Privatizing Police Powers

[N. A. Corbier]

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.

That's what I keep screaming about. If your security officer/guard, no matter what state or city law says, leaves the client's property because he's off chasing a misdemeanor arrestee who's in flight...

No one is guarding the property.

You are no longer providing the services you contracted to the client.

Any loss the client incurs on their property, you are most likely responsible for.

You are contracted to protect the property, so how do you protect it when your employees are leaving it?

[SecTrainer]

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!!!!



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?



This is pretty much commonsense and only a fool with a death wish who has an unarmed license would try differently.



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

Mr. Cross, I don't think you read my post at all. I was merely passing along information that was given to me, and I am eminently satisfied with my source. None of what I posted above was my opinion, none of it represented "my interpretations of law", and none of it was factually incorrect. I am satisfied in my own mind that it accurately reflects the position of the Board of Police Commissioners under the relevant laws of Missouri and the administrative rules of the Board. You are at perfect liberty to hold a different view, of course, and I trust that you will accord me the same courtesy.

Now, my apologies, but as there is really nothing that you can offer that will convince me otherwise, given the utter confidence I have in my information, I really must excuse myself from this conversation once and for all. It has already taken far too much of my time, and I have real work stacking up on my desk. Let it simply be enough that we agree to disagree.

(Incidentally, for your future reference, posting in giant bold type to forums is regarded as "screaming", and is considered the penultimate form of poor Netizenship. Do yourself a favor and break yourself of that habit if you expect to be taken seriously. Underlining, italics and bold type are sufficient when you want to emphasize something, and won't cost you nearly as many friends.)

And, this advice for what it's worth. If you are involved in a court case, as it appears you are, you should probably consider that posts you make on public forums can be accessed by others who are not friendly to your cause. I would just recommend caution and temperance in what you say, particularly if it touches on the matter before the court.

[SecTrainer]

Chris states that private security have a legal 'duty to act' based upon one sentence provided in an argument filed by a police department before a court...Correct?

Fred Gailey: Your Honor, every one of these letters is addressed to Santa Claus. The Post Office has delivered them. Therefore the Post Office Department, a branch of the Federal Governent, recognizes this man Kris Kringle to be the one and only Santa Claus.

Judge Henry X. Harper: Since the United States Government declares this man to be Santa Claus, this court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.

I know I'm going to hear from Bill about this one...

Yuk-yuk-yuk-YUK!

[Christopherstjo]

The concept and practice of the government issuing private security officers police powers transcends the "traditional" security officer duties and functions.

Based on the posts I have read, it is clear that those with dissent are basing such on their belief of what security officers are supposed to do and are allowed to do, rather than understanding that the government knowingly and purposefully changed the rules by handing out police powers to security officers.

Hence the following:

Part A

1. Title 17 CSR, Section 10-2.030(1)(A) imposes a "substantive predicate" that purposefully constrains (limits) the decision making authority of others by and through the words of "shall have the authority to detain or apprehend."

No matter what anyone has to say, the underlined words above are expressly and plainly written in Section 10-2.030(1)(A) of Title 17 of the Missouri Code of State Regulations and as such, is NOT my assumption or opinion - it is rather an indisputable fact. Below is the link so you can read it for yourself.

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

2. The United States Supreme Court (not me) has held that when a substantive predicate exists, it is to purposefully constriain (limit) the discretion of others to make decisions. See Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 463 (finding discretion to be constrained by “substantive predicates").

Now, I think its' a sure fire safe bet that the U.S. Supreme Court knows a heck of a lot about more about the law and the application of the law, than SecTrainer and Nathan know. Thus, this is not my opinion or my assumption but a ruling handed down by our most superior court of law.

3. Therefore, in laymen terms this means that the government knowingly and purposefully took away the right for the client and the employer to make decisions regarding whether or not a security officer with a Class A license exercises his or her police powers, and the state did this by exercising its' "compelling state interest" right.

Part B

1. In 1999 and in 2000, Dale Close, Assistant Legal Advisor to the KCMO police department argued in trial that (a) security officers with a Class A license are essentially police officers and (b) private officer licenses were vested with police powers to supplement the overall efforts of the KCMO police department, in fighting crime.

See American Federation of Teachers, Local 691 v. The School District of Kansas City, Missouri Public Case No. 99 (Mo. State Board of Mediation 1999) (citing Burke v. State 47 S.E.2d 116 (1948)

See also Kansas City Firefighters, Local 42 v. City of Kansas City Public Case No. R 2000-046 (Mo. State Board of Mediation 2000).

