RE: LEO's vs Well Trained Security Personnel

My biggest complaint in Texas with security guards is their lack of training. Texas requires all guards to go through a basic 32 hour course which is then good for the rest of their life. They do not have enough training on use of force or authorities for arrest, let alone report writing and courtroom demeanor/testimony.

Too many times, security guards have used excessive force and made illegal arrests, contaminating a case on someone who really deserves a trip to jail. I could live with their reports if they could tell me in person what happened so I can write my report better. And I will generally let the DA worry about how they testify, but some do relaly lousy jobs and their testimony is critical on shoplifter cases.

Ont he good side, I have met and worked with some very good and professional security guards. They are not very common, but I know they are there. Maybe if the companies would pay a little better, we could get rid of the retirees who do nothing and the wannabe cop rejects. Again, I know that both are very small minorities of the total number of security guards, but they seem to be the ones who cause the most trouble for cops.

I think most security officers are people trying to do a job to put food on the table, not their choice of job, but it pays the bills so they do their best. Training would help them.

RE: LEO's vs Well Trained Security Personnel

Would it be feasible for people who want to become security personnel to have an active duty sworn LEO to take potential security personnel under their wing to show them the right from wrong ways? Would this be beneficial for both security personnel and LEO's. How about having that same LEO become a sponser or possibly that LEO's department sponser potential security personnel who are wanting to become certified with the state's DPS agency that deals with providing the guard cards to the individual guards/officers. If this were placed into law, would this law be helpful to all involved?

LEO vs. Security Officers

In response to the inquiry regarding police officers training private security officers...

Steve makes a point, there are more security officers that take a job in private security to pay the bills more so instead of taking the job because they enjoy the line of work.

You have some cop wannabes that did not make it on to a police/sheriff's department, that enjoy the line of work. The only problem is, some of these security officers do not understand the use of force laws or try to act like "the cops in the movies" which ultimately lands them in hot water, and one of the reasons why they didn't make it in law enforcement anyway (do not have an adequate understanding of reality). The other percentage may be the small percentage that actually do the job in the correct fashion.

For law enforcement to take the time training people who are not wanting to do anything more than collect a paycheck is a waste of that agency's time. There are many security guards/officers that do not handle emergency situations, or dangersous situations, very well or refuse to do it at all. Private security is not faced with day to day trials with deadly weapons as often as law enforcement. There is a big difference between observing and reporting, and fighting for your life. Many private security professionals are not in shape nor do they wish to be placed in such conditions because they are not there to do so. They are there to collect a pay check. Many private security firms do not want the liability of arming their officers and neither do the clients that they serve.

Only certain private security situations (such as guarding a nuclear facility) require a firearm anymore (because of liability concerns if someone were to steal radioactive material and the threat it imposes). And nine times out of ten, the qualifications for such positions are very different than regular security (non-armed) officers.

If there are going to be laws created to train security officers in law enforcement situations, understanding the laws, and how to respond to situations...you might as well make them law enforcement officers.

Essentially, from what I am reading, that is the question and the answer to that question is whether or not security officers should have the same type of training as law enforcement. Who will foot this bill? Private Security firms would have to charge the client even more monies to cover the expense, and I guarantee that the client looking for security company to protect them are going to find the one firm that is the least expensive, and will fight legislation that will require them to pay even more money to the security firm that has to have certain training, thus increasing costs. Businesses are struggling in today's economy as it is.

Private security does not have the rigorous standards as law enforcement does, and there is a reason for that. To require private security companies provide mandatory training by law enforcement officers is only giving knowledge to people who may turn to criminal behavior rather easily because the are not paid as well as law enforcement on the officer (patrol) level. I think there should be standards for private security officers based on what type of work is being performed and where it is being performed. If the client is in a bad, high crime area, then consideration should be taken on arming officers who are going to come across violent people. If the work is done in a nice suburb, then arming officer is probably not a high priority, and the combat training would not be as necessary.

Every Security Officer should be well versed in their federal and their local laws. That is one requirement that security companies should be held by state law, or even federal law. Too many people are corrupted by "what I've seen in movies" that they do not understand what they can and cannot really do out there. That is the root of the problem in my opinion.

RE: LEO's vs Well Trained Security Personnel

Where I am from the job of the security officer is asset protection and loss prevention. They have no arrest powers or authority. I do not believe that it is the job of law enforcement to train security officers in the field, this should be up to the security company that employs them. The job of security officer and law enforcement officer are totally different. Law enforcement is there to enforce laws, take reports and arrest offenders. Security officers job it to observe and report. Security officers are a great asset and can be very helpful, but as others have stated there are those few that give the title "security officer" a black eye. I guess where you are employed depends on whether or not you should be armed. As I said, where I am from the security officer has no arrest powers and is only there to report, so there is no need for them to be armed. Nor should they have the same training as law enforcement officers. Most don't stay in the field long and there is no need for a ton of people out there to be more familiar with law enforcement practices than they need to be.

RE: LEO's vs Well Trained Security Personnel

Unfortunately, many people who work security really should not be in the job. They took it because they figure it's 'easy money' and all they have to do is stand around and get paid. Of course, this isn't true. Luckily, most of those dead beats get weeded out within a few weeks which is why Security has a very quick turn around with employment. However, there ARE, as Steve pointed out, some Security Officers who really want to, or try to, do a good job.

I was lucky. 21 years ago when I was just a 19 yr old rent-a-cop working my first site (a grocery store) some of the local cops took me under their wing. They saw that I was willing to actually catch and arrest shoplifters so they taught me the proper ways to handcuff and frisk a suspect, how to treat suspects with respect and how to handle resistive suspects. They were willing to take a few minutes out of their day to just BS with me on all sorts of subjects (including lethal force encounters), and tell me what I did right or wrong in a given incident. Like the one with the Hep C positive wino.....<wince>. Should police officers train Security Officers as a whole? No. BUT: When you come across that individual SO who is actually trying to do his job...help him out. Teach him what you know. When you see he put the handcuffs on key hole down, explain WHY it's wrong, don't just roll your eyes and mutter about "dumb ass rentacops wasting my time....". Show them how to do a proper frisk and about body language warning signs. Heck, it might help keep you from responding to a shoplifting call only to find out it's escalated to a homicide. I credit those cops who helped teach me with saving my life. This in turn has helped ME save other Police officer lives in 2 incidents, as well as a number of civilians.

I'd encourage cops to brush up on the laws as they concern Security in their area, if only so as not to say something embarrassing. For instance, Virginia armed certified Security Officers are considered arresting officers by law for any criminal offense occuring in their presence. Unarmed certified officers, however, can only detain a suspect until Police arrive. Of course, Virginia also has the most stringent Security Officer requirements; unarmed officers have to recertify every 2 years, armed officers recertify every year under the same scoring requirements as Police. Personally, I think the training needs to be even tougher. But how much training can be mandated for a job which doesn't pay that much?

Something else to think about inre. rentacops. Ya'll know all those insulting, bad things people say about you? Well, they say that about us to. What makes it worst is when YOU say it to us. Hey, I admit freely I wouldn't hire a good percentage of SO's to guard manure. They're just that worthless. BUT there are a number of us who really try to do a good job. And just like ya'll don't like being judged by the worst of the bunch, we shouldn't be judged by our idiots either. Instead, when you meet an SO get to know him a little bit. You don't have to invite him home to meet the family, just spend a few minutes chatting. Teach him some tricks of the trade. You never know, he may be able to give YOU some information as well. Remember this, YOU may patrol the area, but HE is in that spot constantly. If he's any good, he knows his zone far better then you. Burglaries in the area? He may have noted a suspicious vehicle in the area, or even have a description of the suspect. Maybe even have some CCTV footage that would be of help. Or howabout this one, happened to me a few months ago. I found a fence on the property had been driven through, located a nearby cop and asked if he'd seen anyone with heavy front end damage and a ruined radiator drive by. He gave me a funny look and said, "Yeah...we got a DUI with a fence post stuck in her radiator, lemme give you the arresting officer's number." Car looked like a unicorn with that post sticking straight out...but anyways case solved. Find out which Security officers are worth a damn, and use them as a neighborhood resource.

