Private security in Canada Armed?
- Thread starter Slim
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
If you are refering to securiguard type private security companies I would have to say NO.
Most private companies require very little training not to mention the slack requirements to become one could attract "want-to-be" police who see an opportunity to carry a gun and abuse power (abusing power can be done now,but possessing a firearm is much more deadly).
Where I live RCMP auxilaries are no longer allowed to carry firearms I believe due to liability (and probably due to a different training program). These individuals would be(or so i hope) screened and trained in much more depth than private security officers, not to mention they work in the presence of a sworn peace officer. Even our customs officers who secure our borders are not armed.
I am not implying that "some" private security officers can‘t handle possessing one, i am merely stating that for the job they take on, with already very limited authority and from a safety standpoint, i don‘t see the justification in possessing one. (just my .02, no offence to any of you out there
Most private companies require very little training not to mention the slack requirements to become one could attract "want-to-be" police who see an opportunity to carry a gun and abuse power (abusing power can be done now,but possessing a firearm is much more deadly).
Where I live RCMP auxilaries are no longer allowed to carry firearms I believe due to liability (and probably due to a different training program). These individuals would be(or so i hope) screened and trained in much more depth than private security officers, not to mention they work in the presence of a sworn peace officer. Even our customs officers who secure our borders are not armed.
I am not implying that "some" private security officers can‘t handle possessing one, i am merely stating that for the job they take on, with already very limited authority and from a safety standpoint, i don‘t see the justification in possessing one. (just my .02, no offence to any of you out there
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Armed with a walky talky and a flashlight maybe...a handgun, no way.
Although I suppose that is somewhat unfair, perhaps if the standards for becoming a private guard were raised...alot (I know the private security guards around here aren‘t exactly the most professional)
Im not trying to offend anyone who is a private security guard, but for the tasks that most are assigned with I have to say no.
There is a difference of course between private security guards and the security guards who transport bank money of course, those guys absolutely need to be armed, but the guy who is just guarding the kwik-e-mart mini mall, doesn‘t need one.
Although I suppose that is somewhat unfair, perhaps if the standards for becoming a private guard were raised...alot (I know the private security guards around here aren‘t exactly the most professional)
Im not trying to offend anyone who is a private security guard, but for the tasks that most are assigned with I have to say no.
There is a difference of course between private security guards and the security guards who transport bank money of course, those guys absolutely need to be armed, but the guy who is just guarding the kwik-e-mart mini mall, doesn‘t need one.
R
Ruthless4Life
Guest
I am against private security guards having firearms. Also, it‘s not likely, due to the recent change of firearms laws in Canada (IE gun registry), I highly doubt this would happen. A change of laws to give the right for private security guards to possess firearms would mean civilians would now be able to do the same - since private security guards ARE civilians.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
As I currently work in the private security/law enforcement industry I will make comment. The company I work for right now specializes in high risk assignments, patrolling some of Toronto‘s worst areas (Moss Park, Regent Park, St. Jamestown/Cabbagetown, Chalkfarm). I won‘t name the company but you can look it up, *******garde The Law Enforcement Company. Currently we use 26" straight batons as our only means of defence. In Ontario certain groups can apply to be appointed "Special Constables" they receive extra training and are permitted to carry ASP batons and OC spray. All of this must go through the OPP and the local force. In my company it takes a while to be issued a baton (time in, prerequisite courses, training class). In addition we have to have the permission, of not just Toronto Police, but the permission of the local division to carry batons on site. I personal believe that if private security were allowed to carry firearms it would not be a huge thing. Many companys do not engage in level of private security requiring batons (and handcuffs), let alone firearms. There is already a system in place for baton, and spray, I don‘t think it would be hard to add similar requirements (although much stronger) to use firearms. But will it ever happen not in my lifetime no.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Regent park! alright, good to see my old neighbourhood is still in such good repair.
You can thank miltiary housing, BEFORE the reforms for that mistake. They put my family there for 6 months before they found us a house.
When I said private guards, I did not mean the high risk ones that deal with things like that. The only security guards we have in halifax, are either the armored car drivers, or the parking lot guys who sit in their car and tell you to move if you park somewheres you‘re not supposed to.
