Talk:Security guard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Security guard is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Security guard article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

No offense to Raul654 (esp. since he's a Wikipedia admin ;-)), but I think the edit by 24.229.25.11 is better, even if it has less text in it. Here's why. How much info do we need to know about security guards? Are they really that important to warrant a lengthy article? IMO, it should be straight and to the point...here's what a security guard is, here's what a security guard does. It took a while for 24.229.25.11 to get it right, but hey, we all have to start somewhere.

I think this edit is fine, but that's just one man's opinion. - 128.230.205.232

Hmm, I really don't see any reason why this article needed to be trimmed down. It was less than a screen long (with my browser/screen resolution/font size combination), hardly an excessive amount. My only complaint about the article was that it was a bit too US-centric, in that it starts off saying "Most U.S. states and countries (sic) require a license to work as a security guard", then leaves the USA to say "Armed private security is much more rare in Europe and other developed countries", but then returns to "a security guard who misrepresents themselves as police is committing a felony crime", obviously a statement of US law, but unmarked as such. I'm not going to revert your change, but I'm also not going to be surprised or disappointed if Raul654 does. --Stormie 05:44, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
The changes, while giving a more concise introduction, make the article significantly less informative. I don't have time to doing anything about it right now (my finals start tomorrow) but I don't intend to the leave article as it currently stands. →Raul654 06:14, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • While the info on Frank Wills and Christoph Meili might be considered interesting trivia, does this warrant an entry in the article? I find that several articles have small cross-referenced material in them that perhaps belong on their respective articles. Comments? Scoo 13:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

>> Newer terms have been developing within the American security industry that tend to reclassify security personnel into three basic classes, as follows: >> >> * Security guards: ... do not have a responsibility for anything other than basic visibility and reporting ... >> * Security officers: ... employed in functions that involve the protection of lives, property and the public peace on private property ... contractual obligation for the protection of lives and/or the public peace. >> * Security agents: These personnel, usually without a uniform, are primarily contracted or employed with a focus on apprehension rather than prevention on private property. Examples of security agents include loss prevention agents and personal protection agents (bodyguards).

These distinctions are grossly inaccurate. The term "guard" and "officer" are used interchangeably within the industry. Some security 'guards' carry weapons and make arrests; some security 'officers' simply observe and report. Bodyguards do NOT apprehend suspects, they focus on protecting the principal. Loss prevention is its own little world because of the heavy focus on apprehension. Unless someone can cite and defend the distinctions, I'm going to change it. clarka 6 April 2006

[edit] In reference to comments regarding classifications with removal threat.

The primary focus on these three classifications, which have been documented since 1990, is the basis of powers assigned versus the uniform status of each. The uniform status of Guards and Officers are similar, but their premise of purpose is different. The premise of purpose for Personal Protection Agents and Loss Prevention Agents is different, but their uniform status is the same. This does not mean that the entire industry has adapted throughout the world, nor does it mean that all corporations utilize all of these powers or terms for their personnel. It was clearly stated in the article that these are developing terms, not firmly established rules throughout the industry. There are still corporations that have not become members of ASIS. Does this mean that the term CPP (Certified Protection Professional), from ASIS, does not apply to one who has it?

In further reference, would you state that a person employed in the Private Security Industry as a Private Narcotics Enforcement Officer, Working uniformed detail in an apartment complex is in the same duty bracket as another person who sits in his/her vehicle watching empty equipment at a construction site? Clearly there is a significant difference in the duty requirements of these two examples. I grant you that there is a difference between the two types of Agents listed, but to further classify these into amaller groups has yet to be defined (as far as I know) and would appear to be overclassifying a broader area of coverage.

To those who believe that this subject has been described overmuch, I would remind you that there are approximately 5 times as many personnel serving in the private security industry as there are in the public police industry... And growing! This is a subject that will only become more important over time and a thorough explanation is appropriate. Also, I would point out that the inclusion of more than one notable security person is applicable as there have been many such notable security guards and officers. To refuse to recognize them is to ignore history.

I submit that these 3 basic classes of security personnel are valid, with appropriate citing of the sources given and should stay. I also welcome your queries on this subject, as it is (obviously) near and dear to my heart.

Captain Jason 13:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IIan the Security Guard Entry

I do not believe that this entry is appropriate for this page. Although I am not familiar with this program, it appears to be about an actor (or other such person) not a real security guard. Therefore, the person named is not a 'notable security guard' at all, and should not be entered here... Perhaps the reference to this person should be entered in another page. Unless somebody has a reasonable objection, I plan on deleting this entry soon. Thanks! Captain Jason 14:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of inappropriate items

I have deleted the reference to the actor as per my last posting since nobody seemed to object. As for the picture added showing the sleeping guard... I believe that this item should be deleted for the following reasons: A) Bias. Showing a sleeping guard shows a bias against the profession by showing only a negative position. B) Legal actionability. There is no reference to permission by either the individual pictured, nor the company represented for this derogatory view of either. As such, negative legal actions could conceivably come about by the use of the picture, irrespective of the permission of the person who took the picture. Unless a reasonable argument can be presented, I intend to remove the picture soon. Thanks! Captain Jason 14:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am all for keeping it short and to the point, but yes, Security Guards and Officers are very important and it's sad that society doesn't really know the difference. Society think that Security Officers "can't do anything". Well try and commit a crime infront of a well trained Security officer. So to end this comment...If we can give detailed information about anything, not just security, to help society understand the meaning that thats how it should be written.

