Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Privatizing Police Powers
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by N. A. CorbierAs 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.
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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by InvestigationThank 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.
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, 04:30 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ChristopherstjoBe 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by InvestigationWell, 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).
Originally posted by InvestigationSometimes you just have to drop something that doesn't work and move to something that does.
Originally posted by InvestigationI just see a logistical nightmare in your program since there is such a variance in training, responsibilities, etc...
Originally posted by Investigation1. How are you going to enlist contract security officers into the DIVE program.
Originally posted by Investigation2. How are you going to get funding to pay these officers their wages?
Originally posted by Investigation3. How much do you expect your annual budget to be?
Originally posted by Investigation4. How does your program differ from the Red Cross, Salvation Army, or FEMA?
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 Investigation5. What will the motivation be for people to join?
Originally posted by Investigation6. What is your training? Did you ever attend a Police Academy (FT or Reserve)?
Originally posted by Investigation7. Who is going to command these people?
Originally posted by Investigation8. If you could pick one current organization that resembles your future DIVE program (in any fashion), what would that be?
Originally posted by Investigation9. Do you ever use spell and grammar check? In the business world, your errors would not be looked upon highly.
Originally posted by Investigation10. Do you have any formal Emergency Management training?
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, 07:12 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SecTrainerForgive 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 Christopherstjo; 04-21-2007, 05:48 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SecTrainerMr. 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.
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:
-
Originally posted by ChristopherstjoGiven 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.
...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.Last edited by SecTrainer; 04-21-2007, 05:45 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ChristopherstjoI 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, 05:41 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ChristopherstjoFEMA 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.
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:
-
Originally posted by SecTrainerI 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.
Originally posted by SecTrainerIt'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.
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 SecTrainerIt 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.
Originally posted by SecTrainerI 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.
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 SecTrainerHere, 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.
Originally posted by SecTrainerOut 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.
Originally posted by SecTrainerAs 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.
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, 05:35 AM.
Leave a comment:
300x250
Collapse
Channels
Collapse
Mid 300x250
Collapse
Leaderboard
Collapse
Leave a comment: