VaGunTrader
Regular Member
Donation sent!!
Does that notion also apply to commenting on any of a number of subjects for which you do not posses "expert" qualifications?
In Virginia, armed as well as unarmed security guards are essentially observe-and-report positions. Arrest power, without additional certification and commisioning, is restricted to shoplifting (despite what some other folks might say they do/did when working as ASGs) (That discusion has pretty much been beaten to a draw - one side cites both statute, the absence of citation booklets, and lack of case law while the other side recounts anecdotal information.)
stay safe.
Does that notion also apply to commenting on any of a number of subjects for which you do not posses "expert" qualifications?
In Virginia, armed as well as unarmed security guards are essentially observe-and-report positions. Arrest power, without additional certification and commisioning, is restricted to shoplifting (despite what some other folks might say they do/did when working as ASGs) (That discusion has pretty much been beaten to a draw - one side cites both statute, the absence of citation booklets, and lack of case law while the other side recounts anecdotal information.)
stay safe.
Now that you have a tiger by the tail, watcha gonna do with it? Skid is a recognized, accepted expert on DCJS training standards.Armed Security have "Arrest without warrant" powers for violations of the law that occur in their presence, while on duty, on the property they contracted to protect. The shoplifting "Clause" is an exception where they can arrest without warrant for a violation that did not occur in their presence. See § 9.1-146 VA Code.
Personally, I think that the power should be more heavily curtailed, being that the entire training process for Armed Security is approximately 50 hours.
Now that you have a tiger by the tail, watcha gonna do with it? Skid is a recognized, accepted expert on DCJS training standards.
You highlighted the incorrect part of the code. 9.1-146 addresses two different elements of Security Officer Arrest Authority. The first is the limited power of arrest. That is addressed in the first part (section i). It stipulates that their power of arrest is limited to arrests occurring in their presence. The section that follows (section ii) presents an exception to the "in their presence" rule, in that they can arrest for an offense that did not occur in their presence IF it is related to shoplifting, and happened in the presence of the merchant, agent, or employee of the merchant that the private officer is protecting. Note that shoplifting is not mentioned in the code until section ii.
I'm not going to question "skid" on his qualifications, as I know nothing about him. I'll simply state my own: I am a full-time sworn LEO, and a DCJS instructor for Private Security Services. I'm an adjunct instructor at a training school, and teach arrest authority, in addition to a few other subjects.
On the "anecdotal" side, I've worked private security in the past and have personally effected arrests in that capacity.
I guess that explains why there are so many poorly trained security guards out there!
Maybe you should stick to tagging speeders and let someone qualified do the training.
What you just quoted is codified common law citizen's arrest powers. All the statute does that gives the guard additional authority is to be listed as the arresting officer.
This argument goes back years here and has been dissected by far better minds than yours.
Go ahead and beat your chest some more now.
I guess that explains why there are so many poorly trained security guards out there!
Maybe you should stick to tagging speeders and let someone qualified do the training.
What you just quoted is codified common law citizen's arrest powers. All the statute does that gives the guard additional authority is to be listed as the arresting officer.
This argument goes back years here and has been dissected by far better minds than yours.
Go ahead and beat your chest some more now.
Riiiiiight. Tighten that tin foil hat, hoss.
Got her all snugged up Partner!
I guess some folks get so wrapped up in their own little world, they can't imagine how they came to have arrest powers in the first place. As in citizens had it first--the government can't possibly have a power if it wasn't a power the citizens' had first. Otherwise, the citizens couldn't have delegated it to the government.
One clarification for myself, Nap. I thought citizen arrest only applied to felonies committed in the citizen's presence. That is to say, only felonies. And, only when committed in citizen's presence because if it wasn't in the citizen's presence, the arrest would run afoul of the right to indictment by a grand jury. Do I have this wrong?