Gentlemen,
I recently came across a story in California. While it may not directly be related to gun issues, as a member of the Armed Intelligentsia I can’t help but recognize a slippery slope or hypocrisy and draw parallels to the plight of our own. “I know it when I see it.” (You might be a member of the Armed Intelligentsia if you know who famously said this.) And while I respect what police officers do and don’t want to be a cop basher, you have to wonder who justice really belongs to, the citizens or the ruling elite and their wealthy friends . . .
Anyway, Facebook has hired its own police officer who “wouldn’t be getting calls or issuing traffic citations.” Now if Facebook can hire law enforcement officers and choose which laws they enforce, maybe “assault weapons” owners in Connecticut might do the same? What if everyone in a certain neighborhood got a pot of money together and said we want to hire a police officer who only enforces the laws that we want him to. The point of a police force is that your tax dollars go to enforcing the laws whether you want them to or not. If you were a criminal and didn’t want police around, you can’t just choose to make them go away by not paying them.
Menlo Park Mayor Ray Mueller tried to address concerns by saying “The only way that you would have a conflict of interest is if someone tried to exert influence over our police force.” What do you think paying someone’s salary is? If someone at Facebook were to disagree with what the officer was doing, couldn’t they just withdraw funding and make that person go away?
This is a dangerous precedent that Facebook is trying to set. If corporations can directly hire law enforcement and decide which laws they are to enforce, they are just one more step removed from the people they are allegedly there to protect. And while it kind of goes without saying, this will all be largely unnecessary once CA becomes a shall issue state and citizens are able to carry in the workplace. This is something I have been thinking of all day and hope you can share this with your readers. Cheers and keep up the good fight.
Very respectfully,
Sergio from California
if is water cooled do I get a slurpy with it?
Is Facebook becoming OmniConsumerProducts?
Corporations or groups of people hiring their own security forces?
It’s called “mercenaries”, “private security contractors”, or “rent-a-cop.”
On a serious note, where I live it’s not uncommon for businesses to hire off-dity police to provide uniformed security. This really doesn’t seem like a big deal.
If a company was going to contract out all law enforcement for a city/town/whatever to a private company which would then set the rules for enforcement I could see a cause for concern. In this case it just seems like they are using a law enforcement officer to provide security on their private property, and in accordance with their business policies. Doesn’t seem much different to me from what a lot of businesses already do.
It is a big deal when private companies hire “off duty” cops. Why should a government employee be allowed to use the power of the state to enrich himself? If he wants to work security, that is fine. But he should not have arrest powers or be allowed to use any equipment that signifies that he is a government employee.
So, the educator writes “thru”?
Do NYC cops have to use guns with triggers set at 9 lb?
As someone who’s recently visited LA ( sans his gun) , I noticed that all the good neighborhoods already use their own private security force. Every place from the local grocery store on up’s got a guy in a security uniform out and about.
It seems a telltale sign youre in the wrong place in CA is when the only security force nearby is named “LAPD”. Out there, one who can doesn’t rely on government provided security any more then us US citizens in Shall Issue America.
Call it what it is. He is a security contractor in a uniform. He is hired muscle w/ LEO training.
Disagree–it’s more than that. He’s got LEO authority, too, gonna use it at the local schools according to the article.
2 posts in a row. A non story. Rich company buying protection/influence. It’s happening everywhere.
Private police forces and a weak central government were commonplace in America in days gone by. Railroads, coal mine owners, etc, had uniformed “police” and “militia” units that answered only to them.
When you lived in a company town were paid in company money and could only shop at the company store and if you objected the company police came to correct your attitude you lived with real tyranny. Not the hyperbolic tyranny we live with today.
And God help you if you were Chinese or another minority.
Great FB is paying the wage but who is paying his pension, health, disability? Providing the squad, maintenance on the squad, etc etc?
Sounds like that is on the tax payer, and if that’s the case I would be pissed. Why as a tax payer would I be subsidizing anything for a private company?
OK, guys, let’s not go off the deep end on this one…
I do lots of traveling for my job and as a result work in all different kinds of places. I can be at a middle school, a food manufacturing plant, a water pumping station, an office building, and a military base all within the same week…
Armed officers and armed security is way more common, even at private locations, than you’re making it out to be.
Even the grocery that my family and I shop at has a Sheriff deputy that pulls security detail on the weekends. Full uniform, it’s no big deal, he is a totally cool dude.
He is there to watch the place, not lay down the law as the Kroger Corporation sees fit.
Hell, he saw me wearing my “5.56 x 45mm” tshirt one day and gave me a thumbs up.
Facebook is a not too thinly veiled privacy intruding information gathering tool for the state.
As kids we would scramble after the blank cartridges ejected in the cemetery after Memorial Day salutes and carried them in our pockets for weeks.
Interesting – this would probably be unconstitutional in Washington State:
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
There are many security guards working in Washington, but I don’t believe any of them are armed (with possible exception of armored cars). The Facebook deal looks like it wouldn’t work here.
I want to make a “gats and kids” joke, but I can’t.
It is a cute picture though.
Isn’t this per definiton a mercenary?
Before people come up with the “hiring security is normal”, this isn’t. You din’t hire police, they are there constantly to catch people who fvck up, not only those people you want.
Love the pile of P-mags between them.
There is NOTHING about facebook that is not repulsive.
“…you have to wonder who justice really belongs to, the citizens or the ruling elite and their wealthy friends.”
