Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Privatizing Police Powers

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

  • #76
    Black Caesar

    Are you sure Cross v. Chillicothe is one that pertains to me? There is, after all, more than one Christopher Cross in Missouri - careful what you post.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Black Caesar
      Part of the problem is how screwed up Missouri law is. While I agree with many here that some of what Mr. Cross believes is at best a stretch, we also have to take into consideration where he is.
      And just think, there are 29 other states just as screwed up... Now isn't that just the kicker

      Originally posted by Black Caesar
      He's not the only one of the opinion that KCMO S?Os are Quasi Police. KAPI link
      Hmmm, could that be becuse there is validity in the claims asserted

      Originally posted by Black Caesar
      While what Cross is saying doesn't make a lot of sense to us
      Well, that's the understatement of the centry.

      Originally posted by Black Caesar
      . . . we should keep in mind one thing we all know. Many places have laws about private security that are just down right stupid.
      Be that as it may be - it is the law nonetheless.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Christopherstjo
        Black Caesar

        Are you sure Cross v. Chillicothe is one that pertains to me? There is, after all, more than one Christopher Cross in Missouri - careful what you post.
        LOL! It is you... funny how there is a document in your current case where you complain that the defending attorney from the Chillicothe case is the same one defending your former employer in your current case (I can post that too if anyone is interested, it is quite comical).

        Besides... I don't see many listings for a Christopher Ray Cross in Kansas City, or all of Missouri for that matter. Kinda crazy, eh?
        Last edited by davis002; 04-21-2007, 03:18 AM.
        "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


        • #79
          Originally posted by Christopherstjo
          I received the following private message from SecTrainer and believe it purduent to post my reply here, as well because of the importance of his objection and the importance of my answer.




          SecTrainer

          Since you claim to have two years of law school, then you should know that case laws are transferrable, in whole or in part, from one case to another.

          In other words, while you point out that the case centered on correctional officers, the case is nevertheless applicable to other cases that have the same or similar components, arguements, claims and so forth.

          Transferring case laws from one case to another is a legal practice of law that courts, attorney's and many - many others have used for eon's and [U][U]is actually required to be done[/B], by the Courts[/B] during times of filing motions and replies to motions. The only time case laws may not be cited is in the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the Defendant's Answer.

          Accordingly:

          1. In Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation 690 S.W.2d 400, 402-03 (Mo. banc 1985) the Missouri Supreme Court gave its ruling as to the legislative intent of Section 105.510 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. The Court held:

          "The Legislature presumably excluded police and deputy sheriffs from the scope of the statute after concluding that the bargaining rights granted there in would inhibit the discipline and strict impartiality demanded of law enforcement personnel. The Leglisature may well have believed that "membership in [a union] might reasonably cause friction and dissention within the police force and create prejudice and favoritism in the enforcement of the laws." Citing King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 206 S.W.2d 547, 555 (banc 1947).

          The Court went on to state:

          "We think the legislative purpose can be best effectuated if the exclusion provision is interpreted to encompass those persons engaged in law enforcement, who, regardless of job title, perform duties and functions substantially comparable to those performed by police and deputy sheriffs." Id at 403.

          2. The case of Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation, is cited in the case of Kansas City Firefighters, Local 691 v. City of Kansas City, Public Case No. R 2000-046.

          3. The City of Kansas City, sought to block the efforts of private security officers with a Class A license to join a union pursuant to Section 105.510 of the Missouri Revised Statutes on the arguement that private security officers are essentially police officers because of their authority given under Title 17 of the Missouri Code of State Regulations, Sections 10-2.010(3) and 10-2.030(1)(A) (1999).

          4. In the case of Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation, the Court knowingly and willingly incorporated [every] security officer with a Class A license, regardless whether or not the security officer is a government or private employee.

          5. The Court also knowingly and willingly removed the requirement that a "law enforcement officer" is required to be a "public servant" as section 556.061(17) of the Missouri Revised Statutes, requires.

          6. To understand how the federal courts decide whether or not security officers are law enforcement personnel we can plainly see such in the following three case laws; the last one is from the U.S. Supreme Court.

          Payton v. Rush-Presbyterian, 184 F.3d 623, 627-30 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding that where private security guards are endowed by law with plenary police powers such that they are de facto police officers, they may qualify as state actors under the public function test).

