View Full Version : Overkill or proper security?
wetidlerjr
07-11-13, 06:02
Unlicensed armed guards at controversial mine site in Wisconsin (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/11/19400006-unlicensed-armed-guards-booted-from-controversial-mine-site-in-wisconsin?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1)
“They truly look like mercenaries,” said Jauch. “They look like they’re about to stage a coup in Latin America.”
Locals upset over mine security at test site in Wisconsin. Is this too much or the proper reaction to possibly militant environmental activists?
Bulletproof Securities (http://www.bulletproofsecurities.com/)
montanadave
07-11-13, 08:01
When there are groups like E.L.F. cruising around committed to doing costly (and potentially life-threatening) damage to facilities and equipment owned by companies engaged in legal business activity, I can't fault someone for taking the necessary steps to safeguard their investment.
Now when companies start using these paramilitary security firms to crush strike actions by labor unions (and I realize labor unions are not particularly popular around M4C) or legal protests by civilian groups, we're back to the Pinkerton days and I'm not sure that is a particularly positive development.
However, when our government engages in military actions overseas which persist for over a decade and adopts a permanent war footing both at home and abroad in confronting a nebulous GWOT with no foreseeable conclusion in sight, it is not surprising to see an increased militarization of civilian law enforcement, private security firms, and the citizenry at large.
Reaping what we sow, for better or worse.
wetidlerjr
07-11-13, 08:27
Yeah, it might be a "Damned if you do: damned if you don't." deal. I must say, however, that I am never very happy to see something so closely resembling SOF when dealing with a domestic problem and that means on the right or left. I understand it but I'm not comfortable with it. The same people in different garb could do the same thing and attract MUCH less attention while getting the job done. Perception IS everything. On the other hand, to feel secure on a work site is, very definitely, important as well as being able to secure your property.
Perception is everything in this kind of work. Different attire for personnel in public view with a ready team out of public view might have been more suitable to place on site.
Wearing khaki instead of multi cam would have gone a long long way.
"There's no kill like overkill."
For this situation, I think it could be warranted to have this kind of 'show of force.' From the article:
“We were attacked on our first day of drilling,” said Seitz. “Twelve to 15 masked people came onto the site and barricaded the road.” If I had to work there and that was the sort of thing to be expected from protesters, I'd rather have a bunch of mercenary looking dudes in Multi-Cam with SCARs than two rent-a-not-even-close-to-cops wearing ill-fitting generic security uniforms and armed with walkie talkies and flashlights.
I have no idea what the situation is, how many people they have on a shift, how much ground they have to patrol, what kind of electronic gear they have etc.
But if it was me I imagine the uniform would be brown BDU pants and a "SECURITY" shirt. Visible weapon would be a pistol and 870 clearly marked "non-lethal" with rifles in the guard house and truck. Lots of video cameras as well.
And everyone would damn well be licensed- because there is a huge liability issue there.
"Under Wisconsin law, the guards may not use violence to protect property, but they may defend themselves if they are under physical attack."
They better be prepared to use a lot of pepper spray and fire hoses ahead of their SCARs.
They got pulled a day or two ago, as they didn't have a license to work private security in WI:
http://www.channel3000.com/news/gogebic-taconite-suspends-use-of-armed-guards-at-mining-site/-/1648/20923560/-/facqjvz/-/index.html
I have no idea what the situation is, how many people they have on a shift, how much ground they have to patrol, what kind of electronic gear they have etc.
But if it was me I imagine the uniform would be brown BDU pants and a "SECURITY" shirt. Visible weapon would be a pistol and 870 clearly marked "non-lethal" with rifles in the guard house and truck. Lots of video cameras as well.
And everyone would damn well be licensed- because there is a huge liability issue there.
"Under Wisconsin law, the guards may not use violence to protect property, but they may defend themselves if they are under physical attack."
They better be prepared to use a lot of pepper spray and fire hoses ahead of their SCARs.
I like the way you think. If you're working static security in the US, especially in an environment (in the literal and political sense) like north Wisconsin, visible identification as SECURITY, and other IFF measures, are probably a good idea.
Brown or green uniforms(heck, maybe even a polo), visible handguns, lots of area denial measures, and less lethal capabilities would be more useful. Keep the long guns nearby, but no need to advertise them.
Overkill. Professionals wouldn't act this way...
When there are groups like E.L.F. cruising around committed to doing costly (and potentially life-threatening) damage to facilities and equipment owned by companies engaged in legal business activity, I can't fault someone for taking the necessary steps to safeguard their investment.
Now when companies start using these paramilitary security firms to crush strike actions by labor unions (and I realize labor unions are not particularly popular around M4C) or legal protests by civilian groups, we're back to the Pinkerton days and I'm not sure that is a particularly positive development.
However, when our government engages in military actions overseas which persist for over a decade and adopts a permanent war footing both at home and abroad in confronting a nebulous GWOT with no foreseeable conclusion in sight, it is not surprising to see an increased militarization of civilian law enforcement, private security firms, and the citizenry at large.
