Some really annoying guy

imported post

I am a private security officer as well as a reserve deputy sheriff. I am working as a S/O right now and some guy came in talking about being asecurity guard. He said that he doesn't believe that security guards should be unarmed. He said that he is going to show is CPL to his next security employer and tell them that his license says he can carry concealed while on duty as a security officer.

What he failed to understand, and I told him several times, is that it is a crime to carry armed w/o being an armed guard. He then said that he once had a firearm in his vehicle while on duty as an unarmed guard. BIG MISTAKE!!! I told him that he could be stripped of his guard license and get arrested. I also told him that he created a HUGE liability to his company, himself and the general public.

I started talking about opening my own security company one day and he told me he would like to have a job with me. He came back again today and told me that again and I told him that he is a big liability and any security company that hires him is making a big mistake. He left in a sad mood, I'm sure, but I am not going to tolerate some old guy talking about making poor choices like that.

I thought you'd all enjoy this.

imported post

I thought you'd all enjoy this.

Click to expand...

Not really.

I would have told him: you know, what you describe is illegal, but shouldn't be. Let's work together to get the unconstitutional laws repealed.

imported post

You must have some serious brass ones to work security unarmed.

:dude:

imported post

It doesn't take a lot to do unarmed security. It's all about staying safe and using your verbal judo.

Also, deanf, explain more about your reply. It wasn't quite clear to me.

imported post

There's no particular reason to regulate security guards or have rules or laws about them being armed.

Let the free market work it all out.

imported post

Well, deanf,there is are two goodreasons to have unarmed as well as armed security guards. Security guards receive eight (8) hours of training before they are certified.

- There are higher insurance costs for the company and client when an armed guard is present.

- Without proper training, security guards who carry firearms present a large liability to their company, the client, themselves and the general public.

Many companies cannot afford to provide the training for armed guards. Also, many clients prefer to not have armed security guards. Many banks around Spokane have security guards who are unarmed too.

Just because one holds a CPL does not show me that personis qualified to carry a firearm on the job. In the reserve academy, I had to go through over 80 hours of rigorous and stringent firearms training to be certified by the State of Washington to carry on the job.

imported post

I recall a security guard in a store about 20 years ago that was armed.

A man cut into the check out line, and refused the guards orderto take his place at the back of the line.

Soooo! The guard SHOT the man!!

imported post

2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:

I recall a security guard in a store about 20 years ago that was armed.

A man cut into the check out line, and refused the guards orderto take his place at the back of the line.

Soooo! The guard SHOT the man!!

Click to expand...

The scary thing is that the same type of thinking process amongst security guards hasn't really changed. Security guards do not receive training on use of force, criminal law, criminal procedures, defensive tactics or firearms. Those 5 topics are CRUCIAL for any security guard but noone wants to foot the bill.

imported post

- There are higher insurance costs for the company and client when an armed guard is present.

- Without proper training, security guards who carry firearms present a large liability to their company, the client, themselves and the general public.

Click to expand...

Just because one holds a CPL does not show me that person is qualified to carry a firearm on the job. In the reserve academy, I had to go through over 80 hours of rigorous and stringent firearms training to be certified by the State of Washington to carry on the job.

Click to expand...

Sounds like what the antis say. "We've got to have these people trained or blood will run in the streets." Well, it doesn't.

As far as the licensing and training of security guards goes: let the free market regulate it. The companies that offer the best value and with the best reputations will rise to the top, and those that don't will fail.

The licensing and training scheme is nothing more than the cash register of the statist.

imported post

I was an armed guard for a while in the Denver area. I jumped through all the hoops that the city set for people like me, but in the end, I was no more qualified to be an armed guard than I would have been without jumping through any hoops. But the city of denver made money on the licensing fees, and the doctor made money on the physical exam, and the NRA instructor made money on the training, and my employer spent a lot of money to be able to protect his precious metal and jewelry business.



I'm with Dean 100% on this one. Let the market do it, or laissez-faire.

imported post

K_Bjornstad wrote:

Well, deanf,there is are two goodreasons to have unarmed as well as armed security guards. Security guards receive eight (8) hours of training before they are certified.

- There are higher insurance costs for the company and client when an armed guard is present.

- Without proper training, security guards who carry firearms present a large liability to their company, the client, themselves and the general public.

Many companies cannot afford to provide the training for armed guards. Also, many clients prefer to not have armed security guards. Many banks around Spokane have security guards who are unarmed too.

Just because one holds a CPL does not show me that personis qualified to carry a firearm on the job. In the reserve academy, I had to go through over 80 hours of rigorous and stringent firearms training to be certified by the State of Washington to carry on the job.

