GRMACK wrote:
Oddly, one was returned without video (the most incriminating one).  It's made the international news too.

A great reason for cloud storage, with camera pictures and video are immediately uploaded elsewhere for storage.

rp_photo wrote:

Absolutely no comparison. The mall was not harmed or compromised in any way except for the terrible PR brought on by their employee.

Rights are rights. Is it only a bad thing if someone is harmed? As long it was all just for fun its ok?

rp_photo wrote:
I'm beginning to think that the whole thing was staged, possibly someone's attempt at a short film or a school project. The guard in particular comes across as someone who is into the villian role, and the uniform somehow seems cobbled together and sized for someone larger:



The fight scene also come across as being rehearsed.

Also, it could very well be along a public roadside, as I don't see any evidence of Mall nearby.

And of course running a semi truck into the canyon is within the budget of a school project.

Smedley Whiplash wrote:
[...]

Your lack of respect isn't because of them, it's solely because you appear to purposely lack respect for them.

here is a thought for you: Respect is earned.

This mall cop was not acting within her authority, she had no legal basis for threatening to confiscate cameras, in some states that alone could be grounds for charges against her. She had no legal authority to assault the woman (she obviously struck the first blow). You can tell me how much training these folks get, and I can tell you she did not appear to benefit from any of her training. Certainly you are not trying to tell us she handled that situation as she was taught to?

There would have been no viral video if the mall cop had acted within her training and her authority. She had every right to ask them to stop photography, to leave the private property. Had she done so, then seen that her actions were not working---she could have called for back up from the local LEO, they would have no doubt completely defused the situation---without violence--- and within the law.

I go out of my way to respect the working man---folks just doing the daily grind.

I have NO respect for ignorance.

rp_photo wrote:

A great reason for cloud storage, with camera pictures and video are immediately uploaded elsewhere for storage.

My thoughts exactly.
Think BC, where a bystander videoed the RCMP taser somebody to death.
Video proved that the cops fabricated info. to CYA.
Big stink. International apologies, etc.
Leaked internal RCMP comment was that they wished they had known the video existed before it hit the press. They could have locked it as evidence. Others add an interpretation that at that point it could have disappeared.
I am sure it would have been "accidentally" deleted, or at least the the most incriminating parts.

If I ever own a cell that does video, it will have to be able to one click upload. Then they can subpena the evidence. At that point its existence is public.

Direct to YouTube? Only 'national security' can likely get it removed.

We have the means to defend ourselves, if we choose to use them.

rfordphotos wrote:
You can tell me how much training these folks get

Around southern CA private security cops get about 8-buxs snour.

They have to pass some kind of test for some kind of certificate.

AJScalzitti wrote:

They could ask to leave the pirate property but not stop taking pictures correct?

Property owners have the right to control who is on their property and what they do there. So the guard could ask them both to leave and to stop taking pictures.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Around southern CA private security cops get about 8-buxs snour.

They have to pass some kind of test for some kind of certificate.

Click-- In California, the requirements for security guards are:


http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/guard_fact.shtml

REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION

A security guard must have in his/her possession a valid security guard registration or a screen-print of the Bureau's approval from the Bureau's web site at www.bsis.ca.gov, along with a valid photo identification, before working as a security guard.

Security guards are employed by licensed private patrol operators to protect persons or property and prevent theft. To be eligible to apply for a security guard registration, you must:

--Be at least 18 years old
--Undergo a criminal history background check through the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and
--Complete a 40-hour course of required training. The training and exam may be administered by any private patrol operator or by a certified training facility.

--40 Hour Security Guard Training Requirement
Date of Completion     Training Hours Needed

Prior to Being Assigned on Post     8 Hours
Training Required within the First 30 Days     16 Hours
Training Required within the First Six Months     16 Hours
TOTAL HOURS     40 HOURS


In Ohio, where our Mall cop was working, the requirement is even less stringent:


Security Guard Training in Ohio
http://www.securityguardtraininghq.com/ … ning-ohio/

In the state of Ohio, unarmed security guards are required to registered but not licensed if guard is an employee of a licensed security company. It is the responsibility of the licensed company to ensure that all employees are registered within seven business days of hire. Registration renewal required annually. The basic requirements that may be required from the hiring company is as follows:
Basic requirements for an unarmed security guard in Ohio:

