page 2 needs saving

3/8/2009 7:57:07 PM

was it the Stanford prison experiments that dealt with this type of behaviour?

last night i went to the porch, and saw something like this manifest. it all began with a fight that broke out where one girl hit the other in the face with a water bottle, and the other girl retaliated by throwing a beer bottle that flew over most peoples' heads and hit the bar. the girls and all their friends were removed by a small army of security personnel.

following that incident there was one chick on staff that was pointing out people who had too much to drink. i saw atleast 8 people being removed by the use of physical force. these were mostly guys, and were all targeted preemptively. one really big guy was squirming and kicking as 4 or 5 securitymen removed him forcefully. no other fights had started.

after about half dozen people were preemptively removed, i asked one of the bouncers - "how many is that, 6?" he said "man, people need to stop drinking so much".

finally, they removed a pair of girls that were grinding on each other and were obviously drunk. at this point i went up to the expeditionary unit (the chick that was pointing out all the ultradrunks), and said "so you're the one that decides who stays and goes huh?" she said "yeah" sort of arrogantly and then got a guilty look real quick. i think she was just doing her job - the manager of the place probably said to her something like "get rid of all the drunk fighters or your feet to the fire".

the situation had made her a bit trigger happy, and all the bouncers doing their jobs were being really rough because they had to - the first couple of people were walked out, and the removals got increasingly forceful as the night went on.

the last few removals were formulaic/textbook. it was like: "sir you're drinking too much, you need to go" -- "what do you mean i'm drinking too m..." -- *full nelson/headlock* -- *grabbing arms and legs* -- *out the door*

3/8/2009 8:19:12 PM

The bar situation is always tricky. Long story short, I don't have a problem with physically removing them from the bar as long as you don't hurt them physically or break any of their belongings. I have a fair amount of experience removing drunks from bars -- used to be my job, as a matter of fact. If they argue at all, it's a bad sign. They're clearly confrontational, because here they are arguing with you. They're getting more angry every second, because you can't really reason with a very drunk person. And they figure they're going to have to leave soon anyway, so they don't have as much motivation to behave themselves.

3/8/2009 9:04:04 PM

I've only been removed from a bar once, and I don't remember the incident. It was the start of a bizarre night/early morning that had technically begun around noon that day when I polished off a fifth of JD and set the tone for what was probably the booziest day of my life, excluding those instances in which other things helped me stay up longer and drink more.

[Edited on March 8, 2009 at 9:49 PM. Reason : Just felt like sharing.]

3/8/2009 9:42:40 PM

^AHA. That's probably the lamest post I've ever made, and I've made some pretty lame ones.

I normally at least pretend like I'm trying to relate to people or be relevant.

Anyway, my bad, guys. I apologize.

3/9/2009 2:23:55 AM

Quote :

" He wants people to protect themselves, and if they don't have the stomach for it, he believes they should hire out their own private security."

Which is about the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. Yep, that'll create a productive society right there! Fucking Rapture

3/9/2009 2:27:14 AM

^It's not clear that productivity or organization are very important to Megaloman84.

You know, it's like when everybody is arguing...if they just stepped back and took a breath, they'd see that they actually want the same thing, but they just disagree on how best to achieve it.

Megaloman84 is the odd guy out who doesn't want the same thing as everybody else.

3/9/2009 2:38:04 AM

It's a little off topic but, I was reading about a tragedy out in the Bay Area where a transit cop shot one of the passengers dead. It was videotaped, and the video showed little justification.

One of the commentors posts seemed appropriate to a number of circumstances:

Quote :

" .... we are not all tough guy idiots who test the limits of what others will tolerate on a daily basis."

I don't condone what the cop did, but there does seem to be a subculture that tests the limits of what people will tolerate and then cries "victim" when the people they are trying to piss off get pissed off. Watch out what you ask for ...

http://sfist.com/2009/03/09/did_cop_sex_played_a_role_in_oscar.php

3/10/2009 11:52:32 AM

have they let this guy off yet or is he still on paid vacation

3/10/2009 11:27:30 PM

^^There is such a subculture: youth. The girl in the video is 15.

