Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Pam Galloway Security

  1. #1
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879

    Pam Galloway Security

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/were...-to-stay-home/

    Anyone else interested in providing Mrs. Galloway some security? I am getting real tired of these threats. It's time that we stand up and provide security for those willing to represent the people.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    This guy seems like a real scumbag but, from what I read, it's all constitutionally-protected free speech. I didn't see any threats, especially in the context of a recall campaign.

    “You overreached and you will pay the political price for it,” another intimidating message reads.
    Intimidating? Really? A prediction that she will be defeated in the next election? I don't think so.

    In any event, I've written and said far worse to my own state "representatives."
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Can't believe much of anything that goes on in politics. 'Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently, and for the same reasons". Look what's going on in the national disaster. The republican candidates are tearing at each other's throats only to proclaim after the convention that they are each others most ardent friends. Come next November we will have the best goverment money can buy. Let's hope we can endure the nauseating train ride to get there.

  4. #4
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post

    Intimidating? Really?
    Yah, really.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/were...-to-stay-home/

    Numerous e-mails contained threatening subject lines such as “we are coming for you,” and “here we come.” Another e-mail twice contained the threat, “stay home, Pam,” something that could be interpreted as chauvinistic.
    Spiegelhoff’s harassment arguably goes beyond mere political intimidation into outright stalking and obsession. Moreover, Spiegelhoff doesn‘t even live in Galloway’s district, raising the question of why he‘s so focused on someone whose work he can’t even vote against.

    http://mediatrackers.org/2012/03/wis...d-intimidates/
    As a digital stalker threatening a female lawmaker, Spiegelhoff has disgraced any cause that he was hoping to advance.

    Link to a few emails.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84337479/S...GallowayEmails
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by anmut View Post
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/were...-to-stay-home/

    Anyone else interested in providing Mrs. Galloway some security? I am getting real tired of these threats. It's time that we stand up and provide security for those willing to represent the people.
    Doesn't Wisconsin have some fairly strict laws about who can be a private security officer and who can offer private security services? Aren't certificates and/or licenses needed? I'd hate to see a bunch of Pam Galloway's friends and supporters, who were just hanging around waiting for a chance to talk with their favorite legislator, get into trouble over something like being mistaken for unlicensed security.

    (15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Doesn't Wisconsin have some fairly strict laws about who can be a private security officer and who can offer private security services? Aren't certificates and/or licenses needed? I'd hate to see a bunch of Pam Galloway's friends and supporters, who were just hanging around waiting for a chance to talk with their favorite legislator, get into trouble over something like being mistaken for unlicensed security.



    stay safe.
    Unlicensed Security? You mean the gate guards at Menards are licensed? I don't believe WI has any such law that persons charged with protecting another person need to inform the state that they intend to do so first.

    Maybe we could all chip in and send her some high-quality Corbon... Ms. Galloway has been great for this state and oc/cc in particular.

  7. #7
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Doesn't Wisconsin have some fairly strict laws about who can be a private security officer and who can offer private security services? Aren't certificates and/or licenses needed?
    Wisc. Stats. Chapter 440 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

    SUBCHAPTER II PRIVATE DETECTIVES, PRIVATE SECURITY PERSONS

    440.26 Private detectives, investigators and security personnel; licenses and permits.
    (1) LICENSE OR PERMIT REQUIRED.
    (a) No person may do any of the following unless he or she has a license or permit issued under this section:
    1. Advertise, solicit or engage in the business of operating a private detective agency.
    2. Act as a private detective, investigator, special investigator or private security person.
    3. Act as a supplier of private security personnel.
    4. Solicit business or perform any other type of service or investigation as a private detective or private security person.
    11. Receive any fees or compensation for acting as any person, engaging in any business or performing any service specified in subds. 1. to 4.
    (b) The department may promulgate rules specifying activities in which a person may engage without obtaining a license or permit under this section.
    (1m) DEFINITION. In this section:
    (h) “Private security person” or “private security personnel” means any private police, guard or any person who stands watch for security purposes.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 03-09-2012 at 07:56 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Wisc. Stats. Chapter 440 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

