Loser campus cop checks me for having an empty holster on college campus.

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is taking a hard turn towards not delivering.
PaulBlartMallCop.jpg


P. S.
www.masslive.com

Man with umbrella causes rifle scare at Burlington Mall

Police have reopened a mall near Boston after a report of a man with a rifle turned out to be a man with an umbrella.
www.masslive.com www.masslive.com

P. P. S. I would have to be some kind of regular at a mall -
a mall that I ever wanted to visit again -
before I would turn myself in as the Man with a Rest Room Umbrella.
 
Roland Deschain said:
You really have no idea of the ins and outs of Law Enforcement in Massachusetts

DUDE
Click to expand...
Look, this chick actually had the power to make arrests. She attended police academy classes in Tewksbury (NERPI). Certified special police officer. Got the credentials. Actually made bona-fide arrests and testified as arrestingly Officer for shoplifting arrests. What problem do you do not understand? So...her appointment as a Special Police Officer is fiction in MA? Are you that ignorant?
 
Roland Deschain said:
You really have no idea of the ins and outs of Law Enforcement in Massachusetts

DUDE
Click to expand...
How short- sighted you are! Private security patrolling housing projects in Roxbury have special police officer arrest powers. Boston PD regulars dont like it, but it is what it is. Longwood was one of the main contractors. Look them up, smart guy! Their employees were Boston Special Police officers. Couldn't carry Glocks. .38 revolvers with 158 grain plus p hollow points were standard issue, per legal requirement.
 
BOOTKNIFEFAN said:
How short- sighted you are! Private security patrolling housing projects in Roxbury have special police officer arrest powers. Boston PD regulars dont like it, but it is what it is. Longwood was one of the main contractors. Look them up, smart guy! Their employees were Boston Special Police officers. Couldn't carry Glocks. .38 revolvers with 158 grain plus p hollow points were standard issue, per legal requirement.
Click to expand...

I would argue with you but you are all over map and can't seem to make a point.
 
edmorseiii said:
I knew a dude who banged some gutterslut who had a cousin who shared needles with a plumber who was detained by a mall security guard for drooling on himself inna store, so I know things about cops, dude.
Click to expand...
Minimum wage civilian unarmed mall cop? No training? Yes, that we definitely agree on. No argument there. Makes perfect sense. Protect the almighty bottom line. Doesn't surprise me one bit. WWIW, elevator inspectors in Illinois are special state police investigators. They are state employees. No bottom line to ptotect, as opposed to the privatel sector. If you can figure out why, please let me know!
 
BOOTKNIFEFAN said:
... elevator inspectors in Illinois are special state police investigators. They are state employees. No bottom line to ptotect, as opposed to the privatel sector. If you can figure out why, please let me know!
Click to expand...
You think this place has elevators?
3267405214_1677f3b9f5_b.jpg

Pro-tip: when the reaction to an apartment fire is to just board the sucker up
instead of refurbing it, you know you're in a special building.
 
Roland Deschain said:
I would argue with you but you are all over map and can't seem to make a point.
Click to expand...
So..contact Longwood or Boston PD. Get an education about the reality of Special Police Officers. Then get back to me. I am not "all over the map". Privately appointed police officers are a reality here. Actually. In most states
Check your statutes, unless your title is JD. Esquire, Attorney At Law. I doubt you have a law degree. A wet behind the ears paralegal has more knowledge of the law than you.
 
BOOTKNIFEFAN said:
How short- sighted you are! Private security patrolling housing projects in Roxbury have special police officer arrest powers. Boston PD regulars dont like it, but it is what it is. Longwood was one of the main contractors. Look them up, smart guy! Their employees were Boston Special Police officers. Couldn't carry Glocks. .38 revolvers with 158 grain plus p hollow points were standard issue, per legal requirement.
Click to expand...
The housing projects are special police under Boston PD Rule 400. The revolvers are not "per legal requirement" but "per regulations established by the Boston PD as part of the conditions under which they serve as special police officers". The Boston PD could have included standard issue Boston PD sidearms in the regulations, but this maintains the caste system, and provides a very visible indication they are the low pay (very low) contractors assisting the regular officers. There is a load of other stuff in the regs, like the limitations on when/where these specials are considered police, and that they are always to be subservient to any regular Boston police officer.


Read Section 5 that limits police powers to only the location specified on the special officer license.

All of this means squat to persons granted "special officer" status under other situations - many have much more limited authority.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
The housing projects are special police under Boston PD Rule 400. The revolvers are not "per legal requirement" but "per regulations established by the Boston PD as part of the conditions under which they serve as special police officers". The Boston PD could have included standard issue Boston PD sidearms in the regulations, but this maintains the caste system, and provides a very visible indication they are the low pay (very low) contractors assisting the regular officers. There is a load of other stuff in the regs, like the limitations on when/where these specials are considered police, and that they are always to be subservient to any regular Boston police officer.