    Must be at least 18 years old
    United States citizen or resident alien
    May require proof of high school diploma or equivalent
    No felony convictions or misdemeanors associated with violence (which includes domestic), drugs ( use or sale), theft or frau
    Good moral character
    Successfully pass a background check
    No mental disorders or defects that will prohibit performance of duties
    Employed by a private security company and under supervision from a licensed patrol officer
    Fingerprint card

Other Requirements that May Be Helpful:

    Driver’s License
    Good Communication skills
    Good physical conditioning
    Be able to stand long periods of time
no requirement for any training


In contrast, in Ohio, a cosmetology license has the following requirements:

Ohio Board of Cosmetology License Requirements

    COSMETOLOGIST LICENSE: 1500 Hours
    HAIRSTYLIST LICENSE: 1200 Hours
    ESTHETICIAN LICENSE: 600 Hours (+ 16-hour training to do microdermabrasion)
    NAIL TECHNICIAN LICENSE: 200 Hours (+ 8-hour training to use electric file)
    BARBER LICENSE: 1800 Hours
    COSMETOLOGY INSTRUCTOR LICENSE: Cosmetology License + 1000 Hours
    MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE: 750 Hours

rfordphotos wrote:
Click-- In California, the requirements for security guards are:
[snip]...[/snip]

That sounds right to me.

I have a friend who is retired SAS. He trains these people in Los Angeles for the metro system and for patrolling and responding to break in alarms in wealthy neighborhoods.

It's menial entry level work. The constant turnover of uneducated, unskilled people he has to work with makes me cringe. The thought of arming them with weapons even more so. My friends responsibility for trying to keep these people safe and out of trouble makes me cringe too. It's their job to step into harms way, prepared or not. Maybe their first call of duty is to give the appearance of authority as a deterrent. Maybe the next call of duty is to be canon fodder.

Frankly, it looks like the woman in the video fits right in. Sadly, she was put on the spot by circumstance and tried to fulfill her responsibility to the best of her ability without a supervisor around.

Maybe her supervisor told her to count to 10 so she doesn't make rash and impulsive decisions on her own (?)

On the other hand, counting to 10 might also give the bad guy time to shoot first (?)

It amazes me what kind of people will put their life on the line, for people they don't know, for minimum wage. IMHO, there's a huge disconnect going on there.

In nasty areas, just wearing a uniform that looks like a cop makes them a glaring target.

I was talking to a private security cop standing outside the front of a Bank of America near my house, guarding patrons using the ATM machine facing a main boulevard.

He is an immigrant from Laos. He stands there from the time the bank opens, until they close at 6pm. He wears a gun belt with a gun. Loaded or not, I don't know. What protections or restrictions they have over a private citizen not working for a private security company, I don't know.

Fat Kitty Studios wrote:

Property owners have the right to control who is on their property and what they do there. So the guard could ask them both to leave and to stop taking pictures.

The guard can also act as police while they're on the property they're hired to guard.  I was arrested by one and held for the police.

GCobb Photography wrote:

The guard can also act as police while they're on the property they're hired to guard.  I was arrested by one and held for the police.

What'd you do? Curious minds want to know.

Click Hamilton wrote:
It's menial entry level work. The constant turnover of uneducated, unskilled people he has to work with makes me cringe. The thought of arming them with weapons even more so. My friends responsibility for trying to keep these people safe and out of trouble makes me cringe too. It's their job to step into harms way, prepared or not. Maybe their first call of duty is to give the appearance of authority as a deterrent. Maybe the next call of duty is to be canon fodder.

My wife is an account manager for a national security company (why they rent my studio for training), and a fair amount of that company are guys who just did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are still technically mall cops, but the reason they are hiring them is because of incidents like Boston, Aurora, Sandy Hook. (eyes, ears, experience, no fear, hoorah)  Not armed, except with pepper spray and experience. (and maybe a wak stick, LOL)

Also, it's not just the requirement to get the job to consider. A lot of companies do continuing education and training as a requisite for continued hire. CPR, disabling and cuffing a douche, drills for mass casualties (bombers, shooters, etc), training for disasters (both dealing with casualties and including using a mall for temporary shelter, and all the physical needs that go with that)

P O T T S wrote:
Nope, but they can legally not allow them to be published.