You can thank miltiary housing, BEFORE the reforms for that mistake. They put my family there for 6 months before they found us a house.
When I said private guards, I did not mean the high risk ones that deal with things like that. The only security guards we have in halifax, are either the armored car drivers, or the parking lot guys who sit in their car and tell you to move if you park somewheres you‘re not supposed to.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
This may be considered interesting...Back about 15 years ago the presence of someone carrying a gun ( usually a 38 special police issue) wasn‘t a big deal. Not just security guards but also the guys who fix michines with high value parts and other sorts of non security types.
Also there used to be an act that covered Bodyguards being armed...The RCMP got rid of that because the mob bosses were the only ones with armed bodyguards. Didn‘t work out too well, when the cops raided, to have the bad guys armed as well.
This closely concerns me as it is the profession I currently work in. I can say that my "training" is so far beyond a security guard that we‘re not even in the same league. I was sent to England for an extensive course on how to do CP work. The education I got is top notch. Anyone wishing to enter that field should have the Brits do their training!
The reason that I ask is because the poweres that be are currently wrestling with this issue here.
I wonder if all the gun hype is a perception thing...? :akimbo:
Also there used to be an act that covered Bodyguards being armed...The RCMP got rid of that because the mob bosses were the only ones with armed bodyguards. Didn‘t work out too well, when the cops raided, to have the bad guys armed as well.
This closely concerns me as it is the profession I currently work in. I can say that my "training" is so far beyond a security guard that we‘re not even in the same league. I was sent to England for an extensive course on how to do CP work. The education I got is top notch. Anyone wishing to enter that field should have the Brits do their training!
The reason that I ask is because the poweres that be are currently wrestling with this issue here.
I wonder if all the gun hype is a perception thing...? :akimbo:
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
It was my understanding that ALL federal enforcement officers are now required to go through the RCMP academy... Wildlife enforcement, Fisheries and Oceans, whatever... as any of the field enforcement officers are required to carry arms... which is entirely reasonable when you consider that if a wildlife enforcement officer is slogging off into the woods to arrest a poacher, there‘s a very good chance the poacher is armed.
I assume the same training requirement applies to customs officers, though at the same time, I can‘t see much call for your average customs officer to CARRY a weapon.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
[/qb][/QUOTE]It was my understanding that ALL federal enforcement officers are now required to go through the RCMP academy... Wildlife enforcement, Fisheries and Oceans, whatever... as any of the field enforcement officers are required to carry arms... which is entirely reasonable when you consider that if a wildlife enforcement officer is slogging off into the woods to arrest a poacher, there‘s a very good chance the poacher is armed.
I assume the same training requirement applies to customs officers, though at the same time, I can‘t see much call for your average customs officer to CARRY a weapon. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Well customs, immigration,D.F.O. as well as military personnel would all be considered federal enforcement officers and they all have their own training facilities as well as training programs.
As for customs not needing firearms, consider the fact that these people are our first line of defense from individuals entering our country whether honest citizens or wanted fugitives..(Consider past cases of terrorists carrying explosives). I watched a show about a year ago that said customs was not equipped or trained to deal with a fugitive, so if one were to approach a border, they would have to let them through then call the police who in some cases could be 30 minutes away.
In cases of poachers, these individuals are out to make money, not kill humans. I would think it is safe to assume that although these poachers are armed, chances are they would not want end their hunt by being incarcerated for murder or a charge along those lines.
I am not in a position to declare one of the occupations as "more dangerous" than the other, also each scenario these officers are placed in varies in danger levels. As for the RCMP auxilaries when i last looked into the program about 1.5 years ago, the training was done in your local jurisdiction approx. one night a week for approx. 6 months.
From a prsonal standpoint, I couldn‘t imagine that a conservation officer would be placed in anymore danger than any other law enforcement officer, including "our average customs officer."
Just my .02
I assume the same training requirement applies to customs officers, though at the same time, I can‘t see much call for your average customs officer to CARRY a weapon. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Well customs, immigration,D.F.O. as well as military personnel would all be considered federal enforcement officers and they all have their own training facilities as well as training programs.