Read Section 5 that limits police powers to only the location specified on the special officer license.

All of this means squat to persons granted "special officer" status under other situations - many have much more limited authority.
Click to expand...
The young man who signed off on my first mortgage had to hold a "justice of the peace" certificate, since he was also a notary public. On paper, this guy had a lot of power under IL law. He could sign off on your mortgage or car loan, marry you, issue a search warrant for your property or a warrant for your arrest, and direct the sheriff or IL State Police to seize, lien, levy, and execute upon property. Would he actually do it? Not likely. But he did have the authority to do so if he was so inclined!
 
BOOTKNIFEFAN said:
My wife recently met a woman at a church event. By coincidence, they both worked for Sears, albeit in different states. This woman worked loss prevention at the now-defunct Sears store in the Burlington Mall. She graduated from a part-time police academy (paid for by Sears) and was sworn as a Special Police Officer by the town of Burlington.Her colleagues in loss prevention had the same status. She apprehended shoplifters, mostly teenage girls and testified against them in court. Not sure how much jurisdiction she had outside of the store. Mall management had contracted unarmed security guards to patrol the interior concourses and outside parking lots.
Click to expand...

The woman lied to you. Sears absolutely did not pay for her to go to an academy.

Out of curiosity how old was this woman?
 
I never met her. She was a career Sears employee, now retired. Probably the one who shut the lights off when they closed the place. At one time, it was a good company to work for. My wife spent 5 years at a Sears in Clayton, MO. She never got involved in loss prevention, though. Sears was very tough on shoplifters, apprehending and prosecuting them as a matter of policy.
 
BOOTKNIFEFAN said:
I never met her. She was a career Sears employee, now retired. Probably the one who shut the lights off when they closed the place. At one time, it was a good company to work for. My wife spent 5 years at a Sears in Clayton, MO. She never got involved in loss prevention, though. Sears was very tough on shoplifters, apprehending and prosecuting them as a matter of policy.
Click to expand...

I’m very familiar with how Sears Loss Prevention works. I’m also pretty sure I know who your speaking of.

While it’s entirely plausible that she went through and academy, Sears did not pay for it. Also that stopped being a thing about 20+ years ago.
 
Junior314 said:
I’m very familiar with how Sears Loss Prevention works. I’m also pretty sure I know who your speaking of.

While it’s entirely plausible that she went through and academy, Sears did not pay for it. Also that stopped being a thing about 20+ years ago.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure they only had one long term full time female in security. She ended up being part time near the end I believe prior to retirement.

I worked in that store for a number of years, there was a lot of rotation through security/loss prevention there, and there is no way they sent them to any academy. And I know exactly what you are talking about with the doubts that Sears would pay for it either, even though they were a great company to work for years ago, they were also very cheap. Except for a manager and a couple of regular employees, just about all loss prevention employees were always part time.
 

Boston Housing Authority - Boston Housing Authority

The Boston Housing Authority (BHA) provides public housing and other affordable housing options such as Section 8 leases to thousands of residents in and around Boston.
www.bostonhousing.org www.bostonhousing.org

All police officers have completed full time police academy training as required by the Massachusetts Police Training Committee and have full police powers on all property owned or controlled by BHA.


But not on the next street over.
 
Are Campus Police officers the actual Militia I’ve always read about? They do bear arms and save us from tyrannical student bodies. I hope this one in the OP post was a patriot. I respect all authority, even Walmart greeters as they should bear arms too. Maybe a Colt Police Positive in .32? Can you imagine? No one would walk past without showing them papers.

Anyways, no one pays attention to my cleavage and SCCY printing when on the campus these days, even the tow truck drivers.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I am very interested in learning where you consider me to be in error so I can try to figure out which one of us is wrong.

Are you stating that my claim they have full police powers is inaccurate, or are you saying they can do things like use an "internally issued warrant issued by the school" (i.e., letter from a dean authorizing a search). Or do you mean to imply that not stopping for a campus sworn LEO will not result in "Failure to stop for a police officer" charge? (remember, there is no crime "failure to stop for a private security guard"). Or, perhaps do you mean that these sworn police can be arrested for carrying a gun onto the property of a school other than the one they work at? Details and specifics please.

Or, are you saying they would be held accountable, rather than being told "glad you made it home safe" if they shot Pommeranian Phydeaux?

Very interested in details/corrections.
Click to expand...


Did not intend for the reply to be so terse/rude omitted some wording which should have been included.

