Financial Giants Put New York City Cops On Their Payroll

reply to post by Britguy

I find this rather disturbing as it is completely outside the remit of the police force and they are no longer upholding the law, but rather doing the bidding of a private corporation. When did this become legal I wonder and are any of the US members of this site aware that this was going on?

In reality, this is very common for most large police departments throughout the United States. The program allows business owners to hire police officers, while off duty, to work specifically at their place of business. The business pays the officer an hourly wage and also pays the city a fee in the form of a permit to allow the uniform to be worn while working. The permit also carries with it the neccessity for the business to have an exorbitant insurance policy to cover anything not explicitly covered by the police department.

This practice stems from the fact that police officers, whether on duty or off, are always police officers with the capability and duty to uphold the law. With this being the case, no matter where the officer is at any given time, he or she still has police powers. This makes an off duty police officer very appealing to be hired as private security for a business. A business owner can pay an officer to come to their business and work, as a police officer, specifically for the property. Meaning, the officer is not taking calls for service and can focus specifically on the business that hired them. Another reason this is so appealing to business owners is because on duty police officers cannot focus all of their attention on one shopping center or mall all the time unless specifically assigned there. Manpower issues do not allow many deployments like this.

Police officers who are hired in this capacity still must adhere to the rules, regulations and laws governing police officers in their jurisdiction. Violation of these will still result in investigation and penalty in the same manner as if they were on duty. They do not blindly follow orders from the business owner and they cannot be ordered to do their bidding. They are simply being paid to be a police officer specifically for that shopping center, mall or whatever business hires them.

All police officers are indemnified by their agency when taking police action. As soon as a police officer starts taking police action while off duty, they are now suddenly on duty. That is because the people and the agency want off duty cops to take action when action needs to be taken. Like if an off duty cop walked into a bank robbery. The people as well as the agency want the officer to take police action to protect the public and stop the robbery. So, the officer has to be indemnified from CIVIL liability for taking said action as long as it is within the policy of the police department. Police officers are not indemnified civilly if their actions are out of policy and not within the scope of reason.

Business owners are also held accountable. They are scrutinized by the department and their permits can be cancelled at any time if their business is less then reputable.

This is fearmongering and drawing conclusions from misconceptions.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by Britguy

 

Business owners are also held accountable. They are scrutinized by the department and their permits can be cancelled at any time if their business is less then reputable.

This is fearmongering and drawing conclusions from misconceptions.

No they are not.
This is false at least in CA.
Off duty Cops in CA do security for Bars, Strip clubs and even MMJ dispensaries.

They pretty much ONLY work for less than reputable businesses that need heavy security over and above a class D Guard.

reply to post by muzzleflash

# 1) I don't really care what the protesters are protesting, as they have the right to protest anything they want to.

# 2) The state's DUTY is to protect the rights of citizens, not to trample them! This is the trampling of citizen's rights 100%.

# 3) Put these tyrants in jail where they belong. In general population too, that would be a fitting fate.

Yes they have the right to protest, but not in the manner some of the protesters are engaging in. They have freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble. Blocking a public street or sidewalk, attempting to provoke the police, throwing items at them and knocking over their motorbikes is no where near peaceful.

The police are protecting the rights of citizen. Those citizens not participating in the protest who are affected by some of the protester's unreasonable actions. We are talking about New York City here.

Blocking the sidewalk is cause for concern if you want to get by. This could cause some to walk in the street, or, take a very lengthy detour around the city block which, in New York City is unreasonable.

Blocking the street causes yet an even bigger problem. Traffic is already a huge issue in the city and the slightest disturbance to traffic could cause gridlock and thousands to be inconvenienced.

Also, the police are protecting private property from destruction. Lets face it, if it were not for the large police presence, some in the protest would engage in breaking windows and other property.

So again, the police are protecting the rights of those citizens who are not participating in the protest and just happen to be going somewhere that happens to be near or takes them past the protest.

Your rights end, when they start to infringe on the rights of another. Including your right to protest when it begins to infringe on someone's right to use a public street or sidewalk or begins to damage their private property.

reply to post by illuminatislave

Let the police choose their side now.

The police have no side, they are attempting to protect the rights of those not participating in the protest. Please see the above post.

The police are not trying to silence the message of the protest. They are simply attempting to maintain some semblance of public peace and order. There are some protesters that are attempting to usurp that.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

At the founding of America, there was no police force. What happened is that the rich people all had security and the poor had no defense. So when the poor started rioting, the small security force of the rich people could not coordinate well enough between their employers. As one security group owed no loyalty to another person's property. A compromise was arranged and began the modern day police force and this was started in NYC. So everyone paid to get a more responsive security force.

Wow you put your own little spin on that didnt you?

We have always had some form of law enforcement capacity whether it was a militia, constable, sheriff or police force. ALWAYS. There are many reasons why a single constable or sheriff is no longer sufficient in modern times.

In "days gone by," we had less urban sprawl, less advanced and less available means of transportation, smaller towns with less population and less of a transient population to deal with. In "day's gone by," a town's constable or small local police or sheriff's department was sufficient to maintain crime and bring criminals to justice with ease.

In "days gone by," all of the residents of a small town knew each other. That makes it very easy when a resident was to witness "Billy Bob's" son, who is the local troublemaker, commit a crime. That resident could then either take the issue up with "Billy Bob" who would discipline his son or, if not satisfied, could go to the local sheriff or constable and report the crime knowing exactly who was responsible.

The problem is we no longer live in "days gone by." Now a days urban sprawl has made many small towns a suburb of a larger city. Going from small town to suburb brings with it a larger population, public transportation, more and larger roads, a transient population and public housing. When a small town becomes a suburb, the population is not likely to know each other anylonger. Larger population tends to bring the crime rate up. Combine that with methods of transportation that allow a criminal from one part of town to move efficiently and rapidly to another part of town, commit a crime anonymously and then move efficiently and rapidly out of that part of town and you have crime that a local sheriff or constable is no longer effiective at dealing with.

Experience has shown that to deal with the more suburban type environment that we live in today, it requires a larger police force that has to employ different tactics when trying to curtail crime. The ability for one to commit crimes anonymously makes the police department focus more on tactics such as deterrance through "omnipresence," or the appearance of being everywhere at the same time. Also tactics such as using an intelligence section to keep track of certain crime trends and focus patrols accordingly or tactics on the patrol level such as a patrol officer stopping someone who is acting suspiciously and identifying them.

All of this combined requires more personnel and different tactics in policing that a constable, sheriff or small department simply can not offer.

All of this severly limits, but not removes, a single police officer's ability to get to know everyone in the area and fine tailor their methods of policing to every member of that population. In fact, in this environment, the police probably only know, by first name, the people who are giving them a constant problem and they have to deal with on a consistent basis and do not know the good family that lives right down the street that they never have to deal with.

Today, though it appears corporations own the police force. I used to work for some big corporations and we hired police all the time. We paid them $25 an hour or more sometimes, and they were allowed to use all their power as a police officer. That means if I wanted someone off our corporate property all I had to do was give the order and the police did the rest, called backup and made an arrest.

Exactly. They were protecting the private property rights of the property owner. Police officers do that through the tresspass laws whether on duty or working part time.

What are you arguing for? The dissolution of private property? I happen to enjoy private property rights along with the countless other homeowners in the United States.

reply to post by BadNinja68

Off duty Cops in CA do security for Bars, Strip clubs and even MMJ dispensaries.

All can be reputable businesses. What I meant by reputable businesses is that they operate within the law and reason. If there are too many bar fights at a bar, the department can disallow part time there. If there are prostitution complaints at a stip club then the department can disallow part time there. Medical Marijuana dispensiaries, as long as they are operating legally, are entitled to part time officers working there as long as the department allows it.

Just because you do not agree with the product a business is selling does not make it less then reputable.

Who just got off the Turnip Wagon?

Those in Power...who control the money....are SMART.

NYPD was even in London helping out.


You can't do squat against the Royal Families. They make money feeding you, or beating you.

reply to post by Britguy

It’s called the Paid Detail Unit and it allows the New York Stock Exchange and Wall Street corporations, including those repeatedly charged with crimes, to order up a flank of New York’s finest with the ease of dialing the deli for a pastrami on rye.

In essence, ...the big financial institutions, and other big players, are hiring taxpayer paid police officers as their own private security officers.

Like you said. Sweet.

The more things change....

F&S&

Welcome to corporate fascism.

I was watching Robocop 3 the other day, in it OCP (the corporation) orders the Detroit PD to evict people from their homes, the police all refuse on moral grounds (unlike ours) and so the OCP just employ the punks to do it instead, the police fight side by side with the people in the end.

Lets face it corporations run our governments... and yeah before someone asks I buy lots of products made by big corporations, that doesn't mean that they should have any place in politics.

in a nut shell - i feel sorry for the NYPD now , once they were seen as hero's after 9/11 but turning on their people who may have lost a parent or friend in those attacks to defend people who fund terrorism is an outrage ,and it shows that the days when the NYPD was formed many years ago with irish immigrants etc hasnt realy changed ,corruption runs deep but now its in your face and they laugh at it ..