her home closet would have made Beyoncé envious. Not to mention all the stuff she'd managed to fence already. But the best part? She'd just been hired by a bank in London.
> 
> One should not forget, however, that this kind of work is also the type that regularly destroys people's lives. My boss once busted a woman for embezzlement, and as he was away working in a completely different city, the police calls him up and asks him if a knows a woman named so-and-so. To which he naturally responds "yes, she was the woman who embezzled roughly 700K from that store a while back". The policeman goes on to say "see, we've just broken down her apartment door, and right next to her dead body, we found a note stating that you are solely responsible for her now having taken her life"...


Mmm! That's an interesting one. So I am assuming, in Sweden, that the police keep all the security guys in the loop as to who is being investigated? That would be really interesting here in Australia if the police did that. A lot of security here is controlled by OMCGs. It would be a bonus for them to be kept informed. 

As to the woman who killed herself? My heart bleeds! Someone rips me off $700K and tops herself when she is caught? I care? I have been ripped off big time by people I trusted. Dying would be too good for them. Rotting in prison would be better but thanks to the legal system that believes people are innately good, a slap on the wrist with a feather is all they get.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

K-man said:


> the police keep all the security guys in the loop as to who is being investigated?



Not really. Six years ago, me and the people from my former company were called to a meeting at the local police station in order to coordinate our efforts during X-mas month. I vaguely recall that they'd put up a few pictures of suspected pickpockets on the wall, and they basically just told us to call them if we saw any of them.
Nevertheless, let's say you're working somewhere that's difficult to get to without a car, and a bunch of your local French gypsies show up en masse. Even if they don't steal anything, if you happen to know that none of them have a licence, and you're also aware that several of them have been convicted many times over for unlawful driving, well...do the math. 

I should also tell you that the regulations concerning how and when investigations may be conducted were introduced to the RGPA fairly recently, and were probably at least somewhat influenced by the attempts of a certain supermarket chain to track down fences.
Roughly ten years ago, several "security consultants" (whom I believe were not part of any authorized security company) were hired in order to track thieves - particularly junkies - as they returned from their thieving escapades to sell off their goods, usually to smaller corner stores/tobacco shops and the like. However, the police considered it to be an infringement upon their duty.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

"Children are fine, just keep them away from me." - Bill Hicks

I was going to dedicate this next post to my thoughts on the use of force, but I figured I should touch on a different subject first.

A few of my company's clients have hired us - or at least, some of the people now working for us - for a VERY long time. As in, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, roughly speaking. Some of them still keep binders with incident reports from that time period, and upon reading them you'll discover one thing very quickly - the average age of store thieves has dropped *DRAMATICALLY* since the 90's.

Or has it?

I still remember an episode from my social sciences book from maybe fifth or sixth grade, detailing a twelve-year old boy getting caught stealing a couple of CD's, at which point he's ordered to give up his name and address, and then set loose. Doing so goes against everything we're taught to do today, not to mention the fact that it's illegal as well as dangerous in some areas. But from what I've gathered, back then it was far more common to contact the parents directly, as opposed to writing a report, having the police arrive and drive the child home. 
Some store owners seem to have great difficulties letting go of those days, it seems. And maybe that's at least part of the reason why almost every incident I've experienced on duty since about a year ago (apart from the robbery attempt by the aforementioned family of French gypsies) has involved children in some way or other.

I've already touched on the fact that I was once permanently banned from working in a store after I refused goading a seven-year old Somali boy into giving up his last name and the phone number of his parents, as opposed to letting the police handle it. In theory, I can understand not wanting to pay for me having to sit around for half an hour on account of a little boy and a measly candy bar, but while there are rules that can be bent, they generally do not involve the apprehension of children.
I should clarify that a bit - for a few years now, there has been a certain "shoplifting number" available to call for guards and store personnel, intended to ease the administration of retail thefts. Basically, it means that as long as the person in question is an adult who admits to the crime, has a valid ID and address, is not carrying weapons or drugs and has not been violent or threatening towards anyone, a number can be dialed up and the person will be questioned over the phone, after which he's free to leave without the police needing to come to the scene. Granted, there's usually nobody handling that service when you need it the most, and up until recently it only worked within city limits, but it certainly has a time and place to be used. Young offenders, however, do not qualify for it's use (nor, in my opinion, do drunk/intoxicated people, but more on that later).

The right to arrest people under 18 years of age is not governed by the Code of Judicial Procedure, but by the Young Offenders Act. In practice, this means that the police are obliged to arrive much quicker on the scene than usual - again, not to discern whether or not the child is guilty of a crime, but to make sure that the infringement on the child's liberty is kept to a minimum.
Now, the law text itself classifies people under 18 as young offenders, but on a day-to-day basis, the police will usually not accept someone of fifteen years or more as a young offender. Exceptions do occur, however - about three weeks ago I ran into this Moroccan dude who on one hand claimed to be seventeen, but who was probably at least five years older than that. The officers who arrived to the scene decided to classify him as a young offender - presumably in order for the case to be handled quicker. 
Further confusing the issue is the time during last X-mas when I apprehended this sixteen-year old guy, and a plain-clothes traffic cop shows up alone and asks me why I didn't dial the shoplifting number. I told him that you can't do that with underage people, especially those who don't have any form of ID. To which he responds "that's not been my experience" and goes on to berate me for taking up precious time by having an officer show up to the scene. Needless to say, I was more than a little angry when he left - enough so to call up his section chief asking what the hell was going on. 
(Just the other week, I overheard that same cop being featured in a police podcast as a "legal expert". Figures.)


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Fast forward to the end of May this year.

I show up at a store in which I've only worked once before, and as usual, I walk up to the oldest visible male staff member I can find, show him my ID, and ask him to sign my time card. About 45 minutes later, a gang of four or five twelve-thirteen-year-old boys come in, and by the way they're handling their backpacks, I can immediately tell something's up. Before long, one of them indeed sneaks a plastic-wrapped sandwich into the backpack of another, and overtly ambitious as I can be at times, I decide that I might as well bring them both in. After all, I'm in a fairly posh suburb where Caucasian kids usually don't even dare look unfamiliar people with my skin tone in the eye, so what could possibly go wrong?

The dude who put the sandwich inside the backpack of the other heads out of the store first, and so I position myself at the entrance as his friends are busy buying a few drinks. As the guy with the backpack walks past the last point of sale, I show him my ID and tell him to open up his bag and give me back the sandwich. So far, so good - he unzips his backpack and gives me familiar guilty look. The story could have ended right here, but like I said, I can be overly ambitious at times. After I've secured the goods (or so I think), I can't resist taking a quick look outside to see if the other guy's still there. But he isn't.
And that's when all hell breaks loose.

As soon as I turn my head, the kid seizes his opportunity to get away. I manage to grab a hold of him, however, and proceed to attempt to drag him back into the store. With defiance and aggression that far belies his small stature and apparent age, he looks me straight in the eyes and screams "WHAT THE **** DO YOU WANT!?!?" 
I've met kids like him many times before, though I've usually been able to determine what their response would be beforehand. As far as I can tell, he's not in the least what you would call afraid. The way he sees it, I've issued him a challenge, one that he feels he needs to accept in order to prove his worth to his peers.
Even so, his young age puts me at a significant disadvantage. I've long known that the problems with apprehending kids and teenagers isn't superior strength - it's the fact that their limbs are still relatively soft and bendy, which means that you can't tell at which point something goes snap. Therefore, I'm hesitant to throw him to the ground the way I would an adult, so I proceed to push and drag him inside as best as I can without hurting him.
As it happens, I'm wearing a messenger bag containing a newly bought pair of fairly expensive jeans, which I kept on me since I did not know where it could be safely deposited. After maybe thirty seconds of struggle, the kid ceases with merely trying to get away and, as far as I can tell, attempts to clinch with me trying to get a hold of my bag. 

I don't want him to get away, but I do not want him to get too close either, since that would perhaps allow me to choke me with the shoulder strap of my bag, or worse yet, get a hold of my baton which I'm carrying in my front right pocket. I somehow manage to snake my left arm around his right, and at the same time, I put my right hand under his jawbone pushing him away with my thumb and index finger, being careful to aim the pressure upwards so as not to risk injure to his larynx. This buys me enough time to finally secure a good grip on his right arm, and I manage to get him right inside the barrier gates. 

But guess what happens? 

Three store employees rush at me from both the front and back, restraining both myself and the struggling kid. I hear someone shout off the top of his lungs "WHAT THE HELL'S GOING ON HERE!?!?"
 I deduce that once more, someone's decided that the scruffy-looking "Arab bastard" has viciously attacked an innocent little kid for no good reason than pure maliciousness. This has happened to me before, and while it's a hassle, it's to be expected while working in plain clothes, especially hip hop-oriented ones as I'm prone to do. Some people would call it structural racism, whereas I refer to it as the inherent stupidity of mankind (for one thing, any sane person looking at my nose could should be able to tell that I don't hail from the Middle East). In any case, I calmly explain several times over that I'm a guard and that he's been stealing.
But I soon realize there's something wrong. Whomever's holding on to me is refusing to let go, even after I've managed to bring out my ID which I keep hanging around my neck. Every attempt I make to grab a hold of the thieving kid once again is met with resistance. Finally, I see someone dragging him away and another person placing himself clearly in between of myself and the other two, holding his hands out as if to tell me to back away. 
Standing behind me is the 60-ish store owner, a man whom I had no idea even existed. He tells me that this is his store and once more asks me what the hell I thought I was doing and where I was coming from. 

I can't even begin to describe how surreal the whole situation felt at the time. Looking down, I see that the kid has dropped his backpack. Upon seeing the sandwich, training and instincts kick in once more.
Secure the goods. 
Get away from danger. 
Contact the police.
Contact boss.
Next person who attempts to close gets a finger jab to the eye and a hammerfist to the collarbone.

Slowly, it dawns on me that the way to fulfill all those objectives has been cleared. That's when I feel the anger surging within me. Pure, unmitigated fury paving the way for counter-offense with bad intentions.
 I look the store owner straight into the eye, saying "you're going to answer to the police for this". He replies, "then you'll be reported for 'over-violence'". "Then I'll have you on false incrimination", I respond, walking outside holding the backpack dialing the emergency number. I repeatedly make it clear to the operator that there's a minor involved, as well as bystanders attempting an aided escape - I do everything I can to have the police show up as quickly as possible. For the first time in my career, I feel that the safest place I can be at is outside, in the parking lot. Near buses, witnesses, escape routs. As far away from the people whose goods I've been hired to protect as possible. I tell myself that if they follow me out here, it would further substantiate my claims of self-defense, should they try to get at me once more. I even wish slightly for it to happen. How the HELL do they even dare to touch me even AFTER I've declared both visibly and verbally whom I am?

It takes about 15-20 minutes for the police to arrive. During that time, both myself and the store people call my boss, the CEO of the company I work for and an old friend of the owner. With all the calm I can muster, I tell my boss that I want to press charges against them. He responds by saying "be careful now, be REALLY careful with what you do", his voice having taken on a tone of worrisomeness that I've never heard before. As soon as I see the police van drive in, my thoughts have cleared enough to realize what prompted the intervention of the store employees. It's so simple and obvious, I feel like slapping myself. My attempt to push the kid away from me with my two fingers to his jaw clearly looked like an attempt to strangle him from the onlookers's perspective. That's probably what caused their ire more than anything else.
Three police officers arrive, one of them a rookie, who is also the one assigned to hear my statement. She does so sitting down next to me on the pavement behind the store, as I've managed to convince them that I'm not going back inside the store no matter what. As soon as she's done, I hop on the next bus and leave without neither writing a report nor having my time card signed again.

I know that aiding escape as well as outrageous conduct against a public servant are far greater crimes than petty theft.
I know that my boss is primarily attempting to protect his interests, as well as his old friend, when he tells me that a prosecutor would probably drop the charges against the store's employees.
I know that he has the same thing in mind when I tell him that they kept at it even after I'd shown them my ID.
I know that that's his reason for subtly shifting the blame onto myself for escalating the situation.
I know that he's probably BS-ing me when he tells me that the store owner is the primary reason the kid's parents didn't press charges against me.
I know that several of my colleagues would have defended themselves far more violently than I did.
I know that I could find work at a different firm in probably less than a week's time if I needed to.

Even so, I never pressed charges against the store owner.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

More often than not, when you come home feeling like making someone wish they were dead, it's not because of what any criminal person has done to you. It's either the staff employed by the store/customer, the police, or the public. Usually in that order.

Roughly two months ago, I went down to shop at a store not located too far from where I live (as such, I don't usually work there), only to find one of my colleagues asking me for assistance. Turns out, a man and woman are just about to walk out with several thousands worth of cosmetics, and from the looks of them, there's going to be trouble.
However, looks can, as we all know, be deceiving. The muscular, tattooed guy doesn't even bother to give us attitude when we confront them - the same cannot be said, however, of his lady friend. We manage to talk them into walking inside our waiting room without incident, but it's not long before the woman starts complaining about my colleague's attitude and vice versa. The argument gets heated for a short period of time, but things eventually start to cool down after we've established a first-name basis and informed them of what's going to happen (the man is obviously no stranger to situations like these, but as for the woman, a newly-employed nurse, it's apparently her first run-in with the law).

And that's when everything starts heading sideways once more.

After having asked a store employee for assistance in ascertaining the combined worth of all the stolen property, he returns saying that the store's playground is about to close, but there's one child still there looking for his mommy - who happens to be the very woman we've just apprehended. Behind said employee is another woman of about 50, who happens to be the store manager for the night. In a very sharp, audible voice, she then goes on to say "then we'll simply have to call social services and have them take the kid away!" And then, she promptly walks away.

The absolute last thing I would want to have to go up against, is a mother who believes I'm about to somehow take her child away from her. And yet, due to the near-unfathomable thoughtlessness of a store manager, that's what I now believe that I'm about to have to face. Granted, the woman in question is of a far slighter build than both myself and my colleague, but that's ignoring the muscular dopehead sitting across the table in front of us.
The woman, naturally, becomes totally hysterical in the blink of an eye, crying and screaming that we shouldn't even dare try to take her baby away from her. For a few moments, I'm preparing for having to take off across the room in order to bring down the man, should he decide to get physically involved. At the same time, I curse my colleague for thinking himself above having to carry a baton and handcuffs, since it's very likely that we're soon going to be needing two pairs, which is more than the one pair I happen to be carrying on my person.

