Policing Dilemma
 

I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this in, but I feel that this is directly related to policing, and the fact that police officers frequent this forum can certainly benefit me by providing me with your valuable feedback.

Here goes, I currently work as a in-house Security Officer for a company in Metro Vancouver. Recently, I've heard that my boss and/or LPOs at my organization has a habit of "roughing up" individuals who do not comply, whatever they mean by roughing up, I don't want to make any accusations. This makes me feel a little uneasy because I plan to join the RCMP or VPD in the near future, will this affiliation have any affect on my application, particularly in the areas of ethics and integrity?

Today, my manager told me that he wants to promote me to LPO, so I am not sure if I should take this position and risk being exposed to this environment cause I really don't want to be involved.

on the other hand, I've been looking for other LPO positions at other organizations, which route should I take?

IF what you say is true, then an assault charge is forthcoming. With all the security companies looking for reliable employees you should have no trouble finding a job with an employer who does not encourage his employees to assault people. An assault conviction should prevent you from ever getting a "real" law enforcement job, specially when you are abusing your authority to do it If you are aware of any assaults that have taken place then they should be reported to the Police. Sounds like an employer who should, at the very least, loose his business security license.

Let's say, if I take the LPO position, though I don't get involved with the "rough stuff", will this still affect my application?

Try being an LPO at the Broadway and Commercial Dr. Safeway.
Or the old safeway on Robson and Denman.

It isn't roughing up. He fell face first into that brick wall. :eek:

But seriously, nothing wrong with taking the LPO position. Just make sure you do things by the book, and no funny business.
But if you are that concerned, maybe try going to a different company.

I am sure that you will get your hands dirty when you put yourself in the position where you will need to use force to detain/arrest someone. Even if you do everything by the book (it also depends on what training the security firm gives you), there can still be allegations against you.

Not to mention, if you know of the "roughing up" incidents after getting the promotion and you don't report it, what do you think would happen during your interview with any law enforcement agency?

Why would you want to even associate yourself with an employer who does that kind of thing? Work for a "clean" company and there is no threat to your integrity or your future.

The issue here is.. I don't even know if they rough people up are not. These are all based on what I've HEARD from other employees (who are not part of my department, by the way).

Gee...if I touch the hot stove will I get burned? Why is is that humans are the only creatures who deliberately ignore danger signals? If it was of so little concern and the reports so lacked credibility, did you bring it up in this forum? You obviously believe there is a potential or actual problem there...so why do you now insist on rationalizing your decision to ignore them?

aka why life experience is needed.

Okay, I've made up my mind.

Thanks!

Well as an LPO you will need to get a security worker licence by September. This includes BST Training (Basic Security Training) and AST Training (Advanced Security w/use of force & Handcuffs).

As for guys roughing people up they will most likely get charged with assault and can even be sued. If you know its going on, report and move to another company. I have worked as an LPO for 4 years and I have yet purposely injure somebody or use excessive use of force even though I have been assaulted, mased and had knives pulled on me.

That's not really being fair to willystyle. If the signs were so clear, I doubt it would be a problem... by the same token, you don't just up and quit a job on the basis of hearsay. What happens when it comes to the next job interview?

"Why did you leave your previous company?"
"Well, I heard other employees were roughing people up, and I didn't want to be associated with that."
"Oh..."

Then one of two things happen... you blow the interview because the interviewer didn't like that you didn't report it... or the word gets out that you made the accusation against your previous employer, it's found out to be false, and then your ass is in a sling for even making the accusation.

I don't imagine it looks very good to the recruiters, either, if you're hopping around different security jobs before signing up for the cops - I'd be willing to bet someone who's been stable with the same security job long-term looks a lot more attractive.

Sure there are other ways around it, but it's still a tricky situation for him, which is why he came looking for advice. I say, props to him for being concerned enough about it to ask, rather than just turning a blind eye or following the wrong path. There's a lot of really dumb questions asked in here every day, but this ain't one of them.

"IF what you say is true, then an assault charge is forthcoming. With all the security companies looking for reliable employees you should have no trouble finding a job with an employer who does not encourage his employees to assault people"

This is the crux of my statement. Why go looking for trouble when employment with no risk of destroying his future career is available.

I think that's what happened when I applied for another LPO position with another company. They weren't too pleased when I responded with that answer, eventually I never heard from them.

