Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question about LP using contract security

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I really wasn't looking for anyone to concede, just come to the conclusion that you have.
    Retail Security Consultant / Expert Witness
    Co-Author - Effective Security Management 6th Edition

    Contributor to Retail Crime, Security and Loss Prevention: An Encyclopedic Reference

    Comment


    • #47
      Lynch Mob

      If no duty whatsoever exists to arrest, then how do you explain the fact that it is a criminal offense to fail or refuse to execute an arrest warrant? This alone clearly demonstrates that the law is not so clear cut as you would have others believe in that no duty whatsoever exists to arrest when in fact there are indeed times that a duty to arrest does exist and where one time exist, then so does another and another and another.

      The case laws I have presented do more than just offer only "tid bits" of information - they assist greatly in fully comprehending the law and the extent that the law exists. Thus, you present yourself as lacking experience in actually litigating cases before a court of law to know that even courts themselves cite annonations of other case laws (or as you claim, "tid bits" of information") to support the theory of law being applied. The totality of the case laws I have cited clearly and categorically substantiate each and every one of my claims. You believe differently, as such is your right to do so but merely because you disagree does not make you right and your beliefs correct.

      Security Consultant

      Any time matters of law are agruged it is virtually guaranteed to spark great debates by each party standing on one side of the issues or the other. I am of the belief, however, that controversy can be a healthy thing, when done correctly, as it permits us to grow both personally and professionally. And in an industry that has a habitual habbit of not properly training and educating security officers; forums such as this offer an invaluable mechanism for security officers to receive information; obtain the opportunity to educate themselves, and to be as much of a teacher as they are a student by sharing their views which furthers the educational process.

      Now, I have been clear in my disputes that the arguments made against my claims are based entirely upon personal opinions rather than objective and independent documentation from ruling authorities of law, i.e. the courts, in order to have a valid claim against the legal arguments I have made. I am waiting for those disputing my claims to come forward with such documentation for me to examine that purportedly supports the disputes against my claims, and until they do, my claims cannot be legitimately disputed, for in matters of law, unsubstantiated personal opinions mean nothing in the totality of the laws and the way the laws are applied.
      Last edited by Christopherstjo; 06-11-2007, 06:27 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
        Although I disagree with Christoper, his presentation of his point of view is much more articulate and thought out than most anyone else I have sparred with on message boards.
        I take this as a compliment and in response, I say thank you.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Christopherstjo View Post
          Lynch Mob

          If no duty whatsoever exists to arrest, then how do you explain the fact that it is a criminal offense to fail or refuse to execute an arrest warrant? This alone clearly demonstrates that the law is not so clear cut as you would have others believe in that no duty whatsoever exists to arrest when in fact there are indeed times that a duty to arrest does exist and where one time exist, then so does another and another and another.

          The case laws I have presented do more than just offer only "tid bits" of information - they assist greatly in fully comprehending the law and the extent that the law exists. Thus, you present yourself as lacking experience in actually litigating cases before a court of law to know that even courts themselves cite annonations of other case laws (or as you claim, "tid bits" of information") to support the theory of law being applied. The totality of the case laws I have cited clearly and categorically substantiate each and every one of my claims. You believe differently, as such is your right to do so but merely because you disagree does not make you right and your beliefs correct.
          An arrest warrant is a COURT ORDER. It is illegal to disobey any court order and you could be arrested for violating any court order. Just as you can be arrested for failing to report for jury duty, failing to pay a court imposed fine, or failing to pay court ordered child support payments. There is a huge difference between an arrest warrant and observation of a suspected crime.

          As far as the case law cited, you have cited nothing that is compelling to the argument. You pull bits and pieces from various cases that seem would seem to be related, until you find out what the real case and judgement is about. At that point the relevance goes out the window for almost everything you cited. Sorry, but a land dispute case does not hold water in this discussion, nor does a wire tapping case. They are irrelevant, except for your own OPINIONS that security officers are mandated to make arrests.

          When you show me a relevant case you may sway my opinion. Until then I stand firm to my beliefs and your irrelevant cases will not change my view.

