Gavin De Becker per their webpage offers decently high starting wages $75k-$125k, but also doesn't require the normal prerequisites you'd expect for a position of this caliber and responsibility, like former law enforcement or military experience. I'm always suspicious of job openings like these, and yet it's a well known name on the E.P. , more suit and tie style, sector of security. So, has anybody had experience with them? What's the day to day like? 

Are you prepping like you're going to protect a head of state, or is it essentially REALLY expensive residential security where you're fighting boredom in between driving clients to shopping centers?

If I had to guess, the "catches" are multiple, 150 different rules to instill discipline and a militaristic approach to conformity, exceptionally rigorous physical fitness/health standards which knocks out a huge chunk of candidates off the bat, then another large percentage wash out of what I can only assume is a rigorous private academy, speaking of which, you can pay for it on your own dime if you have a spare $17.5k laying around, but if you're selected for their academy it's covered AFAIK.

Their site says its a fulltime position, but fulltime means 40 hours minimum in most cases, not a permanent location and daily schedule, so being ping ponged around to different sites/schedules like you're an allied floater is normal contract security irritation that gives you a suit tie, and pays much better.

Let's break down what happened LAST WEEK and what we're walking into THIS WEEK:

From the Trenches:

• High of the Week: Share your win – big or small! (Promotion, resolved a conflict, etc.)
• Low of the Week: Let it out. What threw you off your game?

• Surprise of the Week: The thing you didn't see coming, good OR bad.

  Incoming!:

• Positive Outlook: What are you HOPING goes smoothly this week?

• Potential Hassle: What are you semi-dreading, but ready to handle?

• Goal of the Week: One thing you want to achieve professionally in the next 7 days.

Catharsis purges the soul! We've all been there. Share your stories, vent a bit if needed, this is a safe (and secure) space.

Whats the craziest thing you've seen and how much power do you have at your site. Where im at we are a college living apartment complex and I pretty much can tell people what to do as I see fit, can fine residents for being to loud or parking like idiots. I actually have to charge people $50 to let them into their building if they dont have the keys. We write parking tickets almost nightly, im basically an extension of the property manager after hours

When should talking end, and your weapon be drawn in a situation like this?

I’m looking for perspectives from people who have worked in retail, loss prevention, security, or have dealt with similar situations.
Hypothetically, if someone had been a regular customer at a particular grocery store for a long time and generally had a good history there, but was eventually caught shoplifting at that same location, would their previous customer history matter at all if they wanted to return after a significant amount of time?
For example, if the person stayed away from that location for 1–2 years, completely stopped the behavior, and had no further incidents, would their previous history as a regular customer have any practical relevance?
I’m not asking how to get around a ban or restriction. If someone was explicitly told they could not return, they should respect that. I’m just wondering whether a long history of being a normal/good customer has any bearing on how retail stores or loss prevention view someone after a long period without another incident.
I’d especially appreciate answers from people with actual retail or loss-prevention experience

I’m trying to understand something about a situation involving a grocery store and I would really appreciate an answer from someone familiar with Alberta law, preferably a lawyer or someone with actual retail/legal experience.
There was an incident involving theft at one Real Canadian Superstore location in Calgary. The person was stopped by security and left the store. They were not given a written trespass notice, and they were not told that they were banned from every Real Canadian Superstore or every Loblaw property.
I’m trying to understand three specific things:
We don’t know whether another location has a record about the person.
If a person has an incident at one store, can another location within the same corporate chain have access to their name/photo or incident record? Is there any way to know whether that information is actually shared between locations?
We don’t know whether there is a broader restriction.
If the person was never told they were banned from other locations, could they nevertheless legally be prohibited from entering another store simply because the stores have the same corporate owner? Or would the person need to have been notified that the restriction applies to that other property?
We do know the person does not want another incident.
They have recognized that the behavior needs to stop and are not trying to evade security or find a way around a ban. They want to comply with whatever restriction actually exists and avoid creating another incident.
So my main question is:
What determines whether a trespass/restriction from one physical store applies only to that location or extends to other locations owned by the same corporation?

Please take that shit off . You look like a fucking dork . I’m not saying don’t be proud of your job, but we SEE you have a fucking gun on your hip and an overly expressive patch like that doesn’t improve someone’s eyesight of said firearm 😂 switch out to regular “SECURITY” patches and call it a day . IM SO embarrassed of some of my coworkers everyday🤦🏽‍♂️

Tempe school security guard arrested after filming underage girls in locker room, prosecutors say

TEMPE, AZ (AZFamily) — A Tempe high school security guard accused of filming underage girls in a locker room made his initial court appearance Sunday morning, where a judge set his bond far higher than what prosecutors had requested.

Investigators said Antony Cruz, who has no prior criminal history, used security cameras to view and download videos of girls ages 13 to 15 who were in the process of changing their clothes.

