TexasCHLforum.com

tacticool wrote:

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.

Since one is illegal and the other is not there seems to be a big difference ethically speaking

Since one is illegal and the other is not there seems to be a big difference legally but none morally or ethically.

FYP

tacticool wrote:

Since one is illegal and the other is not there seems to be a big difference legally but none morally or ethically.

FYP

100%...just because something is legal doesn't make it moral or ethical...and it works the other way too...there are many things that are illegal that have little to do with morals or ethics, but a lot to do with revenue.

talltex wrote:

tacticool wrote:

Since one is illegal and the other is not there seems to be a big difference legally but none morally or ethically.

FYP

100%...just because something is legal doesn't make it moral or ethical...and it works the other way too...there are many things that are illegal that have little to do with morals or ethics, but a lot to do with revenue.

And vice versa.

Based on this comment from another thread, I find it even more idiotic a part time cop can't work a security job.

EEllis wrote:

Jason K wrote:This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......

Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?

While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.

mojo84 wrote:Based on this comment from another thread, I find it even more idiotic a part time cop can't work a security job.

EEllis wrote:

Jason K wrote:This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......

Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?

While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.

Why?

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Based on this comment from another thread, I find it even more idiotic a part time cop can't work a security job.

EEllis wrote:

Jason K wrote:This is what you get when gov't gets involved in regulating private businesses at the request of business......

Why Does the private security field need to be licensed in the first place?

While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards and only limited privileges there is a public benefit to having universal background checks and mandatory training.

Why?

It's self explanatory for those not looking to argue or debate.

mojo84 wrote:Based on this comment from another thread, I find it even more idiotic a part time cop can't work a security job.

No such law. They can legally work a security job if they follow the PSB rules, same as you or me.

Alf wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Based on this comment from another thread, I find it even more idiotic a part time cop can't work a security job.

No such law. They can legally work a security job if they follow the PSB rules, same as you or me.

That's true, but commissioned officer pay is often less than half of LEO pay for security work.

OK, but commissioned officer pay is a lot less than my normal pay too. Apples and oranges.

mojo84 wrote: It's self explanatory for those not looking to argue or debate.

Well I assume most people on here are at least looking for discussion but but somehow the "IF you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" grade school tactics seems a bit unnecessary. If you don't want to discuss it then why bring it up and if you won't be forthcoming on your stance it's a bit hard to have an open discussion.

Alf wrote:OK, but commissioned officer pay is a lot less than my normal pay too. Apples and oranges.

A part time officer has only a certain number of hours available for private security work. If at the commissioned officer rate he can't make enough during those hours combined with his LEO salary to make ends meet, I think the distinction is quite important.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote: It's self explanatory for those not looking to argue or debate.

Well I assume most people on here are at least looking for discussion but but somehow the "IF you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" grade school tactics seems a bit unnecessary. If you don't want to discuss it then why bring it up and if you won't be forthcoming on your stance it's a bit hard to have an open discussion.

Assume all you want. You call others out for making assumptions but do it quite often yourself.

If this is true, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then why should it require separate licensing which most would agree is less involved than becoming a licensed cop.

While Texas gives no additional authority to security guards

See, very simple.

Quit the bickering guys or the topic will be locked.

Yes sir!