Click to expand...

If a security company or client wants unarmed security officers (to save money on insurance or protect from lawsuit, as you said), then they can make a policy stating this. If someone chooses to ignore the policy, they can get fired. This is how it works for every other occupation.

It should not be a crime.

imported post

Dr. Fresh wrote:

K_Bjornstad wrote:

Well, deanf,there is are two goodreasons to have unarmed as well as armed security guards. Security guards receive eight (8) hours of training before they are certified.

- There are higher insurance costs for the company and client when an armed guard is present.

- Without proper training, security guards who carry firearms present a large liability to their company, the client, themselves and the general public.

Many companies cannot afford to provide the training for armed guards. Also, many clients prefer to not have armed security guards. Many banks around Spokane have security guards who are unarmed too.

Just because one holds a CPL does not show me that personis qualified to carry a firearm on the job. In the reserve academy, I had to go through over 80 hours of rigorous and stringent firearms training to be certified by the State of Washington to carry on the job.

Click to expand...

If a security company or client wants unarmed security officers (to save money on insurance or protect from lawsuit, as you said), then they can make a policy stating this. If someone chooses to ignore the policy, they can get fired. This is how it works for every other occupation.

It should not be a crime.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the owner/company is the one that will be sued when someone gets shot, even if the guard was violating policy. It is a HUGE liability for the company, and a risk that any saavy business owner would not take.

imported post

Business owners, like homeowners, have the right to determine the rules of their operations. No one forces you to work there unarmed but the owner is well within his or her rights to require employees dress a certain way, behave a certain way and so on.

Much like thatemployeewho got fired from Washington Mutual for foiling the robbery a couple of weeks ago, the company is within it's rights. We may not agree with their decision on the policy or treatment of that guy but no one forced him to work there and he admitted knowing the company policy.

Don't like it? Raise some capital and found your own bank with your own policies.

imported post

ecocks wrote:

Much like thatemployeewho got fired from Washington Mutual for foiling the robbery a couple of weeks ago, the company is within it's rights. We may not agree with their decision on the policy or treatment of that guy but no one forced him to work there and he admitted knowing the company policy.

Click to expand...

Gardner v. Loomis Armored:

1. What happened to Mr. Kevin Gardner? Kevin Gardner lost his job after he violated a rule at work that said drivers could not leave their vehicles under any circumstances.
   Who was Loomis Armored Inc.? Kevin Gardner worked for Loomis Armored Inc., a company that transported large amounts of money in its armored trucks.
   What rule did Loomis have about drivers getting out of their armored trucks? Loomis had a rule that drivers could not leave their armored trucks unattended under any circumstances.
   Why did Loomis have this rule? Loomis had this rule in order to keep its drivers safe. The law requires that employers provide a safe and healthy place to work. Transporting large amounts of money is dangerous, and criminals use ruses or tricks to lure drivers out of their trucks in order to steal money.
   What court made this decision? The Washington State Supreme Court made the decision in this case and then sent its answer to the United States District Court.
   What did the Washington State Supreme Court decide? The Washington State Supreme Court decided that Mr. Gardner should not lose his job for disobeying the work rule in order to help another citizen who was in danger of death.

From Findlaw:
In Gardner v. Loomis Armored, Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931, 941, 913 P.2d 377 (1996), the court established a more refined test in order to cover a previously-unencountered situation where a work rule that was legitimate on its face (not leaving an armored truck unattended) was violated by an employee who broke the work rule to attempt to save a bank worker who was being chased by a bank robber with a knife. This newer rule, which builds on and to expands the criteria in Dicomes, is as follows:
(1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element).
(2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element).
(3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element).
(4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element).
Explaining the holding in Gardner, the court stated: “We find that Gardner's discharge for leaving the truck and saving a woman from an imminent life threatening situation violates the public policy encouraging such heroic conduct. This holding does not create an affirmative legal duty requiring citizens to intervene in dangerous life threatening situations. We simply observe that society values and encourages voluntary rescuers when a life is in danger. Additionally, our adherence to this public policy does nothing to invalidate Loomis' work rule regarding drivers' leaving the trucks. The rule's importance cannot be understated, and drivers do subject themselves to a great risk of harm by leaving the driver's compartment. Our holding merely forbids Loomis from firing Gardner when he broke the rule because he saw a woman who faced imminent life-threatening harm, and he reasonably believed his intervention was necessary to save her life. Finally, by focusing on the narrow public policy encouraging citizens to save human lives from life threatening situations, we continue to protect employers from frivolous lawsuits.” 128 Wn.2d at 950.

imported post

Yeah, so?

What's your point?