As for customs not needing firearms, consider the fact that these people are our first line of defense from individuals entering our country whether honest citizens or wanted fugitives..(Consider past cases of terrorists carrying explosives). I watched a show about a year ago that said customs was not equipped or trained to deal with a fugitive, so if one were to approach a border, they would have to let them through then call the police who in some cases could be 30 minutes away.
In cases of poachers, these individuals are out to make money, not kill humans. I would think it is safe to assume that although these poachers are armed, chances are they would not want end their hunt by being incarcerated for murder or a charge along those lines.
I am not in a position to declare one of the occupations as "more dangerous" than the other, also each scenario these officers are placed in varies in danger levels. As for the RCMP auxilaries when i last looked into the program about 1.5 years ago, the training was done in your local jurisdiction approx. one night a week for approx. 6 months.
From a prsonal standpoint, I couldn‘t imagine that a conservation officer would be placed in anymore danger than any other law enforcement officer, including "our average customs officer."
Just my .02
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
If criminals thought logically, then no police officers would ever be killed. Once you‘ve been confronted by a police officer, you‘re caught. You can run, but they‘re going to find you eventually. You can kill one, and then run, but you only make it a thousand times worse for yourself.
Believe it or not, being a wildlife officer, at least field enforcement, is a rather dangerous job. Unfortunately, the bulk of people who are poaching, are poorly educated, and often in some form of desperation... add firearms to the mix, and the fact that more often then not confrontations take place in a wilderness area with few if any potential witnesses, and you‘ve certainly got potential for a lethal situation.
As to customs officers, the people they deal with on a day to day basis, say at a border crossing, are usually not armed, and as such, there‘s not a daily call for firearms, just as there‘s no need for a DFO officer to wear his weapon around the office, but certainly I‘d support customs officers carrying firearms whenever they engage in a search and seizure operation, or any other situation where there‘s a reasonable risk of confrontation. It‘s all a matter of need.
Believe it or not, being a wildlife officer, at least field enforcement, is a rather dangerous job. Unfortunately, the bulk of people who are poaching, are poorly educated, and often in some form of desperation... add firearms to the mix, and the fact that more often then not confrontations take place in a wilderness area with few if any potential witnesses, and you‘ve certainly got potential for a lethal situation.
As to customs officers, the people they deal with on a day to day basis, say at a border crossing, are usually not armed, and as such, there‘s not a daily call for firearms, just as there‘s no need for a DFO officer to wear his weapon around the office, but certainly I‘d support customs officers carrying firearms whenever they engage in a search and seizure operation, or any other situation where there‘s a reasonable risk of confrontation. It‘s all a matter of need.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
"Believe it or not, being a wildlife officer, at least field enforcement, is a rather dangerous job. Unfortunately, the bulk of people who are poaching, are poorly educated, and often in some form of desperation... add firearms to the mix, and the fact that more often then not confrontations take place in a wilderness area with few if any potential witnesses, and you‘ve certainly got potential for a lethal situation."
Poorly educated, perhaps in a college/university way. Don‘t forget many of these poachers are involved in a worldwide orgaized crime ring. Many use high powered, expensive high-tech equipment. These individuals are making a great deal of profit from these animal parts, so i would not consider most to be any form of desperation.
Any conservation officer would have a form of communication whether it be radio or cell phone. If they needed to check out a licence plate or assistance they would call to let the appropriate persons aware. Nowadays with technology and sound investigation techniques, even a lack of witnesses would likely yield the truth.
As for the lethal situation, I have had rcmp officers specfically tell me that in their opinion, a situation with a conservation officer for example, armed could possibly lead to an escalated situation once another firearm is presented into the situation, thus be in a worse situation that if unarmed.