3/11/2009 2:46:21 AM

i actually agree with Bridget for once holy fucking shit

Quote :

"it all began with a fight that broke out where one girl hit the other in the face with a water bottle, and the other girl retaliated by throwing a beer bottle that flew"

where the fuck is "the porch"

3/11/2009 8:16:14 AM

lol

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025593.html

Quote :

"Our Domestic Torture State: Hero Cop Beats Teenage Girl in Seattle Posted by William Grigg at February 28, 2009 01:11 AM Deputy Paul Schene of the King County Sheriff's Department, an eight-year law enforcement veteran, was videotaped beating a 15-year-old in a holding cell last November. The video was pried out of police hands just days ago by a Seattle television station that filed an official request under Washington's open records law. After being arrested and booked on a charge of auto theft (the car belongs to her parents, and she was a passenger, not the driver), the teenager displayed a "lippy" disposition toward Schene and another officer. As the door to her cell was being closed, she was ordered to remove her shoes. She complied by kicking one of them in Schene's direction. Perhaps Schene is well-versed in Arab culture and perceived this to be a grave insult to his masculinity, such as it is. In any case, he charged into the cell, kicked her in the stomach, slammed the girl's head against the wall, threw the girl (who weighed roughly half of what he did) face-first to the floor, and -- with the assistance of his fellow tax-feeder -- handcuffed her while striking her twice to the back to the head. Once she was shackled, the girl was pulled to her feet and dragged out of the cell by her hair: In his official report, Schene did what police almost always do in such circumstances: He lied, in the serene (albeit misplaced) confidence that nobody would review the video from the holding cell, or at least take it seriously. Schene claimed that the girl "provided resistance and failure to comply with instructions"; in fact, it was her compliance with instructions that precipitated the beating. The deputy wrote that his response was merely to "place" her in handcuffs, while omitting mention of kicking her in the stomach, beating her head against the wall, hitting her twice while she was prone and pinned down by two men twice her size, and then dragging her out by her hair. He also reported that the shoe hurled by the detainee injured him so severely that he -- fragile, delicate creature that he is -- had to be treated at a nearby hospital. If that injury occurred, it was entirely self-inflicted: The video shows him banging his shin against the toilet as he attacked the terrified girl. The video record documents that after the assault the girl, who understandably had difficulty breathing, required medical treatment. Schene described the treatment as necessary to deal with a "panic attack," a dishonest way of describing the reaction of a traumatized teenage girl to being gang-beaten by two adult males. The video was discovered weeks later by a detective assigned to investigate the auto theft. Schene has been charged with fourth-degree assault, a gross misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of one year in jail. Several years ago, Schene shot and killed an unarmed, mentally disturbed man following a traffic stop that degenerated into a "knock-down, drag-out" fight. The shooting was ruled "justifiable." Shortly after that incident, he was stopped for driving under the influence (apparently of prescription medication). He was given a deferred sentence and placed on probation, so that he could continue to bless the people of King County with his singular professionalism."

Liar too.

3/11/2009 9:36:07 AM

3/11/2009 3:30:42 PM

^ ha, holy shit - first time I actually saw the shoe from the 1st camera, hitting the officer.
Makes the whole thing even more pathetic

3/11/2009 4:34:07 PM

Quote :

"Schene has been charged with fourth-degree assault, a gross misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of one year in jail."

lol

3/11/2009 5:01:13 PM

and what's especially absurd is that this is a 15 YEAR OLD GIRL. what kind of man hits a 15 year old girl????? cop or no cop, he's definitely a poor excuse for a man. what a bastard, i hope he gets fired and put in jail.

3/11/2009 5:08:58 PM

i hope he gets fired and put into jail and someone double his mass in jail throws him around and beats the crap out of him

3/11/2009 5:15:46 PM

3/11/2009 5:23:13 PM

I wasn't there but from what I can tell this cop got his feelings hurt over nothing and let his emotions get the best of him. Its pretty pathetic to let something like that get to you. Don't get me wrong, I have a zero tolerance for people putting there hands on me in anyway, but this guy went nuts and its unacceptable.

But those of you who think a 15 year old girl couldn't hurt you in a fight are dead wrong. People can do extraordinary things when their freedom is in jeopardy.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 7:21 PM. Reason : g/s/p]

3/11/2009 7:20:46 PM

Quote :

"But those of you who think a 15 year old girl couldn't hurt you in a fight are dead wrong. People can do extraordinary things when their freedom is in jeopardy."

Yes, and clearly the video attests to the viciousness of this particular 15 year old girl's attack!

3/11/2009 7:30:44 PM

Protect and to Serve AM I RITE!?