Fortunately, we somehow manage to defuse situation, I'm guessing chiefly because the man and woman are apparently not a couple, but mere friends. As such, the man just sits by idly while I tell the woman that I'm going to call the police once more and tell them that a child is involved. After having done so, they arrive in less than ten minutes.

This very fall, I've had store owners call the parents of the kids I've arrested before the police have even arrived, which is not only dangerous but legally questionable and may affect my company's authorization. I've had store employees outright lie about me having complained all day about how much I hate working in said store, as well as having called apprehended teenagers idiots - which I have *NOT* done. I've had those people promising me to go dial the emergency number immediately right before an incident which turned into a robbery, only to find out that no one in that place except myself ever called the police on that day. Simply put, I've just about had it. Not just with employees behaving like asshats, but with them telling completely different stories compared to what actually transpired.
And I tell myself, I'm not going to stand for this anymore.

Thus, when the police and the thieves have both left the scene, I walk up to said store manager. At the same time, I'm holding my cell phone in my right hand at waist level, camera not pointing at anyone in particular, but just this once, I want to be able to prove to my boss what words were actually said.
I tell her that I know it's not in my best interest to say what I'm about to say.
I tell her that I know that she's probably going to call my boss for having said it.
But I also tell her, there are some things which have to be said.
I ask her, did she really have to say that about social services?
I tell her that what she said put me, my colleague as well as the two arrestees in potential danger by needlessly provoking the woman with what is probably the greatest fear of her life - that her child might be taken from her.
Do I believe said woman was anywhere near a good excuse for a mother? Hell no. But that's not the point. The point is, as long as we're waiting for the police to arrive, we're responsible for the people we've apprehended. It also means that we are the ones who decide if the situation is to be escalated - and provoking people needlessly not only affects the safety of everyone involved, but also has the potential to negatively affect the store's public image.

As you can imagine, these actions cost me the first ever written warning of my professional life.
Was it worth it? Definitely. Especially as it turns out, the woman in question has been working as a guard herself for over fifteen years. And still, somehow, failed to pick up something as basic as this.


----------



## drop bear

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> More often than not, when you come home feeling like making someone wish they were dead, it's not because of what any criminal person has done to you. It's either the staff employed by the store/customer, the police, or the public. Usually in that order.
> 
> Roughly two months ago, I went down to shop at a store not located too far from where I live (as such, I don't usually work there), only to find one of my colleagues asking me for assistance. Turns out, a man and woman are just about to walk out with several thousands worth of cosmetics, and from the looks of them, there's going to be trouble.
> However, looks can, as we all know, be deceiving. The muscular, tattooed guy doesn't even bother to give us attitude when we confront them - the same cannot be said, however, of his lady friend. We manage to talk them into walking inside our waiting room without incident, but it's not long before the woman starts complaining about my colleague's attitude and vice versa. The argument gets heated for a short period of time, but things eventually start to cool down after we've established a first-name basis and informed them of what's going to happen (the man is obviously no stranger to situations like these, but as for the woman, a newly-employed nurse, it's apparently her first run-in with the law).
> 
> And that's when everything starts heading sideways once more.
> 
> After having asked a store employee for assistance in ascertaining the combined worth of all the stolen property, he returns saying that the store's playground is about to close, but there's one child still there looking for his mommy - who happens to be the very woman we've just apprehended. Behind said employee is another woman of about 50, who happens to be the store manager for the night. In a very sharp, audible voice, she then goes on to say "then we'll simply have to call social services and have them take the kid away!" And then, she promptly walks away.
> 
> The absolute last thing I would want to have to go up against, is a mother who believes I'm about to somehow take her child away from her. And yet, due to the near-unfathomable thoughtlessness of a store manager, that's what I now believe that I'm about to have to face. Granted, the woman in question is of a far slighter build than both myself and my colleague, but that's ignoring the muscular dopehead sitting across the table in front of us.
> The woman, naturally, becomes totally hysterical in the blink of an eye, crying and screaming that we shouldn't even dare try to take her baby away from her. For a few moments, I'm preparing for having to take off across the room in order to bring down the man, should he decide to get physically involved. At the same time, I curse my colleague for thinking himself above having to carry a baton and handcuffs, since it's very likely that we're soon going to be needing two pairs, which is more than the one pair I happen to be carrying on my person.
> 
> Fortunately, we somehow manage to defuse situation, I'm guessing chiefly because the man and woman are apparently not a couple, but mere friends. As such, the man just sits by idly while I tell the woman that I'm going to call the police once more and tell them that a child is involved. After having done so, they arrive in less than ten minutes.
> 
> This very fall, I've had store owners call the parents of the kids I've arrested before the police have even arrived, which is not only dangerous but legally questionable and may affect my company's authorization. I've had store employees outright lie about me having complained all day about how much I hate working in said store, as well as having called apprehended teenagers idiots - which I have *NOT* done. I've had those people promising me to go dial the emergency number immediately right before an incident which turned into a robbery, only to find out that no one in that place except myself ever called the police on that day. Simply put, I've just about had it. Not just with employees behaving like asshats, but with them telling completely different stories compared to what actually transpired.
> And I tell myself, I'm not going to stand for this anymore.
> 
> Thus, when the police and the thieves have both left the scene, I walk up to said store manager. At the same time, I'm holding my cell phone in my right hand at waist level, camera not pointing at anyone in particular, but just this once, I want to be able to prove to my boss what words were actually said.
> I tell her that I know it's not in my best interest to say what I'm about to say.
> I tell her that I know that she's probably going to call my boss for having said it.
> But I also tell her, there are some things which have to be said.
> I ask her, did she really have to say that about social services?
> I tell her that what she said put me, my colleague as well as the two arrestees in potential danger by needlessly provoking the woman with what is probably the greatest fear of her life - that her child might be taken from her.
> Do I believe said woman was anywhere near a good excuse for a mother? Hell no. But that's not the point. The point is, as long as we're waiting for the police to arrive, we're responsible for the people we've apprehended. It also means that we are the ones who decide if the situation is to be escalated - and provoking people needlessly not only affects the safety of everyone involved, but also has the potential to negatively affect the store's public image.
> 
> As you can imagine, these actions cost me the first ever written warning of my professional life.
> Was it worth it? Definitely. Especially as it turns out, the woman in question has been working as a guard herself for over fifteen years. And still, somehow, failed to pick up something as basic as this.



Yeah store owners can be Muppets. Generally because it is not their neck on the line.

My favorite one was a loss prevention person who found stolen goods in a lady's mobility scooter. The loss prevention person had to give a description because the lady had escaped by the time i got there.

And got offended when i laughed.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

There's something to be said about people like me being failed cops, apart from the fact that I earn more and work better hours (as well as my having no obligation to intervene off-duty - I'd hate not being able to look the other way at a club or concert when someone starts puffing away, which is why I have no interest in becoming a peace officer either).

About a year and a half ago, a video was made public showing a police woman viciously beating what looked like a harmless man with her baton, for no other reason than him refusing to lay down and making some stupid drunken threats. Many people considered her to have used excessive force, especially considering the fact that she seemed to deliberately target other areas of the man's body than what is allowed, in regards to lawful authority-level force. Surely enough, she was convicted of assault in early 2014 - however, the court of appeal overturned the sentence. While they were all in agreement that an actual, unlawful assault had taken place, they exhonerated her on the basis that her actions qualified as what's known as "putative" self-defense, in that the prosecutor had basically not managed to prove that she had no reason for actually feeling physically threatened. 
She'll keep her job, but if they didn't know before, I'm sure her colleagues have been shown exactly just how reliable she is in a physical altercation. I can't imagine that to be very good for anyone's morale.

On the very same day that woman was sentenced, I was working at a place not too far from the local municipal court, when a man whom I could immediately tell had lead a, let's say, "eventful" life, shows up and starts filling his backpack with all sorts of stuff. As he heads out past the last sales point, I walk up to him and show him my ID and tell him to follow me back in. He says "no, I think I'm going to stay right here". I say, "that's fine, we can wait here, no problem" and I proceed to dial the emergency number, informing them that I have a person being apprehended who refuses to cooperate. As usual, they tell me they're sending someone as fast as they can.

The place in question was located less than a five minute drive from the local police HQ, yet I had to stand there with him for roughly an hour and 45 minutes before they showed up. During that time, I found out that not only is he a former amateur boxing champion, but he's also done ten years behind bars for murder (as I would later read in an old newspaper article about the case, the lower jaw and ribcage of the guy he and two buddies did in had pretty much "vanished" by the time they were through with him), worked for seven years as a peace officer - don't ask me how he managed to get himself licensed - and was currently outfitted with a protected identity after single-handedly having beat the crap out of two Hells Angels members who messed with his girlfriend. 
At one point, this little kid walked up to him and hugged him, seeming because he liked the Dragonball t-shirt the guy was wearing. And as I stood there with him, no voices were raised, no threats were made, no harsh language used. I never even had to lay a finger on him.

In other words, whomever has failed at their job or not should probably be judged on a case-to-case basis.


----------



## drop bear

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> There's something to be said about people like me being failed cops, apart from the fact that I earn more and work better hours (as well as my having no obligation to intervene off-duty - I'd hate not being able to look the other way at a club or concert when someone starts puffing away, which is why I have no interest in becoming a peace officer either).
> 
> About a year and a half ago, a video was made public showing a police woman viciously beating what looked like a harmless man with her baton, for no other reason than him refusing to lay down and making some stupid drunken threats. Many people considered her to have used excessive force, especially considering the fact that she seemed to deliberately target other areas of the man's body than what is allowed, in regards to lawful authority-level force. Surely enough, she was convicted of assault in early 2014 - however, the court of appeal overturned the sentence. While they were all in agreement that an actual, unlawful assault had taken place, they exhonerated her on the basis that her actions qualified as what's known as "putative" self-defense, in that the prosecutor had basically not managed to prove that she had no reason for actually feeling physically threatened.
> She'll keep her job, but if they didn't know before, I'm sure her colleagues have been shown exactly just how reliable she is in a physical altercation. I can't imagine that to be very good for anyone's morale.
> 
> On the very same day that woman was sentenced, I was working at a place not too far from the local municipal court, when a man whom I could immediately tell had lead a, let's say, "eventful" life, shows up and starts filling his backpack with all sorts of stuff. As he heads out past the last sales point, I walk up to him and show him my ID and tell him to follow me back in. He says "no, I think I'm going to stay right here". I say, "that's fine, we can wait here, no problem" and I proceed to dial the emergency number, informing them that I have a person being apprehended who refuses to cooperate. As usual, they tell me they're sending someone as fast as they can.
> 
> The place in question was located less than a five minute drive from the local police HQ, yet I had to stand there with him for roughly an hour and 45 minutes before they showed up. During that time, I found out that not only is he a former amateur boxing champion, but he's also done ten years behind bars for murder (as I would later read in an old newspaper article about the case, the lower jaw and ribcage of the guy he and two buddies did in had pretty much "vanished" by the time they were through with him), worked for seven years as a peace officer - don't ask me how he managed to get himself licensed - and was currently outfitted with a protected identity after single-handedly having beat the crap out of two Hells Angels members who messed with his girlfriend.
> At one point, this little kid walked up to him and hugged him, seeming because he liked the Dragonball t-shirt the guy was wearing. And as I stood there with him, no voices were raised, no threats were made, no harsh language used. I never even had to lay a finger on him.
> 
> In other words, whomever has failed at their job or not should probably be judged on a case-to-case basis.



Like the song.

You gotta know when to hold em.
know when to fold em.
know when to walk away.
and know when to run.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

I was going to turn this into a rant about all the police effups I've had to suffer through over the years. Then I realized I probably owe it to myself to be a bit more nuanced.

I read somewhere that an average police pension in New York would be somewhere between 100-125 000 dollars a year. In contrast, the salary of a street-level police officer here would be equivalent to just under 33 400 dollars. Less than a year ago, it was even lower than that - the negotiations concerning police wages was probably what caused last summer to yield more hostile and unpleasant police encounters than I've experienced during my entire career beforehand. Whatever one's opinions may be on police salaries, I think it can be safely assumed that it affects the conduct of officers in the line of duty in one way or another.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in my neck of the woods, the word "liberal" bears the connotation of _right-wing_. Granted, not as far to the right as "conservative", but right-wing nonetheless - which should tell you something about just how far to the left the people usually referred to as leftists are here. One of those people happened to find herself in the position of principal at the local police academy a while back. As you might have guessed, this had more than a few consequences (one of them being that Glocks were rejected as carry weapons because of having too large magazines. That's right - _they were chambered for too many rounds._ Well, that and their lack of slide-mounted safety switches, but you get the point).

I was met with both ridicule and disbelief a few years ago when I wrote on another forum that all things considered, I would, in many cases, trust a guard or peace officer with a few years of experience to be not only more able to handle him/herself better in a physical confrontation, but to be more knowledgeable about the law than a street-level police officer with the same level of experience (for the sake of argument, let's say around 4-5 years of field work). 
I'm fully aware of how strange that may sound, but hear me out a bit on this:

Police training is conducted as a two-year training course, followed by six months work as a trainee, before they're finally hired as full-fledged "police assistants" as they're formally referred to. In all that time, their legal studies are primarily conducted during _the first two months. _After that point, they're expected to have memorized all of it well enough to suit them during their entire career. I know this because my ASP and handcuffing instructor (whom I repeated my certification course with as recently as last month) used to teach at the police academy not too long ago.
Now, guards have to go through a new certification course every fourth year, to refresh their grasp of legal matters as well as arrest and control tactics. Peace officers, every third year.
Guess how many times the police are obligated to revise their knowledge of the law?

Exactly. Zero. Zip. Zilch. They need to conduct a shooting test each year to be allowed to carry guns, but that's the only real requirement.

As a cop, pretty much everything you do in the line of duty is going to be scrutinized by the general public, the media, prosecutors, defense lawyers, self-appointed private investigators, you name it. It goes without saying. 
However, as a guard or peace officer, AS WELL as having to endure all that, you're going to be constantly constantly questioned, not to mention outright harassed, by the police. "Why did you wait so long before making the arrest? Why didn't you just take the stuff back and let the kid leave? Why did you search him for weapons, you're not allowed to do that, are you? Why are you carrying a baton when you're not a peace officer? Why did you arrest him for a crime which I don't think bears the penalty of prison? Why did you take the handcuffs off, we're the ones supposed to do that, not you?" Etc etc etc.