    SUBCHAPTER II PRIVATE DETECTIVES, PRIVATE SECURITY PERSONS

    440.26 Private detectives, investigators and security personnel; licenses and permits.
    (1) LICENSE OR PERMIT REQUIRED.
    (a) No person may do any of the following unless he or she has a license or permit issued under this section:
    1. Advertise, solicit or engage in the business of operating a private detective agency.
    2. Act as a private detective, investigator, special investigator or private security person.
    3. Act as a supplier of private security personnel.
    4. Solicit business or perform any other type of service or investigation as a private detective or private security person.
    11. Receive any fees or compensation for acting as any person, engaging in any business or performing any service specified in subds. 1. to 4.
    (b) The department may promulgate rules specifying activities in which a person may engage without obtaining a license or permit under this section.
    (1m) DEFINITION. In this section:
    (h) “Private security person” or “private security personnel” means any private police, guard or any person who stands watch for security purposes.
    Next time I'm at the Fleet Farm yard or Menards I'll ask if those guys have permits...

    Also, just so I have this straight - If I come to the aid of a citizen being threatened I'm okay under the law as long as I don't announce before hand that I'm "here to help keep you secure." Am I reading this correctly? *eye roll*

  9. #9
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by anmut View Post
    ... Also, just so I have this straight - If I come to the aid of a citizen being threatened I'm okay under the law as long as I don't announce before hand that I'm "here to help keep you secure." Am I reading this correctly? ...
    Wisc. Stats. Chapter 939 CRIMES — GENERAL PROVISIONS, SUBCHAPTER III DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY

    §939.48 Self−defense and defense of others.
    (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

    [ ... ]

    (4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self−defense and that the person’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

  10. #10
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Wisc. Stats. Chapter 939 CRIMES — GENERAL PROVISIONS, SUBCHAPTER III DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY

    §939.48 Self−defense and defense of others.
    (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

    [ ... ]

    (4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self−defense and that the person’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
    I'm confused - so as long as I don't declare myself to be security for another person when defending them, I'm okay to do so? If I happen to mutter the word "security" before hand I have to stop and call Madison for a permit? </sarcasm>

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    LOL

    The supposedly-threatening underlined portions of the emails:

    "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Actively working to plan your recall."

    "I am actively working against you."

    "Here we come" (followed by talking about how he signed a petition).

    "You sold your soul and disgraced the medical community."

    "We are coming for you" (followed by "two Republican Senate districts in the hands of Democrats and you are next").

    etc., etc., etc.

    Sorry, folks, this is all constitutionally-protected, political speech. Maybe not the nicest things to say, but there are no illegal threats here. You guys need to quit wetting the bed, or grow a thicker skin.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fond du Lac, USA
    Posts
    141

    Yes .They do need a permit

    The security at Menards do have the security permit/license. If you have clothing that says "security" or a badge that states the same and are in the position of security. You need to have the proper credentials. If you don't and are involved in an incident . Make sure you have a real good law firm to represent you.

  13. #13
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    LOL

    .....
    And yet you purposely gloss over the whole harassment/stalker thing. Again. How convenient. What dog exactly do you have in this hunt again?
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  14. #14
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Harassment and stalking each have explicit definitions in Wisconsin Statute (Chapters 940 and 947 IIRC) law and with specific exceptions that include actions protected by the First Amendment and/or arising from "labor disputes." Spiegelhoff likely has enjoyed the goonions' protection in the past.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    anmut: The following chapter applies only if you receive compensation for providing security of people, places or things i.e. bodyguard for hire. . A private citizen acting as a good samaritan is governed by Art I sec 25 of the state constitution and ss939.48(4). When coming to the aid of a person never announce your intentions. Simply ask "Do you want me to help you"? and abide by the answer.

