Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Privatizing Police Powers

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

  • davis002
    replied
    OMG! why did you necro this thread?!

    Leave a comment:


  • official
    replied
    Senate Bill 2172

    FL SENATE and HOUSE introduce legislation giving arrest/detention authority to security officers in the State of Florida. If the legislation passes, it goes into effect Jul 1, 2008.

    CHECK FOR SB 2172.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    I got word this morning that the State of Missouri is going to review and consider my DIVE Team program, in the scope of providing effective and efficient security services in public places. This comes in wake of the Tech School shooting.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    As I said, the web browser program Firefox (versions 2.0 or higher) provides spell checking for all forms on a website.

    http://www.mozilla.org/

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by N. A. Corbier
    As far as spelling mistakes, people using Firefox 2.0+ have built-in spell checking in any web form (like this one I'm typing in), as well as other features.
    I would like to get a better software program than I have; mine sucks, as it not only misses words that I have [intentionally] misspelled to see if it would catch the error, but it also sucks in way of grammer. The spell check program I have is the one that came with the computer.

    Is there spell check on this forum when you are typing a response to post? I have not been able to locate it if it exists.

    Leave a comment:


  • N. A. Corbier
    replied
    As far as spelling mistakes, people using Firefox 2.0+ have built-in spell checking in any web form (like this one I'm typing in), as well as other features.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Investigation
    Thank you Chris for answering those questions. I can now understand your program a bit better. It will be interesting to see how your efforts pan out.
    I appreciate your questions and the opportunity to respond. Sorry about the delay; I have ten irons in the fire and only two hands. In any event, it has been a five year journey and I, naturally, hope success is achieved here in KCMO given the interest I have received, thus far, in my program.

    P.S. I did some editing to my original reply from that which you copied, in part, to fix the typo's, spelling and added things needed to be said, as I generaly tend to do after I post the intitial reply.
    Last edited by Christopherstjo; 04-22-2007, 03:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Investigation
    replied
    Originally posted by Christopherstjo
    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.




    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.



    Better training than what is currently available to front line security officers; better job opportunities because of more advanced skills, brighter future employment opportunities; postive standing in the industry and community, higher self-respect and self-esteem, etc, etc.



    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. I am currently litigating a case in fedeal court centering, in part, on Title 17 as it relates to security officers having the due process and equal proteciton of law right to a fair and impartial hearing before an employer is permitted to terminate the security officer. 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 as an Instructor. And I have accomplished many other things as well.



    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.



    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.



    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 / gramer check routinely, yet, even in that I notice it does not catch everything.



    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. 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.
    Thank you Chris for answering those questions. I can now understand your program a bit better. It will be interesting to see how your efforts pan out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Investigation
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SecTrainer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christopherstjo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X