[edit] Inaccurate Definition Standards

I noted the changes by the unidentified contributor of July 4th. I challenge the appropriateness of utilizing the term of Private Police Officer as interchangeable with Armed Security Officer. First, the powers of a Private Police Officer do not depend upon the armament level of the Officer. Second, the terms are not known to be interchangeable to my knowledge. Although I appreciate the attempt to show that a Private Security Officer is, indeed, invested with more authority than many people are aware of, the changes do not appear to be accurate. If no sources can be cited to support this set of changes, I intend to revert them... Personally, as a professional Security Officer and Captain, I welcome the citation of sources on this as I would find them rather soothing. Thanks! --Captain Jason 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of picture and new information submitted by others

I removed the personal picture of the security officer as it is better suited on a personal page rather in this context. I welcome a discussion regarding what a more appropriate picture for this category would be without it being simply a personal ego builder.

I also attempted to bring a few drive-by submissions into line with the flow of the article. I am certain that I have had only limited success in this endeavor and will attempt to make the flow even smoother with less repetition of the facts when I have a little more time available. Again, I welcome any discussion on this by my fellow Security Officers.

Oh, for the record, Private Police Officers are not always armed, and armed Security Officers are not always Private Police Officers...

Thanks!

- Cpt. J

Captain Jason 20:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is one dimensional

I wish to point out a problem with this article. It deals with security personnel in the USA almost completely with only passing reference to Europe and Asia is solely lacking. For example, the security industry in Singapore is gaining much more weight with the local government and is seen as a good career opportunity by some sections of the government. With the recent terror alerts, the security industry in Singapore and much of Asia is gaining more popularity. Companies from Asia are not even mentioned in this article. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree with you. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient knowledge of private security overseas to be able to contribute effectively on that portion of the subject. I invite my colleagues in other countries to contribute their verifiable knowledge here. I know of certain security contractors operating in Iraq, Afganistan, and such, but they are also mostly comprised of personnel from the US and may actually be more accurately defined in a mercenary role. - Cpt. J Captain Jason 06:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "detect, deter, observe and report."

Which country does that motto come from? It doesn't represent an Australian/NZ view. Ozdaren 10:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It comes from USA. Feel free to add whatever motto comes from Australia/NZ if you know it. To tell the truth, I am becoming a bit perturbed by the comments from some wikipedians in countries other than the USA complaining about how this article is too 'US-centric.' As far as I know, there is absolutely no restrictions against any other member, from any other country, to add their intelligent entries on this subject. It is not the fault of the USA wikipedians if the other wikipedians around the world do not share their information as well. So, come on you Security Officers throughout the rest of the world - help educate your colleagues in the USA about how it is in other countries! - Cpt. J Captain Jason 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I only really stumbled across this article. I'm not a security person. I imagine the problem with a US'centric view is more to do with not attributing that the info is current only for the US. I find it interesting to read what happens on the other side of the world. If you have no other experience you wouldn't know that things are different in say Australia compared to the US. In any case there are so many things to write about in the world it's good to start with any view. (PS. I don't think we have a motto for security officers in Australia, we're not so inclined to create these type of messages)Ozdaren 23:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone provide a reference to the motto being "detect, deter, observe, and report?" (Yes, I like serial commas....) I have heard the motto being "observe and report," but "detect, deter, observe, and report" sounds like "detect, deny, delay, defeat." Pyrogen 15:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the California guard card training refers to it, though I really don't think it's an official motto of any sort. When I worked at Securitas, they were big on it. --UsaSatsui 11:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported Edits & 'Controversy'

Although the unidentified contributor that replaced some fully supported statements with his own take on this subject is a fine writer, I must point out that the three classifications that he removed were fully supported with referencing included, whereas several of his attempts to 'clean-up' his perception of controversy are not given with supportive documentation or references. Unless this contributor can give some referencing for his changes, I will have to revert some of his additions and replace some of what he deleted. I definitely invite this individual to reply, as I otherwise like his style of writing for this article... Even if not perfectly accurate in content. - Cpt. J Captain Jason 09:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing Section

I edited the section entitled 'Licensing' a little bit to clear up some information regarding licensing of security guards in Canada. I was also thinking of putting in some information regarding laws relating to uniforms and equipment but I'm not sure that would be appropriate in a section entitled 'Licensing'. Perhaps, if the section were retitled 'Regulation', a broader term that could catch all sorts of government regulation, it would be better? Or would that mean the section would get too large? Just a thought. Hairytoad2005 04:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why I RV a COI edit by PatrickVSS

PatrickVSS, I understand you ment well for the Article, however I have noticed from some of your edits that the VSS stands for Valley Security Services. This may cause a problem with Conflict of Intrest. I know the pride we all take in our perticular companies, but, for an Encylopedia, a Link to any one company is pointless to someone a ocean away. exit2dos2000 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/c/Talk%7ESecurity_guard_03dd.html"