    Wisc. Stats. Chapter 440 DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

    SUBCHAPTER II PRIVATE DETECTIVES, PRIVATE SECURITY PERSONS

    440.26 Private detectives, investigators and security personnel; licenses and permits.
    (1) LICENSE OR PERMIT REQUIRED.
    (a) No person may do any of the following unless he or she has a license or permit issued under this section:
    1. Advertise, solicit or engage in the business of operating a private detective agency.
    2. Act as a private detective, investigator, special investigator or private security person.
    3. Act as a supplier of private security personnel.
    4. Solicit business or perform any other type of service or investigation as a private detective or private security person.
    11. Receive any fees or compensation for acting as any person, engaging in any business or performing any service specified in subds. 1. to 4.(b) The department may promulgate rules specifying activities in which a person may engage without obtaining a license or permit under this section.
    (1m) DEFINITION. In this section:
    (h) “Private security person” or “private security personnel” means any private police, guard or any person who stands watch for security purposes.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    And yet you purposely gloss over the whole harassment/stalker thing. Again. How convenient. What dog exactly do you have in this hunt again?
    Read the B.S. that you posted again:
    Spiegelhoff’s harassment arguably goes beyond mere political intimidation into outright stalking and obsession. Moreover, Spiegelhoff doesn‘t even live in Galloway’s district, raising the question of why he‘s so focused on someone whose work he can’t even vote against.
    As a digital stalker threatening a female lawmaker, Spiegelhoff has disgraced any cause that he was hoping to advance.
    "Arguably"...according to one person, the article's author. Hardly an authoritative arbiter on what is and what is not "stalking and obsession."

    I have contacted representatives outside of my district to express displeasure when I have perceived their actions to have negatively affected me. When one makes herself into a public figure, she needs to be prepared to take the heat of the public - all of the public.

    A "digital stalker?" LOL! That sounds just as Orwellian as "thought criminal" or "hate speech." Can you point to a single instance in which a person has come to any physical harm due solely to repetitive insults received via email? I didn't think so.

    The dog I have in this fight is preventing the bedwetters from turning legitimate political speech they disagree with into some kind of pseudo-criminal offense. This is a tactic of the left, and is identical to what they attempt to do with "hate crimes" and "hate speech." Again, grow a thicker skin, or go ask mama to tell you what she should have told you growing up: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Otto Schreck View Post
    Yah, good stuff MIB. 1st Amendment thingy and such.
    Thanks. One of the aspects of being intellectually consistent that it seems many "conservatives" have a hard time with is extending the same leeway to your opponents' actions and speech that you would want extended to your own. Alternatively, it involves not pushing for restrictions on your opponents that you would find oppressive if placed on yourself.

    The golden rule for the win.
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 03-09-2012 at 06:39 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  18. #18
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by 32HR MAG
    If you have clothing that says "security" or a badge that states the same and are in the position of security. You need to have the proper credentials.
    I worked "event security" for a company & I don't have any sort of license.
    And yes, the back of our shirts says "Security".
    I frequently expressed a desire to take the class to be licensed, esp. the class to be allowed to carry at work (since most of the events I worked were in downtown Milwaukee & had me walking alone back to my car after midnight; nothing like prohibiting your employees from self-protection, then doing nothing to protect them).

    And I think Grape has it right -
    if she agrees to this, it would just be some supporters who like her & appreciate her help returning the favor in the best way they can. If they happen to hang around the office or whatever it's not like she's paying them, right?
    And she has a carry license, so might not need as much protecting as you think.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 03-09-2012 at 04:11 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  19. #19
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    ...
    The idiots are thick tonight.

    Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization.

    Stalking is a continuous process, consisting of a series of actions, each of which may be entirely legal in itself. Technology ethics professor Lambèr Royakkers writes that:

    "Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has), with motives that are directly or indirectly traceable to the affective sphere. Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)."[3]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking


    Cyberstalkers target their victims through chat rooms, message boards, discussion forums, and e-mail. Cyberstalking takes many forms such as: threatening or obscene e-mail; spamming (in which a stalker sends a victim a multitude of junk e-mail); live chat harassment or flaming (online verbal abuse); leaving improper messages on message boards or in guest books; sending electronic viruses; sending unsolicited e-mail; tracing another person's computer and Internet activity, and electronic identity theft.
    http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?d...cumentID=32458


    Cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors. Cyberstalking may be considered the most dangerous of the three types of Internet harassment, based on a posing credible threat of harm. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.