What I'm trying to say is that if you're working in a job capacity as a guard with a high probability of having to make physical interventions (and not just, for instance, a night-time desk clerk), you really have no choice but to make sure that your stuff is in order. An experienced guard's superior knowledge of the law, as compared to a police officer, is thus born not out of having more actual training, but pure necessity. This does *NOT* mean that this is always the case, but trust me when I say that if I would long since have been out of a job, had I followed the advice of every individual police officer I've met over the years.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Last year, it was decided that police certification would henceforth be considered the equivalent of a university-level educational programme - something which had been vehemently opposed by politicians (primarily right-wing ones) for years. The general idea used to be that doing so would lead to an over-intellectualization of police training, resulting in the recruitment of candidates who were, simply put, afraid or at least unwilling to get their hands dirty. Thing is, that process had been going on for a long time even before the decision was made.

It used to be that people who wanted to become police officers wanted to be put to work in a traditional, street-level capacity. I.e. keeping the peace and arresting criminals. Nowadays though, not so much. The turnover for regular patrolling cops these days is *INSANELY* high, with many people moving on to detective/surveillance work as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Others simply want a little bit of police training and/or experience to spice up their resumes.
My personal position is that one of the most important qualities needed as a police officer is the ability and willingness to grapple and fight. I feel that way because the police are supposed to be the ones who show up when there's no other option left, when things more or less literally start heading straight to hell.
The problem is that that very ability is becoming increasingly rare.

If one were to look at the video of the police woman beating a man with a baton I wrote about a while back, one would immediately notice one thing - she was *NOT*, as she claimed in court, in any way in true fear for her life. Rather, she was mad at the suspect for not complying with her orders. And a large part of that is because of the over-reliance on compliant training employed at the police academy.
Students are taught that a well-aimed strike at a person's leg will without fault cause them to immediately drop to their knees. A person being hit in the face with OC spray will immediately let go of his grip. A person having a gun pointed at himself will drop any and all weapons and lay flat on the ground post-haste.
While physical training is indeed a job requirement for police officers, it's usually only carried out in one out of two ways - weight lifting and floorball. The only ones who regularly engage in H2H combat training as a part of duty are the SWAT team, and it goes without saying that they're generally employed in situations that call for superior armament.

My aforementioned ASP instructor likes to make a point out of stating that many times while working as a guard before expandable batons were allowed to be carried, he regularly found himself in situations where, if he'd had one, he would have been certain to put said baton to good use. But the fact remains that he managed to solve the problem without using a baton at all - which naturally begs the question of whether or not the usage of a baton was truly called for to begin with.
However, the same thing can be said regarding having to work without access to OC spray and firearms. As a guard or PO these days, you're much more likely to find yourself in a hostile, disadvantageous situation than you would be as a policeman (for a long time, guards operated alone in areas where police as well as EMT's never ventured without being at least four in number - two moving in to deal with the situation, and two staying behind to prevent the squad car from being turned over or having its tires slashed). Granted, many times these situations are largely created by poor judgement and are reasonably avoidable - at least in hindsight - but when stuff hits the fan, you still may have to deal with it. And having had to do so a number of times may very well leave you with skills and abilities lost to police officers who are always able to rely on superior numbers.

A not very politically correct truth I've discovered over the years, is that people hailing from the Middle East sadly respond better to intimidation than coercion, at least once they've reached an aggravated state. Now, I can't be sure that this doesn't have something to do with my relatively dark complexion (despite my Latin heritage and a birth certificate which clearly states that I'm formally white, I frequently get mistaken for Arab/North African), but having drawn my baton coupled with threatening shouts from the top of my lungs and aggressive forward movement has helped me keep more than a couple of fights from escalating. 
I also noticed the same phenomenon when I read through the court verdict concerning the trigger-happy street gang who up until last year supplied most of the cocaine consumed by the city's jet set. One of the leader figures was apprehended by a peace officer following a theft attempt, and was also promptly beaten (over the chest, no less) with a baton and being given a choice of laying down immediately or "getting his effing head bashed in".

This, of course, is something that they would never even dream of mentioning at the police academy. While perhaps not illegal per se, it is quite likely to be considered unprofessional conduct by most. But if it prevents people from getting needlessly injured, well...?

Police tactics around the world generally follow the same pattern. That is, if they run into something they can't handle, the general strategy is to withdraw for a bit, call for backup, and then move in again so as to overpower the opposition. The best thing to do, naturally, would be for guards and peace officers to always do the same thing. It doesn't always work that way however, which is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time.
The one thing that police officers have got going for them is just that - training in how to operate as a team. Even if they don't even know each other before being called into action, they're still operating within a given framework where they always know the positions of Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and Delta respectively. This very tactic is what enables them to overcome superior odds.
With guards, even if they've worked together for a long time, it's usually not going to be that organized. It's always going to be one guard plus one guard plus one guard plus one guard, et cetera. All with their own separate agenda.

One of the reasons why the opening battle in the movie _Gladiator _is highly unrealistic is that as soon as the ranks close between the Romans and the barbarians, everything evolves into a one-on-one melee. The Germanic warriors were, individually, far superior combatants than the Romans - yet they were defeated by the Roman reliance on superior team tactics. It's the same thing with security personnel as compared to the police. When I say that a guard handles him/herself better than a police officer in a physical confrontation, it does not mean that I would call upon guards to perform tasks which are better handled by the police. Quite the opposite, in fact - every guard and PO I've ever met, as well as myself, would wish for nothing more than the police to greater in numbers. However, the recent years's influx of people recruited into the police force who are ill-equipped to handle violent situations is indeed a growing problem. Of course, guards working better hours and thus having more time available for personal defense training in their spare time also factors into this.


----------



## drop bear

Yeah. Look at some of the jerry Springer stuff. They do some good team guard stuff.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

The old cliché about people on opposing sides of the law being fundamentally the same, has been, in my experience, essentially true. It's really the same kind of people who become guards, bouncers and police officers, as it is who end up as gang members and professional criminals. The sad thing is, you don't realize this until you're so far gone down the road you've chosen that it's more or less impossible to choose a different path. This is a good thing and a bad thing - good because it's what enables you to arrest outlaw bikers and Eastern European mob enforcers without any violence taking place or threats being made, because they know you're just doing your thing and they're usually also able to sense that you understand that they're doing theirs. The bad part of it is all the time it takes to get to that point, and all the unpleasant encounters that have to take place before both sides learn to choose their battles with more care.

Most people that me and my company arrest, we never encounter again. No big wonder really, since we're a team of roughly twenty people and are responsible for around 1500 arrests each year. Even so, we do have somewhat of a "rogues gallery", i.e. people who show up time and again like clockwork.
I can't help but think about them sometimes, and about the fact that their personalities and life stories sometimes border on the poetic.

The most prominent one is a man I'll refer to as "Nicky". On one hand, he's a very localized phenomenon - on the other, he can be seen as a timeless, universal concept, and not just a mere individual. One could say that he serves as the perfect illustration of the fact that there will always be people who fall through the cracks in society. As an HIV-positive, heroin-addicted gypsy with hepatitis to boot, his mere existence is a spit in the face of political correctness. He is as far away from productivity, contribution to society and the positive aspects of multiculturalism as humanly possible. Most of the time, he steals meat with the intent to sell it, and whenever he's not locked up, that's pretty much what you can expect him to be doing 24/7. 
Rumours abound that he wound up as a junkie some time in the early 90's when a large portion of his family died in a fire, but as far as I know, it's never been substantiated, and I've never really come around to asking him myself. You could even draw some LotR parallels here, since as far as I know, the main reason he's still alive is because some of us opted to call his brother to show up with his medication before having the police pick him up. Indeed, pity and mercy, on behalf of the people who still have to bring him in at least several times a year. Last year, he managed to find a place to live in a different city, and from what he told me, for a while things were looking up - until, as he said to me, he made the fatal mistake of letting his neighbors in on the fact that he was HIV-positive. Things seem to have gone quickly downhill again from that point on, and from the way he relayed the whole incident to me, I'm inclined to believe it's true.

Still, perhaps the most fascinating aspect of his character is his perpetually good humour. He's never been known to display a bad attitude towards guards or cops, and as long as you remember not to grab a hold of him anywhere near his front chest pockets where he keeps his needles sticking straight up ("for protection", he says), he's essentially harmless. 

Nicky's polar opposite however, at least as far as the attitude's concerned, is the one I'm going to refer to as "Bob" (I've learned that police tend to refer to him as "Bumblebee", for reasons unknown as of writing this). Like Nicky, however, he's easily recognizable from a mile away, with his leather jacket, skinny jeans, converse shoes, and unkempt hair.
As the post-structuralist mafia would have you believe, he's superficially got things going for him, what with him being a white, blonde, heterosexual man and whatnot, if a tad short. However, as most adult people realize, things can still end up pretty badly for you when giving in to long-term substance abuse.

There is literally no one out there with the same capacity, or at least with the same ambition, to get under your skin as Bob. This is mitigated somewhat when he's apprehended by more than one person, but still, he goes to greater lengths trying to taunt and intimidate you than almost anyone else you'll meet. 
He usually starts out with pot-shots aimed at your supposed low level of intelligence, and then quickly moves on to how he considers people in your line of work to be lower than filth, and that the only reason you caught him is because he refuses to even honor you with a thought or remembrance.
After that, the veiled threats start pouring in about how he'll leave whenever he feels like it, and there won't be anything to can do to stop him. Or that one of these days, you'll end up arresting the wrong person, and that will be your undoing. Finally, he starts going on about how miserable and dull your life as a wage slave is, and that in your final moments, you'll realize that you've never been able to lead a life as "rich" and "eventful" as his, and how he doesn't regret any part of his background, nor would he ever want to change doing what he does. For a short time, Bob saw employment as a janitor about two years ago, but from what I've been told, things went sour due to his inability to suppress the voices inside his head. He apparently tried to make them go away by blasting heavy metal in his earphones on the highest volume, with near deafness as a result.

Last time I ran into Bob, however, I had something of an epiphany. The fact that he noticed me before he got around to stealing anything, and then promptly left the area, certainly proves that all his talk of not remembering any of us is pure BS, but of course, I knew that already. The strange thing, however, was that I saw the look in his eyes and realized that I've seen it before. A very, very long time ago.
It was directly related to the earliest memory I can recall of what might be referred to as "evil", or at least some degree of maliciousness, being directed towards my person. 
There was this kid who went to the same preschool as I did, who would sometimes jump me and pick a fight with be for no apparent reason. It took quite some time both for myself and my parents to realize what issues he might have had with me, but the facts involved were most likely quite simple - he'd recently received a younger brother whom he felt was taking up all of his parents's time and attention. What better way for a four or five year old boy to vent his frustrations than by beating on the kid with the darkest skin complexion available?

As luck would have it, I managed to make friends with him just before he and his family moved away - by giving him one of my "Ring Raider" toys, no less. But my point is, when Bob last looked at me, I realized that he had exactly the same look in his eyes as that kid. I saw the exact same hatred and bitterness over having been screwed over in life by forces they both could probably neither control nor comprehend. And the same stubborn determination to make the anguish rub off on everyone they meet.

I don't really know what makes some people think that they're entitled to have their own suffering befall other people, nor am I sure as to what prevents people from feeling that way. But I do think that if such nebulous concepts as "good" and "evil" can ever be clearly defined, then it is usually far easier for evil to comprehend good, than the other way around.


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> *I don't really know what makes some people think that they're entitled to have their own suffering befall other people*, nor am I sure as to what prevents people from feeling that way. But I do think that if such nebulous concepts as "good" and "evil" can ever be clearly defined, then it is usually far easier for evil to comprehend good, than the other way around.



My abusive mother would be a typical example of that from my perspective. I was her son, that made her feel entitled by birth right or something.



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> I don't really know what makes some people think that they're entitled to have their own suffering befall other people, nor am I sure as to what prevents people from feeling that way. But I do think that if such nebulous concepts as "good" and "evil" can ever be clearly defined, then it is usually far easier for *evil to comprehend good*, than the other way around.



Makes sense to me. Although I would imagine that has a wider viewpoint as apposed to just mine. I think good can recognise evil, but perhaps evil is more equipped to do bad. Good could still do bad, perhaps not something considered heinous, but still the intent would be there.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

It's no big secret that the world is slowly catching on fire once again, and largely, it's because of the most pointless, tiresome and stupid reason imaginable - that some people can't deal with the fact that others have different ideas regarding how one's supposed to believe in god. My not writing god with a capital g should give you an idea about my own stance on that matter. In any case, people are fleeing en masse to countries in the Western hemisphere, hoping to secure a better future for themselves and their offspring. I have no problems with that in and of itself, as long as one keeps in mind that it's neither possible nor required for any single country to save the rest of the world. But the fact that some of the children of refugees are all to eager to establish the same oppressive environment that their parents escaped from, is sadly conveniently ignored by some people. The same people who are likely to tell you that the white man is responsible for all of it occurring in the first place. The same people who will tell you that using only gender-neutral pronouns will improve equality amongst men and women (hint - Farsi has gender-neutral pronouns. That should tell you something).

Pretty much every time I arrest someone hailing from the Middle East or North Africa along with a colleague from the same part of the world, he (it's usually a he) goes off on the same tangent - that is, how pissed he is at the fact that the suspect would *NEVER* do something like this back home. And especially, how he wouldn't even dare to think of putting up the same attitude he displays against us towards his native police/security force.
When you consider the fact that the official stance of not only the trigger warning-happy left-wing intelligentsia, but also of the state itself, is that these people are all helpless victims of their circumstances, as well as deserving of the right to enforce the same cultural standards they were previously used to in their home countries, you're essentially helpless against someone who will without fault take any leniency or courteousness as a weakness.

I can understand that it sucks having the government in your country of origin going out for your blood.
I can understand you having had to endure countless hardships in getting here from there.
I can understand having to learn a new language can be difficult.
I can understand finding work in a country that may not accept your previous educational certificates can be frustrating.
I can understand having to in a poor, downtrodden area riddled with criminality can be awful.
But why the hell would you, on top of all that, start shooting heroin? Especially when I've got a colleague from the same are who went through the same stuff but opted to become a family-providing workaholic instead?


