Talk:Security guard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Security guard article.
Article policies

Contents


Why is the pic of 'security guard' a goofy out-of-shape guy? It almost looks like a joke... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.45.112 (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Then this is a Securitas motto, not a "security guard" motto. I'll sit on this for a day or two, then Be Bold and edit it it out. The world, at least not yet, is not protected solely by G4S Securitas. Pyrogen 05:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I've worked security in the US before and never heard this motto dealing with 4 different companies and none of them used it at least in Nebraska so I am going to be bold and reword that section. --Xiahou 01:52, 27 July 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] 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)

[edit] re: 16:32, May 4, 2007 edits ...Picture removed & citation does not support statements& a concensus request re statement

1/ Reguarding the removal of the picture of the sleeping guard ... please read the discussion here Talk:Security_guard#Deletion_of_inappropriate_items

2/ [1] in no way supports the statement
"Many work double shifts, with little sleep, which leads to the officers being less competent at defending the people or property."
After having read the article, I have removed the statement.

3/ I am requesting the opinion of others in letting the following be returned to the article.
"Other times the photographer is on public property, photographing a public building, when stopped by a security officer." calling the following as supporting citation ... my concern is ... is a BLOG a reliable source or just an opinion ? Is there a Balancing view ?
Exit2DOS2000•T•C•• 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

1/ I felt by adding a positive and negative image of a security guard I was still respecting the neutrality of this article, which in my opinion painted a rosy picture of them. I generally don't have a problem with authority, but most of my experiences with guards, and even police officers have been negative. I realize some protect and defend, but that image is presenting the truth. If it is viewed as potentially libelous I could blur out his face, and reupload.
2/ To me the article does because it talks about guards walking night shifts. And is it needed to source that night shift workers are often sleep deprived? [2]
3/ That seems like a fair removal because of the nature of the source. But ask any Western photographer, and they'll have many stories of being harrased by guards. I know I've had my fair share of incidents. Not that personal experience counts as fact. But anyone who runs a search for photographer + harassment will get thousands of similar stories.
Signed - Joshua Davis (articnomad) 15:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove Article from Law enforcement ?

portions transposed from my talk page
Although you may feel that Security guard does not belong to the Category due to the fact that "they do not enforce the law per se.", they are still part of the process, are they not? Saying that they "have little or no more authority that a regular citizen" may be true, but then, a regular citizen could be part of the Law Enforcement process as well. The first step in the process, before the arrival of Police, is someone willing to stand up and say 'Stop'. It just so happens that Securtity Guards are hired (by the Private Sector) for this express purpose .... not by the Gov't. Sector.... and (in Canada) they DO have the authority of the property owner to enforce rules, assist others (ie. Private Citizens) when they enforce the law, and themselves to make a Citizens Arrest when required (albeit with conditions). However, that being said, if you are not being Pointy in reguard to Correctional Officers categorization, and can generate vocal (not silent) concensus to remove this longstanding edit (standing since way back when), I will follow the group decision. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Security Guards can be "part of the process", that generalization opens the category to too wide a spectrum of professions or groups (eg: court reporters, judges, lawyers, etc). In Ontario, Canada, bodyguards, in-house security and bouncers must now be licensed as are contract security guards (those working for security companies), but I would not classify bouncers as "law enforcement" even though they are "part of the process". Security guards do act as agents of the property owner, but so do others (eg: building superintendents). At the end of the day, security guards are simply private employees with no more power to enforce the law than any other private citizen. To approach it from a different angle: Under the Criminal Code of Canada, anyone employed in a jail, prison, etc. is legally a peace officer with greater powers of law enforcement that a security guard. However, I would not categorize a prison cook or secretary to be "law enforcement" even though they are technically peace officers. Not to belabour the point, but we could start looking at adding construction foremen who are responsible for enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Ontario) on the job sites or the union steward who enforces the Employment Standards Act (Ontario) or property owners who have specific powers of arrest and use of force under the Trespass to Property Act (Ontario). As you can see (I hope), "part of the process" is too broad a concept to use as a standard for inclusion in the Law Enforcement category.--Jeff Johnston 12:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to have Security guard removed from WP:Law enforcment, I will talk about that here. If you wish to redefine the entire scope of the WP:Law enforcment, then you should discuss that with the appropriate Project Co-ordinators of that project on their Project talk page. Until you can achieve concensus with them on the scope of their project, I feel it would be inappropriate to remove this Article from the catagory. Making your argument for the inclusion of Corrections officer in the catagory, here, is the inapproipriate place to make your WP:point Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get the idea that I'm arguing for the inclusion of Correctional Officers? I don't even mention them here. This is a discussion on the exclusion of Security Guards from the Law Enforcement category.--Jeff Johnston 10:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Your saying being a "part of the process" is too broad a concept to use as a standard for inclusion in Category:Law enforcement, if the category was strictly defined, then it would only be police officers, and the category would be useless if that were the case. "they do not enforce the law per se." Statements like that only reinforces my belief that you, as well as I, believe Security guards are enforcing the law (when required) as well as doing much more. Both Police and Security guards trace their origins back to the same group (vigils). Both have evolved with the same purpose, how can their basic purpose be classified differentialy now, what has changed ? A quick search on google for 'g4s' and 'enforcement' shows these security guards preforming enforcement :[3][4][5] Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not arguing to strictly define the category, but rather that inclusion should be restricted to those who actually enforce the law rather than simply being "a part of the process" as I stated. I don't know if I can make my point any clearer. I followed the links you provided and found nothing about security guards enforcing the law, but rather further examples of them being part of the process. In fact, the link on electronic monitoring indicated that the private security company (the article doesn't actually mention security guards -- in fact none of the articles you cite mention security guards or officers) would report any breaches to another agency for enforcement.--Jeff Johnston 12:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm the lead coordinator for WP:LE. I'm going to suggest waiting until others of the project get here to discuss, but for my first reaction I can see arguments for both options. They do enforce the law on the premises in which they work, however they also must go to the police for much more than a simple detainment or removal of unwanted persons from the property. I will have a think and then give you my opinion, and hopefully other members of the project will turn up too. I appreciate the project being contacted by Jeff in this matter :) SGGH speak! 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any compelling reasons not to include security guards in the scope of the LE category or the project. In the real world, there's no hard line that determines where law enforcement or ends and something else begins. Even the traditional cop spends far more time doing other things than he or she does enforcing the law (public relations, giving directions to tourists, finding missing children, etc.), despite their legal powers to detain and shoot people. In some respects, the category and project would be more accurate if they were renamed police. In another sense though, "law enforcement" is broader than "police" because it includes other groups like DEA and FBI. Some other points that justify including security guards:

  • The trend towards a larger role for private security is clearly a policing issue.
  • As pointed out above, police and private security have historically been inextricably connected. Think Pinkertons, now a division of Securitas AB, the largest security guard company in the world.
  • I saw some mall security guards forcibly restrain and detain a panhandler the other day until the police came with the paddywagon. That was about as "law enforcement" as it gets, not just a peripheral "part of the process" like the prison cook.
  • Just because security guards call the cops doesn't mean all that much in terms of distinguishing them from police, considering police themselves call other police branches or agencies all the time (e.g., a beat cop calling in the homicide or vice unit, or handing the operation over to the feds). bobanny 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is why I hoped bobanny would come and contribute. He is the smarter one :D SGGH speak! 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I get stuck on the private citizen as law enforcement part. I don't know that exercising your right as an agent of a property owner to use as much force as is required to remove a trespasser constitutes law enforcement. The security guard is exercising his legal rights. It is the employer or property owner who mandates that exercise, not the legislation itself. Whereas a peace officer has a legislated mandate to act. I know it's sticky. I worked in private security for years and took my duties very seriously. There must be some sort of criteria that can be applied here... --Jeff Johnston 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think of it more as what's being policed, or made secure. With the mall example, it's private property, but public space inasmuch as the public uses the space. Peace officers also exercise an awful lot of discretion in terms of what to act on and what to ignore, and often that judgment call is based on the complaints they receive. So if the mall owner called the police instead of relying on his private security guards to eject this person, he's exercising the same legal rights, and the police are enforcing those rights just as the security guards would be. I'm not trying to suggest that the two occupations are identical, but rather that "law enforcement" is a pretty broad category with lots of shades of gray. Railroad police is another category that doesn't fit easily into the common understanding of "law enforcement," i.e., the local police department. They work for a private company to protect private property, similar to security guards, yet they are police. bobanny 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well argued. In fact, the best argument so far. On one hand I don't like to roll over so easily, yet I can't counter this without more contemplation... Let me get back to you.--Jeff Johnston 01:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Your railroad police comment got me thinking. I remember a discussion years ago about Canadian university police. The gist of it was that Ontario university police are classified as a "Class B" police force. In effect they are a bonafide police force but not authorized to carry firearms. In effect, more than security guards, less than police. In the context of the discussion, it appears that a force of private security guards can be (at least in Ontario, Canada) be elevated to law enforcement status. Now, having said all that, I cannot find or cite any sources so I'm not stating this as an argument so much as I'm hoping to twig someone's more authoritative knowledge. In the meantime, I'll see if I can find out more -- more for my personal interest than for argument's sake at this point.--Jeff Johnston 03:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The particulars vary by province since policing is a provincial responsibility, but many, if not most, university police in Canada are special constabularies, which are just as you describe - they have more police powers than security guards but less than police. Transit police generally fall into the same category (e.g.TTC Special Constable Services for Toronto). Vancouver's transit police were elevated to a full police force a couple years ago, making it the only one in Canada, but which very much illustrates your point. (I'm from Ontario, but now in BC, btw). bobanny 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that in Ontario private institutions can upgrade their security "forces" through the municipal police department in which they operate by having their guards become special constables. Years ago, when I worked security, I had received special constable status through the then Metropolitan Toronto Police so that I could issue parking tickets on the clients' properties. At the time I was a security guard working for a contract security company. Perhaps under certain conditions, or through special dispensation, security guards can act in a law enforcement capacity. In other words, if a security guard has the same status as a university or transit cop in that they are both special constables then we can't really exclude one group and not the other. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the special constable process as it applies to security guards in Ontario could add to the main article. --Jeff Johnston 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Special constable status to issue parking tickets ? Parking enforcement authority is issued via the By-law enforcement officer's recomendation to City Council, at least in my county. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Security Gaurds, at least inthe U.S., have no authority and their purpose is to detect and report any criminal activity to the police, therefore they would not be considered law enforcement. Having worked in both security and law enforcement I don't believe Security Gaurds belong in WP:LEEMT1871 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
