AT Systems/Garda Cash Logistics disregards gun safety?

like_the_roman · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

I work for a retail operation on Tucson's east side. Every other day, our safe is emptied by Garda Cash Logistics (nee AT Systems) to be sent back to corporate. This morning, as I was stocking, I noticed the guard's Safariland holster had it's retention hood in the down (unsafe position) and told him:

Me: You do know your retention hood is down, right?

Him: Huh? [looks puzzled]

Me: Your holster, the retention hood is down.

Him: Oh, that's how I keep it. I have to use this thing [points to his gun] to much to worry about retention.

He takes the money and gets into the truck and drives away.

My questions are:

1. Are armored cars attacked as often as he suggested, or is he just making up an excuse?

2. Even if they are, why the hell would he think that he shouldn't use the retention feature on his holster? I would hope that the people who bring my paycheck are at least as well trained in pistol safety as the police department.

3. Or am I just making a big deal out of nothing?

jaredbelch · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

Sounds like he is just an idiot. I'd send a letter or note the company management and leave it at that.

If you want to pursue it further, talk with whoever makes the decisions at your company and ask them to consider another company since the one you use has incompetent employee's. (you might say it nicer than that depending on your circumstances).

KBCraig · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

I'm just impressed that he had a retention holster at all. Most armored car services I see around here (and all private security guards) just use some cheap old generic nylon holster with a velcro strap.

LEO 229 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

They are a HUGE target with all that cash.... many are killed during a robbery.

But he should still should have trained to draw from the holster and the hood is not that big a deal.

He is just opening himself up to a bag guy getting to yank it out of the holster easier.

Nothing like running and having your gun fall to the ground either.

Utah_Patriot · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

Please understand that security officers in general have to buy all their gear including their firearm. Some companys provide it. Now take the low pay of a security officer and ask him to buy a 150 Holster to hold their firearm while trying to support a family on 10.00 a hour or less. See the company makes all the money while the guard has to buy all his own equipment.

Now At Systems guard should have know better and needs training. This is a huge trainning error. Taining for a security officer is a lot less then a police officer hence the low pay and no bennifit of a security company.

be supportive and try to help as much as possiable if not contact their company and let them know of the unsafe act

GWbiker · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

For a good chuckle, you should ask the guard how often he qualifies with his weapon, at what distance and the necessary qualifying score to keep his job.

His answer should be interesting! Do try to post it.

deanf · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

I didn't know that pistol retention systems now fall under the general purview of "gun safety". When did that change?

Why shouldn't he be able to carry in a manner that he prefers?

Doug Huffman · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

deanf wrote:

I didn't know that pistol retention systems now fall under the general purview of "gun safety". When did that change? Why shouldn't he be able to carry in a manner that he prefers?

The gun carrier might not be responsible enough to exercise adequate safety. The manufacturers/marketeers must have a say in reasonable safety, like reasonable regulation.

Safety is a tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety.

deanf · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

I just don't see why this is any of our business at all. And someone here actually suggested that a letter be written to the management of the company?

This is like some stranger tapping me on the shoulder and telling me I shouldn't be carrying a gun, because it's "not safe", and then writing a letter of complaint to my mom when I brush them off.

I see no legal or moral error on the part of the guard.

Nobody likes a taddle-tale or busybody.

like_the_roman · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

deanf wrote:

I just don't see why this is any of our business at all. And someone here actually suggested that a letter be written to the management of the company?

This is like some stranger tapping me on the shoulder and telling me I shouldn't be carrying a gun, because it's "not safe", and then writing a letter of complaint to my mom when I brush them off.

I see no legal or moral error on the part of the guard.

Nobody likes a taddle-tale or busybody.

There's a difference between saying "you cannot exercise your right" and "you might want to exercise it in a manner that is less dangerous."

I can't force people to carry safely in the outside world, but this is a possible issue that the security company (not to mention their clients like my company) might like to know about. The security guard seemed cavalier (which is not apparent when transmitting his words to text) in his dismissal of an important feature of his gear that could possibly save his (or someone else's life) in the event of a dangerous situation. That attitude alone is enough to warrant concern that he might not be up to the job.