2. You will notice that nowhere in what Dale Close argued, did he give even the slightest hint, suggestion or statement that that police powers are only authorizied [if and when] the employer and client want the security officer to exercise such. Dale Close knew he could not argue this, even remotely, because of the substantive predicate imposed in Section 10-2.030(1)(A) of Title 17.

3. In arguing these things, Dale Close explained exactly why police powers were given to Class A security officer licenses, which is specifically for the purpose of furthering the ends of government in fighting crime.

4. This means, in laymen terms, that in lieu of paragraph B2, above, the security officer has the duty to act in a light most favorable to the government not his / her employer and not his / her client but the government and specifically in way of fighting crime by and through the substantive predicate issued in Section 10-2.030(1)(A) on the properties for which he or she is assigned.

5. How can this be you ask. Because the State exercized its' legal right to do so, by asserting a "compelling state interest" so as to give security officers with a Class A license police powers specifically to aid the KCMO police department in fighting crime. And when a "compelling state interest" is asserted, it means that the state takes away the rights of private citizens.

Part C

1. In "traditional" concepts and practices of security services, the security officer is an agent of his / her employer and the client. However, by giving security officers police powers, the State decided to change the rules and made security officers agents of the government, instead. This is proven by (a) Dale Close arguing in trial that security officers with a Class A license are essentially police officers and (b) Dale Close arguing in trial that police powers were given to these security officers specifically to assist the KCMO police in fighting crime.

2. In "traditional" concepts and practices of security services, the security officer has a duty to his / her employer and the client to conduct him/herself in a light most favorable to his / her employer and the client. However, by giving security officers police powers, the State decided to change the rules and require security officers to act in a light most favorable to the government instead. This is proven by (a) the government giving police powers to security officers and (b) the government limiting the decision making authority of others in the exercising of the police powers given.

3. Thus, as I said before: Effectively the state has drafted security officers, here in KCMO, to be law enforcement officers, or as Dale Close argued in trail, "police officers." Thereby once again changing the rules of private security services.

Part D

Now, SecTrainer argues that some [unnamed] person within the KCMO police depatment purports that security officers have no duty to act. If this person genuinely believes this to be true, then let this [unnamed] person present his or her arguments in a legal brief to the federal court in the case I am litigting and we can address his or her dispute there rather that blindly accepting such simply and only because SecTrainer says some [unknown] peerson says it is so. If this [unnamed] person is not willing to come out into the light and argue in court of law, then it is right to judge this [unnamed] person and SecTrainer accordingly. Its' pretty much that simple. Put up or shut up, as the age old saying goes.

[SecTrainer]

Mr. Cross, you've been all over the Web now, claiming to be a "criminologist" (working as a security guard?), talking about drawing your gun and taking down bad guys, and quoting emails filled with praise from Deputy Chiefs of Police. Mostly, you've been seeking support for your position, and you haven't found it. In the process, all you've managed to accomplish is to alienate people at an astonishing rate that I believe eclipses even that of our former resident goofball, Mr. Marchetti.

Further arguments here and on other forums don't seem to promise anything constructive. That being so, why not just try your case in the court, not on Web forums. We'll follow the case, and if you prevail in court the argument is over. Ba-da-boom, ba-da-bing. Right?

In fact, what we think doesn't even matter very much, but once the case is decided either way, you'll have your answer from an authoritative source that does matter, and we'll all be able to read the decision.

So why not just leave it at that for now? You're going to get your answer, and I don't think there's anything to be gained by further discussion.

[Christopherstjo]

SecTrainer

Awww, the famous efforts to resort to try to personally insult and attack me when - so childish SecTraniner, so childish indeed.

As I said in the very beginning, I posted my thesis for purposes of seeing what others have to say and people, even those like you, have offered their comments. This is, what forums such as SIW are for, are they not? So, who are you to dictate what is and is not talked about; who can and cannot post a thread or comment?

[Christopherstjo]

have you been sworn in to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the laws of the state of Missouri?

Title 17 does not require security officers' to be sworn officers in order to exercise police powers. This is one of the problems existing in security officers having police powers to exercise.

Have you taken an oath affirming that you will do exactly that, to the best of your ability?