Why? Because there's still that IF. Jumping ship on the basis of hearsay is risky as well. And there's always this: "I don't imagine it looks very good to the recruiters, either, if you're hopping around different security jobs before signing up for the cops - I'd be willing to bet someone who's been stable with the same security job long-term looks a lot more attractive."

Officially, I don't expect that's a recruiting criteria... in the minds of most interviewers or recruiters, though, you can't tell me it doesn't play a role.

Unless they have changed the recruiting process & standards recently, I would count it as a PLUS if someone quit a job because of suspected illegal activity. I can imagine a question being asked... " If you heard that your boss and/or LPOs at your organization has a habit of "roughing up" individuals who do not comply, whatever they mean by roughing up, what would you do ? (a) say, I don't want to make any accusations and continue working there...(b) resign and report any observations to the Police." (c) resign only if it would affect my employment application with this Police Force. To me, it sounds like a textbook ethics question to ask somebody.

And here, you see exactly his dilemma...

His dilemma......are we REALLY saying here that any recruiter would hold it against him if he left that kind of situation? Ethics classes are part of training at Regina and I''m sure this is type of things is discussed in all Police training. This is not a "do you charge one of your old high school buddies or do you let him off" situation. If I was in the situation he was in, the door wouldn't slap me in the back on my way out with my resignation dumped on a desk. To think that he would be penalized because he quit potentially illegal and immoral employment HAD to be a plus to a new employer, not a negative. To say that job stability is preferred over criminal behaviour, is not logical.

To bring the perspective back around: zulu, some of your (former) colleagues are accused of wrongdoings... does this inspire you to quit your job and seek employment with a "rival" company? Remember, you have no proof, just hearsay...

In other words, would you have quit the RCMP over any of the major scandals that have gone down the last few years (numerous "taser controversies", for example), even if no wrongdoings have yet been proven in court?

I have retired from my former job because I got tired of the politics involved. There were things with which I disagreed and that formed a huge part of my decision.
I'm not going to discuss any past or current things to which you are alluding. Suffice it to say, in a general statement, that those who know real circumstances, & have been in similar situations, would likely have followed their training and did what was correct. I have seen people persecuted for political and financial reasons. If the public was aware of the truth behind many public situations pursued by the media and people who stood to benefit from slanted and biased release and coverage of the facts, most would reverse their opinions. Everybody but the Police can comment & give their side. We cannot because it may prejudice any legal process, may be held against us in civil or criminal proceedings...and then, even when found not guilty by all those, are subject to penalty by Police service courts...and believe me it does happen . We are forced to give statements that can and have been used against us. That is my last comment on that.

Back to the original question...from another direction... why would anyone take a chance to possibly become involved in circumstances that could come back to haunt them later? Why would anyone willingly go there when they had the opportunity to NOT go there. Why volunteer for trouble when you don't have to?

I'm not saying anything about the veracity of any claims against the police... I'm asking, if you had pure hearsay to go on - someone else you work with, telling you that other cops were "bad".... would that be enough for you to quit, rather than let their alleged misdeeds tarnish your image as a cop?

The question is a hypothetical one, no need to get so worked up. Obviously, the answer is no... but that's exactly what you're telling willystyle he should do.

I'm betting 90% of the cops that show up would pat the guy on the back and say "I wish I could do that without getting in trouble" no decent street cop is going to charge someone for roughing up a criminal, unless there is too many Pansy witnesses around complaining.

His question was "so I am not sure if I should take this position and risk being exposed to this environment cause I really don't want to be involved.
on the other hand, I've been looking for other LPO positions at other organizations, which route should I take? "
My response was that if he did not want to "risk being exposed to this environment cause I really don't want to be involved"...he should remove himself from that environment...specially if he had future plans for real law enforcement employment. So there, I hikacked the thread back to his original core question. :)

2 wrongs don't make a right. Unless its in self defense case, you can't go and assault a criminal. I would hope that you would be deal with accordingly if you were to break the law. Just because you have been wronged does not make it right for you to dish out punishments.

Basically, I called VPD Non-emergency today regarding my situation with my FORMER employer; unfortunately, they will not open a police report regarding this matter cause they said I don't have any concrete evidence.

Oh well, I've done my part.

I am hoping that this wont bite me in the butt when I apply for Law Enforcement and they are doing reference checks of my former employer.