A campus security official is authorized in MA by the Commander of the State Police as a SSPO-special state police officer and in the Commonwealth, as in most all other States-the powers of arrest/enforcement are strictly limited to the campus and property owned by the institution. I don't believe that enough emphasis is placed on the restrictions of power confusing/perhaps misleading to state that campus security has the same authority, or rather it is confusing/misleading to -me- additionally I believe it is accurate to state that presenting the job of campus security in the manner cited places campus security on the same level of importance , for lack of a better word, as state or municipal or local law enforcement agencies and to me this is wrong.

To be clear; the position of a campus security officer can be dangerous, the job of campus security officer is necessary and is needed as it takes demands off the public agencies assets but also to be clear the noble job of campus security officer is exactly that, the term Police Officer traditionally has and must continue to refer to sworn officials of public agencies. and no I don't have as much as issue with the term Campus Police Officer.

On to the railroad , quite different in my opinion because in the States I was in these guys would ALWAYS, if able, provide backup on the road until another local/state or county unit arrived, then they would quietly leave with the same class they arrived with ; so I do have a bias here. The rail commission generally does come from the commander of the state police in all the States I have knowledge of and many of the jurisdictions limit the police powers to property owned/maintained or leased by the rail company. Amtrak is the only exception I am aware of that many of the larger cities will include language in the commission which would include -in/upon, in the immediate and adjacent vicinity of the property and station blah, blah and I am of the opinion that this is as it should be. Keep in mind that rail service is an attractive target for terrorism and US Code does acknowledge and provide for the protection of rail infrastructure as necessary to the national interests of our great Nation.

I remain unclear as to the exact status of Amtrak officers-all the maint trucks I see have had US Govt plates but the vast majority of the cruisers have had local registrations. I know that they have always wanted to be absorbed in the Federal system and if this has not happened I think it really should, the guys I have met have all been great, sharp/professional and many attended a FLETC-usually Glynco.
 
snubnose said:
Did not intend for the reply to be so terse/rude omitted some wording which should have been included. A campus security official is authorized in MA by the Commander of the State Police as a SSPO-special state police officer and in the Commonwealth, as in most all other States-the powers of arrest/enforcement are strictly limited to the campus and property owned by the institution. I don't believe that enough emphasis is placed on the restrictions of power confusing/perhaps misleading to state that campus security has the same authority, or rather it is confusing/misleading to -me- additionally I believe it is accurate to state that presenting the job of campus security in the manner cited places campus security on the same level of importance , for lack of a better word, as state or municipal or local law enforcement agencies and to me this is wrong. To be clear; the position of a campus security officer can be dangerous, the job of campus security officer is necessary and is needed as it takes demands off the public agencies assets but also to be clear the noble job of campus security officer is exactly that, the term Police Officer traditionally has and must continue to refer to sworn officials of public agencies. and no I don't have as much as issue with the term Campus Police Officer. On to the railroad , quite different in my opinion because in the States I was in these guys would ALWAYS, if able, provide backup on the road until another local/state or county unit arrived, then they would quietly leave with the same class they arrived with ; so I do have a bias here. The rail commission generally does come from the commander of the state police in all the States I have knowledge of and many of the jurisdictions limit the police powers to property owned/maintained or leased by the rail company. Amtrak is the only exception I am aware of that many of the larger cities will include language in the commission which would include -in/upon, in the immediate and adjacent vicinity of the property and station blah, blah and I am of the opinion that this is as it should be. Keep in mind that rail service is an attractive target for terrorism and US Code does acknowledge and provide for the protection of rail infrastructure as necessary to the national interests of our great Nation. I remain unclear as to the exact status of Amtrak officers-all the maint trucks I see have had US Govt plates but the vast majority of the cruisers have had local registrations. I know that they have always wanted to be absorbed in the Federal system and if this has not happened I think it really should, the guys I have met have all been great, sharp/professional and many attended a FLETC-usually Glynco.
Click to expand...
Junior314 said:
I’m very familiar with how Sears Loss Prevention works. I’m also pretty sure I know who your speaking of.

While it’s entirely plausible that she went through and academy, Sears did not pay for it. Also that stopped being a thing about 20+ years ago.
Click to expand...
Sears likely paid for the training to get the Loss Prevention crew certified as "specials". And my bet is they did it on the advice of corporate counsel. When you think about it, makes perfect sense. Things can go very wrong during an apprehension. The suspect may violently resist, suffer a medical episode, falsely accuse the Loss Prevention team .member of racial profiling or even gay-bashing, depending on race, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
A lawsuit is almost a certainty. The testimony of a fully trained and sworn "special police officer" would, all else being equal, carry more credibility in a court of law than that of a untrained security guard. In Illinois, such special police appointments were sought by companies which provided armed security. The primary reason was to circumvent a patchwork of bans on the private possession of handguns. This was a real problem in Chicago and many of its northern suburbs. Only police officers and active military were allowed to possess handguns. With military appointments being unrealistic and impractical, the default solution was special police and special deputy sheriff appointments. With this LE status, an armed private security guard could carry out his or her duties without fear of going to jail for illegal possession of a handgun. Of course, all of that changed with the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions.
 
