Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Privatizing Police Powers

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    Well, people need to behave.
    There is an ignore function to use. I have had to use it more than once. With so many people on the forum there is bound to be some conflict.
    Todd

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by tlangsr
      There is an ignore function to use. I have had to use it more than once. With so many people on the forum there is bound to be some conflict.
      I don't know where this "ignore function" is - wouldn't that just pertain to private messages and not the public forum? Not sure how that works; never had to use it before.

      In any event, the thread is locked and some posts were deleated from it, so be done with the thread I say.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Christopherstjo
        I don't know where this "ignore function" is - wouldn't that just pertain to private messages and not the public forum? Not sure how that works; never had to use it before.
        click on the person you want to ignore to view their profile and then click ignore this person. As far as PM are concerned I would ask N.A. As far as the forum is concerned It will say that the person is being ignored, unless some one else quotes the person you have on ignore.

        NOTE: Tlangsr REALLY, REALLY needs to improve his writing. He has a paper due on 5/3/07
        Todd

        Comment


        • #34
          Ok, thanks - appreciate the insight

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Christopherstjo
            Well, people need to behave.
            As far as i'm concerned, you are just as guilty as anyone else... lol
            "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun-Tzu

            Comment


            • #36
              davis002

              While I will not entertain your allegation with a reply. I requested my thread to be locked - it is - so let's move on.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Christopherstjo
                davis002

                While I will not entertain your allegation with a reply. I requested my thread to be locked - it is - so let's move on.
                Oh trust me... i'm plenty "entertained".

                I'll be honest with you for a second. You have some fantastic ideas, and you obviously take them very serious. The only problem is your response(s) to criticism. I am in no now way trying to "put you down" or berate you in any way... I just feel that you get a little too argumentative and/or defensive. The thread started off great, but then quickly derailed into some sort of pissing match. It's all ok though, and we can all move on now.

                I leave ALL of you with this PSA…

                "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun-Tzu

                Comment


                • #38
                  lol @ the Davis002 PSA.
                  Reading Christopher's posts....$5 (for a bottle of asprin)
                  Responding to Christopher's posts....$20 (a fifth of Jack to wash it down with)
                  Finding out he requested for a moderator to lock a thread because someone actually disagrees with him........Priceless


                  Christopher....It's transparently clear that your starting these threads with the intent of "stirring" things up. All in all, anyone that has been in the security field (for atleast a few years) fully knows their job desciption and doesn't need a self-taught (wanna-be) lawyer to educate them on how things should be done.
                  There's no way anyone (with the exeption of your crime-fighting partner, Chucky) would get suckered into believing your "police-and-security-are-the-same" theory.
                  Just like you...I am expressing my opinions. (it's funny, because as soon as someone else gives you rebuttles, you automatically want the thread locked)
                  Police officers and security officers are two seperate entities.

                  Chucky...you and Joe Friday would make a great DIVE team.
                  ...I think I seen a cat in a tree, you might need back up on this....so I've decided to put together a highly-trained, government-funded organization called Special High Intensity Training. Let me know if you need me to call in air support.
                  Go get em!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    power102

                    Disagreeing is one thing; engaging in wholly inappropriate conduct is another and warranted my thread being locked but you think what you want, I really do not care.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Wow, I can see I haven't missed much LOL. Looks like another one snuck in.

                      Ok, Privae Security having Police Powers...WHY? So, you can run code 3 to that call of an alarm going off 1256th time? Or no wait maybe's because you need to run to the coffee stand and grab a cup 'cause you heard on your scanner all the cops are heading to their little coffee break spot and you wanna join 'em? Doubtful, but then again maybe you feel the need to hook up the town drunk for peeing in the bushes, you gonna transport him to detox, or call up and waste a real cop's time to do the transpo?

                      Anyone who has been in private security, whether armed or not, for at least 4-5 days knows how to make a correct and legimate arrest-without having any "Police Powers". You should also be able to be proactive in your patrols (foot and/or vehicle) and make a postive difference to the property/community/city you work in.

                      The concern I have giving Private Security the same bilateral authority of a sworn Law Enforcement Officer is that the average Joe Cop has a minimum (academy) of 800 hours of verified and accredited training (well at least we do in Oregon).

