What does it matter who does the raiding?

[TacticalEvilDan]

This is called "debate politics", not "answer my politics questions while I whine about your answers without providing any of my own".

I'm very familiar with this site. I've been here longer than you and I've made more posts than you.

We've all addressed your topic, and you've provided zero responses other than whining about everything being based on "feelings."

I wasn't whining. I made a point which, thus far, nobody's been able to address. I've also handled this subject with a great deal more maturity and composure than you.

Please take your sophomoric attitude somewhere else.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I'm very familiar with this site. I've been here longer than you and I've made more posts than you.



I wasn't whining. I made a point which, thus far, nobody's been able to address. I've also handled this subject with a great deal more maturity and composure than you.

Please take your sophomoric attitude somewhere else.

Good, that's three times you've refused to answer the question. Considering your position I would've found it quite hard to answer as well.

Just as it takes two to tango, it takes two to debate. Seeing as how you're refusing, I guess we have nothing else to talk about.

 

[Goshin]

Honestly, I think the difference has a lot more to do with who you are as a person than anything else.

You have a point. While I will strongly assert that the majority of ofc's I worked with were more like me in that regard, we did have some who were little more than uniformed thugs.



They usually came to a bad end of one sort or another, though, eventually.

 

[Tonawanda]

This pisses me off beyond belief. I'm sure most people would think libertarians would support this, but I see it being directly against everything I believe. I believe the government has very few roles, but the biggest of them is the justice system. Outsourcing our justice system in any form is absolutely unacceptable. Prisons, LEO's, all of it need to be government run and owned.

Government law enforcement agencies should not be given more money based on how many people they imprison. There should be no incentive for them to lock up more people. They are paid a flat income to do their jobs.

Of all the things the government does, most of which it shouldn't, we choose to outsource the JUSTICE portion!??

It seems to me that this article is very poorly written and there are a few things that I am not completely sure of. Having said that, not trying to split hairs with language, but for clarification, neither law enforcement nor a private company can imprison people. The justice system is solely responsible for that. Police help prosecute based on their knowledge of the facts leading up to arrest. Private company personnel would have to make a citizen's arrest based on evidence found in a locker. Not a good case to present to a court. Although, they don't mention it in the article, I would be shocked if law enforcement was not in the school at the time of the search, and it is unlikely that law enforcement could handle a search of this size school. In addition to that, police normally require a warrant or probable cause to search a person or property. I should also mention that schools often pay for this kind of activity in their school, and a private company would likely cost much less.

What is also not clear to me from the article, is who actually makes the arrest if there is an arrest? And, I don't know how the writers of the article can conclude that CCA gets paid based on a commission.

Many questions would have to be answered before I can come to any firm conclusions about this situation.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It seems to me that this article is very poorly written and there are a few things that I am not completely sure of. Having said that, not trying to split hairs with language, but for clarification, neither law enforcement nor a private company can imprison people. The justice system is solely responsible for that. Police help prosecute based on their knowledge of the facts leading up to arrest. Private company personnel would have to make a citizen's arrest based on evidence found in a locker. Not a good case to present to a court. Although, they don't mention it in the article, I would be shocked if law enforcement was not in the school at the time of the search, and it is unlikely that law enforcement could handle a search of this size school. In addition to that, police normally require a warrant or probable cause to search a person or property. I should also mention that schools often pay for this kind of activity in their school, and a private company would likely cost much less.

What is also not clear to me from the article, is who actually makes the arrest if there is an arrest? And, I don't know how the writers of the article can conclude that CCA gets paid based on a commission.

Many questions would have to be answered before I can come to any firm conclusions about this situation.

Well, an LEO can detain and jail a person until trial. That is one of the biggest powers in the government, and I think handing that power out to civilians is extremely dangerous. When I was in school they did these raids, and they were done by uniformed police officers. It doesn't take many, I think there were 2, they simply go from class to class, have everybody walk out, then they bring the dog in.

I feel like the justice system should be one of the completely untouchable areas of the government by the free market. The conflict of interest in such a scenario is simply too much.