----------



## Jenna

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> It's no big secret that the world is slowly catching on fire once again, and largely, it's because of the most pointless, tiresome and stupid reason imaginable - that some people can't deal with the fact that others have different ideas regarding how one's supposed to believe in god. My not writing god with a capital g should give you an idea about my own stance on that matter. In any case, people are fleeing en masse to countries in the Western hemisphere, hoping to secure a better future for themselves and their offspring. I have no problems with that in and of itself, as long as one keeps in mind that it's neither possible nor required for any single country to save the rest of the world. But the fact that some of the children of refugees are all to eager to establish the same oppressive environment that their parents escaped from, is sadly conveniently ignored by some people. The same people who are likely to tell you that the white man is responsible for all of it occurring in the first place. The same people who will tell you that using only gender-neutral pronouns will improve equality amongst men and women (hint - Farsi has gender-neutral pronouns. That should tell you something).
> 
> Pretty much every time I arrest someone hailing from the Middle East or North Africa along with a colleague from the same part of the world, he (it's usually a he) goes off on the same tangent - that is, how pissed he is at the fact that the suspect would *NEVER* do something like this back home. And especially, how he wouldn't even dare to think of putting up the same attitude he displays against us towards his native police/security force.
> When you consider the fact that the official stance of not only the trigger warning-happy left-wing intelligentsia, but also of the state itself, is that these people are all helpless victims of their circumstances, as well as deserving of the right to enforce the same cultural standards they were previously used to in their home countries, you're essentially helpless against someone who will without fault take any leniency or courteousness as a weakness.
> 
> I can understand that it sucks having the government in your country of origin going out for your blood.
> I can understand you having had to endure countless hardships in getting here from there.
> I can understand having to learn a new language can be difficult.
> I can understand finding work in a country that may not accept your previous educational certificates can be frustrating.
> I can understand having to in a poor, downtrodden area riddled with criminality can be awful.
> But why the hell would you, on top of all that, start shooting heroin? Especially when I've got a colleague from the same are who went through the same stuff but opted to become a family-providing workaholic instead?


it is relief indeed to know there are people like you to save the rest of us from the evils of the world.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

If it is your sincere impression that saving the world is my ambition, then that says more about you than it does about me.

Come to think of it, it also does if it isn't your sincere impression.


----------



## Jenna

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> If it is your sincere impression that saving the world is my ambition, then that says more about you than it does about me.


cool.. how so?


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> But why the hell would you, on top of all that, start shooting heroin? Especially when I've got a colleague from the same are who went through the same stuff but opted to become a family-providing workaholic instead?



Why do people shoot heroin, because they felt that the answer was there, but at the same time they new otherwise. Why, who knows, if they did, this problem would pretty much become obsolete. The alcohol just stops them shooting up. Get blind drunk for sleep, the other just to buzz through the day. Same destruction, but more live longer for that buzz than die, if they stay on the booze. Well, until the three bottles of Vodka!



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Pretty much every time I arrest someone hailing from the Middle East or North Africa along with a colleague from the same part of the world, he (it's usually a he) goes off on the same tangent - that is, how pissed he is at the fact that the suspect would *NEVER* do something like this back home. And especially, how he wouldn't even dare to think of putting up the same attitude he displays against us towards his native police/security force.
> When you consider the fact that the official stance of not only the trigger warning-happy left-wing intelligentsia, but also of the state itself, is that these people are all helpless victims of their circumstances, as well as deserving of the right to enforce the same cultural standards they were previously used to in their home countries, you're essentially helpless against someone who will without fault take any leniency or courteousness as a weakness.



You do make a good point there. I have to concede while perhaps thinking on the pattern, you make it quite clear really. I would imagine that a staunch culture would just be that. The politics, I try to ignore it, the mechanism is pretty much broken beyond repair.



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> It's no big secret that the world is slowly catching on fire once again, and largely, it's because of the most pointless, tiresome and stupid reason imaginable - that some people can't deal with the fact that others have different ideas regarding how one's supposed to believe in god. My not writing god with a capital g should give you an idea about my own stance on that matter. In any case, people are fleeing en masse to countries in the Western hemisphere, hoping to secure a better future for themselves and their offspring. I have no problems with that in and of itself, as long as one keeps in mind that it's neither possible nor required for any single country to save the rest of the world. But the fact that some of the children of refugees are all to eager to establish the same oppressive environment that their parents escaped from, is sadly conveniently ignored by some people. The same people who are likely to tell you that the white man is responsible for all of it occurring in the first place. The same people who will tell you that using only gender-neutral pronouns will improve equality amongst men and women (hint - Farsi has gender-neutral pronouns. That should tell you something).



The latter I don't know about deep cultural stuff really. Not sure about Britain, but there have been some what serious incidents with protests and stuff, but walk the streets and take notice of the body movements, everybody seem to be rushing a bit more than usual. With my security background, I am not concerned, just a bit thoughtful on the cutrual messages flooding the minds.


----------



## seasoned

This thread (OP) started out pertaining to  "*Confessions of a security guy" *but lately has some political under tones which are not allowed for topic here. My suggestion, if possible, would be to return to what ever the OP was. I am placing this warning below so the thread does not get out of hand.   

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*_

Please, return to the original topic.

Wes Yager
Senior MT Moderator


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

In that case I suggest you move the thread elsewhere. I can't keep from bringing up politics as long as we've got politicians passing judgement in our courts.


----------



## Transk53

Well a point from the original OP that prison sentences are likely to be milder from my point of view. A lot of crims get banged for 12 months, but likely get released after 6 months on a tag. I think it used to be 2/3rds of a sentence, but British prisons tend to be at full capacity.

As for the rest of the OP, not sure that I can identify with a lot said, despite posting of course. Must be 17 years that I have been in security, so maybe a lot of it is water of a ducks back to me. I suppose an obvious conclusion to me would be that GEB maybe in the wrong vocation, or at least it seems stressful as a job. I believe that was what the OP was alluding to. If not apologies to the OP.


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> In that case I suggest you move the thread elsewhere. I can't keep from bringing up politics as long as we've got politicians passing judgement in our courts.



That is a global system really. The Perfumo case in the 60's highlights where the system overlaps common sense. A bunch of train robbers paid a very high price.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

That's what some people keep telling me. Then again, I've got 5000+ arrests under my belt and nine years in the business.

No one is unaffected. Everyone just deals with it differently.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Transk53 said:


> That is a global system really. The Perfumo case in the 60's highlights where the system overlaps common sense. A bunch of train robbers paid a very high price.



Differences are just as important as the similarities.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> That is a global system really. The Perfumo case in the 60's highlights where the system overlaps common sense. A bunch of train robbers paid a very high price.




Many people think the train robbers just robbed the train however it was robbery with violence as the driver was badly hurt when they coshed him, something one of the robbers Hussey admitted to later. The driver was traumatised and died a few years later, his family maintained his early death was to do with the robbery. The Profumo case was more about national security and the Soviets which everyone was paranoid about at the time than any lack of common sense, a government minister was shagging a girl who was shagging a Soviet naval attaché. In those days a 'military attaché' was a pseudonym for spy, still is come to think of it.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Many people think the train robbers just robbed the train however it was robbery with violence as the driver was badly hurt when they coshed him, something one of the robbers Hussey admitted to later. The driver was traumatised and died a few years later, his family maintained his early death was to do with the robbery. The Profumo case was more about national security and the Soviets which everyone was paranoid about at the time than any lack of common sense, a government minister was shagging a girl who was shagging a Soviet naval attaché. In those days a 'military attaché' was a pseudonym for spy, still is come to think of it.



Yeah, aware of both stories. Still scandalous on both sides really. And yes the Deltic driver did not have to get coshed on reported events. But back to the OP.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Yeah, aware of both stories. Still scandalous on both sides really. And yes the Deltic driver did not have to get coshed on *reported events.* But back to the OP.



 Ah it's history to you but I actually remember it lol. At the time it was not as it seems now.


----------



## seasoned

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> In that case I suggest you move the thread elsewhere. I can't keep from bringing up politics as long as we've got politicians passing judgement in our courts.


I will suggest to you to start a new thread in the general talk forum under,  "political discussions and debate" and at that point I will go over this thread and extract whatever I feel needs to go in the new thread.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> Ah it's history to you but I actually remember it lol. At the time it was not as it seems now.



Yeah I would you are right. All I remember of those times is the Class 55 Deltic.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Yeah I would you are right. All I remember of those times is the Class 55 Deltic.


Ooh a spotter! I remember going on my holidays as a kid on steam trains, lovely! I still get a thrill when I hear or see one ( we have a little line down the road from us that runs steam trains)


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

I was going to turn this into a rant about all the crazy things the police have been up to recently. But I decided to save that for later. Here's a few thoughts about racism instead.

I recently filed a report on insulting behaviour, as well as for petty theft, against one of our regulars - likely the most criminally active elderly woman in the country. I've arrested her countless times before all across town, and usually she doesn't say much at all - but this time, she was apparently in a bad enough mood to make more than a couple of offensive statements regarding the shade of my skin. The police officers who arrived at the scene were also in a good enough mood to crank the charges up to molestation, which is a much more severe crime. Now, formally speaking, I actually am white. I have in my possession a copy of my birth certificate, of which I also keep a photo in my phone. Basically, what it certifies is that having been born right at the end of a military dictatorship, in a country with a history of racial segregation (as well as miscegenation, of course) arguably more severe than even the US, I actually qualify as a white guy. I also told the aforementioned arrestee this very fact, to which she responded that I "wasn't white in her eyes". I can't really say that I'm surprised, but I truly am surprised sometimes at how people can't just open their eyes and see what's right in front of them.

These days, whenever I'm asking for something in a store, or ordering something at a restaurant, I usually have to repeat myself, sometimes two or three times. It doesn't matter if I'm buying clothes in a hipster-infested inner city neighborhood, or ordering shawarma out somewhere in a random suburban ghetto - people always seem to have a hard time hearing what I say. You'd think that this has something to do with me speaking too quickly or having a slurred speech pattern of some sort, if it wasn't for two simple facts - one; I never have this problem with people who know me, and two; I never have this problem when talking on the phone - not even when I'm talking to a complete stranger for the first time ever.

The simple explanation to this phenomenon, is that when people see me, they expect me to sound like Achmed the Dead terrorist whenever I'm talking, or someone who regularly gets the crap beaten out of him by Jack Bauer in defense of freedom and democracy. When I don't, they simply can't believe or fathom what they're actually hearing me say.
Adding to this is the fact that I regularly get mistaken for a professional thief myself - even in stores where I've worked for years. It's especially prevalent around May and June, when most stores hire new, younger employees to compensate for the regular staff going on vacation. The strange thing however, is that this wasn't nearly as common before 2011 as it is now. And more often than not, it's blonde girls around 20 that seem to be the most suspicious of me...despite the fact that I've always put in effort to dress and carry myself in a completely different manner than most guys from the Middle East and North Africa do around here.
(Which includes two of my four former bosses, I might add.)

What my job boils down to a lot of the time is being prejudiced as all hell about other people based on looks alone. But I really do believe that I've managed fairly well to shape my prejudice into something of a precision tool.

Whenever you tell people that you feel Pac and Biggie to be two of the most overrated rappers of all time, there are usually two possible outcomes. One is that people will pick a fight with you. The second goes somewhere along the lines of "yeah, well, maybe Pac wasn't the most talented rapper out there, but he possessed an unique ability to describe 'the pain', you know, the anguish of being a victim of institutionalized racism all your life and having to live as a thug to make ends meet and being screwed over for life by the system and Dear Mama and blah blah blah blah..." Well, even if that were true I'd still call him overrated, but I can definitely agree on the idea of "the pain".

Take, for instance, the previous resident of the apartment which I now inhabit. Despite him being a black man from Baltimore with an almost uncanny resemblance to a young OJ Simpson, there is no way in hell I would ever have scoped him out for more than a second if I had ever encountered him while on the job.
Everything about him just exudes kindness and harmony in a way that is quite rare to see these days, even among people born into far more well-off families than he was. Happy and content people don't steal stuff - that much I feel like I can state with certainty, what with something like 5 000 arrests under my belt. But once you've learned to recognize "the pain", you're able to identify it in people from all conceivable walks of life. It manifests differently in people of different ethnicities and/or social classes, but at the core it remains the same - though I'm not always so sure if it's due to them feeling that society owes them something, or the other way around - that they feel that they don't owe society anything.

I like to think that this would be a completely different world, if people in general took the time out to actually observe others before passing judgement on them. It's the small details that enable you to tell apart the true manipulative psychopath from the fundamentally decent guy who was dealt a bad hand by life. As it is, however, it seems that this digitalized age has made it increasingly difficult for people sitting behind their screens all day to actually see the discrepancy between what people say they are, and what they really are. "I'm a good person", the bad person says. And everyone else just says "Ok! Who's hungry? I'm making pork sliders!"

Or as En Vogue once put it, "before you can read me you've got to learn how to see me."


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

On a daily basis, the way many incidents are handled is somewhat of a grey area. Generally speaking, if you ask people who have an ID with them, they'll willingly produce it and show it to you. Thing is, I'd wager that most people feel obligated to show their ID, even though they're not legally required to do so until the police arrive. I'll also willingly admit that myself and most people I know take advantage of this fact, but every now and then you'll encounter people who refuse to show their ID. This is perfectly fine, but also means that the police have to come to the scene.
Now, the law explicitly states that a person apprehended is to be handed over to the police as soon as possible. However, a referral from the Council On Legislation dated 2005 also states that there exists no legal obstacle preventing someone from having arrested a person to release said person without the police having to arrive to the scene. The reasoning behind this is that since we don't have the same density of police personnel compared to, let's say, the US, the time it takes for the police to arrive might very well become unreasonably long, compared to the relative minor seriousness of the crime. However - and I was unaware of this for quite some time - apparently, calling the police and informing them that you've apprehended a person ALSO constitutes them being "handed over". At that point, the police may very well decide that they currently don't have the manpower to come to the scene in a reasonable amount of time. Should that be the case, the standard procedure - if the suspect has a valid ID - is to read the person's name, date of birth and personal identity number to the operator, at which point the person may be released if he/she isn't wanted for other crimes. Technically, you're also supposed to ask for the name and service number of the police officer authorizing the release of the person, but a lot of people don't bother doing that anymore, and nobody really seems to mind.

There also used to be a specialized number guards were told to call in cases such as these - to be honest I'm not certain if it's in use anymore, and it was only meant to be used within city limits - where a suspect with a valid ID who confessed to the crime could interrogated over the phone, and as such the investigation would be finalized then and there. The method wasn't without it's problems, however - to begin with, there were two administrative sections, the southside and downtown district, who quite often attempted to pass the issue over to one another as soon as you called either one. And that's assuming anyone bothered to answer to begin with, which wasn't always the case. On top of that, this also required the person responsible for the apprehension to divulge his/her name, address, phone number and personal ID number within earshot of the person apprehended. You can probably imagine how I felt when I realized that the last person on which I used this method was the leader of a militant left-wing organisation...

