WaPo: Private "police" expand jurisdictions

[S.P.E.C.T.R.E.]

Well, I think there are two separate arguments here. First, I DO think that privatized but heaviliy scrutinized police forces are fine, and would be held to a higher standard than government run forces.

However, private security officers should never have any jurisdiction beyond their employer's property. EVER. Private security officers are observers first and foremost. They just don't get enough training to effectively handle citizens' arrest, use of firearms, etc. I know...I was a contract security officer for 4 years.

I also know the type of people that this line of work attracts. Mostly, it's lazy people who don't mind the low pay as long as they get the quiet accounts. The others were gung-ho police wannabes who were either too stupid to get hired as a cop or loo lazy. You DON'T want these people stepping foot onto public property while on duty.

 

[ceetee]

Minds me of the time when my little girl got invited to a birthday party at the home of another little girl that lived inside one of these "exclusive gated communities". Pulling into the place, being checked in by the gate security... well, most security guards I know are past middle age, pot-bellied, gray-haired (or lacking same) and just looking for a quiet way to supplement their social security checks. These guys were fit, trim, with their hair high-and-tight, and they looked like they could've just flown back here from the sandbox. Their navy slacks were bloused into their boots, and there was not a spot on their uniflrm anywhere. Their sidearms looked to be M-9's, and I could easily picture a back room stocked with M-4's and ammo crates.

While I can't fault the residents there for wanting the baddest-arsed security their money can afford (after all, everybody knows the serious home invaders go into those communities where they money lives) at the same time, I couldn't shake the feeling that if one of the home-owners decided that I and my raggedy pickup-truck shouldn't be allowed back out the gate, I'd have to come up with some real exit strategies, pronto.

As for these guys policing those streets... As far as I know, those streets belong to the Home-Owner's Association, not the county. That would tend to make them private property. I would not have a problem with those guys stopping people and asking certain things like "Who are you here visiting?" and such. I would also not have a problem with those guys using whatever force is legal for a non-LEO to use when witnessing the comission of a crime. I would have problems with them having much more authority than any other citizen...

 

[gc70]

You fail to mention that in NC company police have to go through the exact same training as public LEOs.
The standards are the same and so are the powers.
Protecting people and property is bad, mmmmmkay?

Everyone in the US supposedly contributes their share through taxation to pay for police protection. Fully-empowered private police forces undermine that concept of equality of protection by law enforcement.

When the rich and powerful can buy their own police protection, they may be less inclined to provide the "public service" to the rest of us. Could that be why the police department in the neighboring city is always begging for funds while money is lavished on the symphony and arts council?

 

[tellner]

Lavished on the symphony and arts council isn't exactly accurate. Public funding for the arts is much lower than even twenty years ago, and aside from a few highly paid superstars musicians and artists are generally not paid anything close to the median wage.

 

[ceetee]

aside from a few highly paid superstars musicians and artists are generally not paid anything close to the median wage

There's a whole heap o' truth there. Plus, most of "the arts" I'm familiar with get the lion's share of their funding through private or corporate donations. I'm not against people who can afford it hiring their own security (even including sworn officers on overtime details). I am against the idea of non-sworn officers having arrest powers greater than ordinary citizens...

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Mr. Arms,

When you look into the bore of his big .44 I would suggest that you not do your arguing alongside the road. That's what courts are for.

well i think i wouldnt do anything to provoke anyone, LE or security guard, to point a firearm at me!

 

[AdamXBT]

People Hate The Police,Until They Need Some Of Them.Private Or Not In The Real National Situation They Are Useful.This Its My Personal Opinion,Ok.

 

[tellner]

A trip through the O.E.D. can be instructive sometime. The word "Privilege" means "Private Law". That is exectly what we have here. Those who can afford good police get them. Those who can not must make do with the dregs that will be left once the "needless expense" of full police funding is eliminated. It's coming.

 

[another okie]

The article doesn't really distinguish between security guards, who are no different than anyone else, and private police, who have law enforcement powers.

Actual private police are pretty rare. Normally they are guards who are temporarily sworn in as officers or deputies for some special purpose and limited time. An exception would be the railroad police, who are fully sworn law enforcement officers despite being employed by the railroads. Some railroad police are also special U.S. Marshals. They are very tough and professional, in my experience.

I don't really care for the idea of private police in general, but I guess in a world of gated communities and private schools it's inevitable.

 

[longeyes]

The issue is why we find ourselves NEEDING private armies. It's unfortunate that we do, but it is what it is. When you have one million gang members nationwide--and that number growing rapidly thanks to illegal immigration-- what do you expect? This is a trend that is just beginning.

 

[Optical Serenity]

Actually, police are not allowed to make mistakes...please don't take this thread down to yet another cop bashing thread.

What is different is that PD can take warrant based on probable cause. Others can arrest, but not just on PC, they have to witness the crime occur.

 

[tellner]

OS, believe me. I wasn't cop bashing. It was bitter sarcasm (and so labelled) decrying the encroachment of private law into what should be the domain of real police.

 

[Manedwolf]

The issue is why we find ourselves NEEDING private armies. It's unfortunate that we do, but it is what it is. When you have one million gang members nationwide--and that number growing rapidly thanks to illegal immigration-- what do you expect? This is a trend that is just beginning.

The irony is that that is only the case because we also live under enforced helplessness. People are not allowed to defend themselves, and are often punished if they do, either in criminal court or lawsuits. Those who successfully defend themselves are no longer lauded as heros, but often treated as criminals or at least pariahs. Reason and common sense have gone out the window. We've become a nation of easy victims who are restrained from fighting back, taught not to fight back, and so have most of the other "civilized" nations.