    Cyberharassment. Cyberharassment differs from cyberstalking in that it is generally defined as not involving a credible threat. Cyberharassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual. Some states approach cyberharrassment by including language addressing electronic communications in general harassment statutes, while others have created stand-alone cyberharassment statutes.
    http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...ullying-l.aspx

    Wi:
    947.0125  Unlawful use of computerized communication systems.
    (1) In this section, "message" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature, or any transfer of a computer program, as defined in s. 943.70 (1) (c).
    (2) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor:
    (a) With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten, abuse or harass another person, sends a message to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system and in that message threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or the property of any person.
    (b) With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten, abuse or harass another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message and in that message threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or the property of any person.
    (c) With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system and in that message uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act.
    (d) With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message and in that message uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act.
    (e) With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system while intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent the disclosure of his or her own identity.
    (f) While intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent the disclosure of his or her identity and with intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message.
    (3) Whoever does any of the following is subject to a Class B forfeiture:
    (a) With intent to harass, annoy or offend another person, sends a message to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system and in that message uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act.
    (b) With intent to harass, annoy or offend another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message and in that message uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act.
    (c) With intent solely to harass another person, sends repeated messages to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system.
    (d) With intent solely to harass another person, sends repeated messages on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the messages.
    (e) With intent to harass or annoy another person, sends a message to the person on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system while intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent the disclosure of his or her own identity.
    (f) While intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent the disclosure of his or her identity and with intent to harass or annoy another person, sends a message on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system with the reasonable expectation that the person will receive the message.
    (g) Knowingly permits or directs another person to send a message prohibited by this section from any computer terminal or other device that is used to send messages on an electronic mail or other computerized communication system and that is under his or her control.
    History: 1995 a. 353.

    I don't feel the need to go on. However, nice job outing yourself on a forum monitored by the Feds, local news, and our local DAs offices.

    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    In any event, I've written and said far worse to my own state "representatives."
    Bravo. Well done.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 03-09-2012 at 06:46 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post

    I don't feel the need to go on. However, nice job outing yourself on a forum monitored by the Feds, local news, and our local DAs offices.
    Outed myself as a defender of personal liberties generally, and free speech in particular, when no persons or property are damaged and no actual threats of violence are issued (except in the small minds of bedwetters like yourself)?

    PROUDLY!

    P.S.: If you're still afraid of those bad, evil, MEAN words, I think my baby cousin outgrew her security blanket. I can send that to you, if you'd like?
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 03-09-2012 at 06:55 PM.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

  21. #21
    Regular Member anmut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Stevens Point WI, ,
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    I worked "event security" for a company & I don't have any sort of license.
    And yes, the back of our shirts says "Security".
    I frequently expressed a desire to take the class to be licensed, esp. the class to be allowed to carry at work (since most of the events I worked were in downtown Milwaukee & had me walking alone back to my car after midnight; nothing like prohibiting your employees from self-protection, then doing nothing to protect them).

    And I think Grape has it right -
    if she agrees to this, it would just be some supporters who like her & appreciate her help returning the favor in the best way they can. If they happen to hang around the office or whatever it's not like she's paying them, right?
    And she has a carry license, so might not need as much protecting as you think.
    I was hoping someone else would jump on that - I worked gate security at Menards 15 years ago and I wasn't certified by the state. They gave me a button down shirt that said Security, a radio and a clip board. But no license.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    221
    I think something is missing here. My company hires their own security just like any other employee. We are unarmed glorified fire watch. We don't have permits or anything. I am pretty sure that the law (IANAL) only applies to security firms or places that can be contracted for security. It would make sense because then places such as menards, walmart, my company, ect could hire their own security team just like any employee and be okay. While security firms must have employees with the permits and everything to go with it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fond du Lac, USA
    Posts
    141
    Oops. Sorry. I had my brain in neutral.

    I would think if Pam thought security was needed she could have something done.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by 32HR MAG View Post
    I would think if Pam thought security was needed she could have something done.
    BINGO!

    If she had truly received actual threats of violence, she could easily report it to the police, like any other crime victim.

    I guess she wears big-boy pants and doesn't let others' words get to her.
    Total ignorance: an Obama supporter's stock in trade
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    All the talk about Overthrowing Big Government, Revolution, etc., it's just another one of those nostalgic ideas that individuals have idealized.
    O RLY?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_rebellions
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Books are overrated; and so is history.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •