TexasCHLforum.com

Hola Gato wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Just my .02 I don't mind if reserves or part time officers work part time security as long as the full time officers have had a chance at that job first.

I don't mind if reserves, retired, or active cops work as a security guard off duty as long as they wear a security guard uniform, drive security guard vehicles, etc. When they're getting paid to do the bidding of some corporation, it should be obvious to the public they're not acting in the discharge of their official duties. A public servant using their official office for personal gain doesn't seem ethical.

I agree to a point but it's the public who wants uniformed armed police presence at schools, banks, churches, etc. The public feels safer with police rather then security guards and this is why they pay good money to hire cops.

nightmare69 wrote:

Hola Gato wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Just my .02 I don't mind if reserves or part time officers work part time security as long as the full time officers have had a chance at that job first.

I don't mind if reserves, retired, or active cops work as a security guard off duty as long as they wear a security guard uniform, drive security guard vehicles, etc. When they're getting paid to do the bidding of some corporation, it should be obvious to the public they're not acting in the discharge of their official duties. A public servant using their official office for personal gain doesn't seem ethical.

I agree to a point but it's the public who wants uniformed armed police presence at schools, banks, churches, etc. The public feels safer with police rather then security guards and this is why they pay good money to hire cops.

Maybe the companies, churches etc should contract with the police department or sheriff's office for extra service and pay the contract fee to the agency for the extra service. Then the agency can pay the officer. I don't have much of a problem when they wear their official uniforms as I do them using agency vehicles and resources for personal gain.

mojo84 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

Hola Gato wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Just my .02 I don't mind if reserves or part time officers work part time security as long as the full time officers have had a chance at that job first.

I don't mind if reserves, retired, or active cops work as a security guard off duty as long as they wear a security guard uniform, drive security guard vehicles, etc. When they're getting paid to do the bidding of some corporation, it should be obvious to the public they're not acting in the discharge of their official duties. A public servant using their official office for personal gain doesn't seem ethical.

I agree to a point but it's the public who wants uniformed armed police presence at schools, banks, churches, etc. The public feels safer with police rather then security guards and this is why they pay good money to hire cops.

Maybe the companies, churches etc should contract with the police department or sheriff's office for extra service and pay the contract fee to the agency for the extra service. Then the agency can pay the officer. I don't have much of a problem when they wear their official uniforms as I do them using agency vehicles and resources for personal gain.

What the people want the people get and they want uniformed officers. My bank for example hire deputy's from another county to work security and they wear their department issue uniform. These deputy's have little police authority outside their county. Law enforcement departments understand that company's want uniformed officers and allow their officers to wear them. What you are wanting makes sense but it's a pipe dream. If the officers department allows them to use their patrol car and wear their uniform then I don't blame them for taking advantage. It all boils down to it makes the public feel safe seeing a patrol car outside a bank and an uniformed officer standing inside.

If you see such going on and don't like it you can always call the department and file a complaint. You can also refuse to do business with a company who employees uniformed off duty officers.

nightmare69 wrote:These deputy's have little police authority outside their county. Law enforcement departments understand that company's want uniformed officers and allow their officers to wear them.

Help me understand this statement. If they are commissioned Peace Officers their authority travels with them - I thought.

carlson1 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:These deputy's have little police authority outside their county. Law enforcement departments understand that company's want uniformed officers and allow their officers to wear them.

Help me understand this statement. If they are commissioned Peace Officers their authority travels with them - I thought.

We were told in the academy that you have full police authority within the county you are commissioned in regardless if you work for a city, county, ISD, etc, agency. Outside your county you can only arrest for a felony.

(d) A peace officer who is outside his jurisdiction may arrest, without warrant, a person who commits an offense within the officer's presence or view, if the offense is a felony, a violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code, a breach of the peace, or an offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code. A peace officer making an arrest under this subsection shall, as soon as practicable after making the arrest, notify a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the arrest was made. The law enforcement agency shall then take custody of the person committing the offense and take the person before a magistrate in compliance with Article 14.06 of this code.

nightmare69 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

Hola Gato wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Just my .02 I don't mind if reserves or part time officers work part time security as long as the full time officers have had a chance at that job first.

I don't mind if reserves, retired, or active cops work as a security guard off duty as long as they wear a security guard uniform, drive security guard vehicles, etc. When they're getting paid to do the bidding of some corporation, it should be obvious to the public they're not acting in the discharge of their official duties. A public servant using their official office for personal gain doesn't seem ethical.

I agree to a point but it's the public who wants uniformed armed police presence at schools, banks, churches, etc. The public feels safer with police rather then security guards and this is why they pay good money to hire cops.

Maybe the companies, churches etc should contract with the police department or sheriff's office for extra service and pay the contract fee to the agency for the extra service. Then the agency can pay the officer. I don't have much of a problem when they wear their official uniforms as I do them using agency vehicles and resources for personal gain.

What the people want the people get and they want uniformed officers. My bank for example hire deputy's from another county to work security and they wear their department issue uniform. These deputy's have little police authority outside their county. Law enforcement departments understand that company's want uniformed officers and allow their officers to wear them. What you are wanting makes sense but it's a pipe dream. If the officers department allows them to use their patrol car and wear their uniform then I don't blame them for taking advantage. It all boils down to it makes the public feel safe seeing a patrol car outside a bank and an uniformed officer standing inside.

If you see such going on and don't like it you can always call the department and file a complaint. You can also refuse to do business with a company who employees uniformed off duty officers.

