Woman Raped at Stagecoach by SECURITY

[malcolmjamalawesome]

Where are you getting your guard card information? I too want a guard card

[captncrzy]

And in AZ, the class is only 8 hours. It's unbelievable to think that the security guard that is working in your office's parking lot at night is an ex-prisoner. But it's entirely possible that he/she is.

[malcolmjamalawesome]

http://www.caguardtrainingcenter.com/whats_new.html

Guard Card Requirements for Registration


Walk-Ins Available. Show up Monday-Saturdays at 9:00am or you may complete course online! CLICK get started here!

Guard card course consist of a 8-hour course that includes: (We provide On-Line Registration to get your guard card with in 7-10 days (*background pending*)

**Click here to get started and on-line training**

Roles and Responsiblilites of a Security Officer
Observation and Report Writting
Criminal Liabilities
Civil Liabilites
Hancuffing Techniques
Searches
Private Citizens Arrest
Terrorism
Ethic and Professionalism
Security guards are employed by licensed private patrol operators to protect persons or property and prevent theft. To be eligible to apply for a California guard card registration, you must:

Be at least 18 years old
Take the California Guard Card course
Undergo a criminal history background check through the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
**Click here to get started and on-line training**

I Want a California Guard Card

STEP 1

You must have received the eight (8) hour California Guard Card training and passed the examination.

You Pay Only $75.00 Instruction Fee [ includes instruction, wrtitten exam, student handouts, state application, guard card course, fingeprint forms] the livescan (Fingerprints) and State fee you may pay at a later date, what ever is more convinient for you!

STEP 2

You must submit the security guard card application to the Bureau of Security and Investigative Serives.

Breakdown of fees paid:

Guard Card Application Fee $50.00
State On-Line Fee (7-10 DAYS TO ISSUE LICENSE!) $1.00
TOTAL
$51.00

STEP 3

You must submit fingerprints electronically using Live Scan.

Breakdown of fees paid at Live Scan site:

Department of Justice Fingerprint Fee $32.00
Federal Bureau of Investigation Fingerprint Fee $19.00
Livescan Operator Fees $15.00
TOTAL
$66.00

[captncrzy]

Well, at least CA has their shit together somewhat. Question is whether or not the rapist was an employee of the guard company or not.

[Courtney]

Do you need a California guard card to work as a temporary-hire guard in California?

[Courtney]

Question is whether or not the rapist was an employee of the guard company or not.

Considering that he was a parking lot attendant and not a security guard, I'm guessing no.

[malcolmjamalawesome]

Do you need a California guard card to work as a temporary-hire guard in California?

Well, the ad BROKENDOLL posted said you needed a "guard card."

Are you ready to apologize?

[Courtney]

Are you fundamentally unable to understand that this is about what could potentially happen in the future, and not what has already happened in the past?

[malcolmjamalawesome]

Considering that he was a parking lot attendant and not a security guard, I'm guessing no, and then I'm guessing that whomever did employ him didn't do a background check, even though I don't know who employed him.

Fixed

[malcolmjamalawesome]

Are you fundamentally unable to understand that this is about what could potentially happen in the future, and not what has already happened in the past?

NOBODY HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE ARE NOT ALREADY ADEQUATE BACKGROUND CHECKS YOU HARPY

[Courtney]

NOBODY HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE ARE

[captncrzy]

Kids, please. Mama has a headache.

[malcolmjamalawesome]

So you don't get how, without any evidence that there were not background checks (or that there were inadequate background checks), and without any evidence that this particular parking lot attendant had any sort of history that would have been detected by a background check, I find it peculiar that Baily et al. have used this one incident as evidence of the need for enhanced measures to check employees, with the apparent focus being on motherfucking background checks?

[malcolmjamalawesome]

Kids, please. Mama has a headache.

I'm the one with the fucking headache.

[Courtney]

So you don't get how, without any evidence that there were not background checks (or that there were inadequate background checks), and without any evidence that this particular parking lot attendant had any sort of history that would have been detected by a background check, I find it peculiar that Baily et al. have used this one incident as evidence of the need for enhanced measures to check employees, with the apparent focus being on motherfucking background checks?