Title 17 does not require security officers' to be sworn officers in order to exercise police powers. This is one of the problems existing in security officers having police powers to exercise.

Do you have state or other government issued "credentials" identifying yourself as a law enforcement officer or "police officer"?

The Missouri Supreme Court was expressly clear in what the State of Missouri defines to be a "law enforcement officer" and in its' rulling, specific to Class A licensed security officers, the Missouri Supreme Court has held, yes, we are.

Are you paid by a government agency, or does a government agency pay your employer to contract police services?

Your question has no relevance in what Title 17, the Missouri Supreme Court and the KCMO legal department for the police have had to say. To-wit, none of these entities predicate their arguments on your claim.

You are not a law enforcement officer, but rather a security officer (even with a "class A" security license trying desperately to make the proverbial "end-run" around commissioning requirements.

Pointing out what exists by virtue of Title 17, case laws and statements from the KCMO legal department is just that.

Give it up. If you want to be a cop, test, interview and get hired. Go to the police academy, and go out on patrol. Police officers have to do this sort of stuff, and I did too.

This, rather tiresome argument, to try and defeat what exists in law and authority, presupposes that if you attack me, the law and the authority will somehow no longer exist. Your argument above, has no merit.

I also take this entire argument of yours as a personal insult to myself, and all of the other cops, past and present, who have "tried and won".

It is curiously odd that those who have the greatest dissent are those who claim to be active or retired cops but such does not change the facts.

I have been abundantly clear to acknowledge that there are multitudes of problems existing when giving police powers to untrained and improperly regulated security officers. Therefore, do not take my pointing out the facts in what is being done, to somehow equate to my condoning what States are doing because I do not.

Finely, SecTrainer made a claim that he spoke with some [unnamed] person in the KCMO police deaprtment who purportedly disputes that there is a duty to act. I have extended the invite for this [unnamed] person to make his or her claims known in legal brief and argument to the federal Court. If he or she fails or refuses to do just that, then it is right to judge him or her and SecTrainer accordingly. Put up or shut up, as the age old saying goes.

[SecTrainer]

I posted my thesis for purposes of seeing what others have to say and people, even those like you, have offered their comments.

Well, we've offered them in spades, so surely even you should be satisfied by now. You can't hammer us into changing our disagreement with your rambling, misspelled, ungrammatical "thesis", which is not, in fact, a thesis but is more like the Unabomber's manifesto than anything else, in my opinion.

Your manifesto has, however, served a purpose. It has confirmed my faith in the common sense of the common man who might not be a lawyer but who can spot sheer nonsense, even when it poses as "legal analysis", a mile away.

Now...are we done?

[Christopherstjo]

Well, we've offered them in spades, so surely even you should be satisfied by now.

Not at all. It is a subject that needs to be discussed because of the immense constitutional implications existing and the grave dangers associated when giving untrained and improperly regulated security officers police powers. But rather than discussing the intended subject, people like you have chosen to believe that if you try to personally attack and insult against me enough, it will somehow change the laws and powers given in law, when clearly this childish conduct does not.

[SecTrainer]

Not at all. It is a subject that needs to be discussed because of the immense constitutional implications existing and the grave dangers associated when giving untrained and improperly regulated security officers police powers. But rather than discussing the intended subject, people like you have chosen to believe that if you try to personally attack and insult against me enough, it will somehow change the laws and powers given in law, when clearly this childish conduct does not.

The subject was discussed to the point of disgust, Mr. Cross. You can go back over the threads and you will find plenty of posts - including from me - that made no personal references to you whatsoever, but which simply disagreed with you. Then, you can very easily see for yourself where things went from there, and why.

As of this moment, I will leave you to carry on any further "disgustion" about the subject with others. I'm outa here, and it's perfectly okee-dokee with me if you think that's a very good thing. The court will confirm or deny your claim, and I am content to wait for its decision.

[Christopherstjo]

You can go back over the threads and you will find plenty of posts - including from me - that made no personal references to you whatsoever,

I did this very thing SecTrainer and provided the SIW Editor copies of such, which is why my other post was locked, at my request, and various posts were deleated from the thread. Some of the posts made have wholly breached the confines of appropriate conduct; reaching deep into the relms of being vulger, hateful, argumentative to spark fights and grossly inflammatory.

Believe it or not SecTrainer, I find you to be an individual worth listening to in debate. Unfortunately, you destroy this when you want to resort to the childish efforts to try to personally attack and insult me because you disagree with me. Disagree all you want, but be a professional and have some ethics when doing so and apart of that means having the integrity to ackowledge that even you can be wrong in your dissenting views and arguments.