          Rodriguez v. Smithfield Packing Co., Inc., 338 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2003) (observing that “the police function is ‘one of the most basic functions of government’” and “an arrest is ‘the function most commonly associated with the police’”) (quoting Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291, 297 (1978)).

          Cf. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 109-10 (1945) (holding “one has the power to arrest when one is “clothed with the authority of state law”).

          And there are many - many more federal case laws that also demonstrate the validity of my claims; some of, which I cite in my thesis.

          7. In the case of Kansas City Firefighters, Local 691 v. City of Kansas City, Public Case No. R 2000-046. The trial court rejected the City's arguement that school district security officers are police because they do not carry firearms and do not have arrest powers to enforce the laws.

          8. As a result of this ruling, the State of Missouri clearly and categorically declares that security officers who do carry a firearms and do have arrest powers are members of the police force and police officers, even though they are [privately] employed and have a private security officer's license.

          Now, matters of law are almost always complex and a large part of this comes because case laws are transferrable from one case to another. And as a rule of thumb, those in private security and those who are or were police officers, rarely, if every, studdy state and federal case laws so as to know what does and does not apply in their line of duty.

          It is not surprising, therefore, that addressing this subject is like speaking a foregin language to others. It is a concept that others simply cannot grasp and many times it is because security officers do not bother to educate themselves in matters of law as it pertains to their jobs.

          Hell, I am shocked at the number of security officers I have spoken with here in KCMO, who have never bothered read Title 17. They know they have police powers but only because both security and police officers speak of such in the field rather commonly, especially during times when a suspect has been legally arrested by a security law enforcement officer.

          In any event, the case of Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation, not only has a great deal of relevance in my claims but it is also the controlling legal authority existing. And in your claiming to have two years of law school, you should know this to be true.

          I hope this helps to answer your question.
          Of course the principles of one case certainly can be applied to other cases, nor did I ever suggest otherwise. That is the whole basis of "case law", the principles of precedent, stare decisis, etc.

          However, the "transferrability" of findings in one case to another is by no means "automatic". In law school, we had to both compare AND contrast cases, both in terms of distinguishing their facts and the legal principles they represented. It's a very tricky business, believe me, as one who had to stand before the class (just like on "Paper Chase") and explain why an implied contract existed when the Ace Pavement Company accidentally paved the wrong driveway but did not exist when the Acme Fence Company installed a fence on the wrong property. It was, as some wag said, "like eating sawdust without butter". Different decisions sometimes turned on what appeared to be very insignificant factual differences between the cases.

          I explained to you, in what I hope you took as a helpful private message that was in no way critical of you, what I believe to be significant distinguishing features of the case you cite with what I (admittedly imperfectly) understand to be the facts in your case.

          Here, I think, is the real problem with pro se cases, or self-representation in court, procedural issues aside and with no aspersions intended toward you. Legal analysis isn't merely difficult - it's damned difficult. It isn't merely tricky - it's devilishly tricky. You read an opinion of the Court that seems to strike law that's applicable in your case, only to discover that it does no such thing.

          Even Shepardizing cases (which you always want to make sure you do) to determine their subsequent fate in the courts is usually no easy task because you'll often find that your case has been treated very differently when relied upon in subsequent cases. Out of 8 cases citing your reference case, two were upheld, one was not, three made no reference to the case in the opinion, etc., etc. So...now you have to find out why.

          As I said, this is not a case that I would have chosen to support my case, but of course, as in everything else, it's just my opinion.

          I have attempted to take our conversation off the public forum for reasons I already explained and would regard it as simple courtesy if you would respond to my PRIVATE messages in that same way.
          "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


          • #80
            Originally posted by Christopherstjo
            Black Caesar

            Are you sure Cross v. Chillicothe is one that pertains to me? There is, after all, more than one Christopher Cross in Missouri - careful what you post.
            This is a strange denial if, in fact, you were not the same party in that case. One would naturally simply say, "I was not the party in that case".

            Yes, Mr. Cross, we do believe you were the party in that case, and for good reason that your own documentation provides.
            "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


            • #81
              Originally posted by Investigation
              Chris, I commend you on your passion for your DIVE project. But, from what you’ve posted, it sounds like everything revolves around the K.C.M.O. class A license.
              I re-wrote my program outline specifically to present to the KCMO police department. This is why I discuss a Class A license in my program outline.