No they can't if it is considered newsworthy.

I also question whether the perimeter road surrounding the mall is actually mall property and no the security guard does not have the right to tell you to delete your photos.

They can request you leave mall property and they can request you stop taking pictures but they can't confiscate your camera or make up delete your images.

Matthew Gwinn wrote:
Some cities have laws that prohibit people from filming law enforcement.
Some cities just think they have such laws.
Usually the cops just assume such laws exist and say to hell with your rights.

i came upon an arrest scene in downtown NYC 30 years ago. camera up. a cop came right up to me and threatened to beat the shit out of me.

i sort of think of cops the way i think of wildlife now. don't fuck with wild animals.

GCobb Photography wrote:
The guard can also act as police while they're on the property they're hired to guard.  I was arrested by one and held for the police.

The guard acted as a citizen would have the power to. It can be a double edge sword because holding someone without any probable cause becomes false imprisonment. At least in FL a citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. The practice dates back to medieval Britain and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers. Like I said, the guard has to be sure or they can land in prison themselves. This guard or officer lost her bearing and made a total fool of herself. Now she went viral and is all over the world. Probably the Pope and Putin are having a ball watching her.

Smedley Whiplash wrote:
My wife is an account manager for a national security company (why they rent my studio for training), and a fair amount of that company are guys who just did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are still technically mall cops, but the reason they are hiring them is because of incidents like Boston, Aurora, Sandy Hook. (eyes, ears, experience, no fear, hoorah)  Not armed, except with pepper spray and experience. (and maybe a wak stick, LOL)

Also, it's not just the requirement to get the job to consider. A lot of companies do continuing education and training as a requisite for continued hire. CPR, disabling and cuffing a douche, drills for mass casualties (bombers, shooters, etc), training for disasters (both dealing with casualties and including using a mall for temporary shelter, and all the physical needs that go with that)

I dont think anyone would confuse the type of security personnel you are describing with the mall cop we saw on that video.

I believe she represents the other extreme of the spectrum from a recently military-trained combat vet. One of the reasons folks are discussing the thought that this is a set up is because the "mall cop" was absolutely 1000% a picture of the stereotypical, overweight, donut munching loser who thinks her uniform makes her into a supercop.

Be honest- did she look well trained to you? Did she look like she knew how to handle the situation?

I wonder how long it took the mall owners to come to the realization that they got what they paid for...

Click Hamilton wrote:
It's menial entry level work. The constant turnover of uneducated, unskilled people he has to work with makes me cringe. The thought of arming them with weapons even more so. My friends responsibility for trying to keep these people safe and out of trouble makes me cringe too. It's their job to step into harms way, prepared or not. Maybe their first call of duty is to give the appearance of authority as a deterrent. Maybe the next call of duty is to be canon fodder.

My sympathy only goes so far because they also have the ability to excercise discretion and look the other way provided that the incident isn't a threat to life or property with this situation being niether. Odds are that she would not have been penalized in any way for not taking action, and no one else would have been concerned.

Caradoc wrote:
"Officer Bernadette Fife" has been fired.

If they can, without being sued by a publicity-seeking lawyer on her behalf for wrongful termination, then this would probably be the best course of action.

The sooner this story is buried, the better. Give her a nice severance bonus to get rid of her on amicable terms. Maybe help her in some way to find another job.

What they need to do is avoid lawyers and stop the PR hemorrhage.

What they need to do is ameliorate the actions of these people:

"Belmont County prosecutor is reviewing the case and will decide if any charges will be filed against her or the others involved."

Try to remove targets, avoid shakedowns by prospecting lawyers, and put the controversy to sleep.

Click Hamilton wrote:
What they need to do is avoid lawyers and stop the PR hemorrhage.

Right. I don't see that happening. Look at the fireshitstorm of the whole "Crazy Amy's Food-Reselling Company" mess from "Kitchen Nightmares."

Any non-insane and semi-intelligent person would conclude after hearing Gordon Ramsay's advice that they should probably ease up on the bullshit. Now Samy's looking at deportation.

I don't see the mall doing any better. They'll just hire another one exactly like the last one, and it'll happen again.

Caradoc wrote:
Right. I don't see that happening.