"As to customs officers, the people they deal with on a day to day basis, say at a border crossing, are usually not armed, and as such, there‘s not a daily call for firearms, just as there‘s no need for a DFO officer to wear his weapon around the office, but certainly I‘d support customs officers carrying firearms whenever they engage in a search and seizure operation, or any other situation where there‘s a reasonable risk of confrontation. It‘s all a matter of need. [/QB][/QUOTE]"
I agree when you say these officers do not need to carry a firearm while they are in the office. On the otherhand, police officers are placed with he burden of much paperwork and some time in court. These situations obviously do not require the use of firearms, but they still carry them. If an immeditate situation were to arise where they did need their gun, it would be there at their side...as with the other occupations.
If there was a "search and seizure operation", chances are they would be armed with a bit more than a 9mm on their hip.
Poorly educated, perhaps in a college/university way. Don‘t forget many of these poachers are involved in a worldwide orgaized crime ring. Many use high powered, expensive high-tech equipment. These individuals are making a great deal of profit from these animal parts, so i would not consider most to be any form of desperation.
Any conservation officer would have a form of communication whether it be radio or cell phone. If they needed to check out a licence plate or assistance they would call to let the appropriate persons aware. Nowadays with technology and sound investigation techniques, even a lack of witnesses would likely yield the truth.
As for the lethal situation, I have had rcmp officers specfically tell me that in their opinion, a situation with a conservation officer for example, armed could possibly lead to an escalated situation once another firearm is presented into the situation, thus be in a worse situation that if unarmed.
"As to customs officers, the people they deal with on a day to day basis, say at a border crossing, are usually not armed, and as such, there‘s not a daily call for firearms, just as there‘s no need for a DFO officer to wear his weapon around the office, but certainly I‘d support customs officers carrying firearms whenever they engage in a search and seizure operation, or any other situation where there‘s a reasonable risk of confrontation. It‘s all a matter of need. [/QB][/QUOTE]"
I agree when you say these officers do not need to carry a firearm while they are in the office. On the otherhand, police officers are placed with he burden of much paperwork and some time in court. These situations obviously do not require the use of firearms, but they still carry them. If an immeditate situation were to arise where they did need their gun, it would be there at their side...as with the other occupations.
If there was a "search and seizure operation", chances are they would be armed with a bit more than a 9mm on their hip.
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
" Poorly educated, perhaps in a college/university way. Don‘t forget many of these poachers are involved in a worldwide orgaized crime ring. Many use high powered, expensive high-tech equipment. These individuals are making a great deal of profit from these animal parts, so i would not consider most to be any form of desperation.
Any conservation officer would have a form of communication whether it be radio or cell phone. If they needed to check out a licence plate or assistance they would call to let the appropriate persons aware. Nowadays with technology and sound investigation techniques, even a lack of witnesses would likely yield the truth. "
You‘re not talking about the average poacher, and you have a misconception of what exactly the average poacher is. What you‘re talking about is the sort of poacher you‘re most often going to hear about in the news. The organized professional poacher. They make a wonderful and sensational news story, but compared to your actual average poacher, they‘re terribly rare (Thankfully).
A poacher is anyone who harvests game illegally, be they the high end professional poachers chopping off penises for the asian market, or be they a hunter who took 13 ducks when he was only lisencesed to take 12.
Your average poacher is NOT well educated. They are more often then not either seasonal labourers, or trained in an industrial trade but unemployed. Very often one of two things happen. Either they decide to hunt for food without a lisence (Is this morally wrong? Probably not. Is it legally wrong? Definitly), or they decide to hunt for sale to a very small very local market who won‘t question too loudly where the game came from. Netting rivers, particularly salmon rivers, is a terribly common poaching crime.
Bare in mind that penalties for poaching are quite severe, indeed, poachers are often more heavily prosecuted then other criminals.
Now, with all that being said, imagine you have a situation where a person is either under-educated, or committing a crime out of desperation due to poverty, or both, and a wildlife officer approaches them in the middle of nowhere. If they (The poacher) is armed, you suddenly have a situation where they believe there‘s a good chance they could get away with murder, and save themselves jail time, fines, and forfeiture of their transportation and equipment to the queen.
Saying that the average poacher is well educated and well equipped and well organized is like saying the average thief is an international jewel thief. The average thieves are the idiots who hold up convenience stores, and who mug pedestrians. It‘s these idiots who shoot police officers.