              Originally posted by Investigation
              This is very small considering that the license is issued by a single city in this big country.
              You are correct. However, in my discussions with a wide range of government officials on both the federal and many state levels throughout the U.S., they all wanted to see my DIVE Team program implemented on a city level first, with documented successes before it could be considered on larger scale, and such is certainly reasonable.

              Originally posted by Investigation
              What would be more beneficial to the Security Industry (on a broader scope) is if you formed some sort of non-profit group that worked to expand the training, licensing requirements, and powers of Security Officers on a state by state basis.
              FEMA was among the top who were the most interested in my DIVE Team for implementation on a national level under its' umbrella, but as I wrote above, I have to demonstrate its' success on local levels first. To-wit, I have proposed to use KCMO as a pilot program to test the merits and benefits of my program on several levels.

              As far as a non-profit org., there are several of us here, in KCMO, that are very interested in doing this and we were looking at a potential ogranization to partner with so we could accomplish this goal. However, I sent my letter of withdraw becasue the organizaiton did not appear to be properly suited.

              The decision will not be made for a while. We have to get folks properly trained first and that is a project already in the works, here, that is not of my doing or involvement. Those with decision making authority in the police dept do demonstrate they are interested in the concepts of my program. So for now, its' a waiting game.
              Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-21-2007, 03:30 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by davis002
                LOL! It is you... funny how there is a document in your current case where you complain that the defending attorney from the Chillicothe case is the same one defending your former employer in your current case (I can post that too if anyone is interested, it is quite comical).
                HAHAHA!! Yeah...Sounds like someone put their foot in their mouth. (Busted)
                For someone who claims to know the law...he sure leaves a long paper trail.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by power102
                  HAHAHA!! Yeah...Sounds like someone put their foot in their mouth. (Busted)
                  For someone who claims to know the law...he sure leaves a long paper trail.
                  A paper trail is one of the awkward consequences of being the sort of person who files lawsuits. Most court records are public information.
                  "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


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by SecTrainer
                    I have attempted to take our conversation off the public forum for reasons I already explained and would regard it as simple courtesy if you would respond to my PRIVATE messages in that same way.
                    Given your earilier post in regard to the KAPI, I reasonably believed you elected not to uphold your prior post of no longer posting in this thread.

                    Originally posted by SecTrainer
                    It's a very tricky business, believe me, as one who had to stand before the class (just like on "Paper Chase") and explain why an implied contract existed when the Ace Pavement Company accidentally paved the wrong driveway but did not exist when the Acme Fence Company installed a fence on the wrong property.
                    To me, there is no subject more facinating and more complex than that of law. It evolves daily and promotes exercising ones mind and talents to argue, debate and so forth. But what I like the most about it, in general terms, is that nobody but nobody can or ever will be an expert in law, in part, because our judicial system of government makes sure of that but also because the law evolves so rapidly.

                    In any event, without going into details, I will simply say that I too am very familiar with the tricky aspects of citing case laws.

                    Originally posted by SecTrainer
                    It was, as some wag said, "like eating sawdust without butter". Different decisions sometimes turned on what appeared to be very insignificant factual differences between the cases.
                    As you know, it is not often now days that the outcome of a case is based solely on the letter of some statutory law but rather ones ability to effectively articulate the best legal arguement before the court with supporting case laws. I, personally, love arguing law before courts. I love it so much because it gives me the opportunity to play a direct role in holding those accountable who violate the law, rather than letting some attorney to have all the fun.

                    Originally posted by SecTrainer
                    I explained to you, in what I hope you took as a helpful private message that was in no way critical of you, what I believe to be significant distinguishing features of the case you cite with what I (admittedly imperfectly) understand to be the facts in your case.
                    SecTrainer, your private message was fine. When you speak to me with respect and for purposes of exploring the subject / issues, I actually enjoy conversing with you. Where you quickly turn me off is when you want to engage in the efforts to personally insult and attack me. Leave this crap out and we will get along fine. It actually sounds like we might have a few things in common.

                    It is common knowledge that anyone can say they have this degree or that one or this job or that one, on the Internet and experience has taught me that many times a lot of people will intentionally lie on the Internet for one reason or another.

                    However, one thing should be plainly - no - it should be grossly apparent to you... is that what I write, how I write it and the words I use is certainly not typical of "security guards" or even "police" and as such. It should give you and others a clue that I am not among those on the Internet that feel the need to lie, to the contrary, I generally piss people off because I am so damn honest with what I have to say, what I think; feel and believe.