                      Does anyone here, other than those that have retired from an LEO job, or have been a Reserve for 8 years, come even close? I doubt it...

                      I read somewhere here that someone said you could make your employer more money by being proactive and make alot of arrests? Are you serious? Are there a lot of clients who are willing to pay you and your company for all this court time? Must be a MO. thing. You can do just as good as a job without turning arrests and still make your clients happy. Ever get a new account that is riddled with sh*theads, you and your team come in and clean up and KEEP IT CLEAN? The client doesn't have anymore problems and their profit increases and makes you happy. Don't believe me? Read some of Mall Director's posts, he can back that up.

                      I am not saying don't arrest, but if you give any security officer/guard (Don't give me that Class A Vs. Class B Lic. crap either) the same powers as the police you are asking for trouble. You will inheritingly give them the ability to rein supreme on anyone who has ever wronged them, no matter how slight of a wrong.

                      God, imagine Marchetti with the same powers of a Police Officer.


                      So again, I ask you; "Why?"

                      So you can chase the little kids that flipped you the bird, or threw water balloons at you?

                      In my area, we make arrests when it is appropriate (duh) (BTW, we can make arrests off property for most crimes that occur in our present misdemeanor or felony), and we immediately turn them over to the police. That way it is verified that we were in the right, you know what I mean?

                      I don't get paid more based on my arrest record. I get paid to show up and do my job, if I have to arrest someone so be it.

                      SecTrainer and Chucky; WTF guys?!? where did all that hate come from? Drop it and move on. Life is to short...
                      ~Super Ninja Sniper~
                      Corbier's Commandos

                      Nemo me impune lacessit

                      Grammical and Spelling errors may occur form time to time. Yoov bin worned

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ValleyOne
                        Ok, Privae Security having Police Powers...WHY?
                        The giving of police powers to security officers is not an act that security officers, themselves, have had any input or authority in doing. Thus, ridiculing security officers on the notion that they gave themselves such powers to feed their ego is not the case. It is rather a government function that has given them these powers.

                        For city / state government it is done because of the economical gains; the ability to double or tripple their police force without having to pay for such things as training, employment issues, liability factors and so forth.

                        The security industry is extremely diverse; some accounts only require the traditional role of security; some, however, require more interactive roles from those in security. Not every security post is postured in some plush multi-million dollar luxury highrise where the most "crime" that happens is an occasional J walking incident. Hence, for some security officers and especially those who work the inner city locations and contend with high crime rates; gang violence and other such things on a routine base. Having police powers, for them is practical, whereas for another it may not be.

                        Originally posted by ValleyOne
                        You should also be able to be proactive in your patrols (foot and/or vehicle) and make a postive difference to the property/community/city you work in.
                        In an ideal world you would be right. The reality, however, is government officials have knowingly and willingly elected to give security officers with a specific license police powers to serve the government and further the governments ends. As I have written before, it is, in effect, a government draft of security officers into law enforcement duties and functions far beyond the "traditional" roles of security officers.

                        Originally posted by ValleyOne
                        The concern I have giving Private Security the same bilateral authority of a sworn Law Enforcement Officer is that the average Joe Cop has a minimum (academy) of 800 hours of verified and accredited training (well at least we do in Oregon).
                        Your concern is legitimate and shared by many, including myself. There are serious and huge constitutional issues existing when placing a private security officer in a position to operate under color of law or as a state actor. But, since these government officials are not faced with having to absorb the liability when things go wrong, they do not care about the issues existing.

                        Originally posted by ValleyOne
                        I read somewhere here that someone said you could make your employer more money by being proactive and make alot of arrests? Are you serious? Are there a lot of clients who are willing to pay you and your company for all this court time? Must be a MO. thing.
                        You misquote and mischaracterize what I said. What I said is this:

                        1. Because employers are focused on making financial profits, they do not care about the rights of the citizens.

                        2. Because a security officer with police powers is permitted to give lawful orders, it is an added tool that aids in ensuring the safety of the clients property is maintained better without having to rely upon the police do this for the security officer; something that security officers without police powers cannot do.