Nothing to do with what we're talking about unless you're contending that an evident public policy exists that would invalidate statuatory regulation of security guards by the state and also hold businesses blameless when employees violated their work rules on the off-chance that having a firearm in their possession would somehow enable them to be a hero.

I don't think that argument will go far.

We all know that many people CC into forbidden locations, trusting that they will not be discovered unless they are forced to use it in legitimate self-defense of themselves or others. It is a cliche' among pro-2A persons to state it's "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

Still, I'm not thinkingan Appeals Court is going to buy the guy violating the regulations, nor the owner's wishes that the guard is to perform his duties unarmed.

As a WA LEO comments on another thread, "go ahead and be the guinea pig and let us know how it turns out".

imported post

K_Bjornstad wrote:

Well, deanf,there is are two goodreasons to have unarmed as well as armed security guards. Security guards receive eight (8) hours of training before they are certified.

- There are higher insurance costs for the company and client when an armed guard is present.

- Without proper training, security guards who carry firearms present a large liability to their company, the client, themselves and the general public.

Click to expand...

Plenty of reason for bothunarmed and armed guard services. Pick the right tool for the job....

The liability considerations are enormous and it is surely incumbentupon service companies to manage that liability risk. Training is part of the risk management, of course. But sometimes people with bad attitudes about the use offorce manage to get in and wreak havoc. We had one of our own members, Danbus, report that he'dbeen tagged with an assault and battery charge. Few details,of course, but his
history of interations in confrontations, especially the verbal exchanges, didn't exactly generatehigh confidence about handlingpressurized situations with other people. He didn't want to be a "liability" to his employer, yet he ended up being so.




deanf wrote:

There's no particular reason to regulate security guards or have rules or laws about them being armed.

Let the free market work it all out.

Click to expand...

I'd say the market has worked it out.

Security businesses must have, in order to properly serve the market requiring their services, a level of assurance/competence that is saleable and easily comprehensible to customers. Regulation, in this case, is a joint effort and market economics will tell you that the constituencies involved (customers, government, the firm's owners, employees, the customer's customers, etc. ) have already figured out the most efficient method of production the approval/competence factor--in a commercially viable balance of individual and collective interests.

The bottom line is that service providers often want some form of regulation. It serves their marketing, operational and financial considerations. If I owned stock in a security company, in order to maximizeprofit, I'd want the firm to be regulated by an independent entity unless it could be done better by the industry or employee self-regulation or professionalism. But that is highly unlikely, especially, but not limited to, the legal liability considerations.


If the constituencies wanted a more efficient manner in which to produce the required assurance/competence factor they can do so anytime. Actually, in the past 3 decades or so, there has been a huge trend for deregulatory efforts--with mixed results.

imported post

I use to work security for a private retail chain, and I carried everytime I was on duty, and I didn't even have a regular security license.

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

I use to work security for a private retail chain, and I carried everytime I was on duty, and I didn't even have a regular security license.

Click to expand...

Was that legal in the state you worked in at the time?

Was carrying compliant with the store chain's instructions and rules?

imported post

HankT wrote:

Aaron1124 wrote:

I use to work security for a private retail chain, and I carried everytime I was on duty, and I didn't even have a regular security license.

Click to expand...

Was that legal in the state you worked in at the time?

Was carrying compliant with the store chain's instructions and rules?

Click to expand...

I worked strictly for that retail chain. I provided graveyard security for the property, because there was a lot of vandalism and car theft there. I wasn't required to get any sort of guard card/guard license for that. The owner told me I could carry concealed at my own discretion.

imported post

ecocks wrote:

Yeah, so?

What's your point?

Nothing to do with what we're talking about unless you're contending that an evident public policy exists that would invalidate statuatory regulation of security guards by the state and also hold businesses blameless when employees violated their work rules on the off-chance that having a firearm in their possession would somehow enable them to be a hero.

I don't think that argument will go far.

We all know that many people CC into forbidden locations, trusting that they will not be discovered unless they are forced to use it in legitimate self-defense of themselves or others. It is a cliche' among pro-2A persons to state it's "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

Still, I'm not thinkingan Appeals Court is going to buy the guy violating the regulations, nor the owner's wishes that the guard is to perform his duties unarmed.

As a WA LEO comments on another thread, "go ahead and be the guinea pig and let us know how it turns out".

Click to expand...

Did you not see that I was quote replying to the WaMu teller situation?

I was pointing out to the thread that Washington State is not an entirely "at-will" state. There are restrictions on employers based on public policy issues. It certainly does NOT apply to this moran (yes, I used the term moran intentionally) who's carrying armed as an unarmed guard, which is regulated by another set of laws. It was more in response to the WaMu teller situation.