RE: LEO's vs Well Trained Security Personnel

I have been in Private Security for quite a few years and the standard for Security personnel where I am employed is set very high because of liability factors. Everyone on staff is to be knowledgable in all aspects of the profession; Defensive Tactics, Handcuffing, OC, Expandable baton, Firearms, Emergency response, CPR, AED, First AID, crime scene protection, active shooter response and containment and so on. Employees from are staff are constantly getting recruited by Law Enforcement Agencies that we have good working relationships with. Hardly anyone leaves as you are not just an employee but a very expensive asset to the company. Our record working with outside Law Enforcement is very good as they know what we can and cannot handle and when it comes down to it if they are needed they have a very fast response time. I feel that Private Security and Public Law Enforcement should have a good standing relationship.

LEO's vs. Security Personnel

I work both sides law enforcement and security, let me tell you something...

We (law enforcement and security) do similar work, but the work we do is very different in terms of how we respond.

Both train before being deployed to their assignment; but both train very differently to respond to limited situations. We really do not know what we will have to encounter which makes it impossible to train for every possible senario. Security Officers get a lot less training than law enforcement. The best officers I have are ones out of the military (who have been trained hand to hand combat). These officers have the confidence to respond to situation with out a weapon because they know they are a weapon (hands and feet can kill). The other officers will tell you to your face they will run away and risk losing their jobs before running after someone to retrieve stolen property not knowing who they are dealing with.

Law enforcement is required to have their officers certified on quite a few things and the certification is required to be kept up to date by law. The majority of Security Officers usually do not need any certification besides CPR/First Aid, and company certification based on client and company policies (not required by law). Very few security officers are required to qualify with a firearm. These officers are usually "Specially assigned" to executive protection/body guard services, armed guard services for money transportation, or assigned to government facilities such as a nuclear plant. They are a small percentage of the private security workforce. They get very different training, and these assignments have very different qualifications from the regular security officers.

Remember, each state may have different standards on the training requirements concerning Private Security Officers. To my knowledge, there are no federal requirements concerning training. I think there should be, and I think it would do well for law enforcement as well....

Here's why:

Security Officers are faced with situations that have the potential to turn violent (work place violence, robbery, public drunkeness). They should at least know how to defend themselves (PPCT requirements should be mandatory). This makes sense in protecting their lives when they are not given weapons (or are not allowed weapons) in their assignments/locations.

I chased after copper thieves one time who just had stolen the vehicle they came to my facility in to rob us of copper. They are from a gang-ridden city. I could of been shot easily and they could of got off with a lot more. I'm not going to know if they have a weapon until it is too late. I think depending on where security officers are stationed/assigned, they should be required to carry a firearm. It is not real tactical smart or business smart to place officers in such situations with out a way to defend themselves. They develop the attitude that "This isn't worth my life to confront people" and then they slack off. I've seen it, and I've been told by security officers. They are not confident to do anything because they are not confident they can survive without getting seriously injured or killed. I have law enforcement training, so I go after the bad guys anyways knowing what to look for and when to call off the pursuit. My co-workers don't because they are not as trained nor will they get that kind of training for the location they are assigned. I am an exception because I police part-time.