BOOTKNIFEFAN said:
Sears likely paid for the training to get the Loss Prevention crew certified as "specials". And my bet is they did it on the advice of corporate counsel. When you think about it, makes perfect sense. Things can go very wrong during an apprehension. The suspect may violently resist, suffer a medical episode, falsely accuse the Loss Prevention team .member of racial profiling or even gay-bashing, depending on race, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
A lawsuit is almost a certainty. The testimony of a fully trained and sworn "special police officer" would, all else being equal, carry more credibility in a court of law than that of a untrained security guard. In Illinois, such special police appointments were sought by companies which provided armed security. The primary reason was to circumvent a patchwork of bans on the private possession of handguns. This was a real problem in Chicago and many of its northern suburbs. Only police officers and active military were allowed to possess handguns. With military appointments being unrealistic and impractical, the default solution was special police and special deputy sheriff appointments. With this LE status, an armed private security guard could carry out his or her duties without fear of going to jail for illegal possession of a handgun. Of course, all of that changed with the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions.
Click to expand...

Again Sears did not pay for it. I lead the loss prevention team in Northeast for the better part of a decade. Some LP decided to do it on their own, but it was not nearly as widespread as your making it out to be. Sears was the one who ended the practice for liability reasons in the early 2000’s. I was the one who removed handcuffs etc. from every office. All these scenarios you provided happened on a regular basis.

I have been tased, stabbed, pepper sprayed and had a firearm pulled on me all while playing mall ninja cowboy LP.
 
BOOTKNIFEFAN said:
Sears likely paid for the training to get the Loss Prevention crew certified as "specials". And my bet is they did it on the advice of corporate counsel. When you think about it, makes perfect sense. Things can go very wrong during an apprehension. The suspect may violently resist, suffer a medical episode, falsely accuse the Loss Prevention team .member of racial profiling or even gay-bashing, depending on race, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
A lawsuit is almost a certainty. The testimony of a fully trained and sworn "special police officer" would, all else being equal, carry more credibility in a court of law than that of a untrained security guard. In Illinois, such special police appointments were sought by companies which provided armed security. The primary reason was to circumvent a patchwork of bans on the private possession of handguns. This was a real problem in Chicago and many of its northern suburbs. Only police officers and active military were allowed to possess handguns. With military appointments being unrealistic and impractical, the default solution was special police and special deputy sheriff appointments. With this LE status, an armed private security guard could carry out his or her duties without fear of going to jail for illegal possession of a handgun. Of course, all of that changed with the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions.
Click to expand...
And by Sears policy, loss prevention is not allowed to apprehend anyone. Observe and report. They were allowed to "ask" the suspected shoplifter to stay while they call the police, but that is all. Same as almost any security, the liability of having anyone apprehend or detain anyone is huge. Whether they have a special police designation or not.

I also wonder if there is a difference of special designation depending on if the town is a civil service town or not. Burlington is not, their regular police do not have to take civil service exams.
 
I swear if I catch this azz in my back yard near the bushes I will hogtie him and haul him up.

I will then send notice to all of you that I am having a barbecue keg and blindfolded paintball shoot!
 
RumRunner said:
And by Sears policy, loss prevention is not allowed to apprehend anyone. Observe and report. They were allowed to "ask" the suspected shoplifter to stay while they call the police, but that is all. Same as almost any security, the liability of having anyone apprehend or detain anyone is huge. Whether they have a special police designation or not.

I also wonder if there is a difference of special designation depending on if the town is a civil service town or not. Burlington is not, their regular police do not have to take civil service exams.
Click to expand...

Not true. Retail loss prevention “apprehend” all the time. Up until a few years ago many retailers had stupid policies about handcuffing shoplifters. The Sears in Penn Plaza had holding cells. Every retailer is different but Sears had an hands off/no chase policy that was regularly violated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

State Sen. Pushes Campus Carry for AZ College Students with Concealed Carry Permits
Replies
0
Views
56
Reptile
Reptile
DUPE, please delete. School staff member placed on leave after gun found in car on campus (Lexington)
Replies
4
Views
68
Buck F
Buck F
Arrested for having a Starter set
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Thirwell1216
Thirwell1216
ATF Rule Requires Smugglers to Get NICS Checks on Gun Sales
Replies
14
Views
343
powerman
powerman
Alaska SB 173 - A proposal to allow teachers to Conceal Carry on Campus
Replies
0
Views
196
Rockrivr1
Rockrivr1
Back
Top Bottom