3/11/2009 7:33:04 PM

^^I wasn't saying that she was a threat. But those who are thinking, 'how could someone beat up a girl?" in general.

3/11/2009 7:37:13 PM

Bridget, I know you claim to be reading about Libertarianism, but if you think that Libertarians, whether anarchist, like myself, or the more common minarchist sort, have anything against productivity or order, then you clearly haven't read enough. As for me not wanting the same things as everyone else, that's only true to the extent that people don't want freedom, peace or prosperity...

Quote :

"EarthDogg:There is a legitimate need for a limited amount of gov't. Police, Armed forces and a court system. We have given the police the right to use force- deadly force if needed. And because of theatm we must be ever alert to instances of abuse of that power."

Dogg, if you think that the police, armed forces and courts are or ever could be there to protect you, you're fooling yourself.

So, do the police actually provide us with some sort of protective service to offset the occasional, unjustifiable, savage beating they dish out? No, the "criminal justice" system is a joke.

First of all, it has been long established in law, that police have no obligation whatsoever to protect peons like you and me. What responsibility they have is owed to incorporeal metaphors like "society."

"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." - Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." - Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

Cops not only have no legal obligation, but no incentive to protect you. Cops are going to get paid with the money they help the government steal from you whether they do a good job of protecting you or not. It's much easier to harass motorists than to do actual police work, so that's what you see government cops doing. Besides, if police do a good job of preventing, deterring and punishing crime, they put themselves out of a job. Their incentive is to focus on ineffectual bullshit that keeps them visible to the public and seems to justify large budgets and large staffs but still leaves private criminals free to terrorize the populace, so that we'll clamor for even more ineffectual and overbearing police measures.

And the truth is still more dismal, because the pigs couldn't provide effective protection even if they sincerely wanted to. Even if a government faithfully tries to protect its citizens from private criminals, its terrorcrat enforcers are still left with the problem of deciding how to provide security and how much is required. Security is not an all or nothing affair. It can be provided in nearly an infinite number of ways and to an infinite number of degrees. Trying to provide the same security as the President gets to everyone would take more cops than there are people and likely require more than the entire GDP.

In a market system, on the other hand, more security services will be purchased until their marginal cost starts to exceed their marginal benefit in reduced losses to crime, violence etc... A government does not have to convince its "customers" that its services are worth voluntarily giving up money for. It can simply decide unilaterally what security services to provide and how much money to take in order to provide them. Governments are not subject to the profit and loss tests that a market firm would face, and so any decisions regarding how to provide a service and how much to provide are entirely arbitrary and irrational. Under a government, security will always either be either underprovided or overprovided. Either more security would be worth the cost and failing to provide it leaves people unnecessarily vulnerable to criminal predation, or security has long since passed the point where it is worthwhile to keep providing more and the cost of security now vastly exceeds the losses that it prevents. In various parts of our country and for various people, you can find instances of both these situations.

Meanwhile most of the crime that we do need protection from in the first place is created by bad government policy, which is enforced by the same cops who justify their existence by claiming to protect us from the criminals that they create and allow to thrive.

"The War on Drugs" is an example. By banning a basically peaceful, voluntary behavior, government forces it underground. The unmet demand enables a violent sort of entrepreneur to thrive in a shadowy underworld fueled by enormous black-market profits. Black market firms can behave in a truly criminal way and don't face the censure of their victims because they lurk in the shadows to mitigate the high transaction costs and cost of information created by government crackdowns. People have to step into their world in order to do business with them. When things go south, neither party has recourse to open, peaceful means of dispute resolution. That's why violence inevitably results.

A great deal of violent crime is drug related. During prohibition, a great deal of violent crime was alcohol related. When prohibition was ended, crime went down markedly. The same would happen today if drug prohibition were ended. Given the choice, people would prefer to patronize businesses that operate openly and maintain a reputation for quality and not injuring or killing their customers, even when they're shopping for the satisfaction of their vices. You also wouldn't have gang wars for drug territory, like you do now, and like you had between bootleggers in the 20s and 30s, but like you don't have between competing liquor stores in states that now allow them. Furthermore, the incidence of junkies resorting to crime to feed their habits would be less, because with cheap, legal drugs, they could make do by simply pan-handling, as the most severe alcoholics do now.