          By the way, if the law was as you claim it is, you could arrest every police officer, LP agent, and security officer in this country for failing to follow the law of arresting every person for every crime they ever witnessed.
          www.plsolutions.net
          www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
            An arrest warrant is a COURT ORDER. It is illegal to disobey any court order and you could be arrested for violating any court order. Just as you can be arrested for failing to report for jury duty, failing to pay a court imposed fine, or failing to pay court ordered child support payments. There is a huge difference between an arrest warrant and observation of a suspected crime.
            First, as I pointed out, when an arrest warrant exists then yes, there is a clear and decisive duty to act in arresting the person. Hence, one cannot use the [unsubstantiated] blanket argument that no duty exists to arrest, as has been the common argument made.

            Second, while I agree that there is a huge difference between an arrest warrant and that of the observation of a crime. I do not agree that there is an immediate absence, as you suggest, in no duty existing to arrest another who commits a crime. And even my employer does not agree with your claim.

            Again, those disputing my claims do so on unsubstantiated blanket arguments that no duty exists, all the while failing to realize and admit that there are times when a duty does in fact exist.

            Another example of this, is a case I was involved in where I directly observed a mother beating the crap out of her child who was 8 years old, with closed fists to his head, face and shoulder areas. Did I have a duty to arrest her - yep, I sure did and I did. If I had failed or refused to arrest her, I would have committed a criminal offense; hindered prosecution, and further endangered the welfare of a child.

            Likewise, another example is that of a person who threatens to commit suicide. If the available opportunity exists to arrest him or her, then there is a duty to arrest because the failure or refusal to do so will likely lead into criminal charges against the s/o, if the person carries out his or her threat and the s/o did not arrest the person (since suicide is a criminal offense - yes I agree it is a joke but a crime nonetheless) if the s/o had the opportunity to do so.

            While there are many other relevant and meritorious examples, the point being here, is that in matters of law, it is not so clear cut as you and the others disputing my claims want to argue. There are indeed times when a duty exists to arrest and the failure or refusal to execute that duty violates civil an criminal laws.

            Comment


            • #51
              Okay, let's put an end to this nonsense. You live in Missouri. You keep saying what is okay in Missouri. I do not live in Missouri but I can look up Missouri power of arrest laws.

              Powers of arrest, arrest without warrant on suspicion persons violating any law of state including infractions, misdemeanors and ordinances, exception--power of municipal officer in unincorporated area.

              544.216. Any sheriff or deputy sheriff, any member of the Missouri state highway patrol, and any county or municipal law enforcement officer in this state, except those officers of a political subdivision or municipality having a population of less than two thousand persons or which does not have at least four full-time nonelected peace officers unless such subdivision or municipality has elected to come under and is operating pursuant to the provisions of sections 590.100 to 590.150, RSMo, may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, or has violated any ordinance over which such officer has jurisdiction. Peace officers of a municipality shall have arrest powers, as described in this section, upon lands which are leased or owned by the municipality in an unincorporated area. Ordinances enacted by a municipality, owning or leasing lands outside its boundaries, may be enforced by peace officers of the municipality upon such owned or leased lands. The power of arrest authorized by this section is in addition to all other powers conferred upon law enforcement officers, and shall not be construed so as to limit or restrict any other power of a law enforcement officer.

              Notice where I highlighted the word MAY. If the obligation to arrest existed the law would state MUST. It says MAY which means that there are options available that do not require arrest. Cite all the case law you want, you can't argue that MAY actually means MUST. It doesn't.

              As much as I enjoy the debate, to say that any law enforcement officer or security is under obligation to arrest in all cases where violations of law are observed is just completely ignorant of the law and the criminal justice system. To say that by NOT arresting, the police officer or security officer is violating the law is beyond belief. I have given you Missouri law. I have given you case law directly related to employers rights to restrict actions from employees. If you still insist on citing land use cases as your position, there is nothing more to be said. You can try to be a psuedo lawyer and pull all the case you that you BELIEVE to be related, but has not shown to be related, or you can look at the clear cut facts.

