#37 Helmut O’ Hooligan

Even when I disagree with people on the Agitator, I often find myself better informed for having the argument.

Although I never realized it at the time it was happening, all of my opinions were born of a hard fought bloody defense of an earlier belief that turned out to be wrong. I defend my new opinions just as aggressively.

I’m hoping that someday I will once again be as smart as I was when I was young and didn’t know anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_defense

Exactly HOW would many private and competing defense forces be a giant step backwards from what we have now, which is ONE force which demands (not earns) respect, which you cannot sue, which usually gets a pass from the media, and which investigates itself with barely any input from us “citizens” when they do wrong?

Suppose my neighbor breaks into my house and steals my TV. I call my privately contracted security squad A about it, and they go over to my neighbor to investigate, where they run into a group of officers from privately contracted security squad B. Suqad B announces there’s no basis for an investigation and if squad A comes onto the property, they’ll be arrested.

Now what?

“”They’re calling the breast-fondling and sexual comments
“Enhanced Interrogation techniques.””

OR:

“Distraction groping and dirty talk” El Monte CA PD style!

Sure, they would. You’d try to sue them in their own courts and they’d say “Fuck off.” (Just like the government does, but without the chance to find a few of them who actually believe in the Constitution and public service and all that crap.) The only way to hold them accountable would be superior firepower, which you wouldn’t have.

Though since we’re speculating, I suppose you could always engage your Super-Objectivist Powers and blow them away with optic blasts of economic productivity while deflecting their bullets with the power of pure reason. Good luck with that.

Baffles the mind, doesnt it?

Thanks for continuing this discussion, guys. One step that I could actually envision–though it wouldn’t eliminate the state–is licensing of peace officers in a manner similar to EMT’s. In other words, officers would have to complete a mandatory state training course, but they could go to work for private institutions or agencies (like EMT’s going to work for a private ambulance service or a hospital). These private agencies could compete, just as private EMS providers do. Actually, I think Carl Klockars (former U of Delaware Prof. and author of “The Idea of Police.” discusses this theory). I wouldn’t say I advocate this idea, but I think my concerns about training wouldn’t be as pronounced if this system were in place.

Beyond policing and investigation, I still have problems with privatization of courts and/or corrections. If I really try, I can see the possibility of private policing, but these other aspects of the justice system are a tougher sell for me.

Beyond these legal questions, I have grave concerns about the training and qualifications of these private officers. Don’t get me wrong, I see plenty of deficits in the training of government LEO’s, but at least they must meet minimum standards. As a private officer, I can tell you that employers are frequently very backward when it comes to training security personnel. Why? Because they aren’t required to, and it’s just an added expense to them, that’s why! In my opinion, the appearance of security is valued more than a truly competent security program in most private enterprises.

Most of the time, a free competitive market will lead to low-quality security firms receiving few clients…if the regulatory state keeps its filthy paws out of the industry.

#22
Beyond this, if people refuse to comply with a private officer, what happens next. Will there still be courts and jails that offenders can be transferred to? Under whose authority? Who will review the decision of the officer to arrest a subject? Or will the private officer just have to settle things in the street? If so, you have just removed an important set of checks and balances. I’m not convinced the market can substitute for these checks and balances that our (very) imperfect system has in place.

You can’t compare a hypothetical private police force to a hypothetical ideal state solution. You talk of checks and balances in our imperfect system, but our system, as it currently stands, has no significant checks or balances. Officers can do anything they want, and on those rare occasions that they’re caught, count on getting a punishment several orders of magnitude below what is deserved.

Nobody knows the details of how a fully private police force would work, simply because nobody has ever seen one. However, I fail to see how it could possibly be worse than what we have, simply because bad solutions (police forces that don’t protect their subscribers) will get replaced by good solutions (police forces that do). I could guess what the details of a fully private police force might look like, how it might handle claims, protection, and offenders, but that’s all it would be – a guess. What will make it work isn’t the details, its the big picture, and the big picture says people won’t subscribe to a police force that doesn’t protect them if they don’t have to.

“But prosecutors said police officers are held to a higher standard, so when they commit crimes they are automatically guilty of official misconduct.”

Huh? ……. WTF?

I don’t know, Tom. But respectfully, without the “oh-so-special aura of ‘government LEO,” these private officers will face hurdles of their own. I work as a non-sworn officer at a large private hospital. Even though I am basically doing police work, the criminal element (and some non-criminals) act like they can walk all over me because I am not “the police” and I don’t carry a firearm. The fact that I am acting under authority of the property owner (the hospital) and I do have (private) arrest authority (just as they do) doesn’t enter into their minds. So these private officers and detectives will constantly have their leigitimacy questioned, at least at the outset. Imagine them trying to win over a public that sees them as nothing more than poorly qualified “rent-a-cops.”

Beyond this, if people refuse to comply with a private officer, what happens next. Will there still be courts and jails that offenders can be transferred to? Under whose authority? Who will review the decision of the officer to arrest a subject? Or will the private officer just have to settle things in the street? If so, you have just removed an important set of checks and balances. I’m not convinced the market can substitute for these checks and balances that our (very) imperfect system has in place.

Beyond these legal questions, I have grave concerns about the training and qualifications of these private officers. Don’t get me wrong, I see plenty of deficits in the training of government LEO’s, but at least they must meet minimum standards. As a private officer, I can tell you that employers are frequently very backward when it comes to training security personnel. Why? Because they aren’t required to, and it’s just an added expense to them, that’s why! In my opinion, the appearance of security is valued more than a truly competent security program in most private enterprises.

Well that’s enough for now. Perhaps you can ameliorate some of my concerns, Tom.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/06/abbate-acquitted-on-2-lesser-charges.html