                        3. Clients have a duty to educate themselves in knowing what they are getting into when hiring a private security company. Thus, a client who elects to hire a security company cannot, logically, legitimately or realisticaly, cry foul when security officers make arrests and the client is billed for time spent in court.

                        4. Some properties require security officers to be more proactive than other security officers are required on different properties. A client or employer who seek to obstruct or prevent a security officer from exercising his or her police powers, may be committing a criminal act. This comes because, at least here in KCMO, government officials used wording in the law so as to purposefully constrain the decision making authorty of others, including the client and employer, in order to prevent them from having the ability to obstruct or prevent a security officer exercising his or her police powers in a light most favorable to the government and furthering the ends of government in fighting crime. States are well within their legal purview to do so when asserting their "compelling state interest" rights to take away the rights of the client and employer on the premise that doing so serves a public good and compelling state interest to protect public safety.

                        Originally posted by ValleyOne
                        You can do just as good as a job without turning arrests and still make your clients happy.
                        This argument remains in great debate across our nation. I, myself, am torn between the two sides. On one hand I am against security officers having such powers because they are not properly trained to use such and understand the legal rammifications imposed in the process, and abuses of powers are rising in the process. On the other hand, I know firsthand that having such police powers can be something security officers need to have, at times.

                        A security officer without police powers has no more authority than an ordinary citizen and this can, at times, hinder, obstruct or prevent the security officer from the ability to protect the clients' property and the people on that property, efficiently and effectively. Whereas a security officer with police powers has the ability to overcome the barriers and legal limitations faced by the one with no police powers.

                        Originally posted by ValleyOne
                        I don't get paid more based on my arrest record.
                        Nor should you or anyone else because it is grossly illegal.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Okay, perhaps I can now clarify this. I will be as coy about my "contact" in the KCPD as Mr. Cross has been and will only say that the following information comes direct from a high level.

                          Here's the straight skinny:

                          1. A Class A license authorizes a security officer to exercise certain police powers of detention or arrest, but the class A (or B) security officer is is not a sworn officer of the state (as KC and St. Louis police officers must be), and as such this authorization does not - repeat, does NOT - mandate, nor create any duty, to exercise such powers.

                          2. Such powers are coextensive with the property boundaries where the officer is employed, except that he may engage in hot foot pursuit (meaning that he may not pursue an individual who flees in a vehicle) of an individual who is fleeing from that property.

                          3. The Class A license may be granted to either armed or unarmed officers. It obviously follows, then, that in granting the Class A license, the Board is not implying that it intends to supervene or restrict the right of either the client of a security company OR the security company itself to decide whether an officer will be armed or not. Many Class A officers are unarmed. From this, it also follows that the grant of a Class A license is obviously not intended to impose, for instance, a duty on an unarmed Class A officer to confront an armed criminal to effect an arrest.

                          4. In granting a Class A license, the Board is making no statement nor intending to imply that it seeks to restrict the right of either the client of a security company OR the security company itself to make decisions regarding the permitted or assigned duties of security officers (i.e., whether or not officers will make arrests), except that such duties may not exceed those permitted by the class of license held by the officer.

                          5. There is apparently a very practical side to items #3 and #4 above. Even as recently as 2006, court cases have held that the Boards are not "arms of the state", and that they therefore do not enjoy immunity from lawsuits. It is largely for this reason that the Boards do not undertake to usurp security client or security agency decisions such as those noted above, which would in turn expose them to the risk of many more lawsuits than the Boards already experience because of their unique status (see CAVEAT below).

                          So, there you have it. No "mandate" is implied by the Class A security license. No duty is imposed to exercise police powers, nor is there any explicit or implicit imposition by granting the Class A license of any restrictions on the client or the security company in deciding whether to arm officers, or in deciding what duties or actions an officer may be permitted or required by his employer to undertake, so long as such duties do not exceed the authority granted by the license.

                          CAVEAT: The situation in Kansas City and St. Louis is admittedly unique, because the police agencies are actually state police departments that are administered by Boards comprised of people appointed by the governor. This came about due to corruption in these departments many decades ago that forced the state to take over the departments. Since then, there have been reams of court cases related to the status of these departments, their proper relationships to the cities they police, the extent of the authority of the Boards of Police Commissioners in the two cities, the liability of the Boards with respect to lawsuits for tortious acts of police officers, etc., etc., etc.

                          Sadly, the plethora of court cases has often muddied, rather than clarified, the particular legal issues that they address. The result is that it is admittedly possible for many legitimate opposing and/or conflicting opinions to exist about the legitimate "reach" of the administrative rules promulgated by the Boards, and about many other issues pertaining to the nature and control of police authority in these cities.
                          Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-19-2007, 01:41 PM. Reason: Formatting error
                          "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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by SecTrainer
                            The situation in Kansas City and St. Louis is admittedly unique
                            Do you think? And becasue, as you say, it is "admittedly unique" is it therefore not also possible that you don't know what the heck you are talking about in your UNSUBSTANTIATED personal opinions especially in matters of law. I think so!!!!

                            Originally posted by SecTrainer
                            this authorization does not - repeat, does NOT - mandate, nor create any duty, to exercise such powers.
                            I have provided the specific case laws that prove you wrong in your so called expert opinon but for, which you are flat out, categorically wrong in your interpretations of law?

                            Originally posted by SecTrainer
                            Many Class A officers are unarmed. From this, it also follows that the grant of a Class A license is obviously not intended to impose, for instance, a duty on an unarmed Class A officer to confront an armed criminal to effect an arrest.
                            This is pretty much commonsense and only a fool with a death wish who has an unarmed license would try differently.

                            Originally posted by SecTrainer
                            the Board is making no statement nor intending to imply that it seeks to restrict the right of either the client of a security company OR the security company itself to make decisions regarding the permitted or assigned duties of security officers (i.e., whether or not officers will make arrests), except that such duties may not exceed those permitted by the class of license held by the officer.
                            Section 10-2.030(1)(A) of Title 17 specifically states that a Class A license "shall have the authority to detain or arrest" The courts have been abundantly clear that in the presence of such words as "shall have" are used, the governing force is giving a legal order to purposefully contrain the decision making authority of others.


                            STOP GIVING FACTUALLY INCORRECT INFORMATION AND FALSELY HOLDING YOURSELF OUT TO BE COMPETENT IN MATTERS OF LAW WHEN YOU ARE NOT AND ARE DELIBERATELY MISLEADING OTHERS

                            I have provided ample court rulings in my thesis that prove you are categorically wrong. I have stuiddied constituitonal law for 15+ years and thus, contrary to your own self-promoted personal opinions, you are wrong
                            Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-19-2007, 02:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Only thing I note is that SecTrainer stated this came from the KCMO Police Department. Do more of us need to pick up the phone, call, and ask to put this to rest?
                              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


                              • #45
                                No Offense Chris, BUT This is a good example of "seeing what you want to see". I mean really, I've known people like that back when I was working the private side, people who would interpret Texas Laws that allowed for certain actions as meaning that demanded certain actions. it was a way of justifying, in their own minds, that what they were doing was not only proper, but "hey, even if it ain't the state made me do it".

                                However, just having a license can't imply a mandate as far as I'm concerned, mandates are spelled out else they aren't mandates.

                                In other words, it's an excuse for doing what you want to do (going out there and "fighting crime", even if that leads you away from your property) rather than doing what you are supposed to do (protecting your client).

                                ~~

                                On a side note, it's something I've dealt with on my current job. We are peace officers (and have REAL spelled out mandates from the state), yet we are a small Dept. And We are all that stands between our college community and the bad guys. Thus our no-chase policy.

                                I tell recruits that if you want to chase people, there are plenty of city PDs out there, this PD is for the campus, and chasing someone just because they snatched a purse or refused to stop when you pulled them over for speeding is no good reason to leave our campus undefended. So we don't chase unless a felony has occurred, and is ongoing.

                                As easily as VTPD got suckered on campus (imagine how bad it would be if a number of VTPD guys left campus), It's now a little easier to explain why in most cases we should stay close to home.. Cowboys should ride horses, not be campus cops.
                                Last edited by Black Caesar; 04-19-2007, 04:05 PM.
                                ~Black Caesar~
                                Corbier's Commandos

                                " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X