Government also systematically punishes, through progressive taxation, those people who engage in honest, productive enterprise, or who show any signs of responsibility, productivity, foresight, industry or self-reliance. Meanwhile, broken families, laziness, unemployment, sickness, short-sightedness, irresponsibility, indulgence and a sense of entitlement are all subsidized by a vast system of government handouts. It is the permanent, dependent underclass thus created, that threatens the safety and property of productive citizens, not other productive citizens.

Furthermore, by passing laws to disarm ordinary citizens, governments only widen the gap between law abiding citizens, who will comply and go about defenseless. and criminals, who wont. Criminals tend to be very present-oriented and short-sighted. The prospect of facing an armed victim, being an immediate threat, is a potent deterrent to crime. In comparison, the remote statistical chance of being arrested at some indeterminate point in the future and the even less likely chance of being convicted and sent to prison even farther in the future, is going to have a vanishingly small deterrent value on the criminal population. Thus, disarming citizens and ramping up police efforts against crime is only going to accelerate the downward spiral.

Finally when police do step in to act directly against private criminals they usually only end up making things worse. If someone rips me off, and by some fluke the cops actually manage to arrest someone, and actually manage to make a case against him without violating enough evidentiary standards to get the case thrown out, and actually get a conviction, then what happens? The government comes and adds insult to injury by robbing me again to keep this asshole in a holding pen with other criminals (and innocent political prisoners) and then releasing him with a record that prevents him from finding gainful employment. Gee I don't see any way this can turn out badly, do you?

If you want a graphic demonstration of where the police place their priorities, look at what they do when one of their own crosses the line. The video about which this thread started represents an extreme case, so this guy might actually face punishment. More typically, however, when a cop violate someone's rights in some way, the officer gets a slap on the wrist, and then the police let the person in question go free even if they are demonstrably guilty of some heinous offence and a provable menace to innocent lives and property! I mean, seriously, punish the cop and the criminal. But letting dangerous people roam free on technicalities as a way to allegedly, "keep the cops in line" is retarded. It demonstrates that protecting us is not nearly so important as making it seem like there are safeguards but actually putting us in more danger.

In short, there is not a single good thing that can be said about the widespread institution of, government police. The rise in America, over the last 150 years, of ubiquitous law enforcement has been an unmitigated disaster. We are now vastly less safe and less free than we were when we primarily took responsibility for our own protection.

So, despite all the posturing, the protection money you pay to the pigs mostly just keeps you out of their own prisons for tax evasion, it does not offer you any protection from private criminals. To the extent that private criminals run rampant, they do so because of enabling policies enacted by government and enforced by cops.

3/12/2009 5:51:50 AM

Quote :

"Bridget, I know you claim to be reading about Libertarianism, but if you think that Libertarians, whether anarchist, like myself, or the more common minarchist sort, have anything against productivity or order, then you clearly haven't read enough. As for me not wanting the same things as everyone else, that's only true to the extent that people don't want freedom, peace or prosperity..."

AHA, I was reading like a chapter for a class. I've no interest in doing any heavy reading on this topic or even light reading, for that matter.

And don't worry. I will continue to post on your behalf to help people avoid reading all that^ shit.

3/12/2009 6:35:30 AM

Quote :

"Brunner and Schene's reports both said the shoe struck Schene in the right shin, causing "bruising, bleeding and pain.""

That's a load of bullshit.

Between this, the DUI and shootings it sounds like this guy is a real class act.

3/12/2009 8:47:56 AM

I don't see a problem.

If you don't want to get roughed up by the police, don't fuck with them. It's that easy. If that bitch would have had some respect for the police and not kicking a shoe at them she would have been fine.

You people aren't seeing the cause of this incident. It had nothing to do with the police.

3/12/2009 8:49:52 AM

^ troll

if we have a traffic accident, and you come out of your car and insult me and throw your empty coke can at me in such a way that it barely touches me, i guess i am justified to beat the hell out of you or even shoot you. because, as you said, your insult would be the cause.

Quote :

""Brunner and Schene's reports both said the shoe struck Schene in the right shin, causing "bruising, bleeding and pain."""

that must be the most bald-faced lie ever told in human history.

a sneaker from 3 feet away, thrown with very little force, caused bleeding

motherfucker should get a 2x4 to his shins so he can know the meaning of 'bruising, bleeding, and pain'.



[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM. Reason : ]

3/12/2009 9:45:26 AM

Quote :

"You people aren't seeing the cause of this incident. It had nothing to do with the police."

