Leaving gun in vehicle at work? Fired

[Cat-Herder]

 

[wolfy2]

Good thread-and NO not ALL plants have a port !

 

[HotD]

these particular security guards get paid $21/ hr for a reason. they arent your average mall cop.

I wasn't commenting upon that.

HEY HEY HEY, don't dispute him, he's in "Human Resources and a good part directed toward the field of Compensation Management".

What does this have to do with my claim that almost all (1%) security guards, are not clearly made equal to that of a qualified LEO?

If you're so very smart, Beer Truck Driver, please cite your source or make a reasonable statement to estimate how many LEOs work in private security.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I haven't allowed people to wear clothes on my property since 2008.


Maybe that why I don't get many visitors.

One visit from me will see that policy reversed.

 

[dansgotguns]

One visit from me will see that policy reversed.

sounds like you guys have a date to me

 

[IndyBeerman]

I wasn't commenting upon that.



What does this have to do with my claim that almost all (1%) security guards, are not clearly made equal to that of a qualified LEO?

If you're so very smart, Beer Truck Driver, please cite your source or make a reasonable statement to estimate how many LEOs work in private security.

Well I've never said I'm so smart, and no I did not stay @ a Holiday Inn last night either ( I'll leave that up to you ), but I do have a nice little diploma that used to hang on the wall from Indiana University where I graduated in 84 that now sits in my safe.

Don't belittle me because I drive a beer truck, almost 30% of our drivers are college grads.

I know @ least 35 LEO's and 19 of them moonlight as security, and like I said up thread where you quoted 2 million people in security, just 1% makes that 20,000. I think it's safe to say that there is @ least more than 1% of people who are in security that are qualified in lethal and non lethal force.

If you don't believe me, I'll give you the address of a guy who is working security for a chain liquor store and is a former retired LEO, who dresses like a bum and makes about 75g a year, that will be more than willing to give you a dance and a splat on the sidewalk if you screw with his stores.

There's people who sit behind a desk, and then there's feet on the street.

Adios amigos, I'm done feeding the troll.

 

[10-32]

I know @ least 35 LEO's and 19 of them moonlight as security, and like I said up thread where you quoted 2 million people in security, just 1% makes that 20,000. I think it's safe to say that there is @ least more than 1% of people who are in security that are qualified in lethal and non lethal force.

If you don't believe me, I'll give you the address of a guy who is working security for a chain liquor store and is a former retired LEO, who dresses like a bum and makes about 75g a year, that will be more than willing to give you a dance and a splat on the sidewalk if you screw with his stores.

There's people who sit behind a desk, and then there's feet on the street.

The company I work for has 87 employees. 24 of them are active Police officers picking up part time work at $25+ an hour. There's another 9 employees that are retired LEO's bringing home the extra money to buy/fund their "toys/hobbies". I'd think it's safe to say that about 25% - 30% of the people who work in armed security are qualified in lethal and non lethal force.

 

[repeter1977]

There are quite a lot of officers that "moonlight" in order to make way more on the off time work, then they do on the government clock. Businesses look for them to hire first, because its believed that they are trained on the law, and what they can and cannot do, and its already known that they will be able to carry right away, instead of having to wait.

 

[HotD]

Well I've never said I'm so smart, and no I did not stay @ a Holiday Inn last night either ( I'll leave that up to you ), but I do have a nice little diploma that used to hang on the wall from Indiana University where I graduated in 84 that now sits in my safe.

Don't belittle me because I drive a beer truck, almost 30% of our drivers are college grads.

Congrats on the diploma from IU. I welcome you to reutilize the critical thinking skills that you previously utilized to earn it. Furthermore, contrary to your assumption that you were being belittled, I was merely pointing out that driving a beer truck is not the epicenter profession of know-all in regard to occupational statistics.

I know @ least 35 LEO's and 19 of them moonlight as security, and like I said up thread where you quoted 2 million people in security, just 1% makes that 20,000. I think it's safe to say that there is @ least more than 1% of people who are in security that are qualified in lethal and non lethal force.

Would it surprise you that of a regional manpower pool of 2,500 personnel of a contract security firm that I worked, that only 20 were sworn and 'civilian' officers? Of course, there were a dozen or so CPOs in that bunch, but I still don't believe your assumption is safe at all.

BTW, I am personally acquainted with more than 35 LEOs, and only a small portion of them moonlight in security. Most would rather choose to work O/T and make considerably more, and even some work for more than one department.

If you don't believe me, I'll give you the address of a guy who is working security for a chain liquor store and is a former retired LEO, who dresses like a bum and makes about 75g a year, that will be more than willing to give you a dance and a splat on the sidewalk if you screw with his stores.