Any conservation officer would have a form of communication whether it be radio or cell phone. If they needed to check out a licence plate or assistance they would call to let the appropriate persons aware. Nowadays with technology and sound investigation techniques, even a lack of witnesses would likely yield the truth. "
You‘re not talking about the average poacher, and you have a misconception of what exactly the average poacher is. What you‘re talking about is the sort of poacher you‘re most often going to hear about in the news. The organized professional poacher. They make a wonderful and sensational news story, but compared to your actual average poacher, they‘re terribly rare (Thankfully).
A poacher is anyone who harvests game illegally, be they the high end professional poachers chopping off penises for the asian market, or be they a hunter who took 13 ducks when he was only lisencesed to take 12.
Your average poacher is NOT well educated. They are more often then not either seasonal labourers, or trained in an industrial trade but unemployed. Very often one of two things happen. Either they decide to hunt for food without a lisence (Is this morally wrong? Probably not. Is it legally wrong? Definitly), or they decide to hunt for sale to a very small very local market who won‘t question too loudly where the game came from. Netting rivers, particularly salmon rivers, is a terribly common poaching crime.
Bare in mind that penalties for poaching are quite severe, indeed, poachers are often more heavily prosecuted then other criminals.
Now, with all that being said, imagine you have a situation where a person is either under-educated, or committing a crime out of desperation due to poverty, or both, and a wildlife officer approaches them in the middle of nowhere. If they (The poacher) is armed, you suddenly have a situation where they believe there‘s a good chance they could get away with murder, and save themselves jail time, fines, and forfeiture of their transportation and equipment to the queen.
Saying that the average poacher is well educated and well equipped and well organized is like saying the average thief is an international jewel thief. The average thieves are the idiots who hold up convenience stores, and who mug pedestrians. It‘s these idiots who shoot police officers.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
When I was refering to poaching i was refering more towards the killing for illegal body parts, not taking the extra animal for food or what have you.
I have problems believing that someone even with a deep financial problem would be desparate enough to take the life of a peace officer, but that is just my opinion. With that said, looking back at the original topic I see how opinions have stretched us from the topic so i will leave it at that.
I have problems believing that someone even with a deep financial problem would be desparate enough to take the life of a peace officer, but that is just my opinion. With that said, looking back at the original topic I see how opinions have stretched us from the topic so i will leave it at that.
C
Charlie Golf
Guest
Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Ernie Eves government to consult stakeholders on modernizing the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act
TORONTO, March 21 /CNW/ - The Ernie Eves government will consult with
stakeholders as it develops proposals for a new, more modern and effective
Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, Bob Runciman, Minister of
Public Safety and Security, announced today.
The Ministry of Public Safety and Security will contact industry
stakeholders and seek suggestions to improve the act, increase public safety
and better regulate the private investigators and security guards industry.
"This industry plays a vital role in safeguarding both life and property
across Ontario," Runciman said. "This is particularly true during emergencies.
The events of September 11, 2001, highlighted these functions and the
importance of ensuring private security guards are adequately trained and
equipped to meet their responsibilities."
The act regulates the licensing of persons who are in the business of
providing private investigators and security guards, and the security guards
and private investigators employed by these firms. In Ontario, there are
approximately 28,000 licensed security guards and private investigators as
well as thousands of individuals providing security services, such as in-house
security and the Corps of Commissionaires, who are currently exempt from the
legislation.
"The act is outdated and inadequate to meet the needs of our society,"
Runciman said. "We want to ensure that individuals and corporations involved
in the protection of life and property and the promotion of public safety have
the required skills and qualifications."
Private security guards are employed in places such as ports, airports,
nuclear facilities, shopping centres, commercial and other complexes and
residential spaces. Security firms are also involved in highly sophisticated
activities such as intelligence gathering, physical and information security,
security risk analysis and countermeasure development, disaster and emergency
planning, covert operations and computer surveillance.
Ernie Eves government to consult stakeholders on modernizing the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act
TORONTO, March 21 /CNW/ - The Ernie Eves government will consult with
stakeholders as it develops proposals for a new, more modern and effective
Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, Bob Runciman, Minister of
Public Safety and Security, announced today.