              Either way, I am done. I have nothing more to add on this.
              www.plsolutions.net
              www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

              Comment


              • #52
                The only words that statutes use to command are "shall" and "must."

                Look at how warrants are written: The Sheriff of __________ County or his deputies shall arrest and bring before me...
                Some Kind of Commando Leader

                "Every time I see another crazy Florida post, I'm glad I don't work there." ~ Minneapolis Security on Florida Security Law

                Comment


                • #53
                  Lynch Mob

                  I hate to burst your bubble but the statutory law you cite (as it is clearly cited in the statute) applies when there is a population of less than two thousand persons - Now, do you really think that KCMO has [less than] two thousand people living here?

                  Pursuant to 84.720 RSMo (2006) Title 17 CSR, Sec., 10-2 et seq (1999) comes to life by virtue of the statutory language of - "The police commissioners of any city with a population of three hundred fifty thousand or more . . ."

                  Thus, it is plainly evident that the statutory law you cite does not apply in KCMO because we have [more than] two thousand people living here.

                  The fact that you have cited an irrelevant statutory law shows your lack of understanding in the applicablility of the law. For the statute you should have cited is that of 84.440 RSMo (2006), which also uses the words "may cause the arrest."

                  Notwithstanding the words "may cause" the arrest of one committing a crime, there nevertheless are times when "may" turns into "shall" becuase of the crime committed. Again I point to the case I was involved in where a mother was beating the crap out of her 8 year old son with closed fists to his head, face and shoulder areas.

                  If we accept your argument - what do you think the chances are that I could have been charged criminally for culpable negligence, willful blindsnes, reckless endangerment of a child, or negligent homiside if the child had died as a result of being seriously beaten and I did not arrest the mother when I had the opportunity? I'd say the chances are very good.

                  Moreover, if we accept your argument then the police need never arrest anyone, including people like Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and those like them. Now wouldn't that be the kicker of all kickers - for a police officer to flat out refuse to arrest a person like Ted Bundy because of the words "may cause." Just how long do you think the police officer would keep his or her job if they relied upon this claim? And you know the point that I am making here.

                  Hence, while the discretionary right falls into the lap of the officer under the words of "may cause" that discretionary right is subject to many different factors in matters of law, for example.

                  Under the Doctrine of Wilful Blindness and the Model Penal Code, Section 2.02(7), and that of 575.020 and / or 575.030 RSMo, a person is criminally liable when (1) he knew or should have known a criminal violation of law existed; (2) he could have done something to prevent the crime from being committed or further carried out, and (3) but he knowingly chose to do nothing instead and therein permitted the crime to be achieved.

                  The legal predication for this is that wilfull blindness equates to knowledge of the crime when a party has suspicions that a crime is being committed but then deliberately omits to take action to prevent the crime from being carried out or from bringing those committing the crime to justice.

                  There is a whole lot about matters of law that you clearly and obviously do not understand or want to admit, so I agree, I think it is best that you no longer try to debate issues that far exceed your ability to make legitimate claims of dispute. And citing one statutory law, which you knew or should have known was irrlevant in the first place, hardly rises to having proved your claim.
                  Last edited by Christopherstjo; 06-12-2007, 01:51 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Christopherstjo View Post
                    Lynch Mob

                    I hate to burst your bubble but the statutory law you cite (as it is clearly cited in the statute) applies when there is a population of less than two thousand persons - Now, do you really think that KCMO has [less than] two thousand people living here?

                    There is a whole lot about matters of law that you clearly and obviously do not understand or want to admit, so I agree, I think it is best that you no longer try to debate issues that far exceed your ability to make legitimate claims of dispute. And citing one statutory law, which you knew or should have known was irrlevant in the first place, hardly rises to having proved your claim.
                    Read the statute again. It says, "except those officers of a political subdivision or municipality having a population of less than two thousand persons". This statute applies to the entire state EXCEPT for the small places. That would apply to KC.

                    Nice try, but you have failed again to demonstrate that I am wrong about this. Also, good try on the may means shall in some circumstances. It doesn't, but your attempts to claim it does was quite humorous.
                    www.plsolutions.net
                    www.customerloyaltysolutions.com

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I was always under the impression that almost universally, except when there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, a security officers guard is to observe and report, except when specifically assigned to duties such as anti-shoplifting duties when he is then guided by the directions of the company employing his services.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by John H. Christman View Post
                        I was always under the impression that almost universally, except when there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, a security officers guard is to observe and report, except when specifically assigned to duties such as anti-shoplifting duties when he is then guided by the directions of the company employing his services.
                        It actually has to do with company policy.
                        some companies SOPs dictate security officers will protect persons from harm not just great bodily harm.
                        "Get yourself a shovel cause your in deep Sh*t"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
                          Read the statute again. It says, "except those officers of a political subdivision or municipality having a population of less than two thousand persons". This statute applies to the entire state EXCEPT for the small places. That would apply to KC.

                          Nice try, but you have failed again to demonstrate that I am wrong about this. Also, good try on the may means shall in some circumstances. It doesn't, but your attempts to claim it does was quite humorous.
                          The power of warrantless arrest, meaning unless an officer is in possession of or has reasonable knowledge of the existence of a warrant commanding an individual's arrest, and sometimes in certain special cases such as parole violation, is ALWAYS discretionary. This is why the laws pertaining to the power of warrantless arrest, to the best of my knowledge (I haven't time to read them for all 50 states, but checked a number of them), are written in every state using the words "MAY arrest" or words to that effect. Legislatures are way too smart to turn these powers into mandates and wind up with 99% of the police officers and civil governments in the state in court, and the law up before the Supreme Court...which is where it would surely wind up.

                          In fact, as a matter of basic legal principle, the law first contemplates that NO arrest shall be made except on the issuance of a warrant, but then grants to police officers the discretionary power to arrest without a warrant when circumstances are such (in the judgment of the officer) that the requirement for a warrant would create an unreasonable risk that the individual would flee, would unreasonably expose others to the risk of harm, etc.

                          As for negligence, the issue is one - as always, in negligence - of a duty owed to the plaintiff that has been breached (as well as such breach being the proximate cause of harm to the plaintiff). As odd as it might seem, under the "doctrine of general public duty", a police officer has NO duty toward any specific individual in society. There is nothing here, then, that would give rise to a theory of negligence based on an officer's failure to arrest, even if failure to arrest is a proximate cause of harm to that individual because the element of duty does not exist. Don't let the fact that this sounds odd fool you...there's a good reason for the doctrine of public duty, or how often you might have heard the phrase "Officer, do your duty". The duty owed by a police officer is to the public, not to individual members of the public.

                          An interesting unpublished opinion out of North Carolina discussing this may be read here. In that opinion, reference is made to Hull v. Oldham, 104 N.C. App. 29, 407 S.E.2d 611, disc. review denied, 330 N.C. 441, 412 S.E.2d 72 (1991). In that case, the sheriff's department not only failed to arrest someone. They failed to even respond to calls advising that a mentally disturbed man carrying a gun was threatening family members. The man then went on public shooting spree ending in three deaths and yet the doctrine of public duty barred suit.

                          As discussed in the case cited, what gives rise to negligence is intentional misconduct. If, for instance, it could be shown that the failure to arrest an individual had been done with the deliberate intent of allowing him to flee, liability might well attach. Absent such showing of bad intent in an officer's exercise of his discretion not to arrest an individual, negligence would not attach because there is no other duty owed by a police officer toward any individual than to avoid intentional misconduct.
                          "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

                          "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

                          "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

                          "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Lynch Mob View Post
                            Read the statute again. It says, "except those officers of a political subdivision or municipality having a population of less than two thousand persons". This statute applies to the entire state EXCEPT for the small places. That would apply to KC.
                            Except that in KCMO, police and security officers are regulated under Chapter 84 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. The Board of Police Commissioners is a state agency that operates under RSMo-Chapter 84, and therefore KCMO police are not subject to the purview of the state law you cited. If they were, then our leglislator's would have included the state law you cited in 84.440 RSMo (2006) but they did not. Hence, while you want to disagree the fact remains that you cited the incorrect statute. But what do I know - I only live and work in KCMO.
                            Last edited by Christopherstjo; 06-14-2007, 06:01 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I do not dispute that state laws give police the discretionary right to arrest or not arrest - clearly they do.

                              What I am saying is that for security officers there is a different standard of law applied, in part because the U.S. Supreme Court took away our right of qualified immunity - making those of us with police and arrest powers more liable than police are held - and in lieu of this fact and the Missouri Public Policy Doctrine and the Doctrine of Wilful Blindness, among many other laws, there are imposed duties to act. And in this, there are times when crimes present themselves that impose a duty to intervene, detain and arrest the person involved. To-wit, the case involving the 8 year old child is one of the many examples.

                              Here's another concept that I know you won't agree with - Security Officers who have the legal authority to exercise police and legal arrest powers, under color of state law, also have a legal obligation to read suspects their Miranda rights if they engage in a custodial interview / interrogation of the suspect about the crime.

                              The premise is very simple: Because s/o's in KCMO and other cities like KCMO, act under color of state law in exercising police and legal arrest powers, state action is categorically involved and thereby invokes a Fourth and Fifth Amendment right of the suspect. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Dickerson v. United States 530 U.S. 428 (2000). See also Burton v. Wilmington Parking Auth., 365 U.S. 715, 721-26 (1961) (holding that “private conduct abridging individual rights does no violence . . . unless to some significant extent the State in any of its manifestations has been found to have become involved in it). And when acting under color of state law, rule, regulation, statute, or a custom or usage having the power of law in the state specifically in the deliverly of state operations, i.e. police services - the state is most assuredly involved.

                              The point being here is that there are many legal aspects, theorys and submissible causes of action that come to bear when we enact laws that give private citizens (security officers) the legal right to act in place of the government officials, under color of law. This is a fact that will not go away merely becase a selected potion of people find this fact inconvenient or distasteful.

                              It is also a fact that the concept of these laws is difficult for people and expecially security officers, to grasp because they strictly think in terms of the "traditional" manners that the laws are applied and the way our industry has been run. Yet, even the 6th Circuit Court pointed out in 2005, that there are not enough case laws to fully understand the effects these laws have on the people and their rights.

                              Hence, it is a fact that we are only just beginning to unravel the legal rammifications that these kinds of laws present.

                              By enacting these kinds of laws, states have effectively split our industry into two categories; the traditional forum of private citizen arrests and the observe and report duties, and that of the new forum involving legal arrests and police powers, under color of law.

                              The fact that some forum members here refuse to even consider the idea, let alone the fact that these laws have legal implications that we have yet to discover or are only just beginning to discover in our courts, is, in my opinion, the absolute most narrow way of thinking.

                              It is very much like turning blind eyes because in this way of thinking, those who apply such, fail or refuse to recognize or admit that states are enacting laws that we do not fully comprehend in terms of their field applicaiton and the resulting legal rammifications.

                              States are effectively creating a new body of law in the area of criminal and civil rights, and employment law, which the courts have not adequately addressed. But what is known is that because security officers operating under these kinds of laws have lost the right of qualified immunity, this substantially changes the equasion even more - placing upon them a duty to act in order to avoid being held legally liable. Another concept I know will be disagreed with. . .
                              Last edited by Christopherstjo; 06-14-2007, 05:56 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by John H. Christman View Post
                                I was always under the impression that almost universally, except when there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, a security officers guard is to observe and report, except when specifically assigned to duties such as anti-shoplifting duties when he is then guided by the directions of the company employing his services.

                                A lot has to do with who you work for, what post you are assigned to, and in what jurisdiction you operate in.

                                For instance I have worked a post that was clearly marked "No Tresspassing". If a tresspasser were on the property I was to give them one warning then if they did not leave imediatly I was to arrest them for said crime. Those were my post orders and under California law completely legal. This may not be have been legal in some other states.
                                "Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists. " Author Unknown

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X