If people were reasonably allowed to DEFEND themselves as they once did, criminals would scurry back into the shadows and cease to be as bold as they are.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Actually, police are not allowed to make mistakes...please don't take this thread down to yet another cop bashing thread.

What is different is that PD can take warrant based on probable cause. Others can arrest, but not just on PC, they have to witness the crime occur.

Actually, making a simple true statement is not cop bashing. It is admitting to reality.

If I am mugged I am not allowed to shoot the perp 40 times.

If somebody goes for their wallet or cell phone and I whack him, I am in a world of hurt.

If I do a citizen's arrest of, say a bookie, I am not allowed to have a nd and kill him.

Cops are, well, except that they call them ad.

It is plain, simple, truthful reality. We all know it.

 

[jnojr]

I support the idea of "private police" on private property. My mom lives on a private road with 6 or 7 houses on it. If they all got together, there is no reason why they couldn't put up a gate and have armed security. If someone doesn't want to accept that, fine... they don't need to trespass on private property.

Don't gated communities have to be private and privately-maintained property? I don't think a community with, say, two ways in and out but all on public property can put up gates... public property means anyone can drive through even if they don't live there and even if they're taking a "shortcut".

As far as being pulled over... can these "private police" use police (red/blue) lights on their cars? If not... I ain't pulling over for an unmarked car with a yellow lightbar.

 

[ceetee]

Don't gated communities have to be private and privately-maintained property? I don't think a community with, say, two ways in and out but all on public property can put up gates... public property means anyone can drive through even if they don't live there and even if they're taking a "shortcut".

It's one of those "gray area" areas. Gated communities have to be accessible to emergency personnel like fire departments, police, etc.

If the community was built as a residential neighborhood, and the streets are maintained with tax money, I don't think you can put up a gate. At least, that's how I've seen the issue reported down here in the land of many gated communities. On the other hand, if the development was designed and paid for by private investors, with the intention from the beginning of being a gated community, then it's perfectly okay to deny entrance to anyone the residents choose to keep out (emergency personnel excluded).

There are whole branches of civil law regulating neighborhood associations, and condominium associations, to the point where only the full-time retiredfromtherealworld condo commandos can keep up.

 

[tellner]

If you want your "gated community" to have its own police, let it have its own fire department and ambulance service. If there's serious crime don't put the public servants at risk. If there's a fire let 'em burn if they can't pay for enough firefighters. If the private ambulance service doesn't quite cut it let 'em die. Anything else is just them wanting to eat their cake and have it, too.

 

[Biker]

Sweet stanky Jesus, Todd...I like it!
Makes too much sense, though...

Biker

 

[Sindawe]

Sounds equitable to me tellner, PROVIDED that those who live in a gated community denied municipal services also get a break on the portion of their taxes that pay for those services they are denied. Anything else is just the municipalities wanting to eat their cake and have it, too.

 

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me this is an expansion of what's been in existence for several decades. It's not that uncommon in rich folks' communities or subdivisions. Heck, the deal has been around long enough that it's a staple of murder mysteries involving Hollywood rich folks. From news articles, it seems there commonly is some amount of cooperation with local law enforcement.

It seems to me the real issue is extension of any authority beyond the property lines of the subdivision. I don't see how that would be possible without legislative action.

As home invasions have become more common, it's natural that the well-to-do take measures to have additional security. What I think is the issue here is that their security has rational limits insofar as non-residents and passers-by are concerned.

Art

 

[DRZinn]

Holy crap, I agree with tellner and cropcirclewalker! Everybody duck!

What they are is privatized police forces. Same training, same standards, same powers. They are cops. The only difference is that they get paid through a private company instead of directly from the state. They cost less for the same results. I love it.

Now, if at any point they are no longer required to undergo the same training, or no longer held to the same standards, that would change everything.

 

[tellner]

DocZinn, in case you'd missed the news a ruddy-complexioned gentleman with horns and pants specially designed to accomodate the tail has informed us that the Infernal snowball fight has been postponed to permit the Pink Angels porcine aerobatics team's maneuvers

 

[Tokugawa]

According to the folks who study 4th gen. warfare, the privatization of law enforcement is going to increase greatly. Buy stock.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

Well, this is simply bad. While it is okay to have private security on private land, as has been stated before, private security working publicly is a horrible idea mainly because the wealthy would have a much better standard of protection than the poor.

As for the whole "it's cheaper" argument because of lack of unions, well, we make the police middle class with good benefits for a very good reason. They are much less likely to be on the take! Also, because of the salaries, you are able to attract a higher class of folks to the job by having a good # of applicants.

You push cops' salaries down to 25K in Houston, or Dallas, or Jacksonville and you'd have alot of sh&tb*ms taking the job just in order to be on the take. To them their salary would be a base upon which dirty drug money would be the "commission."

 

[Dravur]

of course the wealthy...

are better protected. They can simply pay for more security. They pay their taxes for their portion of the government sponsored police force, and they can afford to pay for a guy in a cheap suit to follow them around and scowl alot.

Oddly enough, you do the same thing as a gun owner. You pay your taxes and get the x level of police "protection" but you, having the money, go out and buy a handgun, train with it, and get your CCW. You are now your very own security guard. Does everyone get that? nope. You have now paid yourself to be your own protection.

Wealthy individuals, whether singly or in groups, purchase the same thing, a guy with a gun. Same as you, but you are that guy, in your case.