The Ministry of Public Safety and Security will contact industry
stakeholders and seek suggestions to improve the act, increase public safety
and better regulate the private investigators and security guards industry.
"This industry plays a vital role in safeguarding both life and property
across Ontario," Runciman said. "This is particularly true during emergencies.
The events of September 11, 2001, highlighted these functions and the
importance of ensuring private security guards are adequately trained and
equipped to meet their responsibilities."
The act regulates the licensing of persons who are in the business of
providing private investigators and security guards, and the security guards
and private investigators employed by these firms. In Ontario, there are
approximately 28,000 licensed security guards and private investigators as
well as thousands of individuals providing security services, such as in-house
security and the Corps of Commissionaires, who are currently exempt from the
legislation.
"The act is outdated and inadequate to meet the needs of our society,"
Runciman said. "We want to ensure that individuals and corporations involved
in the protection of life and property and the promotion of public safety have
the required skills and qualifications."
Private security guards are employed in places such as ports, airports,
nuclear facilities, shopping centres, commercial and other complexes and
residential spaces. Security firms are also involved in highly sophisticated
activities such as intelligence gathering, physical and information security,
security risk analysis and countermeasure development, disaster and emergency
planning, covert operations and computer surveillance.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
qb][/QUOTE]It happens with police officers, in urban settings, with plenty of witnesses. Why is it less likely that somone would try it in a wilderness setting just because it‘s a wildlife officer? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Yes the likely hood of having witnesses in the city would be higher, but many crimes are committed at night where not many people are out. Just because a crime is committed in an urban setting does not necessarily mean that there will be witnesses available. If the poacher is a mere uneducated person who is desparte and only takes another catch for his personal food supply and is caught, yes he would be subject to the law but could state his situation. The officer does have the power to use his discretion just as a police officer does everyday.
If someone were to be placed in a dilemma between getting out of an armed robbery situation(an indictable offence) vs. getting out of catching an extra animal for food (summary offence), then i would think the person that has more to lose is the person up against an indictable offence.
If you feel the need to to prove me wrong as to who is placed in more dangerous situations in the past, then i suggest looking into some work related statistics. I personlly have more important things to do with my time than argue based on our opinions, on a topic which is supposed to be whether private security personnel should be given firearms.
As i have previously stated in this thread, i am expressing my opinion and you have yours. If you want me to change my stance then please present some emperical evidence instead of asking me why i feel an occupation is more dangerous than another.
Yes the likely hood of having witnesses in the city would be higher, but many crimes are committed at night where not many people are out. Just because a crime is committed in an urban setting does not necessarily mean that there will be witnesses available. If the poacher is a mere uneducated person who is desparte and only takes another catch for his personal food supply and is caught, yes he would be subject to the law but could state his situation. The officer does have the power to use his discretion just as a police officer does everyday.
If someone were to be placed in a dilemma between getting out of an armed robbery situation(an indictable offence) vs. getting out of catching an extra animal for food (summary offence), then i would think the person that has more to lose is the person up against an indictable offence.
If you feel the need to to prove me wrong as to who is placed in more dangerous situations in the past, then i suggest looking into some work related statistics. I personlly have more important things to do with my time than argue based on our opinions, on a topic which is supposed to be whether private security personnel should be given firearms.
As i have previously stated in this thread, i am expressing my opinion and you have yours. If you want me to change my stance then please present some emperical evidence instead of asking me why i feel an occupation is more dangerous than another.
S
SNoseworthy
Guest
The private security who need to be armed, like the guys who transport money, should have arms of course, and they do...but the day I see the MUN CEP walking around campus with guns is the day I go to another university...they‘re nothing more than slightly trained security guards who think that they‘re much more than that. God forbid the CEP gets guns to complement their deadly arsenal of flashlights 
heheheh
heheheh
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Charlie Golf
Good post...believe it or not I hadn‘t seen that before. I‘d heard that they were going to modernize the act but hadn‘t seen any paperwork on the subject. If you come across any more by all means send it along.
Thanks again
Slim
