|
Post by Tax Payer on Nov 3, 2006 8:07:06 GMT -4
The authority given to law enforcement is bought, paid for, and owned exclusively by the tax payers. This includes the police car, the pistol, and the rest of the equipment. It's obviously a conflict of interest for a policeman to be a security guard. Private business hires police with full equipment as security guards while the liability insurance is paid for with tax dollars. Most of these jobs pay pay the policeman at least $20.00 per. hour. A trained security guard makes about $12.00 or less. Private security companies would have to charge over $50.00 per. hour to supply an armed uniformed guard, with a vehicle, and radio equipment. Private companies shouldn't have to compete with the government, and our tax $ should not subsidize private business. The policeman needs permission from his department to work a part time job. This makes the Police Departments a security business, and by law must be licensed by the State of Maryland. When the money changed at the cash register, the ownership of the article also changes hands. If you are not suspect of a crime you don't have to show your receipt to anyone including the police. A.A.Co. police under threat of arrest are demanding innocent citizens to produce a receipt before they can leave stores. The Annapolis Mall, and the B.J's stores are an example. The State Police are working singular security jobs, and are paid under the table at many locations including the Double T. Diners. In our county you need only go to the Kent Narrows to see your tax dollar at work for private business. The Harris Crab House is an example. This is The United States of America, not a corporation. Keep our tax $ out of the hands of private business.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Nov 3, 2006 8:52:13 GMT -4
I don't buy it. It' no different than a me having a 2nd job. I too can't work for certain companies for conflict of interest. An AA County cop probably couldn't have a side job with the PG count police dept.
They are allowed to work security, and I would much rather see them & their cruiser at the mall than a wannabe rent-a-cop with a way-too-big chip on his shoulder because he can't get accepted at the police dept.
County cops are "on duty" so to speak 24-7, correct? They can arrest you anytime. What a deal!
I've NEVER been stopped by anyone to check my reciept, anywhere. (OK Sam's Club)
$20. /hr for an off duty policeman is a STEAL, it's probaly less than 1/2 of his overtime pay.
$12./hr for a wannabe is over paying.
Unless you have something to hide........
|
|
|
Post by shadow1 on Nov 3, 2006 11:59:15 GMT -4
BChevy,
I'm with you on this one.
Don't know where TaxPayer's coming from; but conflict of interest I don't see.
No reason why cops can't hold a part-time job like the rest of us. Working any part-time job associated with what you do full-time could have what might be construed as a conflict of interest.
I'm in the Corp. Security business and deal with contracted guards all the time; if all H$%* breaks lose, who would you rather have there. Whether you have a good relationship with local law enforcement or not, in private business (i.e., bars, marinas, retail stores, etc) I'd take the off-duty cop over a "rent a cop" in most cases. The "rent a cop" would have to call the local law enforcement anyway for response.
Tax Payer Subsidizing - don't think so, there are stipulations as to what they can and can't do.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Nov 3, 2006 16:49:21 GMT -4
I agree with you bchevy. I would rather see a sworn officer working security than a rent-a-cop. They are better trained to handle difficult situations and have a thorough understanding of the law than the contracted rentals. They will command far more respect in a bad situation and can get additional resources relatively quickly. You can pay him with MY taxdollars.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Nov 3, 2006 21:10:47 GMT -4
A few years ago I was a member at BJ's. They had employees stationed at the doors checking receipts as you left. Always thought it was strange since the only way to get to the door was through the checkout, though I suppose they could have been guarding against their employees "forgetting" to charge for something.
I also found it incredibly annoying and insulting to be stopped like that.
HOWEVER, and this is what matters, I CHOSE to go there and CHOSE to continue to go back. If it bothered me enough, I was perfectly free to find somewhere else to spend my money.
I have never seen this type of thing at the Annapolis mall. Doesn't really make sense, way too many doors.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Nov 3, 2006 23:59:50 GMT -4
Sam's Club does that too, I give them A REAL HARD TIME when they are backed up at the door stopper/reciept checker-person.
|
|
|
Post by hotdog on Nov 5, 2006 18:17:53 GMT -4
I'll bet the guy who works for the county fixing redlights would like to use the County's (our) $100,000 bucket truck to do part time work. That would be means for dismisal. That would be the same as the policeman using County (our!) police cars, guns, handcuffs, etc. for his side jobs! I say go ahead and moonlight all you want, just don't use OUR tools.
Sincerely, Always right Aaron
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Nov 5, 2006 22:11:26 GMT -4
Because asking these questions is what I do....
I have a hard time believing off-duty cops are allowed to use official vehicles for their 2nd jobs. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm really sure they aren't allowed to use their radios. These would work on official police emergency frequencies. The FCC and the on-duty police would have a problem with this.
I don't know the last time I saw a Trooper's uniform or Sheriff's uniform sitting at the door of a club. This makes me think they aren't allowed to use their uniforms either.
That leaves handcuffs and weapons. I wonder about the weapon. Are off-duty officers allowed, encouraged, or required to carry their weapon? I would imagine the rules regarding this would be explained very clearly.
So it could be that the only tax-subsidized items are the handcuffs and possibly the weapon. While this gives off-duty officers an advantage over any other guy off the street, it doesn't seem, to me, to be an example of Govt. competing with private industry or rampant waste of taxpayers dollars.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
|
|