-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Who needs a gun at Wal-mart in Houston?
- Thread starter AbNo
- Start date
okboomer
Regular Member
imported post
And yet another example of how liability ties the hands of those who are perceived to be there to protect and assist the public.
Just like those security folks in the subway, they are only there to observe and report. Not to interfere.
As a private citizen, we are more free to act in situations than police and security.
As a licensed security guard, I am constrained by company policies which are written with liability in mind ... and we all know that companies will not take a stand one way or another until forced by circumstances. While I applaud Starbucks for not backing down, their inadvertant inclusion in the Open Carry issue was simply a result of their company policy of taking the easiest path ... "we follow state laws" is another way of saying, "we have no official opinion, but will take the position which provides us the most protection under the individual state's laws." I do not begrudge them this position as this is the actions that have been forced upon vendors by lawsuits that I personally consider frivilous. Remember the McDonalds' coffee fiasco?
And yet another example of how liability ties the hands of those who are perceived to be there to protect and assist the public.
Just like those security folks in the subway, they are only there to observe and report. Not to interfere.
As a private citizen, we are more free to act in situations than police and security.
As a licensed security guard, I am constrained by company policies which are written with liability in mind ... and we all know that companies will not take a stand one way or another until forced by circumstances. While I applaud Starbucks for not backing down, their inadvertant inclusion in the Open Carry issue was simply a result of their company policy of taking the easiest path ... "we follow state laws" is another way of saying, "we have no official opinion, but will take the position which provides us the most protection under the individual state's laws." I do not begrudge them this position as this is the actions that have been forced upon vendors by lawsuits that I personally consider frivilous. Remember the McDonalds' coffee fiasco?
thumper
Regular Member
imported post
Q. Who needs to carry a a wal-Mart?
A. Anybody who wants to.
Q. Who needs to carry a a wal-Mart?
A. Anybody who wants to.
Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
imported post
okboomer wrote:
okboomer wrote:
That security guard did exactly what he was supposed to. Keep an eye on the situation until a salaried member of management got there. What he/she would have done, I have no idea. Employees aren't allowed to carry. :banghead:
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
Don't give me that. What he should have done was intervene.
You know it as well as I do.
And if you can't see that, I sure hope that if I replaced that k at the end of your username with a D, it wouldn't be your last name.
Don't give me that. What he should have done was intervene.
You know it as well as I do.
And if you can't see that, I sure hope that if I replaced that k at the end of your username with a D, it wouldn't be your last name.
Hollowpoint38
Regular Member
imported post
And people wonder why we Open Carry or carry at all. Walmart has that wonderful "do nothing except call the cops" policy. I'm not sure if it's actually policy but I worked at Walmart a few years back and that's what they told us... could have been prevented
And people wonder why we Open Carry or carry at all. Walmart has that wonderful "do nothing except call the cops" policy. I'm not sure if it's actually policy but I worked at Walmart a few years back and that's what they told us... could have been prevented
Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
imported post
thx997303 wrote:
Now. The :banghead: in my post was a reference to the entire situation. YES he should have intervened. YES he should have helped the woman. YES the employees should be allowed to protect themselves, the customers, and (IMO) company property. But NO, we aren't supposed to. Like Hollowpoint pointed out, it's against Wal-Mart policy for hourly associates to intervene in anything. If you see, with your own eyes, someone do anything wrong, you can't do shit unless you are a manager.
As sad as it is to say it, the security guy was doing exactly what he was paid to do. It just goes to show that no one is responsible for your safety but you. :X
thx997303 wrote:
First of all, what does my last name have to do with anything? Was that some sort of joke? Threat? I don't get it, sorry.
Now. The :banghead: in my post was a reference to the entire situation. YES he should have intervened. YES he should have helped the woman. YES the employees should be allowed to protect themselves, the customers, and (IMO) company property. But NO, we aren't supposed to. Like Hollowpoint pointed out, it's against Wal-Mart policy for hourly associates to intervene in anything. If you see, with your own eyes, someone do anything wrong, you can't do shit unless you are a manager.
As sad as it is to say it, the security guy was doing exactly what he was paid to do. It just goes to show that no one is responsible for your safety but you. :X
imported post
mcdonalk wrote:
In this instance a good citizen was able to defuse the event - so what is the problem? Wal-Mart IMHO should thank the good citizen, but that is highly unlikely.
Do you actually expect Wally World to protect you?
Yata hey
mcdonalk wrote:
In many (most?) instances store security are just paid witnesses and have no defensive training or tools unless they are off duty LEOs.
In this instance a good citizen was able to defuse the event - so what is the problem? Wal-Mart IMHO should thank the good citizen, but that is highly unlikely.
Do you actually expect Wally World to protect you?
Yata hey
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
okboomer wrote:
If you tried to "act" in the fashion that some cops would you'd find yourself in jail so fast your head would spin.