Nevertheless, it's the job and responsibility of the CEO or the entrepreneur who built the company to survive these kinds of challenges.

There are no safety nets.

Sink or swim.

Reap the rewards or suffer the consequences. In real life, those are the rules.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Nevertheless, it's the job and responsibility of the CEO or the entrepreneur who built the company to survive these kinds of challenges.

Agreed. It's just so rare that they actually do it.

Caradoc wrote:
Now Samy's looking at deportation.

Where did that come from?  Never mind, I found it on azcentral



He wasn't kidding! Geez, they should do an Amy and Samy Show. What will she ever do without him? ROTFLMAO

HELL!!!! Amy herself was convicted and sentenced to felony time in a federal lock up.
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/ … portation/

Studio36

Caradoc wrote:
Agreed. It's just so rare that they actually do it.

Then they sink.

Click Hamilton wrote:
There are no safety nets.

Jesus. It's like you haven't had access to the news in the last decade.

No safety nets? Seriously?

Cuica Cafezinho wrote:
Jesus. It's like you haven't had access to the news in the last decade.

No safety nets? Seriously?

If you want to understand, please read my posts with a clear head in the morning. I think the context of my comments might make more sense to you then.

rp_photo wrote:
IMHO, the root cause of the problem was a needless "paranoid" rule, and the mall ought to consider changing the policy to avoid future bad publicity and alienated customers.

One thing good sbout this case is that everday people got a taste of what we photographers have been dealing with for years, which hopefully will raise public awareness.

Or it could be she was instructed by the mall management to clear them from the perimeter road, owned by the mall, so that there would not be another accident when a driver looking over at the wreck hit one the people standing/walking in mall's road.

Maybe the paranoia was a saftey issue? In any case it does not matter, the real estate is private property. The person that owns it gets to make the rules.

P O T T S wrote:
Or it could be she was instructed by the mall management to clear them from the perimeter road, owned by the mall, so that there would not be another accident when a driver looking over at the wreck hit one the people standing/walking in mall's road.

Maybe the paranoia was a saftey issue? In any case it does not matter, the real estate is private property. The person that owns it gets to make the rules.

Perhaps the guard would have achieved better results if she had made traffic safety or loitering the issue vs. taking pictures. Most reasonable people will respect concerns about safety or loitering, but might find photography prohibition to be pointless and irritating.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Try taking a photo on a Las Vegas casino floor by the slot machines.  People come out of the walls and rappel from the ceilings to ask you to erase those images.

Wrong...they do not.  Dealers tell you to put your phone away when at the tables.  That's it.

j3_photo wrote:
Why on earth do some malls put their security in those hats...some people feel like drill sergeants.  Idiots.

Malls are owned by people (usually investment corporations), and those corporations make policy for the property they own, and those policies are expected to be carried out verbatim by either mall employees, or by 3rd party contracted companies. These security contracts are worth millions of $$ per year. A company found to be not following policy word for word as issued is subject to termination (as are mall employees). They can terminate over a single instance without prior notice.

That "mall cop" you see is the face of a corporate giant, and in many cases, a multi-mall conglomerate with a dedicated legal team writing these policies up to protect their shareholders and investors. Mall cops are doing exactly as instructed from elsewhere. Malls here in Montana are usually owned by corporations located in California, and their policies seem to reflect that, even though they are at odds with people living in somewhat rural states.

rfordphotos wrote:

That may be true, however she had NO right to assault the woman, or demand the images be erased, or to threaten confiscating the cameras.

I hope the rent-a-cop got charged with assault, I hope she lost her minimum wage job, I hope her employer has to pay to settle a dozen lawsuits...

Put a uniform on a moron---get moronic behavior.

Depending on where she is, trespass is an indictable offence. If mall security, or any security tells you to leave the property and you don't immediately move via the safest route off the property, you are committing an indictable offence. In many places, anyone who witnesses a person committing an indictable offence can arrest them (and secure them as necessary for safety) and immediately deliver them to the police. They can't confiscate cameras or force people to remove pictures. That is where security officers get their power to arrest someone. Shoplifting, assault, etc these are all indictable offences. In most places they need to actually witness the crime in order to arrest them.

rp_photo wrote:
Also, it could very well be along a public roadside, as I don't see any evidence of Mall nearby.