I didn't say the officers shouldn't be able to work and make extra money. I only brought up another way to do it that may be a little more appropriate since taxpayer funded assets are being use for personal gain. Should I in the future decide it bothers me enough, I'll take it up with the appropriate authorities. Until then, I'll feel free to express my thoughts and opinions on the subject as I wish.

Hola Gato wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Just my .02 I don't mind if reserves or part time officers work part time security as long as the full time officers have had a chance at that job first.

I don't mind if reserves, retired, or active cops work as a security guard off duty as long as they wear a security guard uniform, drive security guard vehicles, etc. When they're getting paid to do the bidding of some corporation, it should be obvious to the public they're not acting in the discharge of their official duties. A public servant using their official office for personal gain doesn't seem ethical.

That kind of is my point as to my statement that you don't really hire cops as security. You pay them to be cops where you want them to. They still have limitations to their authority that regular security don't. They can't enforce policies just law for instance. Cops can't, at least in theory, decide you are trespassing. You need to be asked to leave by someone else and then cops can step in.

mojo84 wrote: Maybe the companies, churches etc should contract with the police department or sheriff's office for extra service and pay the contract fee to the agency for the extra service. Then the agency can pay the officer. I don't have much of a problem when they wear their official uniforms as I do them using agency vehicles and resources for personal gain.

Well they sometime do that to a point but it also adds a level of bureaucracy and cost to everything and could serve to turn a police dept in to little more than a for profit company if it goes to far.

mojo84 wrote: Should I in the future decide it bothers me enough, I'll take it up with the appropriate authorities. Until then, I'll feel free to express my thoughts and opinions on the subject as I wish.

Even if you did file a complaint it won't change anything. The people want police presence working security throughout their daily lives and that is something you will either have to get used too or tolerate.

nightmare69 wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Should I in the future decide it bothers me enough, I'll take it up with the appropriate authorities. Until then, I'll feel free to express my thoughts and opinions on the subject as I wish.

Even if you did file a complaint it won't change anything. The people want police presence working security throughout their daily lives and that is something you will either have to get used too or tolerate.

You seem to have a hard time understanding. I have no problem with cops working and providing security. I'm even one that thinks you should be qualified to do so even though the government says you're not.

I have defended the concept of cops providing security. Considering the complaining you've done about not being able to get a side job, maybe you are the one that needs to be calling to complain. I hope you exhibit more maturity and better discernment out on the street when you are wearing a gun and badge than you are in this thread.

Good luck finding a side job.

Nice ninja edit guys. Its time for this thread to be closed.

nightmare69 wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Should I in the future decide it bothers me enough, I'll take it up with the appropriate authorities. Until then, I'll feel free to express my thoughts and opinions on the subject as I wish.

Even if you did file a complaint it won't change anything. The people want police presence working security throughout their daily lives and that is something you will either have to get used too or tolerate.

You are making broad generalizations with no data other than your own opinion to back them up. You don't speak for "the people". You have your own opinion...Mojo84 has his...I have mine...and all three of them are different. You are in favor of expanded use of police officers hiring out as "security" for private groups because you want to be able to make money in that manner. Mojo84 is actually in favor of of you being able to do so, but with some reservations about the use of taxpayer funded assets being used by off-duty officers for personal gain. I most definitely do not want "police presence working security throughout my daily life"...I want them doing the job they were employed to do. If they want to work a second job to make extra money that's fine...but not using department vehicles, equipment or uniforms for personal gain. I'm on a city council and every minute an off-duty officer is employed by a private entity while utilizing departmental equipment and uniform, he is putting the city/county/agency at risk for liability claims arising from his actions while working privately for someone else. In my opinion, the reason these private groups want "real cops"... preferably in a "real patrol unit"... wearing a "real uniform"... is because they are buying their "official authority" to obtain a benefit they can't get on their own...such as allowing their employees to enter and exit a parking lot in a manner they could not do otherwise. If a private security officer steps out in the road and attempts to stop traffic, he can't enforce his will, because he lacks the legal authority to do so, but we have all been told "when an LEO tells you to do something you OBEY the command immediately", and that is why the private entities are willing to pay more for that official badge/uniform/vehicle... because they are buying that authority. In an earlier part of the thread, Wild Bill and I both mentioned seeing HPD motorcycle units serving as escorts for a transport companies. I question that those two motorcycle officers from Houston really havethe authority to run out in front of the truck and block traffic to circumvent the traffic lights on a State Hwy. 300 miles from their jurisdiction, but did I ignore them? No, I stopped at the green light and waited until the truck had passed and the cop took off. For a long haul trucking company carrying an enormous heavy load (3 cantilevered trailers to support it), not having to stop for red lights is one heckuva' benefit. I think that is a misuse of official power, and I'm not in favor of it.

Some very good valid points talltex.

It's interesting how people's perspectives and motivations can influence their opinions on an issue. This thread is a good example.

nightmare69 wrote:Nice ninja edit guys. Its time for this thread to be closed.

The only reason I edited my comment was to removed a redundant comment about your comprehension/understanding.

I added the "good luck finding a side job" because it appears you need it and I do wish you yhe best. I do not wish hard times on anyone. Been there done that and know how tough it is.

jmra wrote:

Hola Gato wrote:When they're getting paid to do the bidding of some corporation, it should be obvious to the public they're not acting in the discharge of their official duties. A public servant using their official office for personal gain doesn't seem ethical.

100%

Ethically it's in the same category as slipping the building inspector a few bucks to fast lane your paperwork or paying a judge on the side to use his office to your benefit.