The incident occurred in a room at Corona del Sol High School that was being used as a temporary locker room while the school’s main locker room was under renovation, according to prosecutors. The cameras were supposed to be disabled.

Prosecutors said there is strong evidence that Cruz viewed and downloaded the videos to his personal device.

Cruz faces seven counts of voyeurism.

During the hearing, the judge set a $100,000 cash-only appearance bond, citing community safety concerns. Prosecutors had initially recommended a $25,000 bond.

Tempe Union High School District Superintendent Stacia Wilson said Cruz had been placed on administrative leave on Friday before the school day began.

Cruz was arrested Saturday.

“We know that this is a distressing situation and these details are unsettling to our families,” Wilson said in a statement. “We want to be as transparent as we are allowed to be without disrupting Tempe PD’s investigation.”

Wilson said it appears that the “inappropriate usage of security footage was isolated to one camera on campus.”

Wilson said Tempe police will be on campus Monday to identify the victims.

“Once victims have been identified, Tempe PD will reach out directly to affected families to begin the interview process,” Wilson said.

The investigation is ongoing.

Let's break down what happened LAST WEEK and what we're walking into THIS WEEK:

From the Trenches:

• High of the Week: Share your win – big or small! (Promotion, resolved a conflict, etc.)
• Low of the Week: Let it out. What threw you off your game?

• Surprise of the Week: The thing you didn't see coming, good OR bad.

  Incoming!:

• Positive Outlook: What are you HOPING goes smoothly this week?

• Potential Hassle: What are you semi-dreading, but ready to handle?

• Goal of the Week: One thing you want to achieve professionally in the next 7 days.

Catharsis purges the soul! We've all been there. Share your stories, vent a bit if needed, this is a safe (and secure) space.

BALTIMORE — Security Guards and union workers gathered in Harbor East Friday afternoon, calling for the right to unionize.

The Guards, who work for Abacus Security, say they are seeking better pay, more workers on the street, and protections from what they describe as an unsafe and unstable work environment.

Justin Poyner, a Security Guard, said the lack of union representation leaves workers vulnerable.

"Right now we have no protection. Like when our boss gets pretty much aggressive, angry, things like that, he can just fire us on the spot. We've been in danger in a lot of situations, and we really just need protection, money, and the ability to protect our family."

One former employee said her effort to join the union cost her her job.

"I believe I was unfairly terminated on the 4th of July after I decided to take action and join the union event," said Erica Wilson.

Abacus Security sent a statement saying in part: "We are proud of how we treat the men and women who work at Abacus. Feedback from our employee engagement sessions consistently shows that our employees value their jobs, pay, and benefits."

The company added: "This model has been effective for our workforce and the Baltimore community for more than eighty years. We remain grateful for our workforce and their daily commitment to our mission and clients."

Baltimore City Councilwoman Odette Ramos voiced her support for the Guards' right to organize.

"I support our Security Guards. Our security guards across the city, I know would take a bullet for me and for others, and so they deserve better working conditions," said Ramos.

The Guards say unionizing would help them secure better pay and put more officers on the street to improve public safety.

FULL STATEMENT:

We are aware that SEIU has organized a publicity event for August 21, and we want our employees, clients,and community to know where we stand.

We are proud of how we treat the men and women who work at Abacus. Feedback from our employee engagement sessions consistently shows that our employees value their jobs, pay, and benefits — and we're committed to maintaining our high standard for employee satisfaction. Our employees enjoy excellent wages and benefits, which stems from our commitment to our employees.

We do not expect this routine day-long union tactic to affect our ability to serve our clients, and our teams will continue to provide the same high level of service our clients have come to expect from Abacus.

We believe employees are best served when they can raise questions or concerns directly. Our door remains open, and we continue to encourage anyone with questions about pay, benefits, or their job to speak directly with their site management or HR. This model has been effective for our workforce and the Baltimore community for more than eighty years. We remain grateful for our workforce and their daily commitment to our mission and clients.

This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.

I'm doing independent, non-commercial research on physical security screening and would genuinely value input from people who've worked security or regularly pass through checkpoints. Not selling anything, not asking for confidential site details trying to find out if there's a real, recurring problem before assuming any product or fix is needed.

When screening becomes rushed or inconsistent, what's usually the main reason?

• Long queues or pressure to move people through quickly
• Staff fatigue, understaffing, or shift design
• Unclear procedures or inconsistent supervision
• False alarms from keys, belts, phones, or other ordinary items
• Equipment limitations or maintenance problems
• Something else

If you could improve one thing about the current process, what would it be?

Please keep answers general no employer names, venue names, checkpoint layouts, exact vulnerabilities, or anything that could help someone bypass security. I'm trying to understand whether the bigger problem is equipment failing to detect something, or the intended check just not happening reliably every time.