Reaping what we sow, for better or worse.
You hit the the nail on the head and took the words right out of my mouth. Well said Montana Dave.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-11-13, 13:01
You end up killing or wounding a local dressed and decked out like that and they convict and execute you by lethal injection of cheese.
montanadave
07-11-13, 13:14
You end up killing or wounding a local dressed and decked out like that and they convict and execute you by lethal injection of cheese.
Well, if ya "gouda" go, I can think of worse ways.
wetidlerjr
07-11-13, 13:29
"There's no kill like overkill."
For this situation, I think it could be warranted to have this kind of 'show of force.' From the article: If I had to work there and that was the sort of thing to be expected from protesters, I'd rather have a bunch of mercenary looking dudes in Multi-Cam with SCARs than two rent-a-not-even-close-to-cops wearing ill-fitting generic security uniforms and armed with walkie talkies and flashlights.
I don't think "rent-a-cops" would be the answer as they might do something stupid like shoot somebody where a trained security man would be less likely to let things escalate to that. However, I also don't think twelve to 15 masked people coming onto the site and barricading the road constitutes an attack. After all, this didn't take place in Helmand Province.
Moose-Knuckle
07-11-13, 15:03
Unlicensed armed guards at controversial mine site in Wisconsin (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/11/19400006-unlicensed-armed-guards-booted-from-controversial-mine-site-in-wisconsin?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1)
Is that Geco45?
We have multiple Industry Professionals here that work in security, I'll be interested to hear what they have to say on the matter.
I have no idea what the situation is, how many people they have on a shift, how much ground they have to patrol, what kind of electronic gear they have etc.
But if it was me I imagine the uniform would be brown BDU pants and a "SECURITY" shirt. Visible weapon would be a pistol and 870 clearly marked "non-lethal" with rifles in the guard house and truck. Lots of video cameras as well.
And everyone would damn well be licensed- because there is a huge liability issue there.
"Under Wisconsin law, the guards may not use violence to protect property, but they may defend themselves if they are under physical attack."
They better be prepared to use a lot of pepper spray and fire hoses ahead of their SCARs.
That sounds like a solid plan. Maybe pepper ball guns and shields placed out of sight nearby would be useful.
All that money on a SCAR but no optic?
What a joke
Overkill. Professionals wouldn't act this way...
These yahoos aren't professionals. A bunch of them showed up at a carbine class in my neck of the woods a few years back. They had all kinds of expensive gear, Crye clothing, 6.8 suppressed SBRs, even an MP7 and a SAW, all in a custom panel truck. They didn't listen to the instructor, they couldn't shoot worth a damn, and they just generally acted like douche nozzles. They were the collective "that guy" of the class.
wetidlerjr
07-11-13, 16:32
Is that Geco45?
We have multiple Industry Professionals here that work in security, I'll be interested to hear what they have to say on the matter.
I have no idea.
My cousin is in the thick of this, and I cannot go into too much. She has had death threats, etc., from the eco-nuts, to the point of having to hire security, use rental cars, etc. If these assclowns are as scary as she says, then I do not blame the companies for hiring guns to keep them and their property safe.
Moose-Knuckle
07-11-13, 17:37
My cousin is in the thick of this, and I cannot go into too much. She has had death threats, etc., from the eco-nuts, to the point of having to hire security, use rental cars, etc. If these assclowns are as scary as she says, then I do not blame the companies for hiring guns to keep them and their property safe.
Thanks for sharing, there is always to two sides to a coin. Hope she stays safe.
Alpha Sierra
07-11-13, 18:10
Private business. They should be able to do whatever they feel necessary to secure their property and their employees.
And I am a fan of Pinkerton, BTW.
Suwannee Tim
07-11-13, 20:51
Private business. They should be able to do whatever they feel necessary to secure their property and their employees.
And I am a fan of Pinkerton, BTW.
Private business but public land. Mining companies have a history of hiring armed thugs to threaten and kill enemies real or imagined.
Alpha Sierra
07-11-13, 21:21
Private business but public land. Mining companies have a history of hiring armed thugs to threaten and kill enemies real or imagined.
So they waive their right to protect their physical property and employees because they are on public land?
I don't think so.
MountainRaven
07-11-13, 21:45
So they waive their right to protect their physical property and employees because they are on public land?
I don't think so.
Yeah, they just use unlicensed security contractors who dress in Crye (with no LBE) and carry SCAR 16S rifles (with no optics or lights).
Maybe they can get some cosplayers from Comic Con, might actually look somewhat professional.
My cousin is in the thick of this, and I cannot go into too much. She has had death threats, etc., from the eco-nuts, to the point of having to hire security, use rental cars, etc. If these assclowns are as scary as she says, then I do not blame the companies for hiring guns to keep them and their property safe.
Then I feel bad for her, if the company hired these bozos as 'protection'.