Now, as to what all this has to do with the police:

I won't cover all the specific details here, but in august of 2014, the police union and the central police authority agreed on a new guaranteed minimum salary for newly hired police officers. For the few months that the agreement was upheld, I can say that I've rarely encountered happier police before or after. But of course, the deal was scrapped before long, which has lead to the current situation where rookie police quite often earn more than most people with eight to ten years on the force, and as you might imagine, quite a lot of police officers are, mildly put, unhappy about the situation.

For me personally, the whole thing culminated in two separate incidents in July of 2014. I brought in this guy who attempted to walk right out with a big pack of ice cream hidden underneath his t-shirt - naturally, he was high as a kite, to the point where he was unable to stand up straight for more than a few seconds. The police showed up, and for some reason, one of the officers was PO-ed at me for not having been able to reach me on the phone. I told him that I gave the operator the number to the landline of the store, since it's located partially underground and there's virtually no cell phone coverage whatsoever, but he was still pissed at not having been able to reach me. Why? Well, because, he said, if they'd managed to get in contact with me, I could just have read them name and number of his ID and sent him on his way. This was where I started getting more than a little puzzled.
"But you just checked him yourself and he didn't have any ID, did he?" I responded.
"No, but if he would have, we wouldn't have had to come here in the first place".
"And," I said, "the guy's totally smacked, I can't just send people high on drugs away".
"That's not for you to decide, is it? We're the ones who decide whether or not we're going to show up or not, let's get that thing straight!"
This was where I noticed the whole conversation was heading sideways, so I opted to get out and back to work as soon as possible. Finally, I said:
" Ok, let's say the guy would have had any kind of ID on him and not have been this high. Were you under the impression that I was unaware of the fact that I could have dealt with it on the phone under those circumstances?"
" Well it sure seems that way!"
"Ok, you were wrong. Have a nice day" I said, handing over the report and started walking out. But that's when the cop started getting REALLY furious.
"IS THERE A F-ING PROBLEM HERE!?" he all but shouted at me. "Not in the least", I responded. "I just think you're behaving a bit strangely. My directives are to have a police squad come to the scene if the suspect lacks ID, is a minor, has his permanent residency in another country, has been violent, openly denies the theft, is high or inebriated or has any weapons or drugs on his person. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to work."

But I didn't go back to work. Instead, I went out and called up their station chief. I said that "squad car number so-and-so just showed up to pick up a person that I'd apprehended, and they told me that if a person has a valid ID on him, it doesn't matter if he is high as all hell on every conceivable opium derivative, I can still just read his ID to the operator, send him on his way and hand in a written report later. Is this all right with you?" The answer I received was akin to jell-o being nailed to a wall - he basically said that it was all right, but that I "should be careful about it" - whatever the hell that means.

As a regular guard, my apprehending someone is, as I've mentioned before, what you would refer to in English as a citizen's arrest. Upon doing so, I'm allowed to utilize paragraph 19, section 1 of the police act in searching the suspect for weapons - meaning weapons and dangerous objects *ONLY*. I am not, however, allowed to forcefully procure a suspect's ID card or passport for the purpose of establishing said person's identity. This begs the question - just how am I supposed to have a heroin addict bring forth his ID card, if he/she at the same time is doped up to the point of not being able to stand up properly? Especially if that ID is lying in a pocket or compartment full of syringes? Not to mention the fact that as a guard, and not a peace officer, I have no legal means of physically removing the person from the premises, should the need arise - which I would say is quite likely to occur with someone barely able to walk on his/her own.

Fast forward a week and a half - I bring in this Georgian dude who'd just stuffed his backpack full of coffee, as they're prone to do every now and then. Guess who shows up? That's right, same PO-ed cop as last time. He immediately walks up to me and says he wants to have a chat with me, to which I respond that I suggest we both do what we're paid to do instead. He outright refuses and says that we're gonna sort a few things out first.
(I realize that at that point I should basically have told him to shut up and do his job or I would report him for professional misconduct, but you're always cleverer in hindsight, right?)
Naturally, he's more than a bit annoyed at me having called up one of his bosses. But I persist in telling him that if a person is high on drugs, I'm going to make sure that a patrol car arrives at the scene (for reasons mentioned above) and that there's absolutely nothing he can do about it. That's the point where, suddenly, his colleague chimes in and says "are you trying to pat us on our head or something!? We're your supervisors, you're responsible to us when you've made an arrest, WE decide when and if we're going to show up!" "No, you're not", I respond, "because firstly I'm not a peace officer so you can't order me around like you're able to with them, and second, I'm fully allowed to release a person I've apprehended at my own behest, there's a referral by the Council of Legislation that confirms this, check out their webpage and type in the search words 'shoplifting' and you'll find it". At this point, the original cop somehow manages to turn the whole thing into a kind of passive-aggressive tirade about how he "from the goodness of his heart" meant to inform me of the fact that a suspect may very well be released without the police having to show up at all - something he was completely unaware of _during the eight years he worked as a guard himself. _This is where I lose it.

"Oh, you worked as a guard? Well, that explains pretty much everything as far as I'm concerned! See, nine times out of ten, guards who become cops start hating their former colleagues, case in point - that Asian ***** whom as far as I could tell pretty much everyone over at Securitas couldn't stand. She showed up and berated me for being too rough on a kid, to which I did nothing but grab his arm and tell him we wanted to talk with him, not to mention the fact that they brought a friggin' K9 unit for backup! On top of that, she refused to follow me to the office and insisted on interrogating me in full view of the public in a hardware store where roughly 30-40 percent of the customers are gang members and career criminals! So yeah, I don't find it strange whatsoever that you're obviously more interested in trying to put me down than doing what you actually signed up for!"

The two easiest ways to tell that people are lying to you are as follows - one is that they go "huh? What?" when you ask them something. Two is that they look slightly upwards and to the left - i.e. your right - when talking to you. And that is exactly the direction where this police officer is looking when he tells me that he isn't aware of any of that, and that he believes that he's more capable of understanding our work situation due to his past experiences.

I called up his station chief once more when they'd left and told him what had transpired. Next time I met him, he left me well enough alone. Though for some reason, he also lied to my colleague about the rain having ceased that day.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

What is this gibberish?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> It's also happened a few times that people with experience of working within either the British or American system of justice have assumed that the legal standards to which they're accustomed apply to my own current condition as well. I can understand perfectly well that when you've spent a considerable amount of time operating within a given framework, you don't always respond well to being presented with scenarios in which what you previously thought to be applicable, no longer is.



:|


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

A wise man once said, if you aren't confused, you don't understand the problem.

Several years ago, I wrote on another forum that me and most of my colleagues don't want the police's job (everyone I know of who did has succeeded in attaining it), and they don't want ours. My own reasoning behind that was that we earn more, work better hours, have more employment opportunities available if we cease being able to get along with our bosses, and aren't legally required to intervene in our spare time. I surmised that the police, on the other hand, prefer to be in the employment of the state rather than evil, profit-driven companies, as well being able to tackle more than just street-level crime.
Instead, this was interpreted as bragging on my part. Four days ago, an article was published containing an interview with a local police chief, who went on to state the following: "_They're forced to do the real dirty work in areas no one, not even us, want to visit. We'd like to do more for them but we have neither resources nor the support of our bosses." "...the well-meaning, anti-racist oriented civilians, who intervene without knowing either the background or the larger picture of what's really happened, still have some respect for the police. Peace officers, guards and undercover loss prevention personnel - the ones who truly are standing in the frontlines - are basically just meat to these people."
_
Now, I'm not asking anyone to feel sorry for me. As I've told my boss every time he's neglected to provide the debriefing opportunities the police take for granted, at the end of the day we're all adults and we've willfully put ourselves in this position.
Besides, I've been around long enough to know which fights to choose and which ones to avoid - or rather prevent.
What I would prefer, however, is that people take the time out to get at least some semblance of understanding of the issue at hand before they start passing judgement.

See, the aforementioned police chief, whilst coming across as fairly sympathetic, made the same error countless others before him had done - he failed at being able to tell guards and peace officers apart. He also seemed to be under the impression that people in loss prevention are not guards per se, since he made a reference to the tragic occurrence thirteen years ago, when one person was stabbed to death and two others were severely wounded as they attempted to apprehend a drugged up shoplifter. The man who was murdered was, in fact, a peace officer, and this incident was the starting point of the debate suggesting that guards, and not only peace officers, should be allowed to carry expandable batons (neither fixed nor expandable batons were allowed at the place where the incident occurred, since the store owners wanted it that way - another problem you don't have when you're in the state's employment). While the differences between guards and peace officers may seem negligible to some, they are not, and failing to recognize this fact can actually have dire results for everyone involved.

As a peace officer, you're basically required to do whatever the police tell you to do. If, for instance, you're working the door of a nightclub, and about one or two blocks away, a massive brawl breaks loose, the police are fully in their right to order you to come over there and assist them for as long as they need you to - and there's absolutely nothing the club owner can do about it. Granted, they're more likely to call for more of their own, but it is theoretically possible.
On the other hand, if you're a regular guard walking the street about to head inside an office complex to make sure all the doors are locked, and the police ask you to come along and assist them - you can basically stick out your tongue at them, and there's nothing they can do about it. This, however, is a type of legal double-edged sword.
A while ago, a peace officer was indicted for assault as he'd repeatedly struck a resisting suspect over the arms with his expandable baton, for the purpose of "softening him up", as he put it, so as to facilitate putting handcuffs on him. The peace officer, through his defense lawyer (another thing that separates our legal system from that of the US is that you can have exactly whichever lawyer you want, and the fees are all standardized) stated that the police had instructed him to do exactly that, and they even called up the officer who had been his instructor to act as a witness. Said instructor confirmed this - that is indeed what he had taught the class to do. The prosecutor then asked where the legal basis for this could be found, and the instructor basically said "well, I don't know, but it seemed perfectly reasonable to me!"

In the end, the peace officer was acquitted, for the simple reason that while the actions that he'd undertaken had no basis in legality, he as a peace officer is obligated to follow the instructions of the police, and was thus found lacking in intent to commit a wrongful assault. Had this man been a regular guard, however, he would have been unable to refer to the police, since he would not be legally required to follow their instructions, not to mention not having been trained by them.

I tend to run into the same problem, only the other way around, and usually it's when there are children involved.

A guy who came here as a refugee from Colombia when he was little, and who went on to become a policeman, was recently given a sort of "Hero of The Year" award, mainly because he'd managed to become a role model of sorts for at-risk youth. It's the same old story as always; "ethnic" police officers - as well as guards, in some instances - are always brought forth as a means of getting through to the "racialized" - as the sociology mafia would put it - ghetto kids in a way that other police can't. (Given my own complexion, some believe I should be a master at this myself - thing is, I was raised by intellectual, globe-trotting middle class parents who had me read books and consider everyone my equal. This tends to shine through and put me at a disadvantage, especially when I come into contact with people from ME/NA countries - although to be fair my best friend in grade school was French-Moroccan.) This very concern for kids, however, could have gone on to land me or one of my colleagues in serious trouble.

Last autumn, I brought in this eleven year old boy for the usual petty theft, called the police, and this same Colombian guy showed up. He sees the kid, and immediately asks me to have a word with him outside. I knew exactly what he was going to say - he intended to berate me for not simply taking the stuff back and sending the boy on his way. Sure enough, he asked me if there hadn't been any other way for me to have handled the situation. Now sure, I could have told him to put back or pay for the stuff in his backpack before he'd left the store, but there would have been nothing preventing him from going home to his parents, telling them that he was accused of theft whilst still in the store, and the parents then heading off to the nearest newspaper and/or the anti-discrimination authorities to make a big deal out of it - a very real possibility which is greatly exacerbated if the family turns out to have a Romani surname, for obvious reasons. I also said this to the policeman in question, who answered "but you wouldn't have accused him of anything?" Well, no, but since when are tabloids concerned with what actually happened, especially if there would be no documentation of the incident to be found?
Still, this is all above and beyond the legal issues.

When you apprehend children - that is, individuals under the age of 15 - you're not utilizing the rights provided to you in the Code of Judicial Procedure, but rather what's known as the Youthful Offenders Act. This act is _very_ specific on one point, and that is that NO forceful measures may be utilized against minors apart from those mentioned within, and there is no mention of reclaiming stolen goods to be found there. Many people mistakenly believe that what's written in the penal code regarding self-defense is what governs the right to reclaim stolen property:

_"A right to act in self-defence exists against... a person who violently or by the threat of violence or in some other way obstructs the repossession of property when caught in the act."_

However, this only provides you with an excemption from criminal responsibility regarding the use of force under said circumstances. The actual legal support for the reclaiming of stolen property is found in a kind of amendment to the penal code, but this amendment is not mentioned at all in the Youful Offenders Act. What this means is that it is impossible to verifiably state whether or not it would be legal for anyone, a guard, peace officer or anyone else, to forcefully reclaim stolen goods taken from a minor, primarily because a legal precedent has never been set. If that were to happen, it would likely be on the grounds of a guard, or perhaps store owner, being charged with unlawful coercion against said minor, and personally I have no wish to be the defendant in the trial in which the matter would be investigated. But above and beyond all this is the fact that the County Administrative Board, which is the governing authority for regular guards, have explicitly forbidden this course of action. I personally called up their chief lawyers, who went on to tell me the following: if it were to come to their attention that guards have used any kinds of coercive measures against minors without contacting the police, or for that matter, outside the boundaries of a legal apprehension, they would _immediately_ withdraw the work authorization for said guard, and quite likely, the whole security company as well.
And yet here we have yet another policeman who, presumably out of some kind of misguided intention to prevent kids from becoming "traumatized" by being arrested, is suggesting that we follow that exact course of action, rather than that which happens to be the only legal method available to us.


----------



## Tgace

Shrine of the Mall Ninja

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> Shrine of the Mall Ninja
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


Thats Amazing.  I was training a rookie a few years ago and I noticed duct tape on his boot.  I asked him about it and he was taping a boot knife to his leg.  I asked what else he was hiding under his uniform and he had another knife taped to his vest, knee pads, a gardeners kneeling pad between his vest and body "To absorb impacts" 5 hand cuff keys hidden on him in case hes taken hostage. He didnt last long.  His final  straw was on a domestic the woman said he husband put her in an arm bar.  He didnt understand what she ment and asked to see her arm and then proceeded almost snap her arm before I could stop him.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Tgace said:


> Shrine of the Mall Ninja
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



I remember this one. Cool!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

And I repeat, what the actual crud is this gibberish?


----------



## ballen0351

Bill Mattocks said:


> And I repeat, what the actual crud is this gibberish?


Its the greatest thread EVER


----------



## Bill Mattocks

ballen0351 said:


> Its the greatest thread EVER


About what, I have no idea.


----------



## ballen0351

Bill Mattocks said:


> About what, I have no idea.


I dont either but its great fun


----------



## ballen0351

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> a very real possibility which is greatly exacerbated if the family turns out to have a Romani surname, for obvious reasons


This was my Fav part for obvious reasons...


----------



## Jenna

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> and the parents then heading off to the nearest newspaper and/or the anti-discrimination authorities to make a big deal out of it - a very real possibility which is greatly exacerbated if the family turns out to have a Romani surname, for obvious reasons.


To me there are certain racial undertones in your comment and so I would be very interested indeed to know specifically what are those "obvious reasons" you have referred to here and what exactly are you implying from it.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Bill Mattocks said:


> And I repeat, what the actual crud is this gibberish?


If you're honestly interested, read the first post in the thread and start act like a grownup.


Jenna said:


> To me there are certain racial undertones in your comment and so I would be very interested indeed to know specifically what are those "obvious reasons" you have referred to here and what exactly are you implying from it.



Basically the point is that one of the side effects of intersectionality is that the most disadvantaged person is always assumed to be in the right. But it's a complex situation that differs quite a bit from what I'm guessing most of you reading this are used to.

If a guard files a report of a hate crime for having been called white trash by a person from the Middle East, the police are likely to drop the charges because the guard in question is blonde and light-skinned - even if he also happens to be of Romani descent, which was the reason for reporting the crime in the first place.
If a person says he's going to smash my face in if the police don't arrive soon, the charges will be dropped, but if he says that he's going to smash my face in because I'm an effing spick when I'm off duty, I get paid approximately 750 USD for the trouble.
If it's discovered that the police have been keeping secret lists and registries over suspected and/or convicted criminals as well as their families, all of whom have happened to be Romani, all hell breaks loose.
But if a black man and his infant son are thrown off a bridge after having been called the N word, and the perpetrators happen to be part of a Kurdish family no one dares to testify against, there's not a single word said about it being a hate crime.

All in all, it's a huge and complicated mess.


----------



## seasoned

_*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*_

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Martial Talk Senior Moderator
Wes Yager
(seasoned)


----------



## Tgace

Tgace said:


> Shrine of the Mall Ninja
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk





> Gecko45 writes:
> 
> quote: Originally posted by SPECOPS:
> 
> Stay safe Gecko45! I got your back brother!You see, some people here understand the risks we security officers undergo to protect you people, would we exist if our jobs were useless??? I tell you that we are undervalued for our beneficial effect on society at large, for the urban and suburban shopping centers see %80 of the armed violence in this nation, and why don’t the cops take care of it, because they are a bunch of wusses, and they are not man enough to put up with the danger and stress. You all who are makeing fun of me have never been threatened by jailed drug dealers, serial killers, and shoplifters, or fired at by high powered rifles so excuse me if I decide to have good weapons to protect and defend myself without all of you makeing fun of my choice, and they way I do my job!



Rock on my LP brothers....Rock On.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Imagine a tennis match in which the referee regularly interrupts the game in order to mock one or both of the players, or to give them instructions on how to serve and perform backhand strikes. Sometimes, he takes away their rackets and instructs them to throw the ball over the net instead. Finally, he sends both players into the showers in order to accept the cheers of the audience for himself. Both players have long since realised that what really matters aren't the actual rules, but the referee's own interpretation of said rules - which tends to follow the same line of thought as the art of medicine in the Middle Ages; a whole lot of guesses and opinions, and very little fact.

This pretty much describes the current relationship between the security business and the police.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

There was a time, long ago - around the same time as Stillmatic dropped - when I too was the kind of person who believed that it's always society that is to blame for people committing crimes.
I realised however after not too long a time that things aren't quite that simple. It's more of case-to-case basis. This one's society's fault, this one's his/her own, that one is his/her own and over here we've got a combination...etc.

It may be slightly cynical of me, but I've come to realise over the years that a lot of the legal predicaments people tend to find themselves in are, at the end of the day, comprised of one bad decision stapled on top of countless other bad decisions. As I've said earlier, I've been accused before of not having a conscience, due to my apprehending destitute single mothers stealing diapers and whatnot.

_That's not how things tend to go down in reality._

I remember the little dude with baggy pants and spiky hair with the cider cans, obviously feeling like he's being neglected amongst his siblings. I can understand that much. What I can't understand is why five years later, he celebrates graduating from high school by attempting to stab both his parents to death, allegedly because of a marijuana-induced psychotic episode.
I remember the little boy who needed duct tape for his skateboard but apparently was short on money. Less than ten years later, he's one of the major drug traffickers in the area and was recently handed a 3,5 year sentence.
I remember the first guy I apprehended, a seventeen-year old high school dropout with a single mom. Shortly thereafter, he was featured in a newspaper article on how he's managed to turn his life around after a construction company took him in. Apparently he chose to display his gratitude by means of assault, rape, robbery and possession.

I also think that we can - and should - maintain the discussion about why so many of these people are listed as "no pork" on the food cards in jail, why so many of them have Polish, Georgian, Mongolian and Roma names, why so many of them return with the predictability of the sunrise, why so many of them reside in the same areas, and why so many people far better off in terms of material standards maintain the knee-jerk reaction to come to their defense, however heinous their crimes.
Also, we can - and should - debate what these constant arrests are actually good for in the long run, why the police have become so INSANELY inconsistent in their handling of the situation, as well as to what extent store owners and staff are part of the problem (because believe me, they are, in more ways than one).


----------



## Tez3




----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> There was a time, long ago - around the same time as Stillmatic dropped - when I too was the kind of person who believed that it's always society that is to blame for people committing crimes.
> I realised however after not too long a time that things aren't quite that simple. It's more of case-to-case basis. This one's society's fault, this one's his/her own, that one is his/her own and over here we've got a combination...etc.
> 
> It may be slightly cynical of me, but I've come to realise over the years that a lot of the legal predicaments people tend to find themselves in are, at the end of the day, comprised of one bad decision stapled on top of countless other bad decisions. As I've said earlier, I've been accused before of not having a conscience, due to my apprehending destitute single mothers stealing diapers and whatnot.
> 
> _That's not how things tend to go down in reality._
> 
> I remember the little dude with baggy pants and spiky hair with the cider cans, obviously feeling like he's being neglected amongst his siblings. I can understand that much. What I can't understand is why five years later, he celebrates graduating from high school by attempting to stab both his parents to death, allegedly because of a marijuana-induced psychotic episode.
> I remember the little boy who needed duct tape for his skateboard but apparently was short on money. Less than ten years later, he's one of the major drug traffickers in the area and was recently handed a 3,5 year sentence.
> I remember the first guy I apprehended, a seventeen-year old high school dropout with a single mom. Shortly thereafter, he was featured in a newspaper article on how he's managed to turn his life around after a construction company took him in. Apparently he chose to display his gratitude by means of assault, rape, robbery and possession.
> 
> I also think that we can - and should - maintain the discussion about why so many of these people are listed as "no pork" on the food cards in jail, why so many of them have Polish, Georgian, Mongolian and Roma names, why so many of them return with the predictability of the sunrise, why so many of them reside in the same areas, and why so many people far better off in terms of material standards maintain the knee-jerk reaction to come to their defense, however heinous their crimes.
> Also, we can - and should - debate what these constant arrests are actually good for in the long run, why the police have become so INSANELY inconsistent in their handling of the situation, as well as to what extent store owners and staff are part of the problem (because believe me, they are, in more ways than one).



Well then maybe then maybe you could be more proactive with store owners and the staff. Having worked in security for some 14 years plus, we advised what had to be done to improve things. Seems to me that you are happy to remain cynical, but do nothing proactive. Staff members don't have a security head, that is why security are there to lead!


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Well then maybe then maybe you could be more proactive with store owners and the staff. Having worked in security for some 14 years plus, we advised what had to be done to improve things. Seems to me that you are happy to remain cynical, but do nothing proactive. Staff members don't have a security head, that is why security are there to lead!



There'd be no fun in that for him, much better to just post his racist and politically biased posts on here.
There's supposed to be no political posts on MT but he seems to get away with them.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> There'd be no fun in that for him, much better to just post his racist and politically biased posts on here.
> There's supposed to be no political posts on MT but he seems to get away with them.



Whatever political agenda there is to be found here is in your head and your head only.

Socialists tend to call me a liberal, liberals tend to call me conservative and conservatives tend to call me a socialist. Which kind of says it all about how narrow the boxes are that we're expected to place ourselves in.

Now I suggest we drop that topic.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Transk53 said:


> Well then maybe then maybe you could be more proactive with store owners and the staff. Having worked in security for some 14 years plus, we advised what had to be done to improve things. Seems to me that you are happy to remain cynical, but do nothing proactive. Staff members don't have a security head, that is why security are there to lead!



Let's just say that I believe you and I work in completely different environments.

The company I work for holds all kinds of courses and certifications for store personnel all the time, but what with high turnover rates and eccentric co-workers who prefer to act on their gut, well...last time I suggested changes to the layout of a place I was told to mind my own damn business.

There's much more to it than that though.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Whatever political agenda there is to be found here is in your head and your head only.
> 
> Socialists tend to call me a liberal, liberals tend to call me conservative and conservatives tend to call me a socialist. Which kind of says it all about how narrow the boxes are that we're expected to place ourselves in.
> 
> Now I suggest we drop that topic.



And people with common sense call you what? You are spouting racist rubbish, so, no I won't 'drop it', so... exactly why are you posting diatribes against humanity on here? Everyone seems to be wrong except you, you can't even just say workers, you have to describe them as 'eccentric' and of course they are wrong as well.


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Let's just say that I believe you and I work in completely different environments.
> 
> The company I work for holds all kinds of courses and certifications for store personnel all the time, but what with high turnover rates and eccentric co-workers who prefer to act on their gut, well...last time I suggested changes to the layout of a place I was told to mind my own damn business.
> 
> There's much more to it than that though.



Well to employ some common sense over our positions in the security field, well at least  when I was, I left security in June of this year, obviously what I had to deal with in the UK, is vastly different to the US. Well, I am assuming you are in America. Threat levels would be vastly different. I.E. I only had the potential of knife crime to deal with. I can tell you that shop staff, bar staff and the like, would not be eccentric at all. Now I can't say that a invidual would not suddenly charge in a like bull, and likely turn into an ambulance job, but generally speaking, the majority wouldn't. 

Simply because all of the training and certification we did, helped 
to instill confidence in those staff members. Many of which were in bars, restaurants, shops and the gym. One big layout there. Seems to me you look upon those staff as being pieces of meat, when what they want is confidence that security can at least make them feel safe on a fundamental level. Just my take.


----------



## Tez3

Transk53 said:


> Well to employ some common sense over our positions in the security field, well at least  when I was, I left security in June of this year, obviously what I had to deal with in the UK, is vastly different to the US. Well, I am assuming you are in America. Threat levels would be vastly different. I.E. I only had the potential of knife crime to deal with. I can tell you that shop staff, bar staff and the like, would not be eccentric at all. Now I can't say that a invidual would not suddenly charge in a like bull, and likely turn into an ambulance job, but generally speaking, the majority wouldn't.
> 
> Simply because all of the training and certification we did, helped
> to instill confidence in those staff members. Many of which were in bars, restaurants, shops and the gym. One big layout there. Seems to me you look upon those staff as being pieces of meat, when what they want is confidence that security can at least make them feel safe on a fundamental level. Just my take.



He isn't in the US, he's in some unnamed European country hence all the Roma and other racist slurs.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> And people with common sense call you what? You are spouting racist rubbish, so, no I won't 'drop it', so... exactly why are you posting diatribes against humanity on here? Everyone seems to be wrong except you, you can't even just say workers, you have to describe them as 'eccentric' and of course they are wrong as well.



Do you have any idea how much racial profiling I'm regularly subjected to myself? How often customers as well as staff, even in stores I've worked in for years, go talking about me behind my back about how scary I look?

Do you know how many people come up to me and say things like "dead muslims is the best thing there is", even though I'm of Portuguese and indigenous Brazilian descent?

Do you know often store personnel (most often blond women under 30, for some reason) as well as cops more or less deliberately give me a poor reception compared to my colleagues?

And how is soaking thieves in their own urine or telling outlaw biker gang hangarounds to do unmentionable acts with their family members not eccentric behaviour?

You're free to disagree with me and/or not read this thread, but what really rubs me the wrong way is how intellectually dishonest you're being by conveniently ignoring the efforts I've made to make my own personal stance against racism as clear as possible. For starters, you could re-read this: Confessions of a security guy

Or you could just keep away from this thread, which would probably be preferable.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Transk53 said:


> Well, I am assuming you are in America.



Well, then you didn't read the first post in this thread.


----------



## Transk53

Tez3 said:


> He isn't in the US, he's in some unnamed European country hence all the Roma and other racist slurs.



Oh lol. Got the impression that a lot of "hey man, that's cool <smoke> was going on.


----------



## Jenna

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> If you're honestly interested, read the first post in the thread and start act like a grownup.
> 
> 
> Basically the point is that one of the side effects of intersectionality is that the most disadvantaged person is always assumed to be in the right. But it's a complex situation that differs quite a bit from what I'm guessing most of you reading this are used to.
> 
> If a guard files a report of a hate crime for having been called white trash by a person from the Middle East, the police are likely to drop the charges because the guard in question is blonde and light-skinned - even if he also happens to be of Romani descent, which was the reason for reporting the crime in the first place.
> If a person says he's going to smash my face in if the police don't arrive soon, the charges will be dropped, but if he says that he's going to smash my face in because I'm an effing spick when I'm off duty, I get paid approximately 750 USD for the trouble.
> If it's discovered that the police have been keeping secret lists and registries over suspected and/or convicted criminals as well as their families, all of whom have happened to be Romani, all hell breaks loose.
> But if a black man and his infant son are thrown off a bridge after having been called the N word, and the perpetrators happen to be part of a Kurdish family no one dares to testify against, there's not a single word said about it being a hate crime.
> 
> All in all, it's a huge and complicated mess.