I know, the shoe. It's all about the shoe.

HERE IN AMERICA WE DON'T TAKE THAT SHIT!

3/12/2009 10:10:04 AM

Quote :

" It's much easier to harass motorists than to do actual police work, so that's what you see government cops doing. Besides, if police do a good job of preventing, deterring and punishing crime, they put themselves out of a job. Their incentive is to focus on ineffectual bullshit that keeps them visible to the public and seems to justify large budgets and large staffs but still leaves private criminals free to terrorize the populace, so that we'll clamor for even more ineffectual and overbearing police measures. "

Good call

although I reject this idea..

Quote :

"In a market system, on the other hand, more security services will be purchased until their marginal cost starts to exceed their marginal benefit in reduced losses to crime, violence etc"

Sure, you will have to pay your "protection money". Your idea is not new. A group of entrepruneral italians have already
thought of this idea and have an on going operation in big cities such as NYC as one of their revenue streams.

If you really look into the history of the mafia its roots in the US partially started due to ineffectual law enforcement coverage
for Italian americans. Thus they looked to other powerful people to provide this sense of security. Except that this security is
provided for a fee in most cases involuntarily (extortion).

A gov't can at least be held accountable by the people for police brutality. I would rather have one consolidated group harrassing citizens and abusing
power than a bunch of mafiaoso type "security" orgainizations acting unrestricted.

3/12/2009 11:29:25 AM

Quote :

"A gov't can at least be held accountable by the people for police brutality."

It can? Because states never throw up "sovereign immunity" defenses. And we all know how forthcoming LEO are to rat out bad cops.

3/12/2009 11:32:41 AM

Ah, Megaloman84. So right and yet so wrong. Market and government collude to create the inequality that inspires the underclass to threaten supposedly productive citizens. The government dependency you speak of merely prevents this from spiraling out of control and leading to mass unrest. But whatever. I'm down with anyone who's got my back against the pigs.

3/12/2009 12:07:20 PM

Quote :

"A gov't can at least be held accountable by the people for police brutality."

Not really. Locke said we need a government because people can't be trusted to be judges in their own case. The funny thing about this argument is that's its precisely a government that doesn't satisfy the requirement that people submit their disputes to a third party. If you have a dispute with the government, you have to take it to, the government.

Yeah yeah, I know, checks and balances, division of powers and all that. While that pretence is probably better than nothing, it's ultimately a smoke screen. After all, judges are appointed and paid by the legislative and executive. You think they have your back? What can you bring to them, compared to that?

The role of the courts is not so much to prevent government abuse as to legitimize it. Sure, to do that, they have to rule against themselves every now and then; not enough to make any difference, just enough to give the appearance that the game isn't completely rigged.

Or perhaps you were refering to the vote that occurs once every period of years. Who did you vote for last time round? Ok now prove it. I didn't think so. The fact is, once again, we have to rely on government to tell us how the voting went.

Besides, once you vote the motherfucker in, he can pretty much do what he wants.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Quote :

"for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Legislative immunity means never having to account for what you do, ever. Isn't that a bitch. I mean sure, you can try to get someone's homies in Congress to impeach him, but good luck with that. You can go to the courts, but again, good luck. Basically, once someone is in office, they can break every campaign promise they made, make you their bitch and there's fuck-all you can do about it.

Finally, as I noted in my last post, it pays to look at how the government holds its own people accountable right now for adhering to the rules. When a cop roughs someone up, violates their civil rights, or doesn't adhere to procedures, what's the result? Violent criminals are let loose on technicalities. That's the safeguard against police abuse. Do you think your safety was a motivating factor in coming up with that system?

Ok, so private security is basically like the Mafia?

Well, that's interesting, because my dealings with private security have been universally positive. Granted, I've never been piss drunk at a bar, but I've always found private security to be much more polite and less aggressive than the police. I remember, when I was still in high school, some friends of mine and I were at the mall. Some of us wanted to smoke, so we went outside for a few minutes. We weren't really doing anything, we were just outside, a group of under-age kids, around the corner of the building, smoking and talking. One of the mall cops came out, he wasn't mean, confrontational, condescending, aggressive or belligerent. He just insinuated himself into our group and made small talk with us until we got uncomfortable and left. It makes sense if you look at the incentives. He's trying to maintain a safe, pleasant atmosphere for business to be conducted. If there's an issue, he can't overreact because the people involved are probably customers, who's good will he has to protect.

