Confessions of a security guy

[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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.