 

[Tonawanda]

Police officers take an oath, and in doing so are granted special powers by the state. Some random civilian in a for-profit contracting agency does not, and should not have the power to overrule my constitutional rights. Only law enforcement officers can do this, and in only very specific situations.

You are essentially correct. However, a citizen can also make an arrest depriving you of your civil rights. When a person is shot or held for police, a citizen has arrested them. The justification for the arrest and consequences are much higher for a citizen than a police officer.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You are essentially correct. However, a citizen can also make an arrest depriving you of your civil rights. When a person is shot or held for police, a citizen has arrested them. The justification for the arrest and consequences are much higher for a citizen than a police officer.

Right, and I'm not really against citizen's arrests in violent situations, but surely you have to admit that outsourcing the police in everyday life as the OP later suggested is a terrible idea.

 

[Thoreau72]

You raise good points TacticalDan. Kinda reminds me of the spirit of the Third Amendment. They did not like mercenaries. Nor do I. Their use tends to place them above the law somehow.

 

[Tonawanda]

well, an leo can detain and jail a person until trial.

not correct. They must be brought before a court(justice). The court decides if a defendant will be held at all, or will be allowed bail.

that is one of the biggest powers in the government, and i think handing that power out to civilians is extremely dangerous.

that would be true, but i don't believe in this case, that is what is happening. The civilians conducting the search have no police powers that i know of.

When i was in school they did these raids, and they were done by uniformed police officers. It doesn't take many, i think there were 2, they simply go from class to class, have everybody walk out, then they bring the dog in.

Yes, that does happen. The search is based on a school policy (implied consent by the students) and i believe (not 100% sure) that those uniformed police officers were acting as employees of the school system. If they were not, it would be a police department policy that may differ by state or individual pd's. I think that employment affects their search requirements. I will definitely get back to you on this question.

i feel like the justice system should be one of the completely untouchable areas of the government by the free market. The conflict of interest in such a scenario is simply too much

.

I would agree with you if there were a conflict of interest in this case. I still not certain if that is the case the way the article was written. But, if there was, I would be 100% in agreement.

[/quote]

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I would agree with you if there were a conflict of interest in this case. I still not certain if that is the case the way the article was written. But, if there was, I would be 100% in agreement.

The thread isn't about that case specifically, that was from another thread. This one is about the differences between having a contracted police force or a government one.

You raise good points TacticalDan. Kinda reminds me of the spirit of the Third Amendment. They did not like mercenaries. Nor do I. Their use tends to place them above the law somehow.

TacticalDan is pro-mercenary. He doesn't seem to have any problem with our police force becoming contractors.

 

[Tonawanda]

The thread isn't about that case specifically, that was from another thread. This one is about the differences between having a contracted police force or a government one.



TacticalDan is pro-mercenary. He doesn't seem to have any problem with our police force becoming contractors.

OK, didn't realize that.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Corrections officers are NOT law enforcement officers. Private correction "officers" have no jurisdiction, no public accountability, no public mandate and no training to act in the manner they were used in the OP. Legally there is no difference whatsoever from private prison guards raiding a public high school at the direction of the sheriff and private citizens doing the same thing. In fact, according to Arizona law in the context of the OP there no difference between having a group of local armed citizens and private prison guards.

Here's another perspective to training and experience. People in uniform's with guns have vast, vast, vast differences in duties and training. It is a common and misinformed belief that soldiers can function the same a cops if you need them to. Not true. It is also wrong to assume that corrections people can be law enforcement or law enforcement can be corrections. All can IF they have the proper training. Most don't have cross training.

Perhaps a few here have visited jails or state or federal prisons. I have professionally. The people in prisons are not like high school kids. It is an entirely different world. Corrections officers deal with very dangerous men in a very dangerous environment. High school children are not convicted felons serving time. Also, have rights prisoners don't have. Corrections people do not have training to deal with high school kids. Private corrections people have no legal authority. If a private corrections officer violates the rights of a high school kid the private corrections guy may have the approval of the local sheriff, but the local sheriff doesn't have the authority to circumvent the law.