You just made my point for me in regard to qualifications. There are a whole number of people that will give a dance and splat someone on the sidewalk, though the caveat being is that the use of deadly force isn't supposed to be the first choice in handling a situation, if at all possible.

There's people who sit behind a desk, and then there's feet on the street.

Agreed, and I've done both.

Adios amigos, I'm done feeding the troll.

Gracious. You could stand to stop feeding yourself.

 

[Hotdoger]

Gracious. You could stand to stop feeding yourself.

Genius just pure genius.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Would anyone here be willing to have their car searched at a restaurant by the security guard if their policy was antigun?

Anyone ever carry in a place that doesn't allow guns? If so, why do you feel your personal rights trump property rights?

I do because my personal rights are FAR more important than property rights. Especially outside that gate where I have no almighty "security" to protect me.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I view it, and this is purely my personal view, not substantiated by law, that there are not two regimes of real estate property law, but three. There's public property, property held by the government and, hence, available for use by all. There's private property, property held for the exclusive use by the owners to the general exclusion of all others. And then there's property held in the "public domain", property held in private hands, but explicitly openned up for use by the public. There are, of course, other types of property, such as that portion of public property that the government holds securely, such as prisons and military complexes (and chemical plants and sea ports that have gotten the favour of government), but let's just focus on these three for the moment, shall we?

Generally, public property are places like parks. Private property are places like homes. Public domain property are places like businesses open to the public. All a business owner has to do to pull their property back out of the public domain is to close their business to the public. Make it a membership only business, then they are free to press any and all kinds of requirements on their patrons they want. The only business of this kind that I routinely interact with is Sam's Club. You can't shop there without a membership card.

Until and unless a business does this, there are limitted rules and regulations that a business can/should legally be able to press against its would be clientele. "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service." for restaurants, for instance, directly impacts the cleanliness of their tables, seating, and floors. That's a legitimate, compelling interest. A blanket "No Firearms" policy has no legitimate compelling interest. I've seen businesses with "No Illegal Firearms" stickers on their front door, and that I can respect. People with illegally modified firearms, or people possessing firearms when under legal prohibition to do so, are bad news where ever they go. Excluding them and their instruments of violence is a legitimate, compelling interest for the business.

There is no legitimate, compelling business interest in a business restricting their would be clientele's access to their own personal protection sidearms while shopping at or travelling to or from their store. Period.

Likewise, there is no legitimate, compelling business interest in a business restricting their employees' access to their own personal protection sidearms while travelling to or from their store. Period. There may be a legitimate, compelling business interest in a business restricting their empoyees' access to their own personal protection sidearms while working at the business. Maybe the business's clientele are generally hoplophobic and being served by an employee whose .50 DE is printing like mad through their pants would seriously cut down on sales.

 

[actaeon277]

Would anyone here be willing to have their car searched at a restaurant by the security guard if their policy was antigun?
...

If you have to use a bridge to cross a moat, check in to a guard shanty, attend an 8 hour meeting on safety and legal stuff, sign documents saying that entering the restaurant you agree to searches of your car....
then I guess you should be willing to have your car searched.

If you don't want the car searched, don't sign the papers, get hired by the company, attend the classes/meetings, and cross on to the property line.

 

[dansgotguns]

Yea, t&s my only argument is this particular place you sign a contract stating you will not have certain yhkngs and that you consent to search when on property. I dont agree with it but it is what it is.

 

[Andy219]

One visit from me will see that policy reversed.

lol

 

[wolfy2]

If you have to use a bridge to cross a moat, check in to a guard shanty, attend an 8 hour meeting on safety and legal stuff, sign documents saying that entering the restaurant you agree to searches of your car....
then I guess you should be willing to have your car searched.

If you don't want the car searched, don't sign the papers, get hired by the company, attend the classes/meetings, and cross on to the property line.

Moat? Thought it was a ditch? Still can't understand what this has to do with our constitutional rights ? So as you see it we have given up those rights to earn a living?

 

[actaeon277]

Moat? Thought it was a ditch? Still can't understand what this has to do with our constitutional rights ? So as you see it we have given up those rights to earn a living?

Constitutional Rights. You mean the limitations on the Federal Government? Or are they now limitations on private citizens?

If you don't want an employer to search your car, don't get a job from an employer that has you sign a contract allowing him to search your car.

So I guess if Constitutional Rights apply to private citizens, you now have to let anyone say anything in your house. Can't stop them.

 

[wolfy2]

They can search my vehicle any time they like,we can do it every day. Waste of your time,mine AND the companies. The issue
is taking away my right to protect myself once I leave the unsecured public accessible parking lot.
Are all guns evil? Or just the ones with mustaches?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Moustaches make everything evil.

Fluttershy + moustache =

Underspy

 

[wolfy2]

Moustaches make everything evil. Yes,but then we new this.