                    Originally posted by SecTrainer
                    Here, I think, is the real problem with pro se cases, or self-representation in court, procedural issues aside and with no aspersions intended toward you. Legal analysis isn't merely difficult - it's damned difficult. It isn't merely tricky - it's devilishly tricky. You read an opinion of the Court that seems to strike law that's applicable in your case, only to discover that it does no such thing.
                    I agree. But do not be too quick to presume that I lack the skills to practice law. There is a whole lot about me that you do not know and my talents in praciting law is certainly included.

                    Originally posted by SecTrainer
                    Out of 8 cases citing your reference case, two were upheld, one was not, three made no reference to the case in the opinion, etc., etc. So...now you have to find out why.
                    SecTrainer, I have been studding law, in a very broad spectrum, for 15+ years. I am not by any means a stupid person in matters of law.

                    Originally posted by SecTrainer
                    As I said, this is not a case that I would have chosen to support my case, but of course, as in everything else, it's just my opinion.
                    It is only one case law among the many that exist, and has specific relevance to what exists on state levels.

                    There is only one of my four claims, in the case I am currently litigating, that addresses this subject specifically to that of security officers being entitled to have a fair and impartial hearing before the Board of Police Commissioners because the State classifies us as law enforcement officers, even though we are "at will employees."

                    In effect, the Federal Court is required to base its' ruling on this one claim, upon what exists on the state level and the Jackson County case gives clear demonstration that both the State of Missouri and the Missouri Supreme Court depict security officers to be law enforcement officers and as such, we are duly and legally entitled to a fair and impartial hearing before the Board of Police Commissioners in order to be lawfully / legally terminated from our employment, pursuant to the due process and equal proteciton of laws under the 14th Amemdment and Article 10 of the Missouri Constitution.

                    Hence, the federal Court will consider the case of Jackson County v. State Board of Mediation, among the others I will cite , in only one of my four claims. If I fail, then I fail and we turn to the other three claims I have filed. But if I win this one particular claim, I set precedence on the federal level that will serve well in protecting all security officers in KCMO and St. Louis. Nothing venture is guaranteed to be nothing gained.

                    Practicing law is always a gamble. You always have two people going before the court saying they are the expert in this or that law but only one walks out haivng been proved a winner.
                    Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-21-2007, 04:35 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Christopherstjo
                      FEMA was among the top who were the most interested in my DIVE Team for implementation on a national level under its' umbrella, but as I wrote above, I have to demonstrate its' success on local levels first.
                      Mr. Cross is correct. FEMA rarely adopts new concepts until they have some track record of success on a local level. It is also very difficult to get grant money for adoption of new programs on a wider scale from FEMA/DHS until the merits have been demonstrated.

                      Incidentally, the principles and procedures used for "federal grant accountability" - even if applied somewhat informally - can provide a useful framework for documentation and testing at the local level even though grant money is not yet involved in the early stages.
                      "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


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Christopherstjo
                        I re-wrote my program outline specifically to present to the KCMO police department. This is why I discuss a Class A license in my program outline.



                        You are correct. However, in my discussions with a wide range of government officials on both the federal and many state levels throughout the U.S., they all wanted to see my DIVE Team program implemented on a city level first, with documented successes before it could be considered on larger scale, and such is certainly reasonable.



                        FEMA was among the top who were the most interested in my DIVE Team for implementation on a national level under its' umbrella, but as I wrote above, I have to demonstrate its' success on local levels first. To-wit, I have proposed to use KCMO as a pilot program to test the merits and benefits of my program on several levels.

                        As far as a non-profit org., there are several of us here, in KCMO, that are very interested in doing this and we were looking at a potential ogranization to partner with so we could accomplish this goal. However, I sent my letter of withdraw becasue the organizaiton did not appear to be properly suited.

                        The decision will not be made for a while. We have to get folks properly trained first and that is a project already in the works, here, that is not of my doing or involvement. Those with decision making authority in the police dept do demonstrate they are interested in the concepts of my program. So for now, its' a waiting game.

                        Well, I would drop the whole DIVE program, start up a non-profit organization that supports the efforts of individual officers, and lobby State governments to improve training requirements, standards, and powers (start with Missouri). This is what is really needed (without the DIVE program). Sometimes you just have to drop something that doesn't work and move to something that does. I just see a logistical nightmare in your program since there is such a variance in training, responsibilities, etc...