Cops have no such incentive. They are paid out of the proceeds of plunder. Their dubious services are more in demand the worse they let things get. They are largely unaccountable to the average person.

I've met some cops who were polite and professional while they gave me the shaft. I've met others that I could tell I better not give the slightest excuse to whip out the baton.

The results are plain to see. Contrast the level of safety and security at the mall, where private security is in charge, vs. a public park, where police are responsible for keeping you safe.

As far as why the mafia is why they are, that largely has to do with government. A lot of the products and services they provide (most of which are basically legitimate: drugs, prostitution, gambling, loan sharking, etc...) are illegal. Because they have to operate in the shadows to avoid government enforcement, and because their services are nevertheless in demand, they can get away with a large amount of criminality that a security firm which operates openly wouldn't be able to.

If you're shopping for security, you're going to prefer a firm that has a reputation for not breaking its customers kneecaps, so for an open, honest, business, that model simply wouldn't work.

[Edited on March 12, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ']

3/12/2009 1:09:55 PM

What a bunch of tripe you are posting good god

3/12/2009 1:23:46 PM

I'm sorry, I forget, this is the Internet, I shouldn't try to make points that wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker.

3/12/2009 2:09:44 PM

^ Its a free country, post all the words that you want. Just be aware no one is reading your shit. I have found to that for a post to be most effective it should be written with a few sentences and should only contain one or two concise thoughts.

3/12/2009 9:08:23 PM

Quote :

"The results are plain to see. Contrast the level of safety and security at the mall, where private security is in charge, vs. a public park, where police are responsible for keeping you safe."

wow, did you really compare the differences between security/safety levels at a mall and a park, and then attribute them private security vs. police?

3/12/2009 11:09:19 PM

sure, sounds reasonable.
'cause in the mall, we have guys like this protecting us!

3/12/2009 11:21:37 PM

Hey laugh if you want, but while the Paul Blarts of the world may be untrained, unarmed, and underpaid they have a number of advantages over the pigs.

1) They have a direct incentive to protect their customers

2) They're ordinary citizens, not anointed demigods, clad in the sacred vestments of the Most High and Holy State. If they fly off the handle or overreact, they can easily be held accountable for it.

3) That movie kicked ass.

3/13/2009 5:13:48 AM

you're trolling now..... right?

3/13/2009 10:02:45 AM

Ok, you're going to need more than incredulity to establish that private security, which hard-nosed businessmen pay billions of dollars per year for, is ineffective.

The empirical fact is that places protected by private security tend to be very safe. The theoretical angle is that the incentives shake out favorably for protection and against abuse.

Can you say anything to shed a different light on this, or is rolling your eyes all you can do?

3/13/2009 2:07:06 PM

ok, you've made two points:

1) "hard-nosed businessmen pay billions of dollars a year" for private security - yeah, great. and you expect normal people to dish out thousands of dollars a month for the same kind of security?

2) are you actually claiming that the reason malls are relatively safe is because of the rent-a-cops roaming the corridors? I think you're mixing up correlation and causation here

3/13/2009 2:27:08 PM

"yeah don't piss off that 1% that are psychopaths and are trusted with weapons and public security. you don't want that! just pay them your tax dollars and move along, just like you would a Don.

even 1% is too much of a risk."


You're retarded. So what should we do, not have a police force since we will always have at least 1% of the police force that is corrupt? I'm not saying it isn't more and that we can't lower it, but to say 1% is too much of a risk isn't very intelligent.

3/13/2009 5:41:49 PM

hell ya i can pay my "uncle" tony to protect and serve my security interests. If someone does something he can make them an offer they can not refuse.

3/13/2009 8:16:31 PM

Quote :

""hard-nosed businessmen pay billions of dollars a year" for private security - yeah, great. and you expect normal people to dish out thousands of dollars a month for the same kind of security?"

Ok, I pointed out the fact that bottom-line obsessed businessmen are paying billions of dollars for private security to bolster the case for its efficacy. It's not very likely that it's ineffective if people are willing to justify that kind of spending. What do they get for their money? Well, there are three private security guards for every cop, and they tend to be proactive in preventing problems and dealing with issues before they get out of hand instead of reactive, like the the cops. I'll reiterate an anecdote I included in a previous post.