Uhh, that would be the second choice. This is simply a continuation to the logical conclusion of the aristocracy’s ability to hire private guards and private armies. OF COURSE they should be able to buy their own cop – they are REALLY SPECIAL! and you peasants can just shut up and eat your cake.
Anyone interested in building a guillotine?
This libtard grinding on the “School Mass Shootin” is simply a ploy to advance their wet dream of overturning the Constitution and further restricting/banning firearms. It’s for the children. Right. The song of the mindless.
The reality is that a school shooting is a very very rare. If not for the mainstream liberal media and the gun banners promoting for the copycats it would be a total nonissue.
A “educator” that actually is concerned and intends to do something about protecting their charges will be carrying a concealed weapon. If to dumb/irresponsible to handle that you shouldn’t be in a classroom.
The men had exhausted their rations and whenever a bird flew over they were ready.
Having not read the article, my general rule is: if I can get out with mine, I go. If I’m cornered, I come out blazing. Otherwise, if there is no quick exit, play the odds. If the shooter seems to have designated targets (former employer) and I’m not close, I’m out. If they are shooting people randomly, I’ll probably be more inclined to shoot, if i have a clean shot.
I’ve have, more than a few time, met my brothers and sisters and/or their kids at shopping centers, malls, etc., without any of us knowing the others were there. I should let some maniac kill them because I didn’t know they were there?
And what kind of sociopath runs when he can stop a psycopath from killing innocent people? None I want as neighbors or fellow citizens.
If the bad guy was within 50 feet of me and I had a clear shot I would take it. Usually you are not afforded such things but I would take the shot so long as it was clear.
The only question I want to ask here is this: if you’re all by your lonesome, the cops aren’t around, a spree killer is killing innocent people and you think you might have the shot – but you aren’t completely sure – would you still take it? Would you wait and see? Or would you run?
I believe I would. I believe that because: As an EMT, Firearm Instructor and Industrial Firefighter all my training has taught me to Help. To run towards the danger and not away from it. I have the tools (Firearm, spare mags, etc) and have the ability to use them (Training) As Robert stated you will go over all those things in your mind in a very very short period of time (Two blinks of the eye) and then make the decision. I believe I will react as I have been trained!
I don’t see anything in the linked article that indicates this officer will be anything other than a sworn officer, who has all the same duties as any other officer. They are just footing the bill for an officer to be based out of a substation in a bad neighborhood. It’s really no different than donating money to the police force.
Who is next? New Jersey? New York? Massachusetts? Maryland? There are dissenters there too.
And will Virginia succumb to totalitarianism?
My oldest son lives near Baltimore. Works for an unnamed federal agency. Ex Army. He thinks everything is just fine. Cops on both sides. He’s bought into gubmint knows best. A whole helluva lot of people agree with him. Don’t give up the fight. My crappy state of Illinois is changing for the better.
“I will bring forward an amnesty to ensure that individuals in possession of these firearms can continue to possess their property without threat of criminal charges,”
What kind of S.O.B. writes stilted crap like that? I had to rub my eyes and read it again. JEEZ-O-FLIP.
It is pretty simple, while you, your sig other, your kid, or the neighbor is on the phone with 9/11, you or your sig other should be on another phone line with a lawyer.
Don’t talk to cops.
http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
take the space out between you and tube if you want to watch it.
I work at home and do home carry. I do have a MA concealed carry permit, unfortunately most of the time when I leave the house I’m either going to the kids’ school, the Post Office or both, coincidentally the places I’d most like to be packing were it legal. I also spend all almost my time in relatively crime free affluent suburbs, so the odds of a problem are nil. Couple that with living in MA and the concern of someone freaking out if they notice and it’s just what it is. Following the rule of avoiding stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places will prevent 99.9999% of all possible problems.
I do carry if I’m otherwise transporting guns, like to the range or guns store. I never understood why that isn’t a good cause for a CCW permit? I mean, if you’ve got guns isn’t the best way to keep them from getting stolen to have one of them available for use?
We already have a militia:
Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So according to our current US code, all able-bodied males 17-45 are part of the “unorganized militia”.
Show this to the next gun-grabber that says we don’t have a militia.
EDIT: Apologies to Dirk for repeating what he said in an earlier post – I missed that.
“Nor establish federal standards for carry permits. . . “
There has already been a wedge of “federal standards” established in the Gun Free School Zone Act “loosening” of restrictions.
FROM: Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Exceptions to the possession prohibition include:
Firearm possessors licensed by the state or locality to possess the gun, whose law * requires that before the person obtains a license, state or local law enforcement verify that the person is qualified to receive the license; or . . .
Where the firearm is possessed or used by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity. **
* A federal requirement that “state or local law enforcement verify” the qualifications of a CCW applicant for that CCW to be acceptable for federal exemption has been slipped into the law. Additionally, only those pistol licences issued by the state within whose borders the school zone is located are recognized (if they meet the federal police approval requirement). Curiously, licences issued by other states with identical requirements, and honored and recognized as valid by that state, are mysteriously disqualified from this exception. The chicanery of bureaucrats is without limit.
** The way I read this, there is no “exception” for an OFF-DUTY police officer to possess a gun on school grounds, even if his Department requires him to be armed when off-duty, and uphold the law if he witnesses a felony in progress. The officer would be lawfully in possession ONLY if responding to a ‘felony in progress’, not if he went to the school to pick up his child. Don’t you just love the way they like to make intricate “rules” for everything ?
Take it from me, this perfume has always gotten rave reviews. It is a perfume the best give that you charming and energetic watch. The store also focuses primarily on gift pieces of varied pricing. xboter 2014