                        Please answer the following questions with 25 words or less (for each question). My eyeballs are starting to bleed from this thread and I've learned more about K.C.M.O. Security practice than I've ever wanted to (and it haunts me in my sleep). So,

                        1. How are you going to enlist contract security officers into the DIVE program.
                        2. How are you going to get funding to pay these officers their wages?
                        3. How much do you expect your annual budget to be?
                        4. How does your program differ from the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or FEMA?
                        5. What will the motivation be for people to join?
                        6. What is your training? Did you ever attend a Police Academy (FT or Reserve)?
                        7. Who is going to command these people?
                        8. If you could pick one current organization that resembles your future DIVE program (in any fashion), what would that be?
                        9. Do you ever use spell and grammar check? In the business world, your errors would not be looked upon highly.
                        10. Do you have any formal Emergency Management training?
                        Last edited by Investigation; 04-21-2007, 04:41 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Christopherstjo
                          Given your earilier post in regard to the KAPI, I reasonably believed you elected not to uphold your prior post of no longer posting in this thread.
                          Perhaps I misspoke. What I intended to say was that I believed you and I should no longer converse publically in this thread...not that I would not respond to others. However, it's a minor point now.

                          ...do not be too quick to presume that I lack the skills to practice law. There is a whole lot about me that you do not know and my talents in praciting law is certainly included.

                          SecTrainer, I have been studding law, in a very broad spectrum, for 15+ years. I am not by any means a stupid person in matters of law.
                          Forgive me. I seem to insult you even when I haven't said, nor intended to imply, the things you attribute to me. In any case, that was not my intent and so I confess that I am somewhat baffled as to just how to avoid insulting you.
                          Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-21-2007, 04:45 AM.
                          "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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by SecTrainer
                            Mr. Cross is correct. FEMA rarely adopts new concepts until they have some track record of success on a local level. It is also very difficult to get grant money for adoption of new programs on a wider scale from FEMA/DHS until the merits have been demonstrated.

                            Incidentally, the principles and procedures used for "federal grant accountability" - even if applied somewhat informally - can provide a useful framework for documentation and testing at the local level even though grant money is not yet involved in the early stages.
                            I am hoping to get grant money from the COPS program and I'll be happy to remind them what they wrote in their 2004 report on developing partnerships between the police and security officers. They specfically state in that report that the USDOJ should fund projects that have this goal in mind. Mine is no different.

                            There will be a huge amount of data I will have to collect; it will be extremely time consuming but well worth the effort if I can prove its' success. Trial and error will be the best teacher and like all new programs mine too will have to be tweeked, as we go.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by SecTrainer
                              Forgive me. I seem to insult you even when I haven't said, nor intended to imply, the things you attribute to me. In any case, that was not my intent and so I confess that I am somewhat baffled as to just how to avoid insulting you.
                              No insult taken...it was just a statement I made. Now, I think its' time to go to bed
                              Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-21-2007, 04:48 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                Well, I would drop the whole DIVE program, start up a non-profit organization that supports the efforts of individual officers, and lobby State governments to improve training requirements, standards, and powers (start with Missouri).
                                Be that as it may be, both can be achieved at the same time as each are two distinctively different goals and journey's pursued.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                Sometimes you just have to drop something that doesn't work and move to something that does.
                                Maybe I might agree with you if not for the fact that my program has never been tried beyond the basic concept, which was proved to be successful in a major metropolitan city, for a year and for, which I was a participant in the capacity of an unarmed security officer.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                I just see a logistical nightmare in your program since there is such a variance in training, responsibilities, etc...
                                Yes, there will undoubtedly be logistical problems and even nightmares at times, this is the learning process and all programs have growing pains. I do not agree that there will be variences in training and responsibilities, however.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                1. How are you going to enlist contract security officers into the DIVE program.
                                It will be an application process where interested security officers will file an application and then be interviewed. The process will be extensive, in other words, more than 25 words.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                2. How are you going to get funding to pay these officers their wages?
                                Because of Title 17, security officers will have to operate in the capacity of their employment. Therefore, employers will contract with the city and / or the KCPD for a fee for service. By the city becoming the client, security officers can operate on/in city streets without violating Title 17. Currently, the city already contracts with two security company's to patrol the down town city streets. However, the contract fee need not be any more than what it costs to pay the wages of the DIVE Team security officers, or it may be more. This will be up to the powers that be in the city / police governments.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                3. How much do you expect your annual budget to be?
                                While I cannot give a specific dollar amount, as of yet, I do not foresee any thing more than a very minimal start up cost for basic equipment. If the city / police are not willing to provide the training for free, which is well within their purview to do then funds would be needed for this as well. As for long term costs in way of equipment, it will be the costs of maintaining pagers and two-way radio's for each of the DIVE Team security officers. As I wrote earlier, grants from the USDOJ, COPS program is a very good and probable source of funding.