Quote :

"when I was still in high school, some friends of mine and I were at the mall. Some of us wanted to smoke, so we went outside for a few minutes. We weren't really doing anything, we were just outside, a group of under-age kids, around the corner of the building, smoking and talking. One of the mall cops came out, he wasn't mean, confrontational, condescending, aggressive or belligerent. He just insinuated himself into our group and made small talk with us until we got uncomfortable and left. It makes sense if you look at the incentives. He's trying to maintain a safe, pleasant atmosphere for business to be conducted. If there's an issue, he can't overreact because the people involved are probably customers, who's good will he has to protect."

That's a 180 degrees from how I've ever been treated by the cops, and this security guard still accomplished his objective and the objective of his employer. Private security guards may not often engage in violent "heroics", but that's largely because their approach works without ever having to get to that point in the vast majority of cases.

As far as normal people, we're currently paying thousands of dollars annually to be harassed, intimidated, fined, occasionally beaten or electrocuted, and not protected by the police. I certainly expect people would be willing to spend a tiny fraction of that for real protection. Many already do. There are an increasing number of people living in gated communities. Many people have subscription based alarm services. Private security services are already available to people, many people already take advantage of them, and they don't cost thousands of dollars per month.

Quote :

"are you actually claiming that the reason malls are relatively safe is because of the rent-a-cops roaming the corridors? I think you're mixing up correlation and causation here"

It's certainly one of the biggest reasons, of course it also has to be chalked up to what the nature of private property allows mall cops to do. A public park is community owned. Everyone has a "right" to be there. Making it an uncomfortable place for bums, pushers, junkies, hoods, toughs, sexual predators and other assorted gutter dwellers is a "violation" of their "civil rights" it's "prior restraint" and so forth. As private property, no one has any inherent "right" to visit the mall except as the guest of the proprietor. The mall cops have an incentive to make it a safe and inviting place for the right kind of guest, customers. They also have a lot more latitude to exclude ne'er do wells of various sorts.

3/14/2009 12:46:23 PM

Quote :

"It's certainly one of the biggest reasons, of course it also has to be chalked up to what the nature of private property allows mall cops to do."

If I had to make a guess, I would bet that malls can hire rent-a-cops because malls are inherently safe by their nature, not the other way around.

What do you think mall managers do if they start having real crime problems? Bring in the real cops.

3/14/2009 3:18:41 PM

Ok, if, as you "guess", malls are "inherently safe" then why do you "guess" mall owners each nearly universally pay what has to be hundreds of thousands of dollars per years to keep guards on duty during all operating hours?

And granted, they do bring in the state cops when things get out of control, but if that were such a great option, why not simply use it as the default? Why even have the mall cops at all?

And why would some even larger businesses, like Disney World, go to the extra trouble of getting some of their security people trained and sworn in as law enforcement officers, so that they never have to call the government's cops?



[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM. Reason : ']

3/15/2009 9:37:54 AM

And what type of pro-active work do security guards do? Places like amusement parks, etc get sworn personnel so they can arrest, take real action if necessary not so they don't have to call the police. A place like an amusement park, which might be out of the way, and large areas might take awhile for a sworn LEO to respond. These company police officers works in the park, its like their city.

If you have someone who has violated the law, having a sworn LEO employed by the company insures that justice can be carried out immediately. There are some things police can do that security can't if you haven't figured that out. Usually, an amusement park has a small number of sworn company police that is augmented by regular security.

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM. Reason : fsfd]

3/15/2009 11:42:18 AM

I think it would be cool if regular responsible people could get registered as like 'citizen's police', carry a gun around all day, and get like a beeper message if a call came up near them.

3/16/2009 12:44:59 AM

Quote :

"Making it an uncomfortable place for bums, pushers, junkies, hoods, toughs, sexual predators and other assorted gutter dwellers is a "violation" of their "civil rights" it's "prior restraint" and so forth."

Cops absolutely make public parks an unpleasant place for those types of people. Homeless folks get endlessly harassed and herded by authorities of all stripes.

Quote :

"There are an increasing number of people living in gated communities. Many people have subscription based alarm services."

For the record, I don't want any part in revolution based on shopping malls and gated communities. I say we flood that shit with bums and punks.

3/16/2009 10:22:26 AM

nvm

[Edited on March 18, 2009 at 6:06 AM. Reason : doop dee do]

3/18/2009 6:05:28 AM