Erg0 said :

firebrand said :

Are you saying that if the security guard was hired by the chemist he should just stand and watch it happen because he wasnt robbing them??

He’s a private security guard, not a police officer. If he’s being paid by the chemist to guard the chemist then he has no more (or less) obligation to get involved than any other bystander.

My understanding was the security guard was put in place after a spate of incidents at Florey shops. I believe (stand to be corrected) that his tenure is at the behest of the shop owners/lease holders of the Florey Shopping Centre as a whole.

In sayng that, if he is to be some sort of deterant, then surely he should act upon seeing someone obviously affected by substances or acting in a manner other than ‘normal’ who it could be conceived poses a threat to publis safety. Surely he has some role, other than dialing the police, cause anyone can do that and doesn’t have to wear a security unifrom.

firebrand said :

Are you saying that if the security guard was hired by the chemist he should just stand and watch it happen because he wasnt robbing them??

He’s a private security guard, not a police officer. If he’s being paid by the chemist to guard the chemist then he has no more (or less) obligation to get involved than any other bystander.

firebrand said :

Are you saying that if the security guard was hired by the chemist he should just stand and watch it happen because he wasnt robbing them??

If you paid for the security guard to protect your store, would you want him patrolling the entire shopping centre? Would insurance covers him if he had an accident outside the store? Would the store have a higher work-cover premium next year because the guard is out getting involved in fisticuffs away from your store during work hours?

Anyway, it’s been known for a while security do nothing. Paid crap all, mostly internationals and can’t string a sentence together.

firebrand said :

Are you saying that if the security guard was hired by the chemist he should just stand and watch it happen because he wasn’t robbing them??

Security guard is a type of business, not volunteers.
What I am saying, however, is there is no reason to accuse someone for not going above and beyond their obligation. If he wants to deter crime that is outside of his original contract then he’s more than welcome to. If he doesn’t want to then that’s his choice.

firebrand said :

I have seen the “security” guards there a number of times *snip*

If you know the person or organisation who hired him then you may wish to let them know of your concerns.

like what? crash tackle him to the ground and get the knife away from the offender?

Sorry – under security rules and legislation they aren’t even allowed to grab/restrain/get a weapon off anyone. He couldn’t have done too much…

Are you saying that if the security guard was hired by the chemist he should just stand and watch it happen because he wasnt robbing them??

I hae seen the “security” guards there a number of times when i have visited..and i have been astonished by the amount of times i saw them concentrate more on eating, or chatting with whatever friend is hanging around or talking on the phone. It scares me a little what would happen if they were actually forced to do something.

Jivrashia said :

MrMagoo said :

The whole point of having the guard there is to stop this from happening. With the medical Centre and Chemist open later, it was felt that such steps were needed.

To be fair, it depends.
It depends if the security guard was hired by the Chemist and the Medical Centre, or by the shopping complex. Don’t forget these people are being paid by specific people for specific tasks. If he has been hired by the chemist then he only has obligation to deter crime taking place within the Chemist shop.

MrMagoo said :

The whole point of having the guard there is to stop this from happening. With the medical Centre and Chemist open later, it was felt that such steps were needed.

To be fair, it depends.
It depends if the security guard was hired by the Chemist and the Medical Centre, or by the shopping complex. Don’t forget these people are being paid by specific people for specific tasks. If he has been hired by the chemist then he only has obligation to deter crime taking place within the Chemist shop.

missalli said :

We were there last night when all this unfolded. I had to make a quick stop at the chemist for Nurofen. When we pulled up, we commented on how things had gotten so bad that they needed a security guard, who mind you was on the phone and eating his dinner from the takeaway, when this guy approached him and asked him for a smoke. He was clearly under the influence of something, and we agreed that this was the exact reason a guard was needed. I was just drawing up the Nurofen for my son, when my 10 yr old daughter yelled out “Mum, he has a knife”. I turned to have a look, and saw it as well. I tried to get the guards attention, but he was happily eating and talking. I got out of the car and he tried to brush me off. I ended up in his face telling him “that guy has a F&*^ing knife”. It didnt register with him at first clearly as he continued his conversation, it must of them sunk in, because he dropped his chicken and ran into the chemist. The police were there very quickly, which I know now was because he had just robbed someone, they thanked my daughter for her awareness, took a brief statement and that was that.

and thus my point abut the guard. Talking on the phone and feeding your face is hardly ‘keeping an eye on things’. The whole point of having the guard there is to stop this from happening. With the medical Centre and Chemist open later, it was felt that such steps were needed. Now if we can just get a guard who isn’t trying to expand his wasteline and set up his Friday night dinner date.

Captain RAAF said :

North side crime….nothing to see here, move along!

I’ll have a chat to Rod Anderson when I see him next re: crime rates Vs north/south.

Is that Mr Anderson from The Matrix?

We were there last night when all this unfolded. I had to make a quick stop at the chemist for Nurofen. When we pulled up, we commented on how things had gotten so bad that they needed a security guard, who mind you was on the phone and eating his dinner from the takeaway, when this guy approached him and asked him for a smoke. He was clearly under the influence of something, and we agreed that this was the exact reason a guard was needed. I was just drawing up the Nurofen for my son, when my 10 yr old daughter yelled out “Mum, he has a knife”. I turned to have a look, and saw it as well. I tried to get the guards attention, but he was happily eating and talking. I got out of the car and he tried to brush me off. I ended up in his face telling him “that guy has a F&*^ing knife”. It didnt register with him at first clearly as he continued his conversation, it must of them sunk in, because he dropped his chicken and ran into the chemist. The police were there very quickly, which I know now was because he had just robbed someone, they thanked my daughter for her awareness, took a brief statement and that was that.

mooo_cow said :

I thought the charge would be ‘armed robbery’ instead of ‘aggravated robbery’?

Well there is no “armed robbery” charge.

Robbery is using force to take something off someone, aggravated robbery is the same act, conducted by more then one person, or by the use of a weapon, hence, aggravated robbery.

It’s like when someone’s house get broken into a stuff taken, it isn’t a robbery, it’s a burglary.

mooo_cow said :

I thought the charge would be ‘armed robbery’ instead of ‘aggravated robbery’?

Good point. Perhaps they chose the latter in order to also charge him with “possess offensive weapon with intent”?

North side crime….nothing to see here, move along!

I’ll have a chat to Rod Anderson when I see him next re: crime rates Vs north/south.

a. There is a ‘security’ guard at the Florey Shops these days, what was he doing? b. The alleged offender was a rocket surgeon if he hung around the shops long enought to get caught.

I thought the charge would be ‘armed robbery’ instead of ‘aggravated robbery’?