Private security will have to improve its standards if they want to improve their officers. I don't think training from law enforcement officers will be the answer because of budget issues and there are some things (training) that law enforcement officers receive that need to remain among law enforcement officers. Security officers are too quick to tell what they know not realizing the damage they are causing. Corruption runs through both law enforcement and private security. Minimize the damage by keeping some things we do in law enforcement in the law enforcement field. However, as Steve mentioned, report writing, knowing and understanding laws, collection and documenting of evidence, and how to search and seize are area that I see could improve in the private sector. Not a whole lot of private security officers understand what can make or break a case and "I saw it on CSI" doesn't cut it as far as being educated in the matter. If we take future security officers and train them with law enforcement standards - then what's the difference between the two? We might as well arm all security officers in the name of homeland security.

We are at war with terrorist and people who want to wipe out all Americans whether they are military, law enforcement, or private citizens. I do not see the benefits of law enforcement giving security officers a hard time or vice versa. It is very easy for a terrorist group to walk up, blow the head off of a private security guard and walk right in a facility getting what ever the need to blow up the police station down the street. Not a laughing matter, and yes the possibility of it is slim, but one we cannot say "it will never happen". At least the security officer in dispatch can notify the police one of their own was shot and killed and some one is trying to take over the facility. At least the police station has half a chance. No...we should not be too harsh with each other.

I can't train my security officers to do some of the things I do in law enforcement because it is not allowed where I am assigned. I do correct their thinking when they are off on the wrong track. Most of the officers I have will not lift a finger, but will call me instead. That is all they do: observe and report. None of them want the liability or possible bodily injury that comes with responding to a potentially danergous situation. They do not have the confidence to do so because they do not get trained.

"Is your number still 911?" - Ofc. Rachel T.

Training....

Well.....

FOr one, the private sector is good for being paid witnesses that look for trouble hopefully giving law enforcement an edge on criminal activity. Very few security guards are given the power of arrest, and most do not carry a weapon so they don't train for violent encounters. Any criminal paying attention will take note and the security guard can kiss their ass good-bye. It's a joke for terrorists,right or left wing groups who want whatever the guards are guarding. Sure, havin some one watching a facility deters theft, but if they want it bad enough - they will get it without much resistance.

Most companies have security guards because it keeps their insurance costs down. As far as loss prevention, it dependson the facility design, the training and willingness of the security guards to prevent theft. I know a friend in private security. He just does his job andgoes home because hefeels llike a number, not some body actually making a difference. THere are no arrest powers, no investigating (thats left up to the investigators, a different unit), no interrogation, no real desire to do an outstanding job because he says that management will find something to rip him apart on. Very few guards know what is needed for something to stick in court and very few can write an excellent report.

Law enforcement has higher standards and a greater impact on keeping bad guys in line. That is because of higher standards.

LEO training for Security

As stated in the above responses, I also agree that LEO training would either bankrupt most security companies or because of the high turn over most companies are unwilling to train to the same standard. This is one of the reasons I left the security industry, the other being the officers/guards I have come in contact with. (drunk or soon to be convicted felons)

I ,like Wolfva, live and work in Virginia and am armed not for the companies benifit but for my own safety. I have gone out of my way to either talk to local LEOs or attended extra classes many of which would also benefit law enforcement personnel as well. I have been trained in the use of baton, OC, handcuffing, and search techniques, in addition to the legal part of the job. When I have down time I read the Va criminal code to better understand the law.

My point is that while the a lot of the security personnel show up for the easy paycheck the LEOs should not assume that when responding to a call from a security officer that this is the case.

Stay Safe

Under your wing

Peacekpr,

I no longer live in the Detroit Metro area, but I knew of an outfit in Sterling Heights, Michigan that did exactly what you suggested and it was a successful venture. The owner was a retired LEO. He paid real well and only hired retired LEO's, Reserve officers who wanted part-time work and kids who were going to school to become LEO's. He performed a good background check and had a very good interview process. His guys and gals had the respect of the local agencies. The officers had to be able to obtain CCW's, they were all armed. The uniforms were consistant and clean...no variations allowed. I believe a venture like that would work real well with clients...they would pay top dollar for that type of professional service. The Local coppers could be visited by you to explain how you work.