                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                4. How does your program differ from the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or FEMA?
                                My program greatly differs from the Salvation Army and the Red Cross, as these organizations provide humanitarian services in way of food, shelter, clothing and religious services by the Salvation Army. My program specifically focuses on providing front line security services that serve to empower police to focus their efforts, skills and what not on the immediate emergency existing rather than doing front line security work. This in turn makes for a more efficient and effect emerency management response system and saves tax revenue in the process that is then redirected into other critical police dept needs.

                                FEMA stated its' interest in my program but wants the program implemented on the local level (city) first with documented successes before it will consider implementing it within the FEMA structure.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                5. What will the motivation be for people to join?
                                Better training than is currently available to front line security officers; more credibility as professional security officers; job security; brighter future employment opportunities; postive standing in the industry and community, higher self-respect and self-esteem, and having direct involvement in emergency management systems within the confines of front line security services.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                6. What is your training? Did you ever attend a Police Academy (FT or Reserve)?
                                No, I have never attended the "police" academy. I have attended professional security school in both basic and supervisory aspects of security, as well as schooling in nursing and criminal justice, I have also proactively sought out numerous certifications in related subject matters. I have an accumulated 21 years as a mental health professional specializing in forensic case management and counseling, psych and behavioral management with extremely high risk violent clients. I have 15 years in the criminal justice system, apart of which includes the private security industry in both armed and unarmed capacities. I have actively studdied constitutional law for 15+ years and I have litigated various cases. In 2005 and 2006, I was recognized by the Association of Trial Lawyers of America as a lawyer and offered a membership as such. However, I willingly and rigtfully turned the offer down because I am not a licensed lawyer and the Association knew this beforehand; it was nevertheless an honor but would have been grossly unethical to accept the membership. I was a Health and Safety Instructor for the American Red Cross for five years, to-wit, was essentially a second job given the high amount of hours I volunteered, every week as an Instructor. And I have accomplished many other things as well.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                7. Who is going to command these people?
                                As my program outline states, there will be three entities in command: One City official, one police department official and one security official. The city and police officials take the lead in determining if and when the DIVE Team is to be activcated. The security official commands the field operations.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                8. If you could pick one current organization that resembles your future DIVE program (in any fashion), what would that be?
                                To some extent the Blackhawk U.S.A. security force somewhat [emphasis on somewhat] correlates to my DIVE Team program. But only insofar as taking more active roles in partnering with police and FEMA officials as it did during Huricain Katrina. But because Blackhawk U.S.A. engages in conduct far more extensive than my program is intended and designed to do, it only reflects a small correlation to my program - but is the only one I can think of right now because my program has never before been tried.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                9. Do you ever use spell and grammar check? In the business world, your errors would not be looked upon highly.
                                I am aware of this, yet, even the best and most intelligent still make mistakes. Having dislexia sometimes gets in the way and being up all hours of the night working on the computer certainly does not help either. But yes, I use my spell / grammar check routinely, yet, even in that I notice it does not catch everything.

                                Originally posted by Investigation
                                10. Do you have any formal Emergency Management training?
                                Except for my graduating nursing college and the training I received from the American Red Cross, no. This does not, however, equate to a lack of need to consider my program, nor does it equate to my inability to learn. Keep in mind that my program focuses on front line security services that are incorporated into existing emergency management plans and procedures. This is not reinventing the wheel here. It is rather taking a good system and making it more efficient and more effective that serves a substantial public good and empowers more advanced personnel (police) to focus on what they are trained to do while saving tax revenue in the process.

                                The basic concept of my program has already been tried and proved to work in a major metropolitan city, in a year long pilot program.
                                Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-23-2007, 06:12 AM.

                                Comment

                                Leaderboard

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X