If you're gonna hire security, you need to hire legit security. If they ain't licensed, they ain't legit. :rolleyes:
Then I feel bad for her, if the company hired these bozos as 'protection'.
She's a geologist with the state and had something to do with the approval process for the mine. The mine, its security, and she have no other connection. I 'think' the state is paying for her security.
anyone watch JUSTIFIED !
great show
for some reason this thread reminds me of that show :)
When there are groups like E.L.F. cruising around committed to doing costly (and potentially life-threatening) damage to facilities and equipment owned by companies engaged in legal business activity, I can't fault someone for taking the necessary steps to safeguard their investment.
Now when companies start using these paramilitary security firms to crush strike actions by labor unions (and I realize labor unions are not particularly popular around M4C) or legal protests by civilian groups, we're back to the Pinkerton days and I'm not sure that is a particularly positive development.
However, when our government engages in military actions overseas which persist for over a decade and adopts a permanent war footing both at home and abroad in confronting a nebulous GWOT with no foreseeable conclusion in sight, it is not surprising to see an increased militarization of civilian law enforcement, private security firms, and the citizenry at large.
Reaping what we sow, for better or worse.
Agreed. Oh and yes, I dislike unions, but I agree with this entire post.
alienb1212
07-12-13, 17:43
Yeah, they just use unlicensed security contractors who dress in Crye (with no LBE) and carry SCAR 16S rifles (with no optics or lights).
Maybe they can get some cosplayers from Comic Con, might actually look somewhat professional.
Looks to me that's what they've got. Not hard to hire some gun-toting retard to be your security detail.
A few months ago I saw them out at cowtown doing some shooting with their MRAP and machine guns. I was like WTF? I have had one interaction with them locally and I was left dumbfounded.
I was just watching the local news here & there was a quick blurb about it. It seemed they were kind of defending the mine & the security firm & scrutinizing the protesters.
Sent via Tapatalk
So they waive their right to protect their physical property and employees because they are on public land?
I don't think so.
Are you old money or something? You like the Pinkertons? Enjoy your weekend, it wasn't given to you by the way, people fought for it.
If you're gonna hire security, you need to hire legit security. If they ain't licensed, they ain't legit. :rolleyes:
That's what I was thinking. I knew a bit about this mining project before I head about this posted here. It seems to be a pretty hot topic in a state that is going through some big political struggles.
Seems to me like it's all about showboating to be honest. They wanted to "look tough" so they looked up "tough" on the internet, and these jack asses popped up so they hired them.
A few months ago I saw them out at cowtown doing some shooting with their MRAP and machine guns. I was like WTF? I have had one interaction with them locally and I was left dumbfounded.
These people sound like they are going to kill someone...
IG, you probably know this better then most. It seems they (maybe the company or just a few individuals) have Class 3 licenses or else they wouldn't have a SAW. What are the laws like regarding Private Security carrying Class 3 equipment on US soil?
Seems like a world of legal shit if they actually were forced to use one of their firearms. Not only for them, but also for Class 3 owners all over the country.
Didn't Blackwater get fined out of existence for weapon's violations on US soil?
Moose-Knuckle
07-12-13, 20:57
A few months ago I saw them out at cowtown doing some shooting with their MRAP and machine guns. I was like WTF? I have had one interaction with them locally and I was left dumbfounded.
Kind of what I figured, mall ninjas . . . :ph34r:
A few months ago I saw them out at cowtown doing some shooting with their MRAP and machine guns. I was like WTF? I have had one interaction with them locally and I was left dumbfounded.
You get what you pay for...............
MountainRaven
07-12-13, 23:13
Looks to me that's what they've got. Not hard to hire some gun-toting retard to be your security detail.
Except the cosplayers would probably look more professional. Might even act more professional, too.
I just spent time on their website. They seem to think very highly of themselves...
That's what I was thinking. I knew a bit about this mining project before I head about this posted here. It seems to be a pretty hot topic in a state that is going through some big political struggles.
Seems to me like it's all about showboating to be honest. They wanted to "look tough" so they looked up "tough" on the internet, and these jack asses popped up so they hired them.
These people sound like they are going to kill someone...
IG, you probably know this better then most. It seems they (maybe the company or just a few individuals) have Class 3 licenses or else they wouldn't have a SAW. What are the laws like regarding Private Security carrying Class 3 equipment on US soil?
I'm sure there are exemptions, but I am not really sure as I have never worked such security in the U.S.
Seems like a world of legal shit if they actually were forced to use one of their firearms. Not only for them, but also for Class 3 owners all over the country.
No idea. I don't see this an issue any more than a gun owner using his firearm to commit a crime.
Didn't Blackwater get fined out of existence for weapon's violations on US soil?
The issues Blackwater had with firearms were many fold. One of which was the alleged ITAR violations and the possession of certain NFA weapons that were purchased through a local LE agency that had a relationship with certain people out there.
Suwannee Tim
07-16-13, 17:49
So they waive their right to protect their physical property and employees because they are on public land?
I don't think so.
Did I say that?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.