 

[Tonawanda]

You're acting as if these things could not be replicated in the private sector. I'm saying they can, and since they can they should not be a consideration in this discussion.

Not sure if this is totally relevant to the conversation, but just in case, here's my two cents on the subject.

If it is a comparison between the private sector (security guards -now sometimes called loss prevention officers) and the police public sector in general, a comparison of training, discipline, experience, authority by law etc. has to be carefully considered with a err on the side of public safety.

There is no doubt, that with the cost of law enforcement and the budget restraints we have now, work that can be done by civilians or other trained professionals, should be seriously considered.

 

[Thoreau72]

The thread isn't about that case specifically, that was from another thread. This one is about the differences between having a contracted police force or a government one.



TacticalDan is pro-mercenary. He doesn't seem to have any problem with our police force becoming contractors.

Thanks for that information. I am forewarned.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If you could, please, I'd like you to set aside your feelings about outsourcing the functions of the justice system for just a moment. My question is, what's the difference between having a private contractor do the sweep and having law enforcement do the sweep when both of them have a significant financial incentive to arrest as many people as possible?

That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? When there is a financial incentive to lock people up, then more people are going to be locked up. If the "crimes" that are being "fought" are non violent and victimless ones, then they can get a big population of prisoners who are easy to deal with and therefore more profitable.

No wonder we have more prisoners per capita than any other nation.

It's way past time to revisit our absurd "war on drugs" laws, as well as take the profit out of the "prison industry."

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

TacticalDan is pro-mercenary. He doesn't seem to have any problem with our police force becoming contractors.

If you're going to talk about my position to someone else, the least you could do is get it right, rather than telling your emotionally-charged rendition.

I never said I was okay with outsourcing the police to private firms -- I said I couldn't see the difference, and I've been asking someone to tell me what the difference is outside of the emotional context.

For crying out loud, you don't even understand the extent of a police officer's authority, and yet you claim that they are the best of the two options.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

You raise good points TacticalDan. Kinda reminds me of the spirit of the Third Amendment. They did not like mercenaries. Nor do I. Their use tends to place them above the law somehow.

The Third Amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with mercenaries.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

That's the crux of the matter, isn't it? When there is a financial incentive to lock people up, then more people are going to be locked up. If the "crimes" that are being "fought" are non violent and victimless ones, then they can get a big population of prisoners who are easy to deal with and therefore more profitable.

Yep.

It's way past time to revisit our absurd "war on drugs" laws, as well as take the profit out of the "prison industry."

How do you suggest we do that?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yep.



How do you suggest we do that?

Ending the war on drugs would be easy. Legalize pot and decriminalize the addictive substances. Treat drug addiction as a medical problem rather than a legal one.

Taking the profit out of the prison industry is more difficult. Ending private, for profit "corrections" would be a good start, but then, public prisons create lucrative jobs for guards and bureaucrats alike.

There should not be a financial incentive to lock people up. How to take that incentive away is the problem.

 

[PirateMk1]

One of them is a public servant and the other is an employee, it's a completely different mentality and duty. We as a society hold public servants, or at least should, to a higher standard.

And as I stated in my original post, funding should not be doled out based on how many arrests a local LEO branch has. (Or to dumb it down, there should be no funding incentive)

I would go a step further and institute a disinsintive.

 

[Thoreau72]

The Third Amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with mercenaries.

What it had to do with was the quartering of troops in the homes of citizens.

Given that mercenaries made up significant portions of the military forces during the Revolutionary War, it was at least partly a factor.

No Standing Armies was very much a sentiment of the time. Some say the Third was a concession to that sentiment. Hessians were notoriously mercenary.

As for the contemporary matter of mercenaries in the police forces, things must be kept in perspective, but the record over the last 10 years is not particularly encouraging. Private cops or troops answer only to the corporation employing them, nobody else. That's the part I don't like.

Not that "real" cops are particularly held accountable for their transgressions, but still....