Yes, it is complicated, you find human interaction often has that characteristic! However when you begin to cite various creeds and races of people it just sounds like you cannot make sense of this complicated situation and seek simplicity which I do not believe is even there. Accept the complex, do not eke out simplicity because oversimplification results in prejudice.  Also, I have noticed your tendency to emotionally reason.  Just because thing is true in your head do not make it true per se.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Do you have any idea how much racial profiling I'm regularly subjected to myself?



Ah playing the victim, good idea. Shall I get you some cheese?



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> go talking about me behind my back about how scary I look?



Paranoid much?



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Or you could just keep away from this thread, which would probably be preferable.



So you can carry on with your stream of consciousness posting or whining as I like to call it? You post up in public you have to expect comments, that they are comments you don't like is frankly tough, if you don't like people commenting, post as a blog and curtail anyone expressing their opinion.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Jenna said:


> Also, I have noticed your tendency to emotionally reason.



No you haven't.


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Well, then you didn't read the first post in this thread.



Just have done again, and tbh, I am still confused as to why you persist with a job that seems you hate? Strong word I know. Maybe it is just me not being able to comprehend where you are coming from, but I have worked with many Eastern Europeans, but yeah, not quite sure what ultimate message you are trying to convey here. Not so sure it is about security.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> Paranoid much?


Intellectually dishonest much? It's more a case of THEM being paranoid.

Just last week, this woman who was doing some sort of questionnaire at a place I worked a walked up to me after I'd had the police arrive there, and basically told me that she'd been walking around being afraid of me the whole day. And this in spite of the fact that I told her as soon as she walked up to me at the start of the day, that I couldn't talk right then because I was on the job. And the only thing she'd have to do to find out what I was doing there was to go have a chat with some manager or supervisor - which would have been the reasonable thing to do if you really thought someone was up to no good. 

Instead, she chose to walk around all day feeling uncomfortable for no reason, instead of finding out the facts. That's the starting point of racism in a nutshell.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Transk53 said:


> Just have done again, and tbh, I am still confused as to why you persist with a job that seems you hate



Wouldn't say that I hate it per se, what I do hate is how staff and police act sometimes, which sadly has become more common.



Transk53 said:


> not quite what ultimate message you are trying to convey here. Not so sure it is about security.



In a way it is, in a way it isn't.


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Wouldn't say that I hate it per se, what I do hate is how staff and police act sometimes, which sadly has become more common.
> 
> 
> 
> In a way it is, in a way it isn't.



Then what it is then, bear in mind also that in terms of policing, Tez is experienced with that and I am not, so I can't qualify any comment on the police where you are. As marina security, I and my colleagues built up a very good repore with Sussex Police, so again unless you are referring to undue committed violence from both sides, what you have put up here, is very disingenuous to me.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Intellectually dishonest much? It's more a case of THEM being paranoid.
> 
> Just last week, this woman who was doing some sort of questionnaire at a place I worked a walked up to me after I'd had the police arrive there, and basically told me that she'd been walking around being afraid of me the whole day. And this in spite of the fact that I told her as soon as she walked up to me at the start of the day, that I couldn't talk right then because I was on the job. And the only thing she'd have to do to find out what I was doing there was to go have a chat with some manager or supervisor - which would have been the reasonable thing to do if you really thought someone was up to no good.
> 
> Instead, she chose to walk around all day feeling uncomfortable for no reason, instead of finding out the facts. That's the starting point of racism in a nutshell.



Ah but it's never you, it's always 'THEM'.

Perhaps you need to brush up on your communication skills and have a look at your body language, your brain is telling you one thing but your body and the way you say thing sis obviously telling people something else.

'Intellectually dishonest' what does that even mean in this context? You go on and on about how everyone is out to get you, how bad things are for you, how no one loves you, how you are racially profiled etc etc and we are supposed to go 'aw diddums'? Either have a good talk with yourself and make changes or get out of that job and go do something you enjoy. Everything you say shows the world from your point of view, how you see things, do you think the police officers and others see things the way you do or perhaps, just perhaps it's you that is wrong? It's something we all have to ask ourselves, are people reacting the way they do because of the way I have behaved, could I have handled it differently, done things better? Rather than just whinge about how awful everyone is, ( that attitude comes out in your body language btw) perhaps you should be looking to be the change rather than think it's everyone else who is the problem. Yes there are some complete dipsticks in any job and profession but when you start thinking everyone is except you then the problem may not be them.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Transk53 said:


> so again unless you are referring to undue committed violence from both sides, what you have put up here, is very disingenuous to me.



The good cops know that we serve an important function, and thankfully they're still in the majority.

However, there is a kind of mentality here among not just police, but the entire public administration that I believe (note - I believe) isn't that much of a problem in the States - that is, the important thing isn't to do the right thing, but rather to avoid doing the wrong thing. This can have some rather bizarre consequences at times.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> Ah but it's never you, it's always 'THEM'.



That's exactly what I was thinking about you! What I write here is, in your opinion, morally reprehensible, whereas the racism directed towards myself is so insignificant that you find it appropriate to belittle it. So who's the one really differentiating between people here? That's intellectual dishonesty, strike #1.



Tez3 said:


> Perhaps you need to brush up on your communication skills and have a look at your body language, your brain is telling you one thing but your body and the way you say thing sis obviously telling people something else.



Now you're ignoring the fact that I usually only have this problem with newly employed millennials. That's strike #2 for intellectual dishonesty.



Tez3 said:


> You go on and on about how everyone is out to get you, how bad things are for you, how no one loves you, how you are racially profiled etc etc and we are supposed to go 'aw diddums'?



Strawman. Strike #3 for intellectual dishonesty,



Tez3 said:


> Everything you say shows the world from your point of view, how you see things, do you think the police officers and others see things the way you do or perhaps, just perhaps it's you that is wrong?



I know what the laws say, and a big chunk of the trouble I get into comes from the police and/or staff being unfamiliar with said laws. But sure, that's my fault.
(You'll never hear me complaining about criminals being unfamiliar with or not caring about said laws though, that's part of the game)



Tez3 said:


> Yes there are some complete dipsticks in any job and profession but when you start thinking everyone is except you then the problem may not be them.



Strawman again, strike #4 for intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Let me also, for the record, state the following.

Most customers, i.e. business owners, are not psychopaths. At least not from the beginning. I would say that most of them are regular people who know nothing about security procedure, laws, risk management etc., and who for this very reason hire an authorized security company because they've gotten the impression that those guys are professionals who know what they're doing. I also believe that, at least deep down, most customers believe that if the were to make a suggestion in the manner of "I have a problem, and I was thinking that maybe we could solve it like this", then of course, said security company would also object to said solution should it prove to be illegal or otherwise inadvisable.

But that's now how things play out in real life.

In reality, most companies will tell the client that "sure! If you want it that way, then you'll get it that way!" And this is no different than spoiling children - sooner or later you will have created a monster. It's happened more than a few times that we've stopped working with businesses for the simple fact that we were unable to guarantee the safety _of the people we apprehended._ Also, you'll hear some customers telling you whenever you've brought someone in that "ok, we'll keep an eye on that guy until the police arrive, you get your derriere back out there now and do what we're paying you to do". This is stupid as well as highly illegal, in that when you've apprehended someone, you're legally responsible for that person until you've handed them over to the police. The last customer who wanted things done this way even proceeded to call up my section leader (with my phone, no less) and tell him that he refused to pay for the work I was doing that day. Thankfully, we let him loose after that.


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> The good cops know that we serve an important function, and thankfully they're still in the majority.
> 
> However, there is a kind of mentality here among not just police, but the entire public administration that I believe (note - I believe) isn't that much of a problem in the States - that is, the important thing isn't to do the right thing, but rather to avoid doing the wrong thing. This can have some rather bizarre consequences at times.



Don't know about the public administration system in the Sates, but avoiding doing the wrong isn't indicative of one country. I have, and have had bizarre consequences, that's just life, not bound by any given circumstances, or system. 

To me avoidance is a sticky wicket, which translates across many a thing. Seems to me the crux of you're issues is where you live and work perhaps.


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Let me also, for the record, state the following.
> 
> Most customers, i.e. business owners, are not psychopaths. At least not from the beginning. I would say that most of them are regular people who know nothing about security procedure, laws, risk management etc., and who for this very reason hire an authorized security company because they've gotten the impression that those guys are professionals who know what they're doing. I also believe that, at least deep down, most customers believe that if the were to make a suggestion in the manner of "I have a problem, and I was thinking that maybe we could solve it like this", then of course, said security company would also object to said solution should it prove to be illegal or otherwise inadvisable.
> 
> But that's now how things play out in real life.
> 
> In reality, most companies will tell the client that "sure! If you want it that way, then you'll get it that way!" And this is no different than spoiling children - sooner or later you will have created a monster. It's happened more than a few times that we've stopped working with businesses for the simple fact that we were unable to guarantee the safety _of the people we apprehended._ Also, you'll hear some customers telling you whenever you've brought someone in that "ok, we'll keep an eye on that guy until the police arrive, you get your derriere back out there now and do what we're paying you to do". This is stupid as well as highly illegal, in that when you've apprehended someone, you're legally responsible for that person until you've handed them over to the police. The last customer who wanted things done this way even proceeded to call up my section leader (with my phone, no less) and tell him that he refused to pay for the work I was doing that day. Thankfully, we let him loose after that.



Blimey, now this thread has really lost me. Are you talking about customers being handled with over the top, or unnecessary force I guess I should put it??


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Transk53 said:


> Blimey, now this thread has really lost me. Are you talking about customers being handled with over the top, or unnecessary force I guess I should put it??



When I say "customers" or "clients", I'm referring to the people who employ us.



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Most customers, i.e. business owners


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> That's exactly what I was thinking about you! What I write here is, in your opinion, morally reprehensible, whereas the racism directed towards myself is so insignificant that you find it appropriate to belittle it. So who's the one really differentiating between people here? That's intellectual dishonesty, strike #1.



'Intellectual dishonesty', that doesn't mean what you think it does. I am telling you how you come across in your posts, I'm not arguing with you or presenting any case other than my opinion which is that your post are all about you and your difficulties with people.



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Now you're ignoring the fact that I usually only have this problem with newly employed millennials. That's strike #2 for intellectual dishonesty.



Nope, I don't care who you have problems with, if you are having problems with that many people look at what is the cause, look honestly because here you are showing a distinct prejudice against one particular group.



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Strawman. Strike #3 for intellectual dishonesty,



Not, that doesn't mean what you think it does either. I'm not arguing with you or presently a fact based case, this is my opinion, you may disagree, which is fine but my opinion is not an argument, it is an honest opinion. If I were dishonest I would sugarcoat my words and say everything is fine. 



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> I know what the laws say, and a big chunk of the trouble I get into comes from the police and/or staff being unfamiliar with said laws. But sure, that's my fault.
> (You'll never hear me complaining about criminals being unfamiliar with or not caring about said laws though, that's part of the game)



So, you know more about the laws than your police force? why aren't you a police officer or lawyer?



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Strawman again, strike #4 for intellectual dishonesty.


Nope still not correct. As I said you are picking up words and throwing them around like you think you know what they mean. In my opinion you are playing the victim, if you aren't look at your writing to see where this impression comes from.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Let me also, for the record, state the following.
> 
> Most customers, i.e. business owners, are not psychopaths. At least not from the beginning. I would say that most of them are regular people who know nothing about security procedure, laws, risk management etc., and who for this very reason hire an authorized security company because they've gotten the impression that those guys are professionals who know what they're doing. I also believe that, at least deep down, most customers believe that if the were to make a suggestion in the manner of "I have a problem, and I was thinking that maybe we could solve it like this", then of course, said security company would also object to said solution should it prove to be illegal or otherwise inadvisable.
> 
> But that's now how things play out in real life.
> 
> In reality, most companies will tell the client that "sure! If you want it that way, then you'll get it that way!" And this is no different than spoiling children - sooner or later you will have created a monster. It's happened more than a few times that we've stopped working with businesses for the simple fact that we were unable to guarantee the safety _of the people we apprehended._ Also, you'll hear some customers telling you whenever you've brought someone in that "ok, we'll keep an eye on that guy until the police arrive, you get your derriere back out there now and do what we're paying you to do". This is stupid as well as highly illegal, in that when you've apprehended someone, you're legally responsible for that person until you've handed them over to the police. The last customer who wanted things done this way even proceeded to call up my section leader (with my phone, no less) and tell him that he refused to pay for the work I was doing that day. Thankfully, we let him loose after that.




In the UK a security guard has no more legal powers than any other non police officer ( and certain other official bodies) so anyone can look after someone who has been apprehended. There is no legal need for someone who has detained the suspect to hand them over to the police, anyone can do it. We'd expect the security guard to be reachable and there is possible for statements etc. Shop staff here do not indulge in behaviour that makes it dangerous for a suspect to be detained, the police must be called immediately and they would be quite happy to arrest staff if the suspect is assaulted or harmed. I know of nowhere where these things aren't done properly, this isn't a moral thing it's just far too much trouble and cause huge problems if procedures aren't carried out correctly. No one wants a shop lifter let off which is what will happen if the procedures aren't adhered to.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> 'Intellectual dishonesty', that doesn't mean what you think it does.



Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia

"Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called *intellectual dishonesty*."

This is exactly what you're doing, you're cherrypicking the bits and pieces from my posts that you think confirms your bias about me, whilst conveniently ignoring everything I say which is incompatible with the point you're trying to make. Locally, that's referred to as "reading my posts like the devil reads the bible".



Tez3 said:


> I'm not arguing with you or presenting any case other than my opinion which is that your post are all about you and your difficulties with people.



Yeah, and that's a strawman, which is intellectually dishonest.




Tez3 said:


> look honestly because here you are showing a distinct prejudice against one particular group.



No, I'm not. This just goes to show how you conveniently ignore everything I've written that contradicts your thesis.




Tez3 said:


> So, you know more about the laws than your police force? why aren't you a police officer or lawyer?



I've written about this before in this very thread. And as long as lay judges are employed, I don't want anything to do with working as either a lawyer or a prosecutor.




Tez3 said:


> As I said you are picking up words and throwing them around like you think you know what they mean.



Now you're accusing me of the same thing you're doing.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> In the UK a security guard has no more legal powers than any other non police officer ( and certain other official bodies) so anyone can look after someone who has been apprehended.



Yeah, I figured someone might say that, which is why I wrote what I did in the first post of this thread. You wouldn't have needed to write this, and I wouldn't have needed to respond to it, had you simply read that post and kept it in mind. You didn't, all in accordance with your pattern of ignoring the things I write which doesn't fit your agenda.



Tez3 said:


> Shop staff here do not indulge in behaviour that makes it dangerous for a suspect to be detained,



Congratulations. Really.



Tez3 said:


> No one wants a shop lifter let off which is what will happen if the procedures aren't adhered to.



That's not true where I'm at. The south side police have even instigated a project where they're actively encouraging staff and security to confront potential thieves even before they've passed the point of last possible sale. They claim it's safer and helps them with their understaffing problems. Like I said, you wouldn't believe the kind of BS they put out sometimes.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia
> 
> "Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called *intellectual dishonesty*."
> 
> This is exactly what you're doing, you're cherrypicking the bits and pieces from my posts that you think confirms your bias about me, whilst conveniently ignoring everything I say which is incompatible with the point you're trying to make. Locally, that's referred to as "reading my posts like the devil reads the bible".
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and that's a strawman, which is intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not. This just goes to show how you conveniently ignore everything I've written that contradicts your thesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've written about this before in this very thread. And as long as lay judges are employed, I don't want anything to do with working as either a lawyer or a prosecutor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're accusing me of the same thing you're doing.



No, I am not debating with you. An opinion cannot be a fallacy, it can be disagreed with, laughed at, agreed with, ignored but it's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
to have a 'bias' against you would mean I actually think what you write is valid, I don't, in my opinion you are playing the victim and want confirmation form other posters. You don't get it from me so you throw words around like a tantrum.
You are obviously miffed because I don't address all your words, why would I? I am addressing the words which pinpoint your attitude towards people, including us. I don't have a 'thesis' , I gave an opinion. If you don't like it, ignore it. Keep posting up and you are inviting opinions.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Yeah, I figured someone might say that, which is why I wrote what I did in the first post of this thread. You wouldn't have needed to write this, and I wouldn't have needed to respond to it, had you simply read that post and kept it in mind. You didn't, all in accordance with your pattern of ignoring the things I write which doesn't fit your agenda.



I assume it didn't occur to you that might be for the benefit of other posters who are not from the UK? MT is about sharing information. You are showing once again that you think everything is about you, why would you need to respond?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> No, I am not debating with you. An opinion cannot be a fallacy,



You're making statements about what I'm trying to accomplish with my posts in this thread which flat-out aren't true. That goes beyond the realm of opinions and into outright dishonesty.



Tez3 said:


> in my opinion you are playing the victim and want confirmation form other posters.



In other words, you've created a false hypothesis for yourself and now you're looking for ways to support it. That is not what I'm doing and that is not my goal, stating that it is is an outright lie.



Tez3 said:


> I am addressing the words which pinpoint your attitude towards people, including us.



So your belittling of the racism directed towards myself doesn't say anything about your attitude towards me? Right.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> I assume it didn't occur to you that might be for the benefit of other posters who are not from the UK? MT is about sharing information.



Share information is exactly what I did in said post, which you chose to ignore. That is your problem, don't blame me for it.



Tez3 said:


> You are showing once again that you think everything is about you, why would you need to respond?



I went out of my way to tell people that I was not working within a UK or US type legal framework. You ignored it. Hence, apparently everything is about YOU.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> You're making statements about what I'm trying to accomplish with my posts in this thread which flat-out aren't true. That goes beyond the realm of opinions and into outright dishonesty.



I asked you why you were posting and you haven't answered. If the purpose of your posting is supposed to be obvious you have failed in your objective, all we see is a lot of racist comments and 'poor me' posting.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> I went out of my way to tell people that I was not working within a UK or US type legal framework. You ignored it. Hence, apparently everything is about YOU.



You don't get this do you? I wasn't talking to you, you posted up some information, I posted up some as well, they would compliment each other for people perhaps like Americans who have no knowledge of either of our systems, hopefully then an American and/or an Australian with knowledge would post up what they do and then we'd all be a little more knowledgeable, we would be able to converse about our respective systems, how we work, what we think etc. It would be a conversation which is common on MT, it's how human contact flows.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> I asked you why you were posting and you haven't answered. If the purpose of your posting is supposed to be obvious you have failed in your objective, all we see is a lot of racist comments and 'poor me' posting.



Yeah, because you're being intellectually dishonest and conveniently ignoring stuff that I write.



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> The possibility that I'm simply venting myself out after more than a few strange and unexpected occurrences, has apparently never been considered. There are no words for that in macho lingo, it seems.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> You don't get this do you? I wasn't talking to you, you posted up some information, I posted up some as well, they would compliment each other for people perhaps like Americans who have no knowledge of either of our systems, hopefully then an American and/or an Australian with knowledge would post up what they do and then we'd all be a little more knowledgeable, we would be able to converse about our respective systems, how we work, what we think etc. It would be a conversation which is common on MT, it's how human contact flows.



I will admit that wasn't what I had in mind when I started this thread, mainly because it's a subject matter I'm not all that familiar with. Having said that, I have no problems with people from different areas sharing experiences in this thread, provided that it's done without the inherent assumption that what goes for one area always applies to everywhere else as well. Sadly, there are countless examples of this within this very thread. Once more - I have NO PROBLEM with people putting in their experiences from elsewhere. Just keep in mind that it's not always where everyone else is coming from.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Yeah, because you're being intellectually dishonest and conveniently ignoring stuff that I write.



No, I'm being unintellectually amused by your whatever you call 'venting', it's not, it's just you being nasty about people, racist about others and whinging.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> No, I'm being unintellectually amused by your whatever you call 'venting', it's not, it's just you being nasty about people, racist about others and whinging.



No, again, it's because you ignore the bits I've written that don't fit in with your agenda. Confessions of a security guy


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> provided that it's done without the inherent assumption that what goes for one area always applies to everywhere else as well.



Well now that somewhat 'intellectually dishonest' isn't it, I said explained quite plainly without any assumption that it was the same in any country how we did things in the UK yet you had a hissy fit at me, tut tut dear boy.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> No, again, it's because you ignore the bits I've written that don't fit in with your agenda. Confessions of a security guy



I don't have an 'agenda', all my impressions of you and how you think are taken from reading *everything* you have written.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> Well now that somewhat 'intellectually dishonest' isn't it, I said explained quite plainly without any assumption that it was the same in any country how we did things in the UK yet you had a hissy fit at me, tut tut dear boy.



I think you might want to think about how you come across at times. After all the insults and false statements it's not always easy to tell when you're attempting to bring forth useful information.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> I think you might want to think about how you come across at times. After all the insults and false statements it's not always easy to tell when you're attempting to bring forth useful information.



I do think about it but whether that bothers me or not is something else, I post up here and I expect people put their opinions, they may like what I said, they may not, some ignore me some argue but that is their prerogative, I don't scream 'strawman' and 'intellectual dishonesty' at them. If I minded other people's comments I wouldn't post.
I have made no false statements, it's what you don't seem to understand. If I said you were an Australian snake wrangler, that would be a false statement, if I say I think your comments are racist that is not a false statement because I honestly believe you have and do make racist statements. You will think that your statements aren't racist, that I'm mistaken but it doesn't make my comments false as they are honestly held opinions. I haven't insulted you either, those are in your head not mine, if I said you were a cockwombling wankspangle that's an insult, at no time have I said that or anything close, trust me you'd know if I were to throw insults at you.
I think you have trouble with the nuances in English ( understandable if you do not speak English as a first language or come from a place where English has much different intonations and nuances) and also do not like having replies to your posts.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> I do think about it but whether that bothers me or not is something else, I post up here and I expect people put their opinions, they may like what I said, they may not, some ignore me some argue but that is their prerogative,



You went past opinion when you took all those things I'd written out of context and claimed I was doing things I wasn't.



Tez3 said:


> I have made no false statements,



Yes you have, and I don't expect you to be honest about it.



Tez3 said:


> if I say I think your comments are racist that is not a false statement because I honestly believe you have and do make racist statements. You will think that your statements aren't racist, that I'm, mistaken but it doesn't make my comments false as they are honestly held opinions.



The only way for them to be honestly held opinions would be for you to have ignored all of the things I wrote that, for any sensible person reading them, would go against the idea of me being racist. As such, they are not honest, but arisen from a confirmative bias.



Tez3 said:


> I think you have trouble with the nuances in English ( understandable if you do not speak English as a first language or come from a place where English has much different intonations and nuances) and also do not like having replies to your posts.



Aaaaand, both of those are false suppositions. Again.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> You went past opinion when you took all those things I'd written out of context and claimed I was doing things I wasn't.



I don't think you can judge how far my opinion of you goes, for example it's getting lower as time goes on.



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Yes you have, and I don't expect you to be honest about it



Are you aware of British pantomime? I ask because the only answer to this is 'oh no I haven't.'
You then shout 'oh yes you have' and this goes on for a while until the Dame ( who is played by a man) comes on followed by the Principle boy ( who's played by a girl) Enjoyable nonsense.



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> The only way for them to be honestly held opinions would be for you to have ignored all of the things I wrote that, for any sensible person reading them, would go against the idea of me being racist. As such, they are not honest, but arisen from a confirmative bias.



Oh my days, so the only way to have an honest opinion on something is to ignore it. Oh and for what it's worth I said the things you wrote were racist in my opinion, I didn't actually call you a racist. 'confirmative bias', rofl.

Son, you prove it every time you post. It's not an insult it's just what it is. If I posted in French you'd see a fine mess of misunderstanding.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> I don't think you can judge how far my opinion of you goes, for example it's getting lower as time goes on.



Same here in regards to yourself.



Tez3 said:


> Are you aware of British pantomime? I ask because the only answer to this is 'oh no I haven't.'
> You then shout 'oh yes you have' and this goes on for a while until the Dame ( who is played by a man) comes on followed by the Principle boy ( who's played by a girl) Enjoyable nonsense.



This is what's referred to as a "red herring".



Tez3 said:


> Oh my days, so the only way to have an honest opinion on something is to ignore it.



No, but the opinion you have is not honest, because it's obviously based on a number of false assumptions, which themselves are due to you having ignored the things I've written that are incompatible with the point you're trying to make.



Tez3 said:


> Oh and for what it's worth I said the things you wrote were racist in my opinion, I didn't actually call you a racist. 'confirmative bias', rofl.



You stated that I was spouting racist rubbish. Not as in you "thought" but as a statement of fact. That is a false statement. 

I was raised to consider everyone regardless of skin color to be my equal, and so far, that's what I'm sticking to. However, stating that some nationalities are over-represented in terms of property crimes in certain areas is not hate speech, but a statement of fact. Now, RACISM would be for me to state that these people do it because it's inherent in their blood (which is what a fair amount of store personnel tend to do, hence one out of many reasons I find it perfectly reasonable to call them eccentric), as opposed to due to a variety of material circumstances. But I don't believe that. Nor do I believe that women, roma, jews, black people, latinos, transgendered, gays, lesbians, muslims or kurds are in any way some kind of infallible sacred cows. I believe that all these categories of human beings have had their part to play in creating the world which we now inhabit.


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Same here in regards to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what's referred to as a "red herring".
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the opinion you have is not honest, because it's obviously based on a number of false assumptions, which themselves are due to you having ignored the things I've written that are incompatible with the point you're trying to make.
> 
> 
> 
> You stated that I was spouting racist rubbish. Not as in you "thought" but as a statement of fact. That is a false statement.
> 
> I was raised to consider everyone regardless of skin color to be my equal, and so far, that's what I'm sticking to. However, stating that some nationalities are over-represented in terms of property crimes in certain areas is not hate speech, but a statement of fact. Now, RACISM would be for me to state that these people do it because it's inherent in their blood (which is what a fair amount of store personnel tend to do, hence one out of many reasons I find it perfectly reasonable to call them eccentric), as opposed to due to a variety of material circumstances. But I don't believe that. Nor do I believe that women, roma, jews, black people, latinos, transgendered, gays, lesbians, muslims or kurds are in any way some kind of infallible sacred cows. I believe that all these categories of human beings have had their part to play in creating the world which we now inhabit.



So you are not racist, but would find it acceptable to use "ethnic slang" as it were?


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Transk53 said:


> So you are not racist, but would find it acceptable to use "ethnic slang" as it were?



Anyone who had the sassy and hilarious black woman I had as my first teacher at uni would tell you that context is everything. If the intention isn't there, then words have no power.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> This is what's referred to as a "red herring".




No it's not, it's a non sequitur.




Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> No, but the opinion you have is not honest, because it's obviously based on a number of false assumptions, which themselves are due to you having ignored the things I've written that are incompatible with the point you're trying to make.



So I'm lying? Interesting, I can assure you my opinion is an honest one, it might be a mistaken one or a misguided one or as you suggest based on false assumptions but I can assure you it is an* honest* one. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it dishonest. I have noted your opinion of me, I accept it as honest but mistaken, I don't think you are correct but I wouldn't call you a liar. 



Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> (which is what a fair amount of store personnel tend to do, hence one out of many reasons I find it perfectly reasonable to call them eccentric



No that's not eccentricity it's racism. Eccentricity is something different, many people are.
eccentricity Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> No it's not, it's a non sequitur.



No, it's a red herring.



Tez3 said:


> So I'm lying?



Yeah, I'd say that. You don't come across as particularly stupid, hence you're still willfully ignoring all the things I've written that wouldn't support the allegation of me being a racist.



Tez3 said:


> No that's not eccentricity it's racism. Eccentricity is something different, many people are.
> eccentricity Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary



You're right insofar as that all eccentrics are not racists, however I do consider racists eccentric.


----------



## Tez3

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> If the intention isn't there, then words have no power.



Oh, you are so very wrong.

You are also very wrong about a lot of other things but I really don't have the inclination to point out why you are so wrong.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit

Tez3 said:


> Oh, you are so very wrong.
> 
> You are also very wrong about a lot of other things but I really don't have the inclination to point out why you are so wrong.



I also believe that postmodernism is pure evil and sometimes hope that hell exists, for the simple reason that people like Foucault and Derrida deserve more than just a slow painful death.


----------



## Tez3

Interesting that you think people you don't agree with should have more than a long slow death, most people tend to just argue with philosophers and their ilk ( or ignore them) if they disagree.


----------



## Transk53

Grey Eyed Bandit said:


> Anyone who had the sassy and hilarious black woman I had as my first teacher at uni would tell you that context is everything. If the intention isn't there, then words have no power.



Rubbish. Words always have power, whether they are empty or not. Someone always listens. Why we have a bunch of fanatics around trying to destroy it.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

_ATTENTION ALL USERS:
_
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Brian R. VanCise
-MartialTalk Moderator-


----------