Let's be real. The propaganda that police are unable to act because of liability is utter nonsense.
The bad apples *escape* liability far more too frequently. No, if anything, the propaganda you espouse has put us too far in that direction, and we now need far *more* applied liability (criminal and civil) for police.
Anyway, I'm not sure we need more "sheep dogs". I think what we really need are more human beings. And the sheepdogs don't exactly encourage the sheep to leave the fold. But that's what we need. If anything we need fewer LEOs and less assumption that they and security can exist to protect you. This might force people to wake up to the fact that no police can ever be truly responsible for the personal safety and security of individuals.
okboomer wrote:
Security yes, police no. Definitely not.
If you tried to "act" in the fashion that some cops would you'd find yourself in jail so fast your head would spin.
Let's be real. The propaganda that police are unable to act because of liability is utter nonsense.
The bad apples *escape* liability far more too frequently. No, if anything, the propaganda you espouse has put us too far in that direction, and we now need far *more* applied liability (criminal and civil) for police.
Anyway, I'm not sure we need more "sheep dogs". I think what we really need are more human beings. And the sheepdogs don't exactly encourage the sheep to leave the fold. But that's what we need. If anything we need fewer LEOs and less assumption that they and security can exist to protect you. This might force people to wake up to the fact that no police can ever be truly responsible for the personal safety and security of individuals.
okboomer
Regular Member
imported post
Depends if the police actually witness any Misdemeanor in their presence, or if a reasonable belief that a felony was committed before they arrived. If the woman seemed credible, then they would have RAS ... if not, then they would have no basis for detainment of the subject.
Now, in real life practice, I agree that more times than not, the dude will be hand-cuffed and interviewed regardless of the facts.
As a citizen, all we have to have is to be in fear for our lives, or the lives of others to act.
Depends if the police actually witness any Misdemeanor in their presence, or if a reasonable belief that a felony was committed before they arrived. If the woman seemed credible, then they would have RAS ... if not, then they would have no basis for detainment of the subject.
Now, in real life practice, I agree that more times than not, the dude will be hand-cuffed and interviewed regardless of the facts.
As a citizen, all we have to have is to be in fear for our lives, or the lives of others to act.
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
mcdonalk wrote:
I'll begin with, you said the guard did what he should have done. Not what he is paid to do.
As you agree, He SHOULD have intervened. He is not PAID to, but he SHOULD have.
Your original wording was poor and lead me to believe something other than your apparently intended meaning.
As for your last name, let's just say it's a matter of association.
mcdonalk wrote:
I'll begin with, you said the guard did what he should have done. Not what he is paid to do.
As you agree, He SHOULD have intervened. He is not PAID to, but he SHOULD have.
Your original wording was poor and lead me to believe something other than your apparently intended meaning.
As for your last name, let's just say it's a matter of association.
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
imported post
The woman should have armed herself. Maybe now she will.
After all, SHE is supposed to be the one ultimately responsiblefor her own personal safety.
- John D.
The woman should have armed herself. Maybe now she will.
After all, SHE is supposed to be the one ultimately responsiblefor her own personal safety.
- John D.
George Mann
Regular Member
imported post
I see alot of talk about what these rent-a-cops should have done in this situation.
What I don't see is how YOU would have handled it!
I see alot of talk about what these rent-a-cops should have done in this situation.
What I don't see is how YOU would have handled it!
Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
imported post
Well, since I'm an unarmed Wal-Mart employee :banghead:, I probably would have tried to talk him down by offering him money or something. I have no idea what started the situation, or why he attacked her so it is hard to say for sure. Keep in mind, I would be risking my job, not to mention my life, if I decided to confront the BG unarmed. And it's still the best company I've ever worked for.
The reason it is easy to pick on the rent-a-cop is because it seems he didn't even try to talk to the assailant. It seems he offered no assistance whatsoever.
Well, since I'm an unarmed Wal-Mart employee :banghead:, I probably would have tried to talk him down by offering him money or something. I have no idea what started the situation, or why he attacked her so it is hard to say for sure. Keep in mind, I would be risking my job, not to mention my life, if I decided to confront the BG unarmed. And it's still the best company I've ever worked for.
The reason it is easy to pick on the rent-a-cop is because it seems he didn't even try to talk to the assailant. It seems he offered no assistance whatsoever.
cloudcroft
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Here's an earlier outrage of a similar event -- security guards (apparently a misnomer nowadays) not intervening, possibly due to mall policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vU81qkuvcU
Whatever suits madeAND APPROVEDthe non-intervention policy should be likewise assaulted at that mall and in frontof the same "security" guards -- who would again not intervene -- but this time the beating (of the suits) would be well and truly deserved.
-- John D.