To continue my own thoughts on this... I previouslty argued that security guards could achieve a greater status within the law enforcement community by upgrading through special constable training and certification, and that could be used to argue for inclusion. On reflection however, this then moves them from the security guard group into the special constable group. The upgraded security guard as special constable can be covered under the latter while the former remains excluded. --Jeff Johnston —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
From a U.S. perspective, in Delaware we have several private security organizations which are referred to as constables and which are fully trained and licensed police officers with police powers. As far as I know, they only work for hospitals, universities, and Dover Downs. I think they can legally be armed, whether any of them are or not I can't say as I never really looked at one with a goal of seeing if they are armed or not.--HarryHenryGebel 13:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think this shifts the security guard into a new designation and category (ie, Special Constable, Police, etc.). What we need is an example of security guards who enforce that law without being redesignated. Security guards achieving law enforcement status through certification/licencing that carries a separate title is akin to a regular citizen achieving law enforcement status through the same means. --Jeff Johnston 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont believe it does, at least not in Canada. Security guards are not Special Constables or Police, thoes are wholely different jobs with a different employer. The 2 of you are talkin Apples and Oranges. The US laws and Canadian laws re: Security Guards are very different. Would it suprise you to know most shopping malls in Canada have a holding cell ? That is how different things are since you were working in Security. If the Article needs to have a ==Regional Differences== section, I wouldnt complain, but shifting the entire article to fit your mixed-border view isnt the correct course. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 16:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Security guards can be special constables. The point I was trying to make is that a private security guard can be licenced as a special constable through his/her municipal police service. This is usually done (in Ontario anyway) so that the security guard can issue municipal parking tickets on private property. So in this scenario the security guard is assuming more of a role of law enforcement, but under their licence as a special constable. Hence my arguement for mention of security guards under the Special Constable entry rather than full inclusion in the Law Enforcement category. That aside, the use of holding cells in shopping malls does not change the fact that security guards (at least in Canada) have no more law enforcement powers than a regular citizen. If a janitor employed in a shopping mall witnesses a crime in progress he (and anyone else for that matter) can arrest the offender under the very same authority of the security guard, yet the janitor is not a law enforcement officer. Security guards are private citizens, employed by private citizens, with no more authority than a private citizen. Despite having holding cells, security guards (again, this is Canada I am speaking of) may only arrest, not detain. Which is why they are mandated to deliver the arrestee to a peace officer "forthwith". As a seperate point of interest, Toronto Police Service (as one example) Parking Enforcement officers are Special Constables.--Jeff Johnston 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In Ontario it is a conflict of intrest to hold a Security Guards licence and be a Special Constable/Police Officer (yes they are the same thing, didn't you read this link?). The conflict being, when does the person stop working for the Police Service and start working for the Security company? Who's licence are they working under? Who's insurance are they working under? Who is paying them? If a Police Officer is not in uniform, they are still a Police Officer. Police Services demand that a Security Licence be surrendered upon hiring to solve this and many more problems. And as I stated before ... Parking control is achieved via the bylaw enforcement officer recomending "the granting of permission to issue" to city council and city council passing/amending the bylaw for that properties zoning. "deliver the arrestee to a peace officer "forthwith" is a nice phrase to quote, but we all know how long it can take for Police to arrive after they have been called for. Toronto Police Service Parking Enforcement officers would have to be at least Special Constables to issue tickets on city property, but they still have to be requested, by the owner or his/her agent, to come onto private property to issue parking violations. The topic of Toronto Police Service Parking Enforcement is compleatly outside of this topic. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not a conflict of interest and the article you cite bolsters my case. Special Constables are not the same as Police Constables. Members of the Toronto Police Service Parking Enforcement Unit are a prime example; They are Special Constables, but are not Police Constables. Period. They are employees of the Toronto Police Service and are issued badge numbers that follow them if and when they become Police Constables through a seperate hiring protocol. I don't believe that the subject of Parking Enforcement Officers falls outside this discussion, but serves to illustate the example I mentioned previously. To reiterate: Security Guards do not enforce the law any more than a regular citizen unless they achieve greater power though licencing above and beyond that of Security Guard, I.E. Special Constable, which they can become through their municipal police service. I have personally been sworn as a Special Constable through the Toronto Police Service for the purpose of issuing parking tickets on private property within that municipality. I have a friend who has worked as a Toronto Police Service Parking Enforcement Officer who was a sworn Special Constable for the purpose of issuing tickets on Toronto municipal property. A couple of years ago she became a Police Constable with the same police service through a hiring process open to members of the public. Being a Special Constable did not make her a Police Constable; She had to apply for that very seperate position and attend police college. Again: Security Guards in Ontario, Canada can be sworn as Special Constables without becoming Police Constables and as such enter into a category of law enforcement beyond the scope of their original job classification.
As for your arguement re: "forthwith", it is spurious at best. Forthwith simply means "as soon as possible" or "without delay", so the delay that might theoretically occur is purely academic for the purposes of this argument.--Jeff Johnston 03:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If, as the article says, that they are sworn-in and employed by police departments, how then can they be a employed and licenced by a Security company? Who is paying them? Is the ByLaw Enforcement Officer a Special Constable? I am sorry, but the laws are either different in different counties, or have changed since you last wrote a ticket. Whatever the case, it is not grounds to remove this Article from the Category. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As the article stands now, it is a serving (poorly) as catch-all for the security industry in general. For example, private security redirects here. If these distinctions are going to be made, then a broad reorganization of private security related articles is in order; in fact, given the current state of private security articles this would probably be a good idea, but it would be a big job.--HarryHenryGebel 15:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of ending this debate, I propose a compromise. Although the original question was whether or not to categorize it under law enforcement, the additional issue of including it in WikiProject Law Enforcement has also been raised. I suggest leaving it, for now, in the scope of WP:LE and removing it from Category:Law enforcement. My reasoning is that it is included, along with "law enforcement," under Category:Protective service occupations and (now) Category:Security, and there is no other WikiProject that it could be slotted into. I'm proposing this as a compromise in lieu of consensus, recognizing that there are valid arguments both for and against classifying security guards as law enforcement, and in any case, there's lots of shades of gray whichever side of the fence you're on. Note that this isn't my personal preference (see above), but also that in the greater scheme of things, this is a pretty minor issue. This energy would be better spent improving the article. If this isn't acceptable, I'd suggest filing a request for comment, or, if you really want to, keep debating till the cows come home. bobanny 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, Hear. --Jeff Johnston 02:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank You for ending this monotonous thread. Move to archive? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations added

Added Citations, mostly regarding BC Security Guard act and aminor edit regarding a fine of $575 which I looked EVERYWHERE for documentation and couldn't find any. Removed Citation needed tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Picture

Any objection to removing the picture of a 'security guard posing'? It doesn't really fit with the whole encyclopedia thing and adds nothing to the article. RaseaC (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

REMOVE For the above reasons. --JeffJ (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong

Can someone with more knowledge of the system in Hong Kong edit this section. Parts are somewhat incomprehensible. I tried to correct some of the grammar and rework some of the sentences, but so many parts will require such a substantial rewrite that someone more familiar with the material should do it.--JeffJ (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)