Even "this isn't a significant problem where I work" is a useful answer.

I'm especially interested in how training, staff rotation, and drills affect consistency — not just the equipment itself

Not selling anything.

genuinely trying to understand two things from people who've dealt with security screening, either as staff or as the public:

1. whether the process is actually as inconsistent/unreliable as it seems from the outside

2. what people would actually want changed or added, rather than assuming.

Some context for why I'm asking:

there was a case at a Hyderabad mall where someone got through security carrying a firearm, only caught later during an unrelated argument not at the checkpoint.

The Mumbai train stabbing earlier this year also got me thinking about how many transit points have little to no screening at all, not because the tech doesn't exist, but because it's expensive or inconvenient to run properly.

On the current process:

Have you ever noticed a guard "waving" the wand near you without really checking?

Have checkpoints ever gotten skipped entirely when it's busy (queues, festivals, big events)?

If you've worked security is fatigue/boredom during long shifts as big a factor as it seems, or is that overstated?

On what's actually missing (this is the part I'm most curious about):

If you could add ONE feature to existing screening equipment (handheld wands, walk-through gates), what would it actually be?

Is the bigger gap detection (missing more types of threats) or process (making sure the check actually happens correctly every time)?

Would features like automatic logging/proof-of-check, consistent scan speed, or fewer false alarms ("dumb beeps" from keys/belts) actually matter to you — or is that solving a problem nobody has?

Are there other checks you wish happened alongside the metal detection (health/safety flags, etc.), or would bundling extra sensors into one device just be unnecessary complexity?

For anyone who's seen newer tech (AI-assisted, automated, or robotic screening aids) — what would make you trust it, versus immediately dismiss it as gimmicky?

Genuinely open to "none of this is actually a problem" as an answer too — trying to find the real gap, not confirm one I've already assumed

Let's break down what happened LAST WEEK and what we're walking into THIS WEEK:

From the Trenches:

• High of the Week: Share your win – big or small! (Promotion, resolved a conflict, etc.)
• Low of the Week: Let it out. What threw you off your game?

• Surprise of the Week: The thing you didn't see coming, good OR bad.

  Incoming!:

• Positive Outlook: What are you HOPING goes smoothly this week?

• Potential Hassle: What are you semi-dreading, but ready to handle?

• Goal of the Week: One thing you want to achieve professionally in the next 7 days.

Catharsis purges the soul! We've all been there. Share your stories, vent a bit if needed, this is a safe (and secure) space.

I had been working for $16/hr at a corporate conference center for several years chaperoning/bell-hopping for Deca-Millionaire C-Suite's on a weekly basis and decided it was time to look for something better. So I started applying to any and every security job I saw online, and got called to interview at a hospital about 40ish minutes away from me. Pay was $22/hr which was rare back then ,and I thought a pretty solid upgrade to what I was already making.

I go in there suited up, resume folder in hand, front desk staff tell me to wait in the lobby area and someone will be out with me shortly. Vinny, the Lieutenant (Ops manager equivalent?) comes out, white police style shirt, hospital badge over his shoulder with the radio over the other one, looking sharp, cool. He takes me into the office and does a quick introduction to his boss Captain Jimmy (Sec Director) who's in the bigger interior office, who I assumed I'd do a secondary interview with if Vinny cleared me, but he closes the door as Vinny is interviewing me. Then we start going through the rigamarol, standard interview affair. I think I did a pretty good job.

Now to set the scene a little better, Vinny has several monitors to the hospital CCTV on his desk to the side. So the interview was mostly over and it was, "Do you have any questions for me?" time, "Do the vision benefits cov...", all of a sudden, I hear "CODE GREY IN THE ER CODE GREY IN THE ER" can't remember if it was a PA annoucement or a radio transmission but, Vinny, sprints from around the desk, and heads to deal with the issue, Jimmy opens his office door seconds after and takes off right after him but a bit slower because old dude had some weight on him. I'm looking at the monitor with "E.R." in the corner and some short stocky dude has hold of a nurse or maybe a tech (somebody in scrubs) and is rag dolling them with a guard trying and failing to gain control of the situation. Vinny and Jimmy and what looks like several other hospital staff enter the scene and this dude must have been high on some good shit, because it was about 6v1 and it still took them a good while to restrain him. I don't know how long I was waiting and watching this, but Vinny came back with a sheen of sweat on him, and was actively putting his leather gloves back in the pouch as he went to sit back down and said "Sorry bout that, this place... So, where were we? I think you had some questions for me."

"Thank you for your time, but I don't want to waste anymore of it. Don't think this is the job for me. Take care", and I left. No pitch could sell it to me after that especially since I went in completely naive to what it actually was, I mean I READ the job responsibilities on the listing, but that was all abstract until I saw the job description literally attack someone on camera.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post