Here's an earlier outrage of a similar event -- security guards (apparently a misnomer nowadays) not intervening, possibly due to mall policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vU81qkuvcU
Whatever suits madeAND APPROVEDthe non-intervention policy should be likewise assaulted at that mall and in frontof the same "security" guards -- who would again not intervene -- but this time the beating (of the suits) would be well and truly deserved.
-- John D.
Hollowpoint38
Regular Member
imported post
That is insane! Why pay for security if there is a policy against helping?
The job description is in the name is self: Secur(e)ity.
What are you securing in that video? nothing! I got into an argument with hospital security today about carrying a gun because it was printing on my shirt. He said I don't need a weapon because there is security in the building. I said, "there are no posted signs, you don't have a copy of your policy, and I don't trust you to protect me."
This is a prime example of why we should all carry and not expect others to protect us.
That is insane! Why pay for security if there is a policy against helping?
The job description is in the name is self: Secur(e)ity.
What are you securing in that video? nothing! I got into an argument with hospital security today about carrying a gun because it was printing on my shirt. He said I don't need a weapon because there is security in the building. I said, "there are no posted signs, you don't have a copy of your policy, and I don't trust you to protect me."
This is a prime example of why we should all carry and not expect others to protect us.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Hollowpoint38 wrote:
Hollowpoint38 wrote:
Maybe the backs of their jackets should read "Observe and Reportity" since instead of securing, they are observing and reporting.
Hollowpoint38
Regular Member
imported post
I agree. Why do these companies pay for "security" if they can't do anything? Can someone answer that question? Some girl scared for her life goes and hides with a "security" officer. Thebadguycomes over and starts beating the girl right in front of "security" and they don't do ANYTHING.
So why pay for them? What are they their for?
I agree. Why do these companies pay for "security" if they can't do anything? Can someone answer that question? Some girl scared for her life goes and hides with a "security" officer. Thebadguycomes over and starts beating the girl right in front of "security" and they don't do ANYTHING.
So why pay for them? What are they their for?
okboomer
Regular Member
imported post
Hollowpoint,
As a licensed armed security guard, I can tell you that the "observe and report" is a direct result of companies and corporations reacting to liability concerns. If a security guard reacts and intervenes in an assault such as the two under discussion here, the company would then be liable for any and all actions of the SG. So, if an SG injures someone during his assistance, the company is liable for the costs of that injury.
This is not "written" down somewhere, it is based on observed instructions and actions. These specific "do nothing" instructions are not even written in the rules of conduct that a company will provide to a SG ... they are verbal and can be denied in a court of law. (Again with the fear of liability)
Once you are trained and licensed, good samaritan laws will not protect a SG ... nor a company.
As for hospital security. Ah, well, they did not have the authority to ask you to leave the premises without instructions from higher up, and those instructions would not have come without consulting the lawyers. You get the idea ... the lawyers are involved and in this situation, it is an abundance of caution that is driving policies. (I personally don't blame the companies ... they have to show a profit to their shareholders and a lawsuit over them standing on principle is not good for the bottom line.)
Hollowpoint,
As a licensed armed security guard, I can tell you that the "observe and report" is a direct result of companies and corporations reacting to liability concerns. If a security guard reacts and intervenes in an assault such as the two under discussion here, the company would then be liable for any and all actions of the SG. So, if an SG injures someone during his assistance, the company is liable for the costs of that injury.
This is not "written" down somewhere, it is based on observed instructions and actions. These specific "do nothing" instructions are not even written in the rules of conduct that a company will provide to a SG ... they are verbal and can be denied in a court of law. (Again with the fear of liability)
Once you are trained and licensed, good samaritan laws will not protect a SG ... nor a company.
As for hospital security. Ah, well, they did not have the authority to ask you to leave the premises without instructions from higher up, and those instructions would not have come without consulting the lawyers. You get the idea ... the lawyers are involved and in this situation, it is an abundance of caution that is driving policies. (I personally don't blame the companies ... they have to show a profit to their shareholders and a lawsuit over them standing on principle is not good for the bottom line.)
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
I am sure we all know why security guards do not proved security.
It is still morally wrong.
There needs to be a legal definition of words "security" and "guard." When those words are emblazoned on an employee, that employee should be trained and authorized to act to provide security to people and property on the premises of the person who hires the employee or the service.
That young lady in the bus tunnel had a reasonable expectation that she could walk up to someone with "Security" on his back and receive at least an attempt at protection.
On that basis, she should sue, and she should win. IMO.
I am sure we all know why security guards do not proved security.
It is still morally wrong.
There needs to be a legal definition of words "security" and "guard." When those words are emblazoned on an employee, that employee should be trained and authorized to act to provide security to people and property on the premises of the person who hires the employee or the service.
That young lady in the bus tunnel had a reasonable expectation that she could walk up to someone with "Security" on his back and receive at least an attempt at protection.
On that basis, she should sue, and she should win. IMO.