My employer (who was witness to our verbal exchange) is concerned as well and is considering what route to take next.

jaredbelch · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

deanf wrote:

I just don't see why this is any of our business at all. And someone here actually suggested that a letter be written to the management of the company?

This is like some stranger tapping me on the shoulder and telling me I shouldn't be carrying a gun, because it's "not safe", and then writing a letter of complaint to my mom when I brush them off.

I see no legal or moral error on the part of the guard.

Nobody likes a taddle-tale or busybody.

I see it as a business decision. I would never recommend doing the same thing to a random person, but when your livelihood depends on what they do (they have your money) it's your business to get involved.

deanf · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

but when your livelihood depends on what they do (they have your money) it's your business to get involved.

The money's insured and/or bonded, and if he has to use the gun, he's not defending the money, he's defending life.

I assume that this holster is a Level III because of the retention hood. Without the hood, I guess it's a de facto Level II. Now if he was just carrying in a Level II, would this even be an issue?

like_the_roman · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

deanf wrote:

but when your livelihood depends on what they do (they have your money) it's your business to get involved.

Click to expand...

The money's insured and/or bonded, and if he has to use the gun, he's not defending the money, he's defending life.

That's why I'm not as concerned over the money, I'm more concerned that in a robbery, the guard would be disarmed and his weapon used against others.

I assume that this holster is a Level III because of the retention hood. Without the hood, I guess it's a de facto Level II. Now if he was just carrying in a Level II, would this even be an issue?

I got up close - he was carrying an XD - Safariland doesn't make a level III for the XD. The hood was the only retention, and it was down. Even if he had the "sentry" piece installed, the hood being down would make it only a level I - no retention at all.

Felid`Maximus · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

I don't see what the big deal is.

RayBurton72 · Oct 3, 2008

imported post

I think the big deal is the cavalier way this guy dismissed the issue. While we all have differing opinions on many different facets of 2A activities, I would argue none of us simply dismiss safety issues. We may disagree on them, but don't simply "brush them off."

As for not using the retention hood, I don't know the laws there, but in many places, it is a requirement for LEO, armed security to use a specific level of retention holster.

And, since this is not simply someone exercising their 2A rights, it is about the attitude and aptitude of the people HIRED by the OP's company, I would say it is entirely within reason for them to both have concerns about them, and to bring those concerns to the attention of the security company.

deanf · Oct 4, 2008

imported post

I still don't see it as a gun safety issue. It's a tactics issue. They way the guy chooses to deploy and employ his gun is a tactical decision.

ilbob · Oct 4, 2008

imported post

like_the_roman wrote:

Him: Oh, that's how I keep it. I have to use this thing [points to his gun] to much to worry about retention.

1. Are armored cars attacked as often as he suggested, or is he just making up an excuse?

Its not about being attacked, but a lot of times you will see them holding a firearm by their side while engaged in their duties. Not in nice neighborhoods.

I don't think its a good excuse to be unstrapped though.

RickAnderson · Oct 4, 2008

imported post

I am a former AT Sytems employee of 36 years and have been retired for 3 years. The way I see it, it is an offense/defense senario. Meaning, when police go into a situation, they know what they are getting themselves into. When an armored car driver/carrier goes into an establishment toperform his or her duties, they have no clue what they may go up against. That is why that guy had his retention hood down.

Utah_Patriot · Oct 4, 2008

imported post

What it comes down to is the officer choice.

Only the security know why he does what he does. From a tatical standpoint police do this as a precation but I bet they don't turn their backs on the suspect and walk out of the bussiness with a heavy sack of money either. Or bend over to pick up money.

The security officer runs the risk if he is not carefull to be disarmed. But the training a security officer recives in minimal compared to police.

AWDstylez · Oct 4, 2008

imported post

Second amendment says keep and bear, he can carry it in his hand with his finger on the trigger if he wants. :lol::quirky/sarcasm

I see no issue. Maybe I don't like the idea that you carry your Glock/cheapo XD with one in the chamber. Am I going to try to get you fired or disciplied over it? No. It's his choice to carry it how he wants it and the chances of someone running up to him and grabbing his gun before he can react are nil.

AT Systems/Garda Cash Logistics disregards gun safety?

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Guest

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

New member

Regular Member

Banned