[SecTrainer]

What both of us need to understand at this point, Mr. Cross, is that this conversation between you and me is fouling the air on this forum. It is both boring and annoying to absolutely everyone. I've tried to leave the conversation about six times now, but I'm starting to feel like Brer Rabbit wrestling with Tar Baby. If you remember that story, Tar Baby had no brains at all, and Brer Rabbit wasn't much smarter, if any. This is how you and I are presenting ourselves now on this forum.

So, let us at least agree now to end it, please, and perhaps we can at least do that on a civil note. If others wish to engage you in debate, well and good, but I don't have anything further of value to offer, nor will I be persuaded by anything more that you can say to accept your position until a court has confirmed it. That's just where we stand, and it's enough to leave it at that.

May I have your explicit, final agreement on this, out of respect for other members of this forum, if for no other reason? I for my part will not post in this thread again, regardless of your reply to this appeal, or what you might say about me personally in your reply.

[OccamsRazor]

Chris, once more. Are you a commissioned, fully empowered law enforcement officer by title (police, deputy sheriff, trooper, whatever), or a security guard/officer?

Don't quote obscure, meaningless arguments, answer the question.

I, on the other hand, am quite clear on my end. I am a security guard. I've been a real police officer, and a real deputy sheriff. Now, I am a real guard. I don't need or want "arrest or law enforcement" authority.

Been there, done that.

[Christopherstjo]

Chris, once more. Are you a commissioned, fully empowered law enforcement officer by title (police, deputy sheriff, trooper, whatever), or a security guard/officer?

I am a commissioned security law enforcement officer pursuant to 84.720 RSMo (2006); Title 17 CSR, Sec's., 10-2.010(3) and 10-2.030(1)(A) and 556.061(7)(17) RSMo (2006). See Jackson County v. Missouri State Board of Mediation, 690 S.W.2d 400, 402-03 (Mo. banc 1985) (the courts ruling specifically removes the requirement that a law enforcement officer is required to be or is only a "public servant" and the court specifically incorporated security officers with a Class A license into the definition of a law enforcement officer). See also American Federation of Teachers, Local 691 v. The School District of Kansas City, Missouri Public Case No. 99 (Mo. State Board of Mediation 1999) (citing Burke v. State 47 S.E.2d 116 (1948);Kansas City Firefighters, Local 42 v. City of Kansas City Public Case No. R 2000-046 (Mo. State Board of Mediation 2000).

You just can't grasp the concept that States having such laws, have made security officers both - a security officer and a law enforcement officer in the same breadth and licensure.

The fact that you and others refuse to accept this does not mean your refusals change what has already been argued by the City of Kansas City, in trial, to legally exist and for, which has been ruled upon by the governing legal authorities.

It also does not change the fact that more than one federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, has also issued rulings demonstrating the factual validity of the claims made.

Am I in favor of what has taken place, in these States, no I am not because security officers, across the board, are not being properly trained and regulated and constituitonal violations of law are rising all across our nation.

[Christopherstjo]

What both of us need to understand at this point, Mr. Cross, is that this conversation between you and me is fouling the air on this forum. It is both boring and annoying to absolutely everyone. I've tried to leave the conversation about six times now, but I'm starting to feel like Brer Rabbit wrestling with Tar Baby. If you remember that story, Tar Baby had no brains at all, and Brer Rabbit wasn't much smarter, if any. This is how you and I are presenting ourselves now on this forum.

So, let us at least agree now to end it, please, and perhaps we can at least do that on a civil note. If others wish to engage you in debate, well and good, but I don't have anything further of value to offer, nor will I be persuaded by anything more that you can say to accept your position until a court has confirmed it. That's just where we stand, and it's enough to leave it at that.

May I have your explicit, final agreement on this, out of respect for other members of this forum, if for no other reason? I for my part will not post in this thread again, regardless of your reply to this appeal, or what you might say about me personally in your reply.

How convenient of you SecTrainer - you haven't given a rats a$$ before about your smering my thread and subsequent posts with your vulger, inflammatory, hate, factually incorrect information and your argumentative conduct to pick one fight after another with me, and ignoring my complaints about such and my requests for you to stop. But now, all of a sudden, you want to be the "goog guy" (sic) - get real.