Privatizing Police Powers

[SecTrainer]

Trainer: What the hell is your problem? Anyone that disagrees in the slightest with you becomes your verbal whipping post. You my friend will be the down fall of anyone wanting to express an opinion on this forum.

Christopherstjo is putting stuff out there that may be simply thought provoking
if nothing else. Let me remind you once again Forums are for all to express their thoughts and ideas. It is not just your long boring rambling post that keep people here. How can you train anyone if you can't get your point across in less than 500 words?

But it's okay for you to try to make me your "whipping boy", eh, Chucky? Don't try to insult me, sonny...I've been insulted by experts.

Anyone can express all you want, Chucky...as will I (see, the little problem you have is that you have to grant to others what you also demand - even the right to call a spade a shovel). I'm not obliged to agree with anyone, and I will call a spade a shovel. Get it, shovel? If you'll analyze my comments to Mr. Cross, you will observe that it was not his "thought-provoking" comments that drew adverse commentary from me (other than to merely disagree with his position...which I believe is okay with you?). It was his conduct that held our profession up to ridicule. Now, if you want to call that "thought-provoking", fine...I expressed my "thoughts" about it.

As for "training in 500 words or less", I daresay that's the level of training you've had if that's the extent of your attention span. Well, I'll admit that I'm not the guy to write the book you've been waiting for so breathlessly, "Security for Dummies". The time for "Arrest Powers in 500 Words Or Less" has passed...I'm sorry you didn't notice it whizz by.

If I choose not to discuss serious issues in little meaningless "sound bites" or you otherwise find my posts too challenging, disinteresting, boring, or whatever, the solution to your problem - and it is your problem - is very simple. Just don't read them. It won't hurt my feelings a bit. If I think that my posts are read and are helpful to some on this forum, and if that should prove one day to be a mere delusion, well...just allow me my delusion. I can't see that it hurts you at all.

[Christopherstjo]

This was passed in 1939 originally, and updated in 1993 or so

It was last amended in 1999 and went into effect in 2000, though it is required to be updated monthly.

Title 17, Division 10, Chapter 2.010(3) notes that "Those licensed to provide private security have police powers limited to the property that they are lawfully assigned to protect.

It is clearly noted in Section 10-2.010 that this section is the GENERAL RULE only. A General Rule is NOT the governing force in the specific authority given. Therefore, one has to examine Section 10-2.030 to obtain specific authority for the various classes

Hence, your statement misleads the reader into believing that the General Rule is the governing law when it is NOT. This is supported by the fact that Section 10-2.010 gives every license police powers and yet, when you read Section 10-2.030(1)(B) a guard, unto itself has absolutely no authority whatsoever and as such, Section 10-2.010 is misleading on its' face value, which is why it is called the General Rule and not the Specific Authority. To determine if and what specific authority any given security license has you have to read Section 10-2.030 Subsections (1)(A) (security officer) and (1)(B) (security guard)

It then further specifically states that unless you are licensed as an "airport police [officer]," this authority stops on public property or private property you are not assigned to protect

And yet, when you read the specific authority given to a Class A license, in Section 10-2.030(1)(A) it too extends the authority of a security officer into the city streets up to the point where a suspect enters a vehcile. Again, you offer misleading statements. Please cite the law correct Nathan.

There are two types of licenses in KCMO, the much vaunted "Class A" license, and the "Class B" license. The licensing structure is hilarious, and I suggest others take a look at it.

I didn't write the law - but it is the law nonetheless. But since you suggest others read the law, yet, fail to provide the link I'll do it for you.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/17csr/17c10-2.pdf

The only difference between a Class "A" and "B" licensee is that the Class "A" license grants the license holder the authority to detain or apprehend. That's it. They're still security personnel, and state law refers to them as such. There's no statute or regulation authorizing them to call themselves police officers.

I never said there was - What I have said is that Title 17 Section 10-2.010(3) and Section 10-2.030(1)(A) give security officers police powers. I have also pointed out in my thesis that it is the legal department of the Kansas City Missouri Police Dept that has argued on more than one occassion before the Mo. State Board of Mediation that security officers with a Class A license are police officers. And that according to the Asst Legal Advisor to the KCPD, Dale Close, private security licenses where give police powers to supplement the overall efforts of the KCPD to fight crime.

Christopher claims that any person armed and having arrest authority, in his document, is an de facto police officer.

Again, you are wrong. What I have claimed is that those with a Class A license have arrest authority pursuant to Title 17 Section 10-2.030(1)(A) (1999). I have also quoted the 7th Cir Court in regards to de facto police and the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, while you can try to discredit me all you want, though you will not be successful, you cannot argue with established case laws; the Courts have been very clear.

However, Missouri does not have an actual crime of "impersonating a police officer

Again you are wrong, Missouri does have such a law. Try reading 575.120 subsection (5) which states: "False impersonation is a Class B misdemeanor unless the person represents himself or herself to be a law enforcement officer in which case false impersonation is a Class A misdemenaor."

You will clearly note in my thesis, however, that in 1985, the Missouri Supreme Court, in Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation, defines the term "law enforcement officer" to mean anyone, regardless of their job title, who performs duties and functions substantially comparable to what police and deputy sheriffs do. Because of this ruling, private security officers with a Class A license are enjoined into the classification of a law enforcement officer. The term "law enforcement officer" is NOT inclusive to only mean a "police officer." In fact, statutory law, 556.061(17) of the Missouri Revised Statutes (2006) defines such by one having the legal authority to arrest another and take him or her into custody because of such. And the aforesaid Missouri Supreme Court case law removes the requirement that a law enforcement officer is only a public servant.

Creating a Memorandum of Understanding with the city goes counter to the purpose of the regulation, which is to give security personnel specific police powers on the private properties they protect

Again, you are misleading the readers when Title 17 Section 10-2.030(1)(A) specifically extends the athority of security officers with a Class A license to that of the city streets. You neglect to remember, as one example, that air port police, are still licensed security officers with a Class A license that were given their police title and department though a Memorandum of Understanding between the police dept and the Board of Police Commissioners. Nathan, if you are going to cite the law then do so correctly, rather holding yourself out to be competent in matters of law pertaining to a state you neither live in nor work in, by cherry picking only selective portions of the law, so as to mislead the readers, in effort to try to discredit my thesis.

It is fascinating, if the case law interpretation is correct, in that every private security officer even those with a Class "B" "Guard" license, are sworn agents of the state, under Missouri Statute

Do not misconstrue acting as a "state actor" or "under color of law" to that of being the same as a "sworn" agent of the state. Security officers, in KCMO except air port police, are not sworn agents of the state, but in lieu of case law precedence, they do act under color of law or are state actors.

While Christopher Cross may say, "Class B Guards are not private police," I note that (3) specifically states that "those licensed to provide private security services have police powers..."

And yet, in Section 10-2.030(1)(B) it specifically states that a "guard" has no authority whatsoever and is to observe and report only. Hence, you continously fail to understand the separation in the sections of Title 17; one being a general rule and one being the specific authority. You are taking the general rule and applying it in absolute terms when the General Rule is not such, by definition of what exists in the specific rules.

. . .but the class "B" license simply denies them the authority to exercise the police power of arrest or detention

And what - you don't think that is a rather important detail?

As both the 4th Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have pointed out, which I cite in my thesis, having legal arrest and detention powers is the deciding factor in whether or not a person operates in the capacity of a police officer, i.e. in terms of a security officer this would fall into the category of a security officer being a de facto police officer. Hence, unless a security officer specifically has the powers of LEGAL arrest and detention then he or she is not and cannot be seen as a de facto police officer since any authority to arrest and detain would be solely that of a common law ordinary citizen arrest, which is not the same as a legal arrest.

Whoever wrote this regulation really didn't think too hard about all this.

It may suprise you to know that the law was amended, in 1999, by a committee comprised of a large number of government and non-government officials and legal personnel. I have no doubt that they gave a great deal of legal thought to what they were doing, why and the legal implications of such.

Try as you or others may to discredit my thesis http://docs.google.com/View?docID=df...vision=_latest for which you cannot do - the law is the law and is supported with multiple case laws from federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

Cherry picking selective information or neglecting to cite the law correctly does not discredit me or my thesis - it only trys to mislead the readers into believing something that is both factually and legally incorrect and certainly that is clearly and categoricaly not supported by federal court rulings.

This is why I rely upon objective facts from independant credible sources such as but not limited to federal court rulings, rather than my own opinion - something others should try doing more often. It's cool to have and voice ones' personal opinion and even ones own dissent, providing they are kept in proper context and are supported by objective facts.

[Christopherstjo]

Trainer: What the hell is your problem? Anyone that disagrees in the slightest with you becomes your verbal whipping post. You my friend will be the down fall of anyone wanting to express an opinion on this forum.

Christopherstjo is putting stuff out there that may be simply thought provoking
if nothing else. Let me remind you once again Forums are for all to express their thoughts and ideas. It is not just your long boring rambling post that keep people here. How can you train anyone if you can't get your point across in less
than 500 words?

Thank you Chucky. I appreciate that someone in this forum had the fotitude to finely speak up.

[Chucky]

I am sorry if I offended your superiority complex. You seem to be a very angry person.

"I've been insulted by experts." This line reminds me of the line in the movie Happy Gilmore when the anal retentive golf pro states "I eat scum like you for breakfast" And Happy replies "You eat scum for breakfast?"

Love you Sonny

[SecTrainer]

I am sorry if I offended your superiority complex. You seem to be a very angry person.

"I've been insulted by experts." This line reminds me of the line in the movie Happy Gilmore when the anal retentive golf pro states "I eat scum like you for breakfast" And Happy replies "You eat scum for breakfast?"

Love you Sonny

Spend your time more constructively, Chucky. I simply can't worry about what you think because it's very obvious that you post reflexively after reading a sentence or two of my posts, and without really thinking about what I've said, or in what context. If ever you should do so, I'll be happy and willing to engage in discussion with you as I'm very sure you have much more to offer than what you've offered here...which amounts to behavior of the very sort you claim to disapprove of.

NOTE TO OTHER MEMBERS: For whatever reason, Chucky has an "agenda" where SecTrainer is concerned, which he pursues with a dedication that is probably worthy of some higher calling. Let us hope he finds his calling (this surely isn't it) so that he can fulfill his destiny and find true meaning and purpose in life.

[SecTrainer]

Thank you Chucky. I appreciate that someone in this forum had the fotitude to finely speak up.

Now, see there, Chucky? You've made a new friend. What's that, now...three entries in your little black book?

Meanwhile, I must remember to call Mom and tell her she was right after all...birds of a feather really do flock together. She also said something about lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas, which is also appropriate here, but Mom was always careless when it came to copyright law and I refused to believe that she didn't steal that line from someone else - Edgar Allen Poe, the prophet Elijah or Abe Lincoln, maybe. So, I can't give her credit for that one, however true.

Then, there was something she said about running with a stick and poking out your eye, but she was wrong there as my brother and I proved millions of times. There was also the one about "Your face will freeze in that weird shape, and then where will you be?!", which never happened. (We'll pass over the fact that most of my friends would have thought the "weird face" was an improvement.) I've also swallowed my gum dozens of times (usually upon the rapid approach of a teacher with stick in hand who apparently had never heard the eye-poking-out thing), and never grew a gum tree inside me, as Mom predicted, so we can cross that one off.

Nope, Mom wasn't always right, but boy howdy...when she's right, she's really right!

[Chucky]

Tell mom I said hi and I will try to do something about the fleas. As for contracting bird flu well I can only hope for the best as you just never know.
And also if you would mention that I will no longer use you as my personal whipping boy. Nope I will now promote you to my head towel boy. Also mention that I will some day fulfill my destiny and find true meaning and purpose in life. I think that will make her proud of me. Oh yea I already have my copy of Security for Dummies. Just couldn't understand a word of it.

All kidding aside Trainer you tickle me. Pissing off anyone else just wouldn't be the same.

[SecTrainer]

And also if you would mention that I will no longer use you as my personal whipping boy. Nope I will now promote you to my head towel boy.

I humbly accept the promotion if this really means that you are going to start bathing at long last (you've promised before, remember!). Up until now, your towel boy wouldn't have had any towels to deal with, so I think I'd be bored if you're going to persist in avoiding the tub.

If you do indeed intend to make the acquaintance of Proctor & Gamble, the Lever Brothers and/or other notable soap manufacturers and their fine products, I know that will please Mom (and the neighbors for some distance in all directions, depending on wind conditions) more than anything else, except perhaps cleaning up your room. We have (strong) reason to believe that there must be the remains of a bratwurst sandwich somewhere in that dark abyss and we'd like it removed...

[Black Caesar]

Threads like these make me want to commit Suicide on someone else....

...Oh wait, thats called Homicide.... Never mind

[SecTrainer]

Threads like these make me want to commit Suicide on someone else....

...Oh wait, thats called Homicide.... Never mind

Does mother's wisdom never cease? What was it she said? Oh yeah, something about the pot calling the kettle black (or did she swipe that one too?). Why, it even fits your name! (Get it? "Black Caesar"...pot calling the kettle "black"...it's all very deep, I realize.)

I couldn't dream up something this good if I tried for a million years.

Now, 'fess up, BC. I know that you're one of the three names in Chucky's little black book. Did he holler for you to come and help him? Hmmmm?

Homicide indeed. Before you undertake anything that ambitious, work your way up. Try saying "Boo!" to a goose and then let us know how many sutures you wind up with. If someone cares to start a pool on that subject, I want number 48.

[Christopherstjo]

I have requested that this thread be locked so no futher posts are permitted....

[davis002]

I have requested that this thread be locked so no futher posts are permitted....

Good luck... how many locked threads do you see in SIW?

[N. A. Corbier]

Good luck... how many locked threads do you see in SIW?

NONE.

We do not lock threads here. (As you know. ) If someone has a problem, the email is "[email protected]" Moderators do not lock threads. They simply request the Admin start banning people.

[power102]

NONE.

We do not lock threads here. (As you know. ) If someone has a problem, the email is "[email protected]" Moderators do not lock threads. They simply request the Admin start banning people.

Well, today is a new day in SIW history.....Christopher's DIVE team thread has been locked. (12+ pages of security/SWAT pipe dreams have been put to sleep) -- R.I.P.

[Christopherstjo]

Well, today is a new day in SIW history.....Christopher's DIVE team thread has been locked. (12+ pages of security/SWAT pipe dreams have been put to sleep) -- R.I.P.

Well, people need to behave.