Well, when you put it that way, I don't really have much to fight about. How disappointing.

[malcolmjamalawesome]

Let's never fight again.

[psycobetabuckdown]

This was a good read.

[MissingPerson]

I feel like somebody should uh, summarise or something.

Courtney and co. would like to think all reasonable measures are taken in order to screen out creepy weirdos from a position of authority, particularly important in a setting where a lot of people and their possessions are kind of vulnerable. A bit of googling suggests that the security guards do indeed have to satisfy a background check at least, but we're not so clear on the parking attendants and it's kind of unlikely.

Despite the OP's stupid title, it was actually a parking attendant involved in this incident, not security. Also, MJA put his tampon in wrong this morning or something.

[psycobetabuckdown]

"Summarise" looks so strange to my red white and blue eyes. Please don't use it on this red white and blue message board.

Um, in defense of MJA, Courtney's logic doesn't make a damn bit of sense. What happened to getting all the facts and identifying the problem before you come up with a solution?

[MissingPerson]

I don't think anybody's being massively unreasonable in saying "Gee, it would be nice if precautions were taken to prevent this happening again in future, and reassure people of same." Background checks are one way of doing that. Nobody's getting hysterically fixated on them as either a foolproof solution, or the only possible one, or something that nobody's ever thought of before.

I mean, I know you guys like keeping your hyperbolic contrarianism claws sharp, I just think there's better places to aim your energies. I still haven't forgiven you for letting that diaper guy go right under the radar.

[psycobetabuckdown]

I don't think anybody's being massively unreasonable in saying "Gee, it would be nice if precautions were taken to prevent this happening again in future, and reassure people of same." Background checks are one way of doing that.

What's massively unreasonable, as MJA said several times, is that saying "gee, it would be nice, yadda yadda", is to assume precautions weren't taken in the first place. Maybe they weren't, but you have to identify the actual problem before you start shooting off about what should've/could've been done, or even what should be done in the future. None of us are in a position to know at this point. It's massively unreasonable to pretend we are.

[MissingPerson]

I've never known of a music festival where parking attendants were vetted, so I don't think that's a weird assumption. I've never been vetted, and I'm all kinds of creepy.

[Courtney]

SO CREEPY.

[MissingPerson]

"Hello Mr. Parry. I'm here to take all the things you touched, partially consumed, or sweated into. Why no, I don't get paid for this job."

[Media Blitz]

Anyone can get a guard card, and yellow shirt security guards are paid single digit wages for a dangerous and somewhat difficult job. CSC and Staff Pro will hire whatever shady fuck will take that job. The people that work there are so low-level that it's not even worth reporting a guard for doing something. They were stealing people's weed and I wouldn't be surprised if they were behind some of the tent thefts too.

Security companies need to background check and pay a higher wage. They need to take incident reports more seriously. Events like Coachella should probably have their own third party staff to handle incidents between customers and security because the security companies will usually dismiss people or threaten arrest.

[Wheres the beef?]

I've never known of a music festival where parking attendants were vetted, so I don't think that's a weird assumption. I've never been vetted, and I'm all kinds of creepy.

In a hawt kind of way.

[Wheres the beef?]

Dumbshits, the guys wasn't a fucking security guard.

[JebusLives]

But I heard he was! In the thread title, no less.

[chairmenmeow47]

some of us may be a little sensitive to this issue.

either way, i think that having more than one person in a lot is a better solution. having cops or security stationed in each lot with attendants would probably help prevent something like this as well.

though you can't always stop it. the fact that someone was willing to do this with thousands of potential witnesses walking by at any second obviously shows a lack of intelligence. who's to say a cop or security guard would stop them.

this is horrible though and i really feel for the girl. i'm glad people eventually walked by, but it is the worst feeling in the world to feel like someone is nearby who could help, but you can't get them to hear you.

[Boourns]

Speaking of more extensive background searches, I couldn't find this guy in the sex offender database, so it may not have helped.