Comments on: Just Say No

By: Acowan

Acowan — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:44:43 +0000

Why is it that so many skilled individuals refuse or just dont think to put an “integrity” clause in their contracts? I am constantly amazed at how many otherwise squared away guys dont even bother to draw up a contract. A contract is crucial to addressing any and all grievances should a questionable situation arise. And least we for get the “non-confront” clause…two holy grails in my opinion.

By: sossa

sossa — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:30:07 +0000

I agree with you law is above anybody, you should not break it and go to the jail

By: Mike O

Mike O — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:19:02 +0000

â€œI do know that over the long haul of my years as a bodyguard, I saw things that were questionable, and witnessed all kinds of behaviorâ€“but never felt that I was in a position of being held accountable or responsible for another adultâ€™s actions. BUT I also learned when to draw the line and let my employers know that I was not going to participate in anything illegal. [immoral or unethical]â€

By: John

John — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:09:17 +0000

So walking the line…..ethics. I have been put in many situations acting as security when I have had to “advise” the client that I was being asked to break the law by doing this or that. Having a clause as suggested is a great idea, if questioned and asked by law enforcement (at the risk of being guilty of assosiation) is just not worth the headaches.

Yes one should volenteer the information of one’s client but one should also cooperate with the law aswell. As for the term “snitch” well that goes to the volenteering aspect.

If the “body guard” has truely done his/her home work he will know the threats, and what type which will tell the “body guard” what type of business the client is in, which in turn the Body Guard will then be able to say yes or no to the job/contract.

Intergity goes a long way and if done right will always be respected from the “guilty” parties. They will I am sure understand if the proffessional Body Guard refuses to compromise his own intergity for someone elses bad habbits.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 22 May 2008 11:43:20 +0000

Im not in the bus. anymore, I came back to the Army, been away from the bus. for about a year now. I understand your point of view. BUT with that said, arent we paid to protect our client no matter what? And a step further, our “client” now doesnt that include our clients interests? Im not saying i disagree with your viewpoint, Im just stating my opinion…. Stay safe my friend

By: S.I.R

S.I.R — Thu, 22 May 2008 11:40:22 +0000

Being an both exmilitary and an excop I am not a fan of the word “snitching” as it is used a lot by criminals trying to scare/intimidate people who would other wise testify against them from doing so thus enabling the criminal and allowing to act with impunity.

They use this term to apply to people who are NOT in the criminal’s direct employ and to the average citizen who may be a victim or a witness to criminal acts.

The issue in this case isn’t about “snitching”. It is about a professional who was contracted to do a job and part of that job was to maintain a degree of discretion. The client is paying for that (unless otherwise stated in the contract which I recommend some type of clause concerning ilegal activity).

I admire his intergrity in the case but I do not agree with his use of the term “snitch”. Instead it should have been stated, “Seals maintain a high level degree of integrity and do not betray the confidences they have sworn to keep”.

Now the side issue is that, depending on the activity in question, that Seal (if he truly had a high degree of integrity